Sitting of 26 July 1887

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Fourth Report—Army and Navy Estimates [No. 239]; Special Report [No.239]; Perpetual Pensions, Mr. Esslemont added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Tramways (Ireland) Acts Amendment * [338].
Select Committee—Municipal Regulation (Constabulary, &c) (Belfast)* [291], debate adjourned.
Committee—Irish Land Law [308] [Second Night]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle)* [317–337].
Withdrawn—Merchant Shipping Act (1854) Amendment (No. 2)* [184].

QUESTIONS.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL FUNDS—INVESTMENTS.
  SIR SAMUEL WILSONasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, What amount of the Greenwich Hospital Funds is now invested in Government Three Per Cent Annuities: and, whether he will take into consideration the question of obtaining a better investment of the money for the benefit of the seamen, who have largely contributed to these funds?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY): The amount of Greenwich Hospital Funds now invested in the Three Per Cent Stock is £1,005,772. Arrangements have been made for the re-investment of a portion of this sum, and negotiations are in progress for further re-investments.

  ADMIRALTY—THE NEW DOCKYARD STAFF—APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF CONSTRUCTOR AS ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR OF DOCKYARDS.
  MR. PULESTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in view of the further addition to the new Dockyard Staff of the Admiralty, by the appointment, as proposed, of Chief Constructor as assistant to the Director of Dockyards, any proportional reduction is to be made in the Staff?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): Yes; it is proposed to reduce the number of Constructors by two.

  THE BOARD OF CUSTOMS—THE VACANT SECRETARYSHIP.
  MR. PULESTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is intended to fill up the vacant Secretary ship to the Board of Customs; and, if so, when this appointment may be expected to be made?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): the Secretary ship to the Board of Customs will be kept vacant pending the consideration of the question of the amalgamation of the Customs and the Board of Inland Revenue. This consideration has been delayed by the illness of the Chairman of the Board of Customs, with whom the Papers are.

  INDIA—REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILWAYS.
  MR. KINGasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Report of the Director General of Railways for India has been already issued in Calcutta, and how soon it will be presented to Parliament; and whether it will be possible to arrange for the printing and supply to Parliament direct from the Government Press in India of Indian official documents?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Report of the Director General of Indian Railways for 1886–7 was laid upon the Table of the House on the 22nd. The Secretary of State is in communication with the Treasury, by whom such Papers are now printed for the House of Commons, as to the possibility of arranging for the supply of copies direct from India.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—COST OF THE EVICTIONS AT COOLGREANEY.
  MR. SEXTON(for Sir THOMAS ESMONDE) (Dublin Co., S.)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the cost to the public of the police and military lately employed in carrying out evictions at Coolgreaney; and, what was the amount of rent due by the tenants who were evicted?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet) (who replied)said, the Inspector General informed him that it would take a long time to ascertain the cost of carrying out these evictions. There was as yet no official knowledge as regarded the rent due.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be able to tell us the cost, of those evictions before the Constabulary Vote comes on?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he could not say when the Constabulary
  20
  Vote would come on; but he would try and get the information as soon as possible.
  MR. CHANCE: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the late Chief Secretary for Ireland Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), in reply to a Question I put to him with regard to the Woodford evictions, was able to state the cost of those evictions a few days after their termination?
  [No reply.]

  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT. 1872— DURHAM COLLIERY EXPLOSION.
  MR. JOICEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What has become of the amount of fines imposed upon the responsible persons in charge of a certain colliery in the County of Durham, at which a serious explosion took place on the 2nd of March, 1885, for neglecting the provisions of "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1872;" and, if he can arrange for the amount of such fines to be paid over to the treasurer of the fund established for the benefit of the widows and orphans caused by the 32 lives lost by the said explosion?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The fines in this case amounted only to a sum of £40, and were not imposed till the month of March, 1886. In the meanwhile, there had been a fund raised by voluntary effort for the widows and orphans of the men who were killed by the explosion: and the Inspectors did not, therefore, suggest that the fines should be distributed among them. Under these circumstances, the fines were, according to the Statute, paid into the Exchequer and carried to the Consolidated Fund. I am advised that they cannot now be paid out for the benefit of the sufferers.

  ARMY (INDIA)—PAY OF PAYMASTERS [IN INDIA-HOLDING THE RANK OF MAJOR.
  COLONEL, DUNCANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any decision has yet been arrived at as to the pay of Paymasters in India, holding the rank of f Major?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): A decision was arrived at in March, 1886, to adhere to the consolidated rates of pay laid down in October, 1885. There is no intention of increasing these rates.

  COUNTY GAOLS (IRELAND)—SALARIES OF EXTERNAL OFFICERS.
  SIR CHARLES LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, before the closing of several County gaols in Ireland, and the consolidation of several such gaols in one central gaol, the salaries of the external officers (such as chaplains and medical officers) were fixed, having regard to the extent of the work involved, and the average number of prisoners; whether, owing to such consolidation, and the largely increased number of prisoners, a great deal more work has been thrown on the officers of the continued gaols; whether the Government has received Memorials calling attention to the subject, and asking for an increase of pay in respect of the permanent extra work involved; and, whether they are prepared to give a favourable consideration and reply to such Memorials?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet) (who replied)said: I have to answer the first three paragraphs of this Question in the affirmative. The Irish Government have favourably considered the matter; but some difficulties have arisen. It is, however, confidently anticipated that a final decision will be come to before the Estimates for the ensuing financial year are prepared.

  ARMY—THE ROYAL ARTILLERY ON HOME AND INDIAN ESTABLISHMENT.
  MR. MORRISONasked the Secretary of State for War, The grounds for stopping the promotion of Majors of the Royal Artillery on the Home Establishment, without any corresponding reduction in the promotions on the Indian Establishment; if there is precedent for effecting so large a change by Army Circular in place of a Royal Warrant, or Parliamentary Estimate, and for making such Army Circular retrospective; and, if it
  22
  is proposed to absorb the officers affected so as to avoid supercession and extensive compulsory retirement?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Promotion on the Home Establishment of the Royal Artillery has been temporarily suspended in consequence of reductions in the ranks of Lieutenant Colonel and Major. Promotion in the Indian cadres is held to be protected by the Parliamentary guarantee known as the Henley Clause, and cannot be curtailed. A Royal Warrant may determine the conditions for promoting; but except in the case of time promotion the actual steps can only follow vacancies, which depend upon establishment. Every establishment is sanctioned by Parliament. The mode of carrying out the present reduction is still under consideration.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— ASSAULT ON A PROTESTANT HOME RULER, AT BALLYCLARE.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state whether an attack was made by a member of a "Loyalist" band party on a Protestant Home Ruler named Mr. James H. Johnstone, of Larne, at Ballyclare Junction Railway Station on the 13th July; whether Mr. Johnston, when carrying some parcels on the platform of the station, was asked by this member of the "Loyalist" band if he were a Home Ruler; whether, on hearing Mr. Johnstone's reply that he was a Home Ruler, this Loyalist thereupon attacked Mr. Johnston, struck him on the face, and seriously injured him; whether the authorities of the Railway Company have taken any action in the matter; and, whether the Government will use its influence with its supporters at Ulster to try and prevent a repetition of such conduct towards Protestant Home Rulers there?
  COLONEL M'CALMONTput a Question, which was inaudible, and which was understood to refer to Mr. Johnston's religious belief.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet) (who replied)said, he had no information as to Mr. Johnston's political or religious opinions. The District Inspector reported that

  23
  when Mr. Johnston was crossing the station at Ballyclare Junction he was met by a young man belonging to a flute band, who asked him if he was a home Ruler, He replied in the affirmative, and was thereupon struck by the young man. The station master then interfered. The assault was of a trifling description, and both appeared to be under the influence of drink. Mr. Johnston did not complain to the police; but he understood that the matter would be investigated at Petty Sessions.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether the county was not proclaimed; and, whether this offence did not come within the Intimidation Clause of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he hardly thought that a transaction arising out of a drunken row of this kind would come within the Intimidation Clause.
  MR. SEXTON: Does it make any difference in the offence if the man who commits the offence happens to be a tipsy flute player?
  [No reply.]

  PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)— POLLUTION OF THE RIVER LEA.
  CAPTAIN COLOMB&c.)asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in view of the long continued offensive and insanitary state of the River Lea in the midst of a densely crowded population, he can state with whom the blame lies; and, what action has been already taken, and what action it is proposed to take, to remedy the serious evil universally complained of in the district?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets,): The Local Government Board have received complaints from the Poplar District Board of Works with reference to the alleged wholesale discharge of sewage into the river from the works of the borough of West Ham without deodorization. The Board have communicated with the Town Council of West Ham and the Conservators of the Lea on the subject; and one of the Board's Inspectors has recently visited the works without previous notice. The Board consider that there should be further inquiry; and it has been arranged that one of the Inspectors of the Board should attend at West Ham for that purpose on Thurs-
  24
  day next. The Town Council and the Lea Conservators have been informed of this arrangement.

  BURMAH (UPPER)—THE RUBY MINES.
  MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton) (for Mr. WATT0)asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is a fact that Mr. Streeter, junior, received assurances of a permit and arranged for a staff to work the Ruby Mines before he left England; whether a third member of the Syndicate is a Sheriff's officer; whether the inquiry to be instituted by the Secretary of State will include an investigation so as to arrive at the truth, or otherwise, of the allegation that certain Government officials were interested in the Syndicate; and, whether he is now prepared to state to the House the nature of recent despatches?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Secretary of State can, after careful inquiry, find no trace of any assurances being given to Mr. Streeter, junior, before he left London that he would get a permit to work the Ruby Mines. He has no information about Mr. Streeter's arrangement for a staff. The Secretary of State has no information as to the third member of the Syndicate. The inquiry now instituted by the Secretary of State has reference solely to the best mode of disposing of the Ruby Mines. The allegation that certain Government officials were interested in the Syndicate is now heard of by the Secretary of State for the first time. If any such allegation is made by a responsible person, and supported by primâ facie evidence, the Secretary of State will cause inquiry to be made. I could not state to the House, in answer to a Question, the nature of recent despatches without unduly trespassing upon the time of the House; but I have reason to think that Papers will be laid upon the Table relating to the Ruby Mines in the course of next week.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—WESTMEATH ASSIZES—JURORS FINED FOR NON-ATTENDANCE.
  MR. TUITEasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether at the Westmeath Assizes, held last March, the Judge directed that a considerable number of jurors should

  25
  be fined for non-attendance; whether several of the fines have not been levied; and, whether there is any objection to grant a Return, giving the names of the jurors fined at that Assizes, also the names of the jurors in whose cases the fines have been remitted?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON;, in reply, said, the fines were not made by the discretion of the Judge; but by automatic process, under the Juries' Act. Eight persons were fined under the Act—three paid, four appealed, one of whom died, and one was unable to pay.
  MR. TUITEasked, whether, in the case of those whose fines were remitted, they were anti-Nationalists and supporters of the Loyal and Patriotic Union?
  MR. GIBSON: I do not think such a question ought to be asked. I have no doubt whatever that, such a consideration in no way entered into it.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL— THE METROPOLIS.
  MR. WHITMOREasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether, and how, it is proposed to extend to the Metropolis the provisions of the Technical Instruction Bill, from the operation of which it is expressly excluded?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): If my hon. Friend will refer to the Bill, he will see that the Metropolis is only excluded from the operation of the 3rd clause, concerning which I shall have something to say on a future stage of the measure.

  ANNUAL RETURN—BANK OF ENGLAND (ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF EXCHEQUER BILLS, &c.)
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Why the Annual Return, styled "Bank of England (Annual Accounts of Exchequer Bills, &c.)," which is usually presented to the House of Commons in February, pursuant to 59 Geo. III., c. 76, s. 5, and 24 Vict., c. 3, s. 9, has not yet been ordered to be printed and circulated; and, whether the names, addresses, and descriptions of the stockholders, with the amounts unclaimed in each case, could be given
  26
  in a Schedule to the Return, and thus enable the representatives of such stockholders to put in their claims?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)(who replied)said: the Return referred to was presented to the House last February. It rests with the House to order it to be printed and circulated. Such a Schedule as the hon. Member suggests would involve enormous labour, and, when complete, it would probably be already out of date. Moreover, the Bank Authorities fear that the publication of the names of persons who have not claimed their dividends might conduce to fraudulent practices. I may say, however, that every reasonable assistance is already given to the public to enable them to claim dividends, the notice being sent to the last known address in case of all dividends unclaimed for 10 years, or for any considerable time less than 10 years, when the stock has been disposed of. The amounts unclaimed are yearly diminishing.

  CELEBRATION OF THE JUBILEE YEAR OF HER MAJESTY'S REIGN—THE NAVAL, REVIEW OFF SPITHEAD— ACCIDENT ON BOARD H.M.S. "KITE."
  MR. WOODALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he can give the House authoritative information in regard to the circumstances under which the accident occurred on. board the gunboat Kite, at Spithead, on Saturday; and, whether there is reason to suppose there was any defect in the gun or its mechanism?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): We are waiting for the evidence of the men who were injured; but they are not yet sufficiently recovered to be able to give any information as to the cause of the accident. But, so far as we know, there is no reason to believe that the accident was in any way attributable to a defect in the gun or its mechanism.?
  MR. PULESTONasked whether, having regard to the special circumstances under which the man was killed, any provision would be made for his widow and family?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he could not answer that at the present moment without Notice.

  WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—ROYAL SMALL ARMS FACTORY, ENFIELD—DISCHARGE OF WORKMEN.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been drawn to a paragraph in The Pall Mall Gazette of the 25th, in which it is stated that men are being discharged from the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield, some of whom had been working overtime up to the time of their discharge; that there are probably 1,000 men either discharged or "standing off;" that the factory is at a standstill, no rifles being made, &c.; and, whether he can state why work has been stopped at the factory?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): It is true that some men are to be discharged from Enfield Factory. The work is not at a standstill, and there will be work, I am glad to say, for a considerable proportion of those now standing out. I hope the House will allow me to say that, difficult as it is at all times to manage the work of Government manufacturing establishments, it will become absolutely impossible if hon. Members by their Questions attempt to force upon the Government expenditure which is not necessary in the interests of the Public Service.
  MR. HOWELLinquired, whether these periodical discharges could not he avoided by doing away with the practice of excessive overtime during certain seasons of the year and then discharging men in times of slackness?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: That is not at all the practice, and I think it ought to be avoided.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT 'BOARD (IRELAND)—MR. H. A. MANN. CLERK OF THE COOKSTOWN UNION.
  MR. BLANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Mr. Henry Alfred Mann, the clerk of Cookstown Union, be also clerk of Mr. Gunning Moore's Estate Office, and if he holds both appointments with the sanction of the Local Government Board; whether the Guardians twice increased his salary, upon his representation that his work was heavy
  28
  and required his entire time and attention; whether the Local Government Board will re-consider his salary, since, in addition to his duties as clerk, he can now find time to keep the accounts in the largest estate in the Union; whether Mr. John Fleming, the Petty Sessions Clerk at Cookstown, County Tyrone, be also a clerk to the Cookstown Loan Funds, Cookstown Town Commissioners, and toll collector of Cookstown Market, and if he be also a coal merchant and farmer; whether any person wishing to see him on Petty Sessions business must attend at the loan fund office for that purpose; whether these situations be held with the consent of the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks; and, if he will extend the same permission to other clerks throughout Ireland?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARNMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet) (who replied)said, the clerk of the Cookstown Union kept the books of Mr. Gunning's agent, but this work was done in the evening. The Local Government Board were not aware that he was so engaged. No complaints had been recorded against him in that Department. The Board of Guardians had increased his salary on two occasions; and the Local Government Board, having regard to the favourable Report of their Inspector and to the fact that the salary was not excessive, saw no reason to interfere. In the absence of any complaint as to the way in which the clerk s duties to the union were discharged the Board saw no reason to interfere. As regards the case of the Petty Sessions Clerk, he was manager of the Discount Company, clerk of the Town Commissioners, and lessee, not Director, of the market tolls, in connection with which he employed other persons. He also dealt in coals, and was a farmer. The Petty Sessions business was done at the Petty Sessions Office, and not at his private house. A Clerk of Petty Sessions was allowed to follow as many callings as he pleased, provided they were not callings prohibited by statute or by the Lord Lieutenant, and provided that they did not interfere with the discharge of his duty or the convenience of the public.

  PARIS EXHIBITION, 1889.
  MR. DONKINasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign

  29
  Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have expressed any approval of the British Chamber of Commerce in Paris acting as agents for British exhibitors in the Paris Exhibition of 1889, and Directors of the British section there?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Government cannot express officially an approval of the Chamber acting in the capacity referred to without undertaking to sumo extent an undefined responsibility in connection with their proceedings. But they are glad that a Body so suitable is likely to supply any want that may be felt of local organization and direction.

  ADMIRALTY—CASE OF GEORGE LIONEL GROVER, LATE A MIDSHIPMAN OF THE "BACCHANTE."
  MR. GILLIATasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to the case of George Lionel Grover, late a Midshipman of the Bacchante, flagship in the East Indies, who has been discharged from the Navy, disabled with heart disease, consequent upon an attack of rheumatic fever contracted through exposure for 16 days during exceptionally bad weather in the wet season whilst cruising in an open boat for slavers on the East Coast of Africa, which arduous duty he perforned in a manner to call for the highest commendation from his Commanding Officer; whether, in view of the fact that the Regulations contain no provision for pension to officers of that rank, and having regard to the professional prospects in life of so promising a young officer being destroyed by the exceptional hardships of the Service in which he was employed, the Admiralty will consider whether some employment on shore could be given to young Grover; and, whether the Civil Service Commissioners could be asked, under Order in Council (Clause 7) of June l870, to appoint him to some clerkship in the Naval Offices where his nautical experience might be of service?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The case is now under investigation. The Medical Reports at present before the
  30
  Admiralty do not show that the officer's disease is directly duo to the exposure in question. A further Report on this head has been called for from the Bacchante, the ship in which he served. The Regulations do contain provision for pension to officers of Mr. Grover's rank. Pensions of from 1s. to 2s. 6d. a-day may be awarded to subordinate officers invalided out of the Service for permanent disability not due to carelessness or constitutional causes; but whether he is eligible or not for such a pension depends upon the Report from the Bacchante. The clause in question was only intended for application to very exceptional cases, under which category Mr. Grover's case cannot be classed.

  SCOTLAND—THE SASINE OFFICE, EDINBURGH—PAYMENT OF SALARIES.
  MR. WALLACEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether clerks in the Sasine Office, Edinburgh, and other Civil servants, I are paid a proportion of their salary monthly, whether, owing to the present month ending on a Sunday, and the next day being a Bank Holiday, the Exchequer has deferred this payment until Tuesday, the 2nd August; whether he is aware that it would be a great convenience to the clerks, who are to be sent for their holidays next month, that they should be paid on Saturday the 30th July, when their money is properly due; and, whether, in the circumstances, he will direct the Sasine Office clerks, and others similarly situated, to be paid on that day?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I will inquire whether arrangements can be made to obviate the inconvenience referred to by the hon. Member.

  LAW AND POLICE—INFLICTION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ON A BOY AT ILKESTON.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, The result of his inquiries into the case of James Smith Buckbury, aged seven years, of Ilkeston, who was sentenced, on 11th July, at Ripley Petty Sessions, to receive four strokes of a birch rod for

  31
  stealing a watch; whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct of the police officer or officers who inflicted the punishment, and take steps to prevent the administration of such punishment for the future to delicate children; and, whether the instrument used for birching children of seven years is the same as for older offenders?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS)in reply, said, the officer who, in pursuance of a magisterial order, whipped the boy referred to, did so in the presence of the Inspector, his wife, and a Mrs. Knight, who attended at the request of the boy's mother. Mrs. Knight did not consider the punishment severe, and saw the boy well, and walking about half-an-hour afterwards. On the 25th instant he was examined by the Senior Surgeon of the County Infirmary, who reported him to be quite well. He (Mr. Matthews) proposed to issue a Circular, directing that before children were whipped, if there was any reason to suppose they were in delicate health, a medical man should be consulted as to the propriety of administering the punishment, and that the rod should be lighter for children than that used for other offenders.

