Sitting of 25 July 1887

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For the Borough of Glasgow (Bridgeton Division), v. Edward Richard Russell, esquire, Manor of Northstead.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [July 22] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Trustee Savings Banks *[334]; Municipal Regulation (Constabulary, & c.) (Belfast) * [291]; Juvenile Offenders [245], debate adjourned; Marriages Confirmation (Antwerp) [326], debate adjourned; Bankruptcy Costs (Ireland) *[124].
Committee—Irish Land Law [308] [First Night]—R.P.; Open Spaces (Dublin) *[80]—R.P.; Incumbents' Resignation Act (1871)
Amendment [323]—R.P.; Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) * [317]—R.P.
Withdrawn—Marriages (Attendance of Registrars) * [161]; Fishings, & c. Valuation (Scotland) * [114].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—Third Reading—Local Government (No. 7) * [296], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY (CITY OF DUBLIN JUNCTION RAILWAYS) BILL (by Order).
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [22nd July],
  "That, in the case of the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway (City of Dublin Junction Railways) Bill, Standing Orders 84. 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited."
  Question again proposed.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered.
  MR. P. McDONALD: I rise for the purpose of opposing this Bill. My first ground of opposition is that the usual course has been departed from in this instance, inasmuch as we have had no opportunity of blocking the progress of the Bill, owing to the manner in which it has been brought before the House. It has not appeared on the Orders of the Day or on the Notices, in the usual form, and hence it was only when the present stage was reached that we were afforded an opportunity of placing our views before the House. The short history of the Bill is this. In 1884, three years ago, a Bill was passed in both Houses of Parliament authorizing the construction of this so-called loop line. It was most strenuously opposed in its several stages by the Corporation of Dublin, on the ground that the promoters of the Bill, instead of taking the most convenient mode of connecting the Westland Row Station with the terminius of the Great Northern Railway, took a different course altogether, which, if carried out, would probably lead to the disfigurement of the city. In fact, an act of perfect vandalism would have been perpetrated if the Bill had been carried into effect. The provisions of the Bill, however, have not been carried into effect, because the money has not been forth-

  1849
  coming for the construction of the line, and the Act of Parliament has consequently become a dead letter. The Act has now remained a dead letter for three years; but, in the meantime, as we in Ireland are anxious to see an extension of the railway system from Westland Bow, we have supported another Bill for connecting that station with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company's line at Kingsbridge. That Company introduced their Bill into this House this year, and now that a practical scheme of connection has been legalized, I think it is somewhat too late for the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Company to come in and say—"We will now make our connection; we will try to raise the money, and by that means we may deprive the Great Southern and Western Company of the value of the privileges they have obtained for themselves in securing the authorization of a connection between Kingstown and Cork by railway." Now, Sir, this scheme for the construction of a so-called loop line, which we maintain will lead to the disfigurement of the City of Dublin, is to cost £300,000, and I can assure our Northern friends by whom it is promoted that, in all probability, if the money is raised, they will never receive one penny in the shape of dividends upon this enormous outlay. That, I believe, is one reason why the Act has been allowed to remain a dead letter. The promoters have now, however, secured some influential friends in the North who are coming forward to support them. But it is not so much upon that ground that I oppose the Bill. I oppose this stage most strenuously on account of the manner in which the measure has been rushed through the House, and for the departure the promoters have made from the ordinary usages of the House. I certainly think the House ought to express its opinion upon that matter, and that it should stop the further progress of the Bill. I therefore oppose the Motion, and I believe that a great number of my Friends who are sitting on this side of the House will go into the Lobby with me if the Bill is persisted in.
  MR. EWART: The hon. Gentleman speaks of this line as if it were one that really affected the North of Ireland only. I, on the other hand, am here to assert that it would be
  1850
  equally advantageous to the whole of Ireland, and especially to the Queens-town route for the American mails. The hon. Gentleman complains that the Forms of the House have not been complied with. To that statement I also take exception. The Forms of the House, in every instance, have been complied with.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then with what object is this Motion brought forward?
  MR. EWART: The object of the Bill is to enable the promoters to make certain financial arrangements in order to secure that the scheme of 1884 should be carried out, and I am entirely opposed to any Motion for postponing the consideration of the Bill. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House that I should make a short statement. The Bill is promoted by the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company, to enable them to carry out the loop-line they were authorized by Parliament to make three years ago. This delay has been rendered necessary in consequence of the indisposition of two of the Companies who were interested in the Bill, and, notably, the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, to carry out the solemn undertaking they entered into under the Act of 1884. As to the merits of the Bill, it is not necessary that I should say much. They were thoroughly investigated by both Houses of Parliament, and the Corporation of Dublin were fully represented there in opposition to the scheme. Nevertheless, it was passed by both Houses. I will only say that this loop-line was supported by the four great Railway Companies in Ireland, and the principal Steamboat Company in the country. It was shown, when the Bill was before Parliament, that it was the only possible way of connecting the different railway termini in Dublin, and of supplying a want that has very long been felt. The Railway Companies invoked the aid of the Postmaster General of that day, Mr. Fawcett, who warmly supported the scheme, and sent an Inspector of Mails to give evidence in its favour, and to express the opinion of the Government that the construction of the line would be a very great advantage to Ireland and to the Queenstown route. So far as passengers are concerned, if this line is made, instead of having to drive through Dublin, as they do at present

  1851
  from one station to another, they will be able to go on without change of carriage; and, as regards the mails, facilities will be afforded for improving the interchange of mails between the whole of Ireland. It will further quicken the communication to Cork and all the provinces by half an hour to an hour, and it will expedite the American mail service to the same extent, both inwards and outwards. There will be a provincial despatch to Dublin of from half-an-hour to an hour later than at present. At this moment, the mails are not delivered in Belfast before noon, and Cork, of course, at a later hour; and the acceleration which will take place under this scheme will confer a great boon upon the town, and, indeed, on the whole of the provinces; while it would give an advantage of from half-an-hour to an. hour in the despatch of the American mails viâ Queenstown. Therefore, upon every ground, there are strong motives for constructing this line, and I think it is hard that an endeavour should be made to stop the promoters at this stage.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Why should the Standing Orders be suspended?
  MR. EWART: If there were really any possible alternative scheme, or any reason for this opposition, the objection which has been raised to the progress of the Bill would have more claim upon the consideration of the House. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. P. McDonald) says that another Bill, which will give all the public accommodation that is required, has passed this House during the present Session. Now, that Bill has not passed this House at all, although it has passed certain stages, and it is very well known that if the Bill itself passed, it will be impossible for the money ever to be raised for the construction, of the line.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Or for this.
  MR. EWART: No sane man will ever put his money into such a line.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Nor into this.
  MR. EWART: I would appeal to hon. Members who represent the City of Dublin to support the Bill. The hon. Member for Sligo has used some hard words about vandalism. This line does, certainly, cross the River Liffey, and passes through Beresford Place. But my own opinion is that if the line be nicely formed and elegant in its structure,
  1852
  instead of being injurious to Beresford Place and the Custom House, will be an improvement to it. Beresford Place is one of the most dreary, deserted looking spots in Europe, and a railway such as I have described crossing there would give animation to it, and show unmistakable signs that Dublin is advancing in material prosperity. I hope, in this matter, to have the support of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) for the construction of this line. It will certainly do Belfast and the Province of Ulster a great deal of good, while, with regard to Dublin, it will at once lead to an expenditure of £300,000, which, I think, is no small matter. Personally, I look upon this as a national question, and I sincerely hope that the House will agree to suspend the Standing Orders and allow the Bill to be passed to-day.
  MR. PENROSE-FITZGERALD: I cannot see that the hon. Member who has just spoken has removed any of the objections which the hon. Member for Sligo has raised to this Bill. Although the hon. Member for North Belfast (Mr. Ewart) has said that no sane man would put his money in a scheme for a connecting line between the Kingstown and Dublin Railway and the Great Southern and Western system, I, for one, in a very small way, have done so. I consider that such a railway is most needed under the existing circumstances, and that it will directly facilitate the transit of the mails from London to Cork. This Bill has been before the House for some time. What the technical points may be on which it has been delayed I am not aware, but that it has been delayed I am aware, and owing to that delay the Great Southern and Western Railway have formed a project which is now before this House for connecting Kingstown with their line to Cork, by means of a link from Rooterstown to Inchicore. Therefore, I think it is hard that we should have it thrown in our face that a Railway Company proposing to carry a line through the streets of Dublin should have power to prevent the Great Southern and Western Railway from going on with their project. The Northern Railways are already connected with the Great Southern and Western line at Kingsbridge; and the Great Southern and Western Railway runs the mails to

  1853
  Cork direct. The proposition of that Company to construct a small loop-line from Rooterstown to Inchicore will connect all the great main lines with Holyhead, Dublin, and Cork. This line will place Kingstown, where the English and American mails arrive, in direct communication with Cork, and that is most important in view of the competing claims of Southampton, Milford, Falmouth, and other towns for carrying the American mails. If Cork is not prepared, as it ought to be, with a complete through transit from Kingstown it will inevitably go to the wall, and my pole object is to endeavour to induce this House, as quickly as possible, to pass such necessary measures as will enable the Great Southern and Western Railway Company at Queenstown to connect their line with the Kingstown boats. It is no fault of ours that the line authorized by the Act passed three years ago has not been made, and, no doubt, the Company had some reason for the delay. On their heads then the consequences must fall if their line is rejected. All that I ask of the House is not to allow our Bill to be crushed, because, for some reason of their own, the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Company have chosen to delay the construction of their line.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): This is a question which closely affects the transit of the mails, and therefore has a certain amount of public interest, apart from the interest it has in connection with Ireland. Therefore, I desire to say one or two words upon the subject as to the great difficulty at present experienced in regard to the transit of the mails, to which reference has already been made. I am aware that this is one of two Bills which are promoted by rival Companies, both of which measures, I understand, have, among other objects, that of facilitating the transmission of the mails through and from Dublin. I have nothing whatever to say to that part of the present scheme, which proposes a communication between the Westland Row Station and the Northern railway lines. As to the means by which that communication is to be effected that is a matter with which I have nothing to do. I should be glad if I thought there were any reasonable prospect in the course of the present year, or in any
  1854
  short time, of seeing the scheme to which the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Penrose-Fitzgerald) has referred carried out. The matter, however, is really urgent, and the carrying out of that scheme must necessarily be delayed for some time. When the question was under consideration before the Committee in 1884, the great point urged was the fact that the mails, on their arrival from England, at Kingstown, had to be conveyed to Westland Row, then transferred to cars, then taken to another railway station, the Great Southern and Western Station at Kingsbridge. A deputation waited upon me on this subject last autumn, and I felt bound to tell them that if that arrangement continued to be carried out in regard to the transport of the American mails the inconvenience it entails is of such an extreme character that it would almost certainly be necessary to send the mails by some other route. No doubt, Plymouth, Southampton, and other places are competing for the conveyance of the American mails, although I draw from that fact a different moral from that which my hon. Friend draws. My hon. friend asks the House to throw out this Bill, which would have the effect of securing the conveyance of the mails through the City of Dublin, because he thinks another scheme might be better if the promoters of a certain Bill now before Parliament were to carry the provisions of that Bill out. Now, although that scheme may be a good one, and I should be happy to support it in respect of the Office I hold as Postmaster General whenever it comes before the House in a practical manner, I do not think the House ought to throw away the opportunity now afforded to it of completing a through communication by passing the present Bill. Something has been stated in regard to an irregularity committed by the promoters in bringing forward the Bill, and reference has been made to some special and exceptional proceedings. Now, let me point out that it is perfectly competent for the promoters to ask the House to dispense with certain Standing Orders, with a view of facilitating any measure which it is seriously intended to pass into law in the course of the present Session. The House, in many instances, has acceded to such an application, and has sent a Bill forward to the

  1855
  House of Lords with greater speed than the ordinary Forms of the House would allow, in order that it might become law before the end of the Session. This Bill is one which was not opposed in its Committee stage, and I do not think it lies very well in the mouth of those who oppose it in its present stage to complain that there has been any irregularity in the proceedings of the promoters. The Bill passed before the Chairman of Ways and Means as an unopposed Bill, and now that it has come down here for consideration, the opponents are trying to raise questions which they were unwilling to raise before the proper tribunal. [Cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Members deny that; but this House has always looked with great suspicion upon an opposition got up at the last moment in order to prevent a Bill from being read a third time, when no opposition has been offered to it in its earlier stages. I hope it will be a long time before this House consents to endorse any such course of action, unless some better ground is shown for it than has been shown in this case. I have only one word more to add, and it has reference to the actual character of the Bill itself. This Bill does not propose for the first time to make this railway. It merely proposes to facilitate the completion of an authorized railway, by giving greater financial advantages than are at present possessed. The Corporation of Dublin opposed the original Bill when it was before the House in 1884, and they agreed to the insertion of clauses in the House of Lords—certain saving clauses in regard to their rights—with a view of meeting and obviating the objections which they had urged. Then I do not think that the Corporation of Dublin are justified in opposing the Bill on the present occasion, especially as it relates only to financial arrangements by which it is intended to give effect to what is already the law of the land. I do not think I am called upon to refer to any other scheme which is not at this moment before us. I shall be glad, in my official capacity, to welcome either, or both, of these Bills. I should be tolerably happy with either; but I think that this Bill stands a better chance of being passed than the other, and I hope the House will not throw away the opportunity it now has of making the connection with the Westland Row Station, and I trust
  1856
  that hon. Members from Ireland will scruple to take any course which may make it necessary to reconsider the whole question of the carriage of the American mails viâ Ireland.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I have listened with positive amazement to the statement of the Postmaster General. How, in the name of goodness, does this Bill affect the American mails! If the right hon. Gentleman knows Dublin as well as we do, he must know that this Bill affects the conveyance of the American mails no more than if we were to put another bridge across the river here at Westminster. The American mails go from Westland Row at the present moment down to Queenstown. This is a proposal to build a bridge and to take trains across the Liffey, so as to connect West-land Row with the line to Belfast; and it has no more to do with the American mails than Tenterden Steeple has to do with the Goodwin Sands. The right hon. Gentleman has made what almost amounts to a threat against the Irish Members if they oppose this Bill; and he has suggested that the Corporation of Dublin are, for some purposes of their own, encouraging this opposition. As to the merits of the financial proposal, I know nothing. I do not care a snap of the fingers which Company makes the connection, or which does not; I should be glad to see both succeed, so long as they succeed in a proper manner; but we are told by the right hon. Gentleman that the opposition has been got up at the last moment by the Corporation of Dublin, and that, therefore, we ought to be suspicious of it. That is an insinuation which I utterly repel. Three years ago I gave to this Bill the utmost opposition in my power. I looked upon it as a Bill introduced by Goths and Vandals, and I recollect that at that time an unworthy attack was made upon the Lord Mayor of Dublin, who was then a Member of this House, for the purpose of prejudicing the Committee which was appointed to consider the Bill against the opposition raised to it. What is the Motion now before the House? The Postmaster General says that the House has always been in the habit of assenting to proposals of this kind, and especially in view of the fact that the opposition has been got up at the last moment. Now, what was the first moment at which the opposition could have been got up?

  1857
  The right hon. Gentleman having himself been Chairman of Committees, ought to understand the Forms of the House, and I certainly expect to hear from the present Chairman of Ways and Means some justification of the proposal contained in this Motion to suspend the Standing Orders when I ask how we could have got up an opposition against the Bill. As a matter of fact, the measure has been smuggled through the House at this late period of the Session with the connivance of the authorities—I do not say in any improper way, but the authorities of the House have certainly favoured this proposal in some manner which I do not understand. We have heard from the hon. Member for North Belfast (Mr. Ewart) a good deal about the merits of the Bill; but will he tell us what justification there is for suspending the Standing Orders? I presume that the Rules of this House have been laid down for valuable reasons. We hear a great deal nowadays about the Forms of the House. Every Form of the House has been established, I suppose, by the wisdom of our predecessors for a particular and specific purpose, and if those Forms should be adhered to for anything at all, certainly they should not be departed from on questions affecting the raising of capital. We have not heard a single word from the hon. Gentleman who is apparently engineering the Bill as to why the Standing Orders should be suspended. The first proposal contained in this Motion is to suspend Standing Order 84. Let me turn to that Standing Order. The Postmaster General says that the opposition has been got up at the last moment. Standing Order 84 says—
  "Three clear days at least before the consideration of any private Bill ordered to lie upon the Table a copy of every such Bill, as amended in Committee, shall be laid by the agent before the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means and the counsel to Mr. Speaker, and deposited at the office of the Board of Trade; and in the case of every Bill required by the Standing Orders to be deposited at the office of the Local Government Board on or before the 21st day of December, shall also be deposited at the office of the Local Government Board."
  Why, then, was that not done? Why do the promoters not do it? Why should there be this amazing hurry? Certainly I did not know that there was a rival scheme before the House until
  1858
  the hon. Member for Cambridge got up to say that he had put his money in it. I am very glad that he has, because I say that the proposal to spend £300.000 by a Railway Company which is practically bankrupt—namely, the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company—which has only paid 1 per cent for a number of years, and whose chief Director, the moment this Bill was passed, resigned his seat on the board, and said that he would no longer be responsible for the affairs of the Company, is preposterous. This is a Bill which is backed up by persons who have not one penny of interest in the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Line, and who want to spend £300,000 in building a bridge across the Liffey, in order to save 10 minutes in the transit through the City of Dublin. I have pointed out that the Bill has no more to do with the conveyance of the American mails than Westminster Bridge; and what protection are we to have if we are to permit promoters of Bills to violate one of the fundamental provisions of our Standing Orders, requiring Notice and warning to be given to Members of this House and other parties concerned? Yet it is proposed in regard to a Bill for which not a single stiver has yet been subscribed, that this Standing Order should be suspended. Then, what is the next Standing Order, because I observe that there are a quartette of them which this Motion proposes to suspend? The next is Standing Order 214. What does that Standing Order say? It says—
  "Every Private Bill, as amended in Committee, shall be printed at the expense of the parties applying for the same; and delivered to the Vote Office for the use of the Members, three clear days at least before the consideration of such Bill."
  That is a most important provision, and in this case it does not appear to have been complied with. Standing Order Number 215 provides that—
  "In the case of Private Bills ordered to lie upon the Table, three clear days shall intervene between the Report and the consideration of the Bill, and no consideration of any such Bill shall take place, unless the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means shall have informed the House or signified in writing to Mr. Speaker, whether the Bill contain the several provisions required by the Standing Orders,"
  This Standing Order provides that the Chairman of Ways and Means shall certify certain things to the Speaker and

  1859
  his counsel. The promoters, in this case, have not done so, and yet, forsooth, we are asked to occupy the time of the House by considering the advisability of suspending our Standing Orders when we have plenty of other work before us, and have certainly no desire to occupy ourselves with the consideration of Private Bill Legislation. The Postmaster General tells us that the opposition to the Bill has been got up in a suspicious manner at the last moment, when absolutely, as far as I can gather, no copy of the Bill has been printed in the ordinary way for the use of Members. But these voracious Gentlemen want to have another Standing Order suspended. Why not abolish the House of Commons altogether, and get rid of all the precautions which have been taken in reference to Private Bill Legislation. Standing Order 239 says—
  "One clear day's notice, in writing, shall be given by the agent for the Bill, to the clerks in the Private Bills Office, of the day proposed for the consideration of every Private Bill ordered to lie upon the Table."
  So that when charged by the Postmaster General with having got up at the last moment a suspicious opposition to the Bill, we find that if the right hon. Gentleman had examined the Standing Orders, and he ought to be acquainted with them, seeing that he occupied for some time, in a useful and dignified manner, the position of Chairman of Ways and Means, he would have known that no opportunity has been given to us to state our opposition to the Bill. I think, under all the circumstances of the case, it would be an act of great folly for capitalists to put their money into this scheme. I know that if we had Home Rule passed for Ireland, one of the first things the Irish Government would be required to do would be to build a bridge over the Liffey in a proper manner. They would not consent to be overruled by three Gentlemen in the House of Commons, who probably never saw Dublin or even Ireland, who care nothing for the country, and who simply support the view originally put forward by the counsel for the promoters of the Bill to the prejudice of the Lord Mayor and Corporation of Dublin. If that had not been done, the Bill would never have been passed. The only valid argument offered to the Committee was that gentleman connected with the Mili-
  1860
  tary Service were called, who stated that when soldiers were marched across Dublin from one station to the other, the streets of Dublin were very dirty, and the soldiers found it necessary to have their boots blacked. Can any hon. Member conceive a similar instance in which an attempt could be made to override the opinion of the people whose interests are most at stake, in this extraordinary way? If it had been proposed to build a bridge to the East of the Custom House, we should have been prepared to welcome both the Bill and the bridge. There is no reason why that course should not have been taken, except the opposition of a miserable body—tho Dublin Docks Board—a close corporation representing nobody. It was decided to carry the bridge to the west of the Custom House, simply because if it were constructed on the other side, it might interfere with the berthage of a few ships. That was the only argument in favour of building the bridge in the place it is intended to occupy—namely, that it would interfere, if erected elsewhere, with the berthage of one or two ships. Upon this trivial ground it was decided to shut out the citizens of Dublin from a full view of one of the most beautiful structures in the City, and to destroy Beresford Place as a rendezvous for the people of Dublin. [A laugh.] I see that the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) laughs. I presume he does so because no Orange Lodge has ever been allowed to march in procession there. The Corporation of Dublin gave a vigorous opposition to the Bill; but the opposition was not confined to the Corporation. On the contrary, Baron Dowse, Mr. Justice Harrison, a member of the Conservative Party, and the Provost of Trinity College, whom Lord Carnarvon knighted when he was in Ireland, gave the strongest opposition to the Bill. We do not oppose the Bill itself, but only the proposal to build a bridge in this particular way, and at the present moment the House has not heard a single reason why the bridge should be built east instead of west of the Custom House. I would ask the English Members, in a matter of this kind, to have some regard to the opinion of the citizens of Dublin who, by their Corporation, oppose, in the strongest manner, the erection of this bridge, which violates

  1861
  every canon of decency and taste, and for the building of which no reason exists except that a larger amount of compensation would have to be given if it were erected elsewhere. Certainly, the construction of this line will not benefit the transmission of the American mails by one hair's breadth. In Dublin popular feeling is strongly against the proposal, and I do not think, to use the words of the hon. Member for North Belfast (Mr. Ewart) that any sane man would put his money into it. If he did, I am satisfied he would never get it back again; and it is quite certain that the Dublin, Wicklow, and Woxford Railway Company, who for years have only been paying 1 per cent, can never afford to find the money. I maintain that no reason has been assigned to justify the suspension of the Standing Orders. No doubt the slumbering energies of the Gentlemen who promote the Bill have been awakened, because some other well-considered project of a practical nature is now before the House. They want now to euchre the supporters of this rival project by running their own scheme, and evading the regulations of this House, which require full and adequate notice to be given of their intention. I am glad the hon. Member for Cambridge is with us in opposing the Bill; and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, as a point of Order, whether it is in Order for any hon. Member to make an omnibus Motion of this kind for the suspension of the Standing Orders en bloc?
  MR. SPEAKER: A Motion for the suspension of more than one Standing Order has frequently been made. The Motion, however, now before the House is not for the suspension of the Standing Orders, that Motion having been rendered unnecessary by the lapse of time. The Motion now is "that the Bill be now considered."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: If the Motion that the Bill be now considered is agreed to, will the Standing Orders be suspended?
  MR. SPEAKER: No; there will be no necessity for suspending them.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY): I was unwilling to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), although I was quite aware that
  1862
  a greater part of his speech was based on a misconception, seeing that there is no Motion, at the present moment, before the House for the suspension of the Standing Orders. If the consideration of the Bill had been moved last week, such a Motion would have been necessary; but the three days referred to have now lapsed, and therefore the objection which has been taken to the Motion by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford on Parliamentary grounds entirely fails. I did not interrupt the hon. and learned Member, because I am bound to say that, although the present Motion involves no suspension of the Standing Orders, still if the House approves of it, it will be necessary to move the Suspension, afterwards, of the Standing Orders. I may point out that only this Session, Motions of this kind involving the suspension of the Standing Orders have repeatedly been made and agreed to. It has been found necessary, constantly, towards the end of the Session to suspend the Standing Orders in order to facilitate the passing of a Bill to which there has been no opposition; and, up to this time, there has been no opposition to this Bill. In respect of the measure itself, the hon. and learned Member has said that he has really no objection to the Bill except on the ground of the bridge it is proposed to construct over the Liffey. He adds that if the bridge were built somewhere else the Bill might be allowed to pass. Now, this is a Bill which was brought in and passed in the year 1884, when the whole question of the construction of this railway and its effect upon the City of Dublin were argued before a Committee of this House, and again before a Committee of the House of Lords. In order to meet the objections of the Corporation of Dublin, a clause—Clause 11—was put in for the protection of that city in reference to the mode in which the line was to be carried across Beresford Place.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Still leaving the question of the injury to the Custom House.
  MR. COURTNEY: Quite true; but that question was fully considered in 1884, and this clause was put in for the protection of the City of Dublin, as far as the Committee thought it ought to be protected. The present Bill proceeds on

  1863
  the basis of that Act. That Act contains certain financial arrangements for carrying on the works, and the Bill now introduced is simply a modification of the financial arrangements contained in the Act of 1884. It is, then, on all fours with the Manchester Ship Canal Bill of the present year, which simply qualified the financial arrangements which were considered and authorized in a former Bill. It was held upon that Bill that it would be quite irrelevant and improper to re-open the question of the Manchester Ship Canal except in relation to the financial arrangements. In the case of the present Bill, the whole question re-opened is the reconstruction of the financial arrangements sanctioned by Parliament in the Act of 1884. By Clause 3 it is provided that—
  "The guarantees authorised to he granted under the Act of 1884 as amended by this Act and by this Act by the throe Companies respectively or any of them may by the said Companies or any of them from time to time granting such guarantee attached to any portion of the share or stock capital specified in such guarantee or guaranteees to the exclusion of any mortgages or of the debenture stock or of any other portion or portions of the said share or stock capital. And the guarantees granted by the said Companies or any of them in respect of any shares or stock shall attach to such specific shares or stock, and the holders thereof shall be entitled to all the benefits of such guarantees to the exclusion of all persons or Corporations whether proprietors in or creditors of the Company or of the separate undertaking of the City of Dublin Junction Railways or otherwise howsoever."
  The present Bill is to give the promoters an opportunity of carrying out this new financial scheme, to which no objection is raised by anybody. It is quite true that the Bill has been proceeded with hurriedly. I understand that the Corporation of Dublin applied for copies of the Bill, and that they were supplied with them on the 29th of June, so that they had an ample opportunity for framing their opposition. The Bill itself came before me, and it was after it was disposed of in Committee that this opposition was got up. It has over and over again been permitted by promoters, by the favour of the House, towards the end of the Session, to suspend the Standing Orders, and the whole point which the House can now consider is this, not whether the Act of 1884 was or was not a perfect Bill, nor whether the rival scheme—which I now hear of for the first time—should or should not be sanc-
  1864
  tioned. It is not a rival scheme, as a matter of fact, because, as I understand, it is a scheme for connecting the Great Southern and Western Railway with Westland Row, whereas the present scheme is to connect the Great Northern Railway with Westland Row. The whole matter is whether the House will alter the financial arrangements which actually concern the right of the guarantors in a way that will not affect the character of the former undertaking. I think the House will be acting strictly in accordance with every precedent if it consents to consider the Bill, and orders it to be read a third time.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. T. D. SULLIVAN): In reply to some of the observations which have been made by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, who has just sat down, I wish to say that the view which we take of the matter is this, that although this Bill is not a Bill for the construction of a railway line, it is a Bill to enable the promoters to construct a line. Now the Corporation of Dublin and a large number of the influential and the respectable citizens of that city have given from the outset a steady and persistent opposition to this scheme. When this loop-line was before Parliament some years ago it was advocated mainly on the allegation that it would greatly facilitate the transfer of the mails between Holyhead and Queenstown. That argument seems now to be dropped by the promoters of the scheme, and, as a matter of fact, this loop-line would not expedite the transmission of the mails by more than a very few minutes, because the route is most circuitous and complicated. Between that time and this, however, another scheme has been proposed, which, although it has not as yet been passed into law, would really facilitate the transmission of the mails between England and Ireland, by way of Holyhead and Queenstown. That is the junction line between Kingsbridge and a point a little below Westland Row. The adoption of that scheme would entirely supersede all necessity for this loop-line so far as the transfer of the mails is concerned, or, as we heard on a former occasion, the transmission of troops from England to Ireland. That junction line has already passed through Committee, and if we are asked whether any

  1865
  delay is likely to take place in passing it into law, I do not thick it lies in the mouth of the supporters of this Bill to complain, seeing that they have delayed the construction of the loop-line they have been authorized to make for at least three or four years. And let me point out that the line of the Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Company will cross on the level no less than 16 streets in the City of Dublin, and will sweep around the finest building in that city on arches or on iron tressels, forming one of the most hideous objects it is possible to conceive. It has been stated that we must put up with this vandalism on account of the facilities the line will afford for the transmission of the American mails. That consideration is now removed, because another and a better means of facilitating the transit of the mails is now being passed into law. It has, I believe, passed Committees of both Houses of Parliament, and what I would say to English Members in reference to the matter is that as it is the English Parliament which has made Dublin poor, let this Parliament leave the citizens of Dublin, at any rate, what little remains of the beauty of our city. Some day or other we believe that Dublin may be made a great and prosperous city; in the meantime, in this stage of the relations between England and Ireland, I ask the House not to destroy the finest prospect we have in Dublin. In every civilized city in the world respect has been paid and value attached to objects of architectural beauty. The Corporation of Dublin have opposed this Bill from the beginning. A meeting was recently held in the Mansion House by the citizens of Dublin in opposition to the measure, and at that meeting speeches were delivered of a strong and highly persuasive character by some of the leading and most eminent men in Dublin. What has been represented to be the great reason for making this line is now removed, and I venture to say that the scheme should not be pushed forward against the will of the Representatives of the people of Dublin. A vast majority of the people of that city are opposed to the scheme, and I appeal to the House of Commons not to endorse it. The difficulty, in regard to the conveyance of the mails, which has been referred to by
  1866
  the Postmaster General, will be otherwise provided for, and the Bill, which has already passed through most of its stages, in both Houses of Parliament can be passed into law in a very brief interval. I think it would be a most unnecessary act of vandalism and barbarism to do anything to sanction the construction of this most objectionable line.
  MR. CHANCE: I do not know whether the House fully understands what the question is that is now before it. A number of hon. Gentlemen have addressed the House in favour of the Bill, but not one of them has made any reference, in detail, to the provisions of the measure. Therefore, I will tell the House, shortly, what that Bill is. As far as I can gather from the Act which was passed in 1884, the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company obtained power to make this wretched loop-line which passes over 16 streets in Dublin, and disfigures the Custom House, not only did the House give that power, but although this loop-line will naturally form part of the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway system, it will give power to the Company to treat the undertaking as a separate undertaking, with a separate capital. That is to say, that the Company was so doubtful of the success of the undertaking that they induced the House to make it a separate undertaking, so as not to inflict upon the general system the consequences of any failure of the project. I believe it is a fact that the shareholders of the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Line only get a dividend of 1 per cent. It is now complained that in spite of all the exceptional facilities which Parliament gave, no fraction of the capital has been raised—not a single individual has been found who has been foolish enough to put one penny into the undertaking. In addition, certain guarantees are given by the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company, the Great Northern of Ireland Railway Company, and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, and power was given to pay interest preferentially, and to grant guarantees and enter into agreements. It may be asked what this Company will do if the Bill passes? The Company will proceed to cross the City of Dublin in order to bring the American

  1867
  mails, not only to Dublin, but through Dublin to the north of the city, and then along the north side of Dublin by a circuit of nine or ten miles, to the Kingsbridge terminus; the line extending along nearly three sides of a triangle. Now the city of Belfast is alone interested in this question, and I ask the House to consider this point; that so far as Belfast is concerned she does not at the present moment send her North of England and Scotch mail traffic to Dublin at all; she sends it in another direction; but, nevertheless, the people of Belfast ask for these exceptional powers for their own benefit. It is from the South of Ireland that the American mails are most satisfactorily carried, and this Bill will prevent the American mails from being carried direct to Queenstown. The Bill is altogether for the benefit of Belfast; and those who send the Scotch mails through Belfast send them without their touching Dublin at all. A very few passengers indeed will be sent over this route, and it is for the benefit of those few passengers that this new route is to be devised to the absolute disfigurement of Dublin, and the injury of the city of Cork. I trust the House will pause before it assents to the Bill. It is a Bill which gives extraordinary and exceptional powers to a Railway Company to create a new Company in which they have no actual interest themselves. I hope that the House will decline to deal with the matter in its present shape.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, a point of Order in regard to this matter. You will observe, Sir, that the Motion stands on the Paper as an adjourned debate, and as an adjourned debate on a proposal to suspend certain Standing Orders, after which it is proposed to move "that the Bill be now taken into consideration." The Motion on the Paper was that which hon. Members have come down to this House to discuss; but, subsequently, I understood you to rule from the Chair that that Motion had been withdrawn—that is to say, that the debate on the Question upon which the debate was adjourned last week would not be taken, and that the Motion for resuming the adjourned debate was withdrawn. That being so, a new question has been started, and started, as I submit, without Notice. What I
  1868
  wish to put to you, Sir, is this—Whether, in regard to a Bill which hon. Gentlemen could have had no previous opportunity of discussing a new question without Notice, ought to be raised by an hon. Member simply taking off his hat at the Table when the Motion is one of which we have had no Notice whatever? What I submit is that the greatest inconvenience will arise if promoters are allowed to start in this House fresh questions without Notice, and to withdraw without Notice a Motion for the adjournment of the debate, thus taking the original question out of the purview of Members of this House. Having regard to the period of the Session at which this Motion is made, I respectfully submit that the Rules of the House, instead of being relaxed, ought to be maintained with the greatest stringency; and, therefore, I think the Motion ought now to drop as if it had never been made, and that the promoters should be left to their own devices hereafter. I maintain that a new precedent is now being made with regard to Private Bills, which will be keenly watched by learned counsel and by promoters generally with regard to the pushing forward, at late periods of the Session, Bills against which objection may be taken. I think, Sir, that your ruling, in a case of this kind, will be of great importance, and that some result in one way or another will necessarily follow your decision.
  MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I may say that I do not think there has been any deviation from the ordinary practice. I hold in my hand the Notice deposited in the Private Bill Office, which states that the Bill would be taken into consideration on Friday July 22nd, and a Motion was accordingly placed on the Paper for the suspension of certain Standing Orders. But when the Motion was called on in the usual course, objection was taken to it, and the debate was adjourned. Part of the Notice given was that the Bill be now taken into consideration, which means "that the Bill be now considered." That was sufficient Notice. The reason why the suspension of the Standing Orders is not pressed was that the suspension of the Standing Orders has been rendered unnecessary by the mere lapse of time. If the Motion had been taken before the three days had expired, the Standing Orders would

