Sitting of 1 August 1887

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For the County of Cheater (Northwich Division), v. Robert Verdin, esquire, deceased.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Godfrey Blundell Samuelson, esquire, for the County of Gloucester (Forest of Dean Division).
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous)* [348]; Sheriff of Lanarkshire* [349].
Second Reading—Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) [345], debate adjourned; Settled Land Act (1882) Amendment * [339].
Select Committee—Temporary Dwellings* [256], nominated.
Committee—Irish Land Law [308] [Sixth Night]—R.P.; Trustee Savings Banks [334]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Open Spaces (Dublin) [80–346]; Turnpike Roads (South Wales)* [333].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) [337], and pissed.
Third Reading—Incumbents' Resignation Act (1871) Amendment* [323], and passed.
Withdrawn—Railway and Canal Traffic * [265]; Lunacy Acts Amendment* [221]: Life Leases Conversion* [310]; Returning Officers' Expenses (Scotland)* [9].

QUESTIONS.

  RAILWAYS (IRELAND)—FATAL ACCIDENT ON THE BANTRY EXTENSION RAILWAY.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, in view of the fact that one man lost his life and another was seriously injured in the recent accident on the Bantry Extension Railway, the Board of Trade will consider it necessary to hold an official inquiry into the cause of the accident?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Before Notice of the hon. Member's Question had been given, the Board of Trade had already directed one of their Inspecting Officers to inquire into the accident referred to.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— BANTRY QUARTER SESSIONS—MR. J. G BARRETT, J.P.
MR. GILHOOLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a case, heard at the Quarter Sessions held recently at Bantry, in which it was proved that Mr. J. G. Barrett, a Justice of the Peace for the County of Cork, had altered a rent receipt dated 1st November, 1880, to 1st November, 1881, in order to procure for a tenant, named James Mahoney, the benefit of the Arrears Act, by which Mr. Grumbleton, for whom Mr. Barrett is agent, obtained a half-year's rent from the Treasury; that Mr. Barrett subsequently made an affidavit that Mr. Mahoney owed the rent for the year ending the 1st November, 1880, though he had paid the same and received a receipt for it from. Mr. Barrett; has his attention further been called to the statement of Judge Ferguson, that this

695
receipt had been altered, and that, though the investigators under the Arrears Act had cancelled one year's rent, the Treasury having advanced a half-year's rent under the Act, Mahoney was compelled by Barrett to pay him the remaining half cancelled by the Arrears Court; and, will he ask the Lord Chancellor to make an inquiry into the truth of these allegations?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: I find the case referred to is not concluded, and that it stands adjourned, by the consent of both parties, till nest Sessions for the personal examination of Mr. Barrett. The matter being still sub judice, I am not in a position to make any statement regarding it.
MR. GILHOOLY: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman state whether the third paragraph of the Question is correct; and, if so, will he take steps in the matter?
COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I must decline to make any statement, as the case is still sub judice.
MR. M. J. KENNY: May I ask, cannot a special inquiry be instituted into this case by the Lord Chancellor? I would also ask, whether, on a charge of this kind, Mr. Byrne was not removed from his position as Collector of Rates for one of the Divisions of Dublin?
[No reply.]
MR. SEXTON: Mr. Speaker, we want a reply to this Question. The allegation is that a person holding the Commission of Justice of the Peace has been guilty of perjury and fraud—both on the Treasury and the tenants—and we desire to know, apart from any legal proceedings, whether the Lord Chancellor will fulfil his public functions and inquire into the allegations?
COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I have answered the Question on the Paper, and it is not in my power to answer any further inquiries.
MR. SEXTON: Then I beg to ask the Chief Secretary, if he will cause the Lord Chancellor to inquire into the allegations made against a Justice of the Peace of the County Cork?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR.), in reply,
696
said, the Government would give the matter their consideration.

CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSIONERS— VACANT LAND, BREAM'S BUILDINGS, CHANCERY LANE.
MR. CHANNINGasked the right hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex, as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, Whether the Commissioners have since 1879 provided for the relieving of any of the poor occupiers removed by the Commissioners in 1879 from the site at Bream's Buildings, of whom a large proportion were law copyists and watchmakers, the nature of whose employment made it necessary for them to live in the neighbourhood; whether they have now sold the site for other purposes than the erection of artisans' dwellings; whether the Commissioners are now offering the site at Fetter Lane at a price which would make the ground rent at least 9d. per foot; whether his attention has been called to the evidence of Mr. Clutton, the agent for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, before the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes (25th April, 1881), in which he states that, according to his experience, dwellings could not be erected to make a fair interest on the capital invested where the ground rent exceeds 5d. per foot; and also, in reply to Question 6519, that the general policy of the Commissioners was to re-house in a better way the whole of the displaced population, subject to the circumstances of each case; whether the Commissioners have a large area of property still uncleared in poor parishes in the Metropolis; whether, in regard to the site at Letter Lane, the Commissioners will reduce the price to 5d. per foot, the amount named by Mr. Clutton in his evidence; and, whether, in regard to the other sites, as they fall into the hands of the Commissioners, they will carry out the policy enunciated by Mr. Clutton of re-housing, so far as possible, the displaced population, instead of converting the sites to other uses?
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Pains were taken to render the removal of the inhabitants as easy as possible. Some of the tenants had small compensations given them, others had time for removal without being charged rent, and others had

697
accommodation offered to them by the Commission agents at Clerkenwell within less than a mile of the site, of which offer some few availed themselves. The Commissioners have intimated their willingness to consider a definitive proposal by responsible parties for the purpose of the erection of artizans' and labourers' dwellings in Dean Street, Fetter Lane. The ground-rent asked for this purpose is 9d. per square foot, which is very considerably below the market value. The Commission do not feel justified in accepting for this particular site a yet lower rent in order that it may be devoted to this purpose. If it is devoted to this purpose, which the Commission are quite willing should be the case, they consider that any loss thereby incurred should not fall wholly on funds committed to their charge on a perfectly distinct trust. To the last Question I answer, generally yes, subject to the circumstances of each case.

CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES— ANGLO-AMERICAN FISHERIES DISPUTE.
MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can inform the House what progress has been made towards a settlement of the Anglo-American Fisheries dispute; when the Correspondence which has taken place since the transmission of the Marquess of Salisbury's proposals of the 24th March will be in the hands of Members; and, whether Her Majesty's Government can explain the circumstances of the capture, on Sunday last, of two American boats and 13 men near Prince Edward's Island by the Canadian Cruiser Critic?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERUSSON): Communications are now in progress, which it is hoped will lead to a satisfactory settlement at no distant date. At present there is no further Correspondence to be presented. No official Report has as yet been received of the seizures referred to in the third paragraph of the hon. Member's Question; but it is believed that they are at present under investigation.

ADMIRALTY—H.M.S. "SULTAN"—COLLISION IN THE TAGUS.
MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is
698
correct that there has been a considerable amount of Correspondence with the French Government regarding claims for damages by the owners of the French passenger steamer with which H.M.S. Sultan collided in the Tagus on the 24th December last; if so, will he be good enough to state the amount demanded, and whether the Admiralty have admitted the Sultan to be in fault?
THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): There has been a Correspondence with the French Government on the subject, and the Correspondence is still continuing. I am not aware that any specific sum is claimed. The Admiralty, after careful inquiry into the incident, do not admit the liability of the Sultan for these claims.

TRAMWAYS (IRELAND)—THE SCHULL AND SKIBBEREEN TRAMWAY.
MR. GILHOOLYasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, considering that the Schull and Skibbereen Tramway has ceased to work, owing to the default of the contractors both in the construction of the line and the supplying of locomotives, he will use the powers vested in him by the Act under which the line was constructed to compel the contractors to put the line in proper repair, and supply suitable locomotives?
THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Board of Trade have no authority whatever over the contractors who constructed the Schull and Skibbereen Tramway, and they are, consequently, unable to compel those contractors to put the line in repair, and to supply suitable locomotives. I may, however, inform the hon. Member that it having been represented to the Board of Trade that the promoters had made default in the completion, working, or maintaining of the tramway, the Board of Trade, in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by Section 44 of the Order in Council, directed an inquiry, and, as the result of such inquiry, have issued an Order requiring the promoters to make good such default within four months from the 6th ultimo.

EGYPT—MOUKHTAR PASHA.
MR. F. S. STEVENSONasked the Under Secretary of State

699
for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is now in a position to inform the House when Moukhtar Pasha will leave Egypt?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I have no information on the subject beyond what I conveyed in my answers of the 15th and 25th ultimo.

MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY EMPLOYES —WAGES DISPUTE.
MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been drawn to a Circular addressed by the Midland Railway Company to the enginemen and firemen in the employ of the Company, the effect of which Circular will be to put an end to a hitherto guaranteed wage of sis days per week to such employés; whether he is aware that the effect of this Circular may be on Friday next to throw 4,000 skilled men out of employment, the majority of whom have been in the Company's service for 20 years; and, whether, in view of the danger to public safety involved in replacing these enginemen and firemen by unskilled men, the Board can take any action in the matter?
THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The working of railways is entirely in the hands of the Companies, and the Board of Trade had no power of interference.

ADMIRALTY—THE NAVAL REVIEW OFF SPITHEAD—ACCIDENT ON BOARD THE GUNBOAT "KITE."
CAPTAIN COLOMB&c.)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, What was the number of men quartered at the gun on board the Kite when the accident took place on the 23rd instant; how many of these were petty officers or bluejackets who had been trained in the gunnery school of H.M.S. Excellent or Cambridge; how many were non-commissioned officers or gunners of Royal Marine Artillery, trained in the gunnery school of Eastney; what was the rank or rating of the captain of the gun; how often had this gun-crew been exercised at the gun during the month preceding the date of the accident; and, how many rounds had been fired by this gun-crow from this gun during the same period?
THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): There were three men stationed at the gun on board the Kite when the accident occurred. One of these was a bluejacket who had passed through the gunnery schools, and one was a bombardier of the Royal Marino Artillery, who was also captain of the gun. The gun crew had been exercised three times since commissioning on July 7, and one round had been fired during- this period.
CAPTAIN COLOMB: Does the noble Lord mean to say that only three men were stationed at the gun?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: So I am informed.
CAPTAIN COLOMB: I beg to give Notice that I shall call attention to that statement on the first available occasion.

ADMIRALTY—THE NAVAL REVIEW OFF SPITHEAD—THE ROYAL MARINE ARTILLERY.
CAPTAIN COLOMB&c.)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Admiralty have yet been able to assertain what number of Royal Marine Artillery took part in the Naval Review on the 23rd instant?
THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON), in reply, said, the approximate number was 950.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—NON-PAYMENT OF POOR RATE.
MR. GILHOOLYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the law costs incurred by a Board of Poor Law Guardians in taking proceedings against a lessor who refuses to pay the poor rate for which he is liable according to the rate books, and also in resisting the appeal of a lessor against the poor rate, should be a Union or an Electoral Division charge?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON), in reply, said, the practice, as he understood it, was to make it a charge on the Electoral Division. This practice had existed for upwards of 40 years, and he saw no reason for disturbing it.

EDUCATION (IRELAND)—THE JULY EXAMINATIONS.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary to

701
the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he would give the names of those who acted as Superintendents, and of those who, not being candidates, were present in the Examination Halls, during the July examinations of this year, at each of the following Training Colleges; the Training College, Drumcondra; the Training College, Marlborough Street: the Training College, Kildare Place; the Training College, Baggot Street?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN(who replied) said: The names of the Superintendents who were present in the Examination Halls during the July examination of papers this year at each of the Training Colleges were as follows: At Drumcondra, Messrs. Purser, Bartley, and Day; at Marlborough Street, Messrs. Sullivan, Corbett, Joyce, and Doherty (assisted occasionally by Mr. Buckley, Miss Espy, and Miss Walsh); at Kildare Street, Messrs. Craig and Bright; at Baggot Street (in second week of examination), Messrs. Purser, Bartley, and Panning. These Superintendents were present during the examinations. Brief visits of observation were also paid by some of the higher officials of the National Board, and by some of the authorities of the Colleges.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— NUMBERS.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, The number of men who have joined the Royal Irish Constabulary during the last three years; how many of them are Protestants; and, how many Roman Catholics?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: 1,308 men have joined during the last three years. Of these 460 are Protestants, and 818 Roman Catholics.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT, 1885—SALE OF CORPORATION LAND.
MR. J. ROWLANDSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is a ware that any Corporate Bodies have let or sold any land in the Metropolis for Artizans Dwellings under "The Housing
702
of the Working Classes Act, 1885," Section 11, Sub-section (2); and, if they have, where such land is situate, and what number of persons the buildings erected thereon have housed?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have made such inquiry as was possible since the hon. Member's Question was on the Paper; and I have not been able to learn that any instances have occurred of Bodies Corporate having let or sold land under the powers alluded to in the Question. I am still endeavouring to get information on the subject, and will inform the hon. Member of any instances that come to my knowledge.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION—FAIR RENTS—CASE OF DENIS BURKE.
DR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is he aware that Denis Burke, tenant of Amelia Moirhead, Dunmanway, County Cork, had a fair rent fixed for his holding by the Sub-Commission presided over by Mr. M'Devitt, B.L., in 1882; whether the landlord appealed from the decision of the Sub-Commission to the Land Commissioners, on the ground that the lands were demesne lands, who on this ground reversed the decision of the Sub-Commission; whether Burke's holding had been only one year in the landlord's possession prior to Burke taking it in 1868, it having been previously held by a tenant named Delea; whether Burke had always worked the farm as an ordinary tillage farm, and had built on it a house at a cost of £200, and drained portions of it at a cost of £90, without any objection being offered by the landlord; and, whether he will consent to such Amendments in the Irish Land Law Bill as will deal with this class of case?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: the Land Commissioners reported that a fair rent was fixed on Burke's holding by the Sub-Commission in 1882. The Chief Commissioners subsequently reversed the decision, on the ground that the holding formed part of the demesne lands, and were so let. A portion of the demesne land had been surrendered by him in 1866, and another portion had been in possession of the

703
uncle of the landlord during the latter's minority. It appeared that the house alluded to was built by the tenant, notwithstanding the prohibition of the landlord.
DR. KENNYasked, was it not a fact that the landlord never interfered with the building of it?
COLONEL KING-HARMAN: My information is there was a distinct prohibition.

HOSPITALS (IRELAND)—WHITWORTH HOSPITAL, DRUMCONDRA.
DR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he could state how the Committee of the Whitworth Hospital, Drumcondra, Dublin, is constituted; whether the members are elected by votes of subscribers to the Charity or by co-option; and, if by latter mode, under what authority are they so elected; and, whether, as this Hospital was omitted from the list of Medical Charities investigated by the recent Hospital Commission, he will direct inquiries to be made as to whether the present scheme under which it is managed is according to the terms of the original Trust, and, if necessary, to draw up a new scheme?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, he had no knowledge as to how the Committee was constituted, this not being one of the Hospitals in receipt of a Government grant, nor one as to which the Hospital Commission made investigation. He had no objection to make inquiries.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—DEATH OF CONSTABLE REILLY.
MR. J. E. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Constable Reilly, who died of heart disease while on duty in Wexford on the night of July 23rd, had been for some time in a delicate state of health; whether on the day of his death he had been on duty for about 15 hours without rest or refreshment; whether the verdict of the Coroner's jury censured the authorities for keeping him on duty for which he was physically unfit; whether he had served in the Royal Irish Constabulary for 20 years; and, whether, in view of
704
all the circumstances, his wife and family of eight children will be in some measure provided for?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the County Inspector of Constabulary stated that no Report was made that Reilly had over been in delicate health; but he was always considered to be a strong man. He had received no specific treatment for the past six years on account of illness. Reilly was paraded for duty at 9.45 a.m., and he went off at 9.25 p.m. He was seven hours actively on duty, and had three meals during the day. The Coroner's jury stated that he was employed on duty whilst in a weak state of health; but there was no evidence to show that. Reilly had been 28¾ years in the service; and, in addition to the grant from the Constabulary Force Fund, his widow is entitled to a pension so long as she remains a widow, and the children will receive an allowance until they attain, the age of 15 years.

WAR OFFTCE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT) —THE NEW SWORD BAYONET.
MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that there is a foresight placed on the ring of the new sword bayonet (issued to the Navy this year), and that, when the bayonet is fixed, this foresight is to the left of the proper foresight of the rifle, and very much higher, so that accurate shooting is thereby rendered impossible; whether the finish of the weapon is very inferior; and, whether, as it is considerably shorter than the former pattern, it is not less effective when, used as a sword?
THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)(who replied) said: The foresight on the ring was introduced on the recommendation of the Special Committee on Small Arms, to meet a want which had been experienced in the exceptional circumstance of firing with sword-bayonet fixed, a mode of tiring only applicable to short ranges. The sight was carefully adjusted, so as to correct shooting "high" and "to the left," which are found to occur when firing with sword-bayonet fixed It has been favourably reported on by the officers under whom it has

705
been tried. No complaint has been received as to the finish of the weapon. It is well known that this sword-bayonet is shorter than the former pattern; but it has been approved by both Military and Naval Authorities; and its supply to the Navy in substitution of the former pattern is made at the direct request of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—VENTILATION OF THIS HOUSE.
MR. ESSLEMONTasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he has any reason to believe that the noxious air in this House is due to the artificial system of ventilation; and, whether, by way of experiment, he will allow the present system to be discontinued for a few days in order to allow fresh air to be admitted from the windows in the roof?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNNET): I have no reason to believe that the air in this House is noxious; and what the hon. Member calls the artificial system of ventilation consists simply in this—that the air which Members have been breathing is drawn out through the ceiling, so that fresh air may constantly enter the House more freely from below. In hot weather this air is passed over ice to make it cooler. I cannot advise that the experiment suggested by the hon. Member of discontinuing this system should be tried.
DR. KENNYasked, whether the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), that the air entering the House should be strained through cotton wadding, had received attention?
MR. PLUNKET: We have been trying those experiments, but are waiting for the next fog.

BOARD OF TRADE—LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINANTS—CORRESPONDENCE.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Correspondence on the subject of Lighthouse Illuminants between Shipowners of Liverpool, Glasgow, Neweastle-on-Tyne, and other seaports, Harbour Authorities of Newcastle-on-Tyne,
706
Stockton-on-Tees, and Cork, Mr. J. R. Wigham and others, the Trinity House, and the Board of Trade, which has taken place since the issue of the last Return on the subject?
THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I have no objection, if the hon. Member will move for them.

BURIALS ACT—NEW CEMETERY FOR BATTERSEA.
MR. O. V. MORGANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware of the urgent need of a new cemetery for Battersea, and that it is impossible to obtain a site within the parish, in which there are about 2,500 deaths per annum; whether it is a fact that the opposition to the proposal to establish a cemetery at Rosehill Park, Button (which site has been officially proved by the Government Medical Officer under the Burials Act), comes from a very limited part of the district, as against the unanimous decision of the people of Battersea; and, whether he can state the grounds upon which the necessary certificate is withheld, in view of the great public urgency of the matter?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am aware that there is great need of a new cemetery for South London, including Battersea. I am not a ware whether it is possible to procure a site is Battersea. The opposition to the cemetery at Rosehill Park comes from Public Bodies, from landowners, from residents, and, so far as I can judge, from a majority in Button. I am daily receiving communications on the subject, and am expecting others. The necessary sanction has been hitherto withheld because it was twice refused by my Predecessor and myself on former applications, while the present renewed application by the Battersea Board was not made till June. The site was approved by the Government medical officer, only subject to certain sanitary conditions which I do not see my way at present to enforce efficiently, because the opposition of Button is such as I have described, and because I am not without hopes that the parties interested may still arrive at an agreement as to some modified scheme. I must add

707
that the most fitting procedure in this case would have been an application to Parliament, such as was successfully made in the case of other great Metropolitan cemeteries.

LAW AND JUSTICE (METROPOLTS)— "POLE v. ENDACOTT."
MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it would be possible to obtain the remission of the costs in the appeal ease, decided in the Middlesex Sessions Appeal Court, of Edward Pole against Police Constable Endacott?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTTHEWS): No, Sir; I do not think it will be possible to obtain the remission of the costs in the appeal of Edward Pole against Mr. De Rutzen. The Court of Quarter Sessions ordered him—as they had power by law to do—to pay the costs of the appeal, in which the conviction was affirmed (although the sentence was reduced), and in which the defence or an alibi set up by Polo was rejected.
MR. BRADLAUGHasked whether, seeing that the appeal was successful to the extent of reducing the imprisonment by one-third, the Treasury might not forego the £13 or £15 costs?
MR. MATTHEWSreplied that the appeal was unsuccessful on the two points on which it was raised. He saw no reason why the appellant, under the circumstances, should not pay the costs.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE POSTMISTRESS OF KILBRIDE, CO. WICKLOW.
MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary to the Treasury. Whether he has received a Memorial from the parish of Kilbride, County Wicklow, signed by a number of respectable inhabitants, including the clergy of both denominations, in favour of the appointment of Mrs. Cullen as postmistress of the local post office, in the room of her husband, lately deceased; whether it is true that Mrs. Cullen discharged the duties during her husband's lifetime; and if he can state why, under the circumstances, she has not been appointed?
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY)(who re-
708
plied) said, a Memorial was received, and inquiries were made, with the result that Mr. Cole was recommended on the 27th June last.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE POSTMASTERSHIP OF KILBRIDE, CO. WICKLOW.
MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the relieving officer of the district at Kilbride has been in the habit of leaving the money intended for poor people on out-door relief at the shop of a Mr. Cole; whether it is a fact that when they have called for their pittance they have been obliged to take it in kind, bread, meal, &c, Mr. Cole refusing to give them the money; whether the practice has existed for years, and whether it will be put a stop to; whether he is aware it is intended to appoint Mr. Cole to the office of postmaster at Kilbride; and, whether he will communicate with the Secretary to the Treasury on the subject?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the Local Government Board had ascertained that the present relieving officer had been in the habit of leaving the money at Mr. Cole's shop, and the practice had been pursued for several years. The Clerk of the Union stated that the practice was never pursued without the consent of the poor people themselves, and it was mostly done at their request. No complaint had been received with regard to it. The Local Government Board were not aware whether the people had to take goods instead of money; but they considered the practice of leaving the money at the shop was objectionable, and they had taken steps to have it discontinued. As to the appointment of Mr. Cole as postmaster, it would be for the Postmaster General to decide if any further action was necessary.
MR. SEXTONasked, would the Government look into the facts of this case, in order to say whether they showed a conspiracy to compel people to abstain from what they had a legal right to do—namely, to buy goods from a particular shopkeeper; and, if so, would they institute a prosecution?
MR. W. J. CORBET: May I ask, will the right hon. and gallant Gentle-man inquire into the matter, and ascertain whether they are compelled to take their relief in kind?
COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the Local Government Board had not yet discovered that such allegations were correct; but, in view of the possibility of such things taking place, they had taken steps to bring about the discontinuance of the practice of leaving the relief at this shop.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—POSTAL ROUTE TO KILBRIDE, CO. WICKLOW.
MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware it is intended to change the route by which the post is carried to Kilbride, from Wicklow, for another and longer route, by which the people in whose interest the post was established will be greatly inconvenienced; and, what is the reason for the changer?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I am not aware of any intention to change the route to Kilbride; but I will have inquiry made on the subject.

LAW AND POLICE—EXPLOSTON AT THE POLICE OFFICE, LLANERCHYMEDD, CO. ANGLESEY.
MR. KENYON&c.)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has any information which he can communicate to the House as to the cause and the circumstances of the explosion at the police office at Llanerchymedd, in the County of Anglesey?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have obtained a Report from the Chief Constable of the county, who informs me that a dastardly attempt was made to blow up the police office in question at about 12.30 a.m. on the morning of the 27th ultimo. Much damage was done, and there was a considerable destruction of property. The explosion was caused by powder, placed in an old iron tea kettle, and ignited by a blasting fuse. This apparatus was placed on the window lodge outside. Up to the present no sufficient clue has been arrived at; but there is no doubt that it was none by someone well acquainted with the place. Inquiries are proceeding.

ADMIRALTY—COLLISION OF THE "AJAX" AND "DEVASTATION."
SIR EDMUND COMMERELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If there are any ironclads available to take the place in the manœuvres of the Ajax and Devastation disabled by collision?
THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): My hon. and gallant Friend will be gratified to hear that the damage to the Devastation and the Ajax by the recent collision is proved to have been much loss than was anticipated. They have both been repaired, and have rejoined the Squadron to which they are attached.

COMMONS (METROPOLIS)—TOOTING COMMON.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is aware that a Resolution was passed, on the 1st of June last, at a meeting of the Streatham Vestry, attended by only one-third of the members, to restrict the right of the public to ride over Tooting Common; whether the proposal, if carried out, will entail a heavy extra charge upon the ratepayers, most of whom are entirely opposed to the scheme; and, if, under the circumstances, steps can be taken to prevent this infringement of ancient public rights before the next Session of Parliament, and until the ratepayers have had full opportunity of expressing their views upon the matter?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have not seen any report of the proceeding of the Streatham Vestry; but such a Resolution would have no operative value. No bye-law has yet been made by the Metropolitan Board of Works, or submitted to me for allowance; and by the Statute a bye-law cannot be allowed unless notice of the intention to apply for the allowance has been published and advertised at least for one month previously. The ratepayers, therefore, will have full opportunity to express their views.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE RIOTS AT YOUGHAL.
MR. HOOPERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is correctly re-

711
presented by the newspapers as having written a letter to a Mr. Irwin, in which he stated, in reference to Captain Plunkett's telegram of the 9th March to the County Inspector at Youghal—
"A savage attack had been made upon the police in the execution of their duty, in which many of them had been badly hurt. The Government had reason to know that a further organized attack was in contemplation. Had this attack taken place, it would certainly have led to the infliction of further injuries, and almost certainly to loss of life:
"The only means by which those consequences could be averted was to let it he clearly understood that such an attack would he resisted by the police in the most effective and vigorous manner possible. This method proved effectual, and the result of the telegram was to stop the intended assault and all the train of evils by which, it would inevitably have been followed;"
and, if he will inform the House what means were taken to give publicity to the telegram in question, and so apprise the people of the determination of the authorities?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Government had reason to know that a telegram of this character, if sent in clear, and not in cipher, would soon become public property, and they were proved to be accurate in that forecast, for the telegram appeared in the newspapers next morning.
MR. HOOPERasked, whether, so far from the authorities agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman as to the publicity of the telegram, they did not hold an inquiry to ascertain how it was divulged?
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, his attention had not been called to the process by which it became public.
MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: With respect to the portion of the right hon. Gentleman's letter which states that a savage attack was made on the police in the execution of their duty, in which many of them had been badly hurt, may I ask him whether his attention was called to a sworn statement of the officer who was in charge of the men on this occasion, in which he swore that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in this House was utterly untrue?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir: I was not at all aware of anything of the kind.
MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether
712
he has received any information as to the number of men injured on this occasion?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On previous occasions I have given full information, with regard to this matter. I answered at least a dozen Questions, and if the hon. Gentleman will refer to them he will find the information he desires.

POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT) —INSULATORS.
COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Postmaster General, The price paid by the Government for the telegraph insulators manufactured by one particular firm; and, what is the ordinary market value of this insulator?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The latest price paid for the insulator used by the Department referred to in the first, part of the hon. Member's Question is 10 d.; and as this kind of insulator is manufactured solely by the firm from whom they are obtained, 10 d. may be taken as the ordinary market value.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS 1885, 1886 —THE ALLOTMENT SECTIONS.
MR. CONDONasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, under the allotment sections of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1885 and 1886, the Irish Boards of Poor Law Guardians have power to provide half an acre of land for the benefit of any agricultural labourers (as defined by the Acts) residing within the limits of an urban sanitary district within the union?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): The question of the hon. Member does not state any facts or relate to any case; it invites an abstract opinion on a point of law, and an opinion so given may be misleading, as the hon. Member's mind may be addressed to some point not present in my mind. Speaking generally, the Labourers Acts seem intended for the benefit of labourers residing in the sanitary district. It would not seem right that a Rural Sanitary Authority, who had to provide these lands, should incur expense for the benefit of men living in a district over which they had no control.
MR. SEXTON: I would like to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, If an agricultural labourer happens

713
to reside in an urban sanitary district, if the Board of Guardians are to be debarred from giving him the benefits of the Labourers Act, however much they may have desired it?
MR. GIBSON: I have given my opinion as to the construction of the Act. The expense of these allotments falls entirely on the Rural Sanitary Authorities; and, in my opinion, the expenses cannot be borne for the benefit of persons living in an urban district which in no way contributes. The labourers ought to live in the district which, is subject to the rate.
MR. T. C. HARRINGTONasked, whether the meaning of the Act was not this—that a person who lived in the locality was entitled to the benefit of the Act by the erection of a cottage; and that in this matter more regard was had as to where he was actually living before the cottage was built, not to where he might come from?
MR. GIBSON: The question which is now asked me has no reference to the Question on the Paper. The Question on the Paper is, whether labourers who live in an urban sanitary district may receives allotments in a rural sanitary district which will have to pay for those allowances; and I have said I do not think they can.

TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL— CHOICE OF SUBJECTS.
MR.HOWARD VINCENTasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, If Her Majesty's Government propose, when their Technical Instruction Bill becomes law, to lay down any scheme of technical and commercial education for general application, or to leave the choice of subjects very largely to the Local Authorities and the special requirements of the trade and commerce of a particular district?
THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): It is not proposed that the Science and Art Department shall prepare any general scheme of technical instruction beyond that provided in the Directory; but rather that each Local Authority asking for sanction shall submit a scheme specially adapted to their locality for the approval of the Department.
MR. JAMES STUARTasked, whether French and
714
German would be included in the subjects allowed?
SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEreplied that he thought the answer he had given covered that question entirely.
MR. MUNDELLAcomplained of the vagueness of the answer.
SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, he thought these questions had better be discussed on the second reading of the Bill.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTION AT MENIES, CO. CORK.
DR. KENNYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he is aware that about a month ago a tenant named Kingston was evicted at Menies. County Cork, and that owing to the absence from the eviction of the local relieving officer this man and his family would have been compelled to seek shelter for the night by the roadside, but for the charity of his neighbours; whether Kingston was subsequently admitted to the Skibbereen Workhouse; and, whether he will introduce into the Irish Land Law Bill now before the House such provisions as will ensure the attendance at evictions of the district relieving officer, in order that provisional relief may be afforded to such of the evicted as may require it?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON), in reply, said, the relieving officer reported that Kingston was evicted on June 10th out of a farm. The relieving officer wont immediately to his house, and Kingston, who did not go to the workhouse, received £1 a-week for four weeks. He was asked to go to the workhouse on the following day, but he refused. Under the existing law 48 hours' notice must be given to the relieving officer of the Electoral Division; and on application by a distressed person he was to admit such person, and, if necessary, provide a conveyance. It was impossible to always have the personal attendance of the relieving officer; but it was that official's duty to take the necessary steps to carry out the necessary regulations.
DR. KENNYasked the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he was aware that his Predecessor promised that he would amend the law in this matter?
MR. GIBSONsaid, he was aware his Predecessor admitted there was some difficulty in the present law which it might be desirable to amend; but he held out no immediate hope of such Amendment.

METROPOLITAN POLICE—ASSISTANT CHIEF CONSTABLES.
MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether a now grade of superior officers of the Metropolitan Police, called Assistant Chief Constables, had recently been created: whether Captain Dean and Captain Knollys have been appointed to these offices; and, if so, at what salary; and, what experience of police duties these gentlemen had before their appointment to the Metropolitan Police?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes. Sir; the new grade in question has been created, and the gentleman named have been appointed. The salary is £400 a-year, rising by £25 per annum to £600. These gentlemen, from their former experience in Cavalry and Infantry regiments respectively, were, in my opinion, fully qualified for the duties they are now called upon to perform—namely, in the one case the superintendence of the mounted portion of the force; and in the other the drilling instruction and care of recruits.
MR. PICKERSGILL: Have the officers been experienced in police duties?
MR. MATTHEWS: They have been in the Cavalry and Infantry respectively.

WAR OFFICE—PROMOTION OF CAPTAINS TO FIELD OFFICERS' RANK.
COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take into consideration, with a view to correction, the present stagnation in promotion Field Officers' rank among the Captains in the Army; when the claims of Captains will be considered, as laid down in Clause 129 of Royal Warrant of 1837; and, whether it is intended to absord all the supernumerary Majors before promoting any of the Captains?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): During late years promotion has
716
been so abnormally rapid that I am not prepared to admit anything like a general stagnation. Although, from the abolition of seconded Majors by the recent Promotion Warrant, there may be in some regiments some suspension of promotion, it is also not to be denied that cases may occur in which the absorption of all the supernumerary Majors, before allowing any promotion to the Captains, would cause considerable hardship. Article 29 of the Royal Warrant of 1886 allows the Secretary of State a discretion in the matter; and I shall be ready to consider each ease on its merits as it arises.

ROYAL, IRISH CONSTABULARY— RESCUE BY POLICE CONSTABLE S. UBANK.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the reports of the rescue of a would-be suicide at Kingstown by Police Constable Samuel Ubank on Wednesday last; and, if the constable will be rewarded for his bravery on the occasion?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The gallant conduct of Constable Ubank on the occasion alluded to has come before the Commissioner of Police, who will not fail to take the steps necessary to have the constable's bravery rewarded.

TRAMWAYS (IRELAND)—SCHULL AND SKIBBEREEN TRAMWAY.
MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in view of the break down of the Schull and Skibbereen Tramway, notwithstanding the Report of the Government Inspector in its favour, he will reconsider the question of the loan applied for by the Cork and Coachford Tramway Company?
SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY)(who replied) said: the Treasury sanctioned the loan provisionally for the satisfactory completion of the line. The payment would not be made until the Treasury were satisfied that the several sections of the line had been satisfactorily completed. Therefore, the Secre-

717
tary to the Treasury did not think it necessary to re-consider his decision on; the grounds stated in the Question.

INDIA.—INDIAN CONTAGTOUS DISEASES ACT.
MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he can yet make any statement as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the repeal of the Indian Contagious Diseases Act, and of the Regulations for the same object under the Cantonment Acts?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Secretary of State has called the attention of the Government of India to both subjects, and is expecting a despatch from India in reply. Until this is received, it is impossible to make any definite statement.

INDIA—JUBILEE DEPUTATION FROM THE NIZAM OF HYDERABAD—SIRDAR DILER-UL-MULK
MR. M'LAGANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If Sirdar Diler-ul-Mulk, who was attached to the Jubilee Deputation from the Government of H. H. the Nizam of Hyderabad, the same person who came to England to negotiate the conversion of the Nizam's State Railway with the present Company; did the said Sirdar Diler-ul-Mulk obtain £83,000 out of the sum subscribed for the said railway conversion, in addition to £10,000 given to him for incidental expenses, for performing the duty he came officially to England to execute; were the India Office Authorities aware of the fact that he had been promised this sum by the late Prime Minister of Hyderabad; or is it true that, though in constant official communication with the authorities as to this conversion scheme, he never disclosed this fact to them, but led them to believe that he was to reap no pecuniary advantage for himself, and was only a disinterested negotiator, acting solely in the interest of the Government which had entrusted him with this duty; is it true, as stated in The Times of 122nd July, that there is a probability o£ this same Sirdar Diler-ul-Mulk being appointed one of the two Secretaries of State, who, with the Pre-
718
mier, are to form the Cabinet of the Nizam; and, has the Governor General of India the rights of vetoing the appointment of a Secretary of State of the Government of Hyderabad?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The facts are substantially as stated in the first three paragraphs of the Question. Neither the Secretary of State nor the Government of India was aware of the arrangement between the Sirdar and the late Sir Salar Jung. A proposal of the nature indicated in the fourth paragraph was mooted by the Nizam; but the proposal did not commend itself to the Government of India, and does not appear to have been further pressed by His Highness. As regards the fifth paragraph, Hyderabad is an independent State. Our influence over it is of a quasi-diplomatic character, and cannot easily be defined.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) ACT—APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATES—MR. T. HAMILTON, MAJOR BERESFORD.
MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a report in The Belfast News Letter of the 28th July, to the effect that Mr. Thomas Hamilton and Major Beresford are two of the four legal magistrates appointed to administer the Coercion Act in Antrim, Down, and other counties in Ulster; whether he is aware that neither of these gentlemen ever practised at the law, nor ever passed a legal examination; whether Mr. Hamilton was formerly in the Revenue Police and afterwards in the Royal Irish Constabulary, and Major Beresford was a country gentleman who had been 13 years in the Army; and, whether no will state what was the legal qualification which satisfied the Lord Lieutenant as to the sufficiency of the legal knowledge of these gentlemen?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Sir, four Resident Magistrates, already stationed in the Northern Constabulary Division, have been declared to he legally qualified within the meaning of Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act. Two of these are the gentlemen referred to in the Question. I am not

719
aware whether either of them ever underwent any legal examination; but they are both experienced magistrates, and possess accurate knowledge of the law. Major Beresford served in the Army from 1866 to 1879, and prior to his appointment as Resident Magistrate, in 1882, he was a Justice of the Peace. Daring his service he has proved an efficient magistrate, and is possessed of ample legal knowledge. Mr. Hamilton did serve in the Revenue Polite, and afterwards as a Constabulary officer. In 1867 he was appointed to a Constabulary Resident Magistracy; and he was one of the Resident Magistrates of whose legal knowledge Earl Spencer declared himself satisfied under the provisions of the Crimes Act of 1882.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT—LEGISLATION.
MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When the Bills indicated in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne, for the improvement and extension of local government throughout Great Britain and Ireland, will be laid before. Parliament and placed in the hands of Members?
THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The condition of Public Business renders it impossible to produce either of the measures referred, to during the course of the present Session.