  RUSSIA—THE BLACK SEA COASTING TRADE—CASE OF TWEEDY, AN ENGLISH SUBJECT.
  MR. KINGasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in The Standard, to the effect that—
  "An enterprising Englishman, named Tweedy, who is engaged in the Black Sea coasting trade, has been ordered by the Minister of Finance to discontinue his operations or become a Russian subject;"
  whether such statement is correct; and, if so, whether such treatment is within the competence of the.Russian Government; and, whether he will use his influence to protect Mr. Tweedy in the matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETART OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): No Report on the subject has been received at the Foreign Office. Any complaint from a British subject would be at once inquired into.

  AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT—THE HESSIAN FLY IN ESSEX, &c.
  MR. H. GARDNERasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has any information as to the appearance of the Hessian fly in Essex, Hertfordshire, and other parts of Great Britain; whether the attack is of a more serious nature than that reported last year; and, what steps have been taken in the matter by the Agricultural Committee of the Privy Council?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)(who replied)said: According to the information received at the Agricultural Department, the Hessian fly has appeared at Errol, N.B., in Yorkshire, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Hampshire, and Suffolk. It appears, therefore, to be more widely spread than last year. The Agricultural Department have been advised by Mr. Charles Whitehead, the eminent entomologist who advises the Department in these matters, that a careful investigation should be made on the spot in each case, for which arrangements are being made.

  WAR OFFICE—LIEUTENANTS OF INFANTRY AND OF CAVALRY—IN CREASE OF PAY.
  MR. A. P. ALLSOPPI asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take steps to remove the admitted anomaly whereby a Lieutenant of the Infantry after seven years' service is entitled to an increase of pay of 1s. per diem, and a Lieutenant of the Cavalry is not, either by a reduction of pay in the one case or by a; rise of pay in the other?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): If it be an anomaly that Infantry Lieu-I tenants should have an increase of pay I after seven years in the ranks while Cavalry Lieutenants do not, the anomaly has subsisted since 1806; but I would point out that, even after the increase, the Infantry rate of pay is less than the Cavalry minimum. To increase the pay of all Cavalry Lieutenants of seven years' service might cause expense, for which there is no apparent necessity, while it is hard to see how they would

  33
  benefit by the pay of Infantry Lieutenants being reduced, as suggested by my hon. Friend.

  RIOTS AND PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) —ORANGE PROCESSION AT PORTADOWN.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that on Sunday the 10th of July a number of Orangemen from Portadown proceeded to Drumcree Church, near the town; whether they marched, through the Catholic quarter of the town protected by police; whether, during the service, a portion of the congregation who came out attacked the orchard of a respectable Catholic farmer, named Patrick O'Connor; whether he was subsequently attacked by the mob and severely injured; and, why was it that the police escort did not interfere to preserve law and order, and prevent the attack?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet) (who replied)said: The District Inspector of Constabulary reports that on Sunday, July 10, the Orangemen from Portadown attended Drumcree Church, in accordance with their annual custom. They marched, without music, through O'Bin Street, as being the most direct route. There was no police escort; some constables were placed on duty in the street. The service was held in the open air at the church. Patrick O'Connor has an orchard adjoining the church, and he states that some small boys threw stones at the apple trees, and that he was struck by one of the stones on the side. He was not attacked. The police, on the following day, on hearing of the occurrence through his daughter, proceeded to the residence of O'Connor, and found him at work as usual. He states he does not intend to prosecute the boys.
  MR. CHANCEasked, what was the name of the District Inspector who supplied the information?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had not got it.

  ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES— THE 5TH LANCASHIRE ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it
  34
  is the fact, as stated in a recent communication from the War Office, that the 5th Lancashire are as well supplied with suitable guns as the other Artillery Volunteers; and, whether, out of their nine guns at Fleetwood, where as many as nine batteries practise, four are obsolete 32-pounder smooth-bore guns, the others being 64-poundor R.M.L. and 40-pouuder R.B.L. guns; and, if so, what is the proportion of 32-pounder smooth-bore guns in the hands of the Artillery Volunteers generally?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Yes, Sir. It is the fact that the 5th. Lancashire Artillery Volunteers are as well supplied with suitable guns as the Artillery Volunteers generally. Of the nine guns at Flftotwood—where, however, seven and not nine batteries practice—three are 64-pouuder rifled muzzle-loaders, two 40-pounder rifled breech-loaders, and four smooth bore 32-pounders. The proportion borne by the 32-pounder smooth bore guns to the rifled guns in the hands of Volunteers generally is about as 2 to 1; but issues now in progress will shortly reduce the proportion into about 1·5 to 1.

  POST OFFICE (SCOTLAND)—THE LONDON DAY MAIL TO THE NORTH OF SCOTLAND.
  DR. CLARKasked the Postmaster General, If it is true that the Post Office pays £2,500 a-year for running a special train from Aberdeen to Keith, at 3·35 a.m. out of the down London day mail, carrying a few local bags, and persists in sending the mails from Perth to the North, which are 100 per cent heavier, by a slow goods train, which is almost overtaken by the London night mail before it reaches Wick and Thurso, although it leaves London 10 hours earlier; and, when the Highland District, embracing as it does no less than seven counties, is to be put on a footing of equality with the district from Aberdeen to Keith, which has two fast mails each way daily for mails of far less weight and importance?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): It is quite true the Post Office pays £2,500 a-year for an early morning mail service from Aberdeen. This service includes trains not to Keith alone, but also to Banff, and carries mails not only from

  35
  Aberdeen, London, and the South generally for towns in this locality, but also through mails from Aberdeen and other Scotch towns for Inverness and the North. The whole Highland district north of Perth is abundantly provided with mail trains at a very heavy cost; and, having regard to the outlay already incurred, I am quite unable to see my way to agreeing to any further expenditure.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL—PROCLAIMED CITIES AND TOWNS.
  MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.) (for Mr. W. A. MACDONALD)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the following cities and towns have been proclaimed under this clause—namely, Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Kilkenny, Galway, Carrickfergus, Waterford, Drogheda, and Londonderry; and, whether the Government have any reason to apprehend that the offences specified in in Clause C of the 3rd sub-section of Section 2 will be committed in these cities and towns?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I think I indicated in the answers I gave yesterday the grounds which induced the Government to apply Clause C to the cities and towns referred to. As I stated then, this sub-section only assimilates the law in Ireland with the law which already exists in England.
  MR. SEXTON: I would like the right hon. Gentleman to put an end to some doubt which, has arisen with regard to the answer given yesterday with regard to those cities and towns. The report in The Times says that the cities and towns are only proclaimed under paragraph c of Sub-section B of Section 2. But the answer given to the House says that six cities have been generally proclaimed. What is the extent and force of the Proclamation?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I was reported to have stated that these cities and towns were proclaimed generally it was an error of the Press. They have only been proclaimed under one subhead of one sub-section of one clause.
  MR. SEXTON: With respect to the second paragraph, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the offences specified in the clause applied to these
  36
  cities—namely, assault or wilful and unlawful resistance or obstruction to Sheriff, bailiff, or process-server in the discharge of his duties have already been committed, or any of them, in these towns under circumstances necessitating a special law, or exceptional administration of it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I stated yesterday, I do not regard the power of summary conviction in the case of assault upon, or resistance to, the police as in any way a provision which ought to be regarded as exceptional. It is not so in England; and I see no reason why it should be so in Ireland.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) ACT-PROCLAMATION OF THE QUEEN'S COUNTY.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is correct, as stated in The Freeman's Journal, that the Queen's County has been proclaimed under Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act, and is thereby made subject to the provisions for secret inquiry, summary jurisdiction, special juries, and a change of venue; and, whether, according to Constabulary Returns, the agrarian outrages in the Queen's County for the three months ending 30th June amounted to only three, all of which were threatening letters?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): This is the first of a series of Questions relating to the grounds on which the Government have thought it necessary to proclaim certain districts in Ireland under the main provisions of the Crimes Act. Therefore, the answer I give to this Question may, I hope, be taken as explaining the general policy of the Government, and as giving an answer in part to the other Questions which follow on the Paper. We have resolved to proclaim no area of smaller extent than a county; not because there are not many instances in which a considerable part of a county is comparatively quiet, but because a county appears to be the most convenient unit for administrative purposes. It may, therefore, happen, and it has happened, that while the statistics of crime for a county generally seem satis-

  37
  factory, or fairly satisfactory, they are not so for the purposes of this argument, since they really indicate a very serious state of things in a relatively small area which specially calls for increased stringency in the machinery of the law. [Home Rule Laughter.] I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman who laughs understands that point. [VOICES: Thoroughly.] In the second place, the; Government have not been guided; merely by statistics of agrarian outrage, or even by the number of persons Boycotted, or under police protection. We have been also guided by the reports and opinions as to the social condition of the counties which we have received from responsible officers. With regard to the particular Question asked by the hon. Gentleman with regard to the Queen's County, the number of persons reported to be Boycotted is 113, and 36 persons are receiving police protection. The incidents attending the Luggacurren evictions are a further indication of the condition of the district.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether, as he alleges that nothing more grave than intimidation exists in Queen's County, and as in the contemplation of the Crimes Act intimidation is to be dealt with by Sub-Section 2 of Section 2, why the Government have applied to the Queen's County, which would be sufficiently dealt with by that section, the provision for private inquiry, change of venue, and special juries?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that intimidation affects the whole provisions of the Bill. Intimidation is one of the chief reasons why change of venue is necessary.
  MR. W. A.MACDONALD: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that if a particular, or small area of a county, is disturbed, that affords a sufficient ground for depriving the inhabitants of the whole county of their Constitutional rights?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, Sir, these questions are always questions of more or less. But, undoubtedly, when a very serious state of things occurs in one district of a county, we have thought that sufficient justification for proclaiming the whole county.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) ACT—PROCLAMATION OF LOUTH, MEATH, WICKLOW, AND DUBLIN.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state specifically the reasons why counties Louth, Meath, Wicklow, and Dublin have been proclaimed under Clauses B and C of sub-section 3 of section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act; and, whether any agrarian offences have been reported to the Constabulary in the counties of Louth, Meath, Wicklow, or Dublin during the last nine months?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I do not think, Sir, that I can add anything to the answer I gave to a similar Question to-day and to one yesterday upon this point.
  MR. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall have in our hands the official documents promised yesterday, showing the precise scope and extent of the various Proclamations?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know. These things take some time to prepare and print; but I will hurry it on as fast as I can.
  MR. SEXTON: Shall we have it by Thursday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, it has to be printed in Dublin; but I will try what I can do.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) ACT—PROCLAMATION OF COUNTY KILKENNY.
  MR. CHANCEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether County Kilkenny has been proclaimed under the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act (all save the dangerous association sections being declared in force therein); and, whether one alleged threatening letter is the sole agrarian offence reported to have occurred in that county during I the quarter ending 30th June last? I wish to supplement the Question by asking, whether the one threatening letter referred to in the Question is the sole statistical evidence of a serious state of things in the relatively small area of

  39
  which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken; and, whether, if he possesses any further evidence whatsoever, he will lay it before the House?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I think the Question of the hon. Gentleman will be sufficiently answered if I say that 278 persons suffer more or less from Boycotting, and that 15 persons are under police protection in the county?
  MR. CHANCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the second paragraph of the Question, relating to the one alleged threatening letter?
  MR. A. J, BALFOUR: I confess I have not referred very particularly to this point; but I have no reason to doubt the statement of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CHANCE: And will the right hon. Gentleman state whether he will lay on the Table any further information or evidence, if any, bearing on the alleged necessity for proclaiming the county?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought that I had given the hon. Gentleman evidence which, in the opinion of the House, was sufficient.
  MR. CHANCE: Will the Chief Secretary state on whose authority he makes the statement as to the number of persons Boycotted?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The ordinary sources of information from which all the statistics of crime are obtained.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) ACT—CO. DONEGAL—THE PROCLAMATION OF DONEGAL.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the County Donegal is among the counties proclaimed under the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act; and, if so, whether he will state specifically the grounds for such Proclamation? May I be allowed to add to the Question, whethes he is aware that, while the Constitutional liberties of the people of Donegal are suspended under the Proclamation, it is not possible even to obtain a copy of the Act under which it is done?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Sir, I cannot admit that the Constitutional
  40
  liberties of any body are suspended. If, however, any information with regard to the provisions of the Act is required, I shall be glad to consider any means by which those provisions may be published in a convenient and general form. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: Give them a presentation copy.] It is quite true that Donegal is included among the counties that have been generally proclaimed. Donegal is especially one of those counties to which I referred in which the area of disturbance is relatively small, though serious. In the barony of Kilmacrennan there is disturbance. Sixty-one persons were Boycotted; violent resistance has been experienced by officers of the law in enforcing legal processes; police-con-stables have been badly injured; and gross attempts have been made to intimidate the Bench and witnesses in a Court of Justice.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) ACT—PROCLAMATION OF COUNTY MONAGHAN.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the County of Monaghan has been fully proclaimed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act; and, if he would state the grounds on which the county was proclaimed, seeing that there have been in the last 18 months, commencing January, 1886, and ending June, 1887, 14 offences, four of which are threaten-letters? I wish to add to the Question, I whether, within the last four months, Mr. Shirley, Mr. Dacre, Mr. Hamilton, Colonel Forster, and Mr. Roe, landlords of Monaghan, have instituted ejectment proceedings against a number of tenants who represented nearly 12,000 persons; and, whether it is in consequence of the ejectments and evictions which have taken place and which are pending, and in consequence of the crime reported in the statistics, that he has proclaimed the County Monaghan; and, what is the particular area of the county which induced the right hon. Gentleman to proclaim it?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): In addition to the general ground I have already stated to the House, I may inform the hon. Gentleman that there are 163 persons more or less Boycotted; five are under constant police protection; and

  41
  four others are under partial protection by patrols.

  LEGACY DUTY OFFICE-RE-ORGANIZATION.
  MR. KIMBERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether 19 men of the Legacy Duty Office with considerable service have received notice that they will be retired on the 30th September next, if a scheme for the re-organization of that Office, which has been long under consideration and is now before the Treasury, should be adopted; whether their services could be utilized in any other branch of the Public Service: and, whether, in the interest of the efficiency of the Department, he will take steps to secure the immediate publication of the scheme in question?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Yes, Sir; such notice has been given. With regard to utilizing the services of the gentlemen to be retired, I may say generally that I am very anxious to establish, in concert with my Colleagues, a register of all retired men who are still more or less fit for service, with a view to their being re-employed, should opportunity offer, in other branches of public work. The difficulty, however, is that in most offices the numbers of men employed are already redundant, and extremely few new appointments are being made. In many Departments no new entries at all are made in the Upper Division. The details of the scheme cannot be made known until it has received the assent of the Treasury. I may say, however, that if adopted it will effect an immediate saving of about £6,500; and, even allowing for the difference between the pensions to be paid to the gentlemen compulsorily retired and those actually earned by them, there is still a net saving of more than £5,500.

  SCOTLAND—LITERATURE. SCIENCE, AND ART—GRANT FOR SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will lay upon the Table and circulate, before the Vote for Learned Societies is taken, the Correspondence that has recently passed between the Treasury, the Secretary for Scotland, and
  42
  Sir William Thomson, on the subject of the allocation to Scotland of a separate grant for purposes of scientific investigation?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON), in reply, said, he did not see that any public advantage would arise from the publication of the Correspondence. He should be glad to show it to the hon. Member, or give him any information. The letter from the Treasury was only a short one, and contained nothing of importance

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—REMOVAL OF PLACARDS—WINDGAP, CO. KILKENNY.
  MR. CHANCEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, early in July, Sergeant Joyce of the Royal Irish Constabulary, stationed at Kilmacoliver Barracks, and other policemen, tore down placards posted in and about Windgap, County Kilkenny, convening a meeting of the Windgap Branch of the National League; whether the police acted under orders; whether it is alleged that the said poster is illegal; and, if so, what part of the contents is objected to; whether any person has been prosecuted for posting the same; and, whether the police will be punished for tearing down the said poster? I wish to add that my Question as handed in contained the contents of the placard, and that that portion has been expunged at the Table.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Sergeant Joyce tore down two placards of the kind described. He acted in the discharge of his duty. The language used was calculated to disturb the public peace. The action of Serjeant Joyce was approved by his superiors. No person is to be prosecuted for posting the placard.
  MR. CHANCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman, who has a copy of the placard in his hand, be good enough to state to the House what the objectionable contents of the placard are? [Cries of "Read !"] I do not know whether I would be in Order in stating the contents of the placard in the form of a Question addressed to the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. SPEAKER: The reason why I refused to allow that placard to appear is, that of late a very large number of

  43
  Questions have been given in containing a very large quantity of matter to be printed; and it was so overloading the Paper that I thought it right to stop the insertion of anonymous extracts from papers, and not to trouble the House with them.
  MR. CHANCE: Well, Sir; I would ask you whether I would be in Order now in stating the contents of the placard, in a Question addressed to the right hon. Gentleman, asking him whether I am truly stating the contents?
  MR. SPEAKER: It would be quite sufficient if the right hon. Gentleman asks the right hon. Gentleman whether there was anything in the placard which he considers contrary to the law.
  MR. CHANCE: then, Sir, I would ask whether there was anything in the placard which the right hon. Gentleman considers contrary to the law; and, if so, whether he will read to the House that portion of the placard?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Sir, I consider that the placard, under the circumstances under which it was posted, was inflammatory.
  MR. CHANCE: What part of it does the right hon. Gentleman hold was contrary to the law?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The right hon. Gentleman has said that he considers the placard to be contrary to the law.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps it would be convenient, if the hon. Gentleman thinks any illegality has been committed, that he would put a Question on the Paper on that subject to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland.
  MR. CHANCE: In reply to that observation, I do not consider there was anything illegal in the placard; and I now ask whether, if I lay on the Table a copy of it, the Chief Secretary will take any step to enable this House to test the accuracy and the candour of the reply which I have just received?
  [No reply.]
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I would like to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, in whose hand I see a copy of the placard, whether it is an illegal placard; and whether the most inflammatory portion of it is the request to persons to take out their cards of membership in the Windgap branch of the
  44
  National League; and, whether this is a class of placard which the Government are now authorizing the police to destroy?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR [IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I had not the advantage of reading the placard; but if the hon. Member would renew his question tomorrow I will be happy to answer it.
  MR. CHANCE: I observe that the Chief Secretary did not answer one portion of the Question; whether any person is to be prosecuted for publishing this inflammatory placard?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have answered the question. Nobody is to be prosecuted.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: As the Attorney General for Ireland said that he did not advise the Chief Secretary, will the right hon. Gentleman state who did advise him as to the illegality of this placard, and what is the point of illegality specified by the adviser?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman mistook what I said. I did not give a legal decision at all upon the point.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say the placard was illegal?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I particularly and carefully said that it was inflammatory; and I asked anybody who wished to know about the legal aspect of the case to address a question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether instructions were given to the police to pull down anything which, not being illegal, they might think to be inflammatory; and what is the inflammatory character and the inflammatory point of this placard which was ordered to be pulled down?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman asks mo about the instructions that have been given to the police. I have no reason to believe that these have been altered since he was in Office.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I hardly think that that is a pertinent—I was going to say it is an impertinent answer. The question is not as to the instructions to the police; but how those