  1869
  necessarily have been applicable, but i owing to the lapse of time the necessity of suspension no longer exists. I think there has been ample Notice of the Question "that the Bill be now taken into consideration."
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I speak both as a Northern Representative and as a citizen of Dublin. I quite agree that the construction of this bridge may cause some disfigurement to the city; but, on the other hand, there can be no doubt that the North of Ireland would benefit very greatly, inasmuch as it would mean the continuance of the American Mail Service viâ Dublin and Queenstown. There ought to have been a central station in Dublin years ago, and it cannot be denied that in consequence of the absence of proper facilities for through communication, a great fear now exists lest the American Mail Service may be lost. I waited, as one of the deputation, upon the Postmaster General last year upon that subject, and we were distinctly warned that unless a connection were made between Kingsbridge and Westland Row, it would be impossible to continue the existing service of the American mails. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford says that this Bill has nothing to do with the American mails, but the hon. and learned Member knows perfectly well that when the mails are now run to Westland Row, they have to be transferred and driven across the city to Kingsbridge, whereas if this line were constructed, they would be taken by rail to Kingsbridge, and time would be saved.
  MR. CHANCE: How many miles would they have to be taken round the city?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I know that there is a danger of disfiguring the city if the line is constructed as proposed; and if hon. Members could assure me that the rival line has any chance of being made, and that the capital for its construction is guaranteed, I might be induced to alter my vote; but, seeing the absolute certainty of the American Mail Service being lost to Ireland, unless something is done speedily, I prefer to pay regard to the prosperity of the country, and I shall vote for the Motion.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) has said that he will vote for this Bill because there is a danger
  1870
  that, if it does not pass, Dublin may lose the American mails. He further believes that if the Bill were passed to enable the American mails to be conveyed direct to Kingsbridge, and then on to Queenstown, he should prefer that route; but he thinks there is no probabilty of that line being made now. Although we must remember that that Bill has not yet been passed into law, and will not come into operation for, perhaps, a month or two, the line which the present Bill relates to was passed some years ago. I therefore cannot agree that the House has anything before it to induce it to arrive at the conclusion that the line in connection with which the present Bill has been introduced has had a better chance of being more speedily made than the line which is dealt with by the Bill now before the House. One great objection we take to the Motion has reference to the question of Notice. We say that it comes before the House by surprise. We say that hon. Members generally have not had a full and adequate opportunity of considering the important questions which are dealt with by the Bill. We say that the Bill has been sprung upon this House, and sprung upon the public of Ireland, in a manner for which we were altogether unprepared. I do not allege that there has been any wilful attempt to mislead the House and the public; but I say that the proceedings of the promoters of the Bill have been of a character to produce that impression. Therefore, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Seeing that the question has been discussed now for an hour and a half, I think a decision may be taken without a further adjournment.
  MR. DILLON: I rise to support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, and I do so for this reason—because I think some further time should be given to Members of this House to consider the question, and look more fully into it. In my opinion, it is a question which ought really to be left to the decision of the Irish people. Probably there may be a few Irish

  1871
  Members who are in favour of the scheme; but there is not the slightest doubt that the majority of the Irish Members against the scheme is at least five to one. There is no division among the Irish Party as to the merits of the Bill; and their opinion is not shared by one Party alone, for one of the first hon. Members to speak against the Bill was a Member of the Conservative Party opposite—the hon. Member for Cambridge. The chief ground on which I oppose the Bill is that not a single reason has yet been given in favour of the scheme.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that the question before the House is the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. DILLON: I do not propose to go into the merits of the Bill; but I rose to support the Motion for Adjournment, in order to afford the English Members an opportunity of considering the question, and talking it over privately with the Irish Members before they come to a final decision. The question to us who live in the City of Dublin, and who take an interest in everything which concerns the welfare of that city, is a very important question. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the construction of this line will disfigure the City of Dublin; and as that is a matter of the highest importance to Dublin, I think it is a desirable thing that the debate should be adjourned, in order that the English Members should have an opportunity of considering the matter, instead of prolonging the discussion, as it must be prolonged if a final decision is to be taken now.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I hope the Government will consent to the adjournment of the debate. The Motion has now assumed an entirely different aspect from that which it had upon the Notice Paper, in which it is stated that it was a Motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders. A very strong feeling has been expressed upon the question by three of the Irish Judges—including Mr. Justice Harrison and Baron Dowse. I therefore submit that the Government ought to accept the proposal now made, taking into consideration the manner in which the Bill has been dealt with, and attempted to be smuggled through the House. I should certainly like to hear what the Parlia-
  1872
  mentary Under Secretary for Ireland has to say in regard to the matter.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN): In the first place, I would ask the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M. Healy), who has moved the adjournment of the debate, to withdraw the Motion. The question has been very fully discussed already, and I believe that if the House goes to a Division on the Main Question the measure will in all probability be thrown out. It has been opposed strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, and objections have been urged against the disfigurement of the city. I may say that although. I supported the Motion on a previous occasion, I only did so because I was of opinion that some communication should be made between Westland Row and Kings-bridge. If any other scheme could be proposed by which the same object could be carried out in a less objectionable manner, I should have been prepared to support it.
  MR. COURTNEY: Upon the question which ha3 been raised by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford, that this is a new Motion, I must point out that I have already explained that the Motion, as it stands on the Paper, consists of three things—First, that certain Standing Orders should be suspended; secondly, that the Bill be now taken into consideration; and, thirdly, there is a provision that amended prints should have been previously deposited. The time has now elapsed for the suspension of the Standing Orders, and copies of the Bill have been actually deposited, so that the only remaining Motion is, "That the Bill be now considered." The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) says that further time is required for the discussion of the matter; but I may remind him that the real point under discussion now is not the construction of the bridge across the Liffey, or the making of this railway. Those points were settled by the Act of 1834, and the question now before the House is simply the propriety of altering the financial arrangements as they were originally made. The only question to be considered is the financial question, and I submit that no sufficient reason has been given why the Bill should not be considered.
  MR. CHANCE: I trust the House will pause before they allow the Bill to be considered now. I do not believe there are a dozen English Members in the House who have taken the trouble to look at the Bill, and I think that if there was an adjournment, and they did look at the Bill, they would assuredly vote against it. I think it is a monstrous thing that English Members, who are very imperfectly acquainted with the nature of the question raised by the measure, should be prepared to go into the Lobby against the unanimous wish of the Irish Members, without taking the trouble of studying the provisions of the Bill.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Under the circumstances I will not press the Motion for Ajournment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. DILLON: I now rise for the purpose of asking hon. Members on the other side of the House to declare themselves on this question. The reason why I supported the adjournment of the debate was that, while we had had an overwhelming declaration from the Members who represent Ireland, we had heard no declaration from hon. Members opposite as to what their view is. We are, therefore, in darkness as to the course about to be adopted by the Government or by hon. Members opposite. The only person who gave us any indication of the views of the Government was the Postmaster General, and his statement, as far as we could understand it, was that the Government were strongly in favour of the Bill. So far as he was concerned, he was in favour of it for one reason, and one reason only—namely, that it would facilitate the transmission of the American mails. But that argument has been shown to be altogether erroneous, because there is a better scheme already before the House. The present scheme, in relation to the transmission of the American mails, is an extremely bad one, and makes a most ineffectual provision for the conveyance of the mails. It is not questioned that if this line were constructed it would only accelerate the transmission of the mails by about 10 minutes. The point really before the House is whether this line should be constructed or not, because, as I understand, the promoters
  1874
  cannot construct it without the passing of this Bill. That is the reason they have brought the Bill forward. We all know that it is an expensive matter to bring in a Private Bill, and I want to know why the line has not been constructed long ago? I think we ought to have some slight indication of what the opinion of the Government is before we consent to go to a Division. I was stopped just now by you, Sir, in discussing the merits of the Bill, because the question before the House was simply a Motion for the adjournment of the debate. I do not profess to understand the whole merits of the question; but what I do say is this—it is a proposal which is intensely obnoxious to the citizens of Dublin, a proposal deliberately to destroy one of the finest views in the whole City of Dublin, and utterly to destroy the appearance of the most beautiful building in it. Anybody who will cross the O'Connell Bridge, and look down towards the Custom House, will agree with what I say. It must further be borne in mind that no single reason has been given to the House in favour of the Bill. I am at a loss to know on what grounds the persons who are interested in the measure propose to invest their money in it, because I am convinced that they will never see a single shilling of it back. Not a single ton of goods will pass over the line in the course of a day, and there will be very few passengers, except those who prefer to rush through Dublin without putting up at some hotel for a single half-hour. The line, when constructed, may pay its expenses; but I am satisfied it can never pay interest on the capital invested in it. I am, therefore, at a loss to know what reason has actuated the persons who propose to find the money, I think I am entitled to ask, before such a Bill is passed, that the promoters and others who are interested in it should stand up and give us some special reason in favour of the scheme. No reason whatever has, as yet, been given, and until I hear some satisfactory reason I shall strongly oppose the Bill. In point of fact, what will this Bill do if the line is constructed? It will simply relieve some 20 or 30 passengers in the City of Dublin, for it will enable them to dispense with the necessity of hiring a cab. Surely it cannot be contended

  1875
  seriously that it is worth while to disfigure the City of Dublin, and spend £300,000, in order to relieve some 20 people daily from the expense of hiring a cab. No goods will go by the line, and no passengers, except those who are in a violent hurry, and the only saving of time will be about 10 minutes. It certainly seems, on the face of it, preposterous that such a Bill should be thrust down the throats of the House of Commons. Therefore, I challenge the promoters of the Bill to stand up and declare what their ideas are in making this proposal.
  MR. H. S. WRIGHT: As a Member of the Committee which sat on the Bill promoted by the Great Western and Southern Railway Company I may say that we were strongly impressed by the fact that although the promoters of the present Bill had had three or four years for making their line they had neglected to do so; and there was a great risk of the American mail traffic being lost to Ireland altogether if something was not done without further delay. I believe that in making this statement I am expressing the opinion of the Members of the Committee.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has asked me to express my opinion on the matter. All I have to say is that four years ago I was examined before the Committee which passed the present Bill, and, to the best of my recollection, the evidence I gave was to the effect that the bridge proposed to be constructed would certainly disfigure the city, and I think I was supported in that view by almost every gentleman whose opinion was worth having. At the same time, there was a certain extent of feeling in favour of the line being made, because there appeared to be no prospect of any alternative scheme being carried out. There seems now to be every chance of an alternative line being made, by means of which not only will the financial difficulty be got over, but a shorter line will be constructed. I think that will get rid of the difficulties which have hitherto stood in the way of effecting a satisfactory communication between Westland Row and Kingsbridge.
  Question put, and negatived.

QUESTIONS.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE OFFICE OF HIGH SHERIFF—MR. H. C. LEVINGE.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the present difficulties of Irish landlords, the Government can do anything to relieve them from the hardship of being compelled to serve as high sheriffs against their will, at a largo expense; whether, as a matter of fact, owing to general unwillingness to servo, the duty falls very hard on those loyal men who resist less than others; why Mr. H. C. Levinge, of Knockdrin Castle, County Westmeath, within a few months of two successive devolutions of the property, was, against his will, compelled to serve as high sheriff; why that gentleman was, in spite of his many protests, retained in office beyond the year, and obliged to pay the expenses for a year and a-half; and, whether the Lord Lieutenant will consider the equity and propriety of reimbursing him for at least the extra half-year?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: I quite agree, and the Government are also aware of the great hardship which exists in compelling persons to serve in the office of High Sheriff, which, though now practically an honorary one, entails considerable personal expense upon them personally. It is, however, probable that legislation dealing with the subject generally will be introduced at an early date. The duty does, at the present time, fall very hard on those who finally undertake to serve, and who do not press their refusal. I am not aware as to the devolution of property in Mr. Levinge's case, which, however, is, I understand, of considerable value; but he was, against his will, compelled to serve, and, owing to a difficulty in obtaining a successor to him, it was necessary for him to remain in office beyond the year. The Government, while fully sympathizing with Mr. Levinge in regard to the extra expense involved thereby, regret that there are no funds at their disposal oat of which he could be reimbursed.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Is it not contrary to custom to require any gentleman to serve more than one year?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Fortunately, such a case very seldom occurs; but, within my own knowledge, cases have occurred two or three times within the last two years.

  RAILWAYS (ENGLAND AND WALES)— STATION ACCOMMODATION AT DARTMOUTH (GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY).
  MR. SEALE-HAYNEasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, in consequence of a memorial to the Board of Trade from the principal inhabitants and tradesmen of Dartmouth and the neighbourhood, complaining, amongst other things, that the only railway station accommodation, being a small pontoon, "was wholly insufficient for the traffic, and extremely dangerous in use, especially upon public occasions, such as regattas, &c," Colonel Rich, having inspected the said station or pontoon as instructed by the Board of Trade, reported on the 20th of November 1884 "that the complaints enumerated in the memorial are substantially correct," and recommended "that the Great Western Railway Company be urged to build proper and safe station accommodation at Dartmouth;" whether, in accordance with this Report, the Board of Trade has urged that Company to provide the accommodation necessary for the safety and convenience of the public; whether the said Company has been for many years in possession of a site acquired for the purpose of such station; whether, although two years and eight months have elapsed since the date of Colonel Rich's Report, the said station or pontoon remains without alteration or improvement in the same dangerous state at the present time; and, whether, as the said station or pontoon was not inspected previously to the opening of the railway for public traffic, and no mention is made thereof in the Board of Trade Report of August 1864 authorising such opening, the Board of Trade will now take steps for the purpose of securing the safety and accommodation of the public during the present excursion season and approaching regatta, in
  1878
  accordance with the recommendation of their inspector, Colonel Rich?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The facts are correctly set out in the first two paragraphs of the hon. Member's Question. The Board of Trade have no authority to give any directions to the Company with reference to the accommodation to be provided. They have, however, communicated again with the Company, who are anxious to arrive at a settlement of the matter, and who state that it is hoped that at a meeting of all parties interested, which is arranged for the 9th or 12th August, all questions at issue may be disposed of.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—RETURN OF EXPENSES.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the sum spent in extra pay and travelling expenses on eviction duty, expenses of protection posts on evicted farms, &c, and of escorts and special guards by the Royal Irish Constabulary during April, May, and June 1887?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, that the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary reported that, to furnish this information, it would be necessary for the District-Inspectors—125 in number—to search through those items for all the months named. It would not be practicable to give the Return in less than a month, and the Inspector General also stated that, in the more disturbed districts, the preparation of the Returns would probably interfere with the ordinary police duties. Under those circumstances, the Government would not feel themselves justified in calling for the information.
  MR. DILLON: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, I shall call attention to this matter on the Vote for the Irish Police, and move that the Government in future furnish proper Returns monthly.
  MR. COXasked, could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say when a Return of the expenses of the Military and Constabulary Expeditions to Bodyke would be furnished?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman should put the Question on the Paper.

  EXCISE—NUMBER OF SPIRIT GROCERS IN THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT, DUBLIN.
  MR. W. J. CORBET(for Sir THOMAS ESMONDE)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many spirit grocers are there in the Dublin Metropolitan Police District, and what is the gross amount they pay for licences annually; and, how many inspectors and police are employed specially to watch this class of licences, and what is the annual cost of this police supervision?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, there were 229 spirit grocers in the Dublin Metropolitan Police District. The Irish Government had no knowledge of the amount they paid for licences; there were no police or other constables specially employed to look after them.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: May I ask whether spirit grocers require any more looking after than the publicans?
  [No reply.]

  LAW AND POLICE (SCOTLAND)—ASSAULT ON C. ROBERTSON, KINREACHIE, INVERNESS-SHIRE.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he has received any report regarding a serious attack made, on the 14th May last, upon Charles Robertson, in Kinreachie, of Aviemore, Inverness-shire, aged 78 years, by a neighbouring farmer, who felled him to the ground, and otherwise maltreated the old man; and, whether he will cause an impartial inquiry into the circumstances?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD), in reply, said, he had sent for information on the matter; but it had not yet reached him. He should be obliged to the hon. Member if he would repeat his Question on Friday.

  OFFICE OF COLLECTOR GENERAL OF RATES, DUBLIN.
  MR. W. J. CORBET(for Sir THOMAS ESMONDE)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many clerks are employed in Dublin in the office of the Collector General of Rates; if the head clerk received last year, in addition to his salary of £400, £100 as acting collector general, and over £200 for extra work done; if the other clerks were paid for extra work in the same proportion; what was the nature of the extra work, and whether it could not have been easily performed in the ordinary office hours; what is the amount paid to the clerks in the Collector General of Rates Office, in salaries, allowances, and extras respectively, in 1885 and 1886; and, if there is any work being performed in the office now?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The staff of clerks in the Collector General of Rates Office is a chief clerk and nine other clerks. The chief clerk received in 1886, in addition to his salary a sum of £100, which was awarded to him by the late Government for the extra trouble and responsibility thrown upon him during the serious illness of the Collector General. He also received a sum of £77, not over £200 as alleged, for extra work outside office hours. The other clerks who took extra work, received also sums in proportion to their salaries. The extra work done is the preparation of the rate books, ledgers, and collecting book for the new year, the making out of lists of arrears, vacancies, and insolvencies. The Collector General reports that those are duties which must be performed in a limited time, when the office work is most pressing; and that they could not be performed during office hours, if for no other reason than that the books are in full use throughout those hours. The work was never done in any other way. The payments referred to have been as follows:—In 1885, salaries £2,819, scrivenry £302; in 1886, salaries £2,861, scrivenry £320. There is no extra work being performed in the office now; but a temporary extra clerk has been employed for two months at

  1881
  £2 a-week in preparation for the annual audit.

  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS—SUPPLY OF MEAT TO LYDD, KENT.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that the supply of mutton for the soldiers stationed at Lydd, in Kent, comes entirely from abroad; that the contract price is 5d. per pound; that this is the price now obtainable by the home producers of the district; and, whether the contract has been offered to and refused by them?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)(who replied) said, the contract was put up to public competition by advertisement, and was secured by a butcher in the neighbourhood. He could not say how much was paid for mutton; but the price paid for meat for the barracks was nearly 6d. per pound all round.

  WAR OFFICE—THE MARTELLO TOWERS AT BLACKROCK, COUNTY DUBLIN.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Secretary of State for War, Who are the tenants of the Martello towers at Monkstown and Blackrock, County Dublin; what the condition of the tenancies are; and, when they cease?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)(who replied) said, the towers were let to Mr. T. W. Robinson, of Dublin, at £7 each. They were held under a repairing agreement, which was terminable upon three months notice on either side; but, by the War Department, the agreement might be terminated summarily subject to a small penalty.

  INDIA—DESTITUTE ENGLISHMEN IN INDIA, AND NATIVES IN ENGLAND.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Indian Government pays the passage back to England of destitute Englishmen found in India who are desirous of returning home; and, whether the India Office will take any steps towards defraying the cost of sending home three Natives
  1882
  of the Punjaub, who, being quite destitute, are at present confined in the workhouse of St. George's (Hanover Square) Union, and are chargeable upon the ratepayers of the said parish?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY or STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): It is not the general practice of the Government of India to defray, out of the Revenues of India the passages of destitute Englishmen. The Secretary of State does not consider that the relief of the three Natives of the Punjaub now in Marylebone Workhouse, or of destitute Indians in England generally, would be a proper application of the Revenues of India.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—MAIL ACCOMMODATION IN THE NORTH OF IRELAND.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the large and influential meeting of magistrates and representative men from different parts of the County of Down, held in Downpatrick on Saturday the 16th July, for the purpose of impressing on the Government the necessity for increased mail accommodation between Belfast and Newtownards, Downpatrick and other towns, in the county; and, whether he has yet made final arrangements for providing the additional service required?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): My attention has previously been called to the meeting held at Downpatrick on the 16th July, in reference to the mail service between Belfast and Newtownards, Downpatrick, &c; and I can assure the hon. Member that I am quite as anxious as the meeting was to arrive at a satisfactory solution of the question. As regards the second part of the question of the hon. Member, I can only say I have not yet received a final answer from the Treasury upon the subject referred to; but that no time shall be lost in informing the persons interested of the decision when arrived at.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee, considering all the time that has been spent over the matter, that the decision will be obtained before the Appropriation Bill comes on?
  MR. RAIKES: Yes; I hope to announce it long before then.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—THE POLICE FORCE AT MAGHERAFELT.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he Is aware that the district inspector, head constable, sergeant, and acting-sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed at Magherafelt, in the Comity of Derry, are all of them Protestants; whether a Catholic sergeant and three Catholic constables were recently removed from Magherafelt, and a Protestant sergeant and Protestant constables sent there instead; whether he can state the reason for removing the Catholic policemen from Magherafelt, and in having none but Protestant officers in that station; and whether it is the intention of the Government to adopt this practice generally, or only in counties where evictions have taken place or are likely to take place?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, that at Magherafelt the District Inspector was a Protestant, the head constable was a Presbyterian, but the sergeant was a Roman Catholic, acting as such in the absence of one who was on temporary duty elsewhere. A Catholic sergeant was recently transferred upon his marriage in accordance with the Regulations, and he was replaced by a man of the same religious persuasion. In the removals rendered necessary by the exigencies of the Public Service, a Roman Catholic sergeant had been temporarily replaced by a Protestant; but the former would return when his present term of duty expired.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSIONERS—THE COURT VALUER'S VALUATION— "ADAMS v. DUNSEATH."
  MR. MAHONYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath," being the first appeal heard by the Land Commissioners, the Court valuer's valuation was not made known to the litigants until after evidence of value had been given by both sides; whether for some time subsequent to the hearing of that
  1884
  case it was the practice to make known the amount of the Court valuer's valuation during the sitting of the Court; and, whether subsequently it became the practice to make known the amount of the Court valuer's valuation by sending a statement thereof to the litigants by post before the case came on for hearing, and, in some instances, before the cases were even listed for hearing; if so, whether he is still prepared to state that the Court valuer's valuation was from the commencement made known to the litigants before the case came on for hearing, and that there was no change in practice regarding these valuations until December 1884?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners state that in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath" it was decided that the report of the Court valuer should be communicated to the parties after the hearing of the evidence, and not before. A short time afterwards—the precise date is not recorded—the Commissioners determined to give the amount of the valuation to the parties when asked for, but no other portion of the document, and this was frequently done during the sitting in Court. It subsequently became the practice to communicate the valuation by post, or otherwise, to litigants. The reply to the previous Question on the subject was in substance correct. There was, however, a misunderstanding on the part of the Commissioners, when preparing the answer, as to the point raised, they being under the impression that it related to the former practice of having free valuations and the subsequent practice of having valuations paid for by the appellants, and as to the reasons of the next change to valuations at the discretion, of the Court, and to the effect of these changes.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)—ALLEGED ASSAULT BY AN EMERGENCY MAN AT NEWTON HYLAND, CO. DUBLIN.
  MR. M'CARTAN(for Mr. CLANCY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a man named Moss, employed by the Landlords' Emergency Association to act as caretaker of an

  1885
  evicted farm at Newton Hyland, St. Margaret's, county Dublin, engaged a Dublin carman to convey him to that place on the 28th May last; whether, when he was asked for his fare, Moss attacked the carman with a long knife, and then threatened to shoot him with a revolver; whether, on the carman reporting the occurrence at the Finglas Police Station, and the police, in consequence, interfering, Moss paid the fare and induced the carman to withdraw the charge made against him; whether the police reported the case to their superior; if so, whether any and what steps have been taken to bring Moss to justice; and, whether it is true that the police in no less than three stations—namely, Finglas, Hollywood, and the Ward, have been for weeks employed protecting this "emergency man," to the neglect of other and more important duties?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, it appeared that Moss did employ a Dublin carman, but the carman made no complaint to the police of having been attacked with a knife or threatened with a revolver. Moss had paid the fare, which was accepted by the carman, though it appeared after some altercation, before the case was reported to the police of Moss having admitted that he had a revolver, and that he fired shots with it, and the police having discovered that he had no Excise licence he was to be prosecuted. The police had been looking after two evicted farms in the neighbourhood, and so had incidentally afforded Moss, who was caretaker, protection, but had not done so by any means exclusively.

  THE METROPLITAN BOARD OF WORKS—REPRESENTATION IN THIS HOUSE.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the impression created by his replying for the Metropolitan Board of Works that the Government are in some way responsible for the action of that Board, and whereas three Members of that Board have seats in the House, he will revert to the custom of allowing the Board to reply by their senior Member in the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I think it would be undesirable that the Government should be supposed to interfere with the responsibility and discretion of the Metropolitan Board of Works, by answering Questions in which that Board is alone interested, in cases where we have no power by law to interfere, and I propose to communicate with the Chairman on the subject of questions relating to the action of the Board, and affecting their interests, that they should be answered by the senior member of the Board, who has a seat in this House.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—REMOVAL OF PLACARDS.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any regulations exist respecting the tearing down of placards announcing public meetings by the Royal Irish Constabulary; and, if so, whether he will lay a Copy of such Regulations upon the Table; and, with whom rests the decision as to the presumed illegality of such placards?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, it was the duty of the police to remove all placards which might have a tendency to cause a breach of the public peace. Their action, in all such cases, must, to a great extent, depend upon the local circumstances, or the necessity of the time; and for those matters, the officer under whose orders they were was responsible.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Are there any written instructions to the police on the subject; or am I to understand that, in the opinion of the Government, each individual policeman acts on his own discretion?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The constables act under written instructions, one of which is, that any placards calculated to promote a breach of the peace are to be removed, and they may remove them.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, lay these written instructions on the Table of the House?
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the right hon. and gallant Gen-

  1887
  tleman if, in any case, the constable tears down a placard which is proved to be legal, how is the responsibility of the constable or other officer to be made liable?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: In the same manner as if he exceeded his duty in any other respect.

  AFRICA (CENTRAL)—EXPEDITION FOR THE RELIEF OF EMIN PASHA—REPORTED DEATH OF MR. STANLEY.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether in view of the public interest in the mission of Mr. Stanley, the Government will cause inquiries to be made, so far as possible, of the present position of the Expedition, and particularly as to the reports now made of the death of the gallant explorer?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): There are no means of communicating with Mr. Stanley's Expedition. Reports are sent by Mr. Stanley to the Committee by whom the Expedition was despatched. The report of Mr. Stanley's death is disbelieved by the Committee and by the authorities of the Congo Free State, and Her Majesty's Government see no reason to believe it. I may say that before coming to the House, I received a copy of a letter from the Minister of the Congo Free State at Brussels to Her Majesty's Minister there, giving reasons for entirely disbelieving the report. As I think that letter, or the substance of it, has already appeared in the newspapers, I need not trouble the House with it.

  BRITISH GUIANA AND VENEZUELA— THE BOUNDARY QUESTION.
  MR. WATTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he is now in a position to give the House any information with reference to the Boundary Question between British Guiana and Venezuela?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The Government of Venezuela having broken off diplomatic relations with Her Majesty's Government, negotiations for the settlement of the Boundary Question are at present interrupted. Pending a settlement of
  1888
  the question, the territory within the boundary line proposed by Sir R. Schomberg will be treated by the Government of British Guiana as belonging to the Colony. The claim of the Colony to a more extended frontier is not withdrawn; but, for the present, remains in abeyance.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS)— ARREST OF MISS CASS.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is a fact that, at the inquiry into the Regent Street arrest case at Scotland Yard on Friday last, a woman named Fernando Pietre tendered her evidence, and asked that her name and address might not be made public; and, whether the Chief Commissioner, addressing the representatives of the Press, said—"If you give the name I will turn you all out;" and, if so, whether the inquiry, being an open one, anything transpiring in the Court is to be suppressed upon the order of the Chief Commissioner?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by Sir Charles Warren that when the witness in question gave her reasons previously to giving her evidence for not wishing her name and address to be published, Mr. Horace Smith, the legal assessor, said he hoped that those reasons were not at present being taken down by the reporters, as he did not know yet whether the witness would choose to be examined. Sir Charles Warren saw a reporter apparently, in spite of Mr. Smith's remarks, putting down the reasons, and he warned him that unless he desisted he should turn him out. Sir Charles Warren is assisted by very competent legal advice, and I am unwilling to interfere with his discretion so far as the conduct of the inquiry is concerned.

  LICENSING LAWS—EXTENSION OF HOURS OF OPENING, KINGSTON-ON- THAMES.
  MR. CAINEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is aware that at the weekly petty sessions at Kingston on Thames, on the 14th instant, Sergeant Crook, of the Surrey Constabulary, applied for an extension of time for the

  1889
  sale of liquor on behalf of the "Bear" public house, and the "White Lion," at Cobham, and that the magistrates granted both the applications at the request of the sergeant, without either of the holders of the licences being present; and, if he will take steps to prevent such applications in future?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have obtained a report from the clerk to the justices pointing out that the law does not compel publicans to apply personally for an extension of hours; and that being so, it does not appear that there has been any infraction of the licensing law. I have no authority to lay down the law in the matter; but I certainly think it would be better if these applications were not made by the police.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE TECHNICAL EDUCATION BILL FOR SCOTLAND.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, When it is proposed to introduce the Technical Education Bill for Scotland; and, whether it is intended to carry it on pari passu with the English Bill?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE), in reply, said, that the proposals of the Government with regard to technical education in Scotland would be shortly announced, and the same facilities would be afforded for Scotch as for English legislation on this subject. He hoped the Scotch Bill would be introduced within one or two days.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does that also apply to Ireland?
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: Yes, Sir; Ireland is included.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE ANGLO-RUSSIAN CONVENTION—THE FRONTIER OF AFGHANISTAN.
  MR. LEGHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is the ease that a final settlement of the Afghan Frontier Question has been arrived at with the Russian Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The terms of a settlement of the Afghan Northern Frontier have been signed by the British and Russian
  1890
  Commissioners, and only require the acceptance of the Governments concerned.

  EGYPT—MOUKHTAR PASHA.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONasked the Under Secretary of State 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): No, Sir, I cannot give any information on the subject.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONasked, whether Her Majesty's Government had taken any steps to induce the Porte to procure the speedy withdrawal of Moukhtar Pasha from Egypt?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I think the House will see that it would be a very grave matter to put pressure on the Porte to withdraw its officer from a part of its own territory.

  WAR OFFICE (SMALL ARMS)—THE MAGAZINE RIFLE.
  MR. WATTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can now state a probable date at which the War Office will decide as to the adoption of a magazine rifle; and, whether he can state how long it would probably take thereafter to have a supply of 100,000 rifles available for service?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The Military Authorities are unanimous in the opinion, in which I concur, that further trials are necessary before a final decision can be arrived at as to the type of magazine rifle to be adopted for our Service. It is, therefore, impossible for me now to name a definite date for this decision. The time that would be occupied in manufacture would also depend to a considerable extent on the type of rifle adopted.

  HER MAJESTY'S TITLES—"QUEEN AND EMPRESS."
  MR. HOWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Whether the designation of Her Majesty as Queen and Empress by Sir Henry Drummond Wolff in his despatches from Constantinople is in accordance with usage; and,

  1891
  whether the introduction of such designation by Sir Henry Drummond Wolff is to be regarded as a precedent?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The designation in question does not transgress the exclusion of its use in instruments whose operation extends only to the United Kingdom, which is the only exception enjoined by the Royal Proclamation of 28th April, 1876.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS)— MARYLEBONE POLICE COURT—CASE OF MR. WILLIAMS.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will now state his decision as to the release or otherwise of the four defendants convicted along with Mr. Williams by Mr. De Rutzen, who are still in prison?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have carefully examined the evidence before the Court of Quarter Sessions, and the decision of the Court in Williams's case, and I do not find anything bearing on the cases of the other prisoners. But the decision of the Court of Quarter Sessions in Pole's case, by which his sentence was reduced to two months, appears to me to have an important bearing on the cases of the other defendants who have not appealed, and whose cases do not differ in kind from that of Pole. There is, however, an appeal in one of these cases, and of Stafford, which has been heard to-day, and I think it is proper that I should wait until I have considered the result of that appeal before tendering my advice to Her Majesty as to the other defendants.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS.
  MR. CONWAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that successive Governments have acknowledged the justice of the claims of the Irish National Teachers to some beneficicial legislation; whether there is any intention this Session on the part of the Government to ameliorate the very hard lot of the teachers; whether there was a small increase made to the
  1892
  salaries of the teachers in 1879; whether the increase averaged £4 per teacher in the service; whether the total sum allocated to this purpose was £46,000; whether, considering the deductions made from the salaries of teachers for the purposes of the pension fund, and the loss of income consequent on the apathy of non - contributing unions, the average increase of £4 per teacher is practically illusory; and, whether, pending future remedial legislation for this most deserving class, he can see his way to recommend the Government to follow the precedent of 1879, by giving a grant in aid, say, equal to an average increase of salary of £10 per teacher in the service, which would for the present tide over dissatisfaction and difficulty?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The entire question relating to the position of the Irish National School teachers is most complex, and cannot properly be dealt with within the limits of a Question. The Government are not yet in a position to come to any decision in the matter.
  MR. CONWAY: In consequence of the unsatisfactory answer of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, I wish to give Notice that on the Estimates I will raise the whole question of the status of National School Teachers in Ireland.

  CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT—ALLEGED PERSONATION IN NORTH HANTS.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following statement in a letter in the Daily News of the 21st instant, signed by the Hon. Secretary of the North Hants Liberal Association:—
  "In the district of Crookham I saw a gentleman come to the poll with his servant, whose name had been struck out by the Revising Barrister, and who had been informed of that fact by my son, to whom he admitted that he had no qualification. Yet his master brought him to the poll to swear that he was another of the same name. Afterwards that other applied to vote, but could only tender a vote which contributed nothing to the issue, like that of the personator and perjurer;"
  and, whether the facts are as stated; and, if so, whether he will direct the Public Prosecutor to take action in the matter?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): In reply to the hon. and learned Member, I have to state that I hare no means of judging whether the facts are as stated, inasmuch as the newspaper extract contains no names. As the offence suggested is of a most grave character, I certainly should not direct the Public Prosecutor to take proceedings upon the strength of a newspaper paragraph. The hon. and learned Gentlemen, no doubt, knows perfectly well, as well as I do, that if the facts are as stated, they can be brought to the notice of the Public Prosecutor in the usual way, or independent proceedings can be taken.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked, whether the Attorney General was not the official representative of the Public Prosecutor in that House; if not, who was; and, whether, as the case had now been brought officially under his notice he would make the inquiries required of him under Section 45 of the Corrupt Practices Act?
  SIR, RICHARD WEBSTER: There is no such thing as an official representative of the Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor acts, in many cases, independently. It is only in some few instances that the Law Officers communicate with him with regard to giving him their sanction as to certain proceedings. I say, again, the hon. and learned Member knows perfectly well that if the facts are as stated, there is a ready means of bringing them under the notice of the Public Prosecutor.

  LAW OF LIMITED LIABILITY—LEGISLATION.
  MR. J. M. MACLEANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government have a Bill prepared for amending the Law of Limited Liability; and, whether, supposing they have abandoned the intention of passing such a Bill into Law this Session, they will introduce it in the House of Lords, so that its provisions may be fully discussed by the mercantile community during the Recess?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): This subject has engaged the serious attention of the Government, and a Bill has been drafted; but the
  1894
  hon. Member is aware that it is a subject of very great difficulty, and, under all the circumstances, the Government do not think it desirable to legislate upon it in the course of the present Session.

  CITY CHARTER FOR BELFAST.
  MR. SEXTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, With regard to the recent announcement of the Secretary to the Treasury, that the requisite particulars touching the application for the grant of a city charter to Belfast had been placed by the municipality in the hands of the Irish Law Officers of the Crown for their consideration and report, whether the Government have yet advised the Crown to grant the charter?
  MR. JOHNSTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, may I ask him, if it is not a similar Question to that which I asked him on Tuesday, 14th June; and if, in accordance with an intimation from him, I have not been waiting for an occasion to repeat the Question. The hon. Member for West Belfast seems inclined to make political capital out of this matter by trying to monopolize Belfast Questions entirely.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask, whether it is not a fact that while the hon. Member was away engaged in Orange processions in Ulster, I twice brought the matter before the House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): While I have no wish to enter into controversy between the hon. Members, it is a fact that my hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast did, in the first instance, ask me, whether Her Majesty's Government thought it well to celebrate the Jubilee of Her Majesty, by conferring a City charter upon the town of Belfast; and I told the hon. Gentleman that the Government were of opinion it was not desirable to connect the Jubilee with an event of such a character. The subject, however, has since had the attention of the Government, and we are informed by the Irish Law Officers that they are of opinion it is competent for the Government to grant a charter for the City of Belfast. The subject is receiving the attention of the Government.