PRIVATE BUSINESS AND IMPERIAL LEGISLATION—"DEVOLUTION."
MR. ESSLEMONTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government have taken into consideration the large proportion of time which has been taken up this Session with what is termed Private Business; and, if so, whether they will consider the advisability of proposing some system of "Devolution" in order to conserve the time of the House for Imperial Legislation?
THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Government are sensible of the importance of the question referred to by the hon. Member; but he must be aware that a measure of "devolution," as he terms it, proposed by the hon. Member for the Partick Division of Lanarkshire 'Mr. Craig-Sellar), was met by determined
720
opposition; and that a Motion to appoint a Committee to consider the whole question was blocked by an hon. Gentleman opposite. We hope, however, to give the matter, during the Recess, the serious consideration which it deserves.

ADMIRALTY—PRINCE LOUIS OF BATTENBERG —H.M.S. "DREADNOUGHT."
MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a Question of which I have given him private Notice—namely, Whether it is a fact that a German Prince—Prince Louis of Battenberg—has born appointed to the command of Her Majesty's Ship Dreadnought, over the heads of some 30 British officers who stood before him for promotion; and. if this be so, will the noble Lord state what are his qualifications for that position above those of the officers in question; and, what are the reasons of the Government in giving him such an extraordinary mark of favour over officers of longer service?
THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): That is not the Question of which the hon. Member gave me Notice. That question was, whether Prince Louis of Battenberg had been appointed Commander of the Dreadnought? I am now asked if he is to be Captain, and why he is promoted over the heads of other officers. He is not to be made a Captain, nor is he to be promoted over other officers' heads. It is not true that Prince Louis of Battenberg has been appointed Commander of the Dreadnought——[Mr. W. REDMOND: Captain?] No. But, in all probability, he will be appointed Commander, because I have been looking this afternoon into the qualifications of the officers eligible for that appointment, and, in my judgment, Prince Louis, by his past experience and record of service, is best qualified to perform the duties.
MR. PICKERSGILL: Then I beg to give Notice that if Prince Louis of Battenberg is appointed, I shall move that his salary be disallowed.
Subsequently,
SIR EDMUND COMMERELLsaid: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the Question addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty, I beg

721
leave to say that Prince Louis of Battenberg served as lieutenant under my command, and a move competent officer——[Cries of "Order!"]

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) ACT—PROCLAMATION OF CO. WICKLOW.
MR. MAC NEILL: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which I have given him private Notice with reference to the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act, Whether his attention has been directed to the charge delivered by Mr. Baron Dowse to the Grand Jury of the County Wicklow on Friday last; whether it is true, as reported, that the learned Judge stated—
"He looked with sympathetic air on the Crown counsel. The number of offences had decreased from 13 to 7, though in minor cases there was an increase; but why there should be a decrease at one time and an increase at another, he could not say. It was like one day being wet, and another dry. He (the learned Judge) was to discharge the gaol, and there was no one in it.!"
Under those circumstances, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman, on what grounds the provisions of the Coercion Act were applied to Wicklow, or do they intend to fill the gaol, which is at present empty, with persons charged with offences which the late Attorney General (Mr. Holmes) said were created by the Act?
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, before the right hon. Gentleman answered this Question, he wished to ask whether the learned Judge stated that he referred to overt cases of crime?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he had not had the advantage of studying Baron Dowse's Charge; but he had no doubt the extracts referred to were correct. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mac Neill) asked why the Government had put the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act in force in Wicklow? They had not done so. The only provisions put in force were sub-head B and sub-head C of Subsection 3 of Clause 2, which, as the hon. Gentleman was aware, was very different to putting the provisions of the Act in force. He believed the statement of opinion which the hon. Gentleman quoted from Mr. Justice Holmes was not quite accurate.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) ACT—RUMOURED PROCLAMATION OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE.
MR. E. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there is any truth in the statement which, has been widely circulated in the newspapers that the Government have decided to proclaim the National League in the last week in this Session?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Well, Sir, I cannot answer Questions about wholly unauthorized reports in the newspapers.

ALLOTMENTS BILL.
In reply to Mr. H. GARDNER (Essex, Saffron Walden),
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, it was not in the power of the Government to put the Allotments Bill down for any day this week.

IRISH LAND LAW BILL—CLAUSE 21.
MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has decided what to do with regard to Clause 21 of the Irish Land Law Bill?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A, J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, there were other clauses besides Clause 21 to which objection was taken, but which the Government had always regarded as valuable. It might be possible that they would consent to abandon them, in whole or in part, if there was some understanding in return that additional clauses of which Notice had been given by private Members should also be dropped. It would be hard to ask the Government to adopt this course if the Bill was to be made use of to introduce a large number of clauses which they considered outside the Bill.
MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not think his hon. Friends would desire to import extraneous matter into the Bill; and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman, would admit that if the course now being followed were continued, a large number of the proposed new clauses would not be proceeded with.

BELFAST GOVERNMENT BILL.
MR. SEXTONasked, whether the Government intended to make an effort to pass into law this Session the Bill for better preserving social order in Belfast, which, was founded on the recommendations of a Royal Commission?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he was anxious to pass the Bill, as well as other Bills for Ireland; but whether the state of Public Business would allow the Government to do so was another matter. The urgency for the measure had been somewhat diminished by the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR REMAINDER OF SESSION.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Sir, I entered into an engagement with the House on Thursday last to make a statement in regard to Public Business this evening, and to intimate at least some of the Bills which, the Government thought it right to introduce which cannot be proceeded with during the course of the present Session. We abandon those Bills with great regret, because we are conscious that they are looked upon with great interest and importance by all parties in the House. First of all, Sir, I shall refer to the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, for which it is clear sufficient time cannot be afforded, and also to the Land Transfer Bill, which has been received generally with great interest in the country, and which we had certainly hoped to have passed into law this Session. There is another Bill which is opposed, and which, we fear, we shall not be able to proceed with—the Lunacy Acts Amendment Bill. I also knew that Bill to be exceedingly valuable; but it would appear that sufficient time is not to be allowed its to pass it into law. The measures with which we propose to persevere are the Mines Regulation Bill, the Irish Land Bill, the Allotments Bill, and the Technical Instruction Bill. There will be some minor measures
  724
  which will not. I hope, occupy much time; they are very necessary although they are subsidiary measures. I speak of some Consolidation Bills—the Sheriffs Consolidation Bill for Scotland and the County Courts Consolidation Bill for England. But if hon. Gentlemen discuss these measures at any great length it is obvious that it will be impossible for us to persevere with them. They contain, no controversial matter; but are simply Bills to codify the law as it exists in order to make it more accessible to those who have to deal with it. I come next to the Questions which have been asked by the hon. Member for Shropshire and the hon. Member for Denbighshire with regard to the Tithe Rent-Charge Bill. I venture even yet to express a hope that the House will consent to consider that measure during the present Session. I am aware that it is strenuously opposed by some hon. Gentlemen opposite and by others who sit behind me; but when regard is had to the extremely critical condition of the public peace in some parts of the country, I think the House would do well to give a short amount of time to the consideration of a measure which has regard to the maintenance of public order more than to the maintenance of any particular faith or church. We desire to assert that the tithe rent-charge is the first charge upon the land; and, therefore, all parties in the House ought to endeavour to maintain that charge and to place it in such a position that it may be collected without difficulty or danger to the public peace. But, Sir, we are in the hands of the House in this matter, and the responsibility, if disturbances continue, must rest very largely with those who feel it to be their duty, at all risks, to resist the consideration of this measure. I entertain the hope that Committee on the Irish Land Bill may be concluded in the course of tomorrow. I hope I am not too sanguine in that expectation. There is the strongest desire on the part of the Government to pass that Bill with as little delay as possible, and there are reasons which are known to hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House which render it most desirable that that wish on the part of the Government should be satisfied. If we succeed in passing the Land Bill through Committee on Tuesday, we shall proceed with the Civil Service Estimates on

  725
  Wednesday and with the Army Estimates on Thursday. It is absolutely necessary for the Public Service that we should obtain Votes for the Army on Thursday. We shall proceed either with the Land Bill on Report on Friday and Saturday or with the Civil Service Estimates. I shall have to ask the House to sit on Saturdays for the remainder of the Session.
  MR. JOTIN MORLEY,: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government will not consider the possibility of taking only the fourth part of the Land Transfer Bill, and whether we may assume, as I suppose we may, that the Government do not intend to bring in the measure familiarly known as Coercion Bill No. 2?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman must draw no inference from the absence of any statement of what he is pleased to term Coercion Bill No. 2. I will consult my Colleagues with reference to the fourth part of the Land Transfer Bill; but hon. Gentlemen will understand that this measure has been produced as a complete measure, and we hold that it would lose most of its efficacy if it was shorn of any portion of its enactments.
  MR. A. H. BROWNasked for further information as to when the Coal Mines Regulation Bill would be proceeded with?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: As soon as I can see progress made with the Land Bill, I shall make a further statement as to the Coal Mines Regulation Bill, the importance of which we recognize.
  MR. T. H. SIDEBOTTOMsaid, he must express great regret and disappointment at the fact that the Government had not seen their way to carrying a Bill dealing with the limited liability law. There was a deep and widespread fooling throughout the manufacturing districts that an amendment of this law was urgently needed, and ought not to be delayed.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked if the Government had given up all idea of bringing in an Employers' Liability Bill?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN&c.): Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can say what has become of two Scotch Bills—one dealing with University Education, and the other with
  726
  the duties of the Secretary for Scotland, which was mentioned in the Queen's Speech. Also what Vote of the Army Estimates is to be taken first?
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that, bearing in mind the great importance of securing the passage of the Coal Mines Regulation Bill, a measure in which many hon. Members on that side of the House were very much interested, he would no everything he could to secure the passing of the Land Bill through the Committee by to-morrow evening, or certainly by Wednesday afternoon.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSasked whether no attempt would be made to pass the Tithes Bill?
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked whether they were to have two or three days' notice before the introduction of the Indian Budget?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked whether the Bill respecting the maintenance of the Public Parks was to be proceeded with?
  MR. WOODALLreminded the right hon. Gentleman that among the Bills which were to be proceeded with he had not included the one for the appointment of Boundary Commissioners.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I did not refer to that particular Bill, because it is obviously one that is not likely to receive any opposition from any part of the House. As to limited liability, that question has received the careful attention of the Government. But it is a question so intricate and requiring so much care that we have not felt ourselves prepared to introduce the Bill which has been drafted. It would be a very serious matter to introduce a measure which would entail more evil than it is sought to cure, and there is great danger in attempting to deal with questions of credit, liability, and responsibility rashly or carelessly. I am asked as to the Secretary for Scotland Bill. It was introduced in the House of Lords on Friday last.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will it be proceeded with?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Oh, certainly, unless hon. Gentlemen delay the Session very seriously. I am asked by the Member for Nottingham as to the Employers' Liability Bill. We have not been able to present a Bill, but the existing Act will be included in the Expiring Acts

  727
  Continuance Bill. As there is no provision in the Estimates for the management of the Public Parks beyond this year, it is absolutely essential that the Public Parks Bill should be passed into law this Session. With regard to the Votes on the Army Estimates, an opportunity will be given during their discussion for the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) to raise the question of which he has given Notice for dealing with the salaries and pensions of officers who are said to be responsible for the admission of defective sword bayonets into the Navy. The Votes will be taken on Thursday, so as to enable my hon. Friend to bring forward his Motion. I will take care that ample Notice is given of the introduction of the Indian Budget.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked when the second reading of the Technical Education Bill would be taken.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot say. That depends on the progress made, but I hope to break off Supply some night about 10 or 11 and proceed with the Allotments Bill and Technical Education Bill.
  MR. R. T. REID&c.)reminded the right hon. Gentleman of the objections often taken to delaying the Indian Budget.
  MR. TOMLINSONinquired whether there was any chance this Session of the introduction of a Bill dealing with the Friendly Societies Act?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: There is every hope that we shall be able to introduce a Bill on that subject. It is a small matter, but I believe importance is attached to it by the Friendly Societies, and I see no difficulty in passing it.
  MR. R. PRESTON BRUCEsaid, he wanted to know whether the Government intend to introduce a Universities (Scotland) Bill, and whether the right hon. Gentleman really thought there was any chance of passing this Session a measure of that character? He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say it was intended to go on with the Secretary for Scotland Bill. Was the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill had only been published to-day for the first time? That was all the time the Government had thought fit to allow the Scottish Members to examine this measure. Why
  728
  had a measure mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech, and which, he supposed, had been in the pigeon-holes of the Government for the last six months,; only been produced in the closing weeks of the Session, when there was no time properly to consider it?
  MR. HANBURYasked if the Vote on which he was to raise his question would be taken first on Thursday? He was under the distinct impression that he had been promised an opportunity of bringing forward his Resolution on the first Vote.
  MR. W. H. SMITH:I will confer with the Secretary of State for War and make arrangements satisfactory to my hon. Friend.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked whether the Government would drop the Lunacy Districts (Scotland) Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir. We understand that serious consequences will arise in some parts of Scotland if that Bill is dropped. As to the Secretary for Scotland Bill, it contains only two or three clauses, and I apprehend, hon. Gentlemen will not have much difficulty in informing themselves as to its contents and all that it involves. The Universities (Scotland) Bill will be introduced, and I am informed by the Lord Advocate that it will not excite any opposition whatever, but will be received with approval by hon. Gentlemen from Scotland. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to pass it; but of course it is in the power of hon. Members for Scotland to prevent it being passed.
  MR. E. W. DUFFasked when the main Votes on the Navy Estimates would be taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not able to say.
  DR. CAMERONasked if the right hon. Gentleman really intended at this period of the Session to commence operations with three important Scotch Bills? The Sheriffs Consolidation Bill, which the light hon. Gentleman disposed of as of no importance, was unknown to Scotch Members, and must involve many technical points, and could not be considered at this time of the Session. Was the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Universities Bill, which he said he would persevere with, had been postponed Session after Session in consequence of the an-

  729
  tagonistic interests involved? These measures were mentioned in the Queen's Speech, and the public of Scotland had a right to know beforehand what the Government intended.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have already said that they will be proceeded with unless hon. Gentlemen from Scotland object in such a manner as to render it impossible to pass them. The whole responsibility will rest on hon. Gentlemen if that were the case. If hon. Gentlemen seriously object to those measures, then the Government will be unable to persevere with them.
  DR. CAMERONasked whether the public were to be given no opportunity of expressing their opinion upon these Bills?
  MR. MUNRO-FERGUSON&c.)asked, how it was proposed to deal with technical education for Scotland?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: By a separate Bill.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yet another?
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked if he was correct in supposing that the First Lord of the Treasury said in effect that they should have no Scottish measures passed this Session unless the Scottish Members accepted them without discussion?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, sir; I said nothing of the kind. It is an entire misrepresentation of what I have said.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, neither he, nor, did he think, many hon. Members knew what Bill the right hon. Gentleman meant when he referred to the Consolidation Bill for Scotland.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I meant the Sheriff Courts Consolidation Bill—a Bill for consolidating the law with regard to Sheriffs in Scotland.

THE POLICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)— POLICE CONSTABLES' PENSIONS.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONasked, Whether, as the measures of all private Members might he considered as dropped for this Session, the Home Secretary would take into consideration the question of police-constables' pensions, with a view to legislation on it next Session?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)was under-
730
stood to say that the matter had been under his consideration for some time, and he hoped to introduce a measure this year.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  IRISH LAND LAW BILL [Lords]. [BILL 308.]
  (Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 29th July.]
  [SIXTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Equitable Jurisdiction.
  Clause 22 (Power of Court to stay eviction).
  MR. FINLAY&c.): I have to move, in the first line of this clause, after "recovery," to insert the words '' of rent due in respect of a holding to which this section applies, or for the recovery;" so that, instead of reading "in any proceedings for the recovery of a holding to which this section applies," the clause will read—
  "In any proceedings for the recovery of rent due in respect of a holding to which this section applies, or for the recovery of a holding."
  The object of this Amendment requires very few words, indeed, to explain. This 22nd clause confers equitable jurisdiction upon the Court. In any proceedings taken for the recovery of the holding to which the section applies, or, in other words, in any action for an ejectment it has been repeatedly pointed out that the landlord may, instead of proceeding by ejectment for the recovery of premises, bring an action for rent, and after obtaining judgment may, under certain restrictions and in certain cases, issue a writ of fieri facias, under which he may take possession of the holding. The object of the Amendment standing in my name is to bring the proceeding by way of fieri facias within the scope of this clause, and I propose to do that by extending the clause to proceedings for the recovery of rent in respect of any holding to which this section of the Bill applies, as well as to proceedings for the recovery of a holding.
  Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 40, after the word "recovery," insert the words '' of rent due in respect

  731
  of a holding to which this section applies, or for the recovery."—[Mr. Finlay.)
  Question proposed. "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The object which, my hon. and learned Friend has in view in this Amendment is to close what has been described as the back door; but I would suggest that that object will be better attained by an Amendment which I have put on the Paper, which would make the clause read—
  "In any proceeding for the recovery of a holding to which this section applies for nonpayment of rent, or in any action for debt or damages by any parson against the tenant of such holding."
  It will, I think, be more convenient to discuss the subject on the solution proposed by the Government, which can be done if the hon. and learned Member will withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) will do nothing of the kind. I certainly consider his Amendment a great deal better than that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which appears to me to be inconsistent with the object of the clause, and intended to stay proceedings on the part of an ordinary tenant as well as the landlord. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment will, I apprehend, shut out the ordinary creditor altogether. I do not see why both of the Amendments should not be considered independently, and, certainly, if one of them is to go, I prefer to retain that of the hon. and learned Member. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to ask him whether his Amendment is intended to cover the case of bankruptcy, and, also, of distress for rent? At present the landlords of Ireland are not only allowed to go into the holding by the front door or the back door, but by the process of bankruptcy and distress they are allowed to go down the chimney, the only restriction being that the landlord's power of distraining is limited to one year's rent. As I believe the Amendment of the Government will altogether defeat the object of the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member, I would ask him if he intends it to cover the case of distress?
  MR. FINLAY: I did not intend the Amendment to apply either to the case of bankruptcy or distress for rent. What I had in view was an action to recover rent and the issue of a writ of fieri facias.
  MR. DILLON: I concur strongly in the view expressed by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness, which we are now discussing, is very much better than that which the Government have placed on the Paper. I do not see why the Government should show the same jealousy in regard to Amendments proposed by the Unionist Members as they do in the case of Amendments submitted by the Irish Members. I can understand their unwillingness to accept the Amendments of Irish Members; but the hon. and learned Member for Inverness is a trustworthy ally of the Government, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to assign some reason for asking the Committee to pass over the hon. and learned Member's Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: the reason why I have appealed to my hon. and learned Friend to withdraw his Amendment is, I think, obvious, on the face of it, when the two Amendments are taken into consideration. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) is altogether wrong, when he says that there is any jealousy on the part of the Government of Amendments moved by Irish Members. We have already accepted many Amendments moved by Irish Members, and the reason why we object to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness is that it does not carry out the policy of the Government. It is perfectly true that it might be introduced into the clause with no worse effect than a bit of bad drafting, and that it might be made consistent with our Amendment. The Government are quite ready to close the back door if we can close it impartially. The Amendment we have down does close it impartially; but that of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness will not stop it impartially, but only with reference to the landlords. My own Amendment differs not merely in drafting, but also in principle; and for that reason I would suggest that the Committee should not be required to discuss the first three

  733
  Amendments which appear on the Paper, but should go at once to the consideration of the Amendment which the Government intend to propose.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I have an Amendment on this point, but intend to withdraw it in favour of that of the Government. I think it is quite clear that if we pass this Amendment we shall have to pass that of the Government also, in some shape or other; and, therefore, think it will save time, and shorten the discussion, if we take the Government Amendment at once.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that there will be any bad drafting of the Bill in accepting this Amendment, and then discussing that of the Government afterwards. I think that the case of the ordinary creditor and the case of the landlord should be dealt with in two different ways. I will not discuss whether it is right to say—"We will not interfere with the landlord unless we interfere with the ordinary creditor." In my opinion, if we interfere with the remedy of the ordinary creditor we ought also to interfere with that of the landlord. The clause proposes that in the case of the landlord, where he brings an action against the tenant for non-payment of rent, the tenant may apply to the Court, and, under certain circumstances, obtain a stay of execution. That is the effect of the first part of the clause; but do not think that procedure should be applied to the case of an ordinary creditor. On the contrary, do not think the proceedings of the ordinary creditor should be stayed until after judgment has been obtained. It should be left open to the creditor to take his judgment, and if the execution is to be stayed it should be done by compelling him to apply to the County Court, or any other Court, to proceed against the tenant's interest in the holding. That is the reason why say this Amendment is not bad drafting; and would ask the Government for a plain declaration of opinion upon the point. They themselves propose that an ordinary action for damages is to be stayed in precisely the same manner as the landlord's action for rent. If that is done, it appears to me that it will involve a somewhat strange state of things. Suppose, for instance, that an action is brought against a tenant for a breach of
  734
  promise of marriage; that is an action for damages, and is it to be said that an action of that kind is to be treated in the same way as an action for rent? I respectfully say that it ought not to be. You may lay down that if thy landlord is to be prevented from proceeding you will prevent every other creditor; but let the ordinary creditor be prevented only after he has obtained and recorded judgment. Let us not enact such an absurdity as to say that in an action for breach of promise it shall be competent for a tenant to go into Court and stay proceedings on the ground that he is not in a position to pay the rent.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: I think it is rather hard on the Government, when they show, as they have done in this case, a desire to meet the wishes of hon. Members below the Gangway, and to extend the provisions of the Bill, that they should have to accept from the Irish Members not only the principles of the Amendments themselves, but the drafting of them also. Surely, when the Government are ready to make an important concession, it is for them to carry out the form of drafting which seems to them most advisable. As to the merits of the question, am surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Cork, because understood there was a distinct agreement on the question which brought about the concession which the Government are now about to carry out. When it was pressed upon the Government that it was undesirable that the fieri facias should be left open to the landlord, they expressed their readiness to meet the objection; but they pointed out that it would be extremely unfair to do so unless, at the same time, they dealt with the case of the ordinary creditor. Upon that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was interrupted by some hon. Member below the Gangway—I believe by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy)—who said that that was their proposal in 1881. Evidently, therefore, they saw nothing in the proposal that the ordinary creditor should be excluded. Later on, when had to refer to the intentions of the Government, pointed out what had been the nature of the interruption of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford, and challenged him as to whether the Irish Members were still

  735
  willing to accept the exclusion of the ordinary creditor as well as the landlord. I received an affirmative reply, and there was, therefore, a distinct understanding that the Amendment would deal with the ordinary creditor as well as with the landlord. I hope that the question will be discussed on the Amendment of the Government, and that this Amendment will be withdrawn by my hon. and learned Friend behind me.
  MR. CHANCE: I think the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) has stated with substantial accuracy what occurred the other night. We frankly say that we have not the slightest desire that the ordinary creditor should escape; but our position is this, that in dealing with the clause there are two considerations in the exercise of the equitable jurisdiction of the Court which must not be lost sight of, and the first is the character of the debt incurred. When we look at this section, we find that it deals with rent alone, and lays down this condition, that it must be an unjust and impossible rent, and, if so, there is special justice and equity in preventing the landlord from issuing an execution in respect of that unjust and impossible rent. There is no provision to enable the tenant to work the farm when this debt is satisfied, should he find himself in difficulties, and we think we should now have a complete statement of the policy of the Government with special reference to the conditions on which they propose to act in relation to other debts. We distinctly consider that there are a separate set of considerations involved; and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cork has pointed out, while it is fair to give equitable jurisdiction in respect of a just rent, how is the Court to deal with a case of damages for the non-performance of a contract? A different set of conditions altogether is involved, and it would be no answer to claim established by an action for damages, in an action for breach of promise of marriage, to say—"If you execute judgment the defendant will be deprived of his holding." If he has broken his promise and damages are found against him, it is perfectly fair that in the event of his failing to satisfy the damages he should be deprived of his holding. When, however, we come to the question of rent, the clause pro-
  736
  vides a special equity, and it is provided in respect of rent alone. In that case certain conditions are laid down which may result in the execution of the judgment. What we want is a clear statement from the Government on that point, and on that point only, and I trust the Government will understand that we have no desire to save the landlord from the equitable jurisdiction of the Court in respect of his debt. There is also another point. The ordinary creditor lends his capital to the debtor, and the result is that in the ease of the bankruptcy of the tenant the capital of the creditor is totally destroyed. In dealing with the question of the equitable jurisdiction of the Court the landlord stands in a different position. He gets back his land, and the only question is what interest he shall have for his land, which is his capital, during the period it has been out of his own hands. On the other hand, in a case of bankruptcy the ordinary creditor gets no interest on his capital whatsoever; but the question, so far as the landlord is concerned, is how much interest he is to get. I merely ask the Government to make a statement that will put these matters clear, and think this is a convenient time for doing so.
  MR. DILLON: May be allowed to state the reason which induces me to prefer the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness to that of the Government? The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member is clear and straightforward, and is not followed by any consequential Amendment. The Government, however, have a consequential Amendment, No. 21, which proposes to insert, after the words "the Court may put a stay upon the execution of the judgment of the Court," these words—
  "In such ejectment, or, in case of an ordinary judgment, may put a stay upon the execution of a writ of fieri facias as against the tenant's interest in the holding."
  One of the reasons why object to the Amendment of the Government is that they have disclosed their intention by placing this consequential Amendment on the Paper, whereas the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member applies to the first line of the section, and is? not followed by any consequential s Amendment. What is the position of the hon. and learned Member for Inver-

  737
  ness, and of the Government? In order to understand the position of the Government, we must read Amendment No. 4, in connection with No. 21, whereas the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness stands alone. The Government, while pretending to close the back door, only half stop it. They drag into the Amendment the ordinary creditor, and in order to escape from the position of stopping the ordinary creditor they bring in a consequential Amendment, which confines the action of the Amendment, No. 4, to the issue of a writ of fieri facias. That is not the intention of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness. The reason why object to bring in the ordinary creditor is that it will entail upon the Committee the adoption of the Government Amendment, No. 24; because if we consent to Amendment No. 4, we give the Government an unquestionable argument for the passing of Amendment No. 24—an Amendment which intend to oppose in the strongest way possible. What is the object of staying the execution of a writ of fieri facias in the case of an ordinary judgment? What is now done in Ireland? In the ease of an ordinary judgment, the issue of a writ of fieri facias is not against the interest of the tenant in the holding; but it is held in terrorem over the tenant, because the seizure of the stock would obviously deprive the tenant of the means of retaining the holding. He would either have to drive away the stock he has, or it would be seized and sold under the writ of fieri facias, and in that way it need not be executed against the holding; but the small remaining stock the tenant has may be sold. What ask the Government is, whether they really intend to stop the back door or not? If so, they must give the tenant the possession of the holding, in order that he maybe able to exist. If you are to provide any means by which he is to retain the holding at all, you must not in mores mockery destroy his means of carrying it on. Why support so strongly the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness is that it means to do what is frank and effectual, whereas the Government propose to do a thing which would be perfectly ineffectual. If the Chief Secretary will stand up and say that the only desire of the Government
  738
  in the matter is to prevent the interest of the tenant in the holding from being sold by the ordinary creditor am ready to support them; but if, at the same time, they say they are not going to allow any writ to be executed on the capital the tenant has on the holding, while they are willing to go a long way in staying the ordinary creditor from execution, am altogether against the doctrine that would put the rent and the ordinary debt of a creditor on the same level. That is altogether impossible. And why? Because the ordinary debt of a creditor is in respect of goods I taken and consumed by the tenant; but the whole basis of the present legislation with regard to rent is that it is an unjust rent. I object to the withdrawal of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member in favour of that of the Government, because it would furnish the Government with a strong argument which they ought not to have. Our object should, be, if possible, to put both the ordinary creditor and the landlord on the same footing. I say that it will be grossly unjust to establish a difference, seeing that the whole basis of the Bill is that the landlord's debt is an unjust and excessive debt. Therefore, ask the Government to tell the Committee whether they really mean to accept the principle contained in the Amendment No. 1, or whether they really mean to take away part of what they propose to give by moving No. 24 as a consequential Amendment?
  MR. O'DOHERTY: The hon. Member for East Mayo has very fairly stated to the Committee the difference between an ordinary debt for goods and the case of the debt to the landlord; the only thing that corresponds with the rent is the profit on the goods. It is quite clear that the profit which the landlord makes is the only thing taken from the tenant which he makes out of the farm. If it were now proposed to cut off the landlord's profit from the farm, and to give the tenant the whole of the farm, the analogy between the case of the landlord and the ordinary creditor would be accurate. As far as the trader is concerned, if we were only dealing with the profit which he makes out of the transaction, that would correspond with the profit received by the landlord in the shape of rent and his profit from the farm. Of

  739
  course, all debts are recoverable in the same way; but the landlord, at this moment, has the power of recovering his rent withont taking out any writ of fieri facias at all. That means, no doubt, is frequently resorted to, and the debt, when judgment is given in its favour, is to the full amount placed as a mortgage upon the holding, where it may remain against the tenant's interest in the holding for ever. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland should have before him all the remedies which the landlord has in the matter. So far as the bankruptcy of the tenant is concerned, that is a subject which I do not care to mention at all, and I do not think the Committee ought to contemplate proceedings in bankruptcy; but if the landlord chooses to run that risk, let him use the ordinary means of making the tenant a bankrupt.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It appears, from the very short discussion which has just taken place, that we are all agreed that the right of the tenant, if the Court thinks fit, might be protected from all creditors alike. So far I understand that the Committee is agreed; but hon. Members belong the Gangway want to go further than that, and they now say that, after all, they would be doing nothing if they merely prevented the landlord from getting hold of the tenant right, because he can get hold of the stock, which is the only thing on the farm worth having. But so can the ordinary creditor. The ordinary creditor, as the law stands, can deprive the tenant of his stock.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: That is not so; but, by the ordinary procedure, the landlord can issue a distress for 12 months' rent due.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will not allow the landlord to pauperize the tenant by selling out his stock; why, then, should we allow every other creditor to pauperize the tenant by doing precisely the same thing? It is the same thing, and the trader would have his ordinary remedy against the stock. The Government altogether protest against the policy of I allowing other creditors to pauperize the tenant by doing what the landlord is forbidden to do. we mean in this; clause, as in all others, to place the landlord on the same footing as all other traders. I had some hope that we
  740
  might come to an agreement as to what the actual provisions of this clause should be; but I am afraid that we shall not be able to arrive at an agreement, if hon. Members adhere to the theory they have put forward. I cannot admit that there is anything tainted, ab initio, in the debt which the tenant owes to the landlord; and, therefore, it is hardly likely that we can come to an agreement. The property of the tenant must be regarded as security for the debts due to the landlord, just as it is regarded as security for the debts duo to the ordinary trader. Hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to think that that policy ought to be reversed, and that the property of the tenant, which has hitherto been held to be security for the payment of rent, should henceforth be a greater security to any other creditor than to the landlord. Everybody to whom the tenant owes anything is to stand before the landlord. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) says he thinks it would be extremely hard to deprive a creditor of damages against a tenant for the non-performance of a contract; but what contract can a tenant enter into more solemnly than his engagement to pay his rent to his landlord?
  MR. CHANCE: It must be borne in mind that the one debt is in the nature of interest, whereas the other is in the nature of principle; and already, by their own Commission, the Government have admitted that the rents are too high, and that the debt to the landlord is an unjust debt.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We might have said that the interest is high; but even the shopkeepers in Ireland and the gombeen men are accused of charging too much. We contend that we are not to describe every contract which has not been specially settled by the Court as one which is unjust. The hon. Member says that one is a debt of capital, and the other a debt of interest. For my own part, I see very little difference between depriving a man of his capital and depriving a man of all the interest of that capital to which he is entitled. It would be a more mockery towards the landlord to say to him—"This is your land; it is your inalienable property; but, at the same time, we will put on it a tenant from whom you shall not take more than a certain interest, and if the

  741
  tenant does not pay that interest you shall have no means of enforcing your debt." I am sure that a landlord, placed in that position, would feel that his security would not have any very high value in the open market. The Government cannot admit for a moment that there is any distinction to he drawn between debts due to the landlord and the debts due to the shopkeeper, if that distinction is to be accompanied by a provision that one is to be regarded as a just debt and the other as an unjust debt. I do not ask hon. Members to agree altogether in the general view I have expressed on that point; but I hope they will agree that the means we propose to take to secure the interests of the landlord, as well as those of the tenant and the ordinary creditor, are perfectly legitimate and fair.
  MR. MARUM: At the proper time I intend to move an Amendment to the Amendment of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the object of which is to except eases of tort. There are frequently actions for slander, for crim. con., and so on, and I do not see why the tenant right of the tenant should be protected from the consequences of actions of that kind. I may remind the Chief Secretary for Ireland that in the observations which were made by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) and my hon. Colleague (Mr. Chance) a distinction was drawn between actions for breach of contract—sucli as breach of promise of marriage—and ordinary debts. As I said, I intend to move an Amendment at the proper time to the Amendment which the Chief Secretary for Ireland intends to propose in order to bring out that point.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I must apologize for taking up the time of the Committee again; but I only do so on account of the allusion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) to the action of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford. What my hon. and learned Friend said and did was perfectly clear. What he did was to endeavour to conform the present clause with an Amendment inserted in the Land Act of 1881, but subsequently struck out in "another place." That Amendment was to the effect that a period of six months after
  742
  the passing of the Laud Act should be allowed before the tenant right of the tenant could be disposed of, in order that the tenant might be afforded breathing time. The object was to provide, after the Land Act came into operation, means to proven the landlord from soiling out at once and for ever the rights of the tenant. I cannot see why the Irish Members are not to be allowed even to discuss, and to discuss in an impartial and judicial spirit, the moans by which this enormous change in the Land Act is about to be carried out, without drawing upon themselves the sneers of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I did not sneer at the Members for Ireland.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I am perfectly aware that the right hon. Gentleman did not use words to that effect; but he certainly conveyed the idea. He made a bitter complaint that the Irish Members should have got up to discuss the Amendment of the Government. I am bound, however, to accept his denial.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: May I be allowed to explain what I did say? I said it was very hard on the Government, who had accepted the principle of the Amendments proposed by hon. Members below the Gangway, to be compelled to adopt any other drafting than their own.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: That is a very similar point to the one which I was referring to. The substantial complaint of the right hon. Gentleman is that we have continued this controversy on a mere question of drafting; but I may inform him that, in our view, there is a good deal behind in that question of drafting. We are of opinion that the Committee ought to deal with the ordinary creditor in the same way as they deal with the landlord, and that it is unjust, and will be inequitable, unless the two are dealt with on precisely the same lines. Therefore, there is an important point behind this discussion, and it is not fair to allow it to drop out of sight altogether. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has raised a very important question. He says that all that has been agreed upon in this matter is that the back door shall be shut qua the tenancy of the holding. We

  743
  think it would be dishonest to shut the door in such a manner as not to shut it to the landlord, but to leave him the right, in any shape or form, of enforcing his rent in full. If that is to be done, I can only say that we are engaged in a more mockery and sham, because it is idle to say that if you leave to the landlord a preferential means Try which he can get an unjust rent out of Ins tenant, that you are granting any concession to the tenant at all. The principle which underlies this matter is the manner in which ejectments for rout can be brought about. If the landlord is to have his rent before any other creditor is satisfied, it is idle to say he shall not get it in a particular way. Nevertheless, that is what is being done. You are simply taking away the landlord's power to sell out the tenant's interest in the holding. The tenant has the farm and the stock upon it. Without the stock and the crop it is perfectly absurd to say that the tenant can go on paying the rent; consequently, if you leave the landlord in a position to seize the stock and crop, and to prevent the tenant from working the farm, it is ridiculous to maintain that you are cutting down the landlord's power of enforcing an unjust rent.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I certainly think that it is a fraud to pretend to protect a man's tenant right without you protect the implements by which the holding is worked. If the tenant is unable to pay his rent, it is only proper, if the holding is reserved, to reserve such property upon it as may be necessary for working it. It is a perfect farce on our part to pretend to protect the holding without we protect the stock and implements upon it. I think that the landlord and the gombeen man should be placed on the same footing. If that is not done, I am afraid we shall reduce this clause to a nullity, and make it altogether ineffectual to preserve the tenant right of the tenant. Amendment 24, which is subsequently to be moved by the, Government, proposes to provide that in the case of an ordinary judgment the Court may put a stay upon the execution by a writ of fieri facias against the tenant's interest in the holding. I think that will make the whole clause quite ineffectual in its operation.
  MR. CHANCE: When I addressed the Committee a short time ago I put a question to the Government, and pointed
  744
  out that the clause lays down special conditions under which equitable jurisdiction is to be given to the Court. While I perfectly admit that it is right and proper to give the Court an equitable jurisdiction to interfere with certain cases of hardship inflicted upon the tenant, I maintain that the conditions on which the debts of the tenant are to be dealt with must be other conditions than those stated in the clause, because the conditions stated in the clause are obviously applicable only to the case of rent. I ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland to state what the conditions are under which the Government think the Court ought to be called upon to exercise equitable jurisdiction. The right hon. Gentleman fell into an error when he said that the tenant would be able to sell his interest in the holding.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: NO; I did not say that.
  MR. CHANCE: The new tenant would take the tenant right of the old tenant, subject to all the arrears of rent; and the new tenant, in 99 cases out of 100, would be better able to discharge the arrears of rent than the old tenant. Therefore, if you enable the ordinary creditor to execute a writ against the tenant right, you do not interfere with the landlord in the slightest degree, because the new tenant is liable for the existing debts. Therefore, I hope that the Chief Secretary will shadow forth the conditions on which the equitable jurisdiction is to be applied.
  MR. FINLAY: I desire to say a few words by way of explanation of the position I have taken up in regard to this Amendment. I certainly should not have put down the Amendment if I had thought its effect would be, as has been suggested, to leave the landlord helpless in regard to the tenant right, while the effects of the tenant are swept off by other creditors. But I do not understand that if the Amendment is passed into law as it now stands it would have that effect. The Attorney General for Ireland will correct mo if I am wrong; but I understand that upon execution being issued by any other creditor against the tenant right, the landlord, under the Ant of 1881, would have a charge upon that tenant right with respect of what is due to him upon the holding, and all arrears would be secured to the landlord as far as the tenant-right is con-