  45
  instructions are carried out; and the question is whether, if the police pull down placards which are not illegal, what is the justification for so doing when it is brought to the notice of the Government, or what course they will adopt upon it? The right hon. Gentleman can answer a very simple question. What is the nature of this placard which, in his opinion, justifies the police in pulling it down?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I respectfully make him a suggestion. Is it not a fact that he has a copy of the placard; and, if not, I will be glad to place a copy at his disposal. As the right hon. Gentleman has stated that the placard contains inflammatory language, what reason has he for not reading to the House the language he considers inflammatory, and enabling the House therefrom to form something like an informal judgment on the action of the Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I need hardly say, Sir, that this is not an action for which I am directly responsible. The right hon. Gentleman has said that I did not answer his question. Now, one part of his Question undoubtedly was as to the nature of the instructions given to the police; and I was perfectly correct and perfectly relevant in informing him that those instructions had suffered no alteration since his own Administration. I do not wish to be dragged into a legal discussion, being a layman, in these matters; but I believe the law to be this—and I say it subject to correction by high legal authorities—that the police have power, and it is their duty, to pull down any placard which they think, on account of its being of an inflammatory character, may lead to a breach of the peace. Now, Sir, whether they were right or wrong obviously does not depend upon the mere character of the placard taken simply by itself; it depends on the character of the placard taken in connection with the circumstances of the district in which it was posted; and those who were responsible for the peace of the district were of opinion that it was not a placard which should be allowed to remain on the walls.
  MR. CHANCE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the circumstances of the district, as shown by the
  46
  Return of Agrarian Offences, consist in one threatening letter in three months?
  [No reply.]
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman, in his earlier answer, said that he regarded the placard as inflammatory, and one which ought to be torn down. Why should he decline to tell the House what is the passage or passages in the placard which he regards as inflammatory; and what are the peculiar circumstances of the district which rendered it inflammatory there?
  MR. A.J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman really thinks that any advantage is to be gained by carrying on a debate upon this subject across the Table of this House in the form of Question and answer. [Cries of "Read the placard."] But I may state to the right hon. Gentleman that I certainly think I should not be doing my duty as Chief Secretary for Ireland if I required special and elaborate Reports of the special local circumstances of each district before I refused to censure a police officer for doing that which his superiors said he was right in doing.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: On a question of Order, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has asked mo to put upon the Paper for to-morrow a Question as to this placard. I want to know now. Sir, whether I should be justified in putting the contents of this placard upon the Paper; or how I am to raise before the House the question, or to challenge the legal judgment of the Attorney General for Ireland?
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman will put upon the Paper a Question to the Attorney General for Ireland, as was proposed to be done, asking what specific and particular passages in the placard he considers to be of an illegal character to justify the action taken, I think that would meet the circumstances of the case.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I would ask the Chief Secretary, who has declared that the circumstances under which the posting took place might render the placard inflammatory, which would not otherwise be so, are there any other circumstances than an invitation to the inhabitants of Windgap to come forward and take out their cards of membership of

  47
  the Windgap Branch of the Irish National League; and, whether that could, under any circumstances, be one of the inflammatory matters which, under the present Act, is to he put down?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I would respectfully suggest to the hon. Member that that should form part of the legal Question which he is anxious to put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I would not have put the Question to the Chief Secretary but that he has already pronounced judgment himself.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary whether the placard is couched in the following terms——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—PILOTS.
  MR. PULESTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will grant a Committee of this House, early next Session, to take into consideration the position of the pilots of the United Kingdom?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): In view of the representations made by the pilots and their representatives, Her Majesty's Government are willing to grant the Committee next Session. The question raised by the Bill of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. King), dealing with pilotage certificates, must be referred to such Committee when appointed.
  MR. KINGsaid, that, under the circumstances, he would not proceed further with his Bill, but re-introduce it next Session.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CHANCERY DIVISION)—AN ADDITIONAL JUDGE.
  MR. CAREWasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the state of business in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, dated 7th August, 1885, which states that the number of Judges attached to this Division was unequal to cope with the business, and recommends the appointment of an additional Judge as absolutely essential, in order to clear off arrears; whether he is aware that
  48
  the number of causes standing for hearing is on the increase; and, whether any, and what, steps will be taken to carry into effect the recommendations of the Committee, and thus prevent the injury and additional costs caused to suitors by the present state of things?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): My attention has been drawn to the subject. I am aware that the number of cases standing for hearing is on the increase; but I am sorry to say that, having regard to the state of Public Business, I cannot enter into any engagement with the House to move an Address to the Crown for the appointment of an additional Judge in the course of the present Session.

  SPAIN—ALLEGED MURDER OF A SEAMAN AT BILBAO BY A SPANISH SENTRY.
  MR. A. E. PEASEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any further information had been received at the Foreign Office with regard to the shooting of an Englishman, Martin Parker, at Bilbao last week; whether the English Government had asked satisfaction of the Spanish Government; and, whether anything would be done to obtain compensation for the poor man's family?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMS FERGUSSON), in reply, said, that on Thursday a telegraphic account of this occurrence appeared in the newspapers, and he was asked a Question upon it, and immediately directed that telegrams should be sent to Spain for a Report of the facts. He had no doubt that a Report would be made; but he thought that the hon. Member would see that it could hardly yet have been received. A matter of such importance could not be reported upon only by telegraph. It would require a searching inquiry by the Consul at Bilbao, to begin with, and, no doubt, by the Ministers at Madrid; and it would be altogether premature to say what Her Majesty's Government would do until such Report was received. He could assure the hon. Member that the matter would not be lost sight of.
  Subsequently,
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, Her Majesty's Consul had reported that he

  49
  had at once opened an inquiry, and was taking the depositions in the case; while the Military Commander had promised that the strictest inquiry should he made, and that the sworn Consular depositions should be joined to his proceedings.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it was true, as stated in The Standard of that morning, that—
  "It had been decided to retire a number of the senior Resident Magistrates, and to fill then-places with younger men, who will be bettor able to discharge the onerous duties involved by the operation of the Crimes Act;"
  and, if so, whether the Government had selected persons of whose sufficient legal knowledge the Lord Chancellor had been satisfied?
  MR. MACNEILLasked, Whether it was intended to subject to retirement, compulsory or otherwise, a number of these magistrates; how many new appointments to the post of Resident Magistrate the Government in tended to make; were Resident Magistrates in Ireland appointed by the war rant of the Lord Lieutenant; did they hold their offices, not for a stated period, but during the pleasure of the Government; and were they liable to instant dismissal, without cause assigned, and without pension or other compensation? Having regard to the fact that the circumstances attending the appointment to the post of Resident Magistrate in Ireland, and the character and qualifications of the persons who were usually placed in that position had been frequently exposed in that House and else where, would the right hon. Gentleman have any——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! the hon. Gentleman is exceeding the fair limits of a Question.
  MR. MAC NEILL,continuing, asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to lay on the Table of the House a list of the gentlemen who were to fill the appointments, with their ages, their antecedent occupations, and their qualifications, if any, for exercising judicial functions?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am afraid
  50
  I must ask for Notice of both those Questions.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) ACT—SUPPLY OF COPIES.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, Whether the First Lord of the Treatury would order copies of this Statute and of The Gazette containing the Proclamations issued under it to be supplied to the Library of the House; and, whether he was aware that while Donegal and other counties of Ireland had been proclaimed it was not possible for the Representatives of the Irish people to obtain, here or anywhere else that they knew of, copies of the Statute or of The Gazette containing the Proclamations?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he was not aware of the circumstances stated by the hon. Gentleman, and no Notice had been given him of the Question till he entered the House; but he apprehended that the officers of the House were responsible for providing the Library of the House with such information as hon. Members desired.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, whether when the recent Proclamations were issued the authorities had before them a copy of the Statute under which they acted, seeing that it was not printed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Yes, Sir—that is, I believe so. I beg pardon; the copy we had before us was not a copy in the form which one is familiar with in this House; but it was one of those quarto forms which I believe are printed by the Queen's printers.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked how it was that, though Dublin was practically 14 hours from London, they could have the Statute in Dublin on Saturday, when it was not obtainable in London oven on Tuesday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no jurisdiction over the Queen's printers.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that some years ago it was the custom to deliver to Members, within two or three days of its passing, copies of each Act. This custom had been discontinued. He therefore wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering the great importance of the Criminal Law Amendment

  51
  (Ireland) Act he would not arrange that copies of it should be delivered at; once?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he did not think that the present Government were at all responsible for the change which had been made in that arrangement; but the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was a very reasonable one, and he would see if it could be complied with so far as that Act was concerned.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS)— CASE OF POLE AND OTHERS—REMISSION OF SENTENCES.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he could now give his decision with regard to the four men who had been imprisoned for an alleged complicity in disturbances at Hyde Park?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, that taking into consideration the reduction of the sentences on appeal, both in the case of Edward Pole and of Stafford, it was his intention to offer to Her Majesty a recommendation to release the others in custody.

  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  DR. CLARKasked, whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed to-night with the consideration of the Lords' Reasons for disagreeing with the Commons' Amendment to this Bill; and, if so, at what time?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he hoped the Bill might be taken to-night; but he could not say at what time it would be taken.
  DR. CLARKsaid, it was a very pressing measure, and unless it was passed soon it was of no use whatever.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was well aware of the importance of the measure, and he wished to see it passed.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—REPORTED RESIGNATIONS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true, as reported, that a constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary in Belfast, and another
  52
  in the King's County, have resigned in consequence of the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have no information on the subject.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. MASONasked, when the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Bill would be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, he had no hope that the Bill would be taken this week; but hoped that it would be proceeded with very soon after the Committee on the Irish Land Law Bill closed, having regard, of course, to the exigencies of Supply.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked, whether, having regard to the circumstances under which the debate on the second reading of the Marriages Confirmation Bill had been adjourned that morning on the casting vote of the Speaker, the First Lord of the Treasury would be prepared to arrange that the Bill would come on before half-past 12 that evening?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was sorry to say that, looking at the very great importance of the measure now under the consideration of the House, he should not feel justified in asking the House to report Progress before half-past 12.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to his statement that the Government desired to receive practical suggestions respecting the terrible amount of land now out of cultivation, whether he would give facilities during the present Session for the consideration of those suggestions and remedies contained in the provisions of the Small Holdings Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the Government would be exceedingly glad if an opportunity could be found for the discussion of the measure in which the hon. Member took an interest; but he was afraid it was not in his power to make any engagement with the hon. Gentleman to provide facilities, for there were, unfortunately, too many measures I which they desired to forward, some of I which they could not pass into law this Session.
  MR. LABOUCHEREinquired when Supply would be taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope we may get through the Irish. Land Law Bill in the course of this week, and Supply will follow.

  ARMY AND NAVY ESTIMATES (SPECIAL REPORT).
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL reported from the Select Committee on Army and Navy Estimates that they had agreed to the following Special Report:—
  Your Committee report that, in their opinion, it would be highly beneficial and advisable for the pm poses of their inquiry, that the House should authorise them to take such steps as they deem necessary to secure an independent professional examination and audit of the Expense Accounts of the Army Manufacturing Departments, and of the books on which those Accounts have been based.
  Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to he printed. [No. 239.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Report be taken into consideration upon Thursday."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, whether that Motion would take precedence of the Irish Land Law Bill on Thursday?
  THK FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I think there would not be a single moment of delay in agreeing with the Report, and that the recommendation of the Committee would be accepted at once by the House unanimously.
  Motion agreed to.
  Special Report to be taken in consideration upon Thursday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  IRISH LAND LAW BILL [Lords].
  [BILL 308.]
  (Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  COMMITTEE [Progress 25th July.]
  [SECOND NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.
  Clause 1 (Leaseholders, 44 & 45 Vic. c. 49).
  MR. LEA: I rise for the purpose of moving the omission,
  54
  in page 2, of the Proviso at the end of the clause, which says—
  "Provided also, that when under the provisions of this section an application is made to the Court to fix a judicial rent for a holding held under a lease, the Court shall disallow such application if the Court is satisfied that the landlord or his predecessors in title has or have made permanent improvements on the holding, the unexhausted value of which improvements is at the time of the making of such application not loss than four times the yearly rent of tin holding."
  The Proviso which I propose to omit is, I think, contrary to all the pledges which the Government have given. I cannot imagine why the Government propose to place leaseholders under greater stringency by this measure than was imposed by the Land Act of 1881. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) the other day said something about English managed estates in Ireland; but I cannot think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will for a moment defend this Proviso. Those who are acquainted with the state of Ireland are fully aware that the landlords over and over again have borrowed money from the Government at 3 and 3½per cent, and have charged the tenants 5 per cent on their outlay. I believe I am correct in saying that under the Land Act of 1880 the landlords were empowered, to a certain extent, to borrow money even at 1 per cent for the improvement of their land, and that the investment of money borrowed at so low a rate of interest has been followed by an increase of 5 per cent on the rent. Can it be maintained that a fact of that nature is to disqualify a tenant from coming in in order to get a fair rent fixed. It is altogether contrary to every principle of justice, opposed to the principles of the Land Act of 1881, and will, if carried out, disqualify a large number of tenants. I do not know whether the Government have any information which, they can give to the Committee upon this point. An estimate has been made by a solicitor in the North of Ireland that a sum of £5,000,000 has been advanced to the landlords in this way, and that if the clause passes in its present shape those advances will have the effect of disqualifying many thousands of leaseholders from getting any benefit

  55
  under the Bill. It cannot be contended that when the tenant, with a rental perhaps of £100 a-year, has spent a large sum of money in improving the holding, it would not be a confiscation of the tenant's interest in the holding if he were prevented from coming into the Land Court to have a fair rent fixed simply because the landlord has borrowed and spent money from the Board of Works at a rate varying from 1 to 3½ per cent. Such a proposal is contrary to the spirit of the provisions of the Land Act of 1881. I cannot for a moment believe that the Government intend to do an act of such great injustice; and, therefore, I beg to move the omission of this Proviso.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Upon a point of Order, I wish to ask whether, if the Government refuse to accept the Amendment, the whole of this sub-section will be affirmed?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I propose to put the Amendment down to the word "improvements," where the first Amendment is proposed to be inserted in line 9.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask you to put it down to the word "lease?"
  THE CHAIRMAN: In what line?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: In line 6.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 4, to leave out from the word "provided" to the end of the Clause—(Mr. Lea.)
  Question proposed,
  "That the words 'Provided also that when under the provisions of this section an application is made to the Court to fix a judicial rent for a holding held under a lease,' stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Londonderry says that this sub-section is contrary to all the pledges the Government have given. I cannot quite accept that statement; but I am ready to admit that the Government have no desire to exclude any class of leaseholders who ought to be included within the benefits of the section; and, therefore, as this sub-section would no doubt have the effect of excluding some leaseholders, although not nearly so many as the hon. Gentleman thinks, we shall not attempt to carry out
  56
  the object we had in framing the Proviso in the manner in which it stands in the Bill at present. In other words, we shall not make any attempt to protect the interests of the landlord who holds what is called an English-managed estate by excluding his leasehold tenants from the benefits of the clause. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that this provision is entirely contrary to the spirit of the Land Act of 1881. Well, I cannot quite accept that statement either. In the Land Act of 1881 there was an attempt made to exclude borrowing operations on what are called English-managed estates, on which the improvements, to a large extent, are carried out by the landlord. But owing to certain technical objections that clause did not succeed in excluding, even from the operation of the Act of 1881, those few estates in Ireland which are managed on the English system. But Parliament had recognized before, and may still be asked to recognize again, that where the landlord has done a good deal towards carrying out the permanent improvements on his estate such estate shall be treated in a different manner from an estate managed purely upon the Irish principle. The distinction between the two is that the Irish landlord is simply the owner of his land on which the tenant has done the greater part of the improvements, and for the use of which land the tenant pays him a certain annual sum. The English landlord does all that, and something besides. He is a man who has not only given his land for a certain length of time to be cultivated, but he is a man who actually lends capital upon it in the same way as if he were a money-lender, and the capital which he lends is utilized by the tenant in effective improvements. Therefore, there does seem to be a primâ facie case of justice for saying that inasmuch as the landlord is not only the owner of the land, but lends capital to enable the tenant to cultivate the land, he shall not be treated on the same principle as the landlord pure and simple. It is in order to carry out that object—an object the Legislature in 1881 considered to be -worthy of being carried out by the section known as the Heneage Clause, that we have put down this Proviso. I am now talking about the broad principle of the matter, and do not propose to enter into details. I feel that

  57
  although that principle is a just and sound one, it is not a principle which we can carry out by this Proviso, because the Proviso would have the effect of excluding those tenants altogether from the benefits of the Act. I therefore fall back upon the suggestion of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) in the speech which he made on the second reading of the Bill, in which he proposed that that part of the landlord's interest in the holding which represents his outlay should be put on one side by the Land Court, and that he should be allowed a fixed rate of interest, apart from any variation of reasons, or fall of prices, just as if the money had been lent, and that the Land Commissioners should fix a fair rent merely for the holding.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: That is already done.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: NO doubt, under the Act of 1881, the Sub-Commissioners could take into consideration not merely the rent of the holding, but the interest upon the money, which, properly speaking, has been laid out upon it. Therefore, if the Committee take that view, I shall be prepared, in lieu of this Proviso, to propose a form of words for carrying out the suggestion of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. The words would run in this way—
  "Provided that when an application is made to the Court to fix a fair rent of a holding held by a lessee under this section, if the Court is satisfied that the landlord or his predecessor in title has made permanent improvements on the holding, the unexhausted value of which at the date of the application is ascertained to he not less than twice the yearly rent of the holding, the Court shall fix a fair rent for the holding, subject to the landlord's interest, at the rate of 4 per cent per annum in respect of the unexhausted improvements."
  In order that the point may be raised in the most convenient form, I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment, and I will then move these words in substitution.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I hope the Government will not take their stand on this matter now, and I will tell the Committee the reason why. The English-managed estates are so few that they are not worth considering in dealing with the question, and even where they exist the Court would be bound to take all the circumstances of the case into account. Even supposing
  58
  that the landlord has done all this and made all the improvements with his own money, and not out of money borrowed from the Board of Works, what is the use of a Court if it is not to take such a fact into consideration, and fix the rent accordingly? I hold that the Court in bound to take everything into consideration, and I hope that the Government will omit this Proviso from the Bill, and allow us to get on with the remaining provisions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: the Government are perfectly ready to accept the Amendment in the terms proposed by the hon. Gentleman; but in that case they will propose the words I have just read to the Committee. I think that is the most convenient course to take.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Londonderry, who moved the omission of the Proviso, referred to English-managed estates. In justice to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), I may say that when he moved the English-managed estates clause to the first clause of the Act of 1881, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) intimated that his Government would throw up the Bill if that clause was inserted. The Bill went up to the House of Lords, and there the Peers did an insidious and dangerous thing; they put in a worse clause than that of the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby. English managed estates in Ireland are very much like snakes in Norway—they are not to be found anywhere. I would ask hon. Members to read the statement of Lord Cowper. He says that all the improvements in Ireland have been made by the tenant, and not by the landlord. Some noble Lord—whose name I have forgotten—got up when that statement was made in the House of Lords and challenged it, but Lard Cowper, in the face of the challenge, maintained the proposition that no improvements axe made in Ireland except by the tenants. I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Ireland is paying close attention to this point. He will probably toll mo that he has made improvements; but how has he made them? Simply by borrowing money from the Irish taxpayers out of the Church Surplus Fund, and then putting the repayment in the shape of rent