  AGRICULTURAL DEPRESSION-LAND OUT OF CULTIVATION.
  MR. BEADELasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in The Standard of Friday last, signed "Arthur Pryor," and headed "A terrible List;" attached to which letter is a record of farms in one district in the county of Essex, showing 3,527 acres to be out of cultivation, and 17,945 acres to be in the hands of landlords who are unable to find tenants for the same; whether he is aware that a similar state of things exists in many other counties; and, whether the Government will take some steps or propound some scheme whereby a practical remedy for the same can be found?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): My attention has been drawn to the letter which the hon. Member quotes, and I am aware that a similar state of things exists, though I hope in a less degree, in other parts of the country. The Government regard this as a very serious matter indeed; and if any hon. Member can make a suggestion of any kind which will enable us to find a practical remedy, we shall receive such suggestion with gratitude, and give it our best consideration.
  MR. CONYBEARE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is disposed to take into consideration the proposals and the schemes laid before the House by the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) when he brought forward this matter?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider the desirableness of resumption by the Crown of those valuable lands now allowed to go to waste by their owners?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government are now asking for a remedy for the existing condition of things under which it is difficult to cultivate the land with profit. If any hon. Gentleman can give a practical suggestion for a remedy for that state of things, it will receive careful consideration.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS—TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. R. PRESTON BRUCEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with any of the three important Bills which they have announced relating to Scotland—namely, the Secretary for Scotland Bill, the Universities Bill, and the Technical Instruction Bill, but which have not yet been introduced in either House of Parliament; and, whether, having regard to the late period of the Session, he can promise that any of these Bills which the Government still intend to press forward shall be introduced without further delay?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The hon. Gentleman asks me whether the Secretary for Scotland Bill will be shortly introduced. I have every reason to hope that it will be introduced in the House of Lords in the course of the present week. As regards the University Bill, there are some financial details which have caused some difficulty and delay in dealing with; but I trust they may be overcome in the course of the next few days. The Technical Education Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Vice President has said, will also be introduced very shortly.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—THE PROCLAMATIONS.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland two Questions of which I have given him private Notice. They refer to the Proclamations which have been issued in Ireland. I wish to ask him, Whether anything has happened to explain the extension of these Proclamations over almost the whole of Ireland, since his assurance given to the House that there are parts of Ireland in which the law is at this moment as well obeyed as in any part of the United Kingdom; and, secondly, I wish to ask him, in view of the assurances then given by the late Attorney General for Ireland, that the proceedings of the Privy Council were of a purely formal character, how

  1897
  it was that Mr. Justice Monroe and three other judicial personages attended, or are alleged to have attended, the proceedings on Saturday?
  MR. MAC NEILL: I also wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private Notice. Is it true, as stated in The Times of this day, that a meeting of the Irish Privy Council was held in Dublin Castle on Saturday afternoon, at which were present General His Serene Highness the Prince of Saxe Weimar, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the Chief Secretary, the Vice Chancellor, the right hon. J. T. Ball, L.L.D., and Mr. Justice Monroe; whether the meeting lasted two hours, during which the Privy Council were chiefly occupied in drawing up the Proclamations necessary for putting the Crimes Act into operation; whether the Vice Chancellor and Mr. Justice Monroe are both members of the Irish Judicial Bench; whether Mr. Justice Monroe was sworn a Member of the Irish Privy Council after his elevation to the Bench; whether the Government stated, through the mouth of the late Attorney General for Ireland, now Mr. Justice Holmes, on the 15th June, 1887, that it was not intended to consult the Members of the Irish Judiciary in reference to the administration of the Crimes Bill; and, finally, whether the right hon. Gentleman has any, and if so, what explanation for this departure from the understanding on which the Crimes Act was passed; and, whether he has any reason, and if so, what reason, for converting the Irish Judiciary into agents of the Executive Government?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have to say that it is true that the Privy Council, as named in the Question by the hon. Member (Mr. Mac Neill), were present on Saturday. It is true that a large portion of the business done related to the Proclamations to be issued under the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act. It is not, I think, true, as far as I recollect, that the Council sat for two hours, but it is true that they sat for a considerable time, not because they were occupied during the time in consultation, for there was no consultation. There was no consultation—as I will explain in one moment. The delay
  1898
  arose out of some clerical errors which had been committed in the Proclamations. Then I am asked, whether Mr. Justice Monroe was sworn a Member of the Privy Council after his elevation to the Judicial Bench? That, I believe, is true, though it does not appear to be very relevant to the remainder of the Question. Then, as to whether it was stated in this House by the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) that it was not intended to consult the Judges with reference to the administration of the Crimes Bill, I may reply that the Judges were not consulted upon that subject. As the House is aware, the assembling of the Privy Council to conduct business of this kind is of a purely formal character. It is intended to give, and it does give, solemnity to the action of the Executive. But neither in Ireland nor in England is it the custom to debate questions when anything is done by the Privy Council gathered in that manner; and, therefore, whether it be right or not right that the Judges should be present on an occasion of that sort, it is strictly true that the Government did not consult the Judges with reference to the administration of the Act. That, I think, deals with the whole of that part of the Question. Then the hon. Member asks my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he has any explanation for this departure from the understanding arrived at; but, as I have just told the hon. Member, there has been no departure from the understanding.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question, as to whether there was any, and, if so, what, reason for converting the Irish Judiciary into agents of the Executive Government? They were not there to be consulted.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman refers me to an understanding on the faith of which he says the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act was passed, and which he quotes in the preceding paragraph of his Question. That understanding, as I have already said, has not been broken. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) asks me whether I have any reason to alter my opinion that parts of Ireland are as peaceful as any part of England? No, Sir. I have no

  1899
  reason to alter my opinion on that subject. What we have done with regard to the Proclamations under the Act is to apply Sub-section 3 of Clause 2 to Ireland generally. Sub-section 3 consists of three sub-heads. Sub-head A deals with rioting and unlawful assembly. That has already, by the action of Parliament, been made universal in Ireland, irrespective of any Proclamation; and the original form of the Amendment by which it was made universal irrespective of any Proclamation, moved by some hon. Gentleman from Ireland below the Gangway, was that the whole of Sub-section 3 should be made applicable, irrespective of Proclamations, to the whole of Ireland. I have carried out roughly the intention which the hon. Member appears to have had when he put the Amendment on the Paper. Sub-section B relates to the taking or holding by forcible possession. That is clearly not a sub-head which can, by any circumstances, be abused. It is a specific and definite offence, and if it takes place in any part of Ireland, in my opinion it ought to be dealt with effectively. With regard to Sub head C, that relates to obstructing the police, and it assimilates the law of Ireland to the existing law of England in that respect. Therefore, when I said that there were parts of Ireland which were as quiet as any part of England, by inference it may be understood that it would be a judicious course to assimilate the law in that respect. The House will see that the only part of the Act which has been made general throughout Ireland is that single sub-section of that single clause.
  MR. SEXTON: As to the provision in Clause 5, that the Lord Lieutenant may, when it appears necessary, by Proclamation declare the provisions of the Act which relate to proclaimed districts, I should like to ask whether the Irish Executive made any classification in their own mind of the counties in which it was necessary to prevent, and those in which it is necessary to punish crime?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In every case in which we have proclaimed under the Act, generally, any county in Ireland, we have done so because we have believed, either from the actual existence of crime or intimidation, the Act was necessary. No counties have been pro-
  1900
  claimed generally under the Bill where crime does not exist, if by crime is included, as it certainly ought to be, intimidation.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Are we to understand that, by the law of England, a person who commits an offence under Sub-head B of Sub-section 3 is liable to be tried by summary jurisdiction?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Without appeal?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was Subsection 3 to which I referred.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman on Saturday, in company with the Judges, proclaimed the whole of Ireland to be subjected to this provision—namely,
  "That any person who, within twelve months after the execution of any writ of possession of any house or land, shall wrongfully take or hold forcible possession of such house or land, or any part thereof, shall be punishable with six months' imprisonment by order of the Resident Magistrate."
  Now, I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say that in any part of England such a thing can be done, and, if he cannot say that, will he say why he applies a law not applicable in England to any part of Ireland, which is as peaceable as England according to his own statement?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have treated Sub-section 3 as a whole; and the right hon. Gentleman will notice, as I have before said, that this, which, I believe, is a purely Irish form of crime, is one which certainly ought to be punished wherever it exists.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Let me recall to the right hon. Gentleman's mind the fact that these words are perfectly applicable. [Ministerial cries of "Order!"] I strongly advise hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches not to object to my asking these questions, or else they may drive us to further extremities. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!"] They seem to think that it is a very light matter. [Renewed cries of "Order!"] If hon. Gentlemen are silent, I will not make these observations; but if they will endeavour to interrupt me, I must do so. [Cries of "Go on!"] I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that, under this Act, this Sub-section B, which really amounts only to a question

  1901
  of trespass, or resistance to expulsion from a tenement, ought, to be applied to portions of Ireland which are perfectly peaceable?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR; I believe the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in his law. It does not apply to trespass.
  MR. CHANCEasked whether the County of Kilkenny had been proclaimed, and whether the sole outrage there during the last quarter had been one case of an alleged threatening letter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is the case; Kilkenny is proclaimed; but I cannot, without Notice, give statistics as to offences.
  MR. O'DOHERTYasked, whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland, under cover of an Order of the Privy Council, had not done what the House in Committee had refused?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not true that I have done by an Order in Council what the House has refused.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would state accurately what had been done in reference to the Proclamations?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already explained what has been done with regard to Ireland generally. [A VOICE: Antrim.] Antrim is included in what has been done with regard to Ireland generally, of course. The counties proclaimed under the whole Act are Clare, Cork, Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Kilkenny, King's County, Leitrim, Limerick, Longford, Mayo, Monaghan, Queen's County, Roscommon, Sligo, Tipperary, Waterford, and Wexford. The counties and cities of Dublin, Belfast, Carrickfergus, Cork, Drogheda, Galway, Londonderry, and Waterford have not been proclaimed under the Act generally, but only under Sub-section C.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman could state, in the case of Donegal, which had been proclaimed, what cases of intimidation he had discovered in that county?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it would be most inconvenient to give statistics of this sort in regard to the different counties in the way of question and answer; but if the hon. Member desires information on any point, he can put a Question on the Paper.
  MR. SEXTONasked, whether Done, gal and Monaghan, the only Ulster counties proclaimed generally, had been so proclaimed because they returned Nationalist Members?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not the reason. There is no connection between the two circumstances.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, whether, in some of the counties proclaimed the Judges of the recent Assizes had been presented with white gloves, in consequence of the absence of cases to try?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask for Notice of the Question for Thursday.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman had any objection to give a statement to the House showing accurately what had been done under the Proclamations, so that the people of Ireland might not have to grope their way through these Proclamations?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that would be convenient, and I will have it done.

  THE NAVAL REVIEW AT SPITHEAD— FATAL ACCIDENT.
  MR. WOODALL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he can give the House any information respecting the unfortunate occurrence at Spithead on Saturday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I can only answer the Question generally, as I did not know before coming down that the hon. Gentleman intended putting it to me. Four men were unfortunately injured, as stated in the newspapers, by the premature explosion of a saluting charge. They were taken to the hospital, and I am sorry to say one of the men died shortly after. The last report I heard of the remaining three was that they were progressing favourably.
  MR. WOODALL: Has the noble Lord no information as to the cause of the accident?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It is, as I stated, a saluting charge which exploded prematurely. Whether all the precautions that should have been taken were taken I cannot state.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  IRISH LAND LAW BILL [Lords]. [BILL 308.]
  (Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  IRISH LAND LAW BILL [Lords]. [BILL 308.]

    COMMITTEE [Progress 2lst July.]
    [FIRST NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.
    Clause 1 (Leaseholders).
    MR. PARNELL: The first Amendment on the Paper stands in my name, and it is one which is preliminary to several Amendments to the same clause, which raise the question of option—that is to say, whether it should be optional to the tenant, holding under a lease, to apply to the Court to have a fair rent fixed. The Bill, as it stands, gives the option either to the tenant or to the landlord of making the application, subject to the terms of his tenancy. Although in the Tenant Relief Bill, last year, for which I was made responsible, the option was not given to the tenant alone, yet the interval which has since elapsed has supplied us with such a large body of information as to the desirability of leaving the option to the tenant alone, and as to the hardship which may result, in many cases, to tenants if it were not so left, and the difficulty of proof by the tenant, that it is out of the question to consent to the conditions contained in the clause as it now stands. In my opinion, the only way of proceeding is to give the option to the tenant, and to the tenant alone, to make application under this clause. I may mention that a considerable variation has been introduced into the Government clause against the tenant as compared with the provisions of the clause in the Relief Bill of last Session. In the Relief Bill it was only necessary for the tenant to prove that he had paid value, but in the present Bill it is provided that a tenant must prove that a valuable consideration has been given to the lessor for the lease. From the statement made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and also at the meeting which was held at the Carlton Club the other day, it would seem that the Government is disposed to concede this point, and therefore i will not labour the matter further, but
    1904
    will proceed to show how the Amendment fits in with the clause, and how the clause, if it be adopted, will read in connection with consequential Amendments. The clause, if altered as I suggest, will read in this way—
    "At any time within three years after the passing of this Act, on application within the prescribed manner to the Court by the lessee of any holding who at the expiration of any lease existing at the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, would he admitted to be a tenant."
    Lower down I have an Amendment which is also consequential, to leave out the words—
    "Provided that such lessee shall not be deemed to be a present tenant, where substantial consideration has been given for the said lease to the lessor or with his knowledge, and such lessee objects to being deemed a present tenant."
    In fact that Amendment amounts to the omission of the second paragraph of the clause. Now, Sir, I am anxious to say a word on the only question which is likely to introduce any controversy into the matter involved in the Amendment, and that is the period to be allowed to the lessee, after the passing of the Act, for the purpose of making his application. As the clause now stands, it appears to me that that period would be unlimited. I apprehend, at all events, that that must have been the intention of the Government in regard to the clause, because, otherwise, unless the lessee had applied on the very day in which the Act came into operation, he would be shut out altogether from making the application. It must be obvious that time will be necessary to enable the holders of the title to tenancies held under lease to make out their claim, and that that cannot be done in a day, and in many cases, cannot be done even in a year. The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) apparently thinks that some limitation would only be fair, and that the tenants should not be restricted to the very day upon which the Act is passed into law. He has, therefore, placed upon the Paper an Amendment which provides that the application may be made within two years after the passing of the Act. I have taken a later period, having regard to the steps which may have to be taken by the lessees in order that they may be in a position to qualify themselves to make an application under the technical wording

    1905
    of the clause. The Government clause, I submit, provides no limitation whatever, and if there is to be any alteration in the wording of the clause, then I think it would be better to give to those who are interested a period of three years instead of two. I think it would be most unfair that a leaseholder should be compelled to become a yearly tenant when he prefers to continue under the terms of his lease. A period of three years will, I think, satisfy all the necessities of the case; it would not be an extensive period, and it would enable substantial justice to be done in the matter. Without further preface, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 6, before the word "on," insert the words "at any time within three years after the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): This Amendment raises the question whether the breaking of leases shall be unilateral or bilateral—in other words, whether the lease shall be broken in favour of the tenant and landlord, or only broken in favour of the tenant. While, as a matter of argument, I can see no justification for the proposal before the Committee of breaking the leases in favour of the tenant only, I recognize the fact that the landlords themselves, as far as I can gather, are by no means desirous of maintaining the bilateral arrangement; and as the only cases in which a landlord can take advantage of this sub-section are cases which everyone would regret, and which everyone would admit to be cases of hardship, I am prepared, under the circumstances, on behalf of the Government to accept the general proposition which has been so powerfully supported by Peers of all shades of political opinion in the other House, and to consent to the unilateral principle. At the same time, I confess that I would prefer, as the form for carrying out that principle, an Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) to that which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), which provides that the time
    1906
    should run, not from the passing of the Act, but from the date of the application. The hon. Member for Cork has, I think, properly stated the effect of the clause as it stands. He appears to think that if we carry the clause in its present shape an unlimited time might elapse before a lease was broken. That is not the case. It is certainly not our intention, and I do not think it is the effect of the clause. If the clause were carried in its present shape, the moment it is passed all leases would be broken, whether in favour of the landlord or of the tenant.
    MR. PARNELL: What I said was that the application to fix a fair rent, as the Government proposal stands, could be made either by the landlord or the tenant at any time before the passing of the Act. There would certainly be no limit; but the Amendments proposed by myself and by the hon. Member for South Tyrone respectively limit the period within which such application shall be made by the tenant to three years after the passing of the Act in the one case, and two years in the other.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then I appear to have mistaken the purport of the Amendment. The hon. Member now proposes that an unlimited time should elapse, and that is also the purport of the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The lease, under the form proposed by the hon. Member for Cork, would have to be broken in the course of three years; but after it was broken it would not be imperative to apply for a lease at once. We are of opinion that a limit of two years is quite sufficient for the landlords to be left in doubt as to whether the tenant chooses to take advantage of the Act or not. A further objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork, as compared with that of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, is that the retrospective form of the Amendment might lead to serious legal complications in the future, and, therefore, I greatly prefer the form of the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. For that reason the Government prefer to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Tyrone.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I do not think the hon. Member for Cork will feel inclined to quarrel as to whether the period shall be two years or three years.

    1907
    In my opinion, two years are quite sufficient, and as the Government now consent to narrow the question as between two and three years, I hope the hon. Member will accept the Amendment and enable us to go on with the Bill.
    MR. PARNELL: In my opinion, as to the questions being retrospective, the two Amendments are precisely the same.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not so. The hon. Member will see that his Amendment reads thus—
    "At any time within three years after the passing of this Act; on application in the prescribed manner to the Court, the lessee of any holding who, at the expiration of any lease existing at the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, if bonâ fide in occupation of his holding, shall be deemed to be a tenant of his present tenancy in like manner and subject to like conditions and subject to the right of resumption, as if his lease expired at the passing of this Act."
    MR. PARNELL: I understand that there is another Amendment on the Paper to strike out the words after "resumption," "and if his lease expired at the passing of this Act." That Amendment is proposed to be moved by the hon. Member for North Donegal (Mr. O'Doherty). If the objection which has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman is the only objection as compared with that of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, I will only say that I am ready to accept the substitution of the word "two" for "three" years, and I therefore beg to move the insertion of "two years" instead of three.
    Amendment proposed in the said proposed Amendments, to leave out the word "three," and insert the word "two."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will accept that Amendment.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I trust that the hon. Member for Cork will now allow the Government to proceed with the Amendment in the form which they prefer, as the object is identical.
    MR. PARNELL: I do not think it is fair for the Government to ask me to give up the place I have obtained for my Amendment. I am anxious to see whether the Government had any real
    1908
    and substantial reason for rejecting the first Amendment I had placed upon the Paper. There are two points raised in the first Amendment; first, that three years should be the period within which the application should be made; secondly, that the Amendment should have a retrospective effect. I have shown, as regards the second point, that the objection which has been urged against it has no effect, because the Amendment placed upon the Paper by the hon. Member for South Tyrone is precisely the same as mine in that respect, and it is not until Amendment 20 is reached that the hon. Member proposes to guard against the retrospective action of the Amendment. If that is a fault, it is one which the Amendment of the hon. Member has in common with mine, and the hon. Member is forestalled by an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North Donegal (Mr. O'Doherty.) Therefore, the first objection taken by the Government to my Amendment has no validity whatever. Their second objection I have met by substituting two years instead of three. What is the fact in regard to the Amendments which raise the question of option? On the 14th July, the first day on which it was possible, I placed this Amendment upon the Paper. The hon. Member for South. Tyrone also, on the same night, placed his Amendment upon the Paper dealing with the same question. But the Amendment on which the hon. Member now elects to go, and which deals with the question of option, was not placed upon the Paper until the 21st July, a week later than mine. The hon. Member took off the Amendments which he had originally placed on the Paper, dealing with the option of the tenant, on the first night on which it was possible to give Notice of them, and placed other Amendments on the Paper which are substantially the same as mine. One of the hon. Member's Amendments proposes to leave out the words "shall at the date of the passing of this Act," in order to insert "applied in the prescribed manner to the Court, he shall if bonâ fide in occupation of his holding," &c. I have also an Amendment to leave out the words "at the date of the passing of this Act," which is a similar Amendment to that of the hon. Gentleman, so that his Amend-

    1909
    ments governing local option are Amendments substantially copied from mine, although he brings them in in a different part of the clause. I would ask, then, whether it is fair, as I have obtained precedence for my Amendment on the Paper, that, in consequence of some arrangement between the Government and the hon. Member for South Tyrone, I should be ousted from the honour of carrying these Amendments.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: As a matter of fact, the Bill I introduced at the commencement of the Session was the first measure that gave the option to the tenant.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Not at all.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I hope the Committee will not waste time in discussing matters of this kind, which are altogether irrelevant to the issue. I understand that an agreement has been arrived at in regard to the substance of the Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is really unimportant whether we take the Amendment before the Committee or the one which stands in the name of the Member for South Tyrone.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word 'two' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. PARNELL: I now beg to move a consequential Amendment—namely, to insert, after "on," the words "the application in the prescribed manner to the Court."
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Before we come to that Amendment I think it will be necessary to leave out the word "on."
    MR. PARNELL: No; the word "on" must remain.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 6, after "on," insert "the application in the prescribed manner to the Court."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. PARNELL: I have now to move to leave out, in the same line, the words "the passing of this Act," and to insert the word "by." The clause will then run—
    "At any time within two years after the passing of this Act, on the application in the
    1910
    prescribed manner to the Court by the lessee of any holding," &c.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 6, leave out "the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 6, after "Act," insert "by."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question, "That 'by' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: The next two Amendments are in my name; but as the object I had in view has already been attained by the Amendments of the hon. Member for Cork, I do not propose to move them.
    MR. DILLON: The Amendment I have to move is to omit the words—
    "Who at the expiration of any lease existing at the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, would be deemed to be a tenant on a present ordinary tenancy from year to year within the meaning of the said Act at the rent and subject to the conditions of the lease."
    The object of this Amendment is to admit a certain class of persons who would otherwise be excluded from the benefit of the clause. It will be seen by the Committee that these words extend the application of the clause to leaseholders who, at the expiration of any lease existing at the time of the passing of the Act of 1881, would be deemed to be a tenant from year to year. That provision would place two separate and distinct limitations upon the class of leaseholders. In the first place, it would confine the clause to the leaseholders whose leases expired at the passing of the Act of 1881; and, secondly, it would confine it to those leaseholders who on the expiration of their leases under that Act would be deemed to be ordinary present tenants. I propose, by leaving out those words, to remove that limitation, and to extend the benefit of the Act to leaseholders holding under a term of over 60 years, and also to remove the other restrictions of the Act of 1881. The Amendment would have the effect of extending the benefits of the Act to a certain class of leaseholders who, by an extraordinary oversight in the Act of 1881, were de-

    1911
    prived of the benefits of that Act owing to leases having fallen in just at the period when the Act came into operation.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 6, leave out from "who" to "lease," in line 10, inclusive.—(Mr. Dillon.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I understand the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, he proposes to make a most violent breach of the arrangements which were made under the Act of 1881. A fundamental principle of that Act was that every holding which became untenanted after the date of the passing of the Act, or in which there occurred a break in the tenancy, should be subject again to the ordinary principle of freedom of contract which applies in all other countries. That principle would be altogether destroyed by the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, so far as leases are concerned. The Government object to the Amendment on that ground; but they also object to it because it draws a distinction between future tenancies under a lease and future tenancies which are not under a lease. If any proposition of this kind, which I should certainly strongly deprecate, were introduced into the Bill, it would be absolutely necessary to introduce some further provisions which would altogether destroy the existence of future tenancies, which is an essential part of the arrangements of 1881. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the existence of judicial leases was distinctly contemplated in the Act of 1881. Under that Act it is competent for the landlord and tenant to go into Court, and have the terms of the lease fixed by the Court, and I think it would be a serious thing for the House to step in now and say that leases formed under that arrangement should be set aside.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: There is a definition of the word "lease" in an Amendment which is to be proposed subsequently.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman may know that to be the fact, but I rather doubt it.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I refer to Amendment No. 40, in which I propose
    1912
    to add at the end of the Clause the following words:—
    "In this Act the word 'lease' includes an agreement for a lease and any contract of tenancy other than a yearly tenancy or a tenancy less than a yearly tenancy, but does not include a judicial lease or a fixed tenancy. Notwithstanding anything in the said Act contained, 'contract of tenancy' in the said Act and in this Act includes a letting for ever or an agreement for such letting."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not a consequential Amendment, nor did the hon. Member for Cork, in his speech, regard it as a consequential Amendment. I think I have sufficiently shown to the Committee that it is quite impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. We do not propose to interfere with leases entered into after the year 1881, nor do we propose to deal with the perpetuity of leases; and for these reasons the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the position he seems inclined to take up upon this Amendment. The Bill, as it stands, will limit the leaseholders who will get the advantage of the Act to holders of leases which expired within 60 years after the passing of the Act of 1881. Now I do not see that there is any charm in 60 years; nor why, when we are going to do a great act of justice to the leaseholders, we should be tied to that particular number of 60. On that ground, I hope the Chief Secretary for Ireland will feel inclined to reconsider his position, and admit leaseholders up to a reasonable period. I have an Amendment later on which is consequent upon my first Amendment, and includes every lease granted before the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, for any terms of years. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be induced to compound the matter, and not to lay down a hard-and-fast line of 60 years.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I think the right hon. Gentleman misconceives the purport of the Amendment, which provides for two things. The sentence which my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo proposes to leave out provides that any lease not expiring 60 years after the passing of the Act shall not be broken, and also that no lease shall be broken except leases made

    1913
    before 1881. With regard to the first of these points, that no lease which has not expired in 60 years after the passing of the Act shall not be broken, it is absurd to draw the line at 60 years. I presume that the Government do not intend to maintain that restriction. It has been pointed out, over and over again, that it is very doubtful whether under the Act of 1881 this 60 years' limit really exists. Let me point out that if a man takes a 99 years' lease, which is a very common thing, although you propose to break leases you do not propose to break that. Why is the lease of a man which expires to-day to be broken, while that of a man whose lease expires to-morrow is not to be broken, supposing that both are iniquitous? Why should the difference between 60 years, and 20 years, or 40 years, make this distinction in the minds of the Government? We have been told that the Government are now proceeding on the lines of the Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone); but had he dared to introduce into that measure a proposition of this kind, the entire Tory Party would have been up in arms against him. When the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give the tenants tenant right in consideration of their leases, he was denounced in every form of language by the then Attorney General for Ireland, who is the very gentleman who has made himself responsible for this measure. In 1879, a Bill was brought in to give leases to the tenants; but the Government of that day refused to accept it, although it was proposed at that time by an hon. Member who was a supporter of the Government of Mr. Disraeli. With regard to the second branch of the proposal of my hon. Friend, I have somewhat less hopes. When he made his proposition he had in his mind the fact that scores of tenants have been deprived of the benefit of the Act of 1881 by the action of the landlords, in evicting them and then compelling them to take leases. Being placed practically at the mercy of the landlords, they were obliged to take leases during the time of the passing of the Land Act of 1881. The landlords continually sold out the tenants' interests, and hundreds and thousands of the tenants had leases imposed upon them by the fact that their interests had been
    1914
    sold out, and that they had no title to the redemption. The only title given to them for redemption was when they were evicted for non-payment of rent. All the landlords of Ireland took notice of the fact that the tenants had no time for redemption, and therefore they forced iniquitous leases upon them. What the landlords did in order to divert the proposal of the light hon. Member for Mid Lothian was to keep the tenants in as present tenants up to 1883, because no future tenants could exist afterwards. They then imposed leases on them, and it is with that grievance that the Amendment of my hon. Friend deals. I would suggest to the Government that it would be a reasonable compromise if provision were made that leases created during the time that a future tenancy could not have existed may not be broken. That, I think, is a reasonable compromise, which recommends itself on the ground of its equity. If the landlord had not sold out the tenant's interest he would have had six months to redeem the land. The Land Act of 1881 would then have come in for his relief, and he would have been before the wind.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are several points raised in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, and I think that some of them have hardly been fairly met by the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down. The last point he referred to was the leases which were created between 1881 and 1883. With regard to those leases, I can give no assurance to the Committee at this moment. There is another point, in regard to the breaking of the leases. I think the whole question would be more conveniently dealt with when the Committee reaches a later Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). I would therefore suggest that the hon. Member for East Mayo should withdraw his Amendment for the present until we reach the Amendment which deals directly with leases.
    MR. R. T. REID: I would suggest that the question of what leases should be included within the 1st section of the Bill would be dealt with more conveniently on the present Amendment, rather than wait until we come to the section which commences at line 22. The clause says—

    1915
    "The lessee of any holding at the expiration of any lease existing at the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1881, who would be deemed to be a tenant of the present ordinary tenancy from year to year within the meaning of the said Act."
    If those words remain in the clause, there could be no difficulty in amplifying it, and therefore I would suggest to the Government, without prejudicing future Amendments, that if they would accept the present Amendment, their doing so would greatly facilitate the consideration of the matter hereafter as a matter of drafting, and the point could be more fully discussed at a later stage.
    MR. DILLON: The view which the hon. and learned Member takes is the view which is taken by hon. Members on these Benches. I propose to remove from the section this restriction on the action of the clause, and then later on we might mention what classes of tenancies we wish to be excluded. I think that for many reasons that course would be the most advantageous course to pursue. It seems to me that a class of leases which it is desirable to exclude from the clause is very limited in its character, and when we come to discuss what leases are to be excluded, I think there will be very little difference of opinion at all. I think the clause is drafted in an absurd and objectionable way. First of all, we have a wide scheme of exclusion, and then a proviso to include a portion of the classes which have been excluded. One word as to the exception which has been taken by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He objects to my Amendment because it is a proposal to extend the benefits of the clause to certain leaseholders who are excluded in point of time. I know what the case was which I had in my own mind; but, perhaps, I did not explain it with sufficient fulness. The classes of tenants I propose to deal with are tenants whose leases dropped in about the very time the Act of 1881 passed, and the condition of those tenants was that when the Act of 1881 passed they were neither present tenants nor leaseholders I have been informed that such lease holders numbered about 1,000, and I maintain that on no principle of equity should they be excluded, because it was simply owing to an accident that their leases expired about 1881. Besides, there are a large number of leases which were forced on tenants after the passing of the Act of 1881, who have not been in a
    1916
    position to avail themselves of the benefit of the law. What I would recommend the Chief Secretary to do is this. If there are tenants who have entered into leases since the Act of 1881, I believe the number is exceedingly few, and such tenants would scarcely be inclined to pay an excessive rent. There are exceptions, however, and it should be provided in the clause that it should not be applied to any tenant who has freely entered into a lease since the Act of 1881, but only to those who accepted leases under compulsion. Those who accepted leases without pressure on the part of the landlords should be exempted from the operation of the Act, and the clause should only be applied to such tenants whose leases dropped in at such a critical period as to debar them from the benefit of the Act of 1881. I think the case of the leaseholders who freely entered into leases since the Act of 1881 might be easily met by a provision leaving it to the discretion of the Court to exempt them from the Act.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I understand that the Government propose to consider the case of tenants whose leases were in existence before the Land Act of 1881 came into operation, and leases which run for 99 years. I presume that the Government are willing to consider these cases. But there is another set of cases which has been referred to by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). I have had some remarkable instances brought under my notice of leases having expired before the passing of the Act of 1881 which landlords refused to renew until the Act was passed. I have an Amendment, No. 37 on the Paper, which deals with that subject. I think the Government would do well to accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries, and on the definition of "lessee," deal with the whole matter.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): In regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I understood the hon. Member to say that there were two points which deserve the attention of the Committee. The first is, what should be the duration of the lease, and whether it should be within or without the duration fixed by the old Act as amended by this; and the other is, whether the old Act should not be ex-

    1917
    tended by the provision now before the Committee so as to apply it to future leases. Now the Act of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian was doubtless, for very good reasons, limited in its application to lessees who were in occupation and whose leases dropped in 60 years after the passing of the Act. That was the first restriction, and it was restricted both to yearly tenants and lessees who held tenancies at the date of the passing of the Act, and who, for the purposes of discussion, are always described as present tenants. Future tenants were a class of persons who were not entitled to the right of perpetuity, or to have a fair rent fixed, or to the other benefits conferred by the Act of 1881. The proposal now made by the hon. Member for East Mayo is, that there should be a substantial extension of the term which entitles the lessees to the benefits of the Act of 1881, and that is a matter which ought to be considered on a separate Amendment, and can best be considered on the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), which stands next on the Paper. The other point raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo, and which has been developed by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford, was a proposal to include a certain class of future lessees within the Act. That proposal will require very grave consideration when it comes to be dealt with, because the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian made it a vital principle of his Bill that future tenants stand in a wholly different position from the tenants who held present tenancies in 1881. The matter is a very grave one, and is not to be lightly decided by the Committee at the present moment. I will tell the Committee why it seems to me that this Amendment would involve consequences much greater than would follow even from an affirmative decision on both of the points raised by the hon. Member. The hon. Member will observe that, in order to vote for such an Amendment, it is necessary to be agreed upon both points; but it is perfectly possible for hon. Members to agree upon one and not upon both. It therefore occurs to me that the points involved in the Amendments should be moved separately; and the reason why I think the subject should be held over for subsequent discussion is this. The Land Act of 1881, as those
    1918
    who were concerned in passing it know, was subject to many qualifications and exceptions. For instance, one class of exception took out of the operation of the Act pasture farms, town parks, demesne lands, &c.; but if this Amendment be carried in its present form, all that class of exceptions will be swept away. Again, a class of judicial tenancies subject to judicial approbation are excepted; and, further, perpetuity tenancies under Section 11 of the Act, created after the passing of the Act, are expressly excluded from the Act of 1881. Also, in the case of tenancies of a certain value—namely, up to £150—the tenant may contract himself out of the operation of the Act of 1881. If hon. Members think that on these specific points the scope of the Bill should be enlarged, let them put their Amendments on the Paper and discuss each separate point, instead of discussing this general and sweeping Amendment. If both specific points are intended to be discussed together, it may happen that there will be a difference of opinion, some hon. Members being in favour of one only, while others may be in favour of both. On that ground, I would, therefore, suggest that the most convenient course would be to adopt the broad definition of the Act of 1881, to leave the definition now as it stands; and if hon. Members think that definition should be enlarged, subsequent Amendments for that purpose may be proposed, and may be considered, on the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Belfast, the other questions raised by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford being brought forward as substantive and specific Amendments.
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: Notwithstanding the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, I would submit that the course suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid) would be the most convenient form of procedure for the Committee to adopt. My right hon. and learned Friend has argued that the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo will commit the Committee to two propositions, as to both of which hon. Members may not be in agreement, but that is not so. Now, the Amendment of the hon. Member is not an