  745
  corned. And where an execution is issued against the goods of a tenant, there also the landlord is secured, although not quite to the same extent. I believe there is in force in Ireland a Statute passed in the reign of Queen Anne, similar in its terms to the English Statute, by which—when the goods of a tenant are taken in execution before they can be sold—a year's arrears of rent must be paid to the landlord, if necessary; so that the landlord, as far as the tenant right is concerned, is fully secured, and, as far as the stock is concerned, he is secured to the extent of one year's rent. [An hon. MEMBER: To the extent of the rent due.] If there are no arrears there is nothing duo. Under these circumstances, the effect of my Amendment, if it becomes law, would not be to put the landlord into the helpless position which some hon. Members appear to suppose would be the case. There is another point of view also, and that is the point of view of the tenant. I do not know what effect it, may have upon the credit of the tenant if this provision is made of universal application. I apprehend that it might have a very serious effect upon the rate of interest at which the tenant would be able to get money advanced, and that it might also affect his credit with tradesmen in the neighbourhood. I throw out these suggestions for the consideration of the Government. I merely say that it is the personal view from which I regard the matter in reference to the Amendment. I was not present when an understanding was arrived at the other evening; but I am not desirous of doing anything to prevent that understanding from being carried out. I am, however, in the hands of the Committee, and I am prepared to take whatever course may be considered to be most advantageous. I have stated my own views, and I will now respectfully commend the Amendment to the consideration of the Committee; but, if the Committee prefer it, I am ready to withdraw the Amendment, in order that the matter may be discussed upon the Amendment of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  MR. DILLON: There are two or three matters which deserve attention. In the first place, lot me assure the Government of the very strong objection I entertain to this change on their
  746
  part. I regard it as of an illusory character, and a change which it is absolutely unnecessary to make. It is altogether unnecessary to protect the interest of the tenant from the seizure of his crops by creditors other than the landlord. Such a thing is unheard of; and the case founded upon the necessity for such protection is a bogus one. There is no necessity to protect the tenant in this respect at all; and the landlord, as the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) has pointed out, is perfectly safe, unless the creditor does what he has never done hitherto. The Amendment of the Government will only confuse the issue, and afford them an argument hereafter for refusing that protection to the tenant which I maintain to be absolutely essential. The simple and straighforward course to take in the matter would be to adopt the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness, which covers the whole ground without involving any principle of Provisoes. I want to make this point quite clear to the Committee. This protection, as I have already pointed out, is not at all necessary as regards the tenant's interest against the ordinary creditor; but if you want to protect him against the landlord you need a further protection than that which is given here. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, in his speech, was exceedingly uncandid. He drew an affecting picture of the situation to which the Irish landlords will be reduced if the Committee pass the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness. Now, the basis of the clause is the equitable jurisdiction of the Court, and it must be recollected that unless the Court decides that the rent is an unjust rent there is to be no remedy whatever, and the landlord will get the whole. The clause will take no effect in Ireland, except in a case where a Court of equitable jurisdiction decides that the rent is unjust. If the tenant has been an industrious man, has worked his holding properly, and has only been called upon to pay a fair rent, he will be able to meet the demands of his landlord. I am perfectly willing to put in a Proviso that unless the Court is of opinion that the rent has been unjust the clause shall lie dormant. We do not ask for protection against

  747
  misfortune, but against injustice. It is upon that we take our stand; and we will accept the position that the clause shall be a dead letter, and not come into operation at all unless a Court of Equitable Jurisdiction is satisfied that the debt is unjust. After that statement, I would ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland what right he has to say that the clause, as amended, would stop the payment of rent in Ireland? It would do nothing of the kind. It would not deprive the landlord of 1s. of rent to which he has an equitable right; but it would prevent him from enforcing unjust and unreasonable demands upon his tenants. Where he has acted unjustly and unfairly the clause would step in, and the Court would say that he must take a fair rent. What does this clause do? Does it prevent the landlord from obtaining a fair rent? Nothing of the sort; it provides that he shall take his rent in fair and equitable instalments if the tenant does not pay down upon the nail. Therefore, there is not one shred of foundation for the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and I maintain that the Government are entirely wrong in the course they propose to take in reference to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member.
  MR. KENNEDY: I may point out that in regard to the rent, not only can the landlord put in a distress, but if the tenant fails to pay the rent he has the power, at anytime, of making him a bankrupt. I take it that the object of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness is to protect the rights of the ordinary creditor, as well as those of the landlord. Now, there are a great number of traders in the North of Ireland who get cargoes of seed and supply the tenants in the month of November, waiting for repayment until six months afterwards. I think the Government will commit a great mistake if they endeavour to enforce this clause as it is proposed to be amended, because, if they stop the tenants from obtaining credit, the landlords will probably gel no rent at all. At present the ordinary traders are in the habit of helping the tenants to tide over their difficulties, and in many cases they advance money to enable the rent to be paid. If this clause is insisted upon, I think the effect
  748
  of it will be entirely to destroy the credit of the tenants of Ireland.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 169: Majority 28.—(Div. List, No. 338.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In moving the Amendment which stands in my I name, as No. 4 on the Paper, I do not think it necessary to say anything further beyond what I have said already.
  Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 41, after "rent," insert "or in any action I for debt or damages by any person against the tenant in such holding,"—(Mr. A.J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted"
  MR. DILLON: I must renew my protest against the doctrine that the landlord is put by this clause on the same level as the trader. What is the alleged justification for the clause? The object of the clause is to give relief to tenants who have been subjected to excessive rents. The clause only comes into effect where the tenant is unable to pay the rent; and, as this is only another way of putting the statement that the rent is unfair, I think it is monstrous to place debts due to traders on all fours with debts due to the landlords. If we look at the Amendment of the Government, and recollect the character of the discussion which has taken place within the last few days, I think it will be found that a considerable number of the Amendments have been put down on the Paper by Liberal Unionists. The fact, however, that two Liberal Unionists may be appointed to tell in favour of an Amendment, appears to have no effect in inducing the Liberal Unionists, as a body, to support the Members of their own Party. I see there are several Amendments on the Paper in the name of Liberal Unionists; and they propose that it should be open to the Court, not only to give time for the payment of the debt, but also to reduce the amount. Is it now going to be contended by the Government that in the I view of the rent being unjust there should not be such power given to the Court? Is it going to be contended that; I the Court is to have power, not only to

  749
  reduce the amount of the rent but to reduce, the debts freely contracted, which are owing to every trader in Ireland? That is a proposal which I doubt very much the Government will be prepared to maintain; and, therefore, I say that we are doing a most dangerous and most fatal thing in putting the debt of the trader on all-fours with the debt of the landlord. The Government have certainly adopted a most treacherous and dangerous proceeding in getting these two separate obligations placed on all-fours at the outset of the discussion. Further on, when we come to consider the Amendments which will be absolutely essential in order to prevent the clause from being illusory, the Government will be prepared to stand up and ask us if we propose that the Court of Equitable Jurisdiction is to reduce debts of every character in Ireland, whether contracted for goods supplied or for money lent by the Irish banks. I suppose that this Amendment will be adopted; but I could not allow this stage of the proceedings to pass by without saying a word with regard to it. I think it is nothing short of a fiasco that the Committee should have been induced by the Government to affirm this principle at the outset—a principle which tends very much to minimize the value of the concession which the Government have it in their minds to make.
  MR. MARUM: I have an Amendment to propose to this Amendment, the object of which is to except the tenant right of the holding from any execution in connection with an action for breach of promise, crim. con., slander, &c, which comes under the head of actions in tort. I propose to add to the Amendment the words "save in tort." The Attorney General for Ireland is aware of the nature of those actions, and will know perfectly well what the Amendment means technically. I think it is a perfectly reasonable thing to provide that in actions of that nature that distress should be protected.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after "action," to insert the words "save in tort."—(Mr. Marum.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I think it is only necessary to give the hon. Member an illustration in order to show the impossibility of accepting his Amendment. The hon. Member will be aware that one of the most common actions brought by the landlord against the tenant is an action for waste, which is really an action for a breach of obligations entered into on the part of the tenant. At present the tenant right of the tenant is liable to actions for waste. The hon. Member proposes that actions in tort shall be excepted, but that the landlord may sue on the contract, which involves precisely the same result, the hon. Member, therefore, proposes that tort actions shall be saved, but that the remedy proposed for the landlord in another action shall not be interfered with. Suppose one tenant sues another for obstruction, for stopping up a watercourse, or for obstructing his right of way. In that case is the tenant not to be protected, although he is to be protected against the gombeen man? I have known numerous cases in which actions of that character for obstruction have been brought and in which damages have been recovered; and I think there ought to be the same stay in the execution of writs, so far as the sale of the holding is concerned, as will be given under this clause in other cases. I would, therefore, suggest that the hon. Member should not press the Amendment, which would act against the interest of the tenants themselves.
  MR. MARUM: I think the Attorney General for Ireland has not appreciated the view I took. My object in framing the Amendment was to cut down the limit of protection against ordinary creditors. Under the circumstances, however, I have no objection to withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. MOLLOY: M37 contention is—and I think I am not misled—that the effect of the clause will be to drive the tenant farmers into the hands of the gombeen men. So far as the small farmers are concerned, there is scarcely a man among them who is able to get on without money borrowed from the banks. Nearly all the tenants have to borrow money from the banks every year; and what position will the banks be in if this clause is passed? They will have no security whatever, or only partial security, for the money they

  751
  advance. Tin's will not be a case of ordinary bankruptcy hero and there, but a kind of general bankruptcy throughout the country; and, I repeat, what would be the position of the banks? Is there any bank in the country, with this new law staring them in the face, which will lend money to the tenant? I would ask anybody who knows anything of the condition of the banks in the agricultural districts to say if it would be possible for the managers of these banks to discount the paper of the farmers if Parliament takes away the protection they now have? What, also, is to become of the Seeds Bill and the Manure Bill? Advances of this nature are made to much larger extent in Ireland than in England, and the tradesmen give six months for the payment of the bills. But in the face of a clause like this, will the traders be likely to make advances at all; and if they do, will they not be compelled to demand much larger prices and much more difficult terms? By this change you are taking away that which is the capital of the farmer; you are taking away the whole of his credit as regards the traders, and he will neither be able to borrow from the banks nor to get his seeds except at extortionate prices. You speak of the gombeen man; but what are you going to do? If you take away the credit of the farmers you will drive them absolutely into the hands of the gombeen man. I know very well how the trade of the farmer is carried on in Ireland; how he has to borrow money from the banks; and how two or three have to combine together to back up each other's bills. Instead of saving these men from the gombeen men, you are now taking the strongest measure you can to drive the whole of the tenant farmers of Ireland into the hands of the gombeen man, instead of leaving them, as at present, to deal with the banks and the traders. That is the simple effect of the clause as it stands. Let it be clearly understood that when further trouble comes we have warned the Government, and told them that so far from saving the tenant farmers from the gombeen man they are making bankrupts of thorn, and driving them into the hands of the worst enemies of the Irish farmer.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: In my opinion the clause will destroy a principle which has hitherto regulated the
  752
  commercial life of Ireland, and it is impossible that we can assent to it. I have only risen now for the purpose of asking whether the Government will do anything to protect the tenant against the landlord's right of distress? I ask the question because I consider it of the utmost importance to put a limit on that right. As a matter of fact, proceedings by way of distress, until the present year, had become, practically, extinct; but during the past 12 months it has existed. I myself have had brought under my notice some cases which occurred in the County of Kerry, in which the landlords revived this obsolete remedy of distress. If the remedy by distress is allowed to remain intact, I am afraid that the landlords wuse it simply for the purpose of evading the Act. I would, therefore, urge upon the Government that they are still leaving in existence a very grave danger to the very life of the tenants, and I think that all parties who have given any consideration to the matter will be agreed that this right of distress should be abolished, both in England and Ireland. It is simply a relic of a state of barbarism, and should be got rid of as soon as possible. The whole spirit of modern legislation has been directly in the teeth of this revival of barbarism, and I trust that the Government will consent to pass a necessary complement to this clause by putting an end to the right. In so doing they would confer a great benefit, not only upon England, but upon Ireland.
  MR. PARNELL: There are two questions involved in this Amendment, both of which are of great importance. First the stay of proceedings in ejectment, and especially the question of arrears. The question of the stay of proceedings in ejectment in respect of writs of fieri facias is one on which the Committee is practically agreed. But the question of arrears, if it is in the mind of the Government to extend the operation of the clause so as to give the Judge of the Court power to reduce the amount without the consent of the parties suing, is one which has weighed on the minds of my hon. Friends. On this point some of them doubt, in the first place, whether the Government are willing to deal with the question of arrears at all, in view of the effect which the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman will have; and, secondly, they

  753
  doubt if the Government are willing to deal with the question whether it would be right that such a method of dealing with arrears of rent should be extended to the case of ordinary debts as well—that is to say, whether the power given to the Court to reduce the arrears should extend to the case of ordinary debt, as well as to the debts for rent. Now, Sir, it appears to me that if it is in the mind of the Government to deal with the question of arrears, it would be desirable to put a limit of time on the operation of the clause, which would have the effect of giving the Court compulsory power to deal with arrears of rent and with shopkeepers' debts. It might be limited to throe years. If it is not, however, within the contemplation of the Government to deal with the question, the situation will not only be a very serious one, but one in regard to which the disturbing features in Ireland will be left unsettled. The Government may suppose that it is too large a stop to take to deal with the arrears of rent and shopkeepers' debts at the same time; but, in order to show how important I consider the question of arrears of rent, I will go so far as to say that if the Government will deal with the question of arrears, I and my hon. Friends on one side will not be unwilling to allow the same powers to extend to shopkeepers' debts, with the limitation, say, to a period of three years. We have viewed with alarm the fact that none of the Amendments of the Government deal with the question, and we are willing to go a long way with them, if they will afford some kind of relief in the matter. I would suggest that some compromise might be effected, and that the Government might bring tip a new clause at a later stage of the Bill. I do not see how it is possible for us, or for any of the parties concerned, to look for anything like satisfaction in the future if the question of arrears is not dealt with either in this clause or subsequently. The clause, as it stands, is intended to be a permanent one, and it will have the effect for all time of settling the question of a stay of proceedings and the power of payment by instalments. I would suggest that we should divide the subject-matter into two parts—that we should allow the clause to be permanent as to the staying of proceedings and the question of instalments; but as to the question of the reduction
  754
  of the amount of the arrears, lot it be for a term of three years, and let such a Proviso be inserted at the end of the clause.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Although the suggestion which the hon. Member has made is not strictly relevant to the Amendment before the Committee, perhaps, at the same time, it may not be inconvenient that we should now deal with it. As I understood the hon. Member, he thinks the Bill would be unsatisfactory and incomplete unless it contains some method of dealing with the arrears of rent. The hon. Member is prepared to accept the principle which the Government have uniformly laid down—that if we deal with the debt due to the landlord we must have a similar and parallel provisions in regard to the debts due to the other creditors, and he has suggested that there should be some provision in the Bill by which debts due both to landlords and to other creditors should be capable of liquidation or diminution for a space of three years. That I understand to be the suggestion of the hon. Member.
  MR. PARNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt him? The Bill will apply to the present arrears.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; present arrears only. Now, the Government have always felt that the amount of debts hanging round the neck of the tenants is undoubtedly a very serious difficulty in connection with that problem. And it is because they have entertained that belief that they introduced the Bankruptcy Clauses, which has been the subject of so much animadversion from almost every quarter of the House. The hon. Member now proposes that we should practically introduce temporary Bankruptcy Clauses. The hon. Member does not desire that the word "bankruptcy" should be used; but it is no misdescription of his proposal to say that it is something substantially identical with temporary Bankruptcy Clauses.
  MR. PARNELL: Not bankruptcy.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is practically equivalent to bankruptcy. The mere fact that the Bill is on the Table of the House in its present shape shows that we do not differ vitally from the hon. Member. But the hon. Member has expressed in very clear language his? dislike of Bankruptcy Clauses, and I

  755
  cannot see how we can remodel those clauses omitting the word "bankruptcy" without introducing others quite as long and as elaborate and very similar to those which we have already laid on the Table. For myself, I have given a great deal of thought to the subject, and if I could see my way to do what the hon. Member wishes—namely, to introduce a cheap bankruptcy procedure—call it bankruptcy or what you like—which should apply to the existing debts of tenants, whether due to tradesmen or to landlords, I should be happy to do so. But, so far, the ingenuity of the gentleman on whom I chiefly rely for the drafting these matters has failed to suggest any method by which that object can be carried out in a cheaper and simpler method than that which, we have put on the Paper. The Government do no adhere to the word "bankruptcy;" they have no pride of paternity as to any of these clauses; and if the combined ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman can suggest a method by which our view, which is identical with that of the hon. Member, can be carried out in a simpler and better manner, we should be very glad. We desire to meet the hon. Gentleman as far as we possibly can, and I hope that some satisfactory result may be arrived at.
  Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: There is an Amendment lower down on the Paper in my name which suggests a procedure adopted from the Arrears Act. It contemplates only the present debt; it contemplates no costs whatever, and it further contemplates simply the action of the Court.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What is the number of the Amendment?
  MR. O'DOHERTY: No. 55, on page 29, and it says—
  "The filing of an affidavit by the tenant in the Court in which the proceedings originated, in. the proscribed form, at any time before execution executed in any such proceedings, shall operate as a stay of proceedings and of execution. The tenant shall also file in Court and serve on the landlord in the prescribed manner a copy of the terms in which he seeks relief. The landlord, if he refuses the offer, shall so declare in the prescribed manner, and state the grounds of such refusal in a particular manner having regard to the affidavit and offer of the
  756
  tenant; and thereupon the Court in which the proceedings brought or are pending shall send in the prescribed manner a copy of the the of proceedings for report thereon to the Court of the Land Commission, and the case shall be heard and determined as fair rent applications are heard, and shall have priority of hearing, but with power to the Court to examine witnesses on oath on the holding, and the report of the sub-commissioner to whom the case is referred shall be forthwith filed in the Court wherein the proceedings were brought, and thereupon the Court, after hearing the parties if they appear, shall make such orders as aforesaid. If the landlord accepts the offer of the tenant, he shall so declare in the prescribed manner, and the Court, on failure on the part of the tenant to carry out the terms of his offer, may remove the stay, or make such order as to the Court shall seem right."
  My experience of the working of the Arrears Act is that it throws no cost upon the tenant. The schoolmaster of the neighbourhood or the tenants can fill up the documents with the particulars required by the Arrears Act; they are then posted to the Land Commission, placed on a file, the Commissioner sends notice to the landlord, and the whole thing is over at once. I contemplate in my Amendment the avoidance of any expensive application to the Court which, if made in a Superior Court, would involve the employment of counsel, or, in any other Court, a solicitor. In the case of a proceeding at Sessions the interval between the time of the notice and the granting of the decree is so small, that it is impossible for the tenant to avail himself of it unless some such form of proceeding as I propose to prescribe is adopted, setting forth certain matters upon which the Court ought to be informed. A copy of the information would then be given to the landlord, who would be required to answer it, and say whether he admits the amount or not. The whole thing then goes before the Commissioner, who would hear the disputed particulars and would make a decree. His recommendation would cover all matters, whether in dispute or not, and there would be ample protection that justice would be done to all parties. By that process not only is bankruptcy avoided, but the necessity for making expensive and unsatisfactory Motions, together with long affidavits on the one side and equally long affidavits on the other.
  MR. DILLON: I would like the Government to tell the Committee what their consequential Amendment is.
  MR. GIBSON: If the Court think it desirable and convenient to stay execution fieri facias against the holding, it would not be clogged by any special conditions as to instalments. In my opinion, the proposal of the Government is more beneficial to the tenant than the one suggested by the hon. Member. The action is not stayed in any way against the general assets. The stay in the case of a debt for rent and a debt for money lent would be identical, and the Court would make such provisions as it might deem necessary to remove the stay upon application made to it.
  MR. DILLON: The Government stated, on bringing up the clause, that it was to place the ordinary tenant on the same footing as the landlord.
  MR. GIBSON: And so it does. The landlord recovers his rent whether there is a stay of execution or not, and the judgment of the Court is not affected as to the general assets. As far as regards the holding, the stay will operate against the general creditor. Let me, by way of illustration, take the case o£ the gombeen, man. It is a stay not of the judgment generally, but of the judgment so far only as it relates to the writ of fieri facias which might otherwise be executed against the holding.
  MR. DILLON: What I want to find out is, whether the stay is dependent upon the carrying out by the tenant of the provision for instalments?
  MR. GIBSON: It is difficult for hon. Members to understand these questions, which are of a highly technical nature, dealing only with matters of law. The provision as to instalments affects only ejectments for non-payment of rent, and the judgment of the Court for the recovery of possession of the holding may be stayed as a whole. A judgment in regard to non-payment of rent can only affect the land. It would be absurd to enact that the recovery of a judgment should only be recoverable by instalments when it affects the whole of the assets. When the action is for debt, whether it is for rent, for costs, or for the gombeen man's money, the power is the same, and is enforced in the same way.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: As I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Government propose that the power directing that the debt shall be paid by instalments is only to apply
  758
  where there is an ejectment for nonpayment of rent. A stay may be put in all cases upon the execution of the judgment of the Court, and it will then be for the Court to order whether or not the arrears of rent and costs are to be paid by instalments. That being so, is not the proposal to make the arrears of rent and costs payable by instalments fenced round by a proviso that the Court may or may not do so as it thinks fit?
  MR. GIBSON: The question now raised is proposed by the Government to be settled by Amendment No. 24, which provides that—
  "The Court may put a stay upon the execution of the judgment of the Court in such ejectment, or, in case of sin ordinary judgment, may put a stay upon the execution of a writ of fieri facias as against the tenant's interest in the holding."
  I do not think there will be any advantage in discussing the matter until that Amendment is reached.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. CHANCE: I beg now to move, in page 15, line 1, to leave out the words "are pending," in order to substitute the word "originated." The clause, as it stands, applies to—
  "Any proceedings for the recovery of a holding to which this section applies, for nonpayment of rent, or in any action for debt or damages by any person against the tenant of such holding, if the Court in which the proceedings are pending is satisfied by the evidence before it, &c."
  My Amendment will make the section apply to the Court in which the proceedings "originated." My object is simply this—that as the Amendment of the Chief Secretary, No. 57, will make the clause retrospective, it is undesirable to retain words which are only prospective, and could by no means be made retrospective.
  Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 1, to leave out "are pending," and insert "originated."—(Mr. Chance.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'are pending' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. GIBSON: The Government are unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CHANCE: It is not an Amendment of much importance except from a draftsman's point of view, and as any language seems to be good enough for

  759
  an Act of Parliament I will not press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: My Amendment is the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry 'Mr. Justin M Carthy). I propose, in page 15, line 1, to leave out the words "satisfied by the evidence before it," in order to insert "of opinion," my object, being to provide that the Court may, in proceedings for recovery of a holding, stay the action, if it is "of opinion" from the facts, whether given in evidence or not, that the tenant is unable to make immediate payment. I think that would save expense, and enable the Court to take into consideration the general condition of a district, and I move the Amendment in preference to No. 9, which is in the name of my hon. Friend. The clause will then run in the form in which it stood when the Bill was in "another place."
  Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 1, to leave out the words "satisfied by the evidence before it," and insert "of opinion."—((Mr. John Morley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that evidence as to the general state of a district may easily be brought within the cognizance of the Court. I do not see how a Superior Court is to decide an appeal unless it knows the grounds on which the appeal is founded. I do not think the kind of evidence which will be brought before the Court would be in the slightest degree disputed.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I challenge hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite to say whether it is not the fact that the words proposed by the right hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) are not the words commonly and ordinarily used in an Act of Parliament. Take the Land Act or the Arrears Act, and it will be found that the phrase "of opinion" is used dozens of times, and that the words "satisfied by the evidence" are only a clumsy interpretation of that phrase, and are words that are never employed. I will not say that they have no meaning; but, at any rate, it is a phrase which it is not usual to introduce
  760
  into an Act of Parliament I would ask the Government to give a reason why they use them now. It is evidently a matter to which they attach, some importance, because originally the words were not used by their own draftsman.
  MR. R. T. REID&c.): I hope that even if it is only to save expense the Government will accept this Amendment. I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) is quite correct. I do not think it is usual to find them; but I do not say that the words "if the Court is satisfied by the evidence before it" are never found in Acts of Parliament. There are often matters so commonly proved before the Court, or so well known, that the Court will say—"You need not take the trouble of proving them."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): What is contemplated by the Government is this—that when an application goes before the Court, the County Court Judge should proceed on matters which are there before him, and which can be discussed by the parties. It would be a serious matter if a County Court Judge were to say—"From the matters which are within my knowledge I declare that this reduction should be made." There may be no statement before him, and the parties may dispute the accuracy of the views of the County Court Judge; and, therefore, it is only proper that matters should be proved before him. This is a matter not only of moment to the landlord, but to the tenant also, for the County Court Judge might say—"I am satisfied that a 5 per cent reduction is ample;" or he might say—"I think the reduction should be 25 per cent." Unquestionably this is a matter which must be heard in Court. The hon. Gentleman will observe that the County Court Judge is to be satisfied that the inability to pay the rent is not caused by the fault of the tenant. I cannot help thinking that the difficulty which has been raised is rather of an ideal character.
  SIR HENRY JAMES: I should like to suggest a course which would probably save much time to the Committee. I should think that my right hon. Friend's object would be gained if he were to omit the words "by the evidence before it."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree to that.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I shall be perfectly willing to accept the suggestion of my right hon. and learned Friend.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 1, to leave out the words "by the evidence before it."—(Mr. John Morley.)
  Question, "That the words 'by the evidence before it' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: The. Amendment I now propose has really been discussed on various occasions before. It deals with the case of seizing the necessary material for carrying on the operations of the farms, and it assumes that the Court will exercise some discretion in fixing the amount of the arrears.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Which Amendment is the hon. Member speaking to?
  MR. O'DOHERTY: No. 12.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I called the hon. Member in respect of No. 10.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: Then I will propose Amendment No. 12, simply for the purpose of seeing whether the Government can agree, upon what shall be the procedure under which the Court is to be satisfied. I must say I contemplate with horror what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says—namely, that the tenants are to come into Court, and that the whole time of the Session is to be occupied upon these matters which should be transacted in the office in conformity with Schedules, as in the Arrears Act. If it is necessary in the case of solvent tenants, it surely is more necessary in the case of insolvent tenants. The solvent tenant is able to pay his rent, and, presumably, able to employ legal assistance. You are proposing to compel a man who is insolvent to employ a solicitor, and to use machinery which is of a most expensive character. No solicitor will act without his ordinary fees, which in the case of the poor are almost prohibitive. Undoubtedly, in the interest of the poorer tenants, the machinery which you should adopt should be something like what I suggest. A valuer would be of no use, because, although he may be able to tell
  762
  the value of the farm, he has no power I to measure the position of a man's stock, and the position he occupies in respect to the crops. I think that such an Amendment as that I now propose is one worthy of consideration at the hands of the Government.
  Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 2, after the word "it," to insert the words "by the report of the Sub-Commissioners us hereinafter provided."—(Mr. Doherty.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GIBSON: I hardly think it k proper that this matter should be left to the Land Commissioners. In my opinion, the best way for the tenant in Ireland to get a reduction is to come into Court without a solicitor and say he is too poor to employ one. [An hon. MEMBER: How is he to go to Dublin?] The Amendment is one which the Government really cannot accept, and I do not think the hon. Member is really disposed to press it.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: It is quite certain that the tenant is not a much for the agent, match loss for the agent and landlord joined. The landlord and agent will be in Court to prove the debt against the tenant, who, it is quite possible, is not even able to speak English. It is ridiculous to suppose that a man in the position of an Irish tenant can go into Court and argue satisfactorily the question of the fall of prices. Unless some such Amendment as I suggest is adopted you will certainly deliver the man into the hands of his enemies.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. R. T. REID&c.): I beg to propose to insert, after the word "that," in line 2, page 15—
  "the rent in respect of which such proceedings are brought, or any portion of it, is in fact an unfair rent, or that."
  As this is linked, so to speak, with other Amendments further down, it is as well that I should read the clause as it will stand if my Amendments, of which this is the first, are agreed to, a consummation which, I believe, is not impossible. The clause will read—
  "In any proceedings for the recovery of a holding to which this section applies for non-payment of rent;"
  and then the words of the right hon.

  763
  Gentleman the Chief Secretary have to be inserted—
  "or in any action for debt or damages by any person against the tenant of such holding, if the Court in which the proceedings are pending is satisfied that the rent in respect of which such proceedings are brought, or any portion of it, is in fact an unfair rent, or that the tenant of the holding is unable to satisfy by an immediate payment in full the landlord's claim for arrears of rent for which the proceedings are brought, and for costs, and that such inability does not arise from his own conduct, act, or default, the Court may or shall"
  do what is described. I pause there, because the point of the clause on which we are now is upon what condition or conditions shall the equitable jurisdiction of the Court arise. Now, the clause has been altered so as to enable the equitable jurisdiction to be used in the case of tenants unable to pay their debts; but I do not wish to deal with that subject now. I wish to treat this clause as if it related only to questions as between landlord and tenant, which, for the purpose of this Amendment, I may well do. The clause, as between landlord and tenant, proposes to confer relief of a certain kind upon the tenant in one contingency alone, and that is that the tenant shall be unable to pay any rent at all. The clause as it stands is really in the nature of an eleemosynary clause; it is a relief clause, a clause to give the tenant certain equitable relief in relation to rent if, and because, he is unable to pay the rent. I must say I see considerable difficulty in principle in giving a man relief from a contract simply upon the ground that he is unable to discharge the contract. That seems to me to be a doctrine of so dangerous a character that if you proceed to extend it you will find in a short time it will take you a great deal further than you contemplate. I think, Sir, that the clause, so far as the conditions are concerned, is framed upon the wrong principle. The clause, in my opinion, is not sound in the way in which it is drawn; it ought to be dependent on the existence of equity as between landlord and tenant; it ought to be dependent on the fact, not that the tenant is unable to pay the rent, although I think that, in the present condition of Ireland, and for reasons I will mention presently, ought also to be included, but because there is something in the rental which is unjust and unfair, and that he ought
  764
  not to be called upon to pay. Under the present clause this state of things will arise—no man, until he is absolutely beggared, will be able to get relief. The man, ex hypothesis, who for the last 18 months has been called upon to pay an excessive rent, who has been unable to pay, and in respect to whose holding there are arrears, will obtain no benefit or relief under this clause I think we should put this clause upon a right footing—namely, that if a man's arrears, or any part of them, are in respect of an unfair rent, he should receive equitable relief. I, therefore, venture to read again the words I propose to insert. One of the conditions which will entitle the tenant to relief under this clause will be, if my Amendment is accepted, that—
  "The rent in respect of which such proceedings are brought, or any portion of it, is in fact an unfair rent."
  Whether the tenant is able to pay or not, whether the tenant is solvent or not, it seems to me that unless this clause is contrary to principle you ought not to deprive him of the benefits of this clause merely by reason that he has not exhausted all his resources. I think I may put my Amendment on a much higher moral level than that of the clause of the Government. I do not propose to omit the other contingency—namely, that the tenant is unable to satisfy by an immediate payment in full the landlord's claim, and for this reason—that I think that in the present condition of affairs in Ireland, and having regard to the fact that unfair rent has for so many years been paid by tenants, a fact that has been fully proved by the decisions of the Land Commissioners ever since they began their operations; this, in a period of difficulty and distress, is due as a return from the landlord to the tenant on the balance of charges. For this reason alone I wish relief to be given, not only where there is unjust rent, but also where the tenant is unable to pay his rent through no fault of his own.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 15, line 2,after the word "that," to insert "the rent in respect of which such proceedings are brought, or any portion of it, is in fact an unfair rent, or that."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted,"
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. R. T. Reid) has denounced the principle on which we proceed in this Bill, and has stated a principle of his own, which he thought much superior. I confess that, even after his statement of the comparative merits of the two principles, I think our principle is the preferable of the two, The principle that he denounced was that we should relieve a person from fulfilling an obligation when it was quite clear that he could not fulfil it. If you are to relieve anybody from the result of a bargain, it should be done, surely, when it is proved that through no fault of his own he is not in a condition to fulfil it. Is that a new principle? It is the principle which underlies all bankruptcy. The entire bankruptcy legislation is founded upon that, and no other principle.
  MR. R. T. REID: It is always founded on the principle of cessio bonorum.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman will not deny that the principle of bankruptcy is to say to a man who finds himself unable to fulfil his obligation—"You cannot fulfil your obligation. It is for the good of the State that you should, to a certain extent, be relieved from the weight of your obligation, that you may again become a useful citizen." we have, in one sense, restricted that here, because we require that the inability must not be due to a man's own fault. If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks we have gone too far, he ought to recollect that what we have done in this matter is to give a certain measure of relief to people who cannot fulfil their obligations. That, as I have said, is the principle of bankruptcy; but it differs from it in two respects; it does not require cessio bonorum, but it requires that a man shall not be able to fulfil his obligations through any fault of his own. What does the hon. and learned Gentleman wish to substitute for it?
  MR. R. T. REID: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain. I am afraid I did not put the matter as clearly as I might have done. I did not complain, under the circumstances, of the alternative to my proposal; but I say it does not exhaust the necessities of the case.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: By the clause as amended by the hon. and learned
  766
  Gentleman a man who is unable to fulfil his obligation will not be relieved. The hon. and learned Gentleman must know perfectly well that there are two reasons why we cannot accept his Amendment. The first is that it is, in fact, a revival of judicial rents and a retrospective revival. That alone prevents the Government accepting the Amendment, because we have laid down that the only two methods we can accept for revising judicial rents are either through bankruptcy or by means of temporary abatement. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman describes these contracts as unjust contracts, and this brings us to the second reason why the Government cannot accept his Amendment. I have explained that the Government cannot accept the view that the rents, which have been fixed by the State through the Courts appointed by the State, can properly be described as unjust rents. Therefore, to stigmatize on the face of our Bill these judicial rents which the Party opposite have forced the landlords to accept—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"]—I do not say that in any controversial spirit—to stigmatize on the face of our Bill these judicial rents as unjust rents is a course we cannot accept, nor do I see, on the hon. and learned Gentleman's own showing, why these rents are specially unjust. How do these contracts differ from any others? I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to explain that. Can he deny that in every country where commerce is largely developed people are constantly making contracts, which the change of circumstances arising subsequently to the making of the contract render it difficult, onerous, and even impossible to fulfil. Will he deny that? If he does not deny that, will he point out how contracts of that kind differ in their sanctity from contracts as regard judicial rents? If they do differ, I think they differ in being less sacred. I am afraid we are travelling rather far from the details of this clause, and I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will see it is impossible, at all events, that the Government can agree with his Amendment—that we are precluded from doing so by all our declarations. We must really adhere to the phraseology of our Bill in regard to this matter.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It appears to me that this

  767
  Amendment raises the whole question in a not inconvenient form, because if it is passed in its present shape it will practically enable the Court to determine what is to be done in regard to arrears. I put an Amendment on the Paper to Clause 3, with the view of raising; this question; but, in deference to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), and Tinder the impression that the matter might, on the whole, be more conveniently raised upon the clause now under discussion, I did not move it. I shall, therefore, say a few words on this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland appears to think that this Amendment merely aims at unjust rents in the case of judicial rents; that is far from being the case. There may be, and there are, cases of unfair rents other than judicial rents. The real fact is that there are 250,000 tenants in Ireland who have not gone into Court. A very large proportion of these have been deterred from going into Court by reason of the arrears of rent which they have never been able to pay. There are a number of cases of unfair rents which have been for years past unfair, and the arrears arising therefrom have been used as a means of preventing the tenants appealing to the Court. In Clause 3 we have enabled the tenant, in cases where ejectment is brought, to make application at the same time for judicial rent; and also, by another clause, we have enabled the judicial rents to be revised. Let me suppose that in any of these cases the rent in the future shall be lower than it has been in the past. If there be arrears in respect of that unfair rent it is practically determined by the Court that those arrears are unfair, and that they are larger than they ought to be—that they are in respect of rent which is unfair and excessive. It appears to me that on that assumption it is only right and fair that the Court should have the power, when it is settling proceedings and settling the action contemplated under this clause, to determine that those arrears of rent are unfair, and I that they ought to be reduced. The Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. T. Reid) practically points to that. I presume it will be followed by other Amendments, to enable the Court to reduce the amount of arrears in proportion as they may think
  768
  fit; and, in view of that future determination, it appears to me that the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend is a necessary precedent to them; and, therefore, I think the committee should accept it. I feel satisfied of this—that unless, in some way or other, the Government is able to deal in this clause with arrears of rent, it will not effect a settlement of this great question. I do not say that this power should be given for all time to come. I should be perfectly satisfied if the clause dealt with arrears now existing, and not with arrears which may arise hereafter. Unless you can deal with the question of the existing arrears, which, I believe, form the difficulty of thousands of tenants at this moment, you will not settle the question and this Bill, although it contains many wise and prudent provisions, will not bring about a settlement of affairs. I urge upon the Government in the strongest way I can to take this opportunity of dealing with the question. Unless they deal with it, I am afraid that in the coming winter such a state of things will arise that they will have to return to the consideration of the question next Session.
  MR. LEA: Like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), I had an Amendment down to a previous clause dealing with the question of arrears of rent. I am aware there are many large tenants in Ireland who have arrears of rent, and who fear to come into the Land Court. Their rents are high, and the arrears have been accumulating because they dare not come into Court. Unless the clause is amended in the way proposed, I am afraid it will not be as effective as it ought to be; it will not be as effective as the rest of the Bill. I am afraid the first error the Government made was in not accepting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness. We are now getting deeper into the mire, and the Bankruptcy Clauses may become a necessity, objectionable as they are.
  MR. CHANCE: Although I am an Irish Member, everyone who sits on the Treasury Bench will agree with me in this—that the tenant who is struggling along is as worthy an object for assistance as the man who is absolutely ruined. If they do agree