  59
  upon his tenants, which is practically to last for ever. I do not know whether that is absolutely the case, because I am not sufficiently acquainted with the circumstances, but I do know that the Irish landlords have made no improvements except by means of money borrowed from the Board of Works, and if you exclude that money which the tenants have to repay, and if you take away the improvements which the Irish tenants have made themselves, you will leave the soil as bare and naked as an American prairie. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will be ill-advised if he did not take the entire circumstances into consideration, because he would only be adding an additional element of aggravation. Let me read the English-managed estates clause. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary says that it has failed in Ireland on account of a technicality in the clause itself. Now, no clause ever failed in Ireland owing to technicalities which were in favour of the landlords, but everyone has been worked up to the hilt. The English - managed estate clause says where application is made to the Court under this section in respect of any tenants the Court may, if it thinks fit, disallow the application if satisfied that permanent improvements have been made by the tenant, and that the tenant is entitled to compensation; but not if the improvements have been made by the landlord or his predecessor in title, and substantially maintained by him, and not made or acquired by the tenant or his predecessor in title. That was the language of the House of Lords, and let me assure the Committee that when the House of Lords frames language to benefit the landlords it knows very well what it is about. In this case it threw out a net with the very widest meshes, and it succeeded in reaching some 200,000 Irish tenants, although there is not a single estate which can be regarded as an English-managed estate. The matter has been brought to the test by legal inquiry and cross-examination, and it has been established as an incontrovertible fact that out of nearly 250,000 of tenants not one is proved to hold his tenantry in accordance with the principles of an English-managed estate. Under these circumstances, I warn the Government not to add an additional principle of difficulty and irritation
  60
  which is certain to produce delay and inconvenience in the passing of the Bill.
  COLONEL WARING: With regard to the expenditure of money by landlords on their property, although Lord Cowper was unable in the House of Lords to state a case, and maintained that in every instance the money was borrowed from the Board of Works, I am able to give an instance, which is much bettor than arguments upon the point. In the case of my own property, my father expended £400 on a house which he let to a tenant upon a contract of this kind, which sum would be confiscated if the Committee agree to the proposal that has been made. I do not attach much value to the point myself, because I am satisfied that the Land Court would do justice to me, and take that circumstance into consideration; and I do not think the Court has, in any previous case, been anxious to commit an act of positive injustice. I only rose, however, to say that I do know of a case where the landlord's own money was spent.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I can say of ray own knowledge that I never knew a single sixpence spent by a landlord which was not allowed whenever it was brought before a Court, especially in the case of houses. The great grievance has been that houses have been valued far too high, and at a larger sum than the tenant could pay. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that his £100 will not be in the slightest danger if the 8th section of the Act is applied in the ordinary way. What the hon. Member for North Longford has mentioned is, I think, well worthy of the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He has said that money has been borrowed by the landlords from the Board of Works, and repaid by the tenant at a rate of four or five per cent interest with the intention that the charge should be terminated at a certain time, but at the end of 20 years it has been frequently found that it was included in the rent. As an instance of this, I may mention the estate of Lord Templemore, a few miles from Derry. This is a burning question so far as the unexhausted value of improvements is concerned. What the Government say is that those improvements belong to the landlord, but if the tenant has paid for them that is

  61
  manifestly an injustice. If the Government are not satisfied with the 8th section of the Act, I would suggest another means of dealing with the question. There should be a proviso by which the Court should take into consideration any substantial portion of the money paid to the landlord by an increase of the rent charged to the tenant, with leave to appeal all round, so that the matter may be right and fair for all sides.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I quite agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) that the Government have made such Liberal concessions with regard to the Bill, that we ought not to press them too hard. I quite recognize the fair and equitable spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has met the demand that has been made on this side of the House in this matter; but I think there may be some practical difficulty in the working of the clause. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested, as I understand, that the landlord should have a first charge. In some cases the landlord may have made improvements similar to those which have been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) in building a house. He may, however, have built a house that was inappropriate to the holding, and which the tenant doss not appreciate, and it would be unfair to ask the tenant to pay four per cent on the actual value of the house from the builder's point of view if that house has no letting value from an Irish point of view. That is the real difficulty, and I would ask the Government to consider whether the Land Courts are not independent enough to take a sufficiently wide and open view of the matter. I am afraid that considerable difficulties will be involved if the right hon. Gentleman insists on the clause as it stands.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I do not think that any additional value can be given to the clause by clogging it with this incumbrance, even from the point of view taken by the Government. As I understand the clause, it is open to this objection—that, in the first place, it makes a distinction between a yearly tenant and a leaseholder. The landlord may make some improvement upon the holding of a yearly tenant, but the same
  62
  state of things which is to apply in the case of a yearly tenant is not to apply to the ease of a leaseholder. I think that is unfortunate, because there is no difference of principle between the two cases, and no reason why the Government should propose to make a distinction between the two classes of cases. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) has mentioned a particular case in which he was concerned in which large improvements were made by the landlord. If all these cases were oases in which the hon. and gallant Member was concerned, there would be no reason to believe that the tenant would not be properly treated. But a solitary case of that kind is not of the smallest value in furnishing the Committee with any light or guidance upon the question. I have not the misfortune to be an Irish landlord, but I have had a large experience in the Land Court of applications to fix a fair rent, and so notorious is it that the landlord makes no improvement, that it is a regular formula to ask whether the landlord makes any claim for improvements, and the invariable answer is that he does not. It is invariably the case that the improvements are made by the tenant. So common is that, that the landlord is generally invited to get up at the beginning of the case in order to spare the tenant the necessity of formal proof that all the improvements which have been made upon the land have been made by him. Certainly, that has happened in nine out of ten eases, and in the tenth the rule may not apply, not because the landlord made the improvements himself, but because he has evicted a tenant who had made them, and then sub-let the holding to somebody who took it with these improvements upon it; and, therefore, technically, the improvements were held to be the landlords, although they might have been made by some previous tenant. I cannot see what the Government expect to gain by an Amendment of this kind—an Amendment which is vicious in principle, and which, in the case of the tenants' improvements, has been over and over again acknowledged by the Land Court. It is constantly the case that when the tenant has proved his outlay in regard to improvements, and claims to have them allowed, the landlords have come into Court to admit

  63
  that the tenants made the outlay, but that the improvements have been of such a character that they are of no value. That has been the universal rule in the Land Court, and I do not see why any different rule should be made in regard to landlords' improvements. I It may turn out that a landlord has spent £200 or £300 in drainage; but one of the most common experiences in the Land Court has been to find that the money expended by the landlord has been so misspent and so mismanaged that drainage works executed 10 or 12 years ago were absolutely worthless at the date upon which the holding came into Court. Then why should the tenant be charged with a fixed rent for improvements which, whatever value they originally possessed, have, by deterioration, been rendered worthless. The proposition now made is vicious in principle, and I trust that the Government will make up their minds to grant concessions to the tenant, and not insist upon burdening him with some mischievous principle of this kind, which will take away one-half of the value of the Bill, and induce the Irish, tenants, and those who represent them, to entertain a very uncharitable feeling in regard to the concessions the Government have made,
  MR. ESSLEMONT: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has read to the Committee the words he proposes to substitute for the present Amendment. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) in his place, because I cannot quite understand the proposal he made the other day. Let me suppose that the rent of a holding amounts to £20, and that the landlord has spent £500 upon it in improvements. That sum at 4 per cent will represent another £20 a-year, making the rent £40, which it is proposed to set aside as the full rent of the holding as it exists. If you take the holding without interest upon the improvements it would only be £20, and if you increase the sum the tenant has to pay to £40, it is obvious that the tenant is paying 4 per cent upon the capital spent in improvements in addition to his rent, whatever the cost to the landlord may be.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I have already very clearly explained to
  64
  the Committee that the Government do not intend to adhere to the Proviso contained in the clause, and I have recommended the Committee to assent to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, opposite, and then to allow us to discuss our Amendment. I made that suggestion some time ago.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should do this. We have not yet had an opportunity of seeing the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman on paper. Will he now consent to strike out the Proviso as it stands on the clause, and on the Report bring up his proposal, which we will then have it in our power to discuss?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I do not think the Report would be a convenient stage. I should think the plan suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is the best—namely, that we should at once negative the Proviso as it stands.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, at the end of the Clause, to add—"Provided that, when an application is made to the Court to fix a fair rent of a holding, by the lessee becoming a present tenant under this section, if the Court is satisfied that his landlord or his predecessors in title has or have made permanent improvements on the holding, the unexhausted value of which at the time oil such application is asserted to he not less than twice the yearly rent, the Court shall fix a fair rent of the holding, subject to the landlord's right to he allowed interest at the rate of four per cent per annum in respect of the unexhausted value of the improvements."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. DILLON: In Ireland in a great number of cases—in fact, the majority of the cases—it is admitted that the improvements referred to in this Amendment are made by money borrowed from the Board of Works, with re-payments in such a way that the entire sum is re-paid in 25 years. Now, what is the course adopted by a considerable number of Irish landlords, I do not say all of them. They borrow the money; they execute these improvements; they charge five per cent on the money so borrowed upon the tenant, and in many instances they make that charge

  65
  a permanent addition to the rent. What is proposed by the Government is this—to deprive the Court of this discretion to consider whether all or part of the money which has been borrowed has been repaid by the tenant. It may be, and no doubt in most instances it will turn out, that the tenants made improvements themselves, the unexhausted value of which is more or less considerable. It may be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a tenant has paid 5 per cent interest to the landlord on the money which he originally expended, and that the landlord has received more than all the capital expended. By this Amendment the Government deliberately propose to remove from the Court the power it now exorcises in the case of yearly tenants, of taking all these facts into consideration, and making an allowance to the tenant accordingly. I am at a loss to conceive noon what reasonable grounds the Government can defend such a proposition. That is the first point I wish to call attention to. In the next place, I would ask the Government to consider that at the present moment every Court in Ireland, when fixing the judicial rent, takes into consideration the question of the unexhausted improvements of the tenants, and makes a liberal allowance when fixing the rent to be paid to the landlords, if the money the landlords have expended has not already been repaid. Why, then, should we interfere with the discretion of the Court? Another question also arises. As the Amendment is at present worded, there is an extraordinary ambiguity. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary says that in fixing a fair rent it must be fixed subject to the allowance to the landlord of 4 per cent on the value of his unexhausted improvements. It is considered important that the landlord is to get a fair rent for the holding, and this 4 per cent in addition. In that case, I maintain that he would be paid twice over.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not so. A fair rent is to be fixed for the holding apart from the improvements.
  MR. DILLON: Then, what is the object of this Proviso, which proposes to tie the hands of the Court—first, in fixing the value of the holding, and then in charging 4 per cent interest on unexhausted improvements, which is to
  66
  be added to the rent? The Court is engaged daily in the consideration of these matters; and why should it not be the duty of the Court to consider what would be an equitable allowance to the landlord as the owner? The whole question resolves itself into one of equitable jurisdiction. As you leave all other matters to be settled by the Court, I cannot see that the Government have given a single valid reason for tying the hands of the Court in this respect.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have no doubt the intention of the Proviso proposed by the Government is perfectly equitable; but it seems to me extremely doubtful whether any real advantages can be gained by attempting to make a distinction, in settling a fair rent, between that portion of the rent which is interest on the money expended by the landlord and that portion of the rent which is the rent of the holding itself. What is really desired—and I believe the Committee are agreed on that point—is that in exceptional cases which certainly do exist, though I think they are not numerous, where the landlord has laid out money of his own in the improvement of his estate, that that fact should be taken into consideration by the Court in fixing a fair rent in case of permanent improvements having been made by the landlord and not by the tenant. Hon. Members say that that is already sufficiently provided for by a clause in the Land Act that was inserted by the House of Lords. What I have understood is that that clause in the Act of 1881 has been rendered inoperative, owing to the legal construction placed upon it, that a landlord, to come within the benefit of the clause, must be shown to have "maintained" as well as "made" the improvements. It is possible, although I cannot speak from experience on the subject, that that distinction may have the effect of excluding the landlord's expenditure from being considered in the Land Court. I know that on an occasion of this sort it is impossible for us to undertake the revision of every defect which may come to light in the Land Act; but it does appear to me that it would be better if, instead of an elaborate proposal such as that which has been read from the Chair, words were inserted on the Report if it should be found necessary, almost in the terms

  67
  laid down in the Act of 1881, to omit the words which have been found to be objectionable. As the leaseholders are now going to have the same benefits as the yearly tenants, I cannot myself see any strong argument for treating leaseholders differently from yearly tenants. Therefore, I would recommend the Government to introduce a Proviso to this effect—that if it is necessary to protect them against some provisions of the Act of 1881 which are found to be inequitable, to insert a Proviso amending the Act of 1881, so as to escape the extremely limited construction which has been placed upon the clause. That, I think, would be preferable to the elaborate proposal which has now been made, and which I do not think would be found to be of any advantage to the landlords.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, I am fully conversant of the difficulties which surround the question. I admit that we have resisted several Amendments to this clause on the ground that they would give the leaseholders privileges which they would not get if they were tenants from year to year; and, on the whole, it is, perhaps, desirable that leaseholders under the clause should not be placed in a different position from ordinary tenants under the Act of 1881. Unfortunately, this proposal does draw a distinction of that kind, and therefore I admit the force of the noble Marquess's remarks, and, further, that the argument we have employed may be turned against us. The suggestion of the noble Marquess to leave the matter over until the Report stage is one which I consider the Committee would be well-advised to accept. I think the question is not one, as far as I understand it, which can possibly affect the interests either of the landlords or the tenants of Ireland. It is rather an attempt, in my opinion, and an advantageous and desirable attempt, to stop, if possible, what has now become a practice in Parliament—namely, that of interfering with contracts, whether they relate to the land or not, and of subjecting them to the review of the Court. The Government do not desire to interfere with contracts more than can be avoided, and they regard this extra payment in respect of improvements made by the landlord more in the nature of a pecuniary arrangement made between a debtor and creditor than a contract between landlord and tenant. I
  68
  do not think I need further labour the question. I think I have made clear what the motives of the Government are; and, in accordance with the suggestion of the noble Marquess, the Proviso I have proposed will be withdrawn, in order to see whether some words cannot be brought up on the Report to meet the objections which have been raised.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would warn the Government against any attempt to deal with the question of tenants' improvements.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This Proviso relates to landlords' improvements.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: No; it is really the tenants' improvements that are dealt with, and I warn the Government that if they go any further in that direction they may find that they are putting their hands into a hornet's nest. As to the proposal that the question should be re-opened on the Report stage, I shall certainly have to move, if the question is brought up in that way, that the Bill be re-committed, for we can never consent to discuss this question on the Report stage. In discussing the Act of 1881 there was nothing which caused so much friction as this question of the tenants' improvements. In regard to the tenants' improvements, the intentions of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian in passing the Act of 1881 have been shown to have been grossly and cruelly betrayed by what occurred in the Court of Appeal in the case of "Adams v. Dun-seath."
  MR. LEA: The Act of 1881 clearly lays down that the Land Court should consider the representative interests of the landlord and tenant in the holding, and it was further laid down what the Court ought to take into consideration in regard to a yearly tenant. I do not think the Government ought to introduce any special provision with regard to leaseholders which does not prevail in the case of tenants from year to year. They ought to show that some injustice has been done by the Court before introducing any fresh provision into the matter.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I think the Court, in fixing the fair rent of the tenant, ought to take into account the improvements he may have ejected, and when they come to fix the fair rent of a leaseholder they should also take into account the improvements effected by

  69
  such leaseholder. No one would wish to confiscate the property of another person; but I do not think the leaseholder or the tenant should be placed in a worse position than the landlord.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am quite willing that the Court should consider the landlords' improvements; but, as a rule, they have made none. Some of them have borrowed money from the Board of Works; but they have charged every penny of the outlay upon the tenants, and this is simply an attempt to swindle further the unfortunate tenant.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I have now to move to insert the Proviso which stands on the Paper in my name, and is numbered 37. It is as follows:—
  "Always provided that leases made since the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, to take effect from a period subsequent to the passing of the said Act, shall be deemed to be leases existing at the passing of the said Act, in which the premises demised by the said leases so made after the passing of the said Act shall, before the making of the said leases, have been held by the lessees thereof, or their representatives, under leases which expired before the passing of the said Act, in which the said lessees or their representatives remained in the actual occupation of the premises from the expiration of the said leases, so made before the passing of the said Act, until the making of the said leases thereof, after the passing of the said Act."
  The Proviso is designed to meet some special cases of hardship. The circumstance referred to is where tenants held under leases which expired shortly before the Act of 1881 was passed, and where the tenants remained on the holding cultivating it after the passing of the Act of 1881. Tenants in that position were never recognized by the landlords until after the Act came into operation, when leases were given to them which brought them into the position of future tenants, and deprived them of the right and the benefit of having a fair rent fixed. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork accomplishes the object I have in view, but will do more than I intend. I cannot conceive that the Committee will refuse the moderate demand which is made by this Amendment. The men for whom I ask this small modicum of justice had their rents fixed immediately alter 1881, when prices were comparatively high, and they are suffering very
  70
  severely now from the rents imposed upon them under the new leases. I will not go into the question as to the wisdom of bringing all leaseholders who took out their leases after 1881 under the Bill; but I do claim that those who were in a manner done out of the benefits of the Bill in this way should be brought under this clause.
  Amendment proposed, to add, in page 2, at the end of the Clause, the following Proviso:—
  "Always provided that leases made since the passing of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act 1881,' to take effect from a period subsequent to the passing of the said Act, shall be deemed to be leases existing at the passing of the said Act, in which the premises demised by the said leases so made after the passing of the said Act shall, before the making of the said leases, have been held by the lessees thereof, or their representatives, under leases which expired before the passing of the said Act, in which the said lessees or their representatives remained in the actual occupation of the premises from the expiration of the said leases, so made before the passing of the said Act, until the making of the said leases thereof, after passing of the said Act."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): If I understand rightly, the intention of the hon. Gentleman, in moving this Amendment, is that he proposes to deal with a particular class of cases of hardship which is alleged to have occurred under the operation of the Act of 1881. The hardship was of this character—that if a lease had expired in the year 1881, or at the very end of 1880, when it was known that the Land Act of 1881 was going to be introduced, the landlords, in some cases, instead of making the farmer lessee a tenant, kept him on as a caretaker on his own holding until that period had lapsed after which it became possible for the landlord to re-instate him as a future instead of a present tenant. When re-instated in that position, the tenant could not claim the benefit of the Act of 1881. Now, that, no doubt, is a grievance, and is inequitable. I quite admit the grievance, and we are bound by the general principles of the Bill to apply a remedy. We have put down a clause on the Paper to meet anything like cases of fraud or violence, or pressure on the part of the landlord,

  71
  and we give power to the Court to break down leases entered into under such circumstances. I would hope, and, indeed, I believe, that the number of such cases are extremely few; but, be they few or many, I acknowledge that it is our duty, if we can, to remedy them. I am bound to say that I so far agree with the hon. Gentleman; but I think that the particular form of words he has put down on the Paper is unnecessarily obscured. If any hon. Member will read the words I think he will appreciate what I say.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The clause was drawn by a barrister of very great experience.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am quite certain that if the hon. Gentleman had drawn it himself we should have been able to understand what he meant; but, unfortunately, having been drawn by a lawyer of great experience, who does not feel the difficulty we laymen have in dealing with these matters, it is very obscure, and there is nothing on the face of the clause itself to suggest that because these things are inequitable, and only because they are inequitable, the leases ought to be broken. I was going to suggest to the hon. Gentleman the propriety of substituting some such words as these—a copy of which I have furnished to the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). My proposed sub-section would run as follows:—
  "This section shall apply to a lease made between the passing of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' and the 1st day of January, 1883, of a holding whereof the lessee had been previously tenant under a contract of tenancy expiring after the 31st day of December, 1880, and of which he had continued inoccupation up to the time of the making of the lease, if the Court is of opinion that the postponement of the making of such lease was a contrivance of the landlord to evade 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.' In this sub-section, the expression 'lessee' shall include any person who would have been predecessor in title of such lessee if the tenancies existing up to the 31st day of December had continued to exist."
  If the hon. Member will withdraw his Proviso I will venture to move this in its place.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Part of it seems to meet my case, but I do not know about the whole of it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw his Amendment?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I should like to hear the Proviso proposed by the right hon. Gentleman read again. I do
  72
  not see that the intervention of the Court is necessary. I would prefer to stand on the fact itself. If such an occurrence took place, it would constitute of itself the injustice of which I complain.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment, and allow the first part of the Proviso I propose to move to be put, he will be able to move an Amendment to that Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, wihdrawn.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: As a point of Order, I think the Amendment which I have on the Paper will take precedence of that of the right hon. Gentleman's.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No. The Member of the Government who is in charge of a Bill always has precedence when he submits an Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to move the insertion of the Proviso I have already read.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, to add at end of Clause—" This section shall apply to a lease made between the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, and the 1st day of January, 1883, of a holding whereof the lessee had been previously tenant under a contract of tenancy expiring after the 31st day of December, 1880, and of which he had continued in occupation up to the time of the making of the lease, if the Court is of opinion that the postponement of the making of such lease was a contrivance of the landlord to evade 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.' In this sub-section, the expression 'lessee' shall include any person who would have been predecessor in title of such lessee if the tenancies existing up to the 31st day of December had continued to exist."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I would suggest that the hon. Member for South Tyrone should now move an Amendment omitting the last part of the Proviso.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I have an Amendment on the same point, and I desire to state my reasons for thinking the Proviso of the right hon. Gentleman inadequate, inasmuch as it does not go as far as the Amendment I have put down. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, differs from mine on four points; and two of them, I think, are vital. The other two are points on