    1919
    Amendment to add words, but to omit words; and the hon. Member for East Mayo has sought to justify the omission of those words. He has thought it right to explain why he proposes to omit them. There are two points which will become consequential at a later stage, but which do not affect the present Amendment. One is the inclusion of leases subsequent to the passing of the Act of 1881. Now, I do not think that that is at all a large question; but, nevertheless, it is important to a small class. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) has proposed to make the application apply to leases entered into subsequent to the Act of 1881. As regards the question of the length of lease which will be affected by Clause 1, it seems to me that the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Attorney General for Ireland have mistaken the application of Section 21 of the Land Act of 1881. Section 21 was addressed to an entirely different subject. It had nothing to do with the breaking of leases at all. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian did not then see his way, and no hon. Gentleman or right hon. Gentleman who sits on the other side saw his way to give the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian any encouragement to deal with leases under the Act of 1881. Therefore, with a few exceptions, they are altogether out of the purview of the Act of 1881. Section 21 of the Land Act simply provides that the holders of existing leases shall be deemed to be present tenants at the expiry of then lease if such lease has not longer to run than 60 years. But that is not the proposition now. We are now dealing, and, as I venture to think, dealing reasonably, with the question of leases, and we are recognizing the fact that in the case of tenants who hold under a lease in Ireland, there is, in substance and in fact, no difference between their position and that of ordinary agricultural tenants held from year to year. The circumstances of both are the same as to the condition of the tenants and the size of the holdings. Therefore, I contend that the two points raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo are in favour of the view he takes; and, on the ground of convenience, it has been well put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries that, by omitting
    1920
    the words proposed to be left out, we might then have a general clause of inclusion, upon which we may more easily graft the exceptions which it may be necessary to make.
    LORD ERNEST HAMILTON: I shall certainly support the proposal of the hon. Member, so far as I understand it—namely, that leases granted before the passing of the Act of 1881, but which fall in after the passing of that Act, and are then renewed, should be included in the operation of the Bill, while those tenants who entered into leases subsequent to the passing of the Act of 1881 with their own free will should not be included. That I conceive to be a reasonable proposal, and one that will not injure the landlords nor inflict any injustice upon them. If the measure is not accepted, I believe it will leave a feeling of great dissatisfaction and a sense of injustice in Ireland, which I am certain the Government desire to avoid. If the hon. Member insists upon pressing the Amendment, I shall certainly support him.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We are dealing partly with a question of procedure and partly with a question of substance. It includes the length of leases, which is a point we are anxious to discuss; but it includes, further, that point marked out by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford, and alluded to by my noble Friend behind me—namely, the case of leases renewed in the middle period between 1881 and 1882. That raises a question which we are most anxious favourably to consider; but if we hastily accept the Amendment now, we may subsequently find ourselves involved in legal difficulties of considerable magnitude. Therefore, I hope the hon. Member will not press the Government to put down in a distinct form the method by which they will try to deal with the case, and I would ask the hon. Member not to press the Amendment. If the Amendment before the Committee be carried in its present shape, it would, of course, shatter the definition contained in the Act of 1881, and we should have to set to work to create a new definition of leases. I would earnestly suggest that on the question of form the most convenient method would be to take the definition of the Land Act of 1881, and to make what-

    1921
    ever additions to it that may be proper.
    MR. GIBSON: As to the question raised by the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone (Lord Ernest Hamilton), the effect of admitting this Amendment would be to strike out every qualification in regard to the word "lessee," and whether it was an exceptional class holding demesne land, or a pasture farm, or a town park, it would come within the section. I think that is a matter which ought to be dealt with by a substantive Amendment, and one which ought to be passed over now. If it is passed over the hon. Member for East Mayo will not be prevented from raising and discussing any question upon it when it is brought forward. I trust that these observations will be satisfactory to the hon. Member.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I venture to think that the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is somewhat unfair. If the proposed Amendments were accepted, the effect would be to exclude all holdings under the Act of 1881, and in that case it would be easy to insert other words, specifying the nature of the tenancies that are to be provided for. That, I think, would be a satisfactory mode of dealing with the matter. I think the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) is an extremely reasonable and proper one—namely, that the words pointed out in the Amendment of my hon. Friend should be struck out without the slightest reference to any of the points which have been raised. I say that because it appears to me that it would be far more easy and far more simple to deal subsequently with any specific proposal and any particular class which the Government say ought not to have the benefit of the Bill. There is another point which is substantially raised upon these words which has not been adverted to. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to point out what the effect of omitting these words will be if we affirm substantially that no leaseholder shall get the benefit of the clause unless he is a leaseholder who, on the expiration of his lease, would be entitled to become a present tenant under Section 21 of the Act of 1881. Now, as a mere matter of procedure, I say that it would be an error first to affirm a proposition of that kind
    1922
    on the understanding that you are shortly afterwards to limit it in a particular way. What I maintain is that you should first make a general enactment, and then proceed to limit it by specific Amendments, each of which raises a particular point. There are three points to be discussed here. First of all, the case of leases made after the passing of the Act of 1881. then the general consensus of opinion which is held in regard to a particular section of these leases—namely, leases made in the case of tenants who had technically no interest in the holding at the passing of the Land Act of 1881, but who got a renewal of their leases before the 1st of January, 1883, It is agreed that something should be done in that case; but there is also the case of leases which expire at the end of 60 years. They are also excluded by the words which the Government have moved; but I take it that there is a general agreement that something should be done in regard to them. There is a third class of leases, which are also struck out. I refer to leases which are dealt with in the later part of the Act of 1881, which enacts that certain tenants shall not be entitled to become present tenants on the expiry of their lease or the transfer of their lease. Section 21 especially enacts that tenants in that position shall not be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act; and if we pass the clause as it stands we shall be substantially including that class of tenants who were to be excluded. Certainly, that is my view of the position in which the matter stands, and I do not say it lightly. If you pass these words in their present form the effect will be to incur the risk that the Court in Ireland will exclude the classes of leases I have referred to from the benefit of the Act, on the ground that the Land Act of 1881 enacted that such tenants should not become present tenants on the expiry of their leases. I think the natural thing to do is to strike out these words without prejudice to any question which may be subsequently raised. The Government would thus be left to propose the particular limitations they desire, and it will be for the Committee to discuss their proposals in detail. That appears to me to be the regular and proper way of dealing with the subject, and the whole necessity for this discus-

    1923
    sion, however inconvenient it may have been, has arisen from the improper insertion of words in the Bill, which prejudge a different question which is to be subsequently raised. The best way of getting rid of the mischief is to strike out the words which create it, and then discuss the important points which may be subsequently raised.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 154; Noes 134: Majority 20.—(Div. List, No. 316.) [7.45 P.M.]
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to move as an Amendment, in page 1, line 10, after the word "lease," to insert these words—
    ''Or would be so deemed had the lease existed at the passing of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.'"
    Now, this proposal covers one of the several questions which have been touched upon in the discussion of the previous Amendment. The object of my Amendment is to secure the benefit of the Act of 1881 for leaseholders whose leases did not exist at the time of the passing of that Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) says this is not a very large question. Well, it is not. It does not affect a very considerable number of leaseholders; and while, on the one hand, that may be the reason why the Government should not be ready to accept it, I would say that, on the other hand, the fact that the people affected are not numerous is not a reason why it should be refused, because the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman is one of supreme importance to those who are concerned, whether their number be large or small. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) has spoken of qualifications and exceptions. I take the liberty of saying that your qualifications and exceptions have been the ruin of your remedial legislation for Ireland. You have never honestly accepted remedial legislation for Ireland. You lay down the principle of benefit, and proceed to apply it; but you always contrive to shut out somebody or other by your qualifications and exceptions. You have never been satisfied to relieve a dozen men in Ireland without trying to find out how you can shut out the thirteenth man.
    1924
    There is no difference in point of equity and expediency between the position of the leaseholder and that of the tenant-at-will; and I ask you to admit all leaseholders upon an equal footing, on the presumption that there is no freedom of contract in the case of the leaseholder any more than in the case of the tenant-at-will. It has been said that great hardships were suffered at the passing of the Act of 1881 by a number of people who were deprived of their tenancy before the passing of the Act, and who then, not being in a position to avail themselves of the status of present tenants, were obliged to accept leases at rents as oppressive as any imposed upon any tenants. They are leaseholders by virtue of the duress exercised on them by the landlords. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman will himself deny that there is a considerable body of men who are in this position, and in point of equity and fair play they are as fully entitled as any other tenants to this benefit. Besides these, there are a second class of tenants who, because of the existence of arrears, or of some other cause, have not free will, but are under the compulsion of the landlords, and who, though not evicted before or since the passing of the Act of 1881, were obliged, by the superior force of the landlords, to accept leases. I contend that, though their leases were excluded, they have a right in equity to be admitted to the benefits of the Act. What is the use of talking of freedom of contract at all, if, at the present moment, no freedom of contract exists between the owner and the occupier in Ireland? The real question is, not when a lease began or will end, but, admitting its existence, whether the rent under it is oppressive. You ought to get rid of this question. It is no longer a question as between the leaseholder and any other tenant; it is a question of expediency. You want, as I understand it, to settle the question of rent in Ireland for a time by this Bill—for the time that must elapse before you can bring a purchase scheme into operation. You want to have no further trouble about rent. Your qualifications and exceptions—if you say that one leaseholder may come into Court because his lease does not expire at a certain date, and another leaseholder must keep out because his lease does

    1925
    expire in a certain year, and so on—if you say that, then I say that these distinctions, exceptions, qualifications, and vexatious provisoes will prevent the settlement of the rent question for many a long day, and the man whom you leave out will continue to agitate, and will feel a smarting sense of wrong, and will raise excitement and trouble in Ireland, and will go on appealing to this House, and in the end you will have to yield, if not to fear, at all events to a sense of inconvenience, that which in the beginning you refused to yield to reason. That is not statesmanship. I have shown that, in the case of two classes of tenants, they have no power to resist the will of the landlord; and, therefore, I move the Amendment which I have placed upon the Paper with much confidence.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, after the word "lease," to insert—
    "Or would be so deemed had the lease existed at the passing of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.'"—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I may remind the Committee that the theory of the legislation of 1881 was that the tenants who were then on the land, under existing contracts, required a certain amount of legislative protection, but that in the case of land which was to be let in future the contract with the landlord as to such land was to be entirely free. In many cases within my own experience landlords have let land which never had a tenant on it before, and made, on the faith of that legislative guarantee, new tenancies, assuming that the terms of their leases ended when the leases expired, and that when the leases were at an end they would get back their land. The hon. Member's Amendment states that, with regard to every single lease in Ireland made after the year 1881, those future leases without exception, whether the tenants have been on the land before or not, shall come within the operation of the Act of 1881, in the same way and to the same extent as if they existed before 1881. Now, the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M.
    1926
    Healy) has presented his view of an Amendment which goes very much on the lines of the argument of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton); but his Amendment would be much narrower on the whole. What I understand his Amendment to be, as suggested by him, would be supported by most of the arguments of the hon. Member for West Belfast. The difficulty has always been present to the mind of Parliament as to what might happen, assuming that the landlord were to adopt a harsh and inequitable course so as to bring tenants—present tenants—into the category of future tenants, and exclude them unfairly from the Act of 1881. That was present to the mind of Parliament, because it was provided in Section 57 of the Act that if a tenancy subsisted in the holding when the Act passed, and if the landlord evicted the tenant and chose to make a new letting before the 1st of January, 1883, whether by lease or not—whether for a term of years, or from year to year—it would be a present tenancy, so that the Committee will see that in the case of land which was in the occupation of the tenant when the Act passed, but which afterwards formed the subject of a new letting at any time before the 1st of January, 1883, that should be the subject of a present tenancy, though actually future in point of time. That was the provision which the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) thought it necessary to introduce, and it is upon the lines of that provision that I understand the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Ruseell) has framed an Amendment which is worthy of consideration. But the Amendment now proposed by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) might be put very much on the lines of the Definition Clause to which I have referred, substituting for tenancies existing in 1881 the question of occupation existing in 1881, and that occupation continuing in the same persons from 1881 to 1883, subject to the very important factor suggested by the hon. Member for West Belfast, that some element of duress or influence should exist on the part of the landlord. I do not know whether the Committee has seen the Amendment of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, dealing with perpetuity leases; but the same consideration would

    1927
    apply there. I do not know whether the Committee will deal with it in some such way as I have suggested. Of course, in any discussion in Committee it is necessary that there should be a certain amount of compromise on both sides. Some hon. Members would like to see every future lease involved; but we cannot put future leases in a better position than future yearly tenancies, and there are many future yearly tenants who do not come within the provisions of fair rent. It would be monstrous that the future leaseholder should be put in a better position than the yearly tenant. A distinction was adopted by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, after great consideration, between present tenants and future tenants, and in the case of future tenants the parties were to be at liberty to make their own contracts. It would be a very dangerous thing to break down that distinction, and the most convenient arrangement would be to defer the consideration of this matter till we come to the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who raises the question in terms. That would be the most convenient place to raise the question. But the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Belfast is a sweeping Amendment, not limited to cases of hardship, but necessarily applying to every single future tenant in Ireland; and, as it involves a wholesale revision of the essential provisions of the Act of 1881, I should like to hear the views of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian upon it.
    MR. CHANCE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) has drawn quite an eloquent moral from the Act of 1881, which he and his Party have never ceased to denounce and malign. I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that every Act of Parliament interferes to a certain extent with the rights of individuals, and the Act of 1881 is not peculiar in that respect. But he pushes his argument to an extreme, because if the Act of 1881 did anything it said that leaseholders should not be within the main benefit of the Act—it does not lie in the mouth of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to use a supposed moral in that respect. The Bill we are now discussing is the first leaseholders' Land Bill; and it would
    1928
    only be a parallel case if the Act of 1883 was the first yearly tenants' Land Bill. It would obviously be a monstrous and ridiculous principle to say that the Act of 1881 applied to all the persons now in possession of these leases, who now, for the first time, have got the opportunity of obtaining substantial redress. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says the Amendment would put future leases in a better position than yearly tenancies. That is easily answered. I can answer that question in true Irish fashion by asking another—Why are you making present leaseholders better off than present yearly tenants? Present yearly tenants are not relieved from a permanent liability to pay excessive rents; but, in respect to leaseholders, you do relieve them, and you give the leaseholder a certain substantial relief in that respect. But there is one argument which will appeal to the Government, and that is that as many of these men as you leave out of this Bill, so many Nationalists will you create. We desire to do these men a benefit. If the Government insist on leaving them out they will suffer. The general body of the Irish tenantry will be benefited; but the representation of some Northern counties will be changed. Even in the last Division several Members of the Government Party voted in the "No" Lobby, because, if they had not done so, they would lose their seats at the next Election; and I shall again expect to see them on this occasion voting with the Parnellite Members, whom they are so ready to despise and malign. I hope the Government will take warning while there is yet time, and will include all tenants. The number of those who would be affected is not very great.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: I should like to call attention to the distinction imposed by the wording of the definition of "present tenant" in the Act of 1881. It includes not merely those whose position has been determined, but those whose tenancy had been determined in 1879 and 1880, immediately before the agitation had reached its climax—the agitation which forced the Legislature to pass the Act. The notices to quit in order to raise rents were falling like snowflakes, and tenancies innumerable had been determined in principle in November, 1880.

    1929
    But the tenants were still in possession; and as soon as the Act passed it was plainly seen that the tenant need not be removed. The result was that there was no necessity for the landlord to shove him out, and he remained in possession after the passing of the Act, but without the slightest benefit derived from the Act. In the case of the man previously sitting as a tenant from year to year, he is out of all protection; but the case of the man intended to be met by the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) is even harder. I have in my mind the case of a tenant whose interest amounted to £4,000; and if the Irish Society had not given him, by grace, what he had lost technically he would have lost his £4,000. I take these two cases, where the tenancies from year to year were determined by notices to quit, or by terms under leases. In the drafting of any Amendment which will still continue the wording of the definition of present tenant under the Act of 1881 not one of these cases will be dealt with. We are all agreed as to the substance of the Amendment. The case of a man having an interest in his possession is lost by a technicality. He has no means of standing up and making a fair bargain with his landlord; but he would have been within the benefit of the Act if you had taken into consideration the fact that his interest was there. I ask the Committee seriously to consider this, because the arguments advanced by the Attorney General for Ireland amount, after all, only to this—"I admit your case; but there have been many landlords who had land on hand and let it to persons who could make a fair bargain." But a Proviso has been offered from these Benches to meet that—a Proviso that in all cases where there was land in hand the provision should not apply. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has said—"Put in a Proviso that all future contracts made with land in hand shall still be valid." We are agreed, then, as to the substance. The only difference is as to the phraseology.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 116: Majority 11.—(Div. List, No. 317.)[8.5 P.M.]
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to move the Amendment which stands next on the Paper in my name—namely, in Clause 1, page 1, line 10, after "lease," to insert the words—
    "Or would be so deemed but for the fact that such lease would expire within sixty years after 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.'"
    I think it would be unnecessary for me to offer any arguments in support of this Amendment. The Government have given up the case, and there is no longer any meaning in the term of years contained in the original Act. The greater the number of years the lease may be for the greater need there is to take measures for securing an equitable rent.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 10, after the word "lease," to insert the words ''or would be so deemed but for the fact that such lease would expire within sixty years after the passing of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.'"—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I hope the Government will consider this Amendment at all events. Here is a copy of a lease taken out in 1858 for 900 years—fine paid £500; yearly rent £405; Government valuation £187. I believe this is a point upon which the Government can fairly give way. There is no charm in 60 years. I can understand stopping short at a perpetuity lease; but 60 years is not the number of perfection any more than 99 years.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has told us that there is no charm in 60 years; but I am not responsible for the original introduction of that limit. That period appears in the Act of 1881, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, and that is the reason why we have selected it. There is something more in our selection of it than the hon. Member probably sees. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) brought under the operation of the Act leases of under 60 years. He left those leases intact during the tenancy; but ho gave to the tenant that which the landlord had previously a right to—namely, full possession of the land after the contract for which he had let the land had expired; therefore, when we interfere with those

    1931
    leases of 60 years we only complete the work of destruction which had been begun in those leases by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. It is not a question of adopting the limit adopted by the right hon. Gentleman; but we think that there is a clear distinction to be drawn—we still think there is a clear distinction to be drawn in the course of this legislation—between leases that terminate at the end of 60 years from the passing of the Act of 1881 and leases of longer duration. The hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment asks to break all leases in Ireland of whatever kind, and to allow no limit of duration whatever. But does he not see that by doing so you will be practically upsetting a ease that is undistinguishable, either in law or in fact, from a true case of purchase?
    MR. SEXTON: No, no!
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, I will go into the question, of fact presently; but as a question of law, although I am not myself competent to form an opinion upon the matter, still I am given to understand that when a tenant has under the Act of Parliament converted a lease into a fee farm grant he becomes the owner of the fee simple.
    An hon. MEMBER: He pays a rent,
    MR.MAURICE HEALY: The word "lease" in this section would not include a lease for ever, having regard to one of the definitions contained in the Land Act of 1881.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Is the hon. Gentleman going to draw a distinction between a fee farm grant and other leases?
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: Leases for ever are provided for.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In this Amendment?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I did not intend to argue the question of perpetuity leases.
    MR. SEXTON: Nor I.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken as to what we want.
    MR. SEXTON: My Amendment is that 60 years shall not be the utmost term. It will be for the Government to exclude perpetuity leases.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: This Amendment, if carried, will not include perpetuity leases. The reason is that
    1932
    there is a definition in the Land Act of 1881 which excludes from its provisions any contract of tenancy lasting for ever.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand the point. This Amendment would cover the case of leases for 999 years, but would not cover the case of fee farm grants or perpetuity leases. That does, undoubtedly, make a distinction. But I cannot admit the difference in substance between a lease for 999 years and a perpetuity lease; and I think the Committee will bear me out in saying that in England, and I should think in Ireland, too, and in every other country, a 999 years lease is not distinguishable for any purpose from eternity. It is equal to a case of purchase, and ought to be exempt as a case of purchase. I gather that the hon. Gentleman opposite intends to argue the case of perpetuity leases at a later stage. [Mr. SEXTON: Yes.] I have given the reason why we have chosen 60 years as the limit for this Bill. I do not wish to resist the introduction of a term of years which may be proposed, so long as we still leave it a lease in substance, and not a freehold in substance. I apprehend that 99 years really covers that distinction. A 99 years' lease is a very common length of lease in England and elsewhere; but no one who has a 99 years' lease is supposed to be the absolute owner. But anyone who holds land for 999 years practically considers himself to be the freeholder. I consent, with reluctance, to a modification of the clause in the direction moved by the hon. Member. I will not resist such a modification, and shall be prepared to accept an Amendment extending the period to 99 years.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman move that Amendment?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; I move to amend the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to omit the word "sixty," in order to insert the words "ninety-nine."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'sixty' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I do not know that I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. The Amendment reads—

    1933
    "Or would be so deemed but for the fact that such lease would expire within ninety-nine years after the passing of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.'"
    But the term 99 years does not occur in the Act of 1881, and, therefore, is not a bar to its being "so deemed."
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I see what the hon. Gentleman moans—a fresh Amendment will be required.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: As the Government see that a fresh Amendment is necessary, I would ask them to amend the clause by a fresh Proviso at the end. I say that not with the intention of obtaining an opportunity for the discussion of a contentious point, but in order that we may have the clause framed with, some degree of intelligibility.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Would not the right course be for the hon. Gentleman opposite to drop this Amendment altogether, in order to introduce a Proviso at the end of the clause?
    MR. SEXTON: No, no!
    MR. CHANCE: I would point out that the Act of 1881 excluded from its benefits leaseholders whose leases would not expire at the end of 60 years. The object of this Amendment is to get rid of that limitation. Well, if you get rid of that limitation, it will be competent for the Committee to substitute any other restriction on which it may decide. The first thing to do, I submit, is to wipe out the limitation contained in the Act of 1881, which is 60 years. If you do not do that, you cannot put in the Proviso.
    MR. SEXTON: I would point out to the Government that if they accept my Amendment they clear the ground. They get rid of a Proviso of the Act of 1881, and leave it open to the Government to introduce later on any limitation they think proper.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no objection to the course proposed. But it must be understood that all we do is this—we prefer the period of 60 years; but we concede 99 years to hon. Members opposite, and are prepared to amend the clause to that effect. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Amendment put, and agreed to.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I desire, Sir, to add, at the end of the words the Committee have just decided upon inserting, these words—
    "Or in the case of a lessee under a lease made prior to the 1st of January, 1883, would be so deemed if such lease had existed at the passing of the said Act."
    That would be a qualification of the Proviso of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). It is a proposal intended to carry out the declaration of the Government upon the subject. The effect of the Amendment will be this—that it will admit to the benefits of the section any leaseholder whose lease was made prior to the 1st of January, 1883, that being the date fixed on for the commencement of future tenancies under the Land Act of 1881. May I be permitted to say what I propose without the necessity of waiting for the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) has given Notice of moving? I move this with great respect to the hon. Member, and I say this with great respect to him, that his Amendment is unworkable. His Amendment is unworkable for the reason that he requires that before any tenant can get the benefit of his Amendment that tenant should have been in the occupation of his holding between the time of the expiration of his holding and the time his lease was made. The hon. Gentleman will find that in practice it is impossible to make any limitation of that kind, for the reason that it would exclude the case of a man who was in occupation of his holding as caretaker from the time his old lease expired until his new lease was made. A man who is in occupation as a caretaker is simply the landlord's servant. He is not legally in occupation of the land. He is there as the servant of the landlord, and is no more in occupation of the land than a gentleman's butler is in occupation of his house. Well, we know that, although in point of law the caretaker is in that position, he has in point of fact all the privileges of a tenant. We know that he grazes his cattle on the land, that he works the farm, and that he performs all manner of agricultural operations on it. We know that for all purposes and in reality, except from a technical legal point of view, he is in occupation. That being so, I am sure that no right hon. Gen-

    1935
    tleman on the other side of the House will contend for a moment that a man who has been in occupation of his land as a caretaker should be excluded from the benefit of my hon. Friend's Amendment. I think the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) will admit that the point I make is a perfectly good one. In point of law, though the caretaker is practically in possession of the land, and working it, the landlord is always technically in occupation. He is liable for the rates and taxes, and he can call on the tenant to account for any dealing he makes in regard to the farm. If the tenant digs up or takes away any part of the crop on the farm the landlord can call him to account for it, just as he can call his servant to account. As that is the case, I think the hon. Member for South Tyrone will admit that an Amendment which brings about such an unjust state of things as the exclusion of such a man from the benefit of the Act does not carry out his own intention. It is impossible to take into consideration this question of occupation at all; and I would, therefore, ask the Government to deal with this question in a broad spirit. It may be that out of 500,000 there may be one solitary case where my Amendment may work injustice; but I submit that it is better that that should be so than that the interests of a large number of people should be injuriously affected. It may be that the Government wish to exclude only the case of the landlords in occupation of their lands at the time of the passing of the Land Act, and who let it for the first time between that date and the 1st of January, 1886. But it is impossible to provide for a few cases of that kind, and I would ask the Committee to deal with this matter without regarding these trivial points. I would ask them to deal with it in a broad spirit, permitting no qualification on any account. I, therefore, move the insertion of these words. I may say that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland desires to except any class of cases, it will be open for him to do so by way of Proviso at the end of the clause, or by way of some other Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 10, to add, after the words last inserted, the words "or in the case of a
    1936
    lessee under a lease made prior to the 1st of January, 1883, would be so deemed if such lease had existed at the passing of the said Act."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
    THE CHAIRMAN: It should not be "or in the case of a lessee."
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: Let it run "or a lessee under a lease, &c."
    Amendment amended.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Amendment of the hon. Member covers a much wider ground than that which I myself have put upon the Paper, or than I intended to cover. My Amendment, I would remind the hon. Member, was drawn in order to meet a special class of cases where a lease expired immediately before the passing of the Land Act, and where the landlord granted a renewal after the Land Act was passed, and the tenant was never out of occupation. As the Amendment now moved will cover that, I shall be happy to withdraw my proposal in favour of that of the hon. Member for Cork, and I see no reason why the Government should not accept it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): This Amendment which is now moved is an Amendment which purports to be on the same lines as the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), which comes on later. It is, however, an Amendment wholly different in scope. This Amendment leaves out entirely all the qualifications and conditions contained in the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The hon. Member for South Tyrone contemplated in his Amendment those conditions which were referred to by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), and those conditions were these—that a person who had taken a lease after the 1st of January, 1883, should have been in occupation at the time the Land Act was passed, though not necessarily as tenant. The theory of the hon. Gentleman was that if there was a continuance of the occupation between the granting of the lease and the Act of 1881, that was to be treated as though there was a continuance of the tenancy, and as though there was a wish on the part of the landlord to evade

    1937
    the provisions of the Act of 1881. This Amendment would actually destroy the lease of a man who may never have seen the land in question before the lease, and is a very different Amendment from that of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who contemplates the case of a man who having received notice to quit some time before the passing of the Act of 1881, though having had his tenancy terminated, has been allowed to continue in occupation. It seems to me that this proposed Amendment is in no way germane to the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton); any other Amendment amending the Act of 1881 would be equally relevant. The Amendment of the hon. Member for West Belfast is an Amendment only referring to the duration of the lease, and not to the length of time for which the lease was granted, which was the first Amendment of the hon. Member which was negatived. The first Amendment negatived by the Committee was one extending the Act to leases which were future leases not governed by the Act of 1881. What the hon. Member for West Belfast proposed was that every lease granted after the passing of the Act of 1881 should be deemed to be within its operation. That was negatived, as I say, and a question of a different character must arise when the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Tyrone comes up to be discussed. That Amendment appears to be largely supported by hon. Members below the Gangway; but the hon. Member for Cork is not satisfied with that, and has brought forward a new Amendment on the same line, but limiting the period very much during which a lease was to be granted. The Amendment has no relation to the definition of the present tenant to be found in the Act of 1881. I think the hon. Member would be well advised if he did not press his Amendment.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I am sorry the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not heard my speech. No doubt, it was my fault; but I will repeat the reasons which I gave in support of my Amendment, and which he does not appear to have caught. I will tell him why I do not embody in this Amendment the qualification he lays such stress on. I stated it at considerable length, and I will not so repeat it; but
    1938
    I will repeat this—that I do not introduce the element of occupation, because, if I did, it would exclude a certain class of cases which I do not think the hon. Member for South Tyrone intended to exclude—namely, the class of cases in which, though the holding had been taken by the landlord, the tenant had been admitted as caretaker. I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. Suppose this happens—supposing a lease expired on the let of May, 1881, and that is a very common case—there were dozens of them, some before the Land Act was passed and some after—well, the landlord takes no step for some time, and the tenant is left in occupation of the holding to enter on a new tenancy. The landlord waits until the Land Act of 1881 is passed, or he does not, as the case may be, or, at any rate, in order to enforce his right he serves a writ of ejectment, and regains a free title; but he has no intention of putting the tenant out; all he wants is to have the tenant in his power, so that when making an arrangement he may exact better terms than he would otherwise be able to do. The tenant remains on the holding as caretaker for five or six months, and the landlord, then having him in his power owing to his exclusion from the Land Act, makes what terms he likes. There is no duress or compulsion, as the tenant is absolutely at the landlord's mercy. Well, the right lion, and learned Gentleman contends for this—that if the tenant had been in occupation during the whole interval, and had not been ejected from the tenancy, he ought to get the benefit of the clause, but that he ought not to get it if the landlord did as I say—that is to say, got possession through the Sheriff, and put back the tenant as a caretaker? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has too much good sense to contend for any absurdity of the kind; and if he will give me an undertaking that when he is dealing with this matter on the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, or any subsequent Amendment, he will give the same benefit to a man who is admitted as a caretaker as he gives to the man who has not been disturbed, and will put them in the same position, I will not further trouble the Committee upon this point.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I think that a very reasonable proposition.
    MR. GIBSON: I cannot give such an undertaking as that. The hon. Gentleman himself will see that it would not be reasonable to do so. The matter, however, is one which should be discussed later on. I will promise, on the part of the Government, that we will carefully consider the question. As the Amendment is not at present upon the Paper, we cannot pledge ourselves with regard to it. Until we see what alteration may be required it will be impossible to give a definite undertaking; but this I can say—that the subject is one well worthy of consideration, and that every attention will be paid to it.
    MR. LEA: I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork should withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think I have served my purpose in ventilating this point which I wished to make. I would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, at the same time giving Notice that I will raise the matter by another Amendment when the subject comes up for discussion again.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. PARNELL: I beg to move, in line 11, to leave out the words ''at the date of the passing of this Act."
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the words "at the date of the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    MR. LEA: The Amendment next on the Paper is in my name, to insert after the word "of," in line 12, the words "the substantive portion of." I think the Government will have no difficulty in agreeing to the principle of this proposal. This will meet the case of sub-lettings, with which the Government are very familiar, so familiar, in fact, that they themselves have placed a Notice of an Amendment on the Paper dealing with it in the form of a now clause. I think it is desirable to make this clause perfectly plain, and for that reason this Amendment should be inserted here. It is desirable to explain that "bonâ fide in occupation"
    1940
    means in occupation not necessarily of the whole, but of the substantive portion of the holding. The insertion of these words that I propose would prevent the recurrence of such cases as have recently occurred in Ireland, about which Questions have been asked in this House. A very short time ago—some two or three weeks I think—Mr. Justice O'Hagan, in giving a decision in cases where there had been sub-lettings, said that cases of this kind had been frequent of late, and that it was evident that if there is anything that ought not to be allowed under the Land Act of 1881, we ought to do our best to prevent it from taking place. The Amendment simply does what the Government proposed to do in the form of a new clause at the end of the Bill. I think the words I propose will prevent any misunderstanding or mistake when this clause comes before the Court.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, after the word "of," insert the words "the substantive portion of."—(Mr. Lea.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I am at a loss to see why a lessee should be in a different or in a better position than a person who merely holds an annual tenancy. The first difficulty we propose to deal with in the Amendment is the case of labourers, and we consider that Amendment to be a very fair, generous amendment of the Act of 1881. The question that is now raised about the substantive part of the holding, I think, will be found dealt with by our Amendment so far as it is desirable to deal with it. My suggestion, referred to the other evening, was that there were lettings of a small and insignificant character which did not vitally interfere with the principle of the Act of 1881, and that the occupying tenants should get the benefit of the Act in spite of them—that the occupying tenants should get the benefit and not the middleman. The suggestion was made by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), and in order to meet that we have put upon the Paper an Amendment we propose to move applicable both to present tenants and leaseholders, Our Amendment provides this—

    1941
    "A tenant may also be deemed in occupation notwithstanding that part is sub-let, where the sub-letting is of a trivial character, and the Court believes the tenant to be substantially in occupation of the holding."
    It seems to me that that satisfactorily deals with the question now raised by the hon. Gentleman. The Amendment seems to me to be a fair and proper one, and I think it should be taken in that place, and not here. It should be discussed as a whole, and not merely with reference to lessees, but also with regard to present tenancies. Our Amendment is sufficient to meet the justice and requirements of the case, and I would ask the Committee to consider the Amendment in a favourable spirit when the clause comes up. I would invite the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment at this stage, so as to enable the proposal to be renewed at a later stage.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: To my mind the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Londonderry is wholly inadequate, and, so far as it is of any value, I prefer the Amendment of the Government. But that, also, is wholly inadequate. Since the hon. Member has been elected a Member of this House, which he has attended so regularly, the case of "Flannery v. Nolan" has been heard in the Irish Courts and decided. The effect of this decision is that even if a landlord has looked on at a sub-letting and has allowed a tenant to continue his holding with the subletting existing on it, years afterwards the tenant can be put out of possession.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is quite irregular to discuss at this stage a future Amendment. An Amendment which will come on at a later stage can only be referred to in connection with the present Amendment.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I perfectly appreciate the character of your observation, Sir; but I am contending that the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Londonderry (Mr. Lea) has been followed by the Government in this word "substantially." I would put this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, Supposing he was consulted by a tenant who had sub-let part of his holding who wished to know whether he was within this Act or not, how would he be able to answer him? Who is to be judge of this word "substantially?"
    MR. GIBSON: The Court.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Well, I submit the Land Act of 1881 was admirably drawn, so far as it went, and what is wanted is an Amendment in the direction of Amendment 57. Section 57 provides that where a tenant sub-lets part of his holding without the consent of his landlord, he shall, notwithstanding such sub-letting, be deemed, for the purposes of the Act, to be still in occupation of the holding. Since the original cases decided against the Irish tenants, I do remember a more important case coming up for decision than those with regard to sub-lettings. It was always hold, until the case of "Flannery v. Nolan," that the landlord's consent could be taken in an implied manner. Cases of sub-lettings have been brought before the Courts constantly. The question has been repeatedly put—"Have you not sub-let a portion of your holding?" and over and over again the answer has been given—"I have." The landlord may have been looking on when the sub-letting was arranged; still, the Courts have rather overlooked this question until recently. Here, however, we now have two decisions, one of which in the case of "Flannery v. Nolan," staring the Irish tenantry in the face. It has been laid down that no amount of implied consent on the part of the landlord can justify a sub-letting, and that if a portion of a holding is sub-let without the consent of the landlord the tenancy is altogether outside the Act. That is the decision given within the last three months. I say to the hon. Member for South Londonderry, whoso desire in this matter is exactly the same as our own, that this question of the word "substantive" does not meet the case in any way. The way to meet it is by considering what condition was attached in the section of the Act of 1881. We find there "where the tenant sub-lets a portion of the land without the consent of the landlord," &c. I say there should be a presumption in favour of the tenant, unless the landlord makes a written statement within a certain time of the sub-letting. The action recently taken by the landlords with regard to the matter of sub-letting has been simply infamous. Where you have a landlord who has taken no objection in the Court below, but, on some future occasion in I the Court above, raises the point of his