  769
  with that proposition, I ask them to consider the precise phraseology of their clause. We find that the condition, precedent to any relief whatever under this clause, is that the tenant must have been sued and judgment recovered against him. I think that is good evidence that the tenant is not in very flourishing condition. But, not satisfied with that fact as an evidence that the tenant is struggling, the Government proceed to propose that the Court must be satisfied that the tenant cannot possibly pay the rent. The condition under which a tenant is to get relief under this clause is that he is absolutely ruined. That appears to me to be an eminently unsatisfactory state of affairs, and the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. T. Reid) is pointed at that state of things. My hon. and learned Friend proposes to include within the clause not only the tenants who are absolutely and wholly ruined, but also the tenants who are struggling on under excessive rents. Surely that is an extremely reasonable proposition. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has pointed out, my hon. and learned Friend does not, by his Amendment, interfere with the jurisdiction which has already been given to the Court under the clause as drafted now, but he provides an alternative and an additional jurisdiction which will enable relief to be given, although the tenant is not absolutely ruined, where, in the opinion of the Court, the rent is too high. In the first place, the Government decline to brand any judicial rent as excessive rent. The answer to that is obvious. Firstly, the clause does not deal with judicial rents alone, but deals with all rents; and, secondly, even as to judicial rents, the Report of the Royal Commission over which Lord Cowper presided, and which Commission set under the patronage of Her Majesty's present Government, distinctly stigmatized a certain class of judicial rents as unfair rents. The second objection of the Government is that they have never departed from their original intention—namely, that only a temporary abatement should be made in the rent. This clause applies to specific arrears of rent. It enables the Court to grant an abatement in respect to the specific amount of arrears which have been included in these rents,
  770
  and therefore it seems that the second objection of the Government does not apply at all. For these reasons I do trust the Government will reconsider their position. They have already included in the clause debts other than those for rent. We are now discussing the principle of the provisions of this clause, which are solely applicable to rents. We are now discussing that branch of the clause which deals with arrears of rent and nothing else, and it seems to me that it would be reasonable to extend the clause in this portion of it to tenants who are struggling, but who are not yet completely ruined. I do trust the Government will reconsider the position and agree to this Amendment.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I submit to hon. Gentlemen that as it is impossible for the Government to agree to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. R. T. Reid), it is very desirable we should come to a decision on the question without further delay. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland has fully stated the argument on which we rely. We cannot re-open the question as to whether these are unfair rents or not. Under these circumstances, and looking to the great necessity there is for making progress, I trust the Committee will now come to a decision.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): It is clear that the question of arrears of rent should be dealt with some way or other. I think, however, the Amendment would very much complicate the clause; and under such circumstances I appeal to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid) not to press it to a Division, but try to raise the question of arrears in another form.
  MR. PARNELL: This clause is divided into parts, and I think ray hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. T. Reid) will agree that his Amendment will only have reference to the question of staying proceedings. He will also, I am sure, see that this is not a matter of such importance as renders it necessary to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing.
  MR. R. T. REID: If hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House think I

  771
  ought to withdraw the Amendment, I have much pleasure in doing so.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 3, leave out from "the" to "costs," in line 4, and insert "judgment and."
  Question, "That the words 'landlord's claim for arrears of rent, for which, the proceedings are brought and for,' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words 'Judgment and,' be here inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. E. T. REID&c.): The Amendment I have now to propose is one which will need very few observations from me in introducing'. It is to omit the words—
  "And there is reasonable ground for believing that, having regard to the interests of both the landlord and tenant, an extension of time to pay ought to be granted."
  I do not quite see on what ground or principle the Government are proceeding, from whatever point of view you look at it. Let me take the case of a tenant who is unable to satisfy, by immediate payment in full, the landlord's claim for arrears of rent, a tenant whose inability does not arise from his own conduct, act or default. If that is not sufficient ground for relief, I do not see well what is. Why should it be necessary that, having regard to the' interest of both landlord and tenant, an extension of time ought to be granted. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman; the Chief Secretary how it can be to the interest of the landlord that the debt should be postponed? How can it possibly be so unless there is a prospect that the tenant may hereafter become possessed of sufficient means to pay off the whole of the arrears? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider all that is involved in the clause. The clause surely ought to be an efficacious one. Suppose the Judge having to administer equity asks himself this question—'Here is a man who owes one year's rent, who is to go on paying full rent; is there any use whatever in the interest of the landlord in postponing the payment of the arrears?" The Judge could not answer in any other way than "no," unless tie thought there was a prospect of the tenant being able
  772
  to recover his lost ground. If this clause resolves itself into this—that in the case of tenants who are now unable to pay rent, and are unable to pay in the near future, some relief should be given, it seems to me the clause would be of very little use. I hope the Government will see their way to omit these words.
  MR. PARNELL: I have an Amendment before that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment commenced at the end of line 4, instead of at the end of line 5. I think it is of great importance that there should be left out—
  "That such inability does not arise from his own conduct, act, or default."
  MR. R. T. REID: I was not aware there was a previous Amendment.
  MR. PARNELL: Let me point out that unless the tenant proves a negative he will not be able to obtain the relief provided in this section. I think it is right that where a tenant is a notorious drunkard, or a person who has not cultivated his farm properly, or who has got into debt by expenditure which he ought not to have indulged in, the relief of the Court may fairly be withheld. That might be provided for by some general words "having regard to all the circumstances of the case." I do not think it is well for the Government to put in limitations of this kind against the tenant and in favour of the landlord. There may be many considerations which the Court would take into consideration besides this particular one, such as the badness of the seasons or the scarcity or failure of the crops. On the other hand, the landlord would be entitled to claim on his own behalf that the tenant had drunk his money away, that he had spent money in things which it was not necessary he should have. These are matters which should be left to the Court, and if you bind the Court down to any one particular set of considerations you may run the risk of making the whole clause useless. How is the tenant to bring witnesses into Court to prove he is not a drunkard? Of course, he has his general character to rely upon, but he cannot bring witnesses into Court to swear a negative. I submit that these words are superfluous.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 15, line 4, to omit "and that such inability does not arise from his own conduct, act, or default."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Parnell's) chief objection to these words appears to rest on the supposition that they would throw on the tenant the onus of proving he has not drunk his money away, or not mismanaged his farm. I apprehend that would not be the case. The Court would have to be convinced that the inability was not the result of the tenant's conduct, act, or default; but the onus of showing he was not guilty of any of these vices would not be with the tenant. It must be recollected, when we are considering these words, we are giving a very wide power to the Court. We are giving the Court power to deal with every single case in which the tenant cannot pay through causes other than his own fault. The clause is of such a wide application that I do not think there ought to be any objection to this limiting phrase. I cannot imagine that it can militate against the justice or even the generosity of the clause. It is right we should give such directions to the Court as will enable them to judge of the intentions of Parliament in. this matter. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to Press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. R. T. REID: I beg to move the Amendment to which. I have already spoken.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 15, line 5, to leave out from the word "and," to the word "granted" in line 8, inclusive."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARL WEBSTER): It would not be prudent or wise in the interest of the fair working of the clause that these words should be omitted. Those words are general, and will not impair the clause.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I think the Government would do well to accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. T. Reid). This clause is of a hypercritical character. It requires the Court to accept a view which the Court cannot believe in reality. There must be many cases in which a poor man, through misfortune, is unable to pay, and it is very desirable to grant him time.
  MR. DILLON: I hope the Government will reconsider this matter. Suppose a landlord comes into Court and states it is enormously to his interest to get hold of the farm; that he wants to give the farm to a relative of his own. How is a poor tenant protested in such a case, having regard to the statements that have been made?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: These are the words—"having regard to the interests of both the landlord and tenant."
  MR. DILLON: These words are of a very alarming character to us. What is the object of leaving in those words? The only interest the landlord can have is to get rid of the tenant.
  MR. SERJEANT MADDEN: I do not think that any Court or Judge would for a moment put the construction upon the section which the hon. Member seems to apprehend and for this reason that what the Court has to determine is whether an extension of time ought to be granted. That will be the judicial decision, and these words are merely an instruction to the judge in coming to a conclusion to have regard to the interests both of the landlord and the tenant. I do not think any Judge would take the view of the hon. Member—namely, that if the landlord came in and said—"It is against my interest that an extension of time should be granted," there would be a deadlock. The Judge has to say whether an extension of time ought to be granted, and in deciding that question he must have regard to the interest of both landlord and tenant.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: The observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Madden) tend to show that there is great danger in retaining these words in the Bill. It is said these are simply words of instruction. I contend that a Judge exercising equitable

  775
  jurisdiction requires no suck instruction. A Judge surely knows what his business is. We must assume that the case is laid fairly before him, and these words he may construe into words of limitation of his jurisdiction. If those words are not in the clause he will know he is bound as a Judge to have duo regard to the interests of landlord and tenant alike. If those words are retained it will be open to the landlord to show that an extension of time must not be given. It will be open to the landlord to show that the man cannot possibly live on his holding, as we have often heard it stated, if he has nothing at all to pay. The judge will have to take one side or the other; he will naturally have to decide contrary to the interests of one or the other. Those words make it impossible for a Judge to exercise an equitable jurisdiction with that freedom which I think a Judge is entitled to claim. A Judge, in exercising jurisdiction, ought to be allowed a free hand. It will be extremely dangerous to introduce words of this kind which, limit the action of the County Court Judges in Ireland.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I agree with the hon. Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny) that what we have heard from the hon. and learned Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster) and from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Serjeant Madden) shows that these words are not what at first sight they appeared to us to be—namely, idle surplusage. It is now evident the words are intended to have a limiting effect upon the discretion of the Court. But I put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid), and I call the attention of the Government to this, that my own Amendment is less open to the objection urged by the Government than the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. My Amendment will make the clause run "and there is reasonable ground for granting au extension of time." I propose to retain some of the words which my hon. and learned Friend proposes to leave out—namely, "there is reasonable ground." I submit that these words give a sufficient guide to the Court in the exercise of its discretion, but that the words "interests of both
  776
  the landlord and the tenant," do limit the discretion of the Court.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I understand the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman, but he will observe that the previous words refer to the conduct of the tenant—"such inability does not arise from his own conduct, act, or default." The right hon. Gentleman proposes that the clause shall then read—"and there is reasonable ground for granting an extension of time." I think that if the words respecting the interest of the landlord and the tenant are left out it will be said that there is, practically speaking, a direction to the Court not to regard the interests of the landlord at all. It does seem to me that there are cases in which, having regard to the relations between landlord and tenant, it is not to the interest of cither or both that an extension of time should be granted. It is only proper that some such directory words as these should be inserted.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I only wish to say it is far from my intention to do any injustice whatever to the landlord. I am perfectly sure that the Court would inevitably take into account the interest of the landlord.
  MR. PARNELL: I trust the Government will agree to leave out these words, especially having regard to the fact that the clause has been made, by a previous Amendment, to apply to all classes of creditors. The time to be granted will be in respect of debts due by the tenant to anybody, whether landlord or shopkeeper; in fact, an Amendment stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to omit the words "landlord and tenant," and insert "plaintiff and defendant." I should like to know how the Court is to approach the question from the point of view of the interest of the tenant. I think it would be far better to leave this matter to the common sense of the Judge. The Courts of Ireland are not so much in favour of the tenant that you need be in the least afraid to entrust them with this power.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think there is something in what has fallen from the hon. Member; but, perhaps, under the circumstances of the case, it would be well that we should accede to the request made to us. I should prefer, however,

  777
  the words of the right hon. Gentleman opposite rather than those of the hon. Member.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay), in page 15, line 8, after the word "pay," to insert "or reduction of amount." In the absence of the hon. and learned Member I beg to move that these words be inserted. I know, of course, that this proposal as to arrears is a very serious matter. It introduces practically a new principle into the clause; but my hon. and learned Friend desired to raise that question, and I think this would be the best Amendment on which to raise the whole question of arrears. Generally speaking, I concur with what fell from the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) to-night, that unless the Committee deals with the question of arrears, half of its difficult task will be left undone. I very strongly opposed the Bankruptcy Clauses, and I can understand the Government saying we must either accept this clause as it stands or accept those Bankruptcy Clauses. Well, I am very far from saying that the Government are not logical in taking up that position; but, at the same time, the whole question of arrears is so difficult, and this appears to me to be the best way of dealing with, it, that I venture, without hesitation, to propose this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 8, after the word "pay," insert the words "or reduction of amount."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The hon. Gentleman has adverted to the debate which took place rather earlier in the evening. When the hon. Member for Cork made a suggestion, I gave the views of the Government on the subject. In the course of the remarks I then had to make, I pointed out that the proper way of dealing with this question, as we thought, was by bankruptcy—in point of fact, I said there appeared to me no other way. I stated, at the same time,
  778
  that we did not adhere to the Bankruptcy Clauses, and would be glad to adopt any machinery simpler and cheaper, and that as the word "bankruptcy" seemed to cause great offence, we should make it a point not to adhere to that. At the same time, when I put forward the dilemma with regard to bankruptcy, I did not put it in a controversial spirit. I did not moan to express to hon. Members—"It is too late to speak on this question now. You told us you would not have the Bankruptcy Clauses, and therefore you shall have nothing." I did not moan to adopt that tone at all, and I should be very sorry if hon. Members have taken me as intending to do so. Of course, we cannot accept this Amendment. Under the alteration suggested it will be in the power of the Court to diminish one by one the claims of each creditor as he comes up for judgment. First comes the gombeen man, and he is cut down 20 per cent; then comes somebody else, and he is also cut down 20 per cent; then comes the landlord, and he is cut down 20 per cent. You cannot have a rational system of bankruptcy carried out on those lines. The essence of bankruptcy is that the Bankruptcy Judge shall take account of all the debts and assets of the debtor, and make a general arrangement with the creditors. I am afraid, for these reasons, the Amendment introduced in its new form would work even more inequitably than in its old form, and I would ask the hon. Member not to press it. I would ask him, at the same time, to see if he could not devise some simpler method of dealing en bloc, in one general survey, with all the debts and assets of a debtor. If anyone can strike out a simpler method of carrying out the object we all have in view, I am sure the Government would give it their most favourable consideration.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I am sure hon. Members interested in the tenants of Ireland will make a fearful mistake if they reject the Bankruptcy Clauses of this Bill without substituting something in their stead. I take the view that it would be most desirable that a simpler form of composition should be adopted rather than the complicated form of Bankruptcy Clauses which we had in the Bill originally; but when, we are told that we

  779
  are to finish the Committee stage of this Bill to-morrow evening, and when we see how late it has got to-night, it seems to me that it must be au extremely difficult thing' to recast the measure in the way suggested. It does seem, to me that though the present Bill is open to the objection the hon. Member has stated, yet to deal with creditors piecemeal and not as a body, seems to me even more objectionable. It seems to me that the Committee must put in words such as those now proposed, or words of similar importance or character, in order to enable the Judge to make a composition in respect of the various debts which press upon the tenant—either that or you must accept the Bankruptcy Clauses, and I do not think it is altogether out of the question for hon. Gentleman below the Gangway to do that if the clauses were submitted in a modified form.
  MR. DILLON: This Bill was introduced to deal with the question of Irish land, and not with the whole question of bankruptcy or the pecuniary position of the Irish people. By including under the operation of this clause in the insidious way the Government propose, this question of the general indebtedness of the Irish tenantry the Government are drawing us inch by inch towards the Niagara Falls of the Bankruptcy Clauses. I ask the Committee to reflect—is it not enough, at this period of the Session, to deal with the one great crying grievance of the Irish tenants—namely, the question of excessive rents without trusting ourselves upon the limitless and bottomless ocean of the general solvency of the Irish people. No one that I am aware of, except hon. Members, in the course of these debates which they have forced on us, have asked the Government for a general system of bankruptcy for the Irish tenantry. Those who represent the people of Ireland have not asked, and do not ask for it. What we ask for is, the remission of excessive rents. The Government have admitted that there are excessive rents; in fact, that is the basis of their measure; it is to get rid of that evil, to relieve the Irish tenants from it, that they have brought in their Bill; but they must not give us this clause as an ultimatum. We desire that the debts of the Irish tenants should be dealt with as between man and man. We
  780
  say—"Why not deal with debt after debt as it arises? "If the Government are going to introduce this system it should be in the least expensive form. If they are going to deal with the shopkeepers, the gombeen men, and the bankers as well—that is to say, with the whole liability of the tenantry of Ireland, the operation may be disastrous in the extreme. I would say—"Why not leave the Court to deal with each debt, and to act on its own judgment in the matter?" The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary seems to be in this position—and I make no apology for going into this matter—he has delivered to us this ultimatum—"Either you must give no relief to the tenantry in the payment of impossible rents, or else you must accept our Bankruptcy Clauses in some shape or form." That is a terrible alternative he places before us. The people of Ireland, landlords, tenants, and traders have unanimously condemned these Bankruptcy Clauses, and now the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary offers to us what I do not hesitate to describe as a terrible alternative. He practically says this—"Leave the evicted tenants and all those who are suffering from the arrears of impossible rents—leave them in despair and without a remedy, or else take our Bankruptcy Clauses." I should have to consider for a long time before I could make up my mind as to what choice to make in this terrible alternative. I would ask the Government to reconsider their position, and the position of the Committee before they insist upon this alternative. We have reached one of those great turning points of the Bill where it is to be decided whether the measure is to be a healing measure or a failure. I must say it is not must to put the ordinary traders of Ireland upon a level with the landlords. I speak with knowledge of the country and its circumstances, and of events which have happened there when I say that the creditors of the Irish tenants during the years of distress through, which the country has lately passed have exhibited a most praiseworthy forbearance. There are shopkeepers in every town, and against these traders the people have their remedy. The traders live upon the custom of the people, and you will find that where their own good feeling might not lead

  781
  them to treat the tenantry well—you will find in most parts of the country that the traders will shrink even in their own interests from unduly pressing the people to pay their debts. The traders of the country show such an amount of indulgence to their debtors that if the landlords in the past had only followed their example, this land question would never have been brought to the front as it has been. The traders live amongst the people, and trust the people, and respond to the public opinion of the country. The landlords, on the other hand, do not live amongst the people, or understand them, or respond to public opinion in the country. I tell the Government that they are importing a complication into this question which does not exist in fact. The traders of Ireland and their debtors will settle their disputes if you let them alone. There is no call for you to stand between the tenantry and those with whom they trade. All this has been brought about through the ignorance of the Government of the circumstances of Irish life. The disputes between the landlords and tenants of Ireland arise from the unfortunate position the landlords occupy towards the tenants of that country. You have stepped between those parties by your legislation, and now you propose to step between two other classes in Ireland, between two classes in whose cases those conditions have not existed which existed formerly between the landlords and the tenantry. The Irish people are well able to manage their own trading affairs. It is a most extraordinary position to refuse to step in between the landlords and tenants unless you also intervene between tenants and their bankers and tradesmen; and I warn the Government that the course they are pursuing cannot lead to good results. They are dislocating the whole credit system of Ireland, and I caution them that the wisest man in the House cannot foresee where the course they are embarked upon will lead them to.
  MR. MARUM: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that I have a sort of compromise on the Paper. It is an Amendment which, if taken in connection with the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Finlay), is a sort of compromise, The hon. and learned Gentleman says
  782
  that the Court shall decide as to what instalments of arrears shall be paid, and also what reduction shall be made in the amount owing; whereas, I say in my Amendment that in default of an agreement between the parties, no order for any lesser sum than the full amount of the arrears of rent and costs shall be made by the Court in satisfaction thereof, save within three years from and after the passing of the Act. This question was discussed in "another place," and an eminent Lord proposed an Amendment of this kind, which, however, was rejected. In consequence of that I drafted this Amendment—No. 37. My idea was, that as this proposal had been refused as a permanent motion, it would be a compromise to say that the arrangement giving the Court power to fix a lesser sum than the full amount of the arrears of rent, should not remain in operation more than three years after the passing of the Act. That would prevent the clause from being permanent, limiting it to the period of three years. What I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is that my Amendment only touches arrears of rent. I have had considerable experience of the wants and interests, and also of the condition of the people of Ireland; and I quite agree with the observation that it is not necessary to interfere with the commercial debts of the tenantry. It would be dangerous to do so. One of the things most regarded in Ireland is capital, and next to capital, credit; and if you touch these commercial debts, you will most seriously interfere with credit. If the right hon. Gentleman will not make the principle of allowing the Court to reduce the arrears permanent, I trust, at all events, he will give us this compromise I propose.
  MR. A, J. BALFOUR: As to these three words I have already spoken on the point. I am sorry the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) should flavour his speeches with so many hard words against Her Majesty's Government. Worthless and insidious and such like words he showers upon us almost every time he speaks, regardless of the fact that we are doing our best according to our lights to devise a practical scheme in the interests of all the parties in this matter. As to the principle which should govern

  783
  our conduct, I may say this, one hon. I Gentleman says that without the Bankruptcy Clauses, or something equivalent to them, the Bill will be a failure. I cannot take the view of the situation that that hon. Member takes. I never disguised from the Committee or from the House that I should prefer to see clauses of some sort in the Bill which would relieve tenants from their legal indebtedness; but I do think that the system of the spreading out the arrears under the guidance of the County Court Judge will go a good way to meet the difficulty which now exists in Ireland. I think that arrears of an absurdly extensive and unjust character will be dealt with by the County Court Judge in a manner which will compel the landlords—as the phrase goes—voluutarily to come to the terms. I may hero say that it has all along been my opinion that the best and most satisfactory clement of this clause is the element which may be described as voluntary agreement under pressure. That is a pretty accurate description of the probable operation of the clause. I believe that the hon. Gentleman takes too dark a view of the situation when he says that in the absence of the Bankruptcy Clauses this Bill will do nothing to relieve the tenants from the arrears of rent. I believe if we had only arrears of rent due by the tenants to the landlords to deal with, a great deal would be done by this clause to relieve the tenants of that burden.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: The Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman describes it, will confer an immense been upon the people of Ireland; but the right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the contention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that in interfering with the general credit of the country you are embarking on a shoreless sea; and I must say, for my part, listening very carefully to what the Government have said, that I cannot understand why they should do it unless it be for the purpose of colouring the concessions which they have made against the landlords. They want to appear to put the landlord on the same footing as other creditors; but I think a hundred reasons can be adduced—many of them have been adduced to-night—why the House should not regard the landlord
  784
  as not being on the same footing as other creditors. It is surprising that a Party of statesmen, who are so adverse and so chary of interfering with sanctity of contract, should spontaneously, and without any pressure from any Party or section, attempt to bring this new class of cases before the Courts. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the load of indebtedness apart from rent under which the Irish tenants labour. A witness before the Cowper Commission stated that in some parts of Ireland the indebtedness outside the rent is as much as eight or 10 times the amount of the rent. I have taken some trouble to find out what foundation there is for this very alarming estimate, and all I can say is that from the best testimony I can get that is an enormous over estimate of the amount of the indebtedness. I do not know what hon. Gentlemen from Ireland will say, but I am told that in those figures the indebtedness is four or five times over stated. That being the case, and this load of indebtedness being, as I believe it will be found to be, very much less than the right hon. Gentleman supposes, is one reason the more why we should think twice before giving this enormous extension to the Bill of the Government.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: As to the power for the County Court Judge to permit the tenants to pay instalments of arrears, which seems to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland the proper solution of this difficulty, I can only toll him that, according to my own knowledge and experience, the notion that the County Court Judges will spread the payment of arrears extending over two or three months over a period of four or five years is simply preposterous. Such a thing, if this clause passed in its present form, never would be heard of. Such instalments would never be granted. There is, therefore, no hope whatever on the instalment portion of the subject. What would be the effect between debtor and creditor in Ireland—between an unjust or harsh creditor who is pressing unduly upon the tenant, and a tenant? What will be the effect—I speak of the creditor who is pressing unjustly? I do not care who he is. If you give the tenant power to go into Court, and to say—"This is a harsh creditor, who will not make terms

  785
  with, me; all the other creditors are giving me 40 or 50 per cent—they are all giving me two or three years to find the money; but here is this Shylock who insists upon his pound of flesh, and I want you to treat him in the way that the other creditors are treated." If you give the tenant power to say that, it would not be a general measure of bankruptcy. There is no Court to come in and settle between these parties, and it is only with regard to arrears and debtors that the contest is going on. If you bring about a settlement in regard to those matters everything is settled. If you give solvent tenants three years to settle, by means of some self-working machinery, and make no arrangement for the amelioration of the condition of those for whom the Bill was brought in, no measure of a more ridiculous, and, so far as the House is concerned, of a more disgraceful character can be conceived. It would be a disgrace to this House to say we have been sitting hero for weeks in order to meet the case of men threatened with eviction, and who are harshly treated, and yet we quietly pass a Bill to meet occasions which have never arisen, and to relieve people who are in no difficulty at all at the present moment. The Government have provided a machinery which will provide for all tenants a reduction of rent; but that we should pass from this Bill without making provision to relieve some of the tenantry from crush, arrears which they bear, seems to me an absurdity. I object to the gombeen men who may have large dealings with the tenants of a particular estate having the power, if he chooses, to press those tenants, and to make them all bankrupts. That would be as objectionable a thing as to enable the landlords to make them bankrupts. I do not see why sufficient for the day is not the evil thereof. It is ridiculous to meet difficulties as to rent which have arisen, unless you also meet cases which have not arisen.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The difficulty that we are in arises from the first position the Committee took up. We should not have been in this difficulty but for the Division we had sometime ago this evening. We have here a clause which, I admit, to be a good one; it provides for certain things. It provides that a tenant shall have time to pay arrears, and that the Court shall have power to arrange in
  786
  stalments. Those of us who have had anything to do with tenants' affairs believe, that in addition to those powers, there should be power given to deal with arrears, and we believe that if power to deal with arrears is not given, the clause will be deprived of half its value. [An hon. MEMBER: No, of all its value.] I will not say of all its value. I believe that the landlord will often accept a composition which the Court will hare power of arranging; therefore, I do not agree that all the benefits of the clause will be lost; but I certainly think that it will be shorn of half its efficacy. My position is this, that it is absolutely necessary that we should have power given to the County Court Judge to reduce those arrears precisely because of those landlords who will not come to terms. We are told that that cannot be done, because we have now added shopkeepers and gombeen men to the clause. But I objected to their being added, and that is precisely the difficulty that we are in now. What I want the Government to see is this. I do not think it is fair when the Committee has got into a fix like this that they should throw upon private Members the duty of drafting clauses to get the Committee out of that difficulty. The whole House believes that something should be done. We cannot accept the Bankruptcy Clauses of the Government, which we believe to be dangerous and unworkable. Surely then it is the duty of the Government, with all the resources that they have at their command, to draft a clause which will deal with those arrears in a way that will relieve us of the difficulty that we are in now, and will relieve the tenants in Ireland from the difficulty in which they find themselves.
  MR. FINLAY: This Amendment, numbered 20 on the Paper, and Amendment numbered 33, which stands in my name, raise the same question, and I desire to say a few words with regard to them. If I rightly understood the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) at an earlier period of the evening, the intention of the Government is, that a provision with reference to payment by instalment should be made applicable only to actions for ejectment. Now, what I would suggest to the Government is this. If the Court is to

  787
  have power in any of the cases, which now fall within Section 22, to order payment by instalment, spread over any period of time that to the Court seems right, and to any amount that the Court seems right, surely it is right and proper that the Court should have poorer, if the parties will not come to terms, to say that a smaller sum than the whole amount, and arrears, and costs should he taken in satisfaction. I suggest that that is a reasonable course, and which may avoid difficulties. If the intention be, as I think, rightly apprehended to confine the provision for payment by instalment to cases of ejectment by the landlords, and for payment of the whole amount, by adopting my proposal the Government will get rid of the difficulty as to other creditors which is now introduced. But I would suggest to the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland that it would be convenient that where power is given to the Court to spread payment over, it may be a long period; and where the parties will not agree to the payment of a small sum in satisfaction, the Court should have the power to say—"let such and such a sum be taken," and so end the dispute. I hope some such course as that will be taken by the parties.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: It should be explained whether it is the intention of the Government to apply payment by instalment to cases of rent, and not to the case of other debts. It does seem as if it were intended that the Government should give power to allow instalments in the case of rent only, and not in the case of other creditors. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Finlay) has said that which may considerably alter the course of the debate, and I therefore should like the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to answer the question I have put to him.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I caught the hon. Gentleman's point aright he asks why we should not extend our instalment principle to debts other than the landlords. I should have no objection to doing that, but I am afraid there are technical difficulties in the way.
  MR. PARNELL: I consider the suggestion which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) has made is
  788
  eminently worthy of the consideration of the Government. He has pointed out that there should be no difficulty whatever in dealing with the question of extending the jurisdiction of the Court, and giving it power to reduce the amount of the arrears as well as providing for the instalment, if the Government had not refused to accept the Amendment earlier in the evening. But the Government having insisted on introducing a complication making all claims come in so far as the extension of time goes, they now if they can obviate the necessity for Bankruptcy Clauses, or modify the Bankruptcy Clauses, by extending the provision with regard to the reduction of the amount in the same way as they propose to leave the provision with, regard to fixing the instalments—that is to say, by continuing those two powers for the classes of debts due for rent, and not in respect of other claims. I think it is scarcely fair for the right hon. Gentleman to throw us back on the principle of making all creditors stand alike, and then when we offer to make all the creditors stand alike by extending the powers of this clause for the case of any judgment whatever, telling us that all those claims might be brought in simultaneously as they would be in bankruptcy. It is impossible to defeat bankruptcy, or even to modify Bankruptcy Clauses. But even if they could be so drafted or modified they would not be accepted by the Irish Members, and in my judgment they ought not to be accepted by the Irish Members, because there is a very great difference between allowing the shopkeeper to come in as a creditor under the provisions of this clause, and then when he does come in, subjecting him in common with the landlord—who might not have come in—or subjecting him by himself to the power of the Court to reduce the amount and compelling all creditors to come in. You compel all creditors to come in against the tenant, when the pressure comes only from the landlord, and not from other classes of creditors. We are dealing with a question of practical importance—the question of the difficulties which has existed in the relations of the landlords and tenants—difficulties which everybody believe ought to be put a stop to, but these difficulties have not arisen between the tenants and other classes of creditors. There is no strength

  789
  in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that if any relief is to be afforded to the landlord it should be by a clause or clauses on the model of the Bankruptcy Clauses of the Government, under which all creditors would be compelled to come in simultaneously. The question, so far as I can make out, stands in this position. There are two alternatives, so far as we are concerned, in arriving at a possible settlement of the question—a settlement which it would not be impossible to arrive at, and which would not take too much time to arrange. One alternative is the one I presented to the Committee a short time ago, that we should extend the power to the Court under this clause for the reduction of amounts as well as for the fixing of instalments, and that this power that the Government has insisted upon should be applicable to all creditors whether landlords or not. The other alternative is to adopt the suggestion which has just been made by the hon. and learned Member for Inverness, that you should give the Court power, in addition to fixing the instalments, to reduce the amount of arrears, and that you should limit that second power in the case of the landlord's debts. Of course that is one we should prefer most, but sooner than leave the question in its unsettled state—in a state which I am afraid will spoil the results of the working of the whole Bill—we would agree to accept that power if granted by the Government, the power of reducing the amount of the judgment in respect of the rents of the landlords extended to cases of ordinary debts. But we cannot agree to the remodelling of the Bankruptcy Clauses or to any provisions in the nature of bankruptcy provisions requiring" that all debts should be brought in together and adjudicated upon simultaneously. We do not believe that, as a matter of fact, the debts due to other creditors are not pressing, and are not being pressed. Society is not being disorganized, and if the power that we suggest is granted, and if the clause is made applicable to all classes of creditors, we do not believe even then that the shopkeepers would come in. We believe that they would settle out of Court, and would be very glad to enter into amicable arrangements with the tenants. We believe that there would not be pressure brought to bear upon the
  790
  tenants in this quarter any more than there is now.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It appears to I me that the fact that we have stopped the "back door" is now being used against us as an argument to get us to consent to further distinctions as between landlords and their creditors. One result of that has been that we have given the County Court Judge power to stay judgments. It is impossible to adopt the principle advocated by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that if power is given to the Judge to fix instalments, he should also have power to fix the amount of arrears to be paid. I think the difficulties of putting the landlord and other creditors on terms of equality are very great; but the point has been raised against us because we desire to keep the equality in all other respects the same. There are only three possible ways of dealing with this question of arrears of rent now before the Committee. There is first, the plan of the Government—namely, those clauses which are in fact and substance Bankruptcy Clauses, whether they are those on the Paper, or any other which might be afterwards prepared. If I understand the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), ha has laid it down as a fundamental principle of his Party and of others on that side of the House with whom he acts, that nothing in the nature of Bankruptcy Clauses will be accepted. Therefore, it is useless for us to devote such ingenuity as we may possess to the task of remodelling the Bankruptcy Clauses so as to avoid the word "Bankruptcy," and to form the clauses into a machinery, which would enable a quicker and cheaper process to be adopted. I understand it to be distinctly laid down by the hon. Member for Cork, speaking in the name of his Party, that neither the clauses which we have on the Paper, nor any other clauses of a similar character dealing in the ordinary manner with debts, will be accepted by him and his Friends. In other words we are not to be allowed to deal with the debts of the tenants. If we require that these debts are to be dealt with at all, then the debts due to all creditors are to be administered on a similar scale, and by a similar process. That being so, I am bound to say that I think the position is more or less cleared up, because I do not see how it is pos-

  791
  sible for the Government to give any other conditions than those which they have offered. I deeply regret the decision at which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork has arrived. I feel with him, and I have always felt with him, that the question of the debts of the tenants is a question that ought to be considered, if it can be considered effectively by the Government; but I am bound to say that by the decision that has just been announced to the House-the hon. Gentleman does appear to have shut the door on the only possible method of solving the difficulty in consonance with the ordinary principles of justice. What does the hon. Gentleman suggest? He has an alternative—namely, that the debts of all the creditors should be dealt with seriatim in the order in which they are brought before the County Court Judge. Now, that implies that all the creditors of the tenants are likely to get their debts paid, in other words that the creditor, who like the shopkeeper can refuse to give the tenant further credit, is to be treated in exactly the same terms as the creditor, who, like the landlord, is obliged to give further credit to his debtor. The landlord, under the Act of 1881, finds himself in the position of having the tenant fixed for ever on his property. By the Act of 1881, speaking broadly, the tenancy can only be terminated by failure of the tenant to pay his rent. That security we have removed from the landlord by this clause as it now stands. The tenant was obliged, under the Act of 1881, to pay his debts punctually under pain of losing his tenant right. That right of the landlord we have, I will not say wholly destroyed, but profoundly modified and largely interfered with by the section now before the Committee. When the section is carried the tenant will have it in his power, subject to the discretion of the County Court Judge, to hang over his debts for an absolutely indefinite period, during which period he will continue to get credit, modified also by some discretion of the Judge. Compare the position of the landlord with the position of the shopkeeper. The shopkeeper is not obliged to supply any more goods unless he likes to the tenant. He may stop the account to-day or tomorrow. The tenant knows that if he does not pay his ordinary debts, not only the shopkeeper whom he has been
  792
  in the habit of dealing with, but every other creditor will refuse to give him credit. Under these circumstances, do you not place the shopkeeper, to whom it is much more for the interest of the tenant to pay than the landlord, in a better position than the landlord? If you carry out the proposition of the hon. Member for Cork as a matter of practical politics—and here I would say that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite are always telling us that they understand the management and the manner in which things are done in Ireland, and that no one who has not lived amongst the people can have the slightest idea of how those things are managed, ["Hear, hear!"] Well, I appeal to those hon. Members who know, if the tenant who has a certain amount of money—or put it this way, if the tenant has two debts and no adequate means of paying both, which is he likely to pay first, the landlord or the shopkeeper? Does any hon. Member doubt that the one he would first choose to pay in the present condition of the country would not be the landlord, but the shopkeeper? [Cries of "No, no!"] Yes, I think that may be deduced from the statements which we have had from hon. Gentlemen themselves. I feel convinced that I come very near the truth in that statement. The first debts that are paid are the debts to the landlord, and therefore if you are going to liquidate debts and make a composition of them in the order in which they come before the County Court Judge, can anyone doubt that the debt which will be composed will be the debt of the landlord, and the debt which will not be composed will be that of the trader. Does anyone deny that?
  An hon. MEMBER: Yea, we all deny it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then what becomes of the argument of the hon. Member for East Mayo, which distinctly gives us to understand that the shopkeepers are not in the habit of coming to the Court, whereas we all know to our cost, that the landlords are always coming to the Courts.
  An hon. MEMBER: the shopkeepers have not pressed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: An hon. Member says that the shopkeepers have not pressed for their debts. Is the hon.