  73
  which some compromise may reasonably be made. The four points are these—in the first place, the right hon. Gentleman interposes a limit of time before the beginning and end of the party to which the scheme is to be applied. There is to be a sort of interregnum in the tenant's right which the right hon. Gentleman proposes should end on the 1st day of January, 1883, that being the date fixed by the Land Act for the commencement of future tenancies. That is a point upon which there would be very little difficulty in coming to an arrangement. It has been mentioned in the course of the debate as a proper date at which the fresh start should be made; and, therefore, I will not quarrel with, the right hon. Gentleman for fixing that date. The second point upon which I differ appears to me to be a point of considerable importance. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman requires that before any tenant who, owing to the expiration of the tenancy at a particular moment, is deprived of the benefit of the Land Act, can get relief, he must be in a position to prove in Court that he remained in continuous holding from the time the first tenancy ended, and until the time his second tenancy commenced. Now, that is a point upon which there is not the slightest possibility of our coming to any agreement with the right hon. Gentleman; and for this reason—that it would exclude the most cruel and the most pitiful of all cases—namely, the case of a tenant who is evicted by his landlord, but whom the landlord reinstates in the course of a couple of months. Now, what difference of principle can there be in the case of a tenant whose legal rights have expired and who has continued to occupy his holding on sufferance, and of a tenant who has been evicted for a few months, the landlord having got possession of the land, and having re-instated the evicted tenant after that interruption of title? What is the case of the right hon. Gentleman? His case is that in that class of cases where the landlord has allowed the land to remain in the hands of the tenant as caretaker, and, after the passing of the Act of 1881, has for the first time given the tenant a lease, that lease ought not to be broken. Upon that point there is no difference of opinion; but why should the right hon. Gentleman go so much
  74
  further, and exclude this unfortnnate class of evicted tenants who, for some reason or other, the landlord afterwards re-instates? I submit to the House that it will deal with the question in a very imperfect and cruel way if it excludes these unfortunate tenants because the landlord has exercised his legal rights to the fullest degree, and, having put the tenant out of occupation for a few months, has afterwards re-instated him. Under the provisions of the Land Act the landlord would have a tenant who was placed in such circumstances completely in his power, and he could re-instate him on any terms he pleased. I certainly hope that the Government will make a concession upon this point. The next point is this. Suppose a case of this kind happens, that instead of evicting a tenant the landlord re-instated him as caretaker. In that case, as the Amendment is drawn, such tenant would be excluded from the benefit of the Act, because he would not, technically speaking, have enjoyed continuous occupation of the land. The landlord would be the occupier for all legal purposes, and the tenant would merely be his servant, who, for all the purposes of this Act, would be excluded from any benefit to be derived under it. I fail to see how any distinction can be drawn between the case of a tenant, although his tenancy has expired, who has been allowed to occupy it uninterruptedly under the terms of the old lease, and the case of a tenant who has been evicted and subsequently re-instated as a caretaker. In a case like that, I say it, would be grossly unfair to the person who has lost possession of the holding to exclude him on account of this technicality from the benefits he would otherwise enjoy. I submit that, for all purposes, he ought to be considered by the Court as a tenant who has remained in occupation of the holding, and he ought to get the same benefit as if the landlord had not gone to the extreme length the law allows him to go. There is another point still. The Proviso starts from the 31st of December, 1880, which is the date I propose to fix in my Amendment; but; the Government require that the tenant should have been in occupation on the 31st of December, 1880, whereas my Amendment makes it sufficient that the holding should have been in the occupation of the lessee, although the ten-

  75
  ancy had been previously determined. The word "lessee" includes any person who would have been the predecessor in title of such lessee if the tenancy under which the holding had originally been occupied had continued in existence. There are cases—not very numerous, I admit—but there are a number of cases which occurred two years prior to the passing of the Land Act in which persons were permitted to occupy farms in Ireland, although their tenancies had been determinated. Over and over again such cases have come before the Land Court, and the unfortunate tenant has been denied redress, because he was only in occupation on sufferance. Now I submit that if the landlord has chosen to permit the tenant to occupy the farm the tenant should be in the same position as if he had occupied the holding uninterruptedly. My last point is also a point of some importance—namely, the point mentioned by the hon. Member for South Tyrone in reference to the discretion of the Court. The Court must be satisfied that the postponement of the making of the lease was a contrivance of the landlord to evade the Irish Land Law Act, 1881. Now, I venture to say that it will be absolutely impossible for the tenant to prove that. The landlord is not called upon to express what his intention was in letting the occupation of the tenant continue and postponing the making of a new lease until after the Land Act had passed. How, then, can he be said to have evaded the Act, having regard to the fact that he never intended the tenant to have the benefit of the Act? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not insist on this portion of the Amendment; but I think the most profitable way of discussing the points I have raised will be to bring them forward on the Report without my proposing any Amendment now.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to move to leave out all the words after the word "lease."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman proposes to omit these words—
  "If the Court is of opinion that the postponement of the making of such lease was a contrivance of the landlords to evade 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.' In this sub-section the expression 'lessee' shall include any person who would have been predecessor in title of such lessee if the tenancies existing up to the 31st day of December had continued to exist."
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Yes.
  MR. PARNELL: I have an Amendment to propose.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) touches prior words I shall be ready to receive it.
  MR. PARNELL: My Amendment refers to line one of the Proviso—namely, after the word "made" to insert "or made to take effect." I think the Government will admit that these words are necessary in order to provide for leases made, but not made to take effect on a certain date. Otherwise, the section will shut out an enormous class of leaseholders whom I am quite sure it is the intention of the Government to include in this clause. In addressing myself to this Amendment I will express a hope that the Government will take a large view of the question and of their own Amendment, and will not, by making it too narrow, compel us to move a variety of Amendments to the Proviso which will necessarily take up a great deal of time. I am most anxious to do everything I can to assist the progress of the Bill; but when a clause of this kind comes before us, and the words of it are very narrow, it becomes absolutely our duty to bring the questions at issue under the attention of the Committee and of the Government. I trust that this Amendment, which is one of several I have to move, will be accepted by the Government.
  Amendment proposed, to insert in the proposed Amendment, after the word "made," the words "or made to take effect."—(Mr. Parnell)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'or made to take effect' be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): Will the hon. Member for Cork read the passage, so that we may understand how the Proviso will be affected by the Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the Amendment is adopted the Proviso will read thus—
  "This section will apply to a lease made, or made to take effect, between the passing of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' and the 1st day of January, 1883."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I am not certain that I quite

  77
  understand the hon. Member. The section deals with leases made or agreed to be made between certain periods. Suppose that a lease was made 20 years ago, but was a reversionary lease of which there are several instances in Ireland, and which were provided for in the Act of 1881. The intention of the Amendment might be to cover the case of reversionary leases made 20 years ago. All I can say is, that the words of the Proviso would apply to such cases. I do not gather from the hon. Member that it is not his intention to apply it to the case of reversionary leases.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: The Amendment proposes to deal with the common case of agreements made prior to November, 1882, which all of us agree should come in. But frequently arrangements have been made on parole for the formal payment of a rent, the lease to take effect from November, but not to come into actual existence until the January following.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I think we are all agreed about the principle; but it would seem that the words are open to some ambiguity. I would suggest the insertion of the words "agreement or agreements for a lease."
  MR. O'DOHERTY: A lease is by this definition actually an agreement for a lease.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I now propose to omit the words "under a contract of tenancy expiring." My object is to make the section apply to a lease made between the passing of the Act of 1881 and the 1st of January, 1883, of a holding whereof the lessee had been previously tenant "of which he was in occupation as tenant or otherwise on or" after the 31st of December, 1880, and of which he had continued in occupation up to the time of the making of the lease. The Amendment is designed to meet a common case of hard-ship which I adverted to a short time ago. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland will consider the matter I think he will find that this is one of. The commonest cases of all. The cases which have arisen have generally been cases in which the tenancies have expired on the 25th of March or the 1st of May, 1881, or on the 29th of September or
  78
  the 1st of November, 1880. The Proviso of the right hon. Gentleman will only admit the tenancies which expired in March and May, whereas mine will let in tenancies which expired in September and November. The Act of 1881 applied to tenants who continued in occupation after the 31st of December, 1880, and many cases occurred immediately after the passing of the Land Act, in which tenants sought the benefit of the Act and were refused. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is acquainted with the matter, he will be aware that quite as many leases expired on the last day of 1880 as upon the first day of 1881. Therefore I think this section ought to apply to one equally with the other, and, therefore, beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to omit the words "under a contract of tenancy expiring," in order to insert the words "of which he was in occupation as tenant or otherwise on or."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. GIBSON: The question raised by the hon. Gentleman in his speech is not exactly what he has put on the Paper. The object of the Government was to meet the case put by the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) that in the case of a person who has been in possession of a holding but who for some cause has ceased to be in possession of it as tenant, although really in occupation, and who in regard to his occupation for a considerable period has had a lease granted to him, he should be placed in the position of a present tenant, the object being to give him the benefit of the Act of 1881. It is clear at once that in dealing with the question the purpose of the Government was to provide an anterior limit over which the shadow of the coming Act might be supposed to be cast, and that period was the 31st of December, 1880—a period fixed by the hon. Member for Cork.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: For purposes of occupation.
  MR. GIBSON: It is impossible to suggest any case of limit in which there might not be a hardship. We have to take a rough and broad line, and the

  79
  line fixed by the hon. Member for Cork and ourselves is the 31st of December. I think that that is a fair compromise to the limit of time when the operation of the coming Land Act may be supposed to have influenced the minds of the landlords. The Committee have now to consider what are the class of tenants or of persons who are to get the benefit of the Act. They are not to be mere occupiers, but cases of tenants who ceased to be tenants properly, and came into occupation some time after the 29th of September. If we deal with cases further back—cases of tenants whose leases expired earlier in 1880—the result will be to place the Committee in some difficulty in justifying the equity of this legislation, which is certainly legislation of an ex post facto character. The Amendment of the hon. Member is an Amendment of a very elastic nature. He uses the words "tenant or otherwise;" and it would be perfectly competent for the Court to go back to a tenancy which may have been terminated 10 or 15 years before. There is no limit of time between the occupation, and the preceding tenancy. The only safe ground the Committee can go upon is to take broadly a date within which it may be supposed the coming Land Act might influence the action of the landlords, and to say that the tenants whoso leases have expired after that date, and which fact might influence the mind of the landlords, shall be dealt with in this particular manner; and as to the question of the continuance of the occupation, I presume we shall be able to discuss that later on. As far as I understand the words that are used in the Amendment of the Government, and also in the Amendments put on the Paper by other hon. Members, that is the object with which the word "occupation" has been in every instance retained. I am not dealing with "occupation" as between the tenancy of one man and another, but I am dealing with the actual occupation of the land, which I understand to be physical occupation. If the landlord chose to appoint such a man a caretaker I think that case would be covered by this section.
  MR. T. HEALY: Oh, no.
  MR. GIBSON: The hon. and learned Member thinks it is not covered?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes; that is my view.
  MR. GIBSON: Then, I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. In my opinion it is.
  MR. CHANCE: So far as the question of occupation is concerned, may I refer to the case of "Eiffe v. M'Kenna," where the lease expired, and the tenant hold on for 10 months, receiving receipts for his rent. Subsequently the landlord went to the Court of Appeal and said that the tenant wag not there as tenant, but merely as a person having the use and occupation of the land, and that the receipts were virtually receipts for money paid for use and occupation for a certain limited period. The Court of Appeal held that that was so, and deprived the tenant of the benefit of the Land Act of 1881, which he would have got if he had been in occupation; and, on the face of that judgment, it is idle to tell us that the occupation will be deemed to be mere physical occupation. I have given the right hon. and learned Gentleman a case which went before the Court of Appeal, where a tenant, paying a rent which was precisely the rent he had paid previously, was held to be only a person who had merely a licence to use and occupy the land without being in actual occupation. I am convinced that, under that ruling, it will be held that occupation moans a real and lawful tenancy, and that it will not cover the case of a caretaker, so that the result will be that this clause will be of very little value indeed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has alluded to the fact that my hon. Friend the junior Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) has specified the 31st of December, 1880, as the date in his Amendment. I would point out to the Committee that that is a date giving the commencement of a new tenancy, and not a date determining an existing tenancy. Under the Government Amendment the only tenants who will get the benefit of the Act are tenants whoso leases expired after the 31st of December, 1880; whereas those whose leases expired on the 25th of March, or the 29th of September, would have no advantage. I submit that the 31st of December is a most inconvenient date and a date which would absolutely nullify the intention of the clause. At the right time, in spite of the wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed, I shall feel it necessary to

  81
  move the omission of the 31st of December,1880, for the purpose of fixing a more reasonable date—such as the 29th of September, 1880. That will include the great bulk of the leases which fall in on the gale day of September, 1880.
  MR. O'HEA: It has been my lot to defend, for the purpose of keeping them in their holdings, a great many persons whose leases expired in 1880, and I know, as a matter of fact, that in a great many of those cases the Sheriff was not put in. motion, but the people were allowed to remain in possession of their farms believing themselves to be fairly rented; but when the Act of 1881 was passed they were told that they were only in colourable occupation of their holdings, and they were obliged to capitulate to their landlords and accept any terms the landlords chose to impose upon them. I know, further, that a great many of the persons whose cases I refer to belonged to the most respectable class of peasants in Ireland; but they were obliged to accept leases. Therefore, I trust that the Committee will not be led away by what has fallen from the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland. I am quite in agreement with the suggestion which has been made by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) that unless some date anterior to the 31st December, 1880, is fixed, persons who have been kept in occupation without the Sheriff being put in motion will be without any remedy. I think this is a matter sufficiently serious to engage the attention of the Government, in order that they may extend to those persons the benefit of the Act, especially when we know that it is a more matter of accident that leases drop out at this particular time.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: We are not now on any question of date; but the point the Committee is asked to decide is the omission of the words "under a contract of tenancy expiring," in order to insert "in which he was in occupation as tenant or otherwise." The hon. Member opposite has referred to a case which came before the Court of Appeal; but the decision of the Court did not turn on words such as the Government now propose. The objection I have to the Amendment is that it uses the words "occupation as tenant or
  82
  otherwise." There is no distinction between "tenant or otherwise"; there is nothing to show any connection of the occupation with the tenancy; and it would, therefore, cover any occupier however the occupier got in, or when he got in, and whether he was a previous tenant or not. In point of fact it would put a leaseholder in a better position than an ordinary tenant from year to year. I am sure that cannot be the intention of the Committee. The words in the clause, as they stand, seem to meet the facts of the case much better than the words "occupation as tenants or otherwise." The adoption of which words would put a leaseholder in a position which I am certain the Committee does not contemplate.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: If I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the Government are willing to make a concession on the point of date I should have no objection to withdraw the Amendment. I must, however, point out that the question of date is of great importance.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No question as to date is at present before the Committee.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: With all submission, Mr. Courtney, I think we are bound, in some sense, to have regard to the question of date, because, in my Amendment, I fix it as the 31st of December, 1880. What I am pointing out is that a tenant whose lease expires on the 29th of September should get the benefit of the Act. That is a very common case in regard to the expiration of a tenancy; but if the Amendment of the Government is accepted it will exclude all such cases. It is on this ground that I ask them to make a concession in regard to the date. The Government have taken my date, but they have altered its meaning by making the date the point to which the tenancy should reach, instead of making it the point which the occupation should reach. The effect will be to exclude a large number of tenants from the benefit of the clause. I hope the Government will give us some explanation upon, the matter. We have no desire to do anything unreasonable. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested the case of a man who may have occupied a holding for 10 or 15 years without a lease; but he knows very well that that