    1943
    tenant Laving sub-let a portion of his holding, his action is simply infamous. If he comes and says, as was done in the case of a woman that came under my own observation—"Have you not let a pigstye?" and the woman acknowledges that such is the case, she is hunted out of Court, loses all the benefit of the Act, and has to pay all the costs. The question of sub-letting in this way comes up as gigantic a question as the question of improvements. It has come up not so constantly, but, nevertheless, it is one of considerable gravity and importance, which cannot be understated. In my judgment, if this Act passes with only the Amendment of the Government dealing with this point to which I am now referring, leaseholders will, to a large extent, be deprived of the benefit of the Act. I admit there is some inconvenience in discussing a certain Amendment which we know will not be accepted by the Committee; but, at all events, while it is inconvenient, it has this great advantage—that it enables us to apply the thin end of the wedge to the Government. The seeds we sow now, though very small, may, in the end, germinate into very large trees. In that view I advise the hon. Member for South Londonderry to withdraw his Amendment, provided he gets from the Government something in the nature of a promise that they will do something to enlarge the scope of their own Amendment. Only that you, Sir, have ruled that I am unable to discuss the Amendment of the Government, I should have said some very hard things with regard to it.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): I may say on behalf of the Government that the seed has been sown, and that when the proper time comes, and the Government clause is brought forward, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) will himself admit that that proposal is preferable to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Londonderry. The Government clause goes farther than the Amendment of the hon. Member. I would submit that the proper time to consider the case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, and to consider the question whether new words should be inserted in the measure providing that unless a landlord
    1944
    has raised at the time a specific objection he should have no ground for subsequent objection, would be when the clause of the Government is introduced.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The real point to consider here is this. The decision to which reference has been made has spread consternation throughout the whole of Ireland, and what I want to press upon the Government is the necessity not of having an Amendment, but of having an Amendment which will meet the case. The real point is that the Government Amendment, when it comes up to be discussed, shall be one that shall meet the case, and put an end to the difficulty.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: There is a difficulty met in part by the hon. Member for South Londonderry (Mr. Lea). No care has been taken to provide for the case of a sub-divided farm. It is a very common thing, when a father becomes incapacitated or a mother becomes incapacitated, that an arrangement is made for them to get a certain portion of the land. By the proposal you are making you would destroy the rights of certain tenants, and would be giving a premium to a son to kick out his father, or else giving a premium to a man who is not capable of managing his holding. There are some cases of sub-division which go by ordinary custom and consent.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's observation cannot possibly be relevant to this matter.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: Having called the attention of the Government to this most numerous and important class, I do not wish to trouble the Committee further on the point.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I quite agree that the Amendment before the Committee does not meet the grievance the tenants of Ireland are suffering in connection with this sub-letting. It does not do so, for a reason pointed out by the hon. Gentleman opposite—because it is restricted to the case of leaseholders, and it does not do so in the second case, because it seeks to avoid giving in a plain phrase a definition of what Parliament means in the Act it passes. That being so, in order to enforce the appeal made to the Government, I would ask them to consider in a liberal spirit this whole question of sub-letting in the interval which must elapse before the

    1945
    question comes up to be discussed on their new clause. Let me, for the purpose of strengthening my argument on this matter, mention a case upon which I have myself been consulted within the last three months. It is a case directly relevant to the Amendment, because it is a case in which a leaseholder was concerned—and let mo say in the beginning that the leaseholders are far more interested in this matter of sub-letting than any other class of tenants, for the reason that where a man has a lease that does not contain a clause against sub-letting, he is free to sub-let as much as he likes, and the consequence is that during the last 50 years persons who have had a right of sub-letting have generally exercised it to a considerable extent, giving small portions of land to their labourers. Well, when a leaseholder comes before the Land Court on a question of sub-letting, no consent can ever be shown to the sub-letting, because no consent of the landlords was ever required. In the case of leaseholders before this new decision of "Flannery v. Nolan," it got rid of the doctrine of sub-letting by showing that the sub-letting had existed for a long time, and that the landlord had taken no step in the interval. The ground of the decision in the case of "Flannery v. Nolan" was that inasmuch as in the case of an annual tenant who had been sub-letting for some time, the landlord's consent would be assumed if he had permitted the sub-letting to continue in the case of a leaseholder you could never make an assumption of that kind, because all leaseholders were entitled to sub-let if they liked, and that, therefore, nothing could be assumed from the fact that the landlord had taken no steps to put an end to the sub-letting. I know a case on the Bandon estate where a tenant, on the expiration of his lease, applied to have his rent fixed, some of his neighbours having obtained a reduction of 30 per cent. It was to be assumed that as he had been situated just in the same way as his fellow-tenants he would be put on the same terms as they had been. The lease was 60 years old; but a portion of this man's holding happened to be sub-let at 6d. a-week. That sub-letting was within the knowledge of everyone, and had been made over 60 years before; but because this sub-letting was without the landlord's consent the Sub-Commission
    1946
    dismissed the case. It is quite impossible that anyone could have stated substantially what was the state of things 60 years before, so as to say whether or not the landlord was consulted. I state that as a literal fact, that because the unfortunate tenant was not in the occupation of the whole of the land, but got the land from his grandfather with this sub-letting upon it, he was deprived of the benefits of the Act of 1881.
    THE CHAIRMAN: This argument would be quite pertinent in the discussion on the Government clauses, which will come on later; but it does not appear to me to be pertinent here.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I submit, Sir, that it is perfectly pertinent to this point. I gave the case of a leaseholder excluded from the Act of 1881 because his land was sub-let. A leaseholder in this condition would be equally excluded from the benefits of this clause; and, that being so, I would contend that a consideration of that kind is perfectly relevant to this clause. However, Sir, I do not desire to dwell upon the matter. What I have mentioned is a monstrous hardship which may occur under the present condition of the law, and it is a hardship which will not be dealt with by the Amendment the Government propose to move. I hope that in time we may be able to deal with this subject definitely, and that the Government will take the matter into their consideration. The real object to be aimed at is to confer a benefit on the unfortunate tenants who are exposed to this very grave and serious grievance.
    SIR CHARLES LEWIS: I apprehend that the only question that this Amendment raises is this—whether it is necessary, in order to preserve open for discussion every one of the four different clauses dealing with the matter of sub-letting, it is necessary to put in such words as "the substantive portion of his holding" in order not to foreclose the other questions? I take it that the hon. Member will not be without an opportunity and means of raising this question at a future stage. Four clauses have been given Notice of—one stands in the name of the Government, another in the name of the hon. Member for South Londonderry (Mr. Lea), another in my own name, and a fourth in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of

    1947
    Dublin (Mr. T. D. Sullivan). They will be found on pages 31,42, 50, and 52. It appears to me that the hon. Member for South Londonderry and myself have the same object in view. We have been discussing matters that would be pertinent to those clauses, when they come on; and hon. Members will believe me when I say that I do not think the clause, as it stands, will at all prejudice the due consideration of the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Londonderry, or my own Amendment, when they come on. Those clauses would interpret certain given facts as not prejudicing a person in bonâ fide occupation. So far as the Amendments of the hon. Member for South Londonderry and myself are concerned, it is not necessary to insert any particular word or words in this clause for the purpose of keeping open a certain question. Ours are Interpretation Clauses, which, if they were passed, would prevent sub-letting operating so as to interpret the case as a non-occupation.
    MR. LEA: My desire was to make the Act as clear as possible. The hardship complained of is of a recent date; but it is one which may lead to great trouble in Ireland. My great desire was that we should make this matter clear, so far as it affects the leaseholder. In view of what has been said, however, I am perfectly willing to leave the matter to be dealt with at the end of the Bill.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HARRIS: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name; in page 1, line 18, after "conditions," insert—
    "Save and except such conditions as may be contained therein in restraint of tillage."
    I trust the Government will see then-way to grant me their support in this Amendment. On many occasions in this House I have heard expressions of sympathy towards farmers on account of the fall which has taken place in the value of produce. I have also heard expressions of sympathy used towards labourers and other classes of the community. I trust that hon. Gentlemen who speak so sympathetically as regards these people will support this Amendment. The object of the Amendment is to exempt from the conditions applying to leasehold property so as to prevent
    1948
    existing conditions in restraint of tillage. Everyone acquainted with the statistics of agriculture in Ireland must know that 80 out of every 100 acres are under grazing. There are about 3,000,000 of acres in cultivation in that country. Under these circumstances, it is the duty of the Government to remove the barriers in the way of farming. In the Land Act of 1881 there were clauses providing for the reclamation of waste land, and other Acts have been passed for the erection of labourers' cottages. Now that waste land is to be reclaimed at the public expense, I do not see why the good land should be prevented from being utilized for the use of the farmers and the community generally. I shall not detain the Committee any longer, but conclude by expressing the hope that the Government and the Committee will see their way to support this Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 13, after the word "conditions," insert the words "save and except such conditions as may be contained therein in restraint of tillage."—(Mr. Harris.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): The Act of 1881 in regard to yearly tenancies did not affect the contract of letting, save as to the question of the amount of rent and that of sale. If the contract of tenancy contains terms and provisions as to tillage, grazing, or otherwise, all those terms and provisions remain in full force, and the only matters which the Court can revise in regard to any yearly tenancy at present are those of rent, and any conditions as regards sale. With regard to the entire category of present tenancies in Ireland, the Act of 1881 recognizes and does not vary the contract of tenancy, save so far as relates to the questions of rent and resale, all the other provisions remain intact. When, in the Act of 1881, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) destroyed the covenants for surrender which existed in all leases, and turned them into present tenancies, he necessarily and very properly provided that all the terms of the old lease should be received into the new tenancy. The

    1949
    question the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Galway (Mr. Harris) has brought forward has reference to the present tenancies which were substituted for leases; and he proposes that the present tenant should be at liberty to tear up his lease altogether and alter his farm, it may be, from a past we farm—which ho received as such, perhaps—into a tillage farm. It may be of vital importance to the landlord to have the land kept in the character in which he has let it; and there are covenants in leases regulating the manner in which a farm is to be used. It would be a serious matter if the Committee had to open up such a sea of litigation and controversy as is proposed, no doubt with the best intentions, by the hon. Member. I do not in the least question the hon. Gentleman's wish to afford employment to increased numbers in Ireland; but what he suggests would be a tremendous operation for this Committee to embark upon, because, no doubt, a certain number of farmers would think it desirable that rich pasture farms in Tipperary or Meath should be turned into tillage. This alteration might bring ruin upon the owners of the estates, and it certainly would alter contracts in a manner which has never been contemplated. I think that, upon further reflection, the hon. Member will see that it is impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment.
    MR. DILLON: I am exceedingly glad we have had, at the outset of this discussion, the law so clearly laid down as it has been by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson). His views of the law will be of the greatest possible use to us; but his views upon cultivation and tillage are by no means so valuable. He says that destruction may be brought to owners of land—that is to say, upon men who used to be the owners of land, but who are no longer—namely, the landlords, by giving permission to the tenants to till the land which has been prevented from being tilled by the covenants of the leases. But where is the farmer who would be fool enough, having, as he will have under this Act, a substantial interest in the land, to destroy his own interest; and you must recollect that he would directly ruin his own interest before he would his landlord's. What does this provision mean?
    1950
    It means the paving the way for the abolition of dual ownership, and the doing away with a set of covenants which have been proved to be of a most prejudicial and injurious character, not only to the farmers, but to the welfare of the country at large. We know that where a man is in possession of rich grazing land in Tipperary, Meath, or Kildare, he is not going to be lunatie enough to turn it into tillage except on such conditions as would pay him well. But there are in Ireland large tracts which have been maintained in grazing to the detriment of the whole country and to the injury of the land itself; and the question now is whether, when we are preparing the way by this Bill to make the occupier directly the owner subject to the quit rent of the landlord, we ought to make him bound by antiquated and played-out covenants which cannot be of the smallest use to the landlord. What is the whole supposition which underlies this Bill? The supposition is that for the future, in the case of leaseholders as well as present tenants, the landlord is not to reckon upon ever being in possession of the land, except when he chooses to buy the tenant's interest; all he has to look for is his rent; and, therefore, you must suppose that the tenant will use the land to his own advantage. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland seems to think ho will carry the Committee with him by the contemplation of the frightful precedent which may be set up by doing away with these covenants. As a matter of fact, I think his speech really amounted to an argument in favour of sweeping away these covenants. The covenants against the change to tillage and concerning the rotation of crops which are necessary to protect the English lands, and which may be necessary to prevent a tenant returning the land to his landlord in a bad condition, are utterly out of place in Ireland, where the tenant is the owner of the land in a more real sense than the landlord is. These covenants are utterly out of place in regard to Irish land; and, therefore, it is the business of this Committee, so far from seeking to maintain them, to accept this Amendment, and very properly to accept other Amendments in the same direction. I strongly advise my hon. Friend (Mr. Harris) to press this Amendment to a

    1951
    Division, in case the Government cannot see their way to accept it. I may say, in conclusion, that this Amendment raises a question which will be of a great deal more interest in Ireland than, perhaps, a great many people in this House imagine. The question of tillage versus pasture has been a burning question in Ireland ever since the days of the Irish Parliament; one of the greatest evils has been the spread of pasture at the expense of tillage; and this is not the time to maintain any antiquated covenants which may stand in the way of bringing and keeping land under tillage, which is so exceedingly necessary for the labouring classes of Ireland.
    MR. CHANCE: Purely grazing farms are not within the Act at all; and, therefore, the observations of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland as to the rich grazing farms of Tipperary, Meath, and other counties are utterly beside the question. Now, there is a precedent for the course we ask the Committee to adopt. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect that where, under the Renewable Leaseholds Conversion Act leases are converted into fee simples, the restrictions as to tillage and other injurious covenants wholly disappear. The case of the Government is that they are really giving to the leaseholders under this clause a perpetuity. If that be so, I ask them to follow the example of the Renewable Leaseholds Conversion Act, and abolish these restrictions altogether.
    MR. R. T. REID: I suppose the Government will desire, when there is no question of principle involved, to prevent any irritating restrictions remaining to interfere in the due relations between landlord and tenant. This Amendment only deals with conditions in leases in respect to tillage. The hon. Member for East Gal way (Mr. Harris) is more acquainted with the matter than I am; but I should have thought that when you are conferring a tenure, not a lease for a limited number of years—indeed, what is, in fact, a lease in perpetuity—you ought to have abolished altogether all restrictions and conditions in the lease, and to have substituted for that position the position of an ordinary tenant under the ordinary law contained in the Act of 1881. I am well aware that hon. Gentlemen who
    1952
    are familiar with affairs in Ireland see reasons against it. There are certain conditions attendant upon agricultural leases; these conditions may be applicable to the present methods of cultivation, to the present existing state of things; but when you are converting the tenure of a lessee into that of a perpetuity tenant, it is absurd to continue the terms of a lease intended to apply for a particular time only. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) said that these conditions would be of no use to the landlord. The conditions in leases in England, especially in leases respecting tillage land, are very often made use of by the landlord for the purpose of extortion. I can quite understand that when you have a set of irritating anachronisms existing in the tenure, the landlord may make gross use of them for the purpose of putting the screw on the tenant. I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland desires that any such unfair use should be made of any of these conditions. I cannot conceive what other reason there can be for denying reform.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid) has misrepresented certain important points in connection with this matter. This question has been argued, not as a restriction to ordinary tillage, but simply and solely as to conversion of pasture. In other words, what has been contended is that, although the land may have been let as pasture land, the tenant shall have the power to turn what is held in pasture into tillage. Now, the first observation I have to make upon that proposal is that it puts the tenant under the lease which has been broken in quite a different position from that of the tenant from year to year under the Land Act of 1881. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: NO, no!] I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon; I am quite correct. Under the Land Act of 1881 the conditions under which the tenancy was let from year to year subsist; and those conditions may, and very often are, similar and analogous to the conditions which limit the tenancy under lease. Therefore, if you introduce this provision into this clause you will be bound,

    1953
    in common fairness towards the tenants from year to year under the Act of 1881, to introduce a further provision at a subsequent stage of the Bill giving them the same liberty to break the terms of their tenancies as you have given to the tenants under lease to break the terms of their lease. That is not the only point. It has been argued as if we were creating a series of perpetual tenancies in Ireland, and as if the Land Act of 1881 had done that. In other words, as if under the Land Act of 1881 every present tenant was in the position of a perpetual leaseholder, subject to the revision of the terms of his lease and the amount of his rent every 15 years; but that is not the case. Under the Land Act of 1881, in regard to tenancies from year to year, and under this Bill, tenants holding under lease will have the power to give up their tenancies at six months' notice. They are not perpetual tenants. No doubt they have fixity of tenure in one sense, that the landlord cannot turn them out; but they have not perpetual tenure, because they can leave themselves if they choose, and throw the land on the landlord's hands. Hon. Gentlemen are sufficiently aware that it may pay the tenant enormously to turn a pasture farm into tillage for a few years, and then, when tillage ceases to pay, if the tenant is at liberty, on six months' notice, to throw the farm on the hands of the landlord, he may give up the land, and thus rob the landlord in a most effectual manner. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries really talked as if Irish tenants had invariably, in the past, cultivated their farms, so as not only to bring about the best results for the moment, but for all time. As a matter of fact, if the Irish agriculturist has been distinguished by one characteristic, it has been by the characteristic that he has often, for some short and immediate advantage, sacrificed the permanent utility and fertility of the soil. I conceive that a clause which would put in the power of any tenant for the immediate advantage to turn his farm into uses the landlord never intended is one which it is quite impossible for the Government to accept, and I believe also it would be impossible for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) to accept it, for
    1954
    it is entirely contrary to the whole provisions of the Act of 1881.
    DR. COMMINS: I think I know quite as much as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland about farming in Ireland; but I have never known instances of tenants in Ireland exhausting their farms, and then throwing the laud on the landlord's hands. It would appear that the right hon. Gentleman is merely legislating in the air. If he will legislate upon actual facts, and not upon mere imaginary suggestions, the Bill may be made a proper and valuable one.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 175: Majority 45.—(Div. List, No. 318.) [10.10 P.M.]
    MR. O'DOHERTY: The Amendment which I propose is one which I think the Government, on the slightest consideration, will accept. If the lease has gone its full course, and if the time contemplated by both parties for its surrender has arrived, there may be some ground then for allowing the landlord to exercise the right of resumption, which he gets by the 21st section of the Land Act of 1881. The Committee will understand that this right of resuming possession on the termination of a lease is a most annoying and vexatious proceeding. It is only on the pretence that the place is necessary for the use of the landlord or his family that the landlord is allowed to resume at all, and that plea has frequently been set up to the great annoyance of tenants. What I want to impress upon the Committee is, that if the tenant does not want the landlord to resume possession, he will not give up his holding but will remain under a rack-rent, and the landlord, by taking advantage of what he ought not to take advantage of, will continue hi8 tenant under a rack-rent. Seeing that there are powers preserved in every statutory term giving the right of resumption where the right of resumption is for the good of the estate, I strongly urge upon the Government to omit the perfectly useless and irritating limitation contained in the clause as drawn. To do so will in no way conflict with the general principle of the clause. Besides, it must be remembered that when the Land Act of 1881 was passed, it was

    1955
    never contemplated that the landlord would resume until the termination of the lease.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, to leave out the words "and subject to the same," and insert the words "except the landlords."—(Mr. O'Doherty.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'and subject to the same' stand part of the Clause."
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The hon. Gentleman has said it was never contemplated by the Act of 1881 that the landlord should have power of resumption before the end of the lease. I entirely accept that view of the hon. Gentleman, but he must remember that the reason was that under the Act of 1881 it was never contemplated for a moment that leases should be broken. Had it been so contemplated, I cannot doubt the same power of resumption would have been given to the landlords at the time of the breaking of the lease as was reserved to him at the natural termination of the lease. The hon. Gentleman is not content with compelling the landlords to break the leases, but he is determined to deprive them of any advantage secured by the Act of 1881. The owners of leasehold property in Ireland are surely hit sufficiently hard by this clause without asking them to make any further sacrifices contemplated by the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. I think the hon. Gentleman would have had a good case had we preserved the clause in its original form, under which it would have been bilateral in its operation. Had the clause remained in its original shape, I confess I should have hesitated before advising the Committee not to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. But when the lease cannot be broken, except on the direct demand of the tenant, it surely is hard to deprive the landlord of the right which was reserved to him by the Act of 1881. There are two limitations which exist in this power of resumption which, probably, hon. Members of the Committee, who are not familiar with the Act of 1881, may not have present to their minds. The first is, that the landlord should have no power of resumption unless the Court assents. If the right of resumption is so unreasonable, the
    1956
    Court may stop it; the second limitation is, that the landlord has to pay for his power of resumption. I think Gentlemen who are not acquainted with the details of the Act of 1881 may suppose, from the speech of the hon. Gentleman, that the landlord, at the end of the lease or at the time his lease is broken, has power to take without compensation the land which is under lease. As a matter of fact, the landlord has to pay full price for the privilege of resumption, and as it will never be to his pecuniary advantage to exercise his power of resumption, and he would only exercise it in the last resort and under strong necessity. I am of opinion we should be unduly injuring-a class who are hit sufficiently hard by the clause as it at present stands if we were to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland forgot to tell the Committee that the words complained of were inserted in the House of Lords. These words are of the landlords insertion, and did not belong to the Bill as originally drafted, and presented to the House of Lords. I wish the Committee to understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, as usual, has entirely missed the point. I do not say he has missed it because his mind's-eye is not open, but simply because he does not understand the matter—because, and and I say it with great respect, he does not understand the ways of the Irish landlords. Where the power of resumption will be exercised will be that, when the Irish leaseholder says—"I will go into Court, and get a fair rent fixed against you," the landlord will retort by saying—"Yes, and if you do, I will apply for leave to resume the holding." The insertion of these words is simply the work of experts in the House of Lords, in what Lord Clarendon called felonious landlordism. While the House of Lords put in the power of breaking a lease with one hand, they with the other hand put a blunderbuss to the leaseholder's head, and threaten that if he dare to apply to have his lease broken, the power of resumption will be used. Let me tell the Committee what has recently been done by Mrs. Cane Otway, successor in title to one of the best landlords Ireland ever saw, Admiral Otway, a British sailor, who never had the

    1957
    slightest misunderstanding with any of his tenants. The farms form a kind of network round this lady's domain, and she has asked each tenant to give her a field out of his holding. I suppose that if they do not comply with her request she will apply for a resumption of their holdings. Observe the dilemma this puts the tenants in. If the tenants, in order to accommodate this estimable lady, surrender a field to her a new holding will be created, and that will be no longer under the Act of 1881. If they do comply with the request they will be future tenants, and if they do not give up the fields the landlady will apply for leave to resume the old holdings for the purpose of a homo farm, or for the benefit of the estate, or for residences for the family, and so on. And let the Irish leaseholders remember that they will be dealt with by Commissioners appointed by the right lion, and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Colonel King-Harman), a gentleman who, in his evidence before a Committee, stated that formerly he was on good relations with his tenants; but now there was no landlord in Ireland who was on worse relations with his tenants. I read his evidence the other day; I steeped myself in it. This hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is on the worst relations with his tenants, will be the chief adviser of the Irish Government. This will be the person who will have the appointment of the Sub-Commissioners.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECEETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN): I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to give me the reference to my evidence.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I will. If you will allow me five minutes' time, Mr. Chairman, I will bring the book in. Perhaps I may now give way to an hon. Friend, who will continue the argument, and I will bring the book in.
    MR. DILLON: While my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) is conducting his researches, I beg to say that this Amendment is one of the most vital importance to the Irish leaseholders. I am astonished that the Government, while professing to be anxious to settle the Irish Land Question, should take up the extraordinary attitude they
    1958
    have assumed. They have not brought forward a single argument against this Amendment. Now, what I understand is, that if a holding is required for the purpose of a home farm, or to be connected with the landlord's residence, or for the purpose of a residence for some member of the landlord's family, the Court may authorize resumption. The Irish landlords are a prolific race. They generally have half-a-dozen sons, and it is notoriously absurd that any one of these gentlemen may be accommodated with a residence on a farm at the expense of the tenant, simply for the purpose of punishing a tenant who may choose to avail himself of the Act. It has not been the custom of Irish landlords to have home farms, and I assert that this provision will go a considerable way to defeat the usefulness of the clause. I desire to direct the attention of the leaseholders of Ireland to the proceedings of the Government in this matter, and to the method of taking away by this pitiable and contemptible reservation the tenancies they intended to give by this clause. This reservation will make the Act ineffective. If the same policy is pursued throughout the whole of the clauses of the Bill, the Act is bound to be a failure. If the leaseholders' interests are left unguarded in this way, there is no leaseholder who would not go into Court with fear and trembling, and I therefore trust the Government will reconsider their position.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): The hon. Gentleman must remember that this application must be made by the landlord, within three months after the original lease drops, and that a resumption must take place within six months altogether. In all my knowledge of the Land Act, which is very considerable, I have never known the Act used as a means of oppressing the tenant in the way suggested by the advocates of this Amendment. Anyone who is acquainted with the present position of the Irish landlords must know that such a suggestion is of a very imaginative kind. The idea of Irish landlords buying up their tenants wholesale with ready money is absurd. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) has suggested that if this clause is allowed to stand

    1959
    unaltered, the landlord may go to the tenant, and say—"If you exercise your right of breaking the lease I will resume the property." I have some acquaintance with the Irish Land Commission, and I am persuaded that if such a course of dealing came to the knowledge of the Court the landlord would retire double-quick, and be required to pay full costs. If the Court once got an idea that this proceeding of the landlord was mala fide, the Court would at once put the landlord out of court.
    MR. CHANCE: Where does the right hon. and learned Gentleman find ready money payments?
    MR. GIBSON: The only way you can sell is by cash. Now, the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), before he left the House, referred to the estate of Mrs. Otway. He thought the tenants of that estate were being very hardly treated. I do not assent to the view of the law which the hon. and learned Gentleman laid down. I entirely dispute and deny his proposition. In the presence of many eminent lawyers, I declare that if a tenant surrenders a field, he is not thereby converted into a future tenant.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Certainly.
    MR. GIBSON: The suggestion that this power will be used for the purpose of oppressing the tenants, will be used mala fide, is completely got rid of by the intervention of the Court.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I have been challenged by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Colonel King-Harman) with reference to my statement as to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's relations with his tenants. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will refer to Question 7,521, he will see—
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: What is the date?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I am quoting from the evidence of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman given before the Committee of the House of Lords in 1882.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The House of Lords?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will refer to Question 7,521, he will see he was asked whether before the agitation
    1960
    he was not on good terms with his tenants, and that he answered—
    "He did not think there was any landlord on better terms with his tenants."
    Then, in Question 7,522, he was asked—
    ''May I ask you on what sort of terms you are with your tenants at the present time?"
    And his answer was—
    "I do not think there is a man on worse terms with, them."
    But I pass from this incident.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Perhaps I may be allowed to make an explanation. I acknowledge that in 1882 I had a portmanteau full of threatening letters. I am happy to say that previous to that time, and also since then, I have been on good terms with my tenants.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I am glad to find that, notwithstanding the intimidatory character of the National League, the proceedings of the League have not had any effect on the two extensive estates of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: None whatever.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Allow me to say, Mr. Courtney, that the words we propose to leave out were inserted by the Government in the House of Lords. The insertion of these words can only have one effect. If these tenants desire a revision of rent, the landlord will threaten to resume possession for the purpose of turning the holding into a home farm. Why did he not turn the holding into a home farm when he was letting it for 99 years, or 999 years? Why did he not think of a residence for his sisters and his cousins and his aunts when he was letting the holding for a considerable time? There is no answer to our argument. Your contention is that the Irish landlord should stand on the same footing as the ordinary tenant, and you say the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was not ready to put them on an equality in 1881. Once you make an Irish, leaseholder a present tenant he will be subjected to all these disabilities. There will be an arrière pensée on the landlord's part, and anything else used for the purpose of screwing rent out of the tenant. The tenant is subject to the right of resumption on the part of the landlord after the first 15 years, and

    1961
    I ask the House to put the leaseholder on a parity with him.
    MR. CHANNING: As the next Amendment in my name is practically identical with this, I ask the Government to accept the principle of the proposal now made. The right lion, and learned Attorney General for Ireland has told us that the landlords will not exercise their right of resumption; but then I should lib e to know why the Government have shown such great anxiety to retain this Amendment which was introduced in the House of Lords. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland made a very good start this evening in announcing that the Government were prepared to deal with the leaseholder in the unilateral, instead of the bilateral principle. I would ask him to carry out the principle in this clause. By refusing this Amendment, the Government are simply insisting upon the back-door system again. It may be possible for the landlords to buy out their tenants, whatever their property may be worth. Under the present process the tenants may be reluctant for this right of resumption to be put in force, yet the object of the insistance upon this right is perfectly clear—namely, that the landlords may hold a threat over the leaseholders to prevent their getting the benefit of this Act. If the Government are sincere in their desire to give the benefit of the Act to the most deserving tenants in Ireland, I ask them to accept this Amendment.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland whether he agrees with the law laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford as to the right of resumption in the case of an ordinary tenant? If the ordinary tenant is safe for 15 years, then the whole object we have is to put the leaseholder in the same position as the ordinary tenant. I do not quite agree with, the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, that the landlords of Ireland will be able to show the Court that they wish to have these lands for bonâ fide purposes, and I am not quite sure that they will be able to get money on the large scale which will be necessary to pay the tenants to go out; but my object is to put the leaseholder in the same position as the ordinary
    1962
    tenant. If the hon. and learned Member for North Longford is right in his contention as to the 5th. section of the Act of 1881, that there is no right of resumption at the creation of a tenancy, but that it would begin at the close of the tenancy, then I shall feel bound to support the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. GIBSON: The right of resumption given to the landlord on the expiration of the lease is the right of resumption found in another part of the Act. One reason for it is that the landlord may be provided with a residence for himself; another reason is that a home farm may be established; and a third reason is that he may be able to provide a residence for members of his family—a residence for which he makes a specific proposition before the Court. That resumption must be within three months after the lease drops.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: That is according to the rules of the Court, and not according to the Act.
    MR. GIBSON: It is equally binding. The position of the ordinary tenancy is that the tenant is not subject to having his holding taken away from him for any single one of the objects mentioned in Section 21. I want to make this quite clear. He cannot have his holding taken away from him to provide a residence for the landlord, he cannot have it taken away from him to provide a home farm, and he cannot have it taken away from him to provide a residence for any member of the landlord's family; but the Court may direct that the holding, or part of the holding, may be sold for full value for certain purposes connected with the good of the estate. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway may rest assured that I am not going to forget what the law is.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: We are speaking amongst ourselves, and not to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    MR. GIBSON: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman will have to complain of my statement of the law. In the section that deals with the matter of resumption as regards present tenancies, these provisions are to be found. The landlord, during the continuance of any statutory term, may apply to the Court, and the Court may, if it is satisfied that the landlord is desirous of resuming the holding, or part of it, for some useful purpose relating to the good

    1963
    of the estate or holding, including the use of the ground as building ground, or for the benefit of labourers in the way of cottage gardens or allotments, or for the purpose of building churches, schools, dispensaries, schoolmasters' residences, and so on, may authorize the resumption of the land for such purpose, on full compensation being paid. In Section 8 there is a provision that the landlord may resume, for some purposes mentioned in the previous section, but not for all of them, for the good of the estate. This power is not to be exercised—the power of resumption for the good of the estate or of the holding—for the first statutory term in certain cases. The law, therefore, is that, as regards some purposes for which resumption is authorized under Section 5, it is not to be exercised during the first statutory term, but after the expiration of the judicial lease.
    MR. CHANCE: Where an ordinary tenant from year to year has had a judicial rent fixed, then for the first 16 years of the judicial term, for no purpose whatever under the sun, be it for the good of the holding, or for the formation of a home farm, or for anything else, can the landlord touch one inch of the man's land. That is a plain statement. In the case of leaseholders under this Act, the very day after the judicial rent has been fixed, if he likes, the landlord can resume possession of the holding, or part of the holding, for at least three purposes.
    MR. GIBSON: The difficulty now pointed out by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny does not apply at all, because Section 8 only applies to the action of the landlord during the judicial term. The judicial term in respect of present tenants created under the 1st section may not be, and probably will not be, created until many months hence—probably not until six or eight months hence—because there are already many cases to be provided for. This provision as to the judicial term could not come into operation, because during that period of six months the tenants would not be judicial tenants, but present tenants. During that period of six months, of course, they will be entirely unprotected as regards this protection in every view of the case. The application for resumption must be made within three months, and I do not see
    1964
    how any extension of the principle referred to can get rid of that difficulty.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Read the rule relating to the three months.
    MR. GIBSON: I will do so with pleasure.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: When this discussion started, I was rather prejudiced against the view of the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. My desire is to place leaseholders in the position of ordinary tenants, so as to make certain that they cannot be interfered with during the statutory period. Under the circumstances, I shall be bound to support the hon. Member for North Donegal.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I should like to ask whether a leaseholder, having broken his lease under the 1st clause of this Bill, and having become a present tenant, would not be subject to all the provisions of both the 5th and 8th sections? If that is so, the leaseholder would be subject to all the rights of resumption. But if the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Donegal is rejected, the leaseholder would be subjected to these further differences—he might, in addition to the rights of resumption provided for by Sections 5 and 8, also be subjected to the conditions of resumption of the 21st section. The whole reason and ground and foundation of this section is that the leaseholder is unable to pay the existing rent of his holding under his lease. You are going to give him the benefit of this new Act in order to relieve him of an extravagant rent, and to put him on the same level as other Irish tenants. Why should you put on him the other burden of having his tenancy terminated at the will of the lessor, for the purpose of finding a residence for his family or some other object of that kind?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I might suggest an arrangement which would meet the equity of the case. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford has pointed out to the Committee that during the first 15 years, the statutory term, the land should not be resumed for any purpose. In the speech I made on the Amendment, I pointed out, on my side, that it would be exceedingly hard to deprive the landlord of the privilege reserved by the Act now in existence. I

    1965
    think we might make some arrangement of this kind, that if a lease terminated within the statutory term of 15 years—if it naturally so terminated—the landlord should have the right of resumption, but that if the natural termination of the lease was beyond the 15 years, but if the lease be now broken he should have no power of resumption until the 15 years term comes to an end. Until the expiration of the first 15 years there should be no power of resumption of any kind.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I recognize the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman is inclined to approach the subject, but might I venture to point out to him that there is no principle in the suggestion he has made. I believe we are at one upon the main point, and I think, while we are about this, we should act liberally and with a free grace. What you are going to provide is this—that if your lease is timed to expire 15 years from now, that is to say, in 1902, then in that year the landlord is to have the right of resumption. But fancy the grievance which a man living next door to the tenant whose lease was to expire in 1902 might have. You might have a man on the other side of the fence who, because his lease expires in 1903, would not have the privileges extended to the other leaseholder.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Those of us who are acquainted with the Act of 1881 will have seen that there are two distinct classes of ground upon which resumption is possible—one class of ground is contemplated when a lease falls, and one in the case of tenancy continues from year to year. I would propose that there should be no power of resumption of any kind during the first 15 years—namely, the statutory term—but that after that term the landlord of a tenancy under a lease should have power of resumption not only for purposes mentioned in the 21st section of the Act, but also for the purposes contemplated by that portion of the Act which deals with a resumption at the end of the lease.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman proposes to provide that, after the statutory term is fixed, and for 15 years afterwards, this power of resumption shall not arise, and shall only arise after the first statutory term?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, that is so.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Subject, of course, to all other restrictions of the Court and so on.
    MR. DILLON: Do we understand that this power of resumption will not come into operation at all until 15 years after the passing of the Act?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
    MR. DILLON: The leaseholders are to stand in the same position as the ordinary tenant until the expiration of 15 years after they have applied to the Court?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; until 15 years after the passing of the Act there will be no power of resumption. That power will only be exercisable 15 years after the passing of the Act.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: Or from the date of the application?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; from the date of the application. The landlord will have power to resume for all the purposes contemplated by that portion of the Act of 1881 dealing with tenancies from year to year, and all those portions dealing with the resumption at the end of the tenancy.
    MR. PARNELL: It is scarcely worth while going over the points that divide us now; but I trust that the Government, in the interval that will elapse, will consider that after the leaseholder has obtained his statutory term, the power of resumption in respect of that leaseholder—namely, the statutory tenant—may not meet the power given to the leaseholders.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not rise to put any obstacle in the way of any agreement that has been arrived at; but I think the Government, when considering the Amendment put down, will think it may be desirable to consider a case with which I do not think the hon. Members below the Gangway will have any particular sympathy, but in which some injustice might be done. The class of cases to which I refer are not a numerous class; but still there are cases where demesne lands have been held under certain circumstances for a definite short period—for instance, during a minority. I refer to cases where a demesne has been let on the understanding that it will be resumed on the expiration of the