  793
  Member really seriously of opinion that the composition given to the shopkeepers is not larger than the composition given to the landlords? I cannot believe that any hon. Gentleman, getting up in this House and honestly giving the Government and the Committee the result of his experience, will seriously maintain that proposition. The ground upon which the Government decline to treat these debts seriatim is, after all, not confined to Ireland, and does not depend for its validity on any special knowledge of Irish life. It is a plain principle of equity, which has been adopted, so far as I know, in every country. I conceive that we should be committing a great and serious breach of the interests of public policy were we to adopt this principle—a greater breach than if we were to adopt almost any other principle which has ever been suggested. I confess that rather than adopt the principle suggested by the hon. Member for Cork I would prefer that proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Inverness. Rather than, accept this liquidation of debts brought up seriatim, I would choose the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. But I have explained that we cannot accept that proposition, and I think I have given sufficient reasons for showing why, of the three possible solutions of this question, the Irish. Party reject one, and we feel ourselves most reluctantly compelled to reject the other two.
  MR. FINLAY: I do not think that I gave the Committee to understand quite plainly the meaning of the suggestion I threw out. I did not suggest that there should be a power of reduction of the amount of the debt due to the landlord. I understood the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to say that the intention was that in the case of proceedings for ejectment, and in that case only, there should be a power vested in the Court to reduce the payments by instalment. Now, it is obvious that the Government are making a difference even between that case and the other cases, and what I suggest is this, that inasmuch as it is the intention to treat the case of an action for ejectment in a different way from other cases, it would be convenient to add to the power of payment by instalment in that case the power of saying that the reduced amount should be paid. I did not in-
  794
  tend to apply it to the landlords' claim for a full rent. I said it might be possible to extend the power proposed—to confer on the Court power in the case mentioned.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I think if all the tenants in Ireland were like English tenants, with large holdings and paying a considerable amount of rent, there would be a great deal of force in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and that the proper way of dealing with the case might be through Bankruptcy Clauses. But we must remember that three-fourths of the tenants in Ireland are small tenants, paying less than £30 a-year, and that to those tenants the proceedings of bankruptcy are altogether inapplicable. It would ruin them to go into Court for such debts as they have, small as they may be. It appears to me also that the claims of the Irish tenants, especially of the smaller tenants, for a reduction of arrears of excessive rent, is one founded on justice, and unless the Government are prepared to admit the justice of the claims, they are no doubt right in refusing the claim now made. Many tenants have been unable to go into Court on account of the arrears of rent hanging over their heads. Debts of this kind are very different to debts owing to the shopkeeper—they come under a totally different category. The Government has already admitted the difference that exists between the case of an action for ejectment and the case of a private debt. All that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) asks is that in making this exception, and applying a different procedure to the case of ejectment, you shall give to the Court not only power to spread the arrears of debt over a term of years, but should give the Court power to reduce the arrears. The remedy in the clause, as it stands, is to spread the arrears over a term of years. I presume that, under these circumstances, the tenant would have to pay the whole rent in addition to instalment of arrears. I do not see that he would gain much under that proposal, and I trust the Committee will adopt the Amendment.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I must say that the speech, and the attitude of the right hon. Gen-

  795
  tleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland on this clause is one of the most remarkable instances I have ever known in which want of knowledge and want of thought may have offsets so disastrous. The right hon. Gentleman made an appeal to the House just now as to a matter of fact, and I am going to answer that appeal further than it has yet been answered by interruption on the part of some of my hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman asked if a debt were due to the landlord and a debt were due to the shopkeeper what debt the Irish tenant would first think of paying. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether anyone would have the courage to say that if a choice were given to a tenant between the payment of a debt to the landlord and the payment to the shopkeeper he would not give the preference to the shopkeeper over the landlord. The right hon. Gentleman appealed to us for information, and in answer, I will in the most emphatic manner—and I thick my hon. Friends around me will confirm me when I say it—that when the choice the tenant has is between paying the landlord and paying the shopkeeper he always pays the former and abstains from settling the claim of the shopkeeper. Now I think we have some reason to complain of the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He acknowledges his own want of experience on this subject, and of course he could not deny his want of experience. I do not say that in blame or in any hostile spirit towards the right hon. Gentleman. He must know very well that on this question his experience is very small. He admitted our experience and appealed to us; he invited from us the lessons of our experience, and when we gave him the result of our experience and stated our knowledge of the facts, the only answer we received from the right hon. Gentleman was an incredulous shake of the head. I undertake to say that the Unionist Members "who have lived in Ireland for some time, however short that time may be, will support the statement that where the tenant has debts owing both to the shopkeeper and the landlord he invariably postpones the former in preference to the latter. I do not mention this as a matter of merit on the part of the tenant, and I think the right hon. Gentleman, if he will reflect upon the matter
  796
  for a moment, will see why. The shopkeeper cannot turn the tenant out of his holding; but the landlord can. The shopkeeper cannot deprive the tenant of the means of his livelihood; but the landlord can, and everybody knows that to retain the possession of his farm is the highest and most sacred principle for which a tenant will fight; accordingly wherever it is possible the rent is paid to the landlord, no matter what other debts the tenant may have. I warn the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the policy he is pursuing in this clause will be disastrous in its results. I am sure that if he knew how disastrous it would be he would earnestly join us in opposing his own policy. Which does the right hon. Gentleman think the tenant would rather face, the loss of food, or the loss of credit?
  An hon. MEMBER: And clothes.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Why, if the tenant loses food it matters little whether he has clothes or not, so that my hon. Friend's interruption was purely a matter of supererogation. When the Bessborough Commission was in Sligo they found there a shopkeeper to whom was owing no less a sum than £8,000 to £10,000 from farmers in the district. That amount was owing for Indian meal, the lowest and meanest form of nutriment that can possibly be employed to keep body and soul together. If the farmers had not incurred that amount of indebtedness they would not have been able to obtain this miserable form of sustenation. If they could not have run into debt the must have starved. I say that if this clause is inserted in the Bill, in its present shape, the effect will be to prevent the tenant even from getting Indian meal from the shopkeeper. I would impress on the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, I would warn him, that by destroying the credit of the farmers he is destroying the possibility of their getting under certain conditions food for them and their families. I do not feel compelled to go into an ethical defence of the duty of the shopkeepers, and the duty of the farmers towards the shopkeepers and the landlords. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has, in his heart, accepted the principles of the Land Act of 1881. I do not require a metaphysical

  797
  adhesion to that Act on his part. I do not inquire whether he gives it, that is an affair between him and his own mind; but what I say is this, that his whole legislation is founded upon the Act of 1881, and that if this legislation does not follow the lines of that Act it will be nothing but a shame. That Act established the landlord and tenant as partners in the soil. Well, suppose the right hon. Gentleman and I were partners in a business concern, and that if I, who had the working of the business, suffered a great many losses one year, do you think I should be able to pay him the same amount of profit as I had been in the habit of doing? Certainly not; and it is the same with the tenants and their landlords. If the tenants have a bad year they must neecessarily be unable to pay the landlords as much as formerly. The whole Bill is founded on the badness of the times, on the smallness of the profits, and because the property of the tenant brings in less than it has done in former years. It is obviously unfair while the burden of this loss should properly fall on the landlord and tenant that you should make the shopkeeper suffer for it in respect of the food and clothes he has supplied to the tenant. To do that seems to me a most immoral proceeding. I am afraid, however, that the introduction of the question of morality is rather an academical matter to enter into the discussion of here. I submit that the Government are proposing legislation which will deprive the tenants of all credit, and by depriving them of credit you put it out of their power even to obtain food. While I give the right hon. Gentleman credit for honest intention, and for doing what he considers right in the interests of the Irish tenants, I must say that he is giving them one of the most dangerous portions that over was presented to them. I would press on the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of accepting the proposal made by the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay). The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that spreading an exorbitant rent, or the arrears of an exorbitant rent, over a long period will be a relief to the tenant. If the rents are not exorbitant, this Bill is a dishonest Bill, to which the right hon. Gentleman, a Cabinet Minister, should not have given the sanction of his name. If the rents
  798
  are exorbitant, I ask how can you justify the payment of those rents in full, even though you postpone and spread over several years the payment. I am concerned in this matter very seriously. My hon. Friends and myself are strongly and emphatically convinced that this is a Bill fraught with danger to the credit, and therefore to the prosperity of Ireland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should like to say a few words in reply to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). He he has given two arguments which I think the Committee ought to thoroughly understand. One part of his speech went to prove that the tenant ought not to pay the landlord, and the other part went, to prove that the tenant had no inducement to pay the landlord at the expense of the shopkeeper. If these two conditions are granted, I think we ought to have bankruptcy applicable to all creditors alike if we are to have bankruptcy at all. The hon. Gentleman argues that the landlord and tenant are partners, and that being so, they ought to rob the outside world before they rob themselves.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman has put his argument, and not mine. His argument is that the landlord and tenant being partners, should rob the shopkeeper. My argument is that the landlord and tenant being partners, should divide their losses, and not that they should rob people outside.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I stated that the hon. Gentleman first tried to show that the shopkeeper ought to be paid before the landlord. The hon. Gentleman told us that to destroy the credit of Ireland was, practically, to produce starvation. Nothing in the world, I presume, stops the credit of the shopkeeper so much as declining to pay the shopkeeper. If the tenant has a great inducement to pay the shopkeeper before anyone else, it is clear the landlord will come worst out of the matter.
  COLONEL WARING: The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) adopted a line of argument which is very commonly adopted, and which is, indeed, the most plausible argument which can be addressed to a not very discriminating audience. I hope, however, that the House has too much

  799
  discrimination to be taken in by that line of argument, which amounts to the most unblushing begging of the whole question that can possibly be imagined. As a matter of fact, the landlord is not preferred to the shopkeeper in Ireland as a general rule, except when the edict of the National League be decrees, and where the shopkeeper is afraid to enforce his claim, because, if he did, he would be Boycotted. In the part of the country in which I live the shopkeeper does enforce his claims with a great deal more stringency than the landlord, and, consequently, he is first paid. With, regard to the question of partnership in the land, there is no doubt that under the Act of 1881 there is a partnership between landlord and tenant; but according to the hon. Gentleman opposite it is a one-sided partnership. Where the bargain is an unfavourable one, one partner is to suffer no loss, and where it is favourable the other partner is to get nothing. Therefore, it is really a case of heads I win, tails you lose. I assure the Committee that, as far as my experience goes, the shopkeeper in the North of Ireland gets his money and the landlord has to wait for his. If the present kind of legislation goes on the only result will be that the landlord will be obliged to become much more stringent than he has been, and that the shopkeeper will come off second best.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I should like to remind the Committee that the question before it is that after the word "pay," the words "or reduction of amount" be inserted.
  MR. CHANCE: I will bear in mind the intimation you have given to the Committee, Sir—namely, that what we are considering is whether the Court shall have power to reduce the amount of arrears. With your permission, however, I must notice that the experience of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) as to the treatment of shopkeepers, as distinct from landlords, is, I fear, limited very much to his own estate. I can quite conceive that the hon. and gallant Member for North Down has not shown that extreme anxiety to exact his full rights which is characteristic of many other landlords. He has just said that the landlord is not preferred to the shopkeeper; but let me point out that the landlord is preferred to the shop-
  800
  keeper in certain ways. For instance, the shopkeeper has no power of distraint; he has no preferential claim to the extent of a year's rent; he has no preferential claim in bankruptcy. We know that the landlord is a preferential creditor in these cases. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that last year a Bill, called the Crofters' Holdings Bill, was passed into law, and was passed mainly by the votes of the Conservative Gentlemen who now sit on the opposite Benches, but who were then in Opposition. May I quote to him for his instruction—I must say for his instruction, because he does not seem to be aware of its existence—the section of that Bill which deals with applications to fix rents. The section goes on to say that in the proceedings of such applications the Court is commissioned to take account of the amount of rent due, or to become due before the application is finally determined, and that it may take evidence of all the circumstances which have led to such arrears, and shall decide whether, in view of such circumstances, the whole or any part of such arrears ought to be paid, and whether they ought to be paid in one payment or in instalments, and shall have power also to decide on what day the whole or any part of the arrears shall be paid. Now, Sir, I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has entirely forgotten that last year that Bill became law. Although he may for the moment be ignorant of the section of that Bill I have referred to, when I look at the phraseology of the 22nd clause, I find he has carefully taken every provision of the Crofters Act and imported it into this Bill, with the exception of one. The only one he has omitted is the power of the Court to reduce the amount of arrears. I presume that is omitted advisedly, because I recollect that the Scotch Crofters Commission have actually struck off 60 per cent of the arrears of rent. I do not know why the Irish tenants should not receive from the Tory Party in this House and in "another place" as good treatment as the Scotch tenants received last year. What is the objection of the right hon. Gentleman to this? He says that it virtually amounts to a proceeding in bankruptcy. I admit that to the fullest extent. It does; but then he says, if we are to give you anything of this nature,

  801
  we will insist upon the equal treatment of creditors which exists in bankruptcy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) will not, I presume, although he is an Irish Law Officer, have the audacity to got up and say the landlords in bankruptcy are treated on a substantial equality with other creditors. The Committee will recollect that, in the 23rd clause, the Gentlemen who now speak of equality in bankruptcy propose to compel ordinary creditors to take a mere composition that the landlord should get the whole of his rent less the statutory reduction the Bankruptcy Judge may think fit to allow. I cannot understand these assertions concerning equality in bankruptcy. I should like to know why these Irish tenants are not now to get from this House the treatment the Scotch tenants got last year? I think the most extraordinary assertion I have ever heard from the hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was the last assertion of his. He said that the tenant's credit is absolutely set up by this clause, because it gives the tenant the highest inducement to pay the shopkeeper. What inducement has he to do that? The shopkeeper will not give credit at all; and, therefore, I do not understand how the right hon. Gentleman can argue that, because the shopkeeper is now or may be compelled to take a composition, there is an inducement to the tenant to pay the shopkeeper, and that it sets up the credit of the tenant. I cannot conceive that such an argument can be supported for an instant, and I beg that some Gentleman on the Government Bench will explain why one measure of justice is to be dealt out to the Scotch tenants and another measure of justice to the Irish tenants.
  MR. FLYNN: The Amendment under consideration raises the whole question of the policy of the Government in Ireland with regard to rent and arrears of rent. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) has put a question to the Government they find it impossible to answer; and that is why the Scotch crofters should be treated better in regard to arrears than the Irish tenants? In my judgment, this Amendment raises the whole question as to whether the Government are prepared in this clause to back up the landlords in the asser-
  802
  tion of their full rights, or whether they are really in earnest in offering some temporary concession—some substantial alleviation—to the tenants. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has asserted that in regard to the recovery of debts in Ireland, the tenants give preference to the shopkeepers, and postpone the payments to the landlords. Such a statement is opposed to the experience of every Irish Member who sits upon these Benches. One of the most constant complaints of my constituents, and of traders and shop-I keepers generally, is the impossibility of recovering their debts. The most exorbitant rents are paid even in these very bad times, and the claims of shopkeepers are either postponed altogether, or a very small portion of them paid. The Government distinctly refuse to face the issue which has been raised in Ireland by the inclement seasons of the past few years. First of all, they sought to take temporary shelter in the Bankruptcy Clauses. These clauses they have now withdrawn, and they take shelter in certain provisions of the present clause; but look the difficulty straight in the face the Government will not do. We warn them that the only way in which happiness may be secured to Ireland, in which it will be possible for the tenantry of the country to get through the difficulties of the present time, is by a frank admission of the actual state of things. If there is one fact more notorious than another in connection with the Royal Commission, is it not that Commissioner I after Commissioner under the Land Act of 1881 came before the Cowper Commission and proved that the rents they had fixed were rents which it was now; impossible for the tenants to pay, and that they all agreed that they did not anticipate, when they fixed the judicial rents three, four, or five years ago, anything like the fall in the prices of agricultural produce which has taken place, and which has prevailed since the early portion of 1885. What does that go to prove? Why that a large number of the tenant farmers of Ireland, not alone leaseholders, but judicial renters, are labouring under a heavy rent, and a lot of arrears of rent, which it is impossible for them to pay, and that no amount of ingenuity on the part of the County Court Judge will be of any service to them to: relieve them from their burdens. What

  803
  avail is it to a tenant, who is struggling under a heavy rent, and who, in addition to that, has a large amount of arrears hanging round his neck—what possible advantage is it to him that the County Court Judge, recognizing that his rent is heavy and impossible for him to pay, and that he is largely in arrear, should spread the payment of the amount of the arrears, acknowledged to be excessive, over a greater or lesser period? I look with extreme and jealous suspicion at the action of the Government in placing their Amendment on the Paper. In the clause, as it stood when the Bill was first introduced, we had none of these provisions dragging in the general trader. In deference to pressure which they could not resist, they are willing to forego the Bankruptcy Clauses; but by the side wind of these Amendments which are placed by the Government on the Notice Paper, they work towards the very same end; and, under these circumstances, I, for my part, speaking on behalf of my constituents, should be sorry to accept the responsibility of this Bill if this clause is retained unamended. I maintain that this provision will not tend to the pacification of Ireland, and that it will not tend to a settlement of the agricultural difficulties. We have every right to look to the support of the Liberal Unionists in this matter. They are fond of asserting that they wish this Bill should be of some solid value to the tenants of Ireland; this Amendment raises the question in a naked and palpable form, and we certainty ask the support of Liberal Unionists upon the Amendment before the Chair—an Amendment which has been introduced by one of the most eminent Members of their own Party. I trust that if they value their reputation for consistency, if there be anything in their profession to make this Bill a solid reality, they will support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness.
  MR. LEA: I do not wish to press the Government un- I duly, nor do I wish to prolong the discussion which has been already somewhat prolonged; but I do ask the Government to consider the present position for one minute. The Government have passed a number of clauses in this Bill which I believe will do what they pretend to do. The Government
  804
  have stated that one of the chief objects of this Bill is to render impossible unjust and unnecessary evictions. This 22nd clause is the clause to which we look, because we have already been given to understand by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that the Bankruptcy Clauses will not be proceeded with. If this clause is the only clause which stands in the way of unjust and unnecessary evictions, will it do what the Government believe it will do? If the Government will tell mo this clause will prevent unjust and unnecessary evictions I shall be quite satisfied; but it seems to me, as far as I am able to judge, that it will not do anything of the kind. We are quite aware that there are a large number of tenants in Ireland who have been paying high rents. They have been afraid to go into the Laud Court, because they were in arrear. Your Bill does nothing to deal with arrears, and if it is passed as it is, how will it affect the tenants in arrear? You say you will spread the payment of arrears over a large number of years; but that will only be another addition to the present high rent, and it will not get rid of the arrears. We heard from hon. Members below the Gangway, during the discussion of a previous clause, that there are 10,000 or 15,000 ejectments now waiting to be issued in Ireland. If those 10,000 ejectmoats—I take the lower figure—are sent forth under the 4th clause, will this clause prevent unnecessary and unjust evictions? It is evident there are unjust rents being demanded in Ireland, and that there are arrears in respect of these rents, and yet your clause does not deal with them. I ask the Government to consider this Amendment seriously, and say whether it is not possible to introduce some provision to prevent unjust evictions.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN): I only rise to reply to an observation which fell from the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Donegal (Mr. O'Doherty) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), that it is the custom of the Irish tenants to pay the landlords in preference to the shopkeepers. I acknowledge that such used to be the custom; but let me remind

  805
  the Committee that the custom has been different since the preaching of the Land League has been that the shopkeepers should be paid first. [Cheers from the Irish Benches.] That cheer is the strongest reason why the Government should insist upon this clause.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: My hon. Friends who have interfered in this debate did not for one moment try to lead the House to believe that they themselves or the Irish farmers would prefer that the claims of the Irish laudlords should be paid before those of the Irish shopkeepers; but they stated what was the result throughout the whole country, and anyone having any acquaintance with the country must admit that, whether you take the individual farmer or a whole district—the individual farmer is more deeply indebted to the shopkeeper than he is to his landlord—whether you take the case of the individual farmer or of a whole district of farmers, there is more money due to the shopkeeper than to the landlord. That is a fact which is beyond dispute. I am truly astonished at the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has endeavoured to place the landlords and the shopkeepers in the same position in regard to this clause. The Bill has its origin in the fact that rents have been too high; and if it be true that the Predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to bring pressure within the law to bear on the Irish landlords, and that that induced the reasonable among the Irish landlords to settle with their tenants and make fair terms with them, is it because others resisted that pressure, and because others were unreasonable, that the doctrine is preached that the shopkeeper is to come down to the same level as an unreasonable landlord? There is no excuse for your Bill if you do not admit that the rents have been unreasonable and exorbitant; and if the rents have been unreasonable and exorbitant, is the unfortunate shopkeeper, who has been supporting the farmers in pursuance of some very strange principle of equity, to be called upon to accept less than he is entitled to, in order that in making abatements the landlord will have to suffer a smaller abatement than he otherwise would suffer? The debts due to other creditors are to be adjusted in order that the land-
  806
  lord may get a larger margin of his arrears than he would otherwise be entitled to get. I say that I regard it as a vicious and dangerous principle that because a small proportion of arrears—and, after all, it is not a very large proportion—is due to a small and an unreasonable, and, on the showing of the Government themselves, an unworthy class of Irish landlords, you should for the first time propose in this Bill that debts, the justice of which cannot be disputed—the debts owing to the shopkeepers—are to be made the subject of inquiry in Court, and that the shopkeeper is to receive a smaller amount than he is justly entitled to. I think Parliament will be setting a very dangerous example if it votes with the Government in introducing this principle, because we do not know how far the principle will yet go. I should prefer that the Irish tenant was made to bear the burden of his arrears, and to fight the matter out in the ordinary way, rather than teach him and others the dangerous doctrine which will be taught by leading him to believe that this Parliament is going to readjust the debts he owes to every tradesman.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I venture to make a last appeal to the Government. They seem to insist upon the debt to the shopkeeper and the rent to the landlord standing in the same category. How can they maintain that contention in the face of the fact that they have absolutely consented to a revision of the judicial rents? I want to know what the public will say to a contention like that. I believe this clause to be one of the most important in the Bill, and I believe it might be of great good and great benefit to the people of Ireland; but if the hopeless question of arrears is left unsettled, as it will be if the Government maintain their present position, they might almost as well write the clause out of the Bill.
  MR. DILLON: It is true, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman) has just announced, that we do advise the people of Ireland to pay their debts to the shopkeepers before they pay rack-rents to the landlords. We have always given that advice. I have advised the tenants to pay what is just to the land-lords, and I defy any hon. Member to

  807
  point to a speech of mine in the opposite direction. But I regret to say that while that is perfectly true, it is equally true that the tenantry of Ireland have not taken our advice. They have, in a certain sense, defrauded then other creditors under a system of terrorism in order to meet their debts to the landlords, because the landlords rushed to the front and were enabled to threaten the tenants with eviction from their land and with extermination, while the shopkeepers had their tills fall of decrees, bills, and notes of hand, which they have never been able to turn to account. What is the situation now? We have during the whole course of the discussions upon this Bill looked forward to the 22nd clause in a spirit of hopefulness. We have pointed out from the beginning that, while it was true that the 1st clause promised to confer considerable benefits on a large section of the people of Ireland, the clause to which the Government and all of us were bound to look to more than any other clause of the Bill for the pacification of Ireland and the preservation of public order was the 22nd clause, if equitably and wisely enlarged. Does anyone suppose that the disturbances in Ireland lately came chiefly from the leaseholders of Ireland? Everybody knows the contrary. The leaseholders have always been law-abiding people. They have not yet been ruined, although they have been driven to the verge of bankruptcy. They are still holding out, but the disturbances which have occurred in Ireland in recent times have not come in any considerable proportion from the leaseholders. While a great act of justice will be done by the operation of the 1st clause, the peace of Ireland in future depends not upon the operation of the 1st clause, but upon the relief which we supposed we might expect from the operation of the 22nd clause. If amended in such a way as to achieve the objects the Government always said they regarded as essential in this Bill, what is the position with which we are face to face? The Bankruptcy Clauses have been thrown overboard by the Government. They were thrown overboard in a speech in which there was a certain minatory tone. I accept our responsibility in the matter. The Bankruptcy Clauses had not a friend in the whole of Ireland—indeed, I have never
  808
  known the people of Ireland so unanimous on any one subject as upon that plan of redress. The evil which the Bankruptcy Clauses aimed at remedying, and the remedying of which is the main purpose of this Bill, was not reached at all. Let me say that after the discussion which has just taken place I am absolutely indifferent as to whether the 22nd clause passes or not. Many of my hon. Friends around me take this view. They object to the 22nd clause, and they desire to divide against it. I am doubtful whether it would be wise to go quite so far as that; but this I will say—that when the tenantry of Ireland come to ask me, as they will do in hundreds and thousands, on my return to Ireland—when they come to consult me as to whether the 22nd clause will give them protection, I shall say—"Do not avail yourselves of it—it will put you to great cost and give you no relief." The 22nd clause, to most tenants, will remain an absolutely dead letter; it affords no prospect or hope of relief as it stands to the very class of tenants who are in arrear. It is hardly fair to use the word "arrear." This clause affords no prospect of relief whatever. In the course of discussion the other night the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland directed my attention to an Amendment which he has put on the Paper, and which I find is numbered 57. I admitted at once that that Amendment was an important Amendment; but the right hon. Gentleman will recollect I said it was important if the 22nd clause was so amended as to afford any real protection to the Irish tenants, inasmuch as the proposition in this 57th Amendment is to apply the benefit and protection of the 22nd clause to those large classes of tenants against whom judgments have been obtained before this Act was put into force. What is the case now? It is no use applying the benefit and protection of the 22nd clause, because that clause affords no benefit or protection whatever. That is the condition of things with which we are brought face to face. Now, Sir, it is really a very serious question what this Committee ought to do. This Bill was introduced with a great flourish of trumpets, and all parties in the House seemed anxious to give it as fair consideration as possible. We have progressed up to this with our hopes fixed on the 22nd

  809
  clause. No one can assert that the tone adopted by us, or by any others, has been hostile to the Bill. We have supposed and hoped that when we reached this clause the Government, being made aware, as they must have been made aware in the course of the discussion, that the Bankruptcy Clauses were utterly unacceptable to any class of people in Ireland, would put on the Paper such Amendments to the 22nd clause as would afford us some hope that this clause would carry out the objects aimed at in the Bankruptcy Clauses. But nothing has been done. We are nearing the end of the discussion upon the Bill, and the classes of tenants in Ireland to benefit whom the Government at the outset announced this Bill was chiefly introduced are left absolutely without any protection whatever. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to consider this matter seriously. I speak advisedly on behalf of my hon. Friends when I say that the most moderate man amongst us is of opinion that the clause is absolutely valueless. Some of my hon. Friends consider that in its present shape it is positively mischievous, inasmuch as it will delude the tenant, and induce him to go into Court and search for the remedy where no remedy is to be found. So far as I am concerned it will be my duty in case no further Amendment is introduced into this clause, to warn the tenantry of Ireland that for the great majority of them, and for those who are in most trouble, this Bill is no more nor loss than a delusion and a snare, and that they must trust in the future for protection to precisely the same methods they have adopted hitherto.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The discussion which has been raised by this Amendment is very analogous to the discussion which has occupied the attention of the Committee almost since the commencement of these proceedings. I have listened with the greatest possible attention to all the discussion that went on up to nearly 8 o'clock, and I quite admit that the question at issue is one of exceeding difficulty, on which it would be, at any rate, imprudent for any Member in this House to dogmatize as to the absolute right or wrong of the various contending parties in this discussion. I regret rather the extreme tone which the hon. Member for East Mayo f Mr. Dillon) has assumed.
  810
  I think he has rather introduced an unnecessarily extreme tone into the discussion; and though I have not been present during the recant discussion upon this Amendment, yet, having been present before the dinner hour, I can say there was nothing in the attitude or the argument of the Government to lead me to suppose the Government were not in an open and reasonable frame of mind. They admit that this Amendment is a very important Amendment. I do not think you can exaggerate the importance of it. It may be said—"Oh, this Bill is a purely temporary Bill, and a flaw here or a defect there on a minor point does not matter, because a larger Bill is going to be introduced which is to deal comprehensively, wisely, and profoundly with the Irish Land Question by means of converting dual ownership into single ownership." I cannot allow my mind to be affected by an argument of that kind. I therefore wish to treat this Bill as, to all intents and purposes, a permanent Bill. I cannot treat it on the supposition that it is to be supplanted by another Bill. I know the vicissitudes of Parliamentary life, and the vicissitudes of a Ministry. I know the impossibility for any Minister at the present day to see into the future further than the length of his nose. When, I get a practical proposal before the House of Commons for giving relief to some of the most distressed tenantry of Ireland, I like to treat the Bill as one which, so far as we know, is not to be supplanted by another Bill, and as a Bill which will practically relieve difficulties in Ireland. Therefore, as far as this Amendment is concerned, I treat it as if it were to make an imperfect Bill a more or less perfect Bill. That being so, what is the Amendment? It is an Amendment proposed by a leading Member of the Liberal Unionist Party, a Member not only leading as a politician, but distinguished for his legal mind. He has, after deliberation and consultation with his friends, after consultation with those whose advice he values, and, no doubt, with, their consent, put down an Amendment which radically extends the operation of Clause 22. Now, I frankly confess to the Committee that when I spoke on the second reading of this Bill I had a mistaken notion of the operation of Clause 22. I thought that it provided for the composition of arrears of rent.

  811
  I was interrupted by an hon. Gentleman, and then I saw I had made a mistake, and I endeavoured to save myself by dwelling upon the importance of the power remaining in the hands of the County Court Judge to spread the arrears over a great portion of time. That I consider a most valuable power, a power more valuable than the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) seems inclined to suppose. In the discussions on this Bill, in which I have taken part very rarely indeed, I have had two objects only in view—one was to save time, and the other was to make the Bill, if possible, a practical Bill. I have no other object in regard to this Amendment, and I frankly confess that I do thing that the composition of arrears is a matter which ought to be in the hands of the County Court Judge. Is it not the theory of the whole thing? The Government have admitted, and rightly admitted, after consideration, that the rents which were fixed some time ago were too high, and that they must be revised—revised obviously with a view to reduction. Very well, is it not also the case that almost every tenant in Ireland who seeks relief under this clause will be in arrear. I do not suppose that ever an eviction takes place in Ireland merely for the rent of the current year. In the case of every eviction which takes place there is always a greater or lesser amount of arrears. This clause is intended to operate against harsh and unreasonable evictions. Now, the rent fixed two years ago was too high. Is that not admitted? I think the Government will admit it. Then, why argue about differences which do not exist? If the rent fixed two years ago was too high, it was too high at the time it was fixed, and the reduction which you propose to apply to the rent now ought clearly to operate retrospectively on the arrears which may have accrued under the original rent. That is a fair argument. But if you do not allow the Court to have power, as it were, to compose the arrears on a basis of the fall of prices, which you admit the Commissioners did not take into account at the time they fixed the rent, and which came into operation almost immediately after they had fixed the rent, are you not interposing some unnecessary and enormous obstacle in the way of the reception of your clause by the tenants? As far as
  812
  I can make out the Government do not meet this question quite face to face. They have met the arguments addressed from the opposite Benches as to the necessity of removing from the hands of the landlord the power of proceeding against the tenant by fieri facias by saying—"We will apply it to all. We will apply it to the shopkeeper, and to the money lender, as well as to the landlord;" and then they go on, logically enough—and here I cannot argue against them if they push the argument further—and themselves say—"We will deal with the power of composing arrears in this matter, and, as we have placed the landlord and the creditor on an equality in regard to the recovery of rent, so we will place them on an equality in regard to composition." I admit I should have an insuperable difficulty in arguing against them on that point; but the whole position of the Government seems to rest on a fundamental misconception of the relations between the two Parties. I voted for the Government in the Division which took place before dinner, because I did not consider it my duty to vote against them; and I thought it more decent and reasonable to assume that probably they were right. But I fear you have a dilemma coming up in a very awkward and difficult form. The mistake the Government make is that they treat the landlord as if he were a creditor of the tenant, and that, being a creditor of the tenant, they have put him on the same footing as other creditors, the tradesman, the money-lender, or the banker, or whoever it may be. It is wrong to look upon the landlord as a creditor of the tenant. The landlord is the partner of the tenant. The whole policy of the Act of 1881 was to regulate the relations between two partners in a concern, one the active and the other the sleeping partner. The Act of 1881 failed to regulate these relations satisfactorily; and you are here to-night, not to deal between landlord and tenant as debtor and creditor; you are here to-night to amend the dealing of the Land Act of 1881, in endeavouring, as that Act did, to regulate the relations between the active and the sleeping partner. You have admitted the dual ownership of the land. You have admitted it to such an extent that you say you must bring in an enormous

  813
  Bill to put an end to it. I do not disagree with you, though I should like to know whether you have counted with the Party behind you in the matter; but, however, that is your business, and not mine. What I have to say is this. Can you deny that the dual ownership of the land of Ireland has been your difficulty, and is your difficulty now, and that dual ownership means two partners, and that two partners means that you must adjust, owing to the distress of Ireland, the relations between those partners? Can you call the tradesman, or the banker, or the money-lender a partner of the tenant? Can you say for a moment that the man who has advanced his money to the tenant; can yon say that the banker who has kept the Irish tenants in certain districts going for years; can you say that the tradesman who has supplied meal which has kept the tenant alive, and out of the sale of which he has not necessarily made an exorbitant profit—can you put any of those persons in the same position as a person, who, by your legislation, you admit to be a partner? That seems to me the fallacy, if I am not going too far in ascribing fallacy to any position the Government take up—that appears to me the fallacy which underlies the argument of the Government. What is the position?—and I really think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in spite of his intuition, will find some difficulty in getting over the point if he tries to meet it fairly, and not to travesty it, and misrepresent and distort it. What is the position in regard to fieri facias? You have placed the landlord and the ordinary creditor on an equality, and there, I think, you have gone wrong—not seriously wrong, but to some extent wrong. At any rate, you have endeavoured to conserve the interest of the tenant in his holding. Now we come to another point—to the question of the capital amount of debt. Is it absolutely necessary to pursue the argument which you apply to fieri facias in regard to these principal classes of debt? I think not—I think you must make a clear and broad distinction. You must admit that a reduction of rent which you say is necessary now should operate in the same extent retrospectively. Obviously there is no parallel between, a particular tradesman who sold goods two years ago, whether the
  814
  goods took the form of meal, or meat, or anything else, and the landlord. The tradesman did not sell the goods unjustly, and there was no suspicion of injustice about the matter, and nothing you can bring forward now can throw any suspicion upon the transaction, either directly or indirectly. By your Bill you admit that, as to rent, a certain amount of injustice exists. Does not the Government think that that is a clear and logical position; and, bearing in mind always that this is a point of enormous importance, that they have gone a long way in the path of concession, and gone a long way in that path in a manner for which the House of Commons and the public are disposed to give them credit, no discredit would result to the Government if they logically and prudently followed out the concession to its reasonable limits. You have here a clause which I thought was the most valuable clause of the Bill when I read it first. There are imperfections in that clause. I will not speak dogmatically on the point, but it is of vital importance to you, as a Government, in your government of Ireland, to remove the imperfections in this clause. I have shown you, I think, the manner in which you can fairly meet the differences which exist in the classes of debt which have been mentioned. If the Government can see their way, if they cannot accept the Amendment, to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, and take the whole matter once more into their anxious consideration, I cannot help thinking that they will expedite, in the most satisfactory manner, the proceedings of the Committee, and possibly remove a blot from the effective operation of the Bill which may make the Bill a serious and even a disastrous failure.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington has not told the Committee how he intends to vote upon this Amendment.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I shall vote with the Government.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: I confess I did not come to that conclusion from the speech of the noble Lord. I thought the noble Lord intended to support the Amendment, and upon that I was going to point out to him that the greater part of his speech was against

  815
  the Amendment, because the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) is that in all cases that are brought under the equitable jurisdiction of the Court, the Court is to have power to make a reduction in the amount; and, consequently, the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend applies equally to the debts to the landlord and to the debts to other creditors, and as a great part of the argument of the noble Lord was against putting the debts to other creditors upon the same footing as the debts to the landlord, I confess the noble Lord left me in great doubt as to how he was going to vote. I confess I am rather surprised that this question as to the parity of the landlord and other creditors should be raised at all in this discussion, because that matter was raised previously on the second reading; and I certainly thought there was a general agreement, on the part of the Irish Members at all events, that whatever was done with regard to the debt of the landlord should be done also with regard to the debts of the other creditors. [Cries of "No, no! "] Well, I do not think I am mistaken, because it has been sufficiently made manifest in the course of this discussion. This renders it extremely difficult for those who are desirous of meeting the views of the Irish Members—when they find that, having made statements from this side of the House without contradiction, when one comes to put this concession into form, then a new opposition starts up of which no indication was given in the previous stages of the discussion. What happened before I have already stated, but I will repeat it to the Committee. The noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) was speaking on this question, and he pointed out the importance which, in the minds of the Government, was attached to putting the two classes of creditors on the same footing. Thereupon the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) said—"That is what we ourselves proposed to do, but you rejected it." The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy), the brother of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford, explained to-day that what the hon. and learned Member for North Longford said was nothing of the kind; but I must really
  816
  leave him to settle the matter with his hon. and learned Relative. All I know is that when the noble Lord, on the part of the Government, put forward the suggestion that the two classes of creditors should be placed on the same footing, the hon. and learned Member for North Longford interrupted, and said—"That is what we wanted to do." Very well, if the hon. and learned Member for North Longford fairly replied for Irish Members in saying that, then, I must say it appears to me to be hardly in accordance with the agreement which we all understood to have been arrived at for hon. Gentlemen to say now—"You must make a distinction between the ordinary creditor and the landlord. You must treat the landlord as a creditor for an unjust debt, and treat the other persons as in a totally different position." The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington has also attempted to make this distinction, and what I would venture to submit to him is this—that that is an entirely new doctrine in regard to debtors. It is now for the first time that any attempt is made in the case of an insolvent debtor to put the debt of the landlord in a worse position than that of any other creditor. I confess that I entertain rather radical notions on these subjects, and I have always thought that the debt of the landlord was put in too favourable a position; but, at all events, until this discussion in the House of Commons, no one has ever pretended that the debt of the landlord ought to be in a worse position, or ought to be treated differently to the debt of any other person. And when a man is insolvent, and unable to pay, the only method by which he has been hitherto relieved has been by a relief that applies equally to all classes of the creditors. I want to ask the Committee to consider what is our position with regard to the relief promised to the tenants of Ireland. In this Clause 22 it is proposed that if the tenant is unable to pay from causes which are not due to his own misconduct, the County Court Judge is to have the power of staying execution for an indefinite period; but the County Court Judge is to have no power to lessen the amount of the debt. He must order the whole debt to be paid, but he can spread the payments over an indefinite period. Now, let us assume the case of a debt