  83
  is an absurdity and a case which cannot possibly arise.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It has already been pointed out that a tenant in Ireland, instead of being in occupation until the 31st of December, 1880, will practically have ceased occupation on the 25th of March, or the 29th of September. Consequently the Government are running away with a fallacious idea that the Act will affect leases expiring on the 31st of December. As a matter of fact no leases expire on the 31st of December, but they will have been leases which have expired on the 25th of March, the 1st of May, the 29th of September, or the 1st of November. This question of date is really of some importance for this reason—that where you name the 31st of December you do not really mean the 31st of December, because no lease expires on that date.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork raises a question of the character of the occupation, whether as a tenant or otherwise; but if he merely wishes to raise a question of date, it would be better, for the despatch of Business, to withdraw the Amendment, and move an Amendment in regard to the date.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask the Government whether they will object to deal with an Amendment which will affect the case of evicted tenants who have ceased, for a period, to be tenants before the passing of the Act, but who have been appointed caretakers, and afterwards reinstated as tenants under a lease? We wish to provide that such tenants as those should have the benefit of this Bill; and we also wish to make it quite clear that caretakers, under such circumstances, shall also, when they hare been reinstated, have the benefit of the measure. If the Government have no objection to that proposition, we shall be glad if they will propose their own words, and we are quite ready to let the matter stand over, if they desire it, until the Report stage. I hope it will be possible for the Government to say whether they agree with that principle or not. I may add that time is now being occupied because the Amendments are not before the Committee in print.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word as to the
  84
  object which my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) wishes to carry out. He desires to leave it to the Court to decide matters of fact—namely, to say whether there has been a continuance of the occupancy of the old tenant. That was certainly the intention of Parliament, and I do not see why the tenant should not have the rights which he had prior to the Act of 1881. If any leases have been entered into, that fact should also be taken into account.
  MR. R. T. REID&c.): I have endeavoured, together with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. A. Cohen), to follow the discussion which has taken place, but I confess that I have been unable to do so. Indeed, we have gone as far as to get a copy of the Amendment; but it is of a highly technical nature, exceedingly difficult to understand, and I think it is absolutely impossible for the Committee at large to follow the debate without having the Amendment before them. Therefore, I think it would be much more conducive to the despatch of Business if this matter were postponed until the Report, so that hon. Members may be able to follow it satisfactorily.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I feel the difficulty which the hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out; but the Government would have been placed in a false position, and would have laid themselves open to strong animadversion, if they had not laid the clause upon the Table. I think the House will feel that we are amply justified in the course we have taken. I had hoped that the Amendment we brought up would have met the difficulty, and that it would have been allowed to pass with very little discussion. I regret that that has not been the case, and, without finding fault with the course which hon. Members below the Gangway opposite have felt it their duty to take, I do not think we ought at the present moment to continue this very technical discussion. I would only suggest whether we should put it down as a substantive clause, or bring it up on the Report stage. That is a question for the Government to consider; but, at any rate, the last hour's discussion has shown that it is almost hopeless to expect the Committee to come to a satisfactory decision now.
  MR. PARNELL: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to bring up the question in a new clause?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If that is the view of the hon. Gentleman I will certainly consider the matter.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think it would he far better that we should have a distinct understanding I have no desire to waste one moment of time unnecessarily; but I think it is desirable we should have a promise that the Amendment should assume the form of a now clause.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it is very likely that that will be the case.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 11, at end, add—
  "In case of a lessee becoming present tenant under this section, the Court shall not, for fifteen years from the commencement of such present tenancy, authorise resumption by the landlord under this section."
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I cannot, having regard to the previous decision of the Committee, move the whole of the Amendment standing in my name. I shall, therefore, omit that portion of the Amendment relating to a letting or agreement to let for ever; and I think in that form the Government will agree that it is an absolutely non-contentious Amendment. The Bill contains no definition of the word "lease." The Act of 1881 contains no definition; it simply says that the word is to bear the same meaning as in the Act of 1870; you have to go back to that Act to get a definition, and then you are in a worse position than before—the definition is no definition at all, and is used solely for the purpose of explaining the meaning of the word in that Act. I draw attention to the peculiar form of the 21st section of the Act of 1881, which uses a meaningless expression, and draws a distinction between a lease and a contract for tenancy which is not a yearly tenancy and is less than a yearly tenancy. This is a somewhat technical matter. The right hon. Gentleman will see that these two contracts are placed on the same level.
  86
  I do not know whether this is a contract for tenancy which is neither one nor the other of these; but if there be, the tenant ought to get the benefit of this clause, because Section 21 of the Act of 1881 excluded him from the benefit of that Act. I, therefore, beg to move my Amendment down to the words "fixed tenancy."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 11, at end, to add the 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."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): The 21st section of the Act of 1881 provided that contracts of tenancy should be dealt with as existing leases. There is no doubt on that point as a matter of legality, and I submit that it would be undesirable to multiply definitions by adopting the Amendment of the hon. Member, seeing that this Bill is identical with the Act of 1881, so far as this matter is concerned.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: If this clause used the phrase "existing lease," I admit that there would be no difficulty; but the words are not here. The words "existing lease" have a technical meaning in the Act of 1881, and the difficulty lies in its application to this clause. It is on that account that I propose my Amendment. The point I take is that the 21st section of the Act of 1881 mentions four classes of tenancies—namely, the lease, yearly tenancy, tenancy less than a yearly tenancy, and contracts of tenancy. I say that this clause should apply to contracts and agreements which are not in the other three classes, and I simply follow the 21st section of the Act of 1881, being driven to that because the Government have not used the phrase "existing lease." If this Amendment is not accepted there will remain the class excepted from the benefit of the Act of 1881, who will be excepted from the benefit of this Act. It is a difficult matter to explain this across the floor of the House; but I am perfectly sure that if I were in communication with the right hon. Gentleman I could show him that my Amendment is

  87
  desirable; but in the expectation that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter between this and Report I will ask leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: There is an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North Wexford (Mr. J. E. Redmond), which, in his absence, I propose to move. I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will see that there is a strong necessity for this Amendment, which is to meet the case that is ordinary in Ulster, on the estates of the London Companies, for instance, of the lease being handed down for many years to successors who have relied on the fact that it carried with it a beneficial interest, but who now would, under this Bill, be required to prove the title. I want the poor tenant to be able to go into Court without being compelled to prove his title. The Acts of 1870 and 1881 were both framed in the spirit in which I urge this Amendment; in both cases provision, was made for poor tenants who could not take out administration. My clause injures no one, and it is merely to enable the Court to decide between landlord and tenant as to what is a fair rent. Take the case of a lease of 60 years at a rent of £5. I ask what would be the use of getting a poor man to produce his title under those circumstances? Why, it would put him out of Court altogether. It is to remove that disability that I, as a lawyer, speaking even against the interests of my own profession, suggest the Amendment I now propose should be adopted.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 11, at end, add—"Any person beneficially entitled to the tenants' interest in a lease, any of the next-of-kin of a deceased lessee acting as though not being legally the representative of the deceased, any person liable for the rent of the holding to the landlord, and any person on whom notice to quit could he served to determine the tenancy, if it were a tenancy from year to year, shall for the purpose of making any claim or application under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts be deemed to be a lessee, without prejudice however to the rights or claims of any person to the tenant's interest in the holding, and without prejudice to the power or duty of the Court in proper cases to appoint any person as limited administrator, as provided by the said Acts."—(Mr. O'Doherty.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I understand the hon. Member in the latter part of his observations to say that the Amendment would apply to a very different class of tenants from those he referred to in the earlier part of his speech. That would give the Amendment a very wide application indeed, and I may mention what the effect of it would be. Under the Amendment it would be competent, if a man left 10 or 12 next-of-kin, for each person to come into Court and have a fair rent fixed. It is necessary that the landlord should know who is to get the judicial tenancy. There may be many cases in which the tenant would be too poor to have a representative, and in such cases the Court at no cost at all makes the person who comes into Court, if he fairly represents the tenant's interest, and is a decent man, the administrator for the purposes of the suit. The landlord then knows whom he is to look to for the rent. In whom is to be the judicial tenancy? The proposal of the hon. Member is that it is to be in the whole body of the next-of-kin. But it is impossible that everyone calling himself the next-of-kin should come into Court and have a judicial rent fixed, he, perhaps, being put forward as a pauper in order to avoid the claim of the landlord for rent. I think I have said sufficient to satisfy the Committee that this Amendment, which is of a highly technical and theoretical character, ought not to be accepted. We all know that a large amount of work has to be got through, and I earnestly invite hon. Gentlemen opposite not to press Amendments of this kind. The present Amendment is of no very important character so far as regards the benefit it would confer on the tenant, whereas it would be very injurious with regard to the landlords in Ireland. This is a serious matter for the Committee to consider, and I submit that, having regard to the great number of questions which we have to discuss, the hon. Member should consent to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: The contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that a man who comes into Court as lessee must prove his lease and the assignment of it, unless he has been, appointed administrator for the purpose

  89
  of making this claim. He also spoke of the whole of the next-of-kin coming into Court; but I would point out that the Amendment is carefully limited to one as legal representative of the deceased. The right hon. and learned Gentleman next spoke of a pauper coming into Court and getting a fair rent fixed, and then hopping out of Court and leaving the landlord without other resource. I never heard a description, of an Amendment so utterly opposed to the meaning of the Amendment itself, and I venture to way so contrary to what any Irish lawyer believes it to be. I say you will exclude the man who has had a lease for 50 years as effectually as if he had only held it for five years. This Amendment is, in my opinion, of a much more important character than that which we have been debating for two hours, and it is an Amendment which we shall press upon the Government, because of the effect which the former Acts have had in excluding tenants of this class from the benefit of the Bill. I have listened with absolute astonishment to the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and the only explanation I can find for them is that he believed this Amendment to have been put down by a layman and never read it. As I have said, we shall continue to press it on the Government, because, while it is one that can do no harm, it will effect a great deal of good to the poor tenants of the class I have in view.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): May I, with great respect to the hon. Member for North Donegal, say that I think this Amendment is one which has no reference to the clause before the Committee? It is a general Amendment of the Land Act of 1881, and I think it would be absolutely impossible for this House to got through the work that is to be done if we are to deal not only with questions within, the scope of the present. Bill, but also with Amendments which hon. Members consider improvements upon the Act of 1881. I beg the hon. Gentleman to consider the time of the House, and venture to express a hope that he will withdraw his Amendment, which, as I have said, has no special reference to the present clause.
  MR. LEA: I rise to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Donegal (Mr. O'Doherty). The matter which he has called attention to is one of very great importance. I know that many applications made under the Act of 1881 were dismissed by the Court on very trifling points. I have been informed of the case of a tenant who had been paying rent to the landlord for 12 years, but regarding whom the Court decided that it was impossible for him to proceed, because when he came into Court he had not taken out letters of administration.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 119; Noes 142: Majority 23.—(Div. List, No. 322.)
  [8.48 P.M.]
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: My object in moving the Amendment standing in my name is for the purpose, in the first place, of endeavouring, if possible, to prevent the undue employment of Special Commissioners under the Act, and, on the other hand, to relieve landlords and tenants of the cost of litigating questions of rent. If the clause remains as at present, there will be an immense rush of leaseholders to the Court. We are told that the number of leaseholders in Ireland is 120,000, and I believe that something like two-thirds of these will be in a position to go into Court for the purpose of obtaining judicial rents—that is to say, that it is probable that 80,000 will apply. So far as I can ascertain, two-thirds of the whole number will be paying rent under £50 a-year, and it is especially with reference to that class that I make my present proposal. It is clear that, as I have said, there will be an immense rush to the Court, and I need hardly point out to the Committee that the cost to the State, as well as the cost of litigating, both to the landlords and tenants, will be very great. I have been told that each Sub-Commission Court, consisting of three members, costs from £3,000 to £5,000 a-year, and that they are able to get through about 1,300 cases in the year. It is obvious, then, that there will be required about 30 Courts sitting for two years for the purpose of clearing away all the business that has to be done, and that the cost to the State will be something like

  91
  £150,000 a-year during that period, besides which there is the cost of litigation to the landlords and tenants. My proposal is to avoid this great cost if possible. I can quite conceive that when the Land Act of 1881 was passed it was absolutely necessary that all the tenants should go into Court for the purpose of obtaining a judicial rent, because at that time there was no standard of value which could be used; but we are not now in that position, because we have a certain standard which I think can be applied by the Court. If that standard could be so applied it would not be necessary for tenants to go into Court, unless the parties went there by way of appeal, and the probability is it would be found that there was no necessity for going into Court at all. My proposal is that on the tenant making application for a judicial rent under this clause it should be the duty of the Court, in the first place, to determine in a provisional manner the rent as between the landlord and the tenant by a standard of valuation up to £50 a-year, determined by the Land Commission, It would be open to every landlord and tenant afterwards within six months to appeal against the decision; and the Appeal Court would set about hearing the case in the same manner as under the Act of 1881 in the case of appeals from the Civil Bill Court. It is my belief, if this proposal were adopted in the case of the smaller leaseholders, that a very small proportion of them would appeal from the provisional determination of the Court, the result of which would be the saving of a large sum of money. In support of this proposal I would point out that while it could be carried out without any cost to the parties it would inflict no hardship on either of them, because they would be able to appeal in case of dissatisfaction with the previous decision of the Court. Supposing that in the Province of Ulster the leaseholders were rented at 10 per cent above Griffith's valuation, then on application to the Court, if the Commissioners found that the average rents determined by them in other cases, and in respect of tenancies under £50 a-year, were 10 per cent below Griffith's valuation, then in the particular case before them the Commissioners would provisionally determine the rent to be 10 per cent below that valuation; but if objection were raised,
  92
  appeal could be made to the Court, and the proceedings would take place as if no provisional decision had been come to. I am appalled at the probable expense which this clause may cause to the State by the multiplication of special Commissioners, and I think it would be in the interest of all to avoid that expense, and still more to the interest of tenant and landlord that they should be saved the great cost of litigation which will be otherwise incurred. I do not know whether this is the best form in which my object could be carried out. If it be not, I shall be glad to accept any modification from the Government, because my Amendment is moved out of no hostility to the Bill, but simply for the purpose of saving money to the State and the parties concerned.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 11, at end, add—"Provided also, that where an application is made under this section for a judicial rent by any tenant holding under a lease within the meaning of this Clause, and whoso holding is valued under the Poor Law valuation at the annual value of fifty pounds and under, the Land Commission, after notice to the lessor, but without hearing any evidence as to the value of the land from either lessor or lessee, shall provisionally fix the rent for the holding at the average rate, with reference to the Poor Law valuation, at which the vents of other holdings within the same province, of the Poor Law valuation of fifty pounds and under, have been finally fixed by the Commission during the twelve months preceding such application, provided that if within two months after such provisional determination of the rent either the lessor or the lessee shall appeal against it, the Commission shall hear and determine such appeal, without reference to their previous determination, in the manner provided for appeals from the Civil Bill Court under section forty-seven of the Irish Land Act, 1881: provided also, that if no such appeal be made, the rent so provisionally fixed shall be the judicial rent of the holding."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I fully recognize that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentle-man is brought forward solely with the view to facilitate the proceedings, and to save the expense of all concerned in the fixing of a fair rent. At the same time, I think I can show that there are certain objections to the proposal which ought to prevent the Committee accepting the Amendment, oven if it were considerably modified. It is quite

  93
  clear that the fall in prices, which is the prime cause and reason why we are legislating with regard to leaseholders, has affected the various classes of holdings very differently, so that a reduction on a rich grass farm might be excessive which would be inadequate in the case of a small agricultural holding. Then I have another objection to the Amendment, which I think the right hon. Gentleman will feel to have great weight. He proposes to have a different mode of settling valuations as between leases and tenancies from year to year. I do not think you can set side by side the two systems of fixing fair rents, because it would lead to much dissatisfaction and heartburning, and I conceive we should thereby be establishing an inequality which the Committee ought to be slow to create. The Amendment proposes a different system for holdings under £50 and holdings above £50. One evil which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to avoid is the block of Business which he thinks would take place. I do not believe that there would be that tremendous block which arose under the Act of 1881, and oven if there were we have a clause in this Bill which did not exist in the other Act, and which would largely meet that difficulty. I point out that the right hon. Gentleman, in his desire to avoid a block in the Commissioners Court, has forgotten the block that may arise in the Court of Appeal. Now, if there should be a block in the Courts, there is power, if necessary, to appoint additional Sub-Commissioners; but if the Court of Appeal is overworked you cannot meet that difficulty without legislation. I think the arguments I have laid before the Committee are sufficient to make us reject the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. If that Amendment were carried it would practically sweep away and render nugatory the action of the Commissioners, throwing the whole weight of future decisions on some general principle arrived at in the past, subject only to appeal to the Court. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman, having the best intentions with regard to the clause, will not think it necessary to press his Amendment.
  MR. MAHONY: I acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out a great objection to the clause as it stands; but I ask him
  94
  to consider not the words of the clause, but the spirit of the Amendment, which I think is a very reasonable one. The first objection of the right hon. Gentleman was on the ground of the vast area involved. I admit that it would be impossible to leave the Commissioners to deal, as is proposed, with the case of all the Provinces in Ireland. The next objection is that there would be two modes of fixing rent, one for tenancies under £50 and another for tenancies above £50 valuation. But I point out that that difficulty might be met by including all tenancies. I would suggest for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration that the Amendment should merely be used to fix rent in a rough and ready manner in the first instance, and that if either party were dissatisfied with the rent so fixed they should then go in the ordinary way before the Sub-Commissioners. Now, the right hon. Gentleman stated that there was no block in the Court of Sub-Commissioners in 1881. That is one of the most absurd statements I ever heard in this House. Anyone who knows anything about the working of the Act of 1881 must know that there was a terrible block in the Land Court, and that in the year 1884 we were still engaged hearing cases that were listed on the day the Court first sat, and that some of the rents which were fixed in 1884 had to date hack to the first sitting of the Court. A very large body of Assistant Commissioners were appointed in consequence of the great block in the Courts. Now, I want to call the attention of the Committee to one of the results of that block. The Chief Commissioners, I think, incurred very great responsibility in what they did in this matter. They pressed the Sub-Commissioners to hasten on their decisions, and to get through as many cases as possible; and the consequence of that, in many instances, was that the Sub-Commissioners used improper hurry to get over the cases. Each month there was a Circular sent round to the Sub-Commissioners giving the number of cases of rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners during the previous month. The object obviously was to get up a competition between the different Commissioners. Naturally the Assistant Commissioners were anxious to get on with their work, knowing that a great deal of favour was depending on

  95
  their making rapid progress. The consequence of that Circular being sent round each month was, as I say, the establishment of a sort of competition between the different Sub - Commissioners. I am speaking of what I know; that there was competition amongst the Sub-Commissioners I know for a fact; and I also know for a fact that wherever any Sub-Commissioner fell short of the average of the cases he disposed of, the Chief Commissioners at once directed an inquiry to be made as to why he had so fallen short of the requisite number of cases. Well, Sir, nothing to my mind can be more calculated to destroy the proper working of the cases by the Sub-Commissioners than the action taken by the Chief Commissioners. A very difficult and delicate set of cases were set before us, and yet we had to go through them hurry scurry as fast as we could. Speed was the great consideration. If we did not complete the average number of cases we had to give a reason for it. The result of that, no doubt, was that a great many cases were hurried through unreasonably and improperly, and that in some instances the work was done in a very miserable manner. Now, what would be the effect of this proposal? If you take an area, or rather leave it to the Chief Commissioners to choose an area, they would naturally choose one where they would meet with cases of a similar character. They would fix an area where all the rents could be dealt with upon a Government valuation, approximating to rents fixed there during the past 12 months; but if my suggestion were adopted, either the landlord or the tenant would have a perfect right to go before the Court of the Sub-Commission in the ordinary way if he did not like to have the rent fixed in what I call a rough and ready manner. No injury would then be done to anybody; but there can be no question that in a very large number of cases both parties would be satisfied with the result; so that in a large number of cases, by the adoption of this proposition, you would save the necessity of further inquiry. You would get a large number of landlords and a large number of tenants to agree to arrangements, and save still further large expense to the country. I think I have met all the objections which were urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secre-
  96
  tary. I am not supporting the Amendment in its present form, but I am merely suggesting that it is worth while for the Government to consider the spirit of the Amendment, from which I think they might evolve a proposal of great importance.
  MR. LEA: I wish to say a word with regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member for North Meath (Mr. Mahony). He has stated that one great objection to the Amendment is that the Court of Appeal would be blocked, and then he suggested, I think, that the two parties should be allowed to go before the Sub-Commission if they choose. That, I think, is his proposal. Well, it seems to me that that proposal does not advance us at this time. If the two parties like they can enter into an agreement at the present time, and can have the agreement registered in Court, when it has all the effect of a judicial lease. It seems to me that that is all that is required; and that is the law at the present time. To give the parties power to go before the Sub-Commission does not seem to me to advance us a single step—we simply remain where we were. I feel obliged to the hon. Member for moving the Amendment. It is one which has often been discussed, but it seems to me that it is one of those things which, whilst they must always secure sympathy, are always difficult to carry out. I would ask him not to attempt anything which would have the effect of blocking the Sub-Commission. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary say that Clause 19 will not be pressed. The proposal before the Committee seems rather impracticable; even if amended, as proposed by the hon. Member for North Meath, it would not enable us to advance beyond the present state of the law.
  MR. CHANCE: The hon. Member for South Londonderry (Mr. Lea) has overlooked the most important part of the clause. I do not defend the clause as it is drawn. There is no equity in giving this relief to large tenants, while you deny it to small tenants. What does the clause propose? Why, that the Land Commission shall with rapidity fix a certain rent by a rough and ready method, striking as near to what they believe to be a fair rent as they can, having regard to the locality