    1967
    lease. In this case the tenant may have a perfect right to come into Court, and have his rent revised.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Such a tenant would not come under this provision at all.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not profess to be well acquainted with the law on this subject; but it appeared to me that, under the proposal made, a tenant who has taken a lease on a different understanding from that contemplated by hon. Members, would have the benefit of the clause under discussion.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: They will not come under the Act at all.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It appears to me that, under the proposal made, the tenant who has taken a lease on a definite understanding that he will have to resign at the expiration of the fixed period, may find himself in the position of a judicial tenant with an addition of 10 years to the lease which he originally undertook. If hon. Gentlemen are right in their statement that such a tenant will not come under the Act, it will be unnecessary to take this case into consideration; but if that is not the case, it appears to me that the case of such a tenant must be taken into account.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: If the noble Marquess wishes us to support the view that such, tenants as he speaks of should have the benefit of the Act, I, for one, shall be very happy to support him.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: The next Amendment is consequential. I move to leave out certain words because the clause will not read with another Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Cork. The clause will read very well without these words in line 14, from "resumption" to "Act" in line 15. I beg to move that these words be struck out.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, to leave out the words from "resumption" to "Act," in line 15.—(Mr. O'Doherty.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause, "put, and agreed to.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The next Amendment also is consequen-
    1968
    tial—namely, in line 14, to leave out the words "passing of this Act."
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 14 and 15, leave out "passing of this Act."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to move the next Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That point has already been decided.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: With all respect to you, Sir, I wish to call your attention to the fact that there are several points sought to be included in this Amendment which were not referred to in the previous Amendment. The Amendment of my hon. Friend dealt with restrictions as to tillage; but I would point out that in these leases there are also restrictions as to the selling of hay and straw, and the rotation of the crops, and rights of turbary, and other conditions altogether different to the restraints in respect of tillage. With all respect to you, Sir, I would submit that I ought not to be excluded from the right of proposing the residuum of these restrictions simply because the Committee has decided against the Amendment of my hon. Friend with, regard to the question of tillage.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must reconstruct his Amendment then. As it stands it will not be admissible.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I should be glad, Sir, if you would point out to me how it ought to be amended in order to make it admissible?
    [No reply.]
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am very sorry, Sir, but I shall be obliged to raise the question again on Report.
    A statement was here made to Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR by an hon. Member sitting near him.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I believe, Sir, we can put it this way, as an hon. Friend of mine suggests—by inserting after my Amendment these words—"Save and except a condition in restraint of tillage." I believe, Sir, the addition of those words would meet your objection. I wish to point out to the Government—and I have hopes that they

    1969
    will accept my Amendment—that a leaseholder becomes practically, to all intents and purposes, the owner of his holding on perpetuity after this clause has passed into law. Well, under these circumstances, I wish to ask the Government if anything can be more unreasonable than to impose upon a man, practically the proprietor of the soil, those conditions which were considered necessary when his occupation of the soil was dependent entirely upon the will of his landlord and upon the conditions of his lease? I do not think the Committee has a full conception of the odious and embarrassing and unnecessary conditions which are imposed in these leases. For instance, I would mention at this point one case in favour of the admissibility of my Amendment. There is a condition in several leases that a lease holder should not be allowed to sell his hay or straw. [Interruption.] Well, my hon. Friend below me tells me that one of the conditions in some of these leases is that a leaseholder should not be allowed to marry a Papist. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman opposite, whom I see smiling, would be desirous of retaining that condition. I do not suppose he would consider that the faith of his co-religionists would be so imperilled by their having Catholic wives that he would be in favour of the retention of such a condition. But I put it to the Government, whether there is any reason why a man, who is practically the owner of his farm, should continue to be hampered by these obsolete conditions? There are other conditions—for instance, there is a condition in some leases with regard to the rotation of crops. I certainly should say that the wisest course would be to leave to the man who has to make his living on the farm an absolute discretion as to the manner in which he should crop the soil. After all, the farmer is the best judge of how this should be done; and to ask the man, who, under this clause, is merely a rent-charger, to decide for the person who is the real occupier and owner of the soil, what crops should be put in, and how they should be put in, is not only an odious, but an embarrassing condition. Then there are the rights of turbary. Under the Land Act of 1881, the present tenant is allowed to take as large turbary as is required for his own use. I do not know whether or not I am correct in the statement of the law;
    1970
    but I understand that if this Amendment is not accepted, the leaseholder will be deprived of the rights of turbary which belong to every other class of tenant except the leaseholder. I put it strongly to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether he thinks the leaseholders should be hampered in the matter of turbary in a way in which other tenants are not? I think the fair principle that the Government should accept in the case of the leaseholder is, so far as is practicable, to put him in the same condition as the present tenant. If this Amendment is not accepted, the leaseholder will be put in a much inferior position to the tenant from year to year. I trust that is not the intention of the Government; and, therefore, I strongly, but respectfully, claim that my Amendment should be accepted.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 17, after the word "year," to insert the words "Freed from any of the conditions or covenants special to the lease and not ordinarily implied in a tenancy from year to year, save and except the condition in restraint of tillage."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE CHIEF SECRATARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The words, as they are put, are not those which appear on the Paper.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is so—certain words have been added.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I had to put in those words, because the Committee had already decided to retain for the landlords the conditions contained in restraint of tillage.
    MR. TUITE: I desire to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool; and, in proof of his statement, I may say that I hold in my hand an agreement between an Irish landlord and his tenant, where the tenant has agreed not to grow a meadow on the land under a penalty of £20 for every acre tilled and meadowed. A large number of such cases exist in certain counties, and it would be a great benefit to many tenants if the Government would agree to accept this Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I understand the Amendment, it leaves out of

    1971
    account certain classes of restrictions and deals with another class. I take it we must take our stand on the broad principle laid down in the Act of 1881—namely, that the conditions of leases are to last. The hon. Gentleman opposite appears to think that the Act will put a tenant who has been a leaseholder, and has become a tenant from year to year, in a different position to those persons who are tenants from year to year without having been leaseholders. That is not so. The tenant from year to year remains subject to all the conditions upon which he held his holding before the Act was passed. It is true there may be cases in which the restrictions are useless; but there are also conditions which are vital in retaining the value of the holding. The hon. Gentleman, as I pointed out before, in respect to the previous Amendment, is entirely wrong in alleging that the tenant is a freeholder. If, by bad cultivation of land, the tenant is unable to pay his rent then the landlord necessarily has to resume the land, and, in common justice, we ought to leave him in such a position as to enable him to resume the land in no worse condition than it was when he let it.
    MR. MAHONY: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that a tenant is debarred by Statute from committing persistent waste. All tenants who come under a judicial rent have certain statutory conditions applied to them, by which they are bound; and unless the right hon. Gentleman accepts this Amendment he will do, so far as I can see, what he professes not to be anxious to do—he will put leaseholders under more unfavourable conditions than the ordinary statutory tenants. The right hon. Gentleman made a statement just now as to which I should like to have further elucidation by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. I should like to know whether it is a fact that all ordinary tenants from year to year who become judicial tenants are bound by the terms of their tenancy while they are yearly tenants, because, if that is the case, I do not know whether these statutory conditions are introduced into the Act of 1881?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In extension of the statutory conditions.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I wish it to be distinctly understood what is the law upon this point. Every contract of tenancy governing a yearly tenancy is in full force save so far as it is necessarily inconsistent with the special statutory terms which are laid down in this Act of Parliament.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman how, in his opinion, a covenant in a lease, not governed by a statutory term, can be enforced when a statutory term has been set up?
    MR. GIBSON: It could be enforced in the ordinary way all contracts are enforced. No doubt, there is greater difficulty in enforcing a covenant in Ireland than elsewhere; but it would be enforced by bringing an action against the tenant, or bringing a suit in Chancery.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: If, in an existing lease, there is a covenant and condition, say, against breaking up more than a certain quantity of land, the landlord can enforce the covenant without bringing an action for ejectment. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman contend that the same state of things will exist if the lease has been broken, and if a statutory tenancy has been fixed? I think he will not contend that; and I will refer him to the 5th section of the Land Act of 1881, which expressly indicates that a tenant shall not be compelled to quit his holding for any reasons except a breach of the statutory conditions. It is perfectly plain, from that section, that if there is a lease which contains a condition against breaking up more than a certain quantity of land, and after the passing of this Act the lessee got his lease broken, and went into Court and got a fair rent fixed—I say it is perfectly plain that, having regard to Section 5 of the Land Act of 1881, all power of enforcing the condition by ejectment would cease.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I think the Government are bound to make some concession in this matter. It is notorious that leases contain vexatious covenants, quite inconsistent with the requirements of modern agriculture. When you give a man practical fixity of tenure, it seems perfectly vexatious to maintain all the old re-

    1973
    strictions which are contained in leases. I do think that in this case the Government are bound to make some concession.
    MR. PARNELL: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has just replied to a question with regard to the remedies a landlord will have against a lessee who obtained a statutory tenancy under the Bill now under consideration. He has told us that if such a tenant broke any conditions of the lease which are preserved by this Bill, the landlord would have two remedies. He would have a remedy by ejectment, or he could proceed by action against the tenant for damages. May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General what remedy the landlord would have against a statutory tenant under the Act of 1881 who had a statutory lease, and who broke any of the conditions which were incidental to his previous tenancy, that tenancy being a yearly tenancy?
    MR. GIBSON: By action or by suit?
    MR. PARNELL: I understand that the landlord has a different and an additional remedy in the case of a leaseholder for breach of condition incidental to the statutory term other than that which he possesses in the case of a statutory tenancy, and our contention is that the tenant who obtains a statutory tenancy under the Act of 1881, and the tenant who becomes a statutory tenant under this Bill, should be in the same position when they have obtained their statutory tenancy. I think that is a very simple proposition, and I think it is capable of an answer from the Government, Yes or No. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has pointed out that there is a vital difference between the right of the landlord as regards his remedy in the case of a leaseholder who becomes a statutory tenant, and in the case of an ordinary tenant who becomes a statutory tenant. We know that an action at law is not an effective right, but that proceeding in ejectment against a tenant is very effective. I should like the two classes of tenants to be put on an equal footing; and I wish to say in reference to this matter that this is the first time we have heard that the landlord is given the right of action against a tenant holding under a present tenancy, who has been a tenant from year to year, in
    1974
    case a breach of conditions other than those contained in the 5th section of the Act of 1881. It is entirely now to my legal Friends amongst whom I sit, and we are inclined to demur to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's opinions. Even if his opinion is correct there still remains a difference between the two classes of tenants. If we refrain from pressing him any further in respect of this, will the Government consider the desirability of bringing up a new clause making the condition of a leaseholder who becomes a statutory tenant under this Bill the same as that of a tenant from year to year who has obtained a statutory term or tenancy under the Act of 1881? This is a very simple proposition, and I think it is one which the Government ought to say Yes or No to.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I had the temerity a moment ago to differ from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and in spite of his position I maintain my point. The Government propose to put in the Bill a proposition that the landlord may resume, at the end of 15 years, under certain conditions. It is not proposed that the Act shall be precise as to whether the restrictions in the lease are to continue or not, and therefore the landlord will go into Court and argue that Parliament intended these restrictions to be kept alive in full vigour, because at the end of 15 years a landlord has a right to resume. Let us suppose that the landlord is to have the right of proceeding by injunction against the tenant, say, for breaking up a portion of pasture. A tenant may desire to break up land for one reason or another, and if he does so the landlord will fire an injunction at him; he will bring the tenant into the Court of Chancery, will possibly heap up costs to the tune of £100, and will keep in full vigour all the obnoxious provisions of the lease. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has been taunted that he would not grant the benefits of his Act to leaseholders. I say that you are not prepared to let leaseholders in the Act. Yon are not prepared to loyally and frankly and openly let leaseholders receive the benefits of the Act of 1881. Under the circumstances, you are not giving a free and frank and generous

    1975
    boon to the Irish leaseholders, as you would do if you put them on a par with present tenants. I trust that in this matter the Government will see their way to allow leaseholders to receive the same benefits ordinary tenants receive.
    MR. SERJEANT MADDEN: Mr. Courtney, I wish in a few words to say why I think it is just and fair a leaseholder should be admitted as a present yearly tenant, subject to the conditions of his lease. It seems to be assumed by the hon. Gentleman opposite that all yearly tenants under the Act of 1881 hold under a uniform tenancy. That is not so, and that I think is a fallacy underlying all the arguments addressed from the other side of the House. You may have a yearly tenant, you may have a tenant under a lease, you may have any contract you like; but the general law is that, on the expiry of a lease, if the tenant holds on, he holds on subject to the conditions in his lease, so far as they are not inconsistent with a yearly tenancy. I fail to see, when for certain reasons not connected with the conditions of the lease, but for reasons connected with the readjustment of rent, you come to the conclusion that it is just and fair to put a leaseholder into the position of a yearly tenant, why you should put him into a position of a yearly tenant who had been admitted without any special stipulations. It is asked what is the position of the landlord; what are his remedies? We all know that in Ireland it is a very usual thing to have conditions relating to a breach of covenants in a lease. A landlord is not without his remedy, and he should not be. He will have two remedies. He has the right to bring an action at law, or he will have a remedy by an injunction in the Court of Chancery. It appears to me that it does not follow from the mere fact that you consider it right there should be a readjustment of rent, that you must reduce all present tenancies to one dead level.
    MR. CHANCE: We on this side of the House are perfectly well aware that tenants from year to year, who had no statutory rents fixed, were subject to certain conditions, and that those conditions varied very often; but what we were not aware of is this, that when a tenant went into Court and had a fair rent fixed, not only did he render himself subject to a very complete
    1976
    and drastic set of statutory conditions, but to all the old conditions of his previous tenancy; we were not aware that all these old conditions, be they reasonable or unreasonable, were placed upon his back. Now, Sir, we deny that that has ever been laid down as the law of the land by any competent Court. It is an alarming thing to find the Attorney General for Ireland takes that view of the law. I think the Committee ought to look about themselves, and while there is yet time ought to prevent that double burden being laid on the back of the unfortunate tenants of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has argued the whole of this question as if the conditions in the Act of 1881 were completely ineffective, and as if none of those conditions dealt with the question of the cultivation of the soil, as if tenants will be likely to break up the land, and as it were scourge the land. That is a complete fallacy. If Members of this Committee will look at the Act of 1881 they will see that a complete and drastic set of conditions are imposed by the 5th section of that Statute, they will see that a tenant shall not be allowed to commit waste of the holding or of the soil, and that if he does commit waste of the soil he can be ejected on the spot without pecuniary compensation; that he shall not sub-let, that he shall not become bankrupt, but that he shall allow the landlord to go in and exercise a number of rights such as opening up mines and quarries and taking timber, and such as hunting, shooting, and fishing. Our allegation is that by that 5th section, or in that 8th section, you have every reasonable power, if not drastic powers. In reality what the Committee is asked to do is to allow the Court of Appeal in Ireland to add to this drastic set of conditions another set of conditions which would be unreasonable and improper. Amendments ought to be introduced in order to prevent this second set of conditions being put upon the backs of the unfortunate tenants of Ireland.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: The hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite are very dogmatic as to the continuance of the conditions in a lease after a fair rent has been fixed, and after a statutory term has been given. Whatever their opinions may be their opinions have not up to the present time received any judicial

    1977
    sanction in Ireland. So far as the decision of the Irish Courts have gone up to the present on this point, they have tended in directly a contrary direction in supporting the views put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I assert that the decisions of the Court as to the status of leaseholders whose leases have expired, and who have had fair rents fixed, have gone directly in the teeth of the doctrines laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The decisions were made in the cases of yearly tenants; but, I think, when I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to them he will admit that they are directly analogous to the point before the Committee. One of the decisions was given by Mr. Justice Lawson, and another by Mr. Justice Andrews. They arose in this way. Two yearly tenants had gone into the Court to have fair rents fixed. Those tenants hold their land under somewhat peculiar conditions. They did not hold as ordinary yearly tenants held with regard to county cess, but under special agreements by which they were permitted to deduct half of the county cess from their payments to their landlords. After they had their fair rents fixed the question arose whether the special arrangements as regards the county cess which had existed before they went into Court continued to exist after they went into Court. If the proposition laid down by right hon. Gentlemen is correct—namely, that the fixing of a fair rent is to abolish any conditions of the tenancy which are inconsistent with the statutory term, these yearly tenants ought to have been affected in the case of the county cess. Mr. Justice Lawson, and subsequently Mr. Justice Andrews, decided that, owing to the fact that those tenants had gone into Court, and had a fair rent fixed they were not allowed to deduct half the county cess. Now, Sir, I challenge right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that those decisions are not directly pertinent to the point before the Committee. How could any Court in Ireland, which has given a decision of this kind in the case of yearly tenants, come to a different decision in the case of leaseholders who went into Court. All the arguments which induced those learned Judges to come to the decision I have mentioned, apply equally in the case of leaseholders. That being so, I
    1978
    think we, on this side of the House, are still entitled, until we receive a more authoritative pronouncement of law to maintain our opinions on the point. Of course, in one sense, this argument is not relative to the point before the Committee; but I say, that if the law is as it has been laid down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, cases of the greatest hardship will arise after this Bill passes into law. Anyone who read the celebrated lease-breaking case which came before the Irish Land Commission, must be aware that the habit of landlords, after the passing of the Act of 1881, was to compel their tenants to take leases, and to encumber the leases with a series of annoying and harassing conditions. In one case so remarkable was this, that the Irish Land Commission decided that the very existence of those vexatious and harassing conditions in the lease was sufficient reason for the breaking of the lease. If the leaseholders are to be subject to such unfair conditions as have existed in leases hitherto, they will still be, to a large extent, at the mercy of their landlords. These conditions are introduced in leases, not with any intention of enforcing them, but for the purpose of getting the tenants into the landlords' power; it is quite impossible a tenant could keep such conditions, and if the landlord is still to have power to insist upon them, leaseholders will receive very little benefit from this Act.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 158; Noes 231: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No, 319.) [11.50. P.M.]
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, to leave out from the word "provided" to the end of line 21.—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question, ''That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Words left out accordingly.
    MR. MARUMproposed, in page 1, line 22, after "any" to insert "terms of years or any." This Amendment and one which will follow it relate to perpetuity leases, and will extend the operation of the clause. As this portion of the clause stands it only applies to leases for a life or lives. The effect of my Amendment will be to put

    1979
    all leases, whether for lives or for terms of years, on the same footing. We have had a discussion on perpetuity leases, and I think that as to them the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is under a misconception. Every term of years, whether for 99 years or for 999 years, is not a perpetuity lease. In many incidents such a lease may differ from a perpetuity lease. The expression perpetuity tenure is indeed rather inaccurate. It does not occur in any Statute before 1860. Every Statute before that date uses the proper and legal designation for such terms. However, if we use the term perpetuity leases, there are different classes of these leases. There are first perpetuity leases for lives renewable for ever. These may be converted under the Leases Conversion Act into fee farm leases. Then there are other leases which are divisible into two classes. First, there are leases made anterior to the year 1860. There are non-evictable leases. They are subject to certain rent charges, and may come under the name of purchases. But, then, there are other leases created since the Landlord and Tenant Act 1860, and these are evictable leases. With regard to these, I do not understand the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen). The right hon. Gentleman says that he will not do anything to interfere with purchases. I agree with him so far. I will not do anything to interfere with purchases; but then I cannot understand how an interest which is an evictable interest—say for the non-payment of one year's rent—can be considered a purchase. It seems to me to be nothing of the kind. To all intents and purposes it is a mere letting of land on payment for hire; and that should be an interest brought within the operation of this clause. I say that because the object of this clause is to bring all rents to a proper and fair standard. It does not necessarily follow that because you bring a lease within the Act the rent will be reduced. If there be a low chief rent that rent may be increased. Therefore, it will be for the tenant to see whether he will go into Court and subject himself to 15 years rent as fixed by the Court instead of holding on by his inalienable title, as it does not follow from allowing a tenant to go into Court to get his rent adjusted,
    1980
    that this rent will be lowered. I would, therefore, move this Amendment, and the other of which I have given Notice if it be pleasing to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, indeed, seems inclined to extend the term of years within which a lease must expire to 99 years. That, however, if done at all, must be done at the close of this part of the clause. In the meantime, I would propose my Amendment dealing with perpetuity leases pure and simple. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that he bases his objection to allow the exclusion of perpetuity leases in the Bill on the ground that they are a form of purchase. But on what principle does he regard as a form of purchase a lease for life or lives renewable for ever, or a fee farm rent created before 1860? These, which are the larger number of such leases, are evictable interests. I do not suppose that there are more than 30,000 leases, which being created since 1860, confer a non-evictable interest. These latter, may as I have already said, be regarded as a form of purchase. But with regard to the former and more numerous portion of these leases, I wish the right hon. Gentleman would point out what element there is in them that makes them fairly regarded as purchases? What is there in them other than a hiring of land—a mere locatio? Is there any element of venditio? I say there is not. I do not see how the rent of land that may be retained is more than a term of letting as distinguished from purchase. Take a farm worth £100, and suppose that there was only a chief rent of £10 upon it. If the landlord evicted the tenant for non-payment of rent the interest of the latter on the land would be forfeited. And am I to be told that a contract under which this can be done is not a hiring? I would therefore beg leave to move the inclusion in the Bill of perpetuity tenants holding for terms of years; but I will not insist on the first Amendment standing in my name, as I understand the Chief Secretary will enlarge the term of 60 years mentioned in this part of the clause to 99 years. Instead of moving that first Amendment, the terms of which I stated at the commencement of my remarks, I will now move a subsequent one—namely, in Clause 1, page 1, lines 22 and 23,

    1981
    after "lives," to leave out "other than a lease which," and to insert—
    "Or for both concurrently or alternatively, or for any life or lives which has been or."
    Then there will be another Amendment consequential on this which I shall have to move later on in the clause.
    MR. PARNELL: I would suggest that it will be undesirable to discuss the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend now, because if we do so we shall have to discuss substantially the same point again upon the Amendment of the Government extending the term of years, referred to in the paragraph of the clause under consideration, from 60 to 99 years.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The point raised is one of convenience, and not of Order. If the hon. Member for North Kilkenny moves his Amendment it must be considered.
    MR. MARUM: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have now to move, in line 3, page 2, to insert the word "ninety-nine," and also in line 3, to add at the end of the paragraph, after 1881, the words—
    "The term of 99 years shall be substituted for the term of 60 years in the said Act."
    I will read the sub-section as it will then stand. It will be as follows:—
    "Every lease limited to continue for any life or lives other than a lease which can be converted into a fee farm grant under the Renewable Leasehold Conversion Act, shall, for the purposes of this section be deemed to be a lease which would expire within ninety-nine years after the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1881, and the term of ninety-nine years shall be substituted for the term of 60 years in the said Act."
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: If the right hon. Gentleman persists in moving his Amendment in that form, it will be necessary for me to move an Amendment before his. The Amendment I propose to insert is, in line 23, after the word "lives," the words—
    "Or for a life or lives, and any term of years concurrent with, or for any term of years, or for any life or lives concurrent with or in reversion thereto."
    The clause will then run—
    "Every lease limited to continue for any life or lives or for a life or lives and any term of
    1982
    years concurrent with or in reversion thereto, or for any term of years or for any life or lives concurrent with or in reversion thereto other than a lease which can be converted into a fee farm grant under the Renewable Leasehold Conversion Act, shall, for the purposes of this section," &c.
    That is a necessary Amendment, for this reason; this clause as it stands, of course, preserves the limit of 60 years, and inasmuch as if you preserve the limit of 60 years, you must make some provision for leases for lives, the clause provides that leases for lives shall be within the term of 60 years. But there are a number of other cases to be provided for. It is a common thing in Ireland to have a lease for lives with a term of years in reversion. That is a term which should come within the terms of this section, if a lease for lives is to come within it; but if you have not some express provision in reference to leases of the kind I have mentioned, it would be impossible to construe this section as including them. There are, in fact, four possible cases in which a term for life or lives is combined either concurrently or in reversion with a term of years, and not one of these cases is at present dealt with by this Bill. Some express provision with reference to them is clearly necessary, and I therefore beg leave to move the Amendment which I have read to the House.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): There is the case of leases for lives which might fall under section 21 of the Act of 1881. The provision as to terms for 60 years in that Act would not meet cases of leases for lives, and, therefore, we have inserted the present clause. I gather that the Amendment applies to different cases, and first to leases for terms of years concurrent with lives. I understand the meaning of the Amendment as to these is that the term of years would drop with the lives. Do I understand the hon. Member to mean that when there is a term of years concurrent with lives that the lease for years is to drop when the lives drop?
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg pardon. I do not mean that they are to drop together, but that they are to drop concurrently.
    MR. GIBSON: Then the proposition is difficult to understand. They are to run on concurrently?
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: The difficulty he has pointed out does not exist.

    1983
    Take a lease for the life of John Smith, or for a terra of 30 years, which even lasts the longer. The two run on concurrently, and the lease lasts, for whichever term is the longer.
    MR. GIBSON: The hon. Member has given no duration for the term. Therefore the term is to be unlimited—a perpetuity term. Having now ascertained the meaning of the word "concurrent," we see that what he proposes is this—he takes the first branch of the clause as to leases for lives, and says that if the lease is for an indefinite period, then that part of the clause is to apply. The effect of this Amendment might be to extend the application of the measure to cases where, after the lives dropped, there was a term to which there was no limit, and which might be for 1,000 years. That question of the duration of the term might be conveniently discussed on the Amendment of which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has given Notice; and I think the proposal he is about to make as to the duration of the term would fairly meet the object which the hon. Member has in view. I may say that we do not propose to deal with leases for lives renewable for ever, and there would be no difficulty in adjusting any matters connected with these. We have no desire to apply the limitation to leases at shorter periods than 99 years. We want to have it clear that all leases shall be limited to the maximum duration of 99 years. It is impossible—wholly impossible—to make the clause apply to cases of leases for lives and years that have no settled term of years for their duration. But I think the proper and most convenient course now will be to withdraw the Amendment, and proceed to consider the broader question.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has met me very fairly, and I am quite satisfied with the pledge he has given. I can assure him, and I can assure the Committee, that this is not what might be called a ''catching" Amendment, nor was it intended to mislead the Committee, or to induce them to come to a change in their determination to provide a fixed term of years. The reason I did not insert the number of years is that leases of the character with which this Amendment deals, and which are few in number, have no fixed term. The right hon. and learned Gentleman
    1984
    will bear me out when I say that in practice there are no such leases with the alternative of a long term of years, for you could not have a term, of 99 years with lives after it; that would be an absurdity which no one, in drawing a lease, would insert. Perhaps I owe an apology for not putting my Amendment on the Paper, for it is a matter not readily apprehended; but the reason I did not put it on the Paper was because we understood, from what passed here and '' elsewhere," and from what was published in the newspapers, that the Government intended to put an end altogether to these limitations in leases, and that the only limit they would observe would be the exclusion of perpetuity leases. Of course, if we were right in our impression, no such Amendment as this of mine would be necessary.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the more convenient course will be for me to move the words I have read to the House in the inverse order. Thus, beginning with line 22, the words would run—
    "The term of ninety-nine years shall be substituted for sixty years in the Land Act of 1881, and"—
    followed by the words in the clause as they stand.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 21, after the word "tenant," to insert—"The term of ninety-nine years shall be substituted for the term of sixty years in the Land Law (Ireland) Act of 1881, and."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour).
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. PARNELL: I respectfully submit there is no necessity to refer to the term mentioned in the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, because, by an Amendment moved to this clause by my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), you have got rid of the limitation constructively imposed by a reference to the 58th section of that Act; you have got rid of the limitation of 60 years; therefore, any necessity for altering the period from 60 to 99 years ceases. At present, the way the matter stands is this—owing to the Amendment the Committee have adopted, the operation of the clause extends to present tenancies,

    1985
    or those that would be so deemed, but for the fact that such leases would not expire within 60 years after the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881. So you have got rid of the constructive limitation in the Act of 1881, limiting leases to those expiring within 60 years of the passing of that Act; therefore, all necessity for referring to that Act here drops. Would it not be simpler to withdraw all the words inserted under entirely different conditions, upon an entirely different principle, and to state the fact of the limitation. The limitation of 60 years in the case of leaseholders applying under the Act having disappeared, those words are unnecessary. The plain and commonsense way would be to state simply what the limitation is going to be, leaving out the words referring to the Act of 1881. State plainly what the limitation is going to be, so that he who runs may read.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I admit that I am responsible for the wording of this Amendment, and I overlooked the fact that the Amendment had been adopted in the 10th line. The view of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) will be carried out, I think, if we insert words providing that the section shall apply to leases expiring within 99 years, and then the clause will run on dealing with the provisions as to leases for lives. That, I take it, is the meaning of the hon. Member.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 22, before the word "every," to insert the words "this section shall apply only to leases expiring within ninety-nine years after the passing of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act (1881),' and."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I did hope that some Member of the Party whose function it is to keep the Government in Office would rise and protest against this proposal. Now, it was stated at the meeting at the Carlton Club that the Government were going to abolish all restrictions on this clause, keeping only to the exclusion of perpetuity leases; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen), in his speech the other
    1986
    night, laboured this point of perpetuity leases to an enormous extent. He said the Government could not deal with these, because it would be interfering with purchase. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland took up the burden of the complaint at a subsequent period; he also went on the principle that the Government would not give up perpetuity leases. Now, I respectfully submit that by all this the Committee have been misled. In the debate on going into Committee, and subsequently at the Carlton Club meeting, which represented the coming together of the happy family, that happy family came together upon the understanding that all perpetuity leases were to be omitted from the Bill. But now it turns out that, but for my rising to make a protest, the Liberal Unionist Party were going to allow this proposal to pass sub silentio. Against this I do protest. We were told that this Bill was intended to give relief to the poor and loyal tenant farmers of Ulster. Now, I care not whether the relief is for Loyalists or Nationalists in Ulster, Leinster, or Connaught, sufficient for me it is that Irish tenants are to be relieved; but it was pressed upon the Government for the special relief of Ulster tenants. But we have had not a single word from the Government to show us how many tenants will be excluded if this proposal is allowed to pass, as has been usual on like occasions in the past. I remember that in the discussions upon the Land Act we had from Mr. Forster and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) statistics showing that if they did propose limitations, yet they did admit the great bulk of tenants, and only excluded a small portion with respect to whom there were special reasons for the limitation. But here we have a proposal not having at the bottom of it any shred of principle. Further than that, we do not know that from the relief the right hon. Gentleman said he proposed to extend to 130,000 leaseholders, 100,000 might not be excluded by this limitation. We do not know why this principle of 99 years is to be adhered to. We can understand why perpetuity leases should be excluded; we understand why this should be adhered to on the principle that perpetuity is practically purchase. But now

    1987
    we seem to be proceeding on what is known as the "horse-tail" argument—that is, that you may take away a hair from the tail and still leave a horse's tail, and you may take away another and another, and so on, removing hairs, and still leave the tail; the only question is, when do you come to the point where there is no horse's tail? You regard 999 years as practically perpetuity; so you exclude that lease, and so you go on fining down until you come to 99 years. But why the limit there? Why bring in the Rule of Three—these fractions and questions of arithmetic—are we not dealing with equity? If I am suffering under a rack-rent lease, I pore over my lease and exercise my arithmetical powers. I figure the thing out, and I have hope of relief. But I am wrong in my addition or subtraction, and my hope vanishes and I am to be for ever disappointed. On this mode of arithmetical progression redress of grievances has often been based. It used to be debated in connection with the franchise; and the question of the compound householder, the £10 householder, the £5 householder, and all the rest of it was discussed. But I say there is no principle or reason at the bottom of this Amendment. If 60 years is right, stick to it. If you raise it to 99 years, why? How many will it affect, and where is the principle, the right, the equity of it? And yet this is moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland without a word; moved, as he made the Motion for going into Committee, by the lifting of his hat. Metaphorically speaking, he has not even taken off his hat to the Committee on this occasion; he has sprung this proposal on the House without reason or Notice. I ask the Liberal Unionist Party, who have been steadily voting in the Lobby against us, is this an occasion on which they are bound to support the Government? If the Irish tenant, being a Loyalist, is to be relieved from his rack rent, why is it a question of 99 years, or of 999 years, or 9,000 years? I admit there is some principle in perpetuity leases; but why draw the line at 99 years? One thing I must deprecate in connection with this Amendment. It is that Members of the Liberal Unionist Party such as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) should go into the
    1988
    Lobby with those connected with landlordism to keep up restrictions upon Irish farmers, without one single word of explanation why they do so. I could quite understand their conduct when we were dealing with a criminal measure, for, of course, their view is all Irishmen are criminal, and therefore it is right to punish us; but I say this is an absurd provision, founded on no reason or justice, and based on a more arithmetical idea.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. Balfour): The speech we have just heard illustrates the inconvenience of discussing details of a measure upon imperfect information. The hon. and learned Gentleman appears to be misled, first, by an unauthorized report upon which he was not justified in placing reliance, and which was incorrect, and then he has not rightly understood the explanation given on Thursday. Then he went on to say that there was some principle in adhering to 60 years, and in the exclusion of perpetuity leases; but he asked what was the principle in 99 years. Well, that is a poor return for making what we deem to be a concession, and which we avowedly made "against the grain." I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman could have been in the House when we made the concession, and when I gave my reasons for wishing to adhere to the term of 60 years. We gave way on the point with considerable reluctance, and now the result is we are told we have abandoned all principle and have no standing ground for our Amendment at all. The hon. and learned Member said he saw some principle in excluding perpetuity leases; but he saw no difference in principle between 99 years and 9,000 years. But is this a common-sense ground to take up? The hon. and learned Gentleman has applied to our proposal what he calls the "horse-tail" argument, and which is, no doubt, familiar to hon. Gentlemen. If you draw the line at one number of years, why not just above or below that number? But this is an argument always held in contempt by practical legislators. You must draw a line somewhere, and there will always be on either side of that line cases that differ from cases on the other side of the line chosen by very small and almost imperceptible distinctions. But that is no reason for not drawing the line. For the line we have

    1989
    adopted a good practical argument is to be found. The hon. and learned Member is aware that it is a familiar practice to draw leases for 99 years, and in England such are not considered perpetual; the leaseholder is never considered a freeholder, but longer leases are regarded for practical purposes as perpetual. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to draw a distinction between leases practically indefinite and leases avowedly perpetual.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The distinction is that between personal and real property.
    MR. A J. BALFOUR: The principle is admitted of excluding leases for lives renewable for ever and fee farm grants, and the holders of these long leases are regarded as owners in fee.
    MR. MARUM: Some of them are.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Is the distinction between owners and owners of leases renewable for ever more than a purely legal technical distinction? Are they not substantially and practically the same? Does not every man who is the holder of a 999 years' lease regard himself as to all intents and purposes the owner of the freehold for which he pays an annual rent-charge? If there be any principle, and I think there is—I admit there is in excluding farms held under a perpetuity lease or a fee farm grant—then I say you cannot include leases held for a very long term of years and leases for lives renewable for ever. On this ground I ask the Committee to accept the Amendment.
    MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: I rise somewhat unwillingly, for I am anxious to say and do nothing that will unnecessarily prolong discussion; but I speak in answer to the appeal of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), who has taunted the Liberal Unionists, and myself in particular, with following the Government in previous Divisions as he says against the interests of the tenants. Well, I should like to ask the Committee to consider what has been the conduct of the Government and the action of the Commitee during the very practical discussion that has taken place to night on this clause. First we were called upon to consider an Amendment standing in the name of a Liberal Unionist—the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr.
    1990
    T. W. Russell)—a very important Amendment, which, however, we did not discuss in his name, because a similar Amendment from the hon. Member for Cork had priority. But in the course of that discussion we found the Government in a most conciliatory temper; they gave us all that was asked for by the hon. Member for Cork and the hon. Member for South Tyrone; and I confess that I do think, whatever opinion we may have, we are bound to recognize the spirit in which our objections have been met by the Government. On other points the Government have shown a similar inclination, and in the one or two matters on which they have resisted I confess my opinion has been that they only resisted Amendments which are in the nature of new proposals attempted to be foisted into the Bill and outside the original scope and intention of the measure. We are dealing now with a clause by which it is intended to give to leaseholders practically the same advantages that are secured to tenants from year to year in relation to the Land Act of 1881, the three F's. When you attempt to foist into that clause proposals to give to leaseholders advantages that it is clear are not enjoyed by tenants from year to year, and which may be well worthy of separate discussion, I say it is not fair to press such a proposal at the present time. On this ground I have followed the Government in resistance to these minor Amendments; they are not Amendments of very great importance, which do not raise any questions upon which I or any of my Friends, belonging to the Liberal Unionist Party, have in previous discussions expressed an opinion. But now we come to a matter of importance on which we have—some of us—expressed a pretty strong opinion. In the discussion upon the second reading of the Bill, I myself ventured, very respectfully, to submit to the Government the importance of not leaving behind any centre of disaffection, and the extreme desirability of dealing with all classes of leaseholders if they could make it possible to do so. To this suggestion objection was taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen), that it was most undesirable to interfere with such perpetuity leases as were in the nature of a sale. I admit there is great force in that objection, and I think the Go-