  817
  which is an unfair debt which has resulted from an unfair and unjust rent. What is the County Court Judge to do in that case? He wants to give the tenant relief; the tenant wants relief; and the only way the County Court Judge can give it is by making the instalments insignificant in amount, and spreading them over an indefinite period of years. Surely that is a rather ridiculous position in which to put a legal authority. Surely it would be much better that he should be enabled to proceed in a simpler fashion. In the case I have mentioned, where the tenant is unable to pay his debt it is ridiculous that the relief given to him should take the form, say, of requiring him to pay 1s. a-year, spread over a period of 100 years, or something of that kind. If the County Court Judge did his duty in that respect—that is to say, gave the tenant the relief which he really deserved, the effect would be to bring the law into contempt, because it would be ridiculous for him to make such an order as 1s. a-year, spread over 100 years. Therefore we are in this dilemma—either that the County Court Judge must insist on payments which are not fair under the circumstances named, or he must make an order which is ridiculous, and which would bring the Court into contempt. I ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to this argument. As the Bill was introduced, the Government, I think, had an answer to the argument I was laying before them, because they could say that they had provided an alternative. They could say—"In cases in which the rent is unfair, and in which a greater relief than the mere stay of execution that payment by instalments is required, we have provided an efficient form of bankruptcy relief, and have authorized the County Court Judge to make a composition and to impose that composition upon the landlord and tenant." Well, but under these Bankruptcy Clauses not only do they impose this composition upon the landlord, but they take into consideration the other debts of the tenants, and impose pari passu similar conditions on the other creditors. I have always held that the principle of these Bankruptcy Clauses was good. I still believe—and I say it with all deference—that some day or other the Irish Members will regret that
  818
  they did not give a more favourable reception to those clauses. I admit that as they appear in the Bill they are defective—I admit that there are two objections to them—one a sentimental objection, that you fix a stigma on the insolvent tenant which ex hypotheci he does not deserve, the other objection, which is a more serious one, being that under the particular course proposed in the Bill the proceedings in bankruptcy would be so complicated and difficult that practically it would afford no real relief at all, but would involve the tenant in the costs of litigation more oppressive than the debt itself. All that might have been corrected if hon. Members had been able to regard these clauses with more favour. It might have been possible to have adopted a simpler form of procedure. However, I will not argue that matter; the clauses have been unpopular. They have had very few friends, and it seems now that they are to be dropped by the Government. But then I would ask the Government not to give up their object and intention—I would ask them to see if they could not transfer the equitable jurisdiction to another part of the Bill, so as to give the advantage which the Bankruptcy Clauses confer on the tenant. Let us see how that can be done. If you are going to give up the Bankruptcy Clauses it seems to me to follow almost as a matter of course that you must transfer to Clause 22 the power to make a composition as regards arrears of rent. In cases in which I believe these arrears are due on account of an unfair rent levied or demanded over a considerable period of time, or even in cases where they are not due to an unfair rent, but to the unfortunate circumstances of the tenant who finds himself is an insolvent position, it appears to me to be right, and in accordance with the principle laid down by the Government themselves, that you should give to the Court the power of compounding for these arrears. If the Government can see their way to accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Inverness they will get that to which they and I attach the greatest amount of importance. I have received a considerable amount of correspondence from poor tenants in the South of Ireland in regard to this Bill. [Laughter.] Well, hon. Members below the Gangway

  819
  would be surprised if they could see the genuine letters that have come to me from the poorer class of tenants living in that part of Ireland, who believe that I have some power to protect them and put their cases before the House. In much of that correspondence this has been impressed upon me very strongly; indeed, with all the force of practical illustration taken from the experience of the tenants themselves; they have said—"What is the good of relieving us from the burden of our debts to the landlords if we are to be left burdened with other debts?" They say—"Some of the general debts which we owe cannot be defended; they are as inequitable as any debts to the landlord which over existed, and we are so overburdened that if you only relieve us from our debts to the landlord we shall fall an easy prey to the usurer." They say—"Cannot something be done to relieve us of other debts on equitable terms at the same time that those of the landlord are dealt with? "It seems to me that that object can be secured by the acceptance of the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. Under that Amendment every debt would be brought under the operation of this clause—every debt would come under the equitable jurisdiction of the Court, and if the County Court Judge saw that there was a case in which the tenant was hopelessly insolvent he would do what is done under similar circumstances in England when a small debtor comes before the County Court Judge in an insolvent state, with liabilities to the extent of about £50, or thereabouts—that is to say, he would look into the state of his affairs, and would make an order for him to pay such a sum as he could be reasonably expected to pay, and having done that, the tenant would receive relief without having fixed upon him the stigma of bankruptcy, which is so much objected to by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. The County Court Judge in this way would be able to assist the tenant by giving him a new start in life, against the other creditors as well as against the landlord. I hope that, at all events, I made clear my feeling in pressing upon the Government the acceptance of this Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. I think that it carries out absolutely and entirely the intention and object of the Government, as it has hitherto been
  820
  declared to the House from the Front Bench opposite. I quite understand that if it really were to be contended on the part of the Irish Members for the first time to-night, and in opposition to what I consider was the understanding arrived at by the Committee on a previous occasion, that other creditors were to be specially protected, and that the gombeen man was to have the shield of the Nationalist Party thrown over him, and that the landlords were to be mulcted for the benefit of the usurer—I say I can, under those circumstances, understand the Government refusing the Amendment; but that is not the effect of the Amendment before the Committee. The effect of it is to put all creditors on the same footing; and, under the circumstances, I sincerely hope the Government will see their way to accept it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Though I do not entirely accept the conclusions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), I almost entirely agree with his reasons. If he had been present during the whole of the evening—and, of course, I do not blame him for not being here the whole evening, for I take it that hardly anyone besides those who are absolutely obliged to be here spend the whole day in their places—he would have known, when this matter came on for discussion, that a proposal came before the Committee dealing with the very point which is now raised. If he had been here during the hours of 8 o'clock to 10 o'clock, he would have heard an answer given to the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), expressing, on behalf of the Government, no particular adhesion to the term "bankruptcy," or to the particular clauses embodying or providing for bankruptcy which now stand in the Bill. He would have known that I stated I was perfectly ready to accept a simpler machinery, and a more direct mode of procedure, if anyone would be good enough to suggest it to me. I confess I still cherish the hope that if such proposal can be accepted by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, some modification might be made in Clause 24 which would carry out the object which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has in view, and to which the Government have more than once pro-

  821
  fessed their adhesion. But if the right hon. Gentleman had been in the House during the speech made by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), about an hour ago, he would have known that the hon. Member distinctly, and in the name of his Party, put his foot down, and declared his intention, not merely of resisting the Bankruptcy Clauses which we propose, but any form of bankruptcy whatever, or anything that would place the landlord on the same footing as the other creditors. It was because he made that declaration, as I understood it, in the most explicit terms, that I thought it not worth while exercising our ingenuity or spending our time in endeavouring to devise a more simple and expeditious and convenient method of carrying out the principle embodied in the 23rd and 24th clauses. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be of opinion, as I am, that it would be well to relieve the Irish tenants of the load of debt under which they at present struggle, and that such relief should be given to the tenant equally against one creditor as against another. If he had been present during the whole discussion, however, I think he would have seen that that object could not be adequately carried out by the Amendment before the Committee, because the inevitable result of that Amendment would be that the creditor whom the tenant does not desire to be first would be obliged to go before the Court first, and the Court would be obliged to consider the tenant's liability to that creditor in isolation from all his other liabilities. The result of that would be that the composition which the County Court Judge would lay down would inevitably fall most heavily on the creditor compelled by the circumstances of the case to go first before the County Court Judge. Now, Sir, I turn for a moment from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to whom we have just listened to the speech of my noble Friend the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), who preceded him; and I confess I listened to his speech, and to the views my noble Friend laid before the Committee with his usual force, with some surprise. I felt considerable surprise when I recollected that my noble Friend, not many weeks ago, came down and criticized the Government, not in a spirit of severe
  822
  hostility, but still criticized the Government, for what he considered their laxity of action in dealing with the case of Bodyke; and when I remember that on that occasion he expressed certain doctrines in relation to landlord and tenant which I thought indicated that he hold what I may describe as the highest Tory doctrine on the subject—[Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL dissented.]—I certainly understood my noble Friend as expressing those doctrines. I certainly understood him to say that the State should not be allowed to interfere in these matters, and that the particular landlord in question was so equitable and generous in his treatment of his tenantry that he was peculiarly one who ought to be treated with consideration by those people.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I am sure my right hon. Friend does not wish to misrepresent me. I drew the broadest possible distinction between the action of the Government qua the Executive and their action qua the Legislature. I said that if the law is wrong it should be altered, but that as long as it remains the law it should be executed at ail costs.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: At any rate, my noble Friend gave us no hint of that kind, and his views were so far advanced that he not only thought that judicial rents in the future, but also arrears in the past, should be cut down by the action of the Courts. My noble Friend wont on to say that this Bill must be considered as a permanent addition to the law, and that the Land Purchase Bill is in the dim and distant future. He said that few know when it will be brought in, and, that still fewer know when it will be passed, and that, therefore, we ought to frame this Bill on the lines of a perfect measure. But my noble Friend happened to be in the House at the time when the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) got up and suggested that this plan of cutting down arrears should be limited to three years. I fail to see how the noble Lord could have described this measure, which those who are most in favour of it are ready to limit to three years, as a permanent addition to the Statute Book.
  MR. PARNELL: I suggested that it should be limited to arrears antecedent to the passing of the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In other words, that, instead of placing a single limit to the proposal suggested, he was prepared to place two. My noble Friend went on to say—Is the Government not guilty of a great fallacy in placing the debt to the landlord upon an equality with the other debts of the tenant? I understand that that doctrine has been distinctly repudiated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham; but the right hon. Gentleman did not go into the grounds on which my noble Friend bases this strange and abnormal doctrine. It is that landlords and tenants in Ireland, at this moment, are not to be treated as in the relation of debtors and creditors, but are to be treated as in the relation of partners; and the noble Lord founded that view on the Land Act of 1881. I should have thought that if there was one doctrine more plainly apparent on the face of the Land Act of 1881 than another it was that the landlord was the creditor of the tenant, and was a creditor especially secured—that he was a creditor who had had given to him by the Act of 1881 a special lien upon the tenant right then granted. We said to the landlords in 1881—"You are asked to give up your rights which you have so largely held in the land, but you are not asked to give them up without compensation, and that compensation is that your debts from the tenant should be secured by the tenant right, which is the property of the tenant." And can it be maintained that under that Statute the landlord and tenant are in partnership, and are together opposed to the outside creditors? Is it not obvious that the landlord is a large creditor, and a creditor who should, according to the principle of the Act of 1881, be treated with the utmost deference and consideration by this House?
  MR. CHANGE: Dual ownership!
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Dual ownership is a most abnormal position, whereas partnership is not. If I were to seek in the commercial world a relationship parallel to this extraordinary relationship which exists between the landlord and the tenant in Ireland, I should say that the landlord is in the position of a debenture-holder with regard to the ordinary shareholders of a Company. Comparing the position of the Irish landlord with that of the debenture-
  824
  holder in a Company, I should say that he, like the other, is a secured creditor. Undoubtedly the landlord, under the Act of 1881—it may have been right or wrong; it may have been just or unjust—is in the position with regard to his tenant that the debenture-holder is in regard to the ordinary shareholder of a Company. I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer, and as I have spoken for some time I will not review the observations of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). I will merely ask the Committee to consider the position in which the Government are placed in this matter. We have done two things in deference to the opinion of the Committee. We have closed the "back door," as it is called, and we have agreed to a temporary abatement of judicial rents. What is the result of making these very large concessions which everybody must admit to be very large concessions? Why, both of them are used against the Government as arguments for concessions, of still greater magnitude. If the arguments of the hon. and learned. Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) and the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) are all the reward the Government get for making the concessions they have made, I do not see what object we have to gain by making concessions. We lay down principles in our Bill which we hold to be just, logical, and self-consistent. Then, in deference to the expressed opinion of hon. Gentlemen in this House we have made modifications and alterations in our principles. The inconsistency, however slight it may be, thus introduced into our measure, meets with no other gratitude on the part of the hon. Gentlemen who have pressed for those alterations than their using it as a now argument in support of their demand for further and larger concessions. I cannot help thinking that hon. Gentlemen will see that they are unduly pressing the Government, especially if they take into consideration the circumstance that the Government have to-night expressed their readiness to consider any proposals with regard to bankruptcy, and to omit that offensive word, if hon. Members desire it to be omitted. I think the Committee will feel that the Government have gone as far as they can go in this matter, and that, in whatever future criticism the Bill may be sub-

  825
  jected to, it cannot be said that the Government have shown themselves deaf to the arguments which have reached them from the various quarters of the House. I hope I have not detained the Committee too long, and I trust we may now be allowed to proceed to a Division.
  MR. PARNELL: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir. Goschen), in the debate on the Motion to go into Committee on this Bill, when I claimed, after the concessions announced by the Government in reference to re-adjustment of rents, that this point of arrears that we are now discussing should be considered, did not in reply to me take the same line that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has now taken, towards us when we recur to the point and ask that this question of arrears should be dealt with. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was all affability and smiles. He complimented us on our moderation, and compared us favourably with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), and he said that he would consider most carefully the recommendations which I had ventured to make upon the subject. I certainly thought the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in allusion to my recommendation, would have brought us in something better then the taunts of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, when he abuses us for having dared to ask for an extension of the provisions and concessions made by the Government.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I made no taunt against the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. PARNELL: The right hon. Gentleman taunted us generally, and I thought I was included with my hon. Friends. I certainly do not want to stand on any other footing than that upon which my hon. Friends stand on this question, and I do not think I do stand on any other footing. I have joined with them in arguing those concessions upon the Government and if my hon. Friends are to be taunted with asking for further concessions from the Government after their prior concessions, then I also have to be taunted with the same. But, Sir, I do not admit that the right hon. Gentleman has given an
  826
  accurate description or a full description of what took place in Committee during the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham(Mr. J. Chamberlain). The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary met us in this way. I accepted on the part of my hon. Friends the proposal of the Government that both classes of creditors should be treated alike—the landlords and the shopkeepers. The clause dealing with them gives power to the Court to spread the debts over easy instalments, and to give time for repayment. We desired that a debt, whether it be to the shopkeeper or to the landlord, may be reduced by the Court, if the Court thinks it desirable to do so. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary says—"The only method by which we are willing that this debt should be reduced is by the method of bankruptcy." the right hon. Gentleman is willing that the method should be called by any other name we please; doubtless he thinks that a rose will smell as sweet by any other name. Probably it will, but there we are at issue. We do not see how, under this clause, it is possible for the Government to adopt any modification of their Bankruptcy Clauses, in the first place; and, in the second place, we object to compelling creditors to come into Court and submitting themselves to this general hodge-podge, if they do not desire to do so, and if they are not pressing the tenant for payment of their debts. We say, why not leave as creditors the landlords on the one side and the shopkeepers on other? If one class of creditors desire to refrain from proceeding, why not let them alone? Why, when the landlord presses a tenant, should you compel the shopkeeper to press him also? No critical state of affairs has arisen in Ireland owing to the action of the tradesmen and shopkeepers. The crisis has arisen wholly in respect of the action of the landlords. Therefore, why, under the bankruptcy provision, should you seek to compel all creditors to press a tenant in order that the claims of all may be equally reduced? There is no sense in such a course. If the tenant is able to agree with his other creditors without the action of the Court, why should there be any action of the Court? And that is where we stand. We do not see why there should be any necessity for

  827
  the remodelling of the Bankruptcy Clauses to deal with, this case. We say that if the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) is accepted, the crisis in question can be efficiently dealt with under the present clause, and that the remodelling of the Bankruptcy Clauses, even if called by some other name, is neither necessary, expedient, nor just. Therefore I would entreat the Government to reconsider this matter. I would entreat them to consider that they are plainly risking the success of the whole Bill, as a measure of peace and a measure of justice to Ireland, by persisting in their absurd refusal to consider this question of arrears in the only manner in which it is now possible to do at this period of the Session. If you reject the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness the last chance will be gone, and you will put the tenants face to face with a load of arrears which will do a great deal to render this Bill useless and of no value to a large portion of the tenants. As one who desires that the Bill should be put into such a shape as that it will work out its purpose effectually, and as one who desires to see the Irish tenants use this Bill when passed, and as one who desires to see this Bill passed as a means of bridging over the interval between now and the time at which the Government may be able to introduce their permanent measure dealing with the land in Ireland, I would entreat them to pause before going to a Division, and to consider very seriously the proposals that are made. If they can adopt the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness, to the effect that all classes of creditors should be put on the same footing in respect to the operation of this clause, and if the clause is so drafted as to give the Court power to reduce the amount of debt, then I should hope that they will be holding out to the Committee some prospect of a satisfactory settlement of the question.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I wish to offer a few words of personal explanation. I do not wish to pursue the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary any further. I have ventured to say my say, the right hon. Gentleman has said his, and there it is. I have nothing to complain of in the action he has taken; but I wish to
  828
  offer a personal explanation, and to notice a characteristic sneer which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). The right hon. Gentleman said he could not understand from the remarks I made the way I was going to vote. The right hon. Gentleman evidently does not understand the process of differing from one's Party and yet supporting it. What I would say is this—that on this question of the Irish land I hold certain opinions which I have ventured—I hope with moderation—to press very rarely—I think only three times—on Her Majesty's Government. Even if the Government have not altogether agreed with those opinions I have pressed upon them, I do not think it necessary to assume that the Government are entirely wrong, or that I am infallibly right, which is a process of argument which is probably adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham for corresponding purposes. While, on the whole, I adhere to my view of the case, and while I believe that the Government would, perhaps, not have done unwisely in making some advances to those who have advocated this Amendment, if the Government go to a Division I see no reason why I should hold that they are absolutely wrong, and I see nothing inconsistent in supporting them after the remarks I have made, not in a dictatorial but in a pleading manner.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: I rise for the purpose of saying one word by way of personal explanation I can assure the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington that he does me great injustice in supposing that I intended to sneer at anything he said. I admired very much the ability of his discourse, and I was completely under a misapprehension as to the course which he intended to take. I said that I did not know which way he was going to vote, meaning by that that he had not stated in so many words exactly what his course would be; but I confess that I thought he was going to vote, as I am going to vote, for the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Inverness. I only make that explanation in order that there may be no misapprehension on the part of the noble Lord. I certainly had no idea of taunting him, nor of sneering at him. I am rather

  829
  glad that this incident has occurred, inasmuch, as it has enabled the noble Lord to pay me a compliment; and I can assure him that, coming from him, I very much value it. The noble Lord says that I, at all events, am not one of those who differ from their Party and yet support it; neither am I one of those who speak one way and vote another.
  MR. HALDANE: Notwithstanding the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, I do not apologize for standing for a few moments between the Committee and a Division. I consider the question now under discussion is beyond all controversy the most important question we have considered in the course of those debates. I had myself on the Paper a clause which I intended to move dealing with this subject. The fate of that clause will be settled by the result of this Division; and, therefore, I venture to say a few words while the matter is before the Committee. The object of the Amendment now before the Committee is an obvious one. The Bill we are now discussing is essentially a machinery Bill. It is a Bill the intention of which is to extend and improve the machinery of the Act of 1881. I do not know what may be in the minds of right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench opposite; but I venture to say that the Bill was never intended to be anything else. Had it been contemplated to go back even in the smallest particle on the principles laid down in the Act of 1881, the Bill would have met with the strongest opposition on this side of the House. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) spoke of the relations between landlords and tenants, and spoke of them generally and not merely in connection with Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary spoke of those relations as similar to those existing between a debenture holder and the other shareholders of a company. I will not follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman—I will not banish the principles of political economy to the regions of Jupiter and Saturn in the way he has done in making so astounding a suggestion. If there is anything well established and well ascertained with regard to rent it is that it ought to be measured by the fertility of the soil, if it is to be a proper economic rent, and that
  830
  was laid down as a principle in the Act of 1881.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The position of the landlord and tenant under the Act of 1881 is a matter with which I had nothing to do.
  MR. HALDANE: In our view, at all events, and in the view of the Party opposite, the object of the Act of 1881 was to restore the relations between landlord and tenant, and to put them on a sound economic basis. The object of the Act was to fix fair rents and to provide that the rents paid by the Irish tenants should not be those up to that time extorted by absentee landlords under an anomalous condition of things, which would have led to nothing short of a revolution in Ireland had it continued. The object of the Act was to ascertain such rent as the soil was capable of bearing—such economic rent as would represent the fertility of the soil. That was the purpose of the Act of 1881. I do not think that object was carried out quite perfectly. The period of 15 years laid down as the time during which there should be no revision of rents was too long a period. The object was to fix fair rents, and the reason why such an interval was allowed to elapse was that it was believed that it would save litigation, and would prevent the recurrence of evils previously experienced in connection with the land. That was why that particular machinery was adopted. But that machinery has broken down. The principle remains, however, and it is not the principle we want to amend, but the machinery. We want to fix a fair rent, and such rent as will apply from time to time, and represent the actual value of the land as it would be ascertained if the relationship between landlord and tenant in Ireland were on a parallel with the relationship between landlord and tenant on a well-arranged estate in this country. There is a vicious confusion in the proposal of the Government to put debts and rents upon the same footing. If the Amendment stood as it was originally proposed it would have related to the land and to the land only, and because I look on rent in Ireland as differing from every ordinary kind of debt—as something which is determined independently of the cost of production and measured by the special fertility of the soil, I should have thought it was proper that rent should

  831
  be treated on a different footing from other debts. That is the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has moved the Amendment, and that is the view of those who support him. The proposal of the Government when first brought forward was free from this vicious confusion which has since been introduced into it. What are we to choose—the Bankruptcy Clauses, or the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend? For my part, I do not hesitate as to the choice I should make. Bankruptcy is an evil expedient, and, the Amendment presenting a preferable alternative, I shall have no hesitation in supporting it.
  MR. FINLAY: I desire to say a few words of explanation before the Division is taken on the Amendment. I should be very sorry if any argument which had been used could give ground for what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has said about unduly pressing the Government and asking for concessions in consequence of those which have already been made. I should be sorry to adopt such a course as was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman. I am perfectly sensible of the generous course the Government have followed in the interests of the tenantry of Ireland. I believe they are very desirous of doing what is right, and I should be ashamed to use any of the concessions that they made for the purpose of extracting further concessions of which they could not approve. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment we are discussing was put down upon the Paper before any of the concessions of which he reminds us were made. When this Amendment was put down the section related only to proceedings by the landlords for the recovery of rent, and when I put down this Amendment it was intended to deal with the question of the arrears of rent, and with that question only. It is owing to what has taken place only this evening—to the introduction of other creditors into this part of the Bill—that the Amendment will have accidentally a wider application than I originally intended when I put it down. I regret the course taken earlier in the evening when other creditors were brought into the discussion, and it seems to me that we are now experiencing some of the embarrassment which has followed
  832
  from that course. But on that point I am ready to consider that, certainly, I may be mistaken; but what I desire to point out is this—that when this Amendment was put down it was intended to apply to those cases in which it was proposed to give power to reduce payments by instalments, and I understand that these lines, from 10 to 13, to which I. have called the attention of the Committee, are to be continued in a peculiar manner by an Amendment the Government propose to introduce. Those lines are so important that I would ask hon. Members to read them once more. I understand the Government intend to retain those lines and to apply them to the one case of an action for ejectment on the part of the landlord for the nonpayment of rent, and what I would respectfully press upon the Government is this. I am sensible of the difficulties which, may attach to the application of such an Amendment as that now under discussion to the claims of all creditors; but I do not see—I confess I am utterly unable to see—what objection there is to giving power to reduce the total amount in cases where it is intended that power should be given to reduce payment by instalment. I would respectfully press upon the consideration of the Government whether it is not possible, to this extent, to accept the principle of the Amendment before the Committee? When it was set down it was intended to meet the case of arrears of rent only, and I think it should be adopted in that sense, the modified proposal which the Government propose to press will, in my opinion, to a great extent, counteract the operation of this Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I regret very much that I was not present during the whole discussion on this important and rather difficult question, and I certainly do not feel competent to enter at all into the discussion of the merits of the debate. As, however, there appears to be some difference of opinion between those with whom I am generally in the habit of acting and myself, I think I am bound to say one word as to the reason for the vote which I am about to give. It is perfectly true that this Amendment has been put down by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) with my concurrence and the concurrence of those with whom

  833
  he usually acts, but it was put down as one of a series of Amendments before we were aware of the course the Government were going to take in Committee on this Bill, and one of a series of Amendments which, in our opinion, would tend greatly to improve the provisions and utility of the Bill. Well, Sir, it is admitted on all hands that the Government have gone a long way to meet those Amendments and the spirit in which they are framed; in fact the Government agree to a compromise in which very much of what I and my hon. Friends contended for when the Amendment was put down is embodied. I feel bound, speaking for myself, to treat this matter as essentially one calling for compromise, and it would not appear altogether fair on our part to require the Government, after going so far as they have done in the direction of meeting us, to accept every Amendment we thought it necessary to put down. I do not know what the opinion of hon. Members below the Gangway might be with reference to a compromise, but my idea of a compromise is not that either party should insist on all they originally ask for. It appears to me that this clause as amended would effect all we require. I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) both in the House and I believe out of the House, say that the clause as it originally stood when the Bill came from the Lords would do all that was necessary for the protection of the tenant as regarded what was called the "front door," but would leave the "back door" open. I consider that the back door has now been effectually closed. The clause purports to give to the Court a power to stay evictions, and does not purport to make any final or complete settlement of all the claims outstanding between the landlord and the tenant. It does not claim to be more than a temporary measure. The clause has been made to accord completely with what we required, and I do not think we are entitled to ask that it should be made to do what it never professed to do. Now, it is said that after the Amendments which have been adopted, the acceptance of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment would be a fair substitute for the Bankruptcy Clauses. I understand the contention of the Government to be that the acceptance of the Amendment of my hon. and
  834
  learned Friend would be the acceptance of bankruptcy, but without the machinery by which it might be carried into effect. What would happen, it is said, would be that the principle of bankruptcy would be applied, not to all the creditors, but to the landlord and two or three creditors who might come before the Court in respect of their debts; and that the whole liability of the tenant would not be taken into consideration. I do not know whether the Committee is well advised in altogether rejecting the principle of bankruptcy, but it does not appear unreasonable for the Government to say that they are willing to adopt the principle of bankruptcy, if it can be wholly and fully applied, but that they are not disposed to accept the principle of bankruptcy against the landlord and one set of creditors, or one or two creditors only.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: We, in this quarter of the House where I sit, are not surprised that the noble Marquess should take up a better and a more thorough Tory position than any Gentleman on the opposite side; but I must express my surprise that, as the noble Marquess is a much better Tory than many of the Gentlemen on the other side of the House, he has not the decency to sit on that side of the House.
  DR. CLARK: The noble Marquess has said that the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) has suggested something which has never been before the House; but the fact is, that the Government of which the noble Marquess was a Member introduced a Bill which was exactly on the lines of that proposed by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, Under the 6th section of the Crofters Act, passed last year, the landlord is placed exactly in the position in which the Amendment before the Committee would place him. Under that Act the tenant may apply, once in six years, to reduce the debt due to the landlord for arrears of rent without applying to reduce the debts of other creditors. That was part of the Bill of last year. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was then leading Ms Party in respect to that Bill, supported the Government in the measure, and I would now ask him why he did not apply, under the same circumstances, the same

  835
  principle to the Irish tenant farmers in arrear with their rack-rents. The landlord in Ireland stands in a different position from other creditors. He has a right to distrain for one year's rent, and therefore he is not in the same position as other creditors.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 140; Noes 199: Majority 59.—(Div. List, No. 339.) [12.5 A.M.]
  Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 8, to leave out the words "ought to be granted."—(Mr. John Morley.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 15, line 9, after the words "of the judgment of the court," to insert the words "in such ejectment, or, in case of an ordinary judgment, may put a stay upon the execution of ix writ of fieri facias as against the tenant's interest in the holding."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed," That those words be there inserted."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I wish to move, by way of addition to the Amendment, the insertion of words to the effect which I have already suggested—that of securing to the tenant that he should not have taken away from him the implements by which be works his holding. With this view, I would insert, at the end of the Amendment, words importing that property necessary for the profitable working of the holding shall be protected against the execution of the writ of fi. fa. These words are taken from the 25th clause, where they are applied after bankruptcy. It appears to me clear that if it is proposed to give this indulgence in case of bankruptcy much more should it be given under this clause, by which a temporary protection is given to the tenant, so that he may work his holding and pay his debts. It is a farce to give a man this protection for his tenant-right if you take away all the implements of his holding—tho plough, the seeds, and the other things by which he is to work that holding. I propose, therefore, to add, at the end of the proposed Amendment, the words "and such property as may be necessary for the proper working of the holding."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, at end, to add, "and such property as may be necessary for the proper working of the holding."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed," That these words be added to the proposed Amendment."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): This Amendment is similar to one placed on the paper earlier; and I think the hon. Gentleman must see that the Government cannot accept it. The clause, as originally drawn, applied only to ejectments for rent; but it was said that this might be evaded by the landlord, who might attain the same result by having recourse to the circuitous process of suing out a writ of fieri fecias for rent, and then seizing the tenant's interest in the holding. That was the difficulty which we have endeavoured to meet by the insertion of the proposed Amendment in Clause 22. But it would not be right to restrain the execution of a writ of fieri facias as against the general assets of a creditor. I would will the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the enormous difficulty attending a provision directing that a fieri facias should not be executed against the general assets of the tenant. He will see that the Sheriff cannot possibly be in a situation to judge what assets he should or should not seize. The County Court Judge would have to tell him—"You must not seize such a crop of hay, or such implements, and so on. But that is a matter which the County Court Judge cannot enter into. He cannot warn the Sheriff, as an officer of the Court, not to execute the writ. The provision which the hon. Gentleman proposes cannot, therefore, be introduced as an Amendment to this clause. It would require a special enactment.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I do not see that. I do not propose to stay execution against the general assets of the creditor. What I propose is to draw a distinction between general assets and those implements which are necessary to the working of the holding. If it is difficult to draw a distinction between different classes of assets, the Government are responsible, because they have introduced the words into another clause. It is really a simple matter. If the tenant is to be maintained in his hold-

  837
  ing, it seems necessary that he should be maintained in possession of the implements necessary thereto.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 10, after the word "may," to insert the words "in any such ejectment."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Do I understand that the Government have, or have not, accepted words which are to apply to all ejectments, or any words applying to particular cases of ejectment?
  MR. GIBSON: The explanation was given earlier in the evening. I then said that a judgment must be entered against all assets. It would be an unheard-of thing that a judgment should be enforceable against all assets, but should only be payable by instalments against a particular asset. I think the object in view is attained by providing that there shall be a general stay of execution against the holding.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I propose, in page 15, line 13, to leave out from the word "Provided" to the end of the sub-section. I propose the omission of these words on the ground that they fetter the discretion of the Court, and overload the clause with, words.
  Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 13, to leave out from the word "Provided," to end of the sub-section.—(Mr. John Morley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): These words are an indication to the Court. I think they tend to make it clearer to the Court what is to be done; and, therefore, I think that under the circumstances it would be better to retain them.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'DOHERTYproposed, as an Amendment, in page 15,
  838
  line 18, after "section," to insert the words—
  "Unless the tenant before the rising of the Court accepts the offer, or such modifications thereof as the Court may think right."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 15, line 18, after the word "section," insert the words, "unless the tenant before the rising of the Court accept the offer, or such modification thereof as the Court may think right."—(Mr. O'Doherty.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I would point out that if this Amendment were adopted, one offer might be made in Court and refused; and then the landlord, thinking the matter settled, might go home. I would suggest that instead of adopting this Amendment the word "refuses" should be substituted for "has refused" in line 17.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the following Amendment made:—In page 15, line 17, leave out the words, "has refused," and insert in lieu thereof the word "refuses."
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I now propose, in page 15, line 31, to leave out from "held" to the end of the sub-section. In the original Bill the clause was meant to apply to every holding under £50. As the clause is now drawn, what was formerly every holding is changed to the aggregate holding, and if the aggregate does not exceed £50, thon only the clause applies. This introduces a new restriction, on which the Government, at an earlier stage, did not insist, and in which, I hope, that they will not insist now.
  Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 31, to leave out from the word "held" to the end of the sub-section,—(Mr. John Morley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I think the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly accurate in saying that this was not the original form in which the Bill was drafted; but I think the pre-

  839
  sent form is hotter than the old form. In all previous Irish Acts, whenever a limit is put, it applies to the aggregate holding. It was so in the Arrears Act, and in the Act of 1870. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at Clause 12 of the Act of 1870 he will find this to be the case, and I think that it is founded on a principle of justice. The provision is in its nature of an eleemosynary character, and therefore your action should he founded on the condition of the tenant. That is denoted by the aggregate holding of the tenant, and not by the size of one particular holding.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: The change is not merely formal, but is one of substance. The same reason which originally induced the Government to depart from the alleged precedents would still hold good.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, the following Amendment made:—In page 15, at end, add—
  "(4.) This section shall apply to judgments in ejectment for non-payment of rent, or for debt or damages recovered but not executed before the passing of this Act against the tenant of such holding as aforesaid.
  "When any such judgment for non-payment of rent so recovered shall be executed against any such tenant as aforesaid, the court may, notwithstanding such execution, within three months after the passing of this Act, in like manner and under like conditions, and subject to like terms as to instalments and otherwise, make un order setting aside such execution, staying the further execution of such judgment, and, if necessary, restoring the tenant to the possession of the holding.
  "In case of any judgment for debt or damages so recovered against such tenant, the same shall not he executed against the tenants interest in his holding without the leave of the court, within the like period."
  MR. DILLON: The Amendment which has been placed upon the Paper by my hon. Friend (Mr. James O'Brien) I have been requested to state the object of. The object of the Amendment is to extend the benefits of this clause to those who have been evicted for non-payment of rent before the passing of this Act, and who had, at the time of the eviction, an interest in the holding of greater value than the rent and arrears then due. My hon. Friend does not, however, see any use in extending the operation of the clause, and, consequently, he does not propose to move it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
  MR. DILLON: Before we part company with this clause, I think it only right to say that the news of our proceedings here to-night will be received in Ireland with dismay. The hopes of the people of Ireland have been fixed on this 22nd clause. I myself, and other Nationalist Members of Ireland, have induced the people of Ireland to look forward with hopeful expectation in regard to our proceedings in respect of this clause, and it never entered into my mind for a moment to suppose the Government would have adopted the course they have adopted. I beg to say that the hopes of the people of Ireland will, by the course you have adopted here to-day, be utterly dashed to the ground, and they will find themselves in exactly the same position in winch they were in before this Bill was introduced, with the solitary exception of those covered by the 1st clause. I would ask the Committee this question, were we right or were we wrong when we declined to assent to the passing of the 4th clause, on the ground that cruel evictions should be as public as possible? At that time we were referred to the 22nd clause, and the course of the Government when trying to oil and smooth the passage of the 4th clause was such as, I confess, to entirely deceive myself; I did think, though we had a Conservative Government, that at last they were alive to the condition of things in Ireland, and were going to make an effort to relieve our unfortunate country. But now we have come to the end of this Bill, practically speaking, and the Government have got their 4th clause, a clause of coercion, and a fresh instrument of oppression to the people of Ireland; they have got through this House a clause to enable them to carry out evictions in the dark, and they got that under false pretences, by assuring the House and the Committee that it was to be followed by a full protection for the tenants of Ireland; and now, at the end of the Bill, we find there is no protection to be afforded to the tenantry of Ireland. What is the prospect of that class, to save whom this Bill was specially supposed to be introduced, the class who are threatened with immediate evictions? Who can be evicted in the coming winter? Not the leaseholders,