  97
  and to the rents fixed in the locality, and thus it says that there shall be a rent proposed and power given to either party to go to the Sub-Commission to have that rent altered. Now, the effect of that proposal would be this. Whereas to the present hour after three or four years of the working of the Land Act 1881, a tenant comes into Court, perhaps suffering from a rent 50 per cent too high, and makes an application, is listed, is kept two years upon the list, until the rent is fixed; and then what happens? He is liable to be required to pay his rent rapidly, and he may easily lose all right of redemption before his case conies into Court. That is a most serious grievance. I know that under the Land Act of 1881 power was given to the Superior Court to stay proceedings for ejectment pending the decision of a fair rent. These powers were hardly used, and in the Court of Common Pleas, which seemed to be the favourite tribunal of the landlords, as they took most of their cases to it, it was said that the legislature were not going to take away the rights of the landlords by a side wind. What will happen here pending the final hearing—the real hearing of the case by the Land Commissioners? The old rent will have disappeared, and anew rent, which will be very much nearer the true rent than the old one, will have been substituted for it. The tenant will be in a position to pay this rent; he will not be evicted. You will save all the heart burning and trouble following upon evictions, and in very many cases, where the rent which is fixed by this automatic method is brought before the Sub-Commission, you will have prevented the exorbitant rent having been exacted during the hearing of the case. But the clause will do more than that. We cannot assume that the Land Commission are in every case to be wrong. We must assume that in many cases that automatic system will be found satisfactory to both landlord and tenant. They will know that if they go before the Court it will be necessary for them to gather together their valuers and witnesses, and they will think it wiser—even where the tenant thinks his rent a few shillings too high—he will be prepared to pay those few shillings rather than go to the expense and trouble of appearing before the Court. By the adoption of this system you would
  98
  cut off a prolific source of evictions, and you would get rid of 50 per cent of the cases. You would relieve the Court, and let the Committee recollect that, taking the amounts of the reduction of rents by the Land Commission, and taking the cost of the Land Commission, it is no exaggeration to say that for every pound taken off the rent of the Irish tenants the taxpayers of this country have been charged a pound for the operation. I would submit that 12 months is too long a period of time to go back, and that rents fixed more recently ought to be considered. I would also strongly urge that all the small tenants should be included. But with all those modifications I do not see why the Government should not ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford who has proposed the Amendment (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) to withdraw it, and why they should not say they would favourably consider a scheme by which they could got rid of 50 per cent of the work of the Courts.
  SIR JOSEPHM'KENNA: I hope the Government will give the promise which the hon. Gentleman has spoken of, for I believe if they do they will save 50 per cent of the cases which would otherwise come before the Courts. I veuture to say that anyone knowing anything of the course pursued by the Sub-Commissioners will be able to tell within 5 per cent what rent will be fixed when he knows what rents have been fixed previously, and what the Poor Law valuation is. What I would propose would be something shorter than the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. It would be that all classes of tenants who are now free to come, or would be free to come into Court, should have, in the first instance, prescribed for them by some competent authority what the rent should be. They should be governed by arithmetical considerations, they should know something about land valuation, and should consider the rent that the tenant has paid. All these considerations would enable a primâ facie rent to be made out, and then they could say to the parties—"You can either take or leave." The parties could take the matter into Court then if they liked. I believe that fully one-half, probably two-thirds, of the cases would disappear when the tenants came to consider that they had got, as probably they would

  99
  get, a fair and substantial redaction from the old rent which they had been previously familiar with, and the landlords, I believe, would be likely to say—"The rents will have to be reduced; we know the worst, and we will accept that arrangement." I believe that would promote peace more than any other proposal which has been made, and I think the Irish Members are very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) for the trouble he has taken in endeavouring to improve this Amendment. Though, perhaps, there are none of us who agree with the Amendment as it stands, we are all for improving it on the principle which it embodies. I think we all look to the principle of the Amendment to guide us. I look upon this Amendment free from all predilection for cither the tenant, or the landlord class, and I say we must all be indebted to anyone who enables us in Ireland to arrive by a short cut at a preliminary settlement which would leave either side the option of coming and saying how much more or how much less than a certain amount they would agree to. I think that if some such clause as this were carried we should get the matter properly settled.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Although the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment in its present form, I am not altogether dissatisfied with the discussion which has taken place, because it is admitted by the Government that it is a serious question, and one which ought to be met, and that it is desirable to deal with it. With regard to the objections that are raised, they are not, I think, fundamental, and they are such as might be easily met by certain small alterations. For instance, I should be prepared to accept the suggestion that small local areas should be adopted rather than counties. I think also, if this method were adopted with regard to leaseholders, it ought also to be applied to small tenants, the tenants holding under a small amount of value under the Land Act of 1881. Then as to the question of the block of business in the Court of Appeal, that, I think, might be met by letting the question go by way of appeal in the first instance—by appeal to the Sub-Commissioners. With regard to the present situation, I believe the best course will be
  100
  to withdraw the Amendment in its present form, and to place a new clause on the Paper, embodying the suggestions which have come from different quarters, and I trust the Government will consider the question in a favourable spirit. It appears to me that they have not quite taken into account the real import of this Amendment in respect of the very great cost of the Sub-Commissioners. My opinion is, that if it could be possible to adopt such a plan as this, the country would be saved many thousands of pounds, and both parties would be saved the trouble and expense of litigation, which is now a serious matter to them. It is on this account, in fact, that I have introduced the Amendment; and I cannot but think that if the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) and other economists were present, I should receive their support on this occasion; as, however, they are absent, and as I cannot hope to be successful on a Division, it seems to me that my best course will be to withdraw the Amendment in order to modify it, and bring it up again at a later stage.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): If the Amendment is put down for the Report stage the Government will consider it; but I must point out that there are grave objections to it on principle. With regard to the suggestion the right hon. Gentleman makes on the score of expense by going to a Court of First Instance, the expenses which would arise would be even more formidable-in extent than those which arise at present before the Court of Appeal. It should be understood that the same kind of objections would arise to the Amendment on Report, and that unless he is able to modify it, so as to remove the objections which have been pointed out, it is not likely that he will receive the support of the Government.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to move an Amendment to add at the end of the clause, on page 2, line 11, the following words:—
  "Provided also, that in case of the lessee becoming a present tenant under this section, his lease shall not be deemed to have expired by the efflux of time nor shall the provisions of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Acts' with respect to

  101
  improvements in the holding under an expired lease be applicable to such lessee."
  This Amendment I have handed in in manuscript; but I think hon. Gentlemen representing Ireland have read it. I am called upon to discuss it in the presence of the Solicitor General, whose acquaintance with law in Ireland is probably equal to that of the Attorney General. Unless this Amendment is adopted, serious injustice will be done to leaseholders becoming present tenants under the Bill. My Amendment proposes that a lease shall not be deemed to have expired by efflux of time in which the tenant has applied under this section to be deemed a present tenant. The object will, of course, strike the two hon. and learned Gentlemen as dealing with the case provided for in the Act of 1870, where, at the expiration of the lease, the compensation which the Land Act gave was either appropriated altogether or cut down, or the presumption in respect of which was altered. Perhaps the best way to illustrate that is to draw the attention of the Committee to the sections of the Act of 1870 which deals with this matter. I ask the Committee to remember that the Court will undoubtedly hold those leases to have expired. They will hold the tenant coming into Court as a tenant coming in at the expiry of his lease within the meaning of the Land Law Acts. What will his position be if he comes in as the tenant whose lease is expired? Why, he will be robbed of all the improvements he has made under the lease which he has held, say, for 31 years. The houses he may have built will remain to him, and all reclamations of waste land; but beyond that, all his improvements, such as drains and fences, will pass to the landlord. [An hon. MEMBER: That will not apply to Ulster.] No, it will not apply to Ulster; because the Act of 1870 and the Act of 1881, read together with the practice of Ulster, has preserved all the tenant's improvements. We are perfectly safe in Ulster, no matter what words are put in here, whether the lease is an expired lease or not. I am, however, speaking for the other Provinces, and where the land may be dealt with in a different manner under expired leases. I adhered strictly in my Amendment to the case of a lessee becoming a present tenant, and his lease having-expired. The grievance does not arise
  102
  except in a case where there has been a lease. Now, as I say, it will be deemed that leaseholders who apply to become present tenants under this Statute have lost their leases by lapse of time when they apply to the Land Court to have a fair rent fixed under the sections of previous Acts. In the first place, if the tenant's lease contained a provision expressly prohibiting compensation, then he would get nothing. That case, I think, would scarcely arise, because, before the Land Act of 1870, no one dreamed of compensation, still there may be cases; but the second case is a common one, and will always arise under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1870. It is provided in Sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section 4, that a leaseholder shall not be entitled to compensation for improvements unless it is specially set out in the lease that he is to be so entitled. That goes further in the case of leaseholders, because in Sub-section 2 of Section 5 it is provided that in the oases of leases expiring, the tenants shall receive no compensation for ordinary improvements made by him during the lease, and that the presumption in the case of buildings and reclamations is that the lessee who goes into Court to have his rent fixed will have to pay rent on his own improvements. Under the case of "Adams v. Dunseath," the measure of the allowance to the tenant, and the only one of an allowance to the tenant, is the measure of the compensation he is entitled to under the Land Act of 1870. My Amendment only provides to meet the case in regard to other tenants—a special hardship which arises by reason of the Act to which I refer. You have said there are men labouring under rack-rents, and, after the passing of this Act, they should apply to be admitted to the benefits of the land legislation of the country. But what will those tenants be able to say? Why, that you give with one hand, and that you take away with the other, for the reason that they are to loss every fence, and every drain, and every improvement they have effected on the holding, except the house in which they live. And even in the case of dwellings, they will have to go and prove the improvements, which is not the case with regard to tenants from year to year. As I understand the policy of the Government—and I should be glad to see them

  103
  take an interest in this matter, and to hear from them something to show that they appreciate the point which is raised—as I understand the policy of the Government, it is to prevent injustice being done to the leaseholders. Surely, then, they should protect them from the injustice of losing the value of the improvements they have effected during the operation of their leases. Those men are liable to be robbed and plundered to the full extent of their improvements; they are liable not only to be deprived of their improvements, but, under the sections I have quoted, they are actually liable to pay rent upon them. I have deliberately confined myself strictly to the case of lessees. It will be impossible for us to pass out of this Committee, and to return to the tenants of Ireland, unless we have dealt with this case of "Adams v. Dunseath" before we leave the subject. I declare that no iniquity was over perpetrated by a tyrant equal to the result of the decision in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath." Dealing with the Land Act of 1881, and with the disastrous case of "Adams v. Dunseath," it is impossible to leave this Committee without making provision for those who are being daily and hourly plundered. Everyone who is emancipated under this Act will be subjected to the effect of the decision in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath." I want the Committee to observe the policy which the Government ask us to understand is the policy that they wish to observe—namely, that the same privilege should be extended to leaseholders as are possessed by tenants from year to year. I submit that the Government are bound to support me, though, if I am wrong in anything that I have stated, or if I have overstated anything, I should be glad to be corrected, and shall at once acknowledge any correction.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 11, at end, to add—"Provided also, that in the case of the lessee becoming a present tenant under this section, his lease shall not be deemed to have expired by efflux of time, nor shall the provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Acts with respect to improvements on the holding under an expired lease be applicable to such lessee."—(Mr. O'Doherty.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): As I understand it, the Amendment now moved, if accepted, would be contradictory to the decision already arrived at by the Committee. I would point out to the hon. Member that, so far as I understand the question, a decision upon it has already been arrived at. It has been decided that those who claim under the Act of 1881 shall be subject to the provisions of that Act. The Act of 1881 provided that leases for a limited period should, on the expiry of those leases, be altered into present tenancies; and I would call attention to the fact that the present tenancy created by the Act of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is not a matter which depends on the choice of the landlord and tenant in their contract, but is an asset, and property resident in the tenant which comes into existence when the lease drops, but which is a property before. A present tenancy which comes into active existence at the expiration, of the lease is, in reality, a continuance of the lease. As I understand it, the purport of the Amendment which we ask the Committee to accept is a generous extension of the Land Act of 1881; and it is intended to provide that a continuous tenancy shall extend not only to the 60 years' lessee, but to the 99 years' lessee; and we say that those lessees, for the purposes of the Act, should be dealt with in the same way as when a lease expires. I would draw the attention of the hon. Member to the words of Section 21 all through this matter, and they are very remarkable. The words which frequently appear are, "deemed to be." They are not an alteration so much of the abstract legal quality, but a legislative Proviso that the tenant is to be "deemed" to be a present tenant, and to be deemed to have certain rights. It is not stated that he is to be so deemed in regard to abstract questions. What I meant by saying that I think the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is contradictory to what the Committee has already decided is this—I understand the Committee to have decided that in the case of a 60 or 99 years' lease, a tenant may have elected to be put in the position of a tenant holding under an expired lease of the Act of 1881. What the hon. Gentleman now proposes is, that this particular class of tenants who come for the first time in existence under

  105
  this Act of Parliament, are to be in a wholly different position as compared with their brother tenants, who hold under an actually expired lease, and who come within the very letter and spirit of the Act of 1881. If the hon. Member's view of the law is well founded, he proposes to leave men who come within the letter and spirit of the Act of 1881 in a worse position than those who come within the present clause—those to whom we propose to apply the benefits of Section 21. That appears to me to be a very serious matter for the Committees to undertake; and, as I said a minute ago, I do not adopt the view of the law suggested by the hon. Member. I understand that view of the law to be this—that on looking at the present tenancy, which for the purpose of Section 21 is a continuance of the old tenancy, you are to look at it as if it were governed by the laws which relate to the right of compensation. I deny that you are to do that.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: That is not my hon. Friend's argument at all.
  MR GIBSON: Allow me to entertain my own opinion upon the matter, which is of some little value to myself, at all events. Without in the least disparaging the knowledge or fairness of the hon. Gentleman opposite, I wish to present my own view. It occurs to me that the hon. Member opposite has not quite correctly interpreted the decision in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath." So far as I am aware, it was never suggested on any principle to apply it to a case under Section 21. The question as to Section 21 was very fully discussed in a case I argued myself in a Court of Appeal——
  MR MAURICE HEALY: Was the case one of a tenant for life?
  MR. GIBSON: Yes; and it was then held that where a man was lessee for his own life, still he came within the Act of Parliament, and was a present tenant for the first time the day after he was buried. That was a very curious state of law. The principle held was that a present tenancy of a prospective character was actually in the tenant at the moment of his death for the benefit of his next of kin. I think the view of the hon. Gentleman is founded on a rather narrow construction of what should be the rights of the tenant, if you are making a claim under the Land
  106
  Act for compensation for improvements after he had broken his lease and become a present tenant. I would remind the hon. Member of the great danger and inconvenience of raising sweeping Amendments of this character relating to the Act of 1881. I do not say that those Amendments may not be necessary to be considered at some other time, if hon. Members think there is any substance in them; but, at the present moment, it appears to me that this proposal is inconsistent with the decision which the Committee has already arrived at. It is not relevant to the Bill. It might be relevant to Section 8 of the Act of 1881; but my contention is this—first, that the Amendment appears to be inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee; next, I say that if well founded, it shows that those tenants who are now brought within Section 21 are to have a greater measure of right than is granted to tenants at present falling within that section—I mean tenants who fall within Section 21, before the passing of this measure. Next I say that his propositions of law appear to me to be founded on a mistake. I certainly would recommend the hon. Member if he will allow me to offer him advice, not to press the Amendment, but to allow the Bill, which is already sufficiently overloaded, to remain as it is, and to allow us to proceed with the Amendments on the Paper. There are various important provisions to be considered, and I would urge him to allow us to proceed with the consideration of those matters, so that we may have some prospect of coming to a conclusion of our labours within the limited time at our disposal. There will have to be a great amount of concession made one way or the other, and I think the hon. Gentleman should rest satisfied with the knowledge that that is to be the case, and should not proceed in a course which is likely to bring about serious delay to the great disadvantage of the Bill.
  MR. CHANCE: The Amendment we are discussing seems to be a very simple one, and though I have no doubt many Members of the Committee enjoyed the able statement, and the arguments of the Attorney General for Ireland, yet it seems to me that all his arguments are beside the question, and are more calculated to obscure the real question at issue, as all legal

  107
  arguments do, rather than to render it clear.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. CHANCE, resuming: The position is simply this—by the Land Act of 1870, general provision was made for the payment of compensation to tenants at the termination of their tenancies, whether on the termination of their leases, or by the act of their landlords; but, unhappily, the provision was accompanied by limitations which are adverse to leaseholders of a certain description. The general provision giving compensation is, in the case of leaseholders, cut down by excluding leaseholders from all right for compensation under certain limitations. By the Act of 1881 leases terminating in 60 years are dealt with. Tenants at the expiration of those leases are to become present tenants, and still the disabilities contained in the Act of 1870 hung over them. They are still unable to receive compensation for a certain class of improvements. By the first clause of the Bill before us, it is proposed that lessees shall be entitled to come before the Court in order to break their leases, and to have a fair rent fixed. If they do that all the improvements for obtaining compensation for which they have been excluded by the Acts of l870 and 1881 will be deemed to be improvements of the landlords. The lessees, therefore, in getting a fair rent fixed will be rented for their improvements themselves. There is one objection raised to the Amendment. It is said that the Amendment may be a reasonable one, applied to tenants coming now to have their leases broken; because, undoubtedly, it puts them into the same position which the Act of 1881 already puts tenants from year to year. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland says that which amounts to this—that because there are tenants now holding under leases who are satisfied with their leases and prefer to remain under them instead of coming into Court, therefore we must continue a defective state of the law which enables tenants to be taxed for the improvements they have made and paid for out of their own pockets. That seems to me to be a fair statement of
  108
  the case; but I think it is one which will not recommend itself to the Committee at large. The Committee is asked, by rejecting this Amendment, to continue the horrible principle of taxing industrious tenants for their own improvements. The Committee is asked to declare that the rent, which is fair for the thriftless tenant, is too low for the improving tenant; because he has made improvements for which the law gives him no compensation. That is a ridiculous state of affairs, and is directly pointed against industrious tenants—the class the Government are always telling us they desire to protect. The system the Government are desirous of maintaining is a system which can be advantageous to no one but the landlords, who say that they do not want to obtain that which does not properly belong to them. I trust the Committee will insist upon putting tenants who break their leases in the same position as those tenants who hold from year to year are put in.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. These improvements must be considered to be improvements as defined in the Act of 1870. If this clause be accepted without the Amendment, the leaseholder who breaks a lease will be taxed simply on the produce of his own labour, and the Government will be taking away with one hand what they give with the other. Clearly if this Amendment be not accepted, the benefit of this Act must be withheld from those who would otherwise take advantage, of its provisions, and I can well understand that it would be much better for a leaseholder to hold to his lease than to break it, and avail himself of the advantages of this Act. The question of the presumption in favour of improvements is dealt with in the 4th and 5th sections of the Act of 1870, and the provisions of the law, as it at present stands, must be considered and incorporated in this Bill. Let me take one of these sections only in which this is held to be the law—namely, that wherever there are improvements made in a tenancy held under a lease, the tenant himself is under the obligation of proving that the improvements were made by himself. It is within the knowledge of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House that improvements in the land of