    1991
    vernment would be justified in excluding any lease having the nature of an absolute sale. I should very much prefer that the Government should carry out their intention and desire by excluding these perpetuity leases that are in the nature of a sale eo nomine, not attempting to deal with them by limitation in the particular way they have. But, even in this respect, I am bound to admit the spirit in which the Government have met the Amendment which has been pressed upon them. My argument was that it was unfair to exclude a large body of leaseholders, and that no distinction should be drawn between leases of 60 years and leases of a longer duration. Now, I am told that a large additional number of leaseholders will be admitted under the Amendment to extend the relief to 99 years leases, and I shall be glad if, in the course of the discussion, the Government can see their way to make a still greater extension; and, speaking for myself, I consider I am pledged to vote for the inclusion of all leaseholders other than those whose leases are in the nature of a fee or a proprietorship. But, at the same time, while I feel myself bound by what I have previously said as regards my own vote, I am also, at the same time, obliged to recognize the spirit in which our objections have been met, and to admit that, even if the concession of the Government does not proceed so far as I would desire them to proceed, they have practically met the grievances of the Irish leaseholders, and leave but an inconsiderable section of leaseholders outside the Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps I may be allowed, by way of explanation, to remind the Committee that I had on the Paper a provision to break leases where it was shown to the Court that threats, undue influence, or inequitable means had been used to induce tenants to take these leases.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: No use whatever.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to the interjection of the hon. Member, I would remind the Committee that I have framed this clause on much more liberal lines than that in the Act of 1881.
    MR. PARNELL: From reading the reports of discussions in this House, and the declarations made outside this House, I have always understood that
    1992
    the only leases the Government pledged themselves not to include in this Bill were the perpetuity leases; and, therefore, I was very much surprised this evening when I heard the Government say it was their intention to take their stand on the 60 years' agreement contained in the Act of 1881. I admit, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain), it is an advantage to have the extension from 60 to 99 years; but in view of what has taken place on this question out-of-doors, in view of what took place at the Carlton Club, and in view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen), I submit we are entitled to press the Government to go a little further; and, while we do not ask them to fly in the face of the statements made by Lord Salisbury and by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to perpetuity leases, I think we can fairly call on them to extend their limit up to and short of these. If the Government would go so far as all leases except leases for ever, I think they would meet the wishes of their supporters, the Liberal Unionists on this side of the House, who are entitled to speak for them. What has just been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) clearly indicates that they think the Government ought to extend the limit to the perpetuity line. What I would suggest would be this—that the Government should agree to an amendment of their Amendment to insert these words—to omit all the words after the word "apply," and to insert instead "in the case of all leases except leases for ever." The paragraph would then run—"This section applies in the case of all leases except leases for ever." That would meet the declaration of Lord Salisbury, also the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That would remove an inequality, and would not trench on the principle of ownership, on which so much force has been laid by the Government supporters in this discussion. It is a fair Amendment. There is no reason why you should have stopped at 60 years or 99 years, and certainly there is no reason why you

    1993
    should stop short of a perpetuity lease, except the reason that has been laid stress upon by the Government, that, in their judgment, the extension of perpetuity leases would trench on the principle of sale. I have every confidence that in moving this Amendment I have moved one the Government can fairly accept without breaking their word—one which will satisfy all of us, and one which I believe and hope would be acceptable to their Liberal Unionist supporters on this sdie. I beg to move, Sir, to omit all the words after the word "apply," and to insert these words instead, "in the case of all leases except leases for ever."
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
    To leave out all the words after the word "apply" to the end of the Amendment, and insert the words "to all leases except leases for ever."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I should be very glad if the Government saw their way to accept the proposed Amendment. At the same time I desire to acknowledge the manner in which we have been met by the Government to-night. Let us consider what has already been done in regard to this Bill by the Government. They have conceded the great principle of option; they have accepted 99 years for 60 years; they have promised to amend the clause dealing with the bonâ fide occupation of holdings, and there is an Amendment down upon the Paper to be considered by the Government with regard to perpetuity leases forced upon the holders. The reason that I see some virtue in 99 years is this. In all the correspondence that I have had with leaseholders during the last six months—and I have had some hundreds of letters—I find very few leases between 99 years and 900 years. I wish to put this very strongly, that that is the reason why the term of 99 years commends itself to me rather than the term in the Act of 1881. I do not conceal that my proposal has been all along that all leaseholders should be included. I do not attempt to deny that as regards perpetuity leases it is a very large order indeed, and that there
    1994
    is a great deal in what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, that if you once tamper with them you run the risk of trenching upon the principle of sale. I quite see that; and, for my part, feeling that what we do to-night does not close this Land Question, as this is only a temporary measure in view of further legislation, I am content to waive the perpetuity leasehold, and also, looking at what the Government have done and propose to do in the future, I stick to the 99 years, which will practically cover the whole thing, and I shall vote with the Government if we go to a Division, though I should be glad if they could see their way to accept the Amendment.
    MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: I confess it seems to me the proposal of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) is one which the Government might well accept. I doubt if it would make any very large difference. I admit the concessions which the Government have made to us; but I think that the speech of the hon. Member for Cork is a concession from the other point of view, as he is willing to give up the perpetuity leases, which is a great concession. If there is any large omission it will be found not in the leaseholders of 99 and 999 years, but in the perpetuity leaseholders; and if we could get the consent of all sides to the exclusion of perpetuity leaseholders, and the Government would consent to include all who come between 99 years and perpetuity, it would be satisfactory. I appeal to the Attorney General if I am not right in saying that would not involve a great number of cases? I hope very much that the Government may see their way to accept this proposal. In any case, I shall be bound, in common consistency, to vote for it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and also to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork, that there is a principle involved in the term 99 years. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in his first speech a few moments ago, agreed that if we excluded those leases which might be treated as being on the basis of sale we should recognize a

    1995
    principle, and it is suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork that on the basis of sale you should exclude perpetuity leases only. I wish to point out to the hon. Member that 99 years is a term that is taken by all recognized valuers as the term when the reversion becomes of no value; and I submit to those who have studied this matter that when a landlord and tenant have met together, and bargained for a term of 99 years or longer, they have regarded it as being a term in which the reversion is of no advantage to the landlord, and no loss to the tenant. Many leases of even 80 years in London are regarded as of the same value as a freehold. When you come to deal with this question as a market question, there is a term when the bargain is regarded as of fee simple value. Will the hon. Member consider how that ought to bear on this proposal? I draw no distinction as to the question of legal estate—I think that 500 years is just as valuable as 990 or for ever. What I want to point out is that if the parties have met together and bargained, for better for worse, and have arranged to pay for a term that is equivalent in the market to perpetuity, there does seem to be a principle that under the circumstances the bargain ought to be treated as, from a market point of view, one of perpetuity. The words, "other than leases for ever," would, as a distinction, be too sweeping. This is really not a matter in which the Committee should be occupied, and I ask that the question will be settled away from all declaration and recrimination. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) is wholly wrong if he imagines that Lord Salisbury made any such declaration or recrimination as that which has been attributed to him. I want to deal with this question as one of principle; and, having extended the 60 years to 99 years when the reversion vanishes to nothing, I think we have accepted the principle up to that which forms the basis of sale. If the lease is admitted not to have been procured by corrupt means, then it seems to me it is a bargain that falls within the equity of the matter.
    MR. DILLON: I am very much surprised, when we have succeeded in procuring the powerful assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member
    1996
    for West Birmingham, that the hon. Member for South Tyrone should think it a fitting moment to rise and pronounce a eulogy upon the Government, and say that he should consider it his duty to go with the Government. I thought I saw an inclination on the part of the Government to give way; but when they are told by men like the hon. Member for South Tyrone that they will support them it is hard for us to get any concessions. It must be either one of two things, either there are tenants in Ireland to whom this would bring relief or there are not; if the number is so few as the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone would lead the Committee to suppose, what is the use of wasting the time of the Committee in discussing it? It has not been contended, and is not sought to be contended, that any important principle is at stake; and, therefore, why should you waste the time of the Committee? ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; but we take up a different stand, and say there are a considerable number to whom this would bring relief; and if you say there is no necessity for it, because there is only a small handful of tenants who would be affected by it, why do you not give way and accede to the Amendment? What is it that we ask? We ask that these men should have a fair rent fixed, and what argument was there in the remarks of the hon. and learned Attorney General against their having a fair rent fixed? He talked about men making a bargain in the nature of sale; but if you fall back on that old argument it cuts away the ground for relief of any kind. We say there has been no freedom of contract in Ireland, and that these men who accepted leases such as the landlord chose, whether for 30 years, 60 years, 900 years, 999 years, or 99 years, accepted them very often because they were like a drowning man ready to grasp at any straw, and because they saw their friends going out all round them through the perpetual rising of rent; they grasped at any offer which gave them any hope of a fixed rent, and very often consented to pay an excessive rent in order to get security of tenure at any cost. In Ireland we know from positive facts that these leases have been made to extend over 100 years, and to have been obtained by undue influence; and, under these circumstances, why do you

    1997
    object to the Amendment, against which you cannot bring forward a single valid argument?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not understand that we are now discussing the question of admission to this clause of what are called perpetuity leases; the question we are discussing is whether a class between the leaseholders of 99 years and the holders of perpetuity leases are to be admitted. I agree with the hon. Member for East Mayo that the test of the question is what is the number and character of these tenancies. And I have not heard in the course of the discussion that it has been suggested there are any leaseholders who hold the term between 99 years and 900 or 999 years. I must say, in my mind, I find it difficult to draw any distinction between a lease for perpetuity and that for 999 years; but if there are leaseholders between 99 and 990 years, I do not see that the Government should withhold the inclusion of any ordinary agricultural lease. It seems to me that the Government have, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone, not only fulfilled—but fulfilled very liberally—every pledge we have received from them; and, under those circumstances, it seems to me, as it cannot be contended there is any considerable class of leaseholders who hold under leases for upwards of 99 years, which practically amounts to perpetuity, that we shall be justified in supporting the Government in resisting the present Amendment.
    MR. SEXTON: The noble Lord has stated there are very few leases in Ireland, not one, I think—
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Of course I have no knowledge of the subject; but in the course of the discussion it has not been suggested.
    MR. SEXTON: Well, we not only suggest it now, but we say it, that the number of them is substantial and large enough to require the attention of the House. My hon. Friend beside me, on his own estate, has leases from 99 to 999 years. The reason given by the hon. Member for South Tyrone for not dealing in a practical manner with these leases is a poor one. Ho says they are few in number; but it occurs to me that is all the more reason why the Committee should come to the relief of these
    1998
    people. I think the Committee would be more satisfied if they heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer an interpretation of his former speech on the question, and an explanation of the view he takes now. We have heard three Members of the Liberal Unionist Party. The hon. Member for South Tyrone and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham are both in favour of the Amendment; but on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman will vote according to his conscience, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone will vote against his conscience. The third Member of the Unionist Party who has spoken will vote on grounds which I conceive to be erroneous, because he has stated what is notoriously inaccurate. Here we have three Members, one of whom is in a complete state of demoralization—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham; another is in a very bad way because his conscience is in a bad condition; and a third, whose conclusions would be sound if his facts were accurate. I must confess that leaves the question in a very puzzling condition. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) is in his place, and as he was a Member of the Committee of Seven, it would be interesting for him to tell us what he thinks of the question. I would also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer about his speech the other night. I claim—having listened to his speech very carefully, and having read it two or three times since—that the passage is perfectly clear, and that it was to include all leases in the operation of Section 1, except perpetuity leases, and to exclude them on the point of expediency, because any interference with them would have an embarrassing operation upon the purchase policy of the Government. I am not a lawyer; but, speaking generally, I may say that the owner is the possessor of something he may do as he likes with; but that the holders of leases who have to pay more than the value every year are not in any sense the owners. I cannot conceive how the leaving out of this question will embarrass the Government in regard to their purchase policy; but great embarrassment will arise from leaving out the Amendment, because the necessary preliminary step to purchase

    1999
    would be to fix a fair rent; and therefore if you leave out these men you will, in their case, erect an impassable barrier to the policy of purchase. I would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as there comes a very divided light and conflicting guidance from the moral censors who guide the House on this occasion, to use his own independent judgment.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I see the hon. Member in his speech made use of the fallacy that the fixing of rent would have a bearing on the purchase scheme.
    MR. SEXTON: It will in the minds of the tenants.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member says it will in the minds of the tenants. But a very different construction has been put upon the proposal in various quarters of the House, and I repeat again that the fixing of rents will have nothing whatever to do with the purchase afterwards, and the more hon. Members exclude from consideration the idea that this re-fixing of judicial rents will prejudice purchase in any way the better it will be. Now, with regard to the particular question before the Committee, it always seemed to my unsophisticated mind that a lease of 99 years and a perpetuity lease stood very much in the same position. I accept, at any rate, the argument of the Attorney General for England, that after 99 years you approach the point of what is practically a perpetuity lease. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland spoke at the beginning of this debate of the inconvenience of introducing points of detail into a discussion of the principle of a Bill, and I am beginning to appreciate that remark, for I intended my observations as to perpetuity leases to be general. I trust the Committee will think the Government have met the general feeling in several quarters of the House in extending the provisions of the clause to leases of 99 years; and, in answer to the hon. Member for East Mayo, I may remark that the Government had no thought of giving way on this point until the hon. Member for South Tyrone addressed the Committee; we did not think it our duty prior to that to go beyond the point we had announced.
    MR. HALDANE: I wish to point out one circumstance by way of comment on the speeches of the Attorney General and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In an Act which was passed on the motion of an eminent Tory—Lord Cairns—in the same year as the Land Act of 1881, and which applied to Ireland—the Conveyancing and Law Property Act—a point was fixed at which leases for a long term should become equivalent to leases for ever; and it was provided by Section 56 of the Act that when the term was of the prescribed length it might be converted into a fee simple at the mere will of the tenant. The length of term prescribed for this purpose fixed was 200 years and not 99.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that a reversion is worth anything after 99 years?
    MR. HALDANE: It is so in cases of London house property, perhaps; but we are now dealing with agricultural property in Ireland. The Attorney General's experience of farms in Ireland is, I venture to say, very limited, although nobody has had greater experience with regard to property in London.
    MR. ANDERSON: I beg to move that you report Progress, Sir.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Anderson.)
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press that Motion. We have discussed this Amendment at considerable length and with very good feeling, and I believe the Committee are quite prepared to come to a decision now. I believe no advantage would be gained, but that very great disadvantage would result to the Public Service if the proceedings of this Committee were adjourned at this stage.
    MR. ANDERSON: I only suggested we should report Progress, because the Amendments now being discussed were not on the Paper, and I thought that, perhaps, between now and to-morrow the Government would decide to grant what we asked. I will, however, withdraw my Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask the Government to make one concession, and that is to omit the words "the Land Law Ireland Act, 1881."
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is not in Order to do that now.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: At any rate, I will ask the Government to give this matter their very serious consideration.
    Original Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 191; Noes 142: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 320.) [1.40 A.M.]
    Question,
    "That the words 'this section shall apply only to leases expiring within ninety-nine years after the passing of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," and' be there inserted,"
    —put, and agreed to.
    DR. CLARK: It is now a quarter to 2, and in view of the fact that there is other Business to come before the House, I think we ought now to report Progress.
    MR. PARNELL: I hope that meanwhile the Government will consider whether they will not agree to some concession with reference to leases not in existence before the passing of the Land Act of 1881.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We will consider it; but I am afraid I can give no promise.
    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.)
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL.

    [BILL 334.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    DR. CLARK: I rise to a point of Order. I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate that he would take the Crofters' Holding (Scotland) Bill to-night.
    MR. SPEAKER: We have passed it now, and cannot re-open the matter.
    MR. DILLON: I asked early in the evening if the Distressed Unions (Ireland) Bill would be taken to-night, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland said distinctly "Yes." Why has it been again adjourned?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As a matter of personal explanation, I may state that had I thought the hon. Member wanted to go on with it I was quite ready to do so.
    MR. DILLON: Who, then, put it down for Thursday?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I announced the Bill for Thursday because I was under a misapprehension. I understood it was not to be taken tonight, and was not aware of the arrangement referred to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Jackson.)
    MR. HOWELL: I hope the House will read this Bill a second time, because there is nothing of a debateable character in it. It is a Bill of considerable importance; and I will ask the House to consider for a moment the position in which we are placed in regard to it. I have been long endeavouring to obtain from the Government its consent to introducing a Bill of this kind—indeed, I have been trying since February last, and at last the Bill is before the House. Its object is to enable the Treasury to make investigations into the condition of certain trustee banks whenever it is necessary to do so. If the House will allow me—and I will detain it but for a few moments—I wish to say I hope the Bill will be allowed to pass through its remaining stages as quickly as possible.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  MUNICIPAL REGULATION (CONSTABULARY, &c.) (BELFAST) BILL.— [BILL 291.]
  (Colonel King-Barman, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  MUNICIPAL REGULATION (CONSTABULARY, &c.) (BELFAST) BILL.— [BILL 291.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Colonel King-Harman.)
    MR. JOHNSTON: I rise to protest against this important Bill being taken at this hour of the morning. It is a Bill affecting the internal government of the great City of Belfast, and it is a Bill to some of the provisions of

    2003
    which, the authorities take very considerable objection. It was understood that it would not be taken to-night; but the hon. Member for West Belfast threatened if the Government would not move it he would. I beg, Sir, to move the adjournment of the debate.
    SIR JAMES CORRY: I beg to second that.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Johnston.)
    MR. SEXTON: In reply to the hon. Member opposite, who accused me of threatening the House, I would say I never threaten, though I often make strong representations to this House; and I certainly did represent at Question Time that if the Bill were not taken by the Government to-night I should move it. It was then understood that it should be taken, yet the hon. Member protests, and with inconceivable hardihood, on the 25th of July—the very verge of the end of the Session—contends it is improper to proceed with a Bill which intimately concerns the preservation of social order in the town of which he is a Representative. It is a Bill which proposes to put an end to a state of affairs most disastrous. Does the hon. Member forget that in last year's riots 40 lives were lost, 60 houses wrecked, and that for three months 6,000 armed men had to be kept there to preserve order? Yet he has the hardihood to object to this Bill being taken, although, unless we get it through, riots may break out again. I warn the Government that they will incur a fearful responsibility if they do not get this Bill through, for unless they do no legislation of this kind can be got through till next year; and if in the course of the autumn or winter disorder again breaks out in Belfast the responsibility will be on their heads for any loss of life that may ensue.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN): I think the last few words of the hon. Member partake of the nature of a threat, although he says he never uses threats to this House. I rise to ask my hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast not to press his Motion for Adjournment. I think the hon. Member who last spoke is much mistaken as to the
    2004
    attitude of the Government on this Bill. This is the first time we have had a chance of dealing with it; it has always been blocked until to night. The intention of the Government is to take the Bill whenever possible, and to insist on enforcing obedience to the law. The hon. Member speaks of the authorities of Belfast not being satisfied with the Bill; but then, I think, he speaks somewhat without book. I have been in communication with the Mayor and Town Council, and I can say there are few points upon which we have not arrived at an agreement. On those points upon which we differ the Municipal Authorities have made the best stand they could—they opposed the Bill on Standing Orders, and we were able to resist their attacks, and the Bill has been allowed to proceed to this second reading stage, which now, I hope, the House will allow us to take.
    MR. EWART: I think it is unreasonable to proceed with a Bill of this importance at this hour. It has been fairly enough stated that, under a misapprehension, we were informed the Bill would not be taken to-night, and it is both inconvenient to ourselves and unfair to the people of Belfast, to enter upon a discussion now.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. CONYBEARE: Before the Bill is read a second time, I think we should know what is the intention of the Government with regard to the Motion on the Paper.
    MR. SEXTON: I think it is desirable we should know if the Government seriously intend to proceed with the Bill this Session. The Motion standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman opposite is obviously intended to defeat the Bill by referring it to a Select Committee of five. A Royal Commission sat for three months and examined some 200 witnesses, and the Commissioners issued two Reports, one of which can be bought for 3d., and the other by the dissentient Commissioner, perhaps on consideration of its superior value and importance, is to be had for 13d. These documents, together with the evidence of magistrates, clergymen, police, and witnesses from every rack and section of opinion in Belfast, are comprised in a Blue Book of some 600

    2005
    pages; and yet in the face of this the hon. Gentleman opposite proposes to relegate this Bill, the outcome of this inquiry, to a Select Committee for the collection of more evidence. I ask, will the Bill be allowed to proceed in the ordinary way, and here say that after the second reading is taken it will be my duty to oppose the appointment of the proposed Watch Committee for the discharge of functions which, in my opinion, should lie with the Commissioner of Police.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: For once I find myself in harmony with the hon. Gentleman, and desire to get through the second reading at once, though when we get to the Committee stage we shall probably differ upon the point he has referred to. My hon. Friend behind me is aware that we cannot agree to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, for it would, by loss of time, have the effect simply of destroying the Bill for the Session. Now, after the exhaustive Report of the Royal Commission, is such an inquiry necessary? I will not weary the House with our proposals now; but the gist of them is that the general powers for the preservation of the peace will be vested in the police magistrates, as is the case in almost every large borough in Ireland. The change is rather a recognition of the importance of the town. We also propose the appointment of a Watch Committee, and here we shall meet with opposition from the hon. Member for West Belfast. We think it a matter of importance; but we shall be happy to receive suggestions, for, while adhering to the principle of the Bill, we desire to consult the views and wishes of all who are concerned in the prosperity and welfare of Belfast.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.
    MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to give Notice that I shall move, on the Motion for going into Committee, that the House go into Committee three months hence.

  JUVENILE OFFENDERS BILL.
  (Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS BILL.

    [BILL 245.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: This is legislating in a curious way; the second reading is moved in a whisper. This Bill is to enable the punishment of whipping to be inflicted upon young persons; and I suppose, under it, a child may be reduced to a mass of wounds, as in the case we read of in the papers the other day. After a long series of legislative attempts at the punishment of young criminals, and after we thought we were rid of the subject with the Bill of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Howard Vincent), we have the Government proposing the second reading of this Bill after 2 o'clock in the morning. Let anyone look at the Bill, and recognize the absurdity of proposing a Bill of this importance at this hour. I know I shall be told that this contemplated punishment by whipping will not be inflicted without the consent of the young persons themselves; but I say that the alternative of being returned for trial, or of getting six strokes with the birch rod, is an alternative that ought not to be put to a child of tender years. I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. T. M. Healy,)—put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  MARRIAGES (ATTENDANCE OF REGISTRARS) BILL.— [BILL 164.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
  MARRIAGES (ATTENDANCE OF REGISTRARS) BILL.— [BILL 164.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): In moving the discharge of this Order, I desire to say that I am obliged to adopt that course in face of the persistent opposition with which the Bill has been met by those who are unwilling that any grievance should be removed, which at this period of the Session prevents all chance of the Bill getting into Committee. I hope that early next Session we may be enabled to deal with the subject.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Order for the Second Reading be discharged,"—(Sir Richard Webster,)—put, and agreed to.
    Order discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

  IRISH LAND LAW [REMUNERATION].

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.—(Mr. Jackson.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: In deference to the wish of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, I did not press my opposition to this Resolution on a former occasion, and I do not intend to move the adjournment now; but I do want to know, if we allow the Speaker to leave the Chair, shall we be allowed to report Progress immediately? Will the Government insist most unreasonably in taking the two stages now? The proposal is to enable the Government to pay certain charges out of the public funds for the payment of assistants of the County Court Judges in reference to the Bankruptcy Clauses of the Land Act before we know what the scope of the proposed changes in that Bill are to be. Why should we be called upon to make provision for these changes in respect to the administration of the Bankruptcy Clauses when, as we understand, those clauses are to be dropped? Can the Government give us any reason for this? They sometimes have reasons, though they do not always remove our objections, and if they will state them I will not persist in my opposition; but I cannot understand their reason for obtaining power to provide the salaries of officials whom they are not going to appoint.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): It was explained a few days ago by the Leader of the House, and also by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, that unless this Resolution is taken it is quite impossible to deal with any clause in Committee which relates to or affects the expenditure of public money in any degree. It is not only in regard to the salaries to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers; but no charge could be made under the provisions of the Bill. As a matter of fact, and as the Chairman of Committees would point out, the Committee would be unable to proceed with the consideration of any clause that involved expenditure unless the House had passed this Resolution. It may be remembered that on one occasion proceedings in
    2008
    Committee had to be stopped because the Committee came to a clause involving expenditure for which preparation had not been made by such a Resolution as this.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: My point is this. If you are going to drop the Bankruptcy Clauses, why proceed with this, which is to provide for assistance to County Court Judges?
    MR. JACKSON: If the clauses are dropped after this Resolution is taken that will not affect the case at all. Except you pass this Resolution you cannot deal with the clauses in Committee, while, if the clauses drop, then the Resolution drops with it. The question of the retention of the clauses in the Bill is not affected in any way, while you cannot deal with the clauses at all, even by omitting them, without such a stage as this. I am sure every hon. Member of experience in these matters will agree that the Resolution is both reasonable and necessary.
    Motion agreed to.

    MATTER—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to ho provided by Parliament, of the remuneration to any barristers and valuers that may he appointed to act with and aid the County Court Judges, under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend 'the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' and 'the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885,' and of remuneration to certain officers for performing additional duties connected with the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland in pursuance of the said Act."—(Mr. Jackson.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The only question I will ask is this. If this clause—this form—I do not know exactly what to call it, is complied with, I hope the Chief Secretary will not turn round upon us and say the House has assented in principle to the Bankruptcy Clauses?
    MR. JACKSON: I have no objection whatever to give a pledge of that kind on behalf of my right hon. Friend.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  OPEN SPACES (DUBLIN) BILL.— [BILL 80.]
  (Mr. William Redmond, Mr. T. D. Sullivan, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Dwyer Gray, Mr. Timothy Healy.)
  OPEN SPACES (DUBLIN) BILL.— [BILL 80.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the
    Chair."
    THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN): I am afraid I must object to this. Since the Bill was introduced Amendments were introduced into the Metropolitan Open Spaces Bill, many of which I had the honour of moving myself, with the distinct understanding, as I believed, that those Amendments would take the place of this Bill, which I quite expected would be withdrawn, and am now surprised to find still on the Paper. I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—( Colonel King-Harman.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might have found a less prejudiced witness. When he was a private Member he opposed a similar Bill to this; but having acquired his present position, on which I congratulate him, he seemed to become a friend to the Bill, at least to the extent of not using his official position to obstruct it. But having again, as I understand, assumed a position of more freedom and less responsibility, and his official Chief being absent, he now figures as an opponent of the Bill. It is true that, to some extent, a series of Amendments introduced into the Bill of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) applied the Metropolitan Open Spaces Bill to Dublin; but there are a number of valuable provisions contained in this Bill, and the proposal I make to the Government is this, and I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will accept it—we desire to reciprocate favours the Government have extended to us. Let us get the Speaker out of the Chair, and we will agree not to proceed further with the Bill unless we come to an arrangement with the Government as to its clauses. But let us get this stage. "We admit the power of the Government to stop us to-night; we admit their power to crush us in Committee; besides, they have the House of Lords behind them. But let them allow us to get the Bill into Committee, and after that, unless we can come to an understanding with the Government, I will recommend the hon. Member for Dublin and the Lord Mayor to abandon the Bill, for, of course, we
    2010
    have no hope of carrying a Bill against the Government at this period of the Session. I ask the Government to withdraw opposition now, and we promise not to persevere with the Bill unless we can come to some terms of accommodation with Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I never could understand why this Bill was blocked. What is its object? One that we might suppose both sides would facilitate—the conversion of old burying grounds in the City of Dublin into pleasant open spaces.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: This was all done in the other Bill.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Yes; but done in a way that is unworkable for Dublin. Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman know that the Bill had the approval of the late Chief Secretary, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach? ["Order !"] I suppose I may name him now he is unfortunately absent. If that right hon. Gentleman had continued Chief Secretary this Bill would certainly be law now. It is a cruelty to the waifs and strays of Dublin to block the Bill, and I hope the Government will not persist in their opposition.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): I think the hon. Member cannot be aware that the Amendments to the Bill of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London entirely meet the points he has raised. I was compelled to take some interest in that Bill, and can bear out what my right hon. and gallant Friend says, that it was clearly understood that the other Bill would not be proceeded with, because what was proposed to be done by the one Bill was accomplished by Amendments inserted in the other.
    DR. TANNER: I think that right hon. Gentlemen are labouring under some mistake. What really occurred was this. When the Bill was first of all put upon the Notice Paper, it was blocked by a couple of hon. Members who sit on the Tory side below the Gangway. Then, when the Metropolitan Open Spaces Bill of the hon. Baronet was introduced, I recollect putting down a block to it. It is not often that I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL), but I do in regard to this Bill, which, as he says, had the

    2011
    approval of the late Chief Secretary. Well, in deference to remonstrances addressed to me by several hon. Members, I withdrew my opposition to the Metropolitan Open Spaces Bill, and the hon. Member for the University of London said he would try to induce Tory Members to take off the block from this Bill. I merely rise to make this explanation, and to let the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland know that really the opposition that existed to this Bill was not opposition to its principle or proposals, but a sort of desultory opposition offered by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite who were not altogether pleased with the action we took upon other Bills.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY): I really hope the Government will accept the offer made by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) who, I presume, spoke on behalf of his Friends. They offer not to proceed with the Bill except by arrangement with the Government; their only wish now is to take a formal stage, in order to prevent constant opposition to the Motion. We shall certainly save time by adopting the course suggested.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): On the understanding which I understand was offered that the Government shall exercise control over the further progress of the Bill I think we may agree to the proposal.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  MARRIAGES CONFIRMATION (ANTWERP) BILL.— [BILL 326.]
  (Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Picton.)
  MARRIAGES CONFIRMATION (ANTWERP) BILL.— [BILL 326.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. JAMES STUART: I will be brief, but it is necessary I should say a few words in moving the second reading of this Bill. Its object is to confirm certain marriages solemnized at Antwerp by a certain Dr. Potts, who was chaplain at a British and American Chapel and Sailors' Bethel there, supported partly by a British and partly
    2012
    by an American Society. He was a minister of the Presbyterian Church of the United States, and officiated at Antwerp from 1880 to May, 1884, and during that time he performed several marriages—I think something like 12 in all—between various parties, and these marriages are all invalid on a technical point. The circumstances are these. In Belgium the only marriage recognized by the State is a civil marriage; and though Dr. Potts performed these marriages in accordance with the law and practice in the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, the parties who were married by him were not aware, and were not informed by him, that the civil ceremony of marriage was necessary. In the depositions made on oath by Dr. Potts it is evident how ho. was misled in the matter. He had, through a member of his committee, consulted the opinion of a lawyer as to the propriety of his action, and received advice, or wrongly interpreted the advice, which led him to suppose the marriages were legal. I may say that Bills of this character to establish the legality of marriages have been not infrequent during the present century. I have been able to observe more than 50 similar in character to this, some for legalizing marriages at home where informality had occurred, and some for legalizing marriages in which the illegality had taken place abroad. For instance, in 1833 there was a Bill introduced for legalizing marriages at Hamburg, performed there by a clergyman of the Church of England. I merely mention this as indicating the character of the Bill. The principal Act for legalizing a large number of marriages of this kind was the Act of 1849, which lays down the circumstances under which marriages, as a rule, are to be performed in foreign countries for British subjects. In that Act, which legalizes marriages conducted before that date with certain irregularities, there was a clause which stated that the Act should not render valid any marriage which, before the passing of the Act, had been declared invalid by any Court of competent jurisdiction. That Act related to marriages that had taken place during a considerable number of years, and the object of this saving clause was to prevent the illegitimacy of the children born of any marriage which had

    2013
    subsequently taken place in consequence of the declaration of the Court. Passing over a great number of Acts, I might refer to one which is very similar to the present Bill for legalizing marriages performed at Morha Velo, in Brazil, and passed in 1867. I refer to this, as these marriages were not illegal because of any informality connected with the provisions of the Act of 1819. These marriages were not solemnized under the Foreign Marriages Act of 1849, but were informal, in consequence of noncompliance with the form of marriage necessary in the country; and the Act then passed, overriding the lex loci, is similar in effect to the Bill now presented to the House. The only point that might be raised is whether the parties concerned in these marriages performed by Dr. Potts considered them to be valid at the time, and whether Dr. Potts did. There can be little doubt of that, for we have the decision of a Court of Law on this matter—namely, that of Mr. Registrar Middleton, in the case of one of the marriages in question, who states that from the evidence it is clear that the belief of all parties was that the ceremony was valid. I refer to the parties to the suit in the Langworthy case, which is one of the marriages to which this Bill refers.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. James Stuart.)
    MR. TOMLINSON: I had hoped to hear some indication of the course to be taken after this Bill has been read a second time. I feel it my duty now to move the adjournment of the debate. I cannot now go into the facts at length; but what I want particularly to point out is that this Bill is really very different from most of those that have been brought before the House for somewhat similar purposes, and I may remind the House that the course which certainly should be taken in this case, of referring the Bill to a Select Committee, has been adopted in former instances. I wish to point out that these Marriage Confirmation Bills resolve themselves chiefly into two classes; first, where persons had ground for thinking that the ceremony was duly authorized, such as in the Hamburg case, where the chaplain was, up to a certain
    2014
    date, duly authorized, but the authority had ceased because of the expiration from time of the British Factory; and the other is the case in which the ceremony is invalid by reason of the authority not having been made complete. In this case two elements are wanting. Here we have a gentleman who is not an Englishman, but an American subject, possessing no authority, supported by some charitable societies, assuming authority to contract marriages. There was no reason, that I am aware, why parties should have gone to him when there were the proper and recognized means of obtaining the legal sanction of marriage in Antwerp. Under the circumstances, it appears to mo that further attention should be given to the matter than is now possible; and, therefore, I move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    MR. PICTON: I hope the House will not take this course. Supposing that the Bill were read a second time, it might very fairly be referred to a Select Committee, and the objection of the hon. Member for Preston would be met. On that understanding, perhaps, the hon. Member will withdraw his Motion.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR RICHARD WEBSTER): The Motion does not allow of our entering into the principle of the Bill, and I am not desirous of saying anything against the Preamble. But, certainly, having regard to the circumstances of the case, and that we are dealing with a question relating to what took place in a foreign country, I think the House ought not to assent to the second reading unless a clear case for legislation is made out. I submit that at this time, on a question of international importance, we ought not to pass the second reading without full discussion.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I hope that the advice of the hon. Member for Preston will not be taken. This matter is one of pressing importance, and it is in the interest of the community that these marriages should at once be declared valid. I trust the Bill will be now read a second time, and that the hon. Member will

    2015
    consent to the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee.
    MR. JAMES STUART: To prevent any misunderstanding, may I be allowed to say that I am perfectly prepared to accept the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee?
    MR. SEXTON: As I understand that meets the only objection of the hon. Member who moved the adjournment, surely now he will not persist in his Motion.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 75.—(Div. List, No. 321.)
    MR. SPEAKER: Under these circumstances, I give my voice with the Ayes.
    MR. SEXTON: May I ask you, Sir, is it not in accordance with usage that the reasons for the Speaker's casting vote should be given, that they may be entered on the Journals of the House?
    MR. SPEAKER: The usual entry will be made in the Votes.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  INCUMBENTS RESIGNATION ACT (1871) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].— [BILL 323.]
  (Mr. Tomlinson.)
  INCUMBENTS RESIGNATION ACT (1871) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].— [BILL 323.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 21st July.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Construction of Act).
    MR. BROADHURST: I beg to move that the Chairman do report Progress. This is a Bill that, it appears to me, should receive very considerable attention, which it is not reasonable to suppose it will receive at 3 o'clock in the morning.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): If the hon. Member wishes to have further time for consideration I will not oppose the Motion; but I think he will find that the Bill deals with a very simple matter.
    MR. TOMLINSON: The Bill has been down several days on the
    2016
    Notice Paper, and there has been no suggestion of Amendments, so it was fair to assume there was no opposition.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  MARKETS AND FAIRS (WEIGHING OF CATTLE) BILL [Lords].— [Bill 317.]
  (Sir Richard Paget.)
  MARKETS AND FAIRS (WEIGHING OF CATTLE) BILL [Lords].— [Bill 317.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Short title).
    MR. CONYBEARE: I think we ought to have some indication of what the Bill proposes to do, and to give opportunity for explanation I will move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
    SIR RICHARD PAGET: I hope the Committee will consent to go forward with this measure. There is no opposition down to it. It comes down to us from "another place," and it is approved generally by all interested in agriculture, and I hope it may be accepted.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I believe it is an extremely good Bill, and I hope to see it pass; but I think that, from our point of view, the hon. Baronet should allow us to look into it now that he has arrived at this stage. It is not unreasonable that he should give us, say, until to-morrow, and he need not anticipate any great delay.
    SIR RICHARD PAGET: Of course, if there is decided objection to proceeding now, I will not press the point, and will put the Bill down for to-morrow.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy), and I do not think it will make much difference. I may observe that the fact of the Bill being introduced in "another place" is no recommendation.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  BANKRUPTCY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 124.]
  (Mr. Sexton, Mr. Chance, Mr. O'Hea, Mr. M'Cartan, Mr. Reynolds.)
  BANKRUPTCY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 124.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. SEXTON: This is a non-contentious measure. On the 5th of February I asked the Chief Secretary if the Government would undertake the Bill. The reply was that the Government had no time, but that they would give any aid in their power to assist the Bill. In pursuance of that assurance I have brought in the Bill, and I presume the pledge given in February is still in force.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Mr. Sexton,)—put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  STEAM BOILERS (PASSENGER SHIPS).
  Returns ordered, "showing the number of Passenger Steamers at present
  2018
  I under the supervision of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade:"
  "The number that have been under the supervision in each year during the past ten years:"
  "And, the number of Accidents that have occurred among the Boilers of those ships in each year, classified according to their character; the explosions to include all accidents similar to those which are now recorded as explosions by the Board of Trade officers under the provisions of 'The Boilers Explosions Act, 1882.'"—(Mr. Provand.)