  841
  and the people who can pay rent; these are not the people who are evicted month by month and week by week, these are not the people who are to be attacked in the dark, and away from public opinion. The people for whose benefit this Bill was supposed to be introduced, the people who are in danger within the next nine months of harsh evictions, are the tenants who are more or less in arrear of rent. I cannot estimate accurately what their number may be, but I have on more than one occasion guessed, and I think my words will not be found to have been exaggerated, that in Ireland there are at least 10,000 decrees of ejectment out, and that there are a large number of farms in danger of being sold under fi. fa. And there are at least from 20,000 to 30,000 who are not in a position to meet their arrears of rent. What do you propose to do for those tenants, what prospect have they under this Bill? I have road the 22nd clause carefully, and I think the time has come for the Government really to believe that we who speak for the National Party in Ireland know something of the condition of things there. I did my best to convey to the Government that I would deal frankly and honestly with any measure that they brought forward. When I go back to Ireland and am asked, as I shall be, by the tenants what protection is given them under the 22nd clause of this Bill, I shall be bound, in common honesty, to tell them that Clause 22 offers them no shadow or shade of a hope. What will be the condition of affairs? We will go home to Ireland with the Coercion Act in. one hand and with no protection in the other, and be bound to take our position side by side with the tenants, and do the best we can to assist them in their combination to protect themselves. What protection or hope have the tenants to expect? What you propose to do is this—to enable the tenant against whom the landlord is proceeding for an excessive rent, and arrears he cannot pay, if he comes under this clause you propose, if the landlord proceeds by ejectment or fi. fa., that a stay shall be put to the ejectment, and the arrears of rent can be ordered to be paid by instalments. We know very well how those instalments will be ordered. We have heard a great deal of talk of spreading out these arrears and paying them at 1s.
  842
  a-year. It would take 100 years to pay them in that way, and it is all moonshine, because there is no doubt that the arrears will be divided into two or three instalments. We know what was done by the County Court Judge in Kerry; he spread out the instalments by ordering one to be paid in two months, another in a month, and so on; and, to a tenantry whose utmost exertions were taxed to meet the accruing rent, it would be impossible to meet the instalments that would fall due in a few months. You might just as well tell them to take down the moon, and therefore the clause is a perfect mockery to the tenants. It will be our duty to warn the tenants of what will be their fate if they attempt to go into Court looking for benefits that will turn out worse than nothing when they have got them. But look at the other point of view. The Government talk of having shut the back door against eviction. They have done nothing of the sort, and they spoke on the point with their usual ignorance of Irish matters. I listened to the speeches of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) who, as the Leader of the Unionist Party, is in the habit of coming down, after his festivities, which I hope he enjoys—[Cries of "Order!"] I said nothing disrespectful of the noble Marquess; but he is in the habit of coming down and telling us that the Government have done all that is required to meet the necessities of the Irish tenantry. Does the noble Marquess assume that he has a right to speak on behalf of the Irish tenantry; that he is entitled to inform the Committee what will satisfy or meet the necessities of the tenantry of Ireland? There is not a man in Ireland who is less qualified to speak on behalf of the tenantry, or to state what are their necessities. I regard the noble Marquess as the enemy of the Irish people, but as an open and honourable enemy; but he has no right to stand up as an Irish landlord of large estates and large rent, and say that because this clause does what he wishes, that the Irish tenants are to be satisfied. The question is, does the clause afford protection to the Irish tenantry, not to satisfy the noble Marquess, but to afford a real protection? I have pointed out what protection it affords in the way of ejectment. The method of ejectment

  843
  was becoming less frequent as a procedure by the Irish landlord to recover rent, and in regard to a writ of fi. fa. there may be a stay of execution; but that is really no good, as it only post pones the evil day, and you will have the tenant evicted at the end of sis months, because you give him no hope whatever of over becoming a solvent man again or of retaining his home. All this time the landlord has his remedy, as well as every other person, he has his remedy against the crops and against the capital of the tenant. And what has been one of the most effective means by which the rack-renting landlord has tortured the tenantry during the last winter? They endeavoured to tear away from them the small modicum of stock that remained to them; and everyone knows that the land is of no use when a man is left bare and destitute of all stock. Therefore, it is that I say this clause gives no protection whatever; and it would be well for the Government to realize what they are doing before they entirely shut the door to hope. Let me now say, in reply to the Irish Chief Secretary, that he adopted a most extraordinary tone in his speech to-night. He spoke of us taking advantage of concessions made by the Government to demand further concessions. Anyone would suppose the right hon. Gentleman was putting his hand in his pocket and doling out charity. What have we done from the outset of these discussions? We have endeavoured to put before the Government what we considered the smallest measure that would bring protection to the people; we have spoken what we believed to be the actual facts, in unmistakable language, from beginning to end; and, therefore, how does it lie in the mouth of a Minister to taunt us with asking for further concessions for the tenantry of Ireland? They are not concessions in the sense in which he used the word, they are rights; and we have done nothing but to lay before the Government what we believed to be the smallest measure of protection which would enable and justify us in advising the Irish tenants to abandon the methods of combination, and trust to the protection of the Court. The Bill affords us no assistance; and it will be our painful duty to advise the people, that if the Bill is not amended and altered very much, that they can get no protection in the
  844
  Land Courts, and that we must continue to maintain the system of combination we have hitherto adopted.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR.): There is much I regretted in the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. What I regret most is the attack upon the Government. He accused us, for the third or fourth time to-night, of deceiving the Committee, and proceeding with this Bill under false pretences. No charge was ever made with less foundation. He speaks of the Government having given pledges and promises that we were going to accept the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Cork on the 4th clause; but no syllable that fell from the Government can be contorted or twisted into any promise or pledge of that kind. The Amendments we proposed to move we put upon the Paper in a perfectly frank spirit. The manner in which we intended to deal with those 10,000 pending cases of eviction to which the hon. Member has alluded we also put down upon the Paper. The method of dealing with the back door was also placed upon the Paper; and there is not the shadow of a shade of excuse for the accusations of the hon. Member in regard to the clause. I regret the hon. Member has thought fit, at the present stage, to accuse the Government not merely of all the vices he is in the habit of showering upon the Irish Executive, but of the further vice of attempting to deceive the Committee of this House. The hon. Gentleman has told us once more that no remedy would be derived from this clause; but I cannot imagine by what process of reasoning, however highly coloured by Party prejudice, the hon. Gentleman arrived at that conclusion.
  MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman has slightly misrepresented what I said. What I said was that no hope of protection was afforded by this clause to the Irish tenantry.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He means in regard to arrears of rent.
  MR. DILLON: Yes.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not accept the version of the hon. Member as to the Bill, or of the 22nd clause as it at present stands. He has not estimated what a blessing this clause will be. He talks as if the sole and solid effect will be to stay evictions for a time and to distri-

  845
  bute arrears over a certain period of time. That would be one effect, and I think a salutary effect; but, in my opinion, it would not be the greatest or the most salutary effect. If this clause works, as I believe it will, it will be the most potent instrument yet devised by the Legislature for inducing landlords and tenants to come to some agreement with each other. I fully believe the operation of this clause in the hands of the County Court Judges will be to convince such unreasonable landlords as there may be—and there are some—to convince them that the best course for their own interests is to come speedily to some equitable arrangement; and, therefore, this clause, taken by itself, apart from the 1st clause and all other clauses, in my opinion, will confer great benefits to the tenants of Ireland. When the hon. Member accuses us of bringing this forward for the landlords of Ireland. I ask the hon. Gentleman to recollect it is not by our will, or, on any account, with our wish, that the Bankruptcy Clauses are dropped from the Bill. We had provided what we considered a remedy, and it was at the will of his Friends and himself that these clauses were dropped. The hon. Gentleman has not even held the faintest hope, if we could devise another and cheaper proceeding, and one which did not offend against the prejudices of the Irish tenants—he has not held out to us the faintest hope they would allow such a clause to pass without endless discussion, and therefore it is upon him and his Friends will rest the responsibility of having compelled us to pass this Bill in its maimed form, and without affording further relief for the indebtedness of Irish tenants who may at this moment suffer. I have one word further to say, to supplement my remarks, by telling the Committee the part of the hon. Gentleman's speech I regretted most was not the attack upon the Irish Government, but that part of his speech in which he allowed us to see, not in violent, but still not in ambiguous language, that he meant to leave the discussion on this Bill, and go to his countrymen in Ireland and use that great influence he undoubtedly possesses to induce them to see in this Bill no greater remedy than the darkened vision of the hon. Gentleman enables him to see in it, to prejudice, in so far as he can, the whole ten-
  846
  antry of Ireland against the Bill; and, if he can, to render nugatory in Ireland a Bill which his action in the House has done much to maim. I regret the speech of the hon. Member; but nevertheless we think he has been mistaken in the prophecy he has made with regard to the Bill. I believe, in spite of all that may be done in this Committee, in spite of all that may be done in the future by the oratory of himself and his Friends to prejudice Irish public opinion against it. I believe it will prove a message of peace to Ireland at the present, and of incalculable good in the future.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I must say I have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I have been surprised at it; and I do not think I ever heard a more astonishing speech from the Treasury Bench. He complains that the action of my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) will render the operation of the Bill nugatory; but what is his own description of the Bill?—he calls it a maimed Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: By the omission of the Bankruptcy Clauses.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I will go step by step, and I will presently go into that point. I satisfy myself now by accentuating this fact—that the right hon. Gentleman describes this great message of peace, this final fact of reconciliation between landlord and tenant in Ireland, as a maimed Bill, and that is a Bill my hon. Friend need take no pains to render nugatory. The Bill stands condemned by the right hon. Gentleman's own description of it, it is the epitaph pronounced upon the Bill by its own father and sponsor. The right hon. Gentleman says we are responsible for it; but is not that an extraordinary position to take up? The right hon. Gentleman admits the ills, but expresses his regret there is no remedy, and then turns round and says—"We proposed a remedy and you would not accept it;" and because Members of an Opposition did not accept that particular form of remedy, he says the Executive officers thought themselves liberated from the duty of finding any remedy for existing ills. I never heard a more astonishing or unconstitutional position than that in my life. I do not know who is the unhappy author of the Bankruptcy Clauses, whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary or the right hon. Gentleman the

  847
  Member for West Birmingham (Mr. T. Chamberlain); but I think they ought to owe their paternity to the right hon. Gentleman, for they have the same unhappy fate of all his attemps at constructive legislation. Of the authorship I cannot therefore say, but what I can say is that it was not us who killed the Bankruptcy Clauses—they committed suicide. The fact was, the moment they were proposed, a universal chorus of condemnation rose against them from all classes and all sections, who pronounced the strongest and most convincing condemnation upon them. It was not from these Benches, it was from the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) that the coup de grâce came to those clauses, and anyone who heard his remarks must have felt the Bankruptcy Clauses were dead past all surgery and all resurrection, and therefore the Bankruptcy Clauses, dead as they are, owed their death, not to us only, but to the universal condemnation pronounced by all sensible men except those on the Treasury Bench and the unhappy Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. the fact remains that the tenantry of Ireland are left unprotected; those who were to get a full measure of complete justice are now presented with what the author of the Bill calls a maimed measure of justice. In the face of these facts what is to become of the tenantry of Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman says this measure would lead to compromise between landlords and tenants; but how will it? The right hon. Gentleman has assorted that so often as to make people think that reiterated assertion amounted to absolute proof; but I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what inducement is there for compromise between landlord and tenant. The landlord still can recover all arrears, and there is no inducement to compromise when he can go for the whole. For my part, I must say I think the language of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo was not too strong, and, as to responsibility, the right hon. Gentleman will find out who will have to bear the responsibility before many months are over. It was the last solitary chance for the Government of dealing with the Irish tenants in a reasonable and just spirit. They have thrown away that
  848
  chance, and we must leave with them the responsibility of their conduct.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: we are now approaching the end of the discussion on Clause 22, and I, for one, am not at all surprised at the line taken by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I do not believe for a moment they wish this Bill to succeed in pacifying Ireland. The Committee must remember the opinions that have been uttered and the statements that have been made in Ireland by Members of that Party; and from those opinions uttered, from those statements made, we are led to believe that no measure passed by this House, which would satisfy the requirements of justice, could possibly satisfy hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. They have expressed their opinion that there is only one solution——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. and gallant Gentleman must must confine his observations to this clause.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I bow at once to your decision, Sir. What I propose is simply to say that this clause is one of the most important in the Bill—this clause, I imagine, will be the one most availed of by the Irish tenants. I imagine that upon this clause will hang, more or less, the success of the whole measure for satisfying the Irish people, and for settling the Irish Question; but, as you have decided, Sir, against my pursuing that line of argument, I will drop it. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), so I am informed, for, unfortunately, I was not in the House during his speech, says he intends to go back to Ireland and dissuade the Irish people from going into Court and availing themselves of this measure.
  MR. DILLON: For the second time I have occasion to-say I said nothing of the kind. What I said was that I should feel painfully compelled, when I did go back to Ireland, and was asked, as I should be asked, my opinion, I should be compelled to say that, under the clause, they could not look for any relief or protection.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: But why should they not look for any justice under this clause? I have listened very carefully to the debate that has just taken place on the clause, and it ap-

  849
  peared to me that the whole gist of the argument employed on the other side by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway was in favour of the creditor, especially of the gombeen man against the just demands the landlord makes on his tenants; and I think the last Division was eminently one as to whether the landlord or the gombeen man, more than any other creditor, should have the first claim upon the Irish tenant. My own opinion, knowing something about Ireland and Irish tenants, is that to apply to the gombeen man—in reality the greatest curse the Irish people have—the same conditions as the landlord, far from settling the matter, far from placing the tenants in a solvent position to start afresh, far from satisfying the Irish tenant, would leave him in a worse position than before. For this reason, that the arrears of rent, the permission the Irish landlord has given his tenants to get into arrears has been always more or less an elastic settlement of the differences between landlord and tenant. It allowed a certain amount of elasticity in the relations between landlord and tenant. If we had granted the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) the only course for the landlord would have been to force his tenant to pay up to the very day, whereas Irish landlords, however they have been decried and defamed, have had the habit and the rule—and I do not think how Gentlemen below the Gangway will deny it—of allowing the tenant to get into arrears to meet the exigencies of bad times, bad harvests, and bad weather; but if you pass a provision that renders it obligatory on the Irish landlord to force the tenant at all hazards to pay up to the very day, you pass a law that renders the position of the Irish tenant infinitely worse than it is at the present moment. My object, and I say this not only as an Irish landlord, for I look at it as an Irishman, the object I long to see attained is a satisfactory settlement of this question. We are asked to make a great sacrifice, to bow our heads to an act of legislation that will undoubtedly materially affect a vast number of Irish landlords. I know, for I continually receive letters from all parts of Ireland, informing me of hundreds, I might almost say thousands, of Irish landlords who will be absolutely wrecked by this Bill we
  850
  propose to pass. But I have to ask myself whether it is not our duty as landlords, but as Irishmen to consent to the sacrifice if it is to be of any avail. But of what avail would it be if it were received in the spirit indicated by the spirit of the hon. Member for East Mayo? Perpetual agitation; a continuance of the state of things that has rendered Ireland a by-word among nations will be the result. The agitation we can foresee; it is indicated by the manner in which the hon. Member speaks of this clause. If they really desire a settlement of this question, will any hon. Member get up and say and prove to the Committee that this clause absolutely affords no protection to the Irish tenants? Why, it is absolutely absurd. When you have passed this Bill, under this clause no Irish tenant will be turned out of holding, if he can show the Court that his failure to pay rent is due to causes over which he had no control. That is an advantage no tenant in the world will possess, except in Ireland after the passing of this Bill. If the hon. Gentleman loves his country—and I have no doubt he does—can he persuade himself that it will be the conscientious act of a patriotic Irishman to go over to Ireland and tell the Irish tenants that this clause that affords them such protection that he must admit himself they do not at present enjoy, will be of no avail, and that they are to reject it with scorn, and refuse to come to the Court to avail themselves of its provisions. I hope the Committee will not be influenced by the hon. Member, but will pass a clause which will give unheard-of protection to Irish tenants, that will go far to take out of the mouths of political agitators the capital upon which they trade. I shall vote for this clause for the same reason that I supported the Bill; for I believe it does give protection to tenants that may be suffering from causes over which they have no control, and also because, in passing the Bill, we shall have taken the ground from under the feet of politicians—professional politicians—who have made the sorrow and distress of their native country the foundation of their political fortunes.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is fond of making these allusions to professional politicians; but so far as I am

  851
  able to form an opinion, there are professional politicians other than those who sit below the Gangway, nor do they always support the policy of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork. There is a considerable proportion of other hon. Members who have made of politics—I do not like to say a trade—but sufficiently a profession to go about the country, presenting themselves as the embodied essence of loyalty, that after all does not entitle them to cast in the teeth of hon. Members here the charge of making politics a mere trade. But I think we can discuss Clause 22 without reference to that. I think we ought to discuss it in the light the hon. and gallant Gentleman gives us from the landlord side, and the light we can throw upon it from the tenant's point of view, perfectly well knowing that there is far too much of the landlord's view in the clause presented to the Committee. I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to look at the question calmly. Can he point out to me anything that will save the tenant from the enormous coat of the proceedings? Undoubtedly it is proposed in the Bankruptcy Clauses, and it is a provision that I hope will not be dropped, though probably that will be dropped with the other clauses, I desire to see the proposal dealing with the cost of proceedings retained. But it will probably go with the other clauses, and then you have not that which any Equity Court has, the right over the costs of its own proceedings. That, at any rate, cannot be contradicted, and should be sufficient to make the Committee pause. From what he said in his speech, the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed impressed with the idea that the clause would deal with the gombeen man. Nothing of the sort. It will not touch his principal, interest, or costs; he can escape without the slightest restraint, get his decree, and clear the farm as at present, unless he is fool enough to allow the tenant to get into debt over £20. In the course of a large professional experience, I never came across debts of this kind of more than £2 or £3. They certainly do not exist in that part of the country with which I, as well as the hon. and gallant Gentleman, are most acquainted. I admit the evil of the system and its growth. I remember a case that caused considerable sensation, where 2s. in the
  852
  pound was charged, and in that case the man came forward and in the most shamefaced way said that he never intended to exact that, but he kept it over the borrower's head in order to make him pay 1s. 6d. That was a case that occurred at Carndonagh, a small town in the remote North of Donegal, where it excited considerable indignation. Five per cent is the usual amount, not a great deal for interest when we consider the nature of the security, not equal to that exacted by the British Exchequer. But the gombeen man has nothing to do with this question; he is free to sue, and his debt will still be exacted. Therefore, all that the hon. and gallant Gentleman said about the tenant starting afresh, and the wiping off of arrears is wide of the mark. The tenant will still have his rent running on, rendered more moderate undoubtedly; but still accruing, and when you add to this the further instalments of arrears, you add with one hand what you take off with the other. It is in the immediate future that those instalments will have to be paid. It is idle to suppose that the County Court Judge will add years and years for the payment of the debt We know that unless stimulated, and very strongly influenced by authority which, on one occasion, at any rate, in a well-known case was successful, he will not delay the payment to anything like the extent dreamt of by those who have spoken of the effect of the clause. But I should like to turn to what the Chief Secretary evidently thinks is a complete and crushing answer to the charge made against him by the hon. Member for East Mayo. The charge he made was this—that although—and I do not say from this quarter alone—we all looked forward to Clause 22 as the relief clause, the clause to which all eyes were turned, and from which we expected the machinery to stop unjust evictions that would make the horrors of the past utterly impossible, we have been altogether disappointed by the Government, and are met with the naked statement that so long as the tenant pays the instalments, he may go on. It is not the case that this clause allows the Court to give discretion; even after one, two, or three instalments, if the tenant fails to carry out one of those instalments, the full penalty comes upon him. All I can say is that with the accruing rent coming

  853
  on, with the season we have now—and I appeal to both sides with confidence, what can we expect when things are burnt up to the extent we know them to be—if the full rent is exacted in November, what is the use of speaking of instalments of the arrears? It is impossible to regard the provisions of this clause as providing the machinery for giving justice to the tenants and keeping evictions down. In discussions on the 4th clause we were referred to this clause, and undoubtedly the hon. Member for East Mayo was right when he said it was to this clause we looked forward with hope, and are met by disappointment. Even yet I say, why is it not possible to deal with arrears in the same way as you deal with rent. You make the powers of the Land Commission retrospective as regards rent; let arrears be dealt with in the same adjustment. Surely it will be for the interest of all parties to do so? The picture drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo is not one bit exaggerated.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: If I could only take the gloomy view of the clause expressed by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), I confess I should be utterly hopeless of the future of Ireland. But I do not take that view, though I greatly regret the decision arrived at by the Committee. I regret it for the landlords as well as the tenants. I do not, however, take a gloomy view, because I believe the matter will work out something in this way. Ejectment processes will issue, and then the tenant will come to the Court, and, stay or no stay, there will be great inducement for landlord and tenant to come to terms. I cannot shut my eyes to that, and do not think it is fair to do so. Undoubtedly, during the discussion of the Tenant's Relief Bill last Session, the lack of this power in the Court was forcibly commented on by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. That is now provided, and beyond that there is the inducement to compound and wipe out the whole thing and begin afresh. Because I believe that will be the practical working of the clause I intend to vote for it, though, as I say, I deeply deplore the decision arrived at, and hope it is not too late to reconsider that decision on Report.
  MR. MAHONY: the hon. Member (Mr. T. W. Russell) has
  854
  a short memory; he says the want of the power to stay evictions was largely commented on last Session. My recollection of the discussion is that we were over and over again told from the Government Bench that the Chairman of Quarter Sessions had the power of staying eviction proceedings, although we as often contradicted the statement. We have also heard from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Saunderson) a great deal about the gombeen man; but I am not going into that question further than to ask what brought that class into existence? It was the struggle of the unfortunate tenants to pay exorbitant rents that brought the gombeen man into existence, and this clause will not affect him. How also would the clause apply to the two most notable acts of evictions that have taken place this year? Apply it to the evictions at Bodyke. What effect would it have had on those evictions? Would it have stopped them? It would have spread huge arrears over a space of time. But these tenants were in no position to pay arrears at all. It wag stated, not by an Irish Member, but by an English Member, that they actually still owed to the bank the money they borrowed in 1880 to pay the exorbitant rents of Colonel O'Callaghan. And by this clause it is proposed to place Colonel O'Callaghan and the bank on the same footing, although Colonel O'Callaghan actually has in his pocket the money lent to the tenants by the bank. The debt to the bank is to be treated as the same sort of debt as the exorbitant rent of the landlord. Now, apply the clause to the evictions at Glenbeigh. Did the Court afford any relief there? Not one particle. Judge Cullen exercised his power to the full. And what was the result? The result was that when an impartial Englishman went over to Glenbeigh and inquired into the condition of the tenants, he wrote to the agent and implored him to accept terms much lower than those which had been imposed by Judge Cullen. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will say that his Bankruptcy Clauses would have met the case of Glenbeigh, and he endeavoured to throw on us the responsibility of the rejection of those clauses. Mr. Courtney, the Government have assumed the responsibility of governing Ireland, against

  855
  the wishes of the Irish people, and having assumed it, let them look to it themselves. They cannot throw on us the responsibility of the rejection of the Bankruptcy Clauses. Those clauses were condemned on every side of the House. They were condemned by the Government's own friends as well as their opponents. As long as the Government choose to govern Ireland, it is for them to find a remedy, approved of by the majority of the House, for the present state of things. The fact that the proposal they bring forward does not meet with the approval of the majority of the House does not relieve them of the responsibility, and does not throw any responsibility on us.
  MR. FLYNN: Mr. Courtney, I desire to repudiate in the strongest manner the heated and inflammatory language used by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the speech he made a short time ago. the right hon. Gentleman desires to cast upon my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and the Irish Members a responsibility which they do not care to assume. The Irish Members approach this question with an open mind, and with an honest desire to make this a workable Bill. We do not need to go back for more than a few nights ago in order to show that this is the case, for the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) then acknowledged in the warmest manner the conciliatory attitude of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). We wished to approach this clause with the desire of making it workable, believing that if the Government did not present an inflexible front to the Amendments of their Friends on this side of the House, it might have tided the tenants over the difficulties which, it is acknowledged on all hands, exist at present. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) who—as far as this Bill is concerned—has distinguished himself by coming in and making an occasional speech and by never sitting out a debate, is quite unaware of the progress which has been made in the consideration of this clause to-night, and has not heard the various debates which have taken place upon it. How can we be held responsible when two very important Amendments, raising an important
  856
  issue as to whether trade creditors should be dragged into the clause, and moved by Liberal Unionists above the Gangway, have been rejected by the Government, and when the entire constitution of the clause has been altered by the Amendments introduced by the Government? As I said earlier in the evening, it was most unwise on the part of the Government to drag the traders of Ireland into this clause. Much capital is sought to be made by the frequent use of the term "gombeen men." Well, I know Ulster pretty well, and I know the county of Cork particularly well, and in all my travels, in Cork or elsewhere, I have never come across this gombeen man. He is largely used in novels, no doubt, and he may have an existence in the West of Ireland in famine time, but he is certainly not often to be met with. Who are the principal creditors of the distressed farmers at the present time? They are those who deal in meal and seed and the other necessaries which serve to keep the farmer going. Will anyone contend that it is equitable that a man who has supplied meal and seed to the farmer should be forced into the operation of this clause, and thereby, if the tenant is broken down or struggling under heavy rents, should be made to lose a large portion of his money. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, at the conclusion of his observations a few minutes ago, challenged hon. Members on this side of the House to show that this clause would not operate in favour of the tenant, that it would not prevent evictions, that it would not reduce or alleviate hardship, and that it would not do that which the Government have taken credit for. But let us take the clause as it stands and apply it to the case of the judicial renters. It is quite unnecessary to weary the Committee at this stage of the proceedings by going at any length into the Report of the Cowper Commission; but I may state briefly that all the Commissioners are agreed that the judicial rents are such that they cannot be paid, and that the tenants are burdened with debt. Take the case of one of these tenants going to the Court to get protection against his creditors. Say that the writ is served, and judgment is recovered against the tenant, who stands a chance of being evicted. He goes before the Court, but what relief

  857
  does he get there? It has been said that this clause will stay evictions. Well, what relief does the tenant get? If the County Court Judge is much more liberal than, we know him to be, the tenant may get relief for a few months, but the debt will be there all the same, and the costs will have been added to the amount. I attached great importance to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay), that the Court should have power to reduce the arrears of rent; and if it had been accepted I believe the clause might have had a chance of working well in Ireland. That Amendment having been rejected, we repel the charge that any responsibility lies upon Members on these Benches. We have worked hard to improve the various clauses as they passed through Committee. We have given the present clause the closest attention, and have supported those who generally support the Government in the attempts they have made to make it valuable and operative. When, under those circumstances, we, being acquainted with the distressed condition of tenant farmers, tell the Committee that the clause will not operate, will not prevent harsh and unjust evictions, and will not relieve the load that at present weighs down the agriculturists of the country, we are stating what we know to be facts, and we speak with a knowledge of the circumstances which no paid Chief Secretary and no other official of the Crown in this House can possess.
  MR. KNOWLES: I must apologize to the House for intervening in this debate at this late hour. I wish to say, however, that I gave a pledge to my constituents that I would vote against harsh and unnecessary evictions, and that I believe that the effect of this clause, of Section 4, and of the whole Bill will be to prevent the occurrence of any harsh and unnecessary evictions. In speaking on the second reading of the Crimes Bill, I laid before the House certain statistics with regard to evictions in the Metropolitan Police District, and I supported those statistics in a letter which I wrote to The Times of April 16. They showed that, in the quarter ending the 31st of December last, there were 348 families turned out of doors in the Metropolitan Police District, as against only 229 families in
  858
  Ireland, excluding those who were readmitted as tenants or caretakers. Since then, I have obtained some further statistics from the Chief Inspector of the Metropolitan Police for the quarter ending 31st of March last. I find that in the Metropolitan Police District, in that quarter, 269 families were turned out of doors or evicted under ejectment orders or judgments; that in 20 cases force was required to give effect to the orders, that in no case was the force resisted, and that in no case was a tenant readmitted. I have compared these statistics with the official Returns of evictions in Ireland for the same quarter, and I find that there were 584 Irish families evicted, and that 307 of these were re-admitted as caretakers. Subtracting the 307 from the 584, there were, therefore, in the quarter ending last March, 277 families turned out of doors in Ireland. It must be remembered, in comparing those figures, that the population of Ireland is about 500,000 more than that of the Metropolitan Police District. Sir, in examining these eviction statistics for several years past, I have noticed—and it is a fact which has not hitherto been brought before the House or before this Committee—that there are more evictions in Ireland in the June and September quarters than in the March or December quarters; that, as a rule, there are two evictions in the summer for every one in the winter; or, in other words, that the landlords of Ireland show their consideration for their tenants in winter. [Cheers.] Well, it is a consideration, apparently, which the landlords in London have not shown. It may be said that I am comparing agricultural statistics with town statistics, and, in order to meet that objection, I have taken the trouble to obtain certain statistics from an agricultural country.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I have been waiting, but I have not, up to the present, been able to see the relevancy of the hon. and learned Member's observations. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will connect them with the clause.
  MR. KNOWLES: This clause, Sir, is a clause dealing with evictions, and I wish to show that there are not so many evictions in Ireland as hon. Members opposite wish to make out.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That does not make the hon. and learned Member's

  859
  remarks relevant. The hon. and learned Member must connect them with his argument, and not with the single word "evictions."
  MR. KNOWLES: Sir, the question of harshness in connection with, evictions is before the Committee, and I wish to show that there is not so much harshness in connection with these evictions in Ireland as hon. Gentlemen opposite wish us to suppose. I wish to show that there are not so many evictions in Ireland, an agricultural country, as there are in the Province of Ontario, which is also agricultural.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That line of observation is not pertinent to the clause.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I do not propose to deal, Mr. Courtney, with the observations of the hon. and learned Member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Knowles). He told us that his statistics were original, and I will only say that I do not think they were more original than the speech itself. As to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh) (Colonel Saunderson), the hon. and gallant Gentleman, spoke of the sacrifices which he said had been made by landlords in Ireland in regard to this Bill. Well, Sir, whoever beard of an Irish landlord making sacrifices unless he was compelled to do so? It is because the Irish landlords have not made sacrifices——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) was interrupted when he was out of Order, and any reply to his observations would be equally out of Order.
  Question put, and agreed, to.
  Clause 23 (Jurisdiction in bankruptcy by consent) struck out of the Bill.
  Clause 24 (Statement of particulars).
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Mr. Courtney, on this clause I merely wish to repeat that I wish the Committee to understand that the Government, in dropping the 19th and other clauses, are fulfilling their part of the bargain entered into with the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), and they understand that he and his Friends will fulfil their part in, dropping other
  860
  clauses of which they have given Notice.
  MR. DILLON: What other clauses does the right hon. Gentleman refer to?
  MR. O'DOHERTY: What the right hon. Gentleman alludes to took place in the discussion of Clause 21, and it referred more to that than to this clause.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I mentioned them all. I beg, Sir, to move that you report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
(Mr. Jackson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, The First Lord of the Treasury.)

COMMITTEE. [BILL 334.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Short title, &c.) agreed to.
Clause 2 (Appointment of Commissioner to examine affairs of trustee savings bank),
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I move, in page 1, after line 28, to insert the words—
"Provided that such notice of any representation by depositors under this section shall be given to the trustees of the bank as the Treasury may direct."
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, after line 28, to insert the words—"Provided that such notice of any representation by depositors under this section shall be given to the trustees of the bank as the Treasury may direct."—(Mr. Jackson.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Clause 3 (Winding up of savings banks).
MR. JACKSON: I beg to move that you report Progress, Mr. Courtney.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sitagain,"—(Mr. Jackson,)—put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

MUNICIPAL RUGULATION (CONSTABULARY, &c.) [BELFAST] BILL.
(Colonel King-Harman, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)

APPOINTMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
[BILL 291.] [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Appointment of Select Committee [26th July].
Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be further adjourned till Thursday," put, and agreed to.
Debate further adjourned till Thursday.
MR. SEXTON: I beg to move that this Select Committee be appointed now. You may remember, Sir, that in the discussion last week——
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! We pass from that Order, having proposed to fix the adjourned debate for Thursday.
MR. SEXTON: I rose, Sir, the moment you said Thursday.
MR. SPEAKER: The Member in charge of the Bill gave me instructions that it was to be put off to Thursday.
MR. SEXTON: That is the point that I wish to contest, Sir.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is too late for that.
MR. SEXTON: On the point of Order, Sir, I ask is it not competent for me to contest the proposal for the further adjournment?
MR. SPEAKER: It is competent for the hon. Member to do that at the proper time; but the Order was passed, and the Clerk was in the act of reading the next Order.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.— [BILL 345.]
(Mr. Jackson, Sir Herbert Maxwell.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."'—(Mr. Jackson.)
MR. JAMES STUART: Before the Bill is read a second time, I just wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that it is passing what practically amounts to the imposition of a rate of 1¼d. in the pound upon the whole Metropolis, and that it is doing that upon the recom-
862
mendation solely of a body which is not directly representative, and whose actions have recently been brought into great discredit. I do not oppose the Bill now; but I make an appeal to the House on behalf of the ratepayers of the Metropolis that, in future, Bills of this kind may be brought before the House at some time when there is an opportunity of criticizing them, and also the action of the Metropolitan Board of Works itself, until a really representative authority is established.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I cannot help expressing my astonishment that a Gentleman so reasonable as the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) usually is, should calmly propose that we should pass the second reading of a Bill dealing with a vast, a gigantic expenditure of money such as is contemplated in this Bill after 2 o'clock in the morning, and that without one syllable of explanation. I am still more surprised at such a course of action at the present time, when, as my hon. Friend (Mr. James Stuart) has said this expenditure of between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 sterling is most of it recommended by a public Body now under suspicion of most serious offences, at which I am sure there is no man in the House whose financial conscience and morality would more revolt than the Secretary of the Treasury; but he, quite unwittingly and innocently is actually, by letting this Bill go forward at this hour without a word of explanation, assisting at the screening of that public Body from the inquiry that is now demanded into its proceedings. I do not know whether any Metropolitan Member may consider it his duty to make a Motion which I do not now make, for I trust the reasonableness of the Secretary to the Treasury will relieve me from the necessity; but perhaps, some hon. Member whose constituents are more particularly interested may find it his duty to move the adjournment, in order to secure the discussion of a Bill of this enormous importance at a proper time. I may point out to the Srcretary to the Treasury, whose business it, to a great extent, is to arrrange the course of our proceedings, that as the Government have now in their possession the whole of the time of the House—I more time I think than they will presently be able to occupy—that there

863
is no necessity to proceed with this measure after 2 o'clock in the morning. A Bill of this enormous importance may well demand some explanation, and discussion at a reasonable hour, say, at a Wednesday's sitting.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks I have in any sense sought to evade comment or explanation in regard to this Bill; but I have, I believe, followed what has been the general annual practice in the House. I believe it is thoroughly understood that the responsibility of the Treasury for the Bill consists rather in the care and precautions taken prior to the introduction of the Bill, to see that the whole of the statements therein are true, and that they give to the House the fullest information as to the financial condition of the Board and its proposals. It will be found, if reference is made to the table attached to the Bill, that the fullest information is given in regard to the figures and the financial position of the Board, The hon. Member who spoke first (Mr. James Stuart) spoke of the Board being under some sort of stigma or suspicion. Now, I think he will recognize that really on this question the Treasury have no responsibility; but let me point out that the question has not escaped the attention of the Treasury. By communications with the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board I have satisfied myself that the question to which the hon. Member refers is being investigated by a Committee of the Board of Works, which I believe will deal with it thoroughly and impartially. The House will see, therefore, that, so far as the Treasury is concerned, I have endeavoured to discharge the duty imposed upon me, and I can say that all the accounts in this Bill have been most carefully gone into by the Treasury, and I believe there is nothing in this Bill which for a single moment the House need hesitate to accept. I hope that although I did not make any remarks on proposing the second reading, the House will recognize that so far as the Treasury is concerned the Treasury has discharged its duty. With regard to the other question, upon which I feel an interest in common with every Member of the House, I feel as we all must feel, that it is the bounden duty of the
864
Board to thoroughly and impartially investigate the questions that have been raised, and to give the fullest, clearest, and most definite answer to the charges made. These are at present under investigation, and I think the House would do well not to interfere with the duty of that Committee. This Bill is a valuable Bill, dealing with certain powers conferred on the Board by various Acts of Parliament. Into the various points the Treasury have carefully examined, and control has been exercised and every precaution used to present them in a form giving the fullest information, and this information, so far as the Treasury is concerned, is vouched for to the fullest extent.
MR. CONYBEARE: I do not doubt for a moment that the Treasury have exercised every precaution in their power, and so far as the Treasury are concerned I am quite certain that in the hands of the hon. Gentleman we are perfectly safe; but this House has also a responsibility and a duty to perform in a matter of this kind, a duty I am bound to say we should not discharge in a satisfactory manner were we to allow this Bill to pass without any scrutiny or examination. I make those remarks bearing in mind the fact that so far as my recollection extends this Bill was only distributed on Saturday or this morning; it is a longish Bill, containing many complicated figures, and I do not know what may be the case with other Members, but I certainly have not had time to look into it with the care the Bill ought to have before we come to a decision upon it. As to the other matter, may I call attention to the fact that it has been stated in the Press by a Member of the Board that he is not all satisfied with the inquiry by a Committee of the Board, which is simply a private inquiry without the light of public opinion, which would make it of any value. In fact, so unsatisfactory did that Gentleman consider it, that although he could supply new facts in connection with the matter, he did not think it worth while to bring them forward without a more full and impartial inquiry.
MR. SEXTON: I think even some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who represent Metropolitan constituencies, must have heard the state-

865
ment of the Secretary to the Treasury with considerable surprise. Even if they are now prepared to acquiesce, probably, when these proceedings become known to their constituents, some of them will be less disposed to silence than they are now. What is the general practice? This Bill is promoted by the Metropolitan Board of Works; it involves an enormous expenditure of public money, and it is presented without a word of explanation to the House and the people. If that is the practice it is a bad practice, and ought to cease, and we shall exert ourselves to secure that it shall cease. The Board has a Representative here in the person of a distinguished Baronet of considerable literary ability, and to him the House might reasonably look for some explanation. This is described as an annual Bill. Yes; but in former years the Board was not under that suspicion that recent events have excited in the public mind. What did the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) say? Surely he is much too shrewd, too upright an administrator to believe that the apology he made will pass current, when he says, forsooth, that a suspicion of malfeasance of public funds, a misuse of money entrusted to a Body—a kind of Corporation—is being investigated by a Committee sitting to inquire into its own misdeeds. I refuse to accept that as a reasonable explanation. It is just because London is without a system of local government that we are placed under an obligation to protect the ratepayers of London from having a march stolen upon them in this way. The Secretary to the Treasury spoke of the information in the table. Well, the table deals with vast sums of money extending over operations of the past 30 years. He, with his faculty of turning figures into poetry, might have said a few words to enable us to understand this ponderous Return. It is not merely this information we want. The remarks of the hon. Gentleman do not apply to the proposed legislation in the Bill. Look down the clauses, and you find the Board expend money under five sets of Acts. There is a proposal to lend money to the Vestry of St. Pancras. What do we know of that? What security is there for the loan? [Laughter.] Will the Home Secretary, who laughs, get up and say that the Vestry of St. Pancras will give good security? Is he suffi-
866
ciently acquainted with local finance to give that pledge? There are powers to lend to the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police, powers to lend to Burial and other Boards. They take powers to lend the funds that pass into their hands to other Boards that, for anything we know, may prove to be as discredited and incompetent as themselves. The Bill, so far as its 23 clauses are concerned, is a most symmetrical arrangement of sections. It begins with large powers of lending and winds up with large powers of borrowing. I think great powers of this kind should not be annually granted without a full explanation, and more especially when the Body asking for such is of such a character that it may be said to be under police supervision. I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
MR. CHANGE: I beg to second that Motion, and in doing so would point out that, having looked through the clauses of the Bill, I find that it proposes to give power to raise, pay over, or borrow, £4,477,000; and this trifling sum is to be voted by us, and made a charge upon the people of London, without a word of explanation, at half-past 2 in the morning. The Bill is a gigantic combination of Ways and Means and Committee of Supply. This is no hour to deal with such a matter, and when we do approach it, it must be with considerable information in excess of that, if I may call it so, we now possess.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Sexton.)
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to know whether the Secretary to the Treasury is going to allow this Motion to be put without a word from him for or against it? Of course, if he agrees to the Motion I need say no more.
MR. JACKSON: I am really sorry to find myself in opposition to hon. Members on this matter; but allow me to say, in reference to what has fallen from the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), and in regard to the accounts, that he appears to have overlooked the fact that the accounts are publicly audited by the Treasury Auditor; and, so far as that is concerned, the accounts have been so carefully examined and sifted that I should be quite prepared

867
to vouch for them myself. With reference to the borrowing powers referred to, they are powers, or extensions of powers, already given by Parliament, and which are renewed from year to year. Hon. Members will see, if they refer to the Bill, some powers are exhausted, some unexhausted, and in some cases additional powers are taken. For instance, there are additional powers to lend money for the building of police stations and central offices. But I am not aware there is anything particularly new in the Bill; they are simply extensions of powers Parliament has already granted. As to lending to the Board of St. Pancras, that, also, Parliament has authorized. The Board of Works has power to lend money to the Board of St. Pancras, if satisfied with the security; and they would not lend money without satisfactory security. I really think the opposition to the Bill which is now raised is hardly justified, as if there was anything new in principle contained in the Bill. I have no great desire to take the Bill to-night, more than any other night; but I really hope we may be allowed to take the second reading, and at the subsequent stage there will be ample opportunity to discuss any particular point.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 108: Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 340.) [2.20 A.M.]
Original Question again proposed.
DR. CLARK: Sir, the object of this Bill is to continue the Act of 1875, which expired last year. It is to extend the borrowing powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and I should like for a minute or two to call the attention of the House to one or two items of the extension. Under Subsection 2, the Board are asking an increase of borrowing powers from £10,000 to £31,000; that item alone showing more than three times as much as last year. Then, in Sub-section 4, they are asking an increase from £28,000 to £57,000; in Sub-section 5, an increase from £61,000 to £102,000; and in Sub-section 6, an increase from £32,000 to £44,000. They practically want to extend their borrowing powers very considerably; and as the Metropolitan taxpayers already have very
868
heavy rates to pay I strongly object to the proposal. I think half-past two in the morning is not the proper time to give such extended powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works; and, therefore, I move that the House do now adjourn.
MR. M. J. KENNY: I rise for the purpose of seconding the Motion of my hon. Friend. I think it is extremely undesirable that the House should proceed at this hour of the night to discuss questions of this kind. It is unreasonable to ask the House now to pass a Bill which gives to a public Body, at the present time under grave public suspicion, power to embark in very extensive operations. The best proof that there was no anticipation that this Bill would be brought on tonight is, that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Epping Division of Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), who is now responsible in this House for the transactions of the Metropolitan Board of Works, is not in his place, and I may also point out the printed copies of the Bill have only just been placed in the hands of Members, who have not had an opportunity of examining it. It is useless to contend that the Treasury is responsible in anything more than a technical sense for the accuracy of the figures given in the statement issued with the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Dr. Clark.)
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): In the first place, I should like to point out that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Epping Division of Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) has nothing whatever to do with this Bill. But the Government are not prepared to carry on the contest at this hour of the night; and, therefore, if the Motion for the adjournment of the House is negatived or withdrawn, the Government is prepared to assent to the second reading being postponed.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Will my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury undertake to bring the Bill forward at a time which will give us an opportunity of discussing it? I am sure the hon. Gentleman is alive to the enormous interest excited

869
in the mind of the Metropolitan taxpayers at the present moment with, regard to the Board of Works. He will say that that is a question, for the Metropolitan Members; but while the majority of those Members belong to a Party in which I have no confidence, the hon. Gentleman will allow me to exercise my rights as a London ratepayer. Will he consent to make the Bill the first Order of the day for Wednesday week, and thus give us an opportunity of discussing it? The hon. Gentleman is the last man in the world I would like to inconvenience; but I give him fair warning that any attempt to push the Bill through at a moment when there are not due facilities for discussing it will receive from me renewed opposition.
MR. CONYBEARE: I wish to ask the Government, for the information and convenience of hon. Members, if there is any responsible official now representing the Board of Works in this House? The Chairman of the Board has, we know, been promoted to "another place," and I am sure I do not envy him; but we do desire there should be someone in his place to whom we can direct our inquiries. I hope that when the Bill is again brought on, the Government will see that some Member of the Board of Works able to give explanations will be present.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
Debate arising;
Debate adjourned till Thursday.