  TURNPIKE ROADS (SOUTH WALES).
  Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Turnpike Roads (South Wales) Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Mr. Maitland.)
  House adjourned at five minutes after Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Water Companies (Regulation of Powers) (172).
Committee—Bankruptcy Offices (Sites)* (76–187).
Committee—Report—Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment (re-comm.)* (176).
Select Committee—Report—Butter Substitutes [No. 186].

NEW PEER.
The Right Honourable John Gellibrand Hubbard, having been created Baron Addington, of Addington in the county of Buckingham—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND— LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYasked the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Scotland, Whether he could give their Lordships any information with reference to what prospect there was of passing the Bill enlarging the powers of his Department?
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN), in reply, said, he proposed to lay the Bill on the Table in the course of the next two or three days; he was sorry he had not been able to introduce the Bill earlier. He hoped that the Bill would be satisfactory to the noble Earl; and although it was late in the Session, he trusted that it would be possible to pass it without delay through both Houses of Parliament.

CENTRAL ASIA (AFGHANISTAN)—THE FRONTIER QUESTION.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked, Whether the noble Marquess opposite could give the House any information as to the reported settlement of the Afghan Frontier Question?
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I am happy to say that a settlement has been arrived at upon the points which have been in dispute. The settlement is of so technical a character, and to understand it so much knowledge of localities is required, that I fear I shall only mislead the noble Earl if I were to attempt to explain it. The documents upon the subject will be laid upon the Table at the earliest opportunity.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not expect the noble Marquess to give details. What I venture to ask him is, whether it is true that an arrangement has been made by which the Ameer retains the district of Kham-i-Ab?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that he will.

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

  RESOLUTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOLrose to call attention to the subject of international arbitration, and to move—
  "That this House, in view of the yearly increasing armaments of European nations, is of opinion that the formation of an interna-

  1831
  tional tribunal for the reference of national disputes in the first instance is highly to be desired."
  The noble Marquess, who was imperfectly heard, was understood to say that nothing but an imperative sense of public duty would have induced him, who was ordinarily a silent Member of the House, to bring this subject before their Lordships. He was old enough to remember the Great Exhibition of 1851, in which the noble Earl opposite, then Secretary for the Colonies, took so prominent an interest. At that time the most hopeful anticipations of the future prevailed, and it was believed that a new era was opening in which all the nations of Europe would be bound together in a brotherhood of amity and concord. Now nothing was seen or heard in Europe but the preparations and the operations of war. No effort, therefore, ought to be spared to lessen or minimize, and, if possible, to put an end to, the existing state of things. He left this Resolution with confidence in their Lordships' hands. If they could see their way to give him their support and encouragement in the great and glorious cause of peace and goodwill among men, he was sure that support would not be withheld; but if from any cause they should, in their wisdom, conceive that the time had not yet come when it would be opportune for taking any such action as he recommended, he hoped their Lordships would not give the Resolution a direct negative, but would permit him to withdraw it.
  Moved to resolve, "That this House, in view of the yearly increasing armaments of European nations, is of opinion that the formation of an international tribunal for the reference of national disputes in the first instance is highly to be desired."—(The Marquess of Bristol.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in supporting the Motion, wished to point out, before any objections were made as to the possibility of carrying out the Motion, that a Court of Arbitration existed already, and that although it had been for many years in abeyance, yet it had been revived very recently with great success. When all Europe was Catholic the Court of Rome was the natural arbitrator when disputes arose between nations, and very recently the German Empire had submitted its dispute with Spain respecting the Caroline Islands to the Pope, who, by accepting the duty of arbitration which had
  1832
  been confided to him, had averted a war which at one time seemed imminent. Men's minds on the Continent had been prepared for a revival of the intervention of the Court of Rome, in order to diminish the evils of unjust wars. During the Vatican Council of 1869–70 a postulatum had been presented, signed by 40 of the leading Bishops from all parts of the world, and formed a part of the acts of that Council, praying the Pope to take measures for the re-establishment of respect for the Law of Nations. In November of last year there was a Congress at Lille, at which the Abbé Defourny and Baron d'Avril presented proposals for the re-establishment of the Law of Nations, and a pamphlet by the Abbé Defourny containing a draft of a Bill for the French Chambers, enjoining the necessity of examination of all international disputes by a duly constituted body, and of its sanction previous to the issue of a declaration of war. These proposals were nearly the same as the provisions of English law with regard to declarations of war, and the functions to be entrusted to the body charged with inquiring into international disputes were those which were vested in our Privy Council previous to the Statute of Queen Anne. He thought that Her Majesty's Government might do well to follow the example of Prince Bismarck, and refer their next difficulty to the arbitration of the Holy See. Those who doubted the impartiality of the Holy See, might be reminded of what was well-known, that the Pope had objected to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and had blamed the Dragonnades of the Cevennes, and had blamed James II. for disregarding the feelings of his Protestant subject; and what was less well-known, that the Pope had objected to the expulsion of the Morisioes from Spain.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, it is impossible for me to mistake the spirit of earnestness in which my noble Friend (the Marquess of Bristol) has brought this subject before the House; and I know that he does not stand alone in the feeling with which he regards the proposal he has made. There are a certain number of persons very earnest and very excellent who believe that this would be a remedy for

  1833
  the terrible evils of war, and who from time to time urge it on the public mind. He has had some great predecessors. I may mention alone the name of Cobden as one who certainly took the proposal out of the category of merely fanciful suggestions. Yet I confess—and I think it is the general feeling—that deeply as everybody sympathizes with the object my noble Friend has in view, and earnestly as we must desire to see the day when the horrors of war may be prevented by the establishment of some species of international arbitration, it is very far from us now and further apparently than it was some years ago. No one, I think, can watch the progress of affairs on the Continent of Europe and the tendency of various States without seeing that the pacific spirit has not increased, and that the chances of avoiding war are not more favourable than they were. My Lords, the reason why any proposal of this kind has not yet been dealt with by any Government as a practical proposition is that it presupposes in States a condition of mind, which would in itself accomplish all the objects my noble Friend has in view. If nations were once to get to that state of mind that they would submit all their disputes to any tribunal, and would obey that tribunal, the warlike spirit would so far disappear that the very necessity for taking precautions would cease to exist. At pro-sent we can only say we see no prospect of the formation of any such tribunal. I will not be tempted by my noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley) to discuss the capacity of the Papal See to fill such a position; but there is no probability of the formation of any tribunal under which all nations would confidently feel that they would have equal law. There is no Legislature to lay down the law by which such a tribunal could be guided, and there is no authority to enforce its decrees when once they have been pronounced, and therefore it would be a mere form and its functions would be reduced to a nullity. My noble Friend proposed to avoid these practical objections by leaving to nations after they had submitted themselves to a tribunal the choice if they thought fit of going to war if they did not like the decision. The only effect of that provision would be to interpose a period of time between the origin of the dispute and the declara-
  1834
  tion of war, which would give an opportunity to the Power least prepared to bring itself to a level with the Power most prepared. It is very unlikely that any Power which felt itself to be the best prepared would submit to an artificial disadvantage such as that. The chief effort of all nations now with regard to its warlike machinery is not merely to make it as potent as it can be made, but also to bring it into such a state of perfection that it can be set in operation at the earliest possible time. I fear, therefore, that the proposal of my noble Friend is contrary to the tendency of all modem nations, and is not likely to meet with acceptance at their hands. I think, my Lords, we are misled in this matter by the facility with which we use the phrase "International Law." International Law has not any existence in the sense in which the term "law" is usually understood. It depends generally upon the prejudices of writers of text-books. It can be enforced by no tribunal, and therefore to apply to it the term "law" is to some extent misleading, and I think has given rise to the somewhat exaggerated hope to which those persons who hold the views of my noble Friend approach this matter. I do not think there would be any advantage in committing this House to a barren statement on the subject. I do not believe that one man in one hundred supposes that such an issue as my noble Friend desires, intensely desirable as it is, will be witnessed by ourselves, by our children, or by our grandchildren; and it is idle to attempt to conceal from our minds the terrible realities of the case. I, therefore, can meet the Motion of my noble Friend in no other way than by recommending him to withdraw it.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON WARLIKE STORES.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF MORLEY, in rising to call attention to that portion of the Report of the Royal Commission—
"Appointed to inquire into the system under which patterns of warlike stores are adopted and the stores obtained and passed for Her Majesty's service,"
which deals with the charges made by

1835
Colonel Hope against certain officers and other persons who have been or now are in Her Majesty's service, said, that the answer made on this subject in the House of Commons by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, on the 30th of June, 1887, did not appear to him entirely satisfactory. The Secretary of State had made a distinction between the cases of Colonel Hope and Captain Armit. On June 27, 1887, his right hon. Friend addressed a letter to Captain Noble, the head of the Ordnance Department at Sir William Armstrong's works, in answer to a communication from that gentleman, substantially to the following effect:—
"Mr. Stanhope entirely agrees with the finding of the Commissioners that these charges 'were based on pretexts which were not enough to raise in any fair mind even a passing suspicion that there might be corruption;' and as regards the transactions in which you were more immediately concerned that the charges were 'not only wholly unfounded, but there never was any evidence whatever to justify their being made.'"
In making a few remarks on the subject of his Notice, he wished it to be understood that he was not speaking of any errors of system or judgment, but of these charges of corruption. He would remind the House that these charges had been going on for years. Colonel Hope's charges might be summarized thus—
"That between the years 1858 and 1861 Sir William Armstrong and Captain Noble made a corrupt conspiracy whereby the country was induced between 1859 and 1862 to give orders for worthless guns to the Elswick Ordnance Company to the amount of £1,087,000. That after both Sir William Armstrong and Captain Noble had left the public service, the influence of the Elswick firm continued and was exercised by them through a small clique of corrupt officials for the purpose of procuring a practical monoply in the construction of guns to the Elswick firm. These persons Colonel Hope described as the 'gun ring,' which he said consisted of Sir William Armstrong, Captain A. Noble, General Campbell, and some others, to whose names he could give no clue; and Sir. Lynall Thomas added, as members of this 'gun ring,' Mr. Lewis Engelbach and Mr. Hunter, a clerk in the War Office. The evidence on which Colonel Hope relied for the establishment of the charge relating to what he called the 'initial conspiracy' was, according to his account, to be found in two Blue Books published in 1862 and 1863, containing the evidence and Report of a Select Committee of the House of Commons which sat in each of those years and made their final Report on the 23rd of July, 1863. The evidence of the second charge, that of corrupt influence, subsequent to the original
1836
conspiracy, was the existence of the following alleged facts:—(1.) The appointment of certain Committees, the partiality of which was said to appear both from their constitution and from their Reports. These Committees were, first, the Committee to inquire into the bursting of the Thunderer gun in 1879. With regard, to this Committee, Colonel Hope said that Captain Noble went out to Malta in order fraudulently to devise some theory with regard to the bursting of the gun in question which would exonerate the Royal Gun Factory in general, and in particular Sir Frederick Campbell, who was at that time Director of Artillery, from the charge of making bad guns; and that Sir Frederick Bramwell gave evidence in the matter professionally, knowing nothing of the subject except what he learnt from Captain Noble and attending before Committees for the purpose of supporting Captain Noble as an expert witness. Secondly, Colonel Hope complained of the constitution of the Committee for inquiry into the bursting of the Collingwood gun in 1886. This, he said, was fraudulently constituted, inasmuch as Captain Noble, as representative of the Elswick firm, and another gentleman, Mr. Whinfield, as representative of Whitworth's firm, were members of it, whereas Colonel Hope himself was excluded, though he had applied to be put upon it. There was, thirdly, the Committee on the bursting of the Active gun, which assembled in 1885, This gun was made by the Elswick firm upon Woolwich plans. (2.) The statement made by Lord Hartington in Parliament in March, 1884. This statement, according to Colonel Hope, was made by Lord Hartington in perfect good faith, hut was in fact 'a wicked and unpatriotic lie,' put into his mouth by members of the Ordnance Department for the purpose of concealing a mistake which had been made by the Department in deferring for an unreasonable time the adoption of steel for the manufacture of large guns."
The Committee in their Report state—
"One or two further observations arise upon Colonel Hope's evidence as to this second Committee. Chairman.—Where is the Report of that Committee?—I have never seen it. You do not know that it has been published?—I do not know. So that your knowledge about that Committee is indistinct?—Entirely. But I suppose if it was a War Office Committee the Reports would be preserved?—Certainly; the Report must be in existence. The Report is contained in full in the Report of the Select Committee on Ordnance, 1862, p. 166. It is abstracted, and the evidence on it is referred to in the Report made by the Select Committee on Ordnance in 1863, p. 4. Great importance was attached to this decision. Colonel Hope told us that he had derived his information principally from these Blue Books, but that he dictated from memory to a shorthand writer the paper in which his accusations were contained, and that he did not take the trouble to refresh his memory, either by going to the British Museum, or by going to the library of the United Service Institution, at either of which places he would have been able to see them. The reports were on sale at the Stationery Office in February, 1887, and we found no difficulty

1837
in obtaining a number of copies. Colonel Hope explained his conduct by saying that the paper was written in a hurry in order to be ready for the September number of The Fortnightly Review. It shows great rashness of assertion that statements so made should be declared to be true by a statutory declaration before the person who made them had taken the most obvious steps for testing their truth."
The Committee went on to state—
"Colonel Hope's statement about his having quoted 'textually' from General Peel's letter to The Times of the 1st of September, 1868, is wholly incorrect. The Commission examined that letter, and finding that it did not mention the subject at all, applied to Colonel Hope for information as to the source from which he had got his alleged quotation. Colonel Hope, upon his second examination, admitted that he had been mistaken about General Peel's letter, and being asked for his authority, said:—'I cannot find it- The words I quoted out of something, and I wrote them on a slip of paper, which I tore up when I dictated them to the shorthand writer. Then you cannot give any authority for that?—"I cannot find it, and I have hunted everywhere. They are not my words; I quote it out of something." It is clear to us that Colonel Hope has entirely mistaken the object and purpose of this third Committee, and that he has ascribed to it a degree of importance which it did not deserve. The result is that with reference to each of these three Committees Colonel Hope has made mistakes which entirely destroy the value of his evidence, and that the gross imputations which he throws, on the strength of them, first upon those who appointed the second Committee, and secondly upon Sir William Armstrong in connection with, the third Committee, which he says Sir William Armstrong 'squared,' are unfounded and fall to the ground."
And they added—
"Colonel Hope's contention that Sir William Armstrong contrived by fraudulent conspiracy with Captain Noble to give to himself enormous contracts for worthless guns thus appears to us to have been based upon a series of misstatements. We do not suppose that they were intentionally false. Colonel Hope admitted his mistakes with honourable candour, but we think that he was culpably reckless in making those statements. A full account of the circumstances under which these contracts were given is contained in the Blue Books already referred to, from which it appears not only that Colonel Hope's assertions are ill-founded, but that he ought to have had in his hands the very documents which, with the most common attention, would have shown that the matters out of which he has drawn these charges were fully considered by a Special Committee of the House of Commons 24 years ago, and that they, though differing in opinion as to the wisdom of the course adopted, abstained from condemning it, and described it in such a manner to leave no doubt whatever that whether that course was wise or foolish, it was taken in good faith, at the request and on the suggestion of the late Lord Derby, General Peel, and other persons, whom it would be absurd to defend from a charge of corruption."
1838
The Committee summed up the case as follows:—
"This is the whole account of these transactions, and it appears to us not only that the charges made against these gentlemen in this matter are wholly unfounded, but there never was any evidence whatever to justify their being made, whereas there was evidence which ought to have been consulted by Colonel Hope, which he had actually referred to in support of his charges, and which he might have examined at his leisure, with no other trouble than that of going to the British Museum, or by laying out a few shillings at the Stationery Office. We regard this as discreditable to Colonel Hope, although he may be considered as having more or less atoned for his conduct in making these charges by the frankness with which he admitted his mistakes when they were pointed out to him."
With regard to the Thunderer Gun Committee, Colonel Hope in his evidence gave the following answers to questions that were put to him:—
"The first point referred to by Colonel Hope is the evidence as to the Thunderer Gun Committee. On this Colonel Hope originally gave the following evidence:—Chairman.—You suggest that two persons—namely, Captain Noble and Sir Frederick Bramwell—I can only read it thus, but you must be good enough to say whether this is or is not your meaning—went out to Malta, and that there, in order to conceal the facts, they invented a theory that the Thunderer gun had been double loaded?—Yes. You mean that they fraudulently invented that theory?—Captain Noble did. You think that Captain Noble's object was, to put it quite plainly, the fraudulent object of inventing a story which would tranquillize the public and avoid a recognition of the real facts with regard to the Thunderer's guns?—Yes, I have no doubt of it."
The Committee went on to state—
"Under these circumstances it appears to us ridiculous to allege that there was any kind of corruption or fraud in the matter. It is, of course, open to Colonel Hope or to any one else to differ from the opinions entertained by the Committee, by Sir Frederick Bramwell, and by Captain Noble, but to infer fraud from the fact that they arrived at the conclusion at which they did arrive seems altogether extravagant."
They further state—
"The next matter alleged in proof of corruption is the 'wicked and unpatriotic lie' stated by Colonel Hope to have been put into the mouth of Lord Hartington by the Ordnance Department, and to have been repeated by Colonel Maitland at a lecture given by him at the United Service Institution in 1884. We exceedingly regret the course and offensive language used by Colonel Hope upon this occasion. It is language which admits neither of justification nor excuse; but as Colonel Hope in the latter part of his evidence considerably modified what he said on the first occasion, it is unnecessary to discuss the bearing of this

1839
matter on the question of corruption. It is obvious that the statement made was a statement upon matters keenly discussed between professional men upon which great difference of opinion may and does exist. Colonel Maitland maintained that the statement by Lord Hartington on the authority of the Ordnance Department was strictly true, and he obviously understood that statement in a somewhat different sense from that which was attached to it by Colonel Hope. Mr. Vickers, the eminent steel manufacturer of Sheffield, said that if Colonel Maitland's statement had excepted his firm it would have been strictly true. This matter, therefore, may be thrown out of consideration in connection with the present charge."
With regard to Colonel Hope's charge that the Ordnance Department was a "seething mass of corruption," inasmuch as two members of that Department were large shareholders in the Elswick Company, the Committee reported—
"Upon this Colonel Hope avowedly stated that he had merely suspicions and admitted that he had no knowledge except what he gained from the inspection of the Register of Joint Stock Companies."
With regard to the alleged corruption in the purchase by the English Government of the guns which were being constructed by the Elswick firm for the Italian Government, the Committee reported that to say that the purchase was corrupt appeared to them to be an utterly groundless assertion. With regard to the charge against Sir Frederick Abel the Committee reported—
"Colonel Hope further observed that Sir Frederick Abel, the chemist to the War Department, had £1,500 worth of shares in the Elswick Company, and Major Armit makes the same statement. This is true. There is no evidence to show any sort of corruption on Sir Frederick Abel's part, and nothing to his discredit has been suggested by any one. We think it undesirable that officials in the War Department should hold shares in a firm of any kind which enters into contracts with the Department, but in the absence of such a rule we cannot think that any blame ought to attach to Sir Frederick Abel. This is the one point on which Colonel Hope has been rightly informed in the whole of his allegations of corruption, and it is a point to which he himself attaches no importance."
The Committee also reported that the charge against Sir Frederick Campbell was utterly groundless. The result of this charge having been brought against this distinguished officer year after year had been to seriously injure his health. The Committee wound up their Report by stating—
"This completes the whole of the evidence adduced by Colonel Hope to prove his asser-
1840
tion of corruption in the Ordnance Department. It appears to us that when the matter is properly stated it is not enough to raise in any fair mind even a passing suspicion that there might be corruption. Of all the assertions made one only is true, and that one is worthless. It is the assertion that Sir Frederick Abel holds shares in the Elswick Company. We may observe that most of his charges have been formally withdrawn by Colonel Hope. He said that he had been mistaken about all the three Committees, that he had been mistaken about the transaction between Sir William Armstrong and the Government in 1859, that he had been mistaken in imputing a conspiracy to Captain Nolan and Sir William Armstrong in 1860, and that when he said the Ordnance Department was a seething mass of corruption he had made use of a foolish expression. The expression appears to us correct as far as it goes, but it is also inadequate. It is something worse than foolish to bring accusations of this grievous nature against gentlemen and men of honour upon pretexts which, when examined, come to nothing."
But that was not all. It might be expected that Colonel Hope would have made some apology to the Commission at least for the trouble to which he had put them in investigating unfounded charges. Not at all, Colonel Hope wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Commission, after the Report was published, in which, if he did not repeat the charges, he did in the most offensive manner insinuate them. Speaking of the dealing with Sir William Armstrong, he said, at page 17—
"I called this 'continuous corrupt favouritism.' That it was continuous favouritism is a fact. I rejoice to learn that you have been satisfied that it was not also corrupt."
Speaking at page 27 of a Return made to the Royal Commission, he said—
"But it is, to my personal knowledge, a false return, intended to mislead, you, and through you the public."
He did not think it necessary to say anything more. When their Lordships found that men who had borne the highest character in private life were, when placed in a public position, subjected to such unjust accusations as had been brought against them by Colonel Hope, Captain Armit, and others, they were bound to protect them, not only because it was right, but because it was politic. Did their Lordships think we should get men to act with loyalty if, when they were subjected to these repeated attacks and accusations of corruption and bribery in its worst form, and when these attacks had been dis-

1841
proved, the Government took no steps to protect them? He hoped his noble Friend would give some assurance that some steps would be taken beyond what had been indicated by the Secretary of State for War. He would ask whether a gentleman who, in the words of the Secretary of State, was capable of making false, calumnious, and disgraceful charges, and whose conduct had been characterized by the Commission as "culpably reckless," was a fit person to hold a high commission in Her Majesty's Forces as head of a Volunteer regiment?
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, that, as an old friend and a relative of the gallant officer whose conduct had been so severely impugned, he wished to say a few words. He had long been intimate with the gallant officer, and cognizant of his many high qualities which were not known to the noble Earl (the Earl of Morley). Colonel Hope belonged to a family more than usually distinguished in the Public Service, a family which was honourably represented in their Lordships' House, and which had been conspicuous characters to the Navy, the Bar, and the Bench, as well as to other departments of Her Majesty's Service. He ventured to say that Colonel Hope in no respect derogated from the high reputation which his family bore. Colonel Hope entered the Army in the beginning of the Crimean War, and, although in a very humble professional position, such was his energetic character and the remarkable qualities with which he was endowed, he very soon made a name even in a scene where so many were distinguished. Before the end of that war he had acquired a claim to the highest distinction which a young officer could obtain—the Victoria Cross—by humane and romantic courage which, though it might have been equalled, has never been excelled in Her Majesty's Service. He would ask their Lordships to think of this young officer as carrying his wounded comrades from the field in the face of the fire of the Russian batteries, or as standing on the roof of a burning magazine and extinguishing the fire which must have caused terrible destruction of life, while not a few shrank from the appalling work of the moment and others stood around, to use a phrase which had now become classics in an
1842
attitude of "animated expectancy." It might be said that the distinguished actions of his gallant friend in his younger days were no justification of the errors of which he had been guilty in later years. He did not say that they were; but they might lead their Lordships to the conclusion that the aberrations of which his gallant friend had been guilty were the aberrations of a generous and exalted mind, that they could be traced to no personal motives, but were caused by a disordered or distempered view of public duty. After the end of the Crimean War, Colonel Hope, believing that all chances of fighting were over, forsook the Military Service and passed at once to the opposite extreme. Ceasing to be a subaltern, he became an attache, and accompanied him when he had the honour of being Minister to the United States. There Colonel Hope remained for two years, during which he devoted himself with the greatest assiduity to the performance of his duties, and in connection with them to inquiries into the military organization and equipment of that country, and especially to inventions having reference to military armaments and equipments in which the citizens of the United States were so expert. Colonel Hope was the author of Reports to Her Majesty's Government on these topics, and the Reports were allowed to be of great use. Colonel Hope served also in Holland at The Hague, and in that peaceful and oven what might be called stagnant scene managed to attract the approval of Her Majesty's Government by the services which he rendered. Colonel Hope not finding the Diplomatic Service offering a sufficient field forsook it and entered into the pursuits of engineering and mechanical contrivance, for which he had a natural genius. That was a career which sometimes led to great triumphs and gains, but was also sometimes attended with great trials and misfortunes. In the course of his struggles as an inventor and projector Colonel Hope was brought into contact with the Department of Ordnance. During his connection with that Department Colonel Hope came to think that injustice was sometimes done by it, that it was not invariably competent in all its branches, and that it was governed by a spirit of exclusiveness. If he had restricted his

1843
incrimination to the charge of incompetency and error his action would not have been blameworthy, for it was right that the imperfections and miscarriages of a Public Department should be brought to light. He was no advocate of strong or unjust language; but no one who had taken a prominent part in bringing before the public in recent years the errors, imperfections, and miscarriages in that and other departments of military administration would say that their exertions had been useless. The best proof of this might be found in the Report of the Commission itself, to which reference had been made, which, while it exonerated the gallant officers referred to by Colonel Hope from the charge of corruption, certainly did not exonerate the department from the imputation of incompetency and inefficiency. Unfortunately his gallant relative had not confined his criticism to the conduct of the department, but had attacked also the morality of individuals holding conspicuous positions within it. That was undoubtedly the weak part of his gallant relative's case. He rejoiced to know that the Commission had thoroughly exonerated all the officers whose morality had been impugned, and deeply regretted that Colonel Hope should have occasioned pain to any honourable officers in Her Majesty's Service. His gallant relative owed an apology to the officers whom he had attacked. He might almost be considered to have apologized already, for in a letter to the Commissioners he had acknowledged the justice of their decision. He (Lord Napier and Ettrick) did not complain that the subject had been brought forward, but he asked their Lordships to deliberate upon it with caution and reserve. Colonel Hope was at present liable to be prosecuted before the Court by the officers whom he had offended, and if their Lordships were collectively to express an opinion averse to him his case, should a prosecution be undertaken, would go into Court prejudged. In conclusion, he asked that a lenient view might be taken of the conduct of his gallant relative, and appealed to their Lorships to refrain from pronouncing any hasty decision which might imperil Colonel Hope's connection with the Volunteer Force, to which he had so long given zealous and gratuitous service, and that might sever
1844
the last link that connected him with the glorious profession of which he was once a distinguished ornament.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS)said, he was glad that the noble Earl (the Earl of Morley) had brought the subject before the House, and had stated, as the Report showed, that the charges made by Colonel Hope had been most clearly and conclusively disproved. A discussion which had already been held upon this subject had given their Lordships an opportunity of expressing their indignation that such charges should have been made against officers of high character. That discussion, he thought, must have convinced the public that those officers still deserved its entire confidence. He had refrained from saying anything when this subject was last before their Lordships, because he preferred that others who had longer and greater experience should express their confidence in the Public Services. There was a danger, however, that the public might forget that the charges had been disproved, that it might remember only the statements of the Commission, that the system of carrying on affairs at the War Office was capable of amendment. This, he hoped, would not occur. Notwithstanding what has been said by the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Napier and Ettrick), the public ought not to forget that men of probity and distinction had lain for months under the gravest and most hateful charges, with the result that the health of one of them was seriously affected, and that the working powers of the remainder were for a time greatly impaired. The noble Earl deserved thanks for having stated as clearly as he had that the charges had fallen absolutely to the ground. The noble and gallant Lord opposite, whose feelings of kinmanship he honoured, had appealed to their Lordships to extend sympathy to Colonel Hope on the ground of his distinguished services in the Crimea and elsewhere. He thought that equal sympathy ought at least to be extended to the men who had been compelled to live under the charges brought by Colonel Hope. The noble and gallant Lord had used the expression "if" the Commission exonerates these officers. There was no doubt that the Commission did exonerate them from all charges of corrupt practices.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, he did not mean to cast the slightest doubt upon the fact.
LORD HARRIS: The result of the Inquiry was that there was no evidence warranting a suspicion of corruption on the part of any of the superior officers of the Ordnance Department. He was glad to hear the noble and gallant Lord say that Colonel Hope owed an apology to the officers and to the Department. The noble and gallant Lord quoted some sentences in a pamphlet which Colonel Hope had issued. He had read the pamphlet, and could discover no word of apology in it for his conduct to the men whom he had so grossly wronged. He could hold out no hope that the Secretary of State would give any further consideration to the question. As to Colonel Hope's retention of his commission in the Volunteer Forces, he would ask the House to look at the question from the point of view of the Secretary of State. The Commissioner had stated that Colonel Hope had atoned, more or less, for the charges which he had made, and had, with great frankness and honourable candour, admitted the mistakes which he had made. He could not be surprised at the noble Earl's statement, that he had been unable to discover any grounds for this statement of the Commission. But it should be remembered that the Secretary of State was not upon the Commission, and he had to accept the evidence and the Report of the Commission as they stood, and was bound by them. He could only say, further, as the Secretary of State had said, that it was open to any person aggrieved by Colonel Hope's statement, to take proceedings against him in a Court of Law.

SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL.—(No. 157.)
(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL.—(No. 157.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD STRATHEDEN and CAMPBELL, in moving that the House go into Committee on this Bill, apologized for the non-appearance of the evidence taken before the Select Committee.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he must object to the House going into Commitiee on the Bill, as there was a
  1846
  distinct understanding that the Committee would not be taken until this evidence was forthcoming.
  Order discharged, and the House to be put in Committee on Thursday next.

TEINDS, &c (SCOTLAND).

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  Moved, "That there be laid before this House Returns of the rental of each county and each parish in Scotland, and of the value of the teinds appertaining thereto, and the value of such portion of them as is now appropriated to the payment of stipend and communion elements, and the value of such of them as are unexhausted by such payments, and which still remain available for the future augmentation of ministers' stipends (in part continuation of Return 235, 1881)."—(The Earl of Minto.)
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)said, that after the discussion which took place the other day he made inquiries, and, though he could not undertake that the return would be a complete one, he thought he might be able to give it in a form that would be satisfactory to the noble Earl.
  Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.

  PROTEST.
  DISSENTIENTE.
  "1. Because exceptional criminal legislation weakens the ordinary administration of justice by inducing reliance on arbitrary methods, and is at the beat only temporary in its effect, while it causes lasting irritation and intense hatred and mistrust of the law.
  "2. Because, while it is the fact that in some parts of Ireland the people do not support the administration of the law, we do not, after nearly two years free from exceptional legislation, see evidence of such an amount of crime and lawlessness at the present time as has been held to justify Parliament in enacting measures of special severity.
  "3. Because this Bill gives the Irish Executive power on its own responsibility to deprive the whole or any part of the Irish people of those constitutional safeguards and individual rights which are so ju3tly prized in Great Britain.
  "4. Because, even if some change in the law of criminal procedure in Ireland be expedient, it is not right to submit for judicial determination questions most difficult of solution, such as charges of conspiracy, to subordinate tribunals dependent upon the will of the Executive.
  "5. Because this Bill is not only directed against crime and outrage, but against associations lawful in their objects and methods which are placed at the mercy of the Executive whenever such associations, in the opinion of the Executive, disturb the maintenance of law and order.
  "6. Because such legislation is likely to create and stimulate the action of secret societies which will be more dangerous than open associations.
  "7. Because the experience of a long series of repressive Acts conclusively shows that exceptional legislation of this kind has failed to secure any permanent respect for law and order, while it tends to render the present system of government in Ireland odious to the Irish people.
  "8. Because the only true remedy for the evils which this Bill is intended to meet is to be found in legislation which will bring the people of Ireland into harmony and sympathy with the law and its administration."

  "GRANVILLE

  KENSINGTON

  SPENCER

  LEIGH

  RIPON

  HOTHFIELD

  KIMBERLEY

  BURTON

  WOLVERTON

  CAMOYS

  BRAYE

  HOBHOUSE

  ROSEBERY

  MONKSWELL

  SANDHURST

  SYDNEY

  HERSCHELL

  THRING

  OXENBRIDGE

  CHESTERFIELD

  HAMILTON of DALZELL

  GREVILLE

  HOUGHTON

  ACTON

  NORTHBOURNE

  ABERDARE"

  HAMPDEN

  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.