OPEN SPACES (DUBLIN) BILL.— [BILL 80.]
(Mr. William Redmond, Mr. T. D. Sullivan, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Dwyer Gray, Mr. Timothy Harrington.)
COMMITTEE. [Progress 25th July]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. JOHNSTON: I should like to move that you report Progress, Sir. Hon. Members opposite have had their innings with regard to a Metropolitan Bill, and now I beg to move that you report Progress, as this Bill is likely to cause considerable discussion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress,
870
and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Johnston.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN): I hope that my hon. Friend will not press that Motion. I do not say that because I approve of the action of hon. Members opposite; but it is desirable to get this Bill through. I have carefully gone through the Amendments which have been put down, and see no objection to them.
MR. JOHNSTON: As I would he sorry to model my conduct on that of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 346.]

MARKETS AND FAIRS (WEIGHING OF CATTLE) BILL [Lords].
(Sir Richard Paget,)
[BILL 337.] CONSIDERATION.

  THIRD READING.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  An Amendment made.
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: I hope the House will consent to the Bill now being read a third time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Richard Paget.)
  MR. M. J. KENNY: Although I sympathize to a very great extent with this Bill, I would request the hon. Baronet not to take the third reading now. I object to the Bill on the ground that, as far as Ireland is concerned, it will never be satisfactorily worked; because any Bill in regard to which the Irish Local Government Board has a power of veto is absolutely useless for good. I hope, therefore, the hon. Baronet will give us some further opportunity of considering whether we shall enter another protest against it.
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: I hope the hon. Member will not press his objection. In the hon. Member's absence, I thought myself in duty bound to comply with the pledge made.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I trust the hon. Member will withdraw his opposition.
  DR. TANNER: I am perfectly certain that everybody will sympathize with the hon. Baronet opposite, who has often shown great ability in dealing with agricultural questions. But I would certainly ask him not to press his Motion for the Third Reading, and let it be put down for Thursday; because then there might be such an expression of opinion as might have the effect of bringing a certain amount of judicious pressure to bear on the authorities in Ireland in regard to their administration of the Bill. Really, Sir, hon. Members cannot understand how great an interest is taken in this matter. It was brought on, as many of these Bills are, at a late hour of the evening. There were a number of Members on this side of the House who did not desires to block the Bill, because it was brought in by the hon Baronet. But still there are several points in it remaining unconsidered; and, therefore, I appeal to the hon. Baronet not to press for the third reading now.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

MOTIONS.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (MISCELLANEOUS) BILL.
  On Motion of Baron Henry De Worms, Bill to amend in certain minor particulars some of the enactments relating to Merchant Shipping and Seamen, ordered to be brought in by Baron Henry De Worms and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 348.]

  TEMPORARY DWELLINGS BILL.
  Select Committee on the Temporary Dwellings Bill nominated of,—Mr. Channing, Mr. Elton, Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Kenrick, Mr. Llewellyn, Mr. Joseph Nolan, Mr. Pickard, and Mr. Francis Powell, with power to send for persons, paper, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum,

  SHERIFF OF LANARKSHIRE BILL.
  On Motion of The Lord Advocate, Bill to remove doubts as to the appointment of the Sheriff of Lanarkshire, and to confirm the same, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate. Mr. Secretary Matthews, and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 349.]
  House adjourned at Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
-PVBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Statute Law Revision * (192); Escheat (Procedure)* (193); British Settlements* (189); Secretary for Scotland Act (1885) Amendment (104).
Committee—Smoke Nuisance Abatement (Metropolis) (175), negatived.
Report—Merchandise Harks Law Consolidation and Amendment* (201–203).
Third Reading—Legitimacy Declaration Act (1858) Amendment* (202), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Ballyshannon, &c.)* (103), and passed.
Withdrawn—Elementary Education Confirmation (Middleton St. George)* (93).

NEW PEER.
The Right Honourable Henry George Percy (commonly called Earl Percy) having been summoned by writ to the House of Lords in his father's Barony

675
of Lovaine—Was (in the usual manner), introduced.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND CHINA—REPORTED ESTABLISHMENT OF A BANK.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I wish to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is able to confirm or contradict a telegram which has appeared in The
  Standard of to-day, stating that an American and Chinese bank has been established, with a capital of £200,000,000 sterling?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): No; I have received no information on the subject; but it is fair to say that, this being a matter not directly concerned with the Foreign Office, our representative may not have thought it worth the expense of telegraphing.

ISLANDS OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC— THE NEW HEBRIDES—ACTION OF FRANCE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I also desire to put a Question to the noble Marquess on a point upon which I need not dwell, because it has been so constantly before your Lordships. I cannot disguise from, the noble Marquess that there exists a feeling of great apprehension with regard to the continued presence of the French in the New Hebrides. A statement from the noble Marquess might greatly alleviate that feeling; and, perhaps, he could also give a date for the production of Papers on the subject.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I will see if the Papers can be produced before your Lordships separate; but I am not quite certain whether they will be ready. I entirely share the feelings of the noble Earl. I look upon this continued occupation of the New Hebrides with deep regret, though I am not able to say—it would be unjust to say—that the French Government hold any language on the subject to which we can take exception. Our difficulty has been to obtain an answer to the
  676
  representations we have made. Those representations have fully called the attention of the French Government to the gravity with which this matter is regarded both in this country and also in the Colonies. I can only repeat the hope that before long the expressed opinions of the French Government, which are entirely correct, may be translated into practice. It is fair to the French Government that I should say that they have wished to conduct side by side with this matter the negotiations in regard to the Suez Canal which, I think, were in progress when the noble Earl was in Office. We have no objection to this; but we must demur to these latter negotiations being the cause of any delay in regard to the former.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Did any communication from the French Government, which was expected by the noble Marquess in February, again in March, and the beginning of May, arrive?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think we had one communication; but it was of a very inconclusive character.

SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL.—(No. 175.)
(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)

COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, in moving that the House be put into Committee, said: My Lords, it is hard on me, and hard upon the House, that I should be compelled to add a few words on the Motion with a view to shorten our proceedings, and to avert a general debate upon the Bill before us. The noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss), by his Amendment, would raise a general debate, since he proposes to throw out the Bill at a time and in a manner perfectly unprecedented. When was there ever an example of the House refusing to go on to the next stage and to discuss the clauses of a Bill, after a Select Committee of the House had just examined and revised them? It is a form and species of obstruction which even in "another place" has not been yet arrived at. The noble Earl is well entitled to a patent, not for averting smoke, but for retarding legislation. But the Resolution in itself is as unten-

677
able as the time for making it is inappropriate and startling. It maintains that the Bill ought not to go on until the Acts of Lord Palmerston have been amended. But the Bill proposes to amend them. The last two clauses have no other object. They enlarge the area in which those Acts are valid; they add to the constructions over which they will be operative. "But," says the noble Earl, "until you have amended the Acts of Lord Palmerston, you must reject provisions for amending thorn." The Resolution maintains also that the Bill ought not to go on until the Acts of Lord Palmerston are better administered. But it has been repeatedly explained, while now the evidence confirms it, that they can never be enforced until the smoke of private houses is in some degree abated. If the noble Earl has not acquired that lesson, he is wholly unfit to guide the House upon the subject. But for another reason he is unfit to guide the House upon the subject, he asserted here that the Bill gave the police a right to visit the interior of domiciles, and to the Vestry of St. James that no class of houses could be possibly exempted. Both statements are unfounded, and it can only be supposed that he has never read the Bill he so traduces and calumniates. The noble Earl is also quite alone in the position which he occupies. His own League has not condemned the Bill which he, at last, proposes to annihilate. His own Party, consisting of another noble Lord and of himself, are not united in resisting it. His near Relative (Lord De Vesci) has laboured to correct and to enlarge it. If the noble Duke (the Duke of Westminster) was able to be hero to-night, which he is not, he would oppose the noble Earl to the utmost of his power. Last of all, Her Majesty's Government having given Notice of Amendments to be moved in Committee, cannot, at least, without a flagrant inconsistency, support the noble Karl in refusing to go into it. My Lords, I do not deprecate, however, the hostility of the noble Earl to the Bill if he sincerely disapproves it—although, in that case, he ought to have opposed it long ago on many previous stages. All Bills afford a scope for opposite opinions. I venture only to point out the proper mode of acting on his judgment with regard to it. It is to move against it in the ordinary way on the third reading.
678
Before now, Bills have been rejected on that stage, after going through every other one. At no period, unless I am entirely deceived, have Bills been quashed in transit from a Select Committee to the general Committee. I engage the noble Earl to give up that which ought to be hopeless, for that which may be possibly attained; and at the same time—as regards this measure—to exchange the character of a persecuting friend for that of a legitimate and straightforward opponent. It is not at all too late for him to withdraw the Notice he has given, and to offer that which I suggest to him. The noble Lord concluded by moving that the House go into Committee.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—[The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
THE EARL OF WEMYSS, in rising to move—
"That before the law for the prohibition of smoke is extended to private dwellings, it is desirable that the purpose and intention of the existing Acts be more carefully carried into effect, either by their amendment or by their better administration,"
said that, notwithstanding the outrages of which the noble Lord complained, he had not the slightest intention of withdrawing his Amendment. If his action was unexampled, the Bill of the noble Lord was no less unexampled. He was in sympathy with the general object of the Bill, though not with its provisions. He remembered some years ago a gentleman, supposed to be a speculative builder from Croydon, announced a great discovery and made an alarming prophecy about the doomed city, London, which was to be suffocated in a dense fog, and that those who lived in the pure atmosphere of Croydon were to come in and bury the ill-fated inhabitants of the Metropolis; but London had got on in spite of the fogs. And on the other hand, as regards the question of health, a gentleman of recognized authority in sanitary matters had expressed the opinion that what Tendered the air of London, with its 4,000 miles of sewage, less deleterious than it might be expected to be was the great quantity of carbon with which it was impregnated. His objection to the Bill was that it was to be applied to private houses. His

679
contention was that the present law, with some extension of its application and of the area over which it extended, was sufficient for ail purposes. The Acts at present in force were those of 1853, 1856, and 1866. The Act of 1853 applied to every furnace employed in working engines, to dye-houses, distilleries, sugar refineries, and other similar places. The Act of 1856 extended the Act of 1853 to steamers west of the Nore and to public baths and wash-houses. Then there was the Sanitary Act of 1866, which was repealed as regards the rest of the country by the Public Health Act, 1875, but was still in force in the Metropolis. The objection might reasonably be made that the present law did not apply to steamers with, donkey engines or to clubs or hotels, and that the area over which it extended was too restricted. Before a Bill enforcible against private houses was passed it would be much better to extend the existing law to semi-public buildings, like hotels and clubs. To put private houses under like provisions would be to establish a hateful system of espionage. The present system was for policemen to go about with smoke shades, by which they tested the density of the smoke issuing from any manufactory. If the smoke was denser than the permitted standard the owner was warned, and three warnings were given in consequence of what was observed by the policeman outside before an Inspector was sent to examine what was going on inside. He supposed his noble Friend's Bill would be worked in much the same way. Now, about 50 policemen were at present employed on this special duty. It might then be imagined what an army of policemen and what an enormous expenditure would be required to administer such a Bill with respect to the 700,000 houses in the Metropolis. Further, the cost of the measure to owners and occupiers of the necessary changes in their grates was calculated at between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 sterling. Public opinion was not ripe for so stringent a measure.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLdissented.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Did his noble Friend mean to assort that public opinion in the country generally or in the Metropolis was ripe for such a measure?
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: Certainly.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Well, he had read the evidence of Mr. Ernest Hart, and other witnesses, on this point, and he said distinctly that public opinion was not ripe for it. His noble Friend's utmost hope was not that his Bill would be universally applied, but that some of the Local Bodies would be inclined to adopt the proposed system. If such a measure as this were passed it would, in his judgment, remain a dead letter. He heartily sympathized with his noble Friend in his object; but he thought it would be better to proceed slowly on the old lines, and to ascertain whether the present Acts were efficiently administered, and whether their operation might not be reasonably extended. By bringing forward this Bill his noble Friend had shown what good intentions he had; and by passing the second reading their Lordships' House had affirmed the principle that this smoke nuisance ought to be further abated. Having said this much, he ventured now to move the Resolution which stood in his name.
Amendment moved,
To leave out from ("That") to the end of the motion for the purpose of inserting the following words: ("before the law for the prohibition of smoke is extended to private dwellings, it is desirable that the purpose and intention of the existing Acts be more fully carried into effect, either by their amendment or by their better administration").—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that all the objections adduced by the noble Earl were raised many years ago when Lord Palmerston initiated his great smoke reform movement. The wonderful success of Lord Palmerston's legislation must be admitted by everybody who remembered the state of things that previously existed. One hardly knew the City again after the Act had been in operation a few years. What was the real evil which we had to deal with now? Lord Palmerston intended to deal with all the factories of his time, and consequently he fixed a certain limit But since that time the spread of manufactures had gone on steadily. Clearly, therefore, if we wished to carry out Lord Palmerston's intentions we must attack the factories which were outside his limit was the evil a great one or was it a small one that they

681
had to contend with? He thought the London fogs need only be thought of a; few minutes to convince their Lordships that the evil was a very great one and that it was growing every year. The addition of the 40,000 houses per annum was of itself a source of great alarm. They had beard in medical evidence, that a dense fog in London had raised the mortality to that of the great cholera year. Every year the bulk and the frequency of the fogs increased, and it was becoming a perfect scandal and discredit to us that we were taking no steps whatever to deal with this tremendous evil, which was causing an increased rate of mortality. The trees and plants were telling the same story. The last conifer in Kensington Gardens had given up the struggle, and the roses were stunted and dwarfed. His noble Friend had talked of this Bill as if it were a measure of the most tyrannous and sweeping character. Its first object was to extend the area of Lord Palmerston's Act. It was next proposed to bring clubs, hotels, and refreshment houses under the operation of the Bill. Let any noble Lord walk down Northumberland Avenue and watch the chimneys of the great hotels pouring forth great volumes of smoke which floated across to the National Gallery and evidently produced most serious evils. Again, their Lordships had only to watch their clubs in order to see the damage done by the smoke which issued from them. Their Lordships would observe that it was not a question of prohibiting smoke—for that, of course, would be absurd—but of abating smoke. The best witnesses agreed that if we could cope with the smoke of the kitchen chimneys we should enormously diminish the magnitude of the smoke nuisance in London. A grate in a kitchen could be dealt with at a very small cost—from 10 s. to 30 s. for a very large kitchen range. Was there the slightest danger of this Bill being put in force tyrannically? The power of enforcing the Bill was placed in the hands of the Local Authorities, who were elected by the inhabitants, and the measure was much more likely to be inoperative than too operative or too drastic. Moreover, any regulation relating to the abatement of smoke must be sanctioned by the Home Secretary. there was no real danger in making the experiment. The
682
smoke from steamers could easily he dealt with. One large Company was already, with great advantage, consuming its own smoke. The smoke from locomotives was another question which would have to be considered. He ventured to suggest that they should try the experiment of this simple Bill. It was a step, at any rate, in the direction of amendment, which could not lead to any grave or tyrannical results, because the powers under the Bill were placed in the hands of people who lived in the houses affected by it. He implored their Lordships to take a step forward in this great question, and he hoped that if the experiment could not be made this your Her Majesty's Government would hold out some distinct hope of dealing with the question completely and thoroughly in the next Session of Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he was willing to admit the necessity of some measure for the abatement of this nuisance; but he could not resist saying that he thought the Bill before the House was rather an obstruction than an aid to doing good. If the object, which he thought all would agree was a good one, were attained by this Bill, he could quite understand the argument of his noble Friend who had just sat down; but he found that every tiling was to be left to the Local Authorities, who were to make any regulations they thought fit for the abatement of smoke in any private dwelling. The Local Authority might impose on offenders such reasonable penalty as they thought fit; in fact, the Bill provided no limit at all. This was the first time that legislation proceeded on such lines. He could not help thinking that although its object was a very good one this Bill was ill-devised, clumsy, and inconvenient, and would be totally inoperative for the purposes for which it was intended. He hoped their, Lordships would not proceed further with it.
LORD MONKSWELLmaintained that public opinion in many parts of the Metropolis was in favour of the Bill. The expense of putting the Act in force would be reimbursed over and over again in the course of a few years. He hoped, therefore, seeing that the Government had not adopted the course taken by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, but had put forward such Amendments

683
as would make the measure workable, then Lordships would proceed with the Bill.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDsaid, he would remind their Lordships of the system of police supervision in domestic matters which this Bill would inaugurate. It seemed to him that the Bill was drawn in the interests of the producers of gas and coke, and for the benefit of the Welsh coalfields. In his opinion, the small amount of damage from the ordinary domestic fireplace did not call for the interference which would be absolutely necessary under such a measure as this. Reference had been made to the dense fogs of a few years ago as having caused a large death rate. It was the custom to attribute the severe fogs and dark days that occurred in London to the smoke, and he was of that opinion until a short time ago. During the last Whitsun Recess an excessively black fog hang over London for 21 hours; that fog he traced back to Holland, whence it got to Dover, and the next day, eight hours later, it reached London. That fog could not. therefore, be duo to London smoke. He believed that if the existing law was more frequently enforced the smoke nuisance would be much lessened. The prime cost of the apparatus prevented many persons from burning the smoke of their furnaces, and unless they were fined they would continue to evade the law. He heartily supported the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss).
LORD HOBHOUSEobserved that he thought it probable different methods of dealing with smoke would be found suitable in the various parts of London; but, whether that was so or not, he was sure that no one knew the best method, and that by the Local Authorities trying different plans the best method would gradually be discovered. It had been said that the control of the Home Secretary in this matter would be illusory. It was not his experience that in local matters the control of the Central Authority was illusory. On the contrary, there wag a disposition on the part of the Central Authority to make all the Local Authorities act in a single groove, and to adopt methods which were sometimes unworkable. He thought that the Local Authorities, under the supervision of the Home Secretary, might be trusted to carry out the provisions of this Bill, which he should support.
EARL BROWNLOWsaid, that on behalf of the Government he should support the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss), having always held the view that private dwellings should he excluded from the operation of the Acts. There was extreme difficulty in legislating on a subject such as this Bill attempted to deal with. Inquiries had been instituted by Parliament on the subject. There had been a long correspondence on the subject, and all that he could say was that Her Majesty's Government were carefully considering it with a view of ascertaining whether any amendment could be made in the present law, or whether the difficulty could be met by a better administration of the present law.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he should support the Motion to go into Committee on the Bill. He had not much confidence in the argument that it would be better to await the time when London should have a local government, and to leave this question to be dealt with by that Body. Nor had he much confidence in waiting till the Home Office had made up its mind on the subject. He had no great affection for the Bill; but on one broad ground he did entirely sympathize with his noble Friend behind him (Lord Stratheden and Campbell). His noble Friend had two or three times been permitted by the House to read the Bill a second time, and on the third occasion the House deliberately referred the Bill to a Select Committee. The Committee having sat upon the Bill, and the measure having returned from that body, it was now proposed to reject it without allowing it to go through the ordinary stage of Committee. To burke the Bill in this way seemed to him to imply a disregard for the Select Committee that had sat upon it. Out of respect for their own proceedings, and their own Committee, it appeared to him absolutely necessary that their Lordships should go into Committee on the Bill, in spite of the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss). If the noble Earl had any wish to put an end to the measure at a later stage, the proper course would be to do it on the third reading.
LORD DENMANsaid, that it being the usual custom of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches to propose Resolutions and then to withdraw them, he

685
scarcely knew how to act in this matter‥ If the noble Earl pressed his Amendment to a Division he should support it, as he thought that the present law should be enforced before fresh legislation was entered upon, especially as a Member of the Government had opposed the second reading. It seemed to be forgotten that in 1820 Mr. Parkes, a worsted manufacturer at Warwick, got a patent for consuming the smoke at his works; and the first Lord Penman saw the air as pure as Mont Blanc, and linen bleaching below the tall chimney. Mr. Michael Angelo Taylor brought in a Bill to indict defendants for a nuisance if they did not consume their own smoke; and a power was given to the Court to order the building of furnaces, at the expense of defendants, suited to consume the smoke; but it seemed to have not been workable. When the Prince of Wales was in Sheffield all the fires were put out. He (Lord Denman) thought the House ought to be obliged to the noble Lord for causing the Bill to be studied; but he believed that more inquiry should be made before a compulsory measure was passed.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid, he had no desire to add anything to the speeches of his noble Friends in favour of the measure. He would point out, however, that whether their Lordships desired to carry it or not, they were bound to consider the Amendments offered by himself and by the Government. They could not judge the Bill until its final shape was given to it. Even if the smoke of London was to be prolonged the decorum and the dignity of that House ought not to be impaired, which they would clearly be if the Amendment triumphed.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 12; Not-Contents 30: Majority 18.
Resolved in the negative.
Then Motion, as amended, agreed to.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS— THE BURLINGTON HOUSE COLONNADES. —QUESTION.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether the
686
First Commissioner of Works would take steps to have the colonnades of Burlington House, now lying derelict on the banks of the river, in Battersea Park, protected from injury, either by a fence or some other adequate provision? These colonnades were beautiful works of art, and he had been surprised to find the Representative of the Office of Works in that House inclined to pooh-pooh suggestions with regard to them.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, there was no greater scandal to the Office of Works than that those colonnades should have been allowed to lie from year to year on the banks of the river. All the children of the Metropolis were playing hide-and-seek amongst them. He was afraid they were so much injured now by the exposure and the treatment to be which they had been subjected as to be of little value.
LORD HENNIKER, in reply, said, he would not enter into the architectural merits of the colonnades; but he must deny that he had pooh-poohed their artistic value. In what he had said in the House on a former occasion he had stated that a great many schemes had been laid before the First Commissioner of Works with regard to them, which had all been pronounced impracticable, not merely on the ground of expense, but in regard to finding an adequate situation for them. The noble Earl had himself been invited to make any suggestion for their being placed in a proper position; but he had so far made none. With regard to the proposal that they should be fenced round, it was necessary to explain that a Bill was now before Parliament handing over Battersea Park, amongst other places, to the Metropolitan Board of Works. Under these circumstances, the First Commissioner of Works did not think he ought to give any pledge as to what he would do to protect these remains; but he was instructed to say that when the question for handing over the Park was settled, if it remained in his hands to deal with the matter, he would give the proposal of the noble Earl his most careful consideration.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNasked whether he was to understand that the colonnades were to be handed over to the Board of Works with the Park?
LORD HENNIKER: I am unable to say, as there is no provision in the Bill

687
with respect to them; but this point will be decided by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Plunket) when the Bill is passed.

SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND ACT (1885) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 194.)
(The Marquess of Lothian.)

SECOND READING.
Order for the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of Lothian), in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to read this Bill a second time I feel that I labour under a disadvantage, inasmuch as the measure refers entirely to the strengthening of the Office I have the honour to hold and the fact that that Office is to be strengthened means, to a certain extent, a cutting and carving of powers from another Office. On that ground I should have been glad if one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State had undertaken the duty of moving the second reading of this Bill. This question will be in the recollection of your Lordships. It has been before your Lordships for several years. I do not propose to go back to the history of it; but perhaps I may be allowed to remind your Lordships that in 1883 a Bill called the Local Government Bill was introduced, but it was late in the Session when it came up to your Lordships, and it was felt that a measure of that importance should not be passed without sufficient discussion and consideration. The consequence was that your Lordships' House did not pass that Bill in 1883. Public feeling in Scotland was very; much roused on the subject, and the result was that in January of the following year a meeting was held in Edinburgh—perhaps the most representative meeting that ever was held in Scotland, embracing, as it did, not only every political section—I see the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss) smile—but it embraced, not only every political section, but every branch of society, and every portion of the Kingdom of Scotland. I see the noble Earl smiles dissent, but I think the only dissentient voice on that occasion came from the noble Earl himself. The result of that meeting was a deputation which shortly
688
afterwards waited upon the Prime Minister, Mr. Gladstone, and which I had the honour to introduce. Mr. Gladstone then undertook that measures should be introduced to give effect to the wishes of the people of Scotland; and in 1884 my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Rosebery), to whose courage, ability, and cordiality the measure owed so much, brought in a Bill for the creation of the Office of Secretary for Scotland. I wish to refer to that Bill, because some words were used on the second reading, both by the present Prime Minister and by the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery), that strengthen my hands in asking your Lordships to give a second reading to the Bill now before you. When that measure was before this House the present Prime Minister said the consideration that it was desirable to confer as much power upon the now Office as possible induced him to vote for the Amendment—that was, that the administration of law and justice should be placed in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland; and the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Rosebery) said it was quite certain that if this new Minister was to start his Office under discouraging conditions the Office would be a failure. The point to which the noble Earl was then referring was then very question of the administration of law and justice. In "another place," however, that Amendment was rejected. I am quite certain that my Predecessors in Office will bear out completely the contention of the noble Earl that it was almost impossible that the Office then constituted should not be a failure unless some additional powers were attached to it. I do not say it has been a failure, but that it may become so unless these additional powers are granted. There are two considerations that I will lay before your Lordships in asking you to give the Bill a second reading. The first is what I may call a sentimental consideration, and the other is a practical one. The sentimental consideration has a very direct bearing on the practical one. After the long period of most intimate union between England and Scotland, which has lasted now nearly 200 years, people are apt to forget how entirely distinctive and different the administration of Scotland is from that of England. There is almost no point of

689
resemblance. There are different forms of religion and different social forms affecting every portion of Scotland. There is a different node of education—an entirely different code of education—and different systems of agriculture. There are also different systems affecting the laws of lunacy and parochial laws, the fishing laws, and almost every other department. In fact, I think the few Acts which are mentioned in the last clause of this Bill as exceptions to the operation of the Bill practically touch the whole of the laws which are similar with regard to both Scotland and England. To these differences between Scotland and England the people of Scotland are intensely and passionately attached—not, I rejoice to believe, because there is any feeling of not continuing cordially the union; but for that very reason the people of Scotland wish to continue the life-interests and sentiments that have made them what they are. I think it is most desirable, in the interests of the Empire, that everything should be done to keep up and foster this national spirit, which is the parent of that healthy rivalry and emulation which is the life-blood of a people. So much for the sentimental reason. I now come to the practical reason. The fact of the administration of law and justice not being in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland has put the Head of that Department in a very awkward position. I will not go into details; it would not be proper if I were to do so; but I think it is an open secret that last year, during the difficulty which arose in the Western Highlands, it would have been almost impossible even for my Predecessor, with his great ability, to satisfactorily settle the question of law and order in that part of the country if he had not been a Member of the Cabinet. That difficulty may arise again in the Western Highlands or elsewhere at any moment, although I hope it may not; and your Lordships will see how desirable and necessary it is that that control of law and order which was given to the Secretary for Scotland last year by an exceptional method should be permanently vested in him by Act of Parliament and by Statute. For that reason, if for no other, I should ask your Lordships to pass this Bill. There are other questions, and almost every day that I have passed at the Scottish
690
Office has given me an experience showing that it is absolutely necessary for the proper administration of that Office that the powers referred to in this Bill should be transferred from the Home Office to that of the Secretary for Scotland. The provisions of the Bill are very simple and very drastic. They transfer these powers from the Home Office, and make the Secretary for Scotland, in fact, the Home Secretary for Scotland. Certain Acts have been excepted, because they refer generally to the United Kingdom. I will refer briefly to these exceptions. The first is the duty of advising Her Majesty upon the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, and I feel sure your Lordships will agree with the Government in considering it desirable that this duty should be exercised by one Officer of State only. The next exceptions are the Factory and Workshops Act, 1878, the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1872, and the Explosives Act, 1875. These are all applicable to the United Kingdom; and having regard to the due regulation of trade and uniformity of practice, Her Majesty's Government thought it desirable that these Acts should continue, as at present, to be administered by the Home Office. In connection with the Cruelty to Animals Act, there are questions relating to vivisection, with respect to which the law should be as uniform as possible in all parts of the United Kingdom; and with regard to the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Acts the Government at present has in contemplation a Bill dealing with these subjects. If that Bill were passed it could then be considered whether it was desirable that the subject should remain under the Home Secretary or should be transferred to the Secretary for Scotland, or whether, as regards Scotland, they should be transferred to the Secretary for Scotland. I have now gone through the principal points of the Bill for which I ask a second reading. I think I ought to refer for one moment to the position of the Lord Advocate. The position of the Lord Advocate will not be changed at all by this Bill. The position of the Lord Advocate was guaranteed under the Act of 1885, and any changes that may take place in consequence of the passing of this Act will amount to this—that the Lord Advocate will simply act in relation to the Secretary

691
for Scotland as he did with reference to the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Bill of 1885. I may add that the Lord Advocate has highly approved of this measure. One more: point I should like very briefly to refer to, and I do so with some diffidence, because, I think some difficulty might arise in reference to it. I should have liked, if; it were possible, to have added to this Bill a clause which should have provided that the Secretary for Scotland should be one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State. I think that would have given satisfaction to the people of Scotland, who earnestly desire it, and it would also necessitate the Minister for Scotland being a Member of the Cabinet. By the passing of the Act in 1885, the position of Scottish legislation has been entirely altered. Before that time, when the Home Secretary was responsible for legislation regarding Scotland, he had the opportunity, as it was his duty, to bring before the Cabinet any legislation affecting Scotland. Now, if by any chance the Secretary for Scotland is not a Member of the Cabinet, there is no opportunity for him to bring directly before the Cabinet measures which he may think are for the advantage of Scotland: and in the immense pressure of other Business it is quite possible, and more than possible, that measures deeply affecting Scotland may be pressed out. But, on the other hand, I quite see that a clause of that sort, which would have necessitated the appointment of a Minister who should be a Member of the Cabinet, was not a clause which ought to be introduced into a Bill of this kind. It would have affected other Departments of the State besides Scotland. Therefore, whatever may be done in the future, I hope your Lordships and the people of Scotland will be satisfied with the Bill which I now ask to be read a second time. I feel that this measure will be satisfactory to the people of Scotland; and I cannot conclude without appealing to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Rosebery), who has had so much to do with the legislation connected with this Department, and I feel sure I may rely upon his cordial support in bringing forward this measure, which, I venture to think, will be for the benefit of the people of Scotland and of the United Kingdom.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Before the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack puts the Motion, I should like to say I confess I read this Bill with Tory great approval, because it only carries out the Amendment which I had the I honour of bringing before your Lordships, and which met with your Lordships' approval, but did not find the same approval in "another place," and, therefore, was left out of the Bill when it passed through the House, But I never had any doubt—and I have frequently expressed that feeling—about this, that if the Secretary for Scotland once was brought into existence, he would, by the very force of circumstances, attract to himself all those other attributes which we wished to have been given to him by the Bill of that time, and which it is now found necessary to give to him. I do not enter upon that by way of vindicating my own foresight in the matter, because it was perfectly obvious that either the Secretary for Scotland should cease to exist altogether, or else by the very nature of things we should find the Government very soon bringing in the Bill which the noble Marquess has now laid on the Table. The Noble Marquess thinks that the Secretary for Scotland has suffered by not having these powers. I do not doubt that the Secretary for Scotland has so suffered; but if I might venture to say so, in my humble opinion, that Office has suffered much more by I another circumstance. It has suffered by the fact that in the 16 months that have followed the passing of the Act which created the Office there were no less than five incumbents of that Office. Five Secretaries for Scotland in less than 16 months would be enough to ruin any Office imbued with less vitality than the "Office which the noble Marquess now so efficiently fills. My only doubt as to this Bill is whether in the other House it may find that easy passage or those I facilities from the Government which I hope it may; but if the Government have it really at heart to force this Bill through, I do not doubt the people of Scotland will derive at the end of this Session a substantial benefit in the measure now before your Lordships.
THE EAEL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he must congratulate the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland on the pro-

693
duction of this Bill, and he hoped their Lordships would give it a second reading.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE MARGARINE BILL.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSasked, Whether the President of the Board of Trade, or someone in charge of the Margarine Bill, would, in accordance with the understanding arrived at the other evening, give their Lordships an assurance that the Bill should not proceed further in their Lordships' House until the evidence taken before the Select Committee of the other House had been laid before their Lordships?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord STANLEY of PRESTON)said, he was not responsible for the Bill, and it was not his power to give his noble Friend any positive assurance in the matter. The evidence had not yet been circulated; but he was sure his noble Friend's appeal would not be without effect on those who were responsible for the conduct of the measure.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he only made the appeal for the convenience of those interested in the subject.
House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.