  109
  Ireland have been altogether the work of the tenant, therefore see what great injustice this section works. The Act of 1870 did not acknowledge co-owner-ship in the soil, but went on the presumption that the landlord was the owner, and that if the landlord intended to exercise to the utmost his territorial rights, none of which were taken from him, then he should pay for that exercise; but still, that even when he was compelled to pay compensation, he was only acting in pursuance of his strict right. This is only the preparatory step—see what you are doing; in allowing leases to be broken, you acknowledge that these contracts must have been made under some circumstances which you think inequitable on one side or the other. I will not weary the Committee by going through the elaborate provisions of the Act of 1870, which were designed to take away from the tenant the value of his own labour, and which must be incorporated into this Act. But on all these grounds I ask whether it is fair or reasonable that the tenant should be deprived of the fruits of his labour, and not only so, but mulcted for his industry—made to pay rent for being industrious? If he had been an improvident and careless man he would not have been thus taxed; in fact, a premium is placed upon idleness. Now that there is co-ownership in land in Ireland, now that this Bill has been introduced, for the benefit of the tenant, now that the provisions under leases have been held to be inequitable, and now that it is the special aim of the Government to root the tenant in the soil, I submit in the interests of justice that this small concession should be made, and that leaseholders should be placed in precisely the same condition as tenants from year to year.
  MR. MOLLOY: Mr. Courtney, we seem to have been carrying on during the last half hour a highly techinical conversation—[Mr. GIBSON: Hear, hear !]—and I am bound to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, was the most technical of all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave us a learned dissertation, just as if he were addressing a Court of Appeal in Ireland. I think we may fairly throw aside all technical matters, and look at what is the intention of the Government in this
  110
  matter. A certain number of leaseholders are to have their leases broken, and they are to become present tenants, for the purpose of having fair rents fixed. It has been shown that a certain number of improvements would become the landlords', and that in the fixing of a fair rent there could be added, in the shape of rent, or new rent, what should not be added. The Attorney General for Ireland endeavoured to show that these improvements should be added. What does it amount to? You are going to fix a fair rent. Let us suppose, therefore, that the Land Commissioners, after hearing the case, decided upon fixing a fair rent; let us say that a fair rent is £10. That is a fair rent according to the Commissioners, and that is what the Government say the tenant ought to be asked to pay. Then the contention of the Attorney General for Ireland amounts to this, that there is something else to be added to the fair rent on account of a certain class of improvements. Do you not see that if you added to the £10, which is the fair rent, another £5 on account of these improvements, which are not really the landlords' improvements, but which we will suppose are—if you add to the fair rent of £10 a further £5 on account of improvements, or on account of any other excuse you may make, you are not fixing a fair rent, but an unfair rent, and the whole object the Government have in view in breaking the lease for the purpose of fixing a fair rent is entirely destroyed. Either one of two things must happen. Either the Land Commissioners, when they are fixing the rent, must take into consideration the addition you are about to compel them to make, or else they must fix that which would be a fair rent, and add something to it which would make it an unfair rent. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour)—who certainly, as far as I am able to judge, is endeavouring to meet the views of everybody in this matter, and bring the Bill within the four corners of the intentions of the Government—will see the force of the argument I have advanced. I have tried to divest the matter of all the technicalities introduced, and to point out that it is really and simply a question whether or not this certain class of leaseholders shall have a fair rent fixed

  111
  for them, or whether the rent shall be an unfair rent, and consequently of no value to them.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Birr Division of King's Co. (Mr. Molloy), that the net question which this Amendment raises is a question whether or not, in fixing the fail rent, the tenant shall get the benefit of the improvements he has himself made; and lam sorry that, instead of addressing himself to that point—which is, I think, the substantial point raised by this Amendment—the Attorney General for Ireland should have contented himself with making what I may call aNisi Prius point. As to the correctness of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point, I am disposed to agree with him. I think he is right in saying that this Amendment, if accepted, would make a distinction between one class of leaseholders, who permit their leases to expire by time, and leaseholders who take the benefit of this clause, and go into Court for the purpose of having their leases broken. But I cannot think that the number of leaseholders who will take the former course, and, in face of the benefits this clause confers upon them, will choose to let their leases run out, will be very great, and I think that, in itself, is a sufficient answer to the point made by the Attorney General for Ireland. I do wish that instead of making a point of this kind, and instead of arguing the matter in the highly technical spirit in which he did, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had endeavoured to enlighten us as to what the real views of the Government are on this important question of tenants' improvements. I do ask that, whether the Government accept this Amendment or not, we shall have some declaration from the Government on the question of tenants' improvements. There is no question in the whole scope of the Land Act which is more important, and it is simply idle to suggest that any better opportunity can ever be found for discussing and deciding the question than that which is now afforded.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It would be irregular to go into that general question on the Amendment to the clause.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I assure you, Sir, I have no intention of dis-
  112
  cussing the general question, save so far as it is strictly relevant to the matter before the Committee. The point made, as I understand it, by my hon. Friend the Member for North Donegal (Mr. O'Doherty) is, that leaseholders suffer a special grievance, and for that reason leaseholders think it right to press this Amendment to the 1st clause of this Bill, which is a leaseholders' clause. If I may say it with respect, Sir, I think you are quite right in the ruling you have laid down; but let me say that there is a larger question than any question which can be discussed in relation to this clause. It cannot be denied that with regard to this clause, and strictly relevant to it, the question referred to by my hon. Friend (Mr. Molloy) arises—namely, how is the Land Court in Ireland to proceed, when they are fixing the rents of the tenants who will be admitted to the benefits of the Land Act under this particular clause of this Bill? I hope the Government will see their way to give us some declaration of opinion on this point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland did not presume to contest that the decision in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath" inflicted very grave injury on the Irish tenants. He did not attempt to contest that the decision of the majority of the Court in that case was come to in the face of the declarations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Land Bill, when it was passing through this House, and one of whom, Mr. Law, presided in the Court of Appeal in Ireland when the decision was come to, and assented to the decision of the majority of the Court. Under these circumstances, I ask if we may have from the Government some declaration of what their policy on this important point is. It may be said that the whole question can be more properly raised on a new clause which would deal with a general Amendment in respect to tenants' improvements, and I am not disposed to question that proposition; but I do think that when the issue was distinctly placed before the Committee the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) might very well have dealt with the broad general question, rather than with the narrow technical issue to which he confined his remarks. I

  113
  sincerely trust we shall have some declaration of policy from the Government on this important point.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Judicial rent may commence on date of application to the Court).
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: the Amendment I have to move—[Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Agreed.] If the right hon. Gentleman agrees to it, I need not say anything in explanation.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 13, leave out the words "may, if they think fit," and insert the words "shall."—(Mr. John Morley.)
  Question, "That the words proposed, to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'shall' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. FINUCANE: I hope the Committee will adopt the Amendment which stands in my name, which is to leave out the word "after" in line 15, and insert the word "preceding." This Amendment relates to the date upon which fair rent shall take effect. Let us assume that the original notice is served on the 10th of May, and the fair rent fixed on the 1st of June following. According to this clause of the Bill, the tenant would not get the benefit of the reduced rent until the May of the year following, nearly eleven months after the time at which the fair rent was fixed. I think this is manifestly unfair, and my Amendment would enable the tenant, in the case I have put before the Committee, to demand that the reduced rent should be taken by the landlord on the following gale day, that is, on the first of the November following the fixing of the rent. I hope the Committee will adopt this Amendment; if not, tenants will be obliged to pay the old rent for some months after the fair rent has been fixed.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 15, to leave out the word "after" and insert the word "preceding."—(Mr. Finucane.)
  Question proposed, "That the word after' stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): The present state of the taw under the Act of 1881, is that judicial rent commences to run from the gale day next following the decision of the Court. It was proposed by hon. Members below the Gangway that the rule laid down in the Act of 1881 should be modified, so as to make the judicial rent run, not from the gale day next following the decision of the Court, but from the gale day next following the application, because very often after application, and without any fault or delay on the part of the tenant, the decision of the Court might not be given for upwards of a year, so that the result would be that the judicial rent would not be able to run until after a very protracted delay had taken place. It was proposed by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway more than once—certainly with great vigour in 1883—that the law should be changed so that the tenant should not be prejudiced by a delay which was a delay of the Court which was not attributable to him, that when the tenant had shown zeal and earnestness in prosecuting his demand the rent should commence from the gale day next following his application to the Court. Now, the Government have adopted that view, and have made the judicial rent, the reduced rent commence on the gale day next following the application. What is now proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Finucane) is that the judicial rent should run from the gale day next before the application. In other words, that the principle of retrospective legislation should be applied to the proceedings under the Land Act of 1881. There are a number of Amendments which appear to relate in a greater or less extent to the same principle. This is the first Amendment of the kind. The next Amendment is one of a similar character; but I will not discuss it; it is sufficient to say that this measure of relief that we offer exactly corresponds with what was so earnestly asked for by hon. Members opposite in 1883. The proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Finucane) certainly goes in the opinion of the Government beyond what is required.
  MR. SEXTON: It may be quite true that the Amendment just moved goes a little further than any

  115
  previous Amendment moved on the same subject; but why should not we move on as well as other people. The Government themselves have made great strides; they have progressed very considerably on this question, and I cannot understand why it should be supposed that the Irish Party should be the only Party stationary. [Mr. GIBSON: We do not want you to go back.] Neither do I attach much weight to the argument that this is an endeavour to make the Act retrospective, because the clause, as it stands, is retrospective. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot deny that under the clause, as it stands, the judgment of the Court, whenever it is made, will date back. We have known cases in Ireland where the Court did not adjudicate on the application of the tenant for a period of almost two years. What has happened in the past might happen in the future; therefore, it may follow that the judgment of the Court under this clause may date back. If it is delayed for one year it will give two gale days; but we want to make it a little more retrospective, and we think there is equity in favour of our proposal. The tenant makes an application to the Court; he pleads that his rent is excessive; but, through no fault of his own, the Court delays the hearing of his case. Whether the Court delays it or not, what we say is this, that once the tenant has brought his case within the cognizance of the Court, he ought to have the benefit of the judgment of the Court in respect to every gale payable after the lodging of his application. If the tenant make application in April, and his next gale is payable in September, and if the Court ultimately find his application is a just one and that the rent should be reduced, how can it be contended that it is right that he should pay the old rent in November? I claim that equity is with us in this matter, the clause is retrospective, and we only want to make it a little more retrospective to make it a little more equitable.
  MR. DILLON: There is a consideration which ought to have great weight with the Committee, and which the Attorney General for Ireland entirely overlooked. The circumstances under which the Bill of 1881 was introduced and those under which this Bill is introduced are entirely different. The condition in which the tenants were in 1881
  116
  and the condition in which they are now are as different as it is possible for one thing to be different from another. We are face to face with this state of things in Ireland, that the tenants are sick with hope deferred. We have been asking for this relief for four or five years; but it has been denied to them, and now we hear hon. Members and Ministers of the Crown saying that they cannot, for the life of them, understand why Irish leaseholders were not admitted to the benefit of the Act seven years ago. In debating legislation of this kind we ought to have regard to the gross injustice done to those men. They have been held to unjust rents for seven years. Is it to be argued that we are bound by the precedent of previous Bills proposed five or six years ago? If you had consented to our Bill of 1883, and admitted leaseholders to the benefits of the fair-rent clause, it might have been considered that a clause which was slightly retrospective might suit the circumstances of the case; but when this justice has been denied until 1887, are we to have quoted against us the proposition we laid down in 1883? Nothing of the sort; on the contrary, in strict logic, we would be entitled to argue that the fixing of the fair rent should date back to the time that our Bill was introduced. It is perfectly fair, equitable, and just for us to ask greater retrospection in the Act based on the long delay, than we could reasonably have asked if the Act had been passed in 1884. I think there is a sound argument in favour of this retrospective provision; but I have another argument equally strong, but resting on a different basis. I find that Amendments have been put down to Clause 22 by some of those hon. Gentlemen who are supposed to be in the confidence of the Government, and whose Amendments will, no doubt, meet with a hotter reception than any Amendments we could put down. I am glad they have provided that a tenant in Ireland who is under ejectment for non-payment of rent, or who is under an action on the part of his landlord for the recovery of rent, is to have the right to appeal to the Court, and that when he makes his appeal, the Court is to be entitled to take cognizance not only of the rent falling due, but also is to have unlimited power of retrospection in regard to the arrears of rent. I hope this

  117
  Amendment will be accepted by the Government, because nothing else will bring peace to Ireland. The Court will have power to deal with arrears. Are we to be told that the same remedy which is to be offered to the tenant who cannot pay his rent, and who has an ejectment taken against him, shall be denied to the tenant who is struggling to pay his rent, and that all a man has to do who has got into arrear, and whose rent has been cut down by the Court, is to refuse to pay his rent until an action is taken against him, and then he will come under the retrospective action of the Court, and the Court will be able to review his arrears and to apply the same reduction to the arrears as they have already decided to apply to the future rent? The only difference will be that if this Amendment is refused, the landlord will be kept out of his rent.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I quite admit the defence the Government have made; but there is a good deal to be said for the contention of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. It is acknowledged that the Irish leaseholders have been paying unjust rents. There is no reason, and I think the Government will be bound to admit that there is no reason, why the judicial rent should not date from the gale day preceding the application. I have been hard pressed by leaseholders to make this Act retrospective; I have resisted that, and have felt I was entitled to resist it; but I think this Amendment is one which the Government ought not to resist, seeing that the leaseholders have for the last five or six years been paying rents which are admittedly too high. Then take the ordinary tenant. I suppose this clause applies to the ordinary tenant as well as to leaseholders. What is his position? If he gets his rent reduced, why should he pay an old rent which is admittedly a rack-rent—if it be reduced, why should he pay it for the preceding six months? I am very unwilling to press the Government unduly; but I think that equity is all in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Limerick (Mr. Finucane), and I really think the Government ought to look into it and concede this very reasonable demand.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr.
  118
  Gibson), in arguing against this Amendment, seems to have forgotten the institution in Ireland known as the hanging gale. If he takes that into consideration, it will make an enormous difference in the circumstances to which this Amendment applies. What is the hanging gale? It is half-a-year's rent—practically,an irrecoverable half-year's rent—which nine out of every 10 tenants in Ireland have had hanging round their necks from time immemorial. It is half-a-year's rent which the landlord has never any intention of collecting. Let me call the attention of the Committee to the manner in which a hanging gale affects this Amendment. Take the present state of the law under which judicial rent does not begin to run until the gale day following the order of the Court. What this clause, as it stands, proposes is that judicial rent shall run from the gale day next following the date of the application. Let us suppose that a tenant makes an application in the month of February. I do not care for my purpose how soon, or how late, the order of the Court is made. My point under this clause is, what is the date of application to the Court? Well, the application is made in February, and the next gale falls due on the 25th of March. It falls due after the date of the application, but, notwithstanding that, the tenant must go on paying on the basis of the old rent. But the rent which is paid by the tenant in March is the rent which fell due in the September previous; consequently, Sir, this happens—the tenant pays the March rent, and then the November rent day comes, and still, though his application was made in February, he will have to pay the rent which is due in the month of September on the old rent. So it will amount to this—that in nine cases out of every 10, notwithstanding the amendment in the law which this clause will make, the tenant must pay two gales of rent after the date of his application on the old rent. I challenge any hon. Gentleman to stand up and deny that that is the state of things. I challenge anyone to furnish a reason why such a state of things should be allowed to continue. And I ask the Government, as they are making concessions in this matter, to go the whole length of the justice of the case, and not preserve this monstrous state of things, which

  119
  would be unjust if this hanging gale did not exist, but which is simply monstrous in view of the existence of the hanging gale.
  MR. CHANCE: The Amendment we are discussing will not make this clause in any degree retrospective As the clause stands, nine out of every 10 tenants would, in spite of the clause, pay two gales at the old excessive rate in face of the judgment of the Court declaring it was an excessive rent. Now, I ask the Committee to recollect what happened in 1886, when the Crofters Act was passed. I ask them to recollect how Parliament treated the Scotch crofters on this very question. By the 6th section of the Crofters Act they dealt with this question, and they did not confine themselves to the rent which accrued at the time of the application, or subsequent to the date of the application. But, by the 5th sub-section, they directed the Crofter Commissioners, when an application was made to them to fix a fair rent, to take into account the amount of arrears, and to decide how the arrears should be paid. I ask the House to recollect what happened under that section. It is undoubted that under that section the Crofter Commissioners, in fixing fair rents for the crofters, have struck off 60 per cent of the arrears which, were due. While you directed the Crofter Commissioners to go back as early as it chose—to go back to the very earliest days in which a penny of rent was due, and deal with that rent in a drastic manner—you decline to enable the Irish Court to go back to the date of the application. That is really all we ask; and I ask on the ground of consistency, and in face of the Government's own cry of equal justice to Ireland, that the Government will do for the Irish tenants what they have already done for the Scotch tenants.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I believe that if we had the advantage of the presence of a dozen Irish landlords on the Treasury Bench, we should find this Amendment accepted. It is not often we have a word of praise to say of the Irish landlords; but I think we should find them, ready to do justice in a case of this kind. What will be the state of affairs? We shall have the Court pronouncing the decision that these leaseholders have
  120
  been paying rent 20, 25, or perhaps 40 per cent above that they ought to have paid. They will, as pointed out by my hon. Friend (Mr. Maurice Healy), have actually to pay two gales of rent on the old basis before justice is allowed to take its course. I think that is a perfectly indefensible position for Her Majesty's Government to adopt. The object of this Amendment is that the landlord shall be obliged to take the rent at the reduced figure, Fancy the anomaly of the position. A tenant goes into Court, and his case may or may not be delayed. I maintain that if it is not delayed one hour in the Court, if on the very day his case is brought into Court it is possible to decide it, and his rent is reduced 20, 25, or 40 per cent, as the case may be, he should not be required to pay another gale on the old terms. I do not pretend to say that Irish landlords are invariably disposed to do justice; but I do believe that if a Committee of Irish landlords, picked haphazard, were now occupying the Front Ministerial Bench, we should have this Amendment readily accepted. This Amendment is in no sense retrospective, because we are only dealing with the rent which is ordinarily payable after the decision has been come to. I am surprised that, after the unanimous appeal made from these Benches, Her Majesty's Government think it well to occupy their present obdurate position in this matter.
  DR. COMMINS: Mr. Courtney, I rise to throw out a suggestion which Her Majesty's Government may, I think, feel inclined to adopt. It seems to me a very extraordinary thing that, at the time of the passing of the Act of 1881, the universal practice of the Courts in all ordinary cases was not followed. When a suit or action has boon introduced in a Court, the object of which is to determine the right of parties, the decision always dates back to the instant of the institution of the suit. I see no reason why the decision should not date back to the day of the original notice in all these cases. It is the easiest thing in the world to provide that when the Court has fixed a fair rent, that rent shall be made payable from the date of the decision. It is a mere simple sum of arithmetic. There is no difficulty at all in the matter. If what we propose is adopted we

  121
  shall simply follow the usual custom of all Courts, and we shall be doing strict justice to the tenants. My suggestion is that we should, leave out the words "the gale day next after," in which case the clause would read—
  "Such judicial rent shall be the rent payable by the tenant holding as from the making of the application."
  I merely throw this suggestion out as an alternative course for the Government to adopt.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I hope the Committee will recall the exact position in which we stand. This clause of the Bill carries out the provision suggested some years ago by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite for the relief of Irish tenants. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) says we live in a progressive age, and that the Government have just now reached a stage which the Irish Members reached three years ago, and, therefore, we have no right to complain if, in the meanwhile, Irish Members have themselves made advance, and if they press us to make that advance with them.
  MR. DILLON: You would not agree to our suggestion three years ago.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Precisely; the suggestion was contained in a Bill which the majority of the Liberal Party rejected three years ago. I make no complaint, but am simply replying to the argument of the hon. Member for West Belfast. He does not deny that we have gone the full length of their Bill. What he says is that they themselves have altered their opinion in the meanwhile—that what they thought justice in 1883 they no longer think justice, and that we ought to follow them in this wild career. I want to know on what principle finality would ever be reached? It would be enough for the Government of the day, from whatever side it was drawn, to propose Bills in exactly similar terms to a Bill suggested in the interests of the Irish tenants by those who claim to represent such tenants, for the Members for Ireland to get up and say—"That was good enough when we proposed our Bill, but it is not good enough now when you propose your Bill." Hon. Gentlemen have founded their argument upon what they call the injustice of past rents.
  122
  They seem to think there is some kind of immorality connected with any rent which, under any circumstances, is diminished by the action of the Court. I do not wish to introduce unnecessary controversial subjects upon this matter; but that is not the view which can be taken by Her Majesty's Government. I quite admit that the tenants under leases, for example, had made extremely bad bargains for themselves, and I also admit that this House, rightly or wrongly, has determined to relieve them of the consequences of their bad bargains, and has made an exception in their favour which, so far as I know, the House of Commons has never made in favour of any other class of the community. The House may be right or wrong in taking that course; but, as I am responsible for the Bill we have proposed, I hold the view that we have, on the whole, done the right thing. But I do not agree that we are doing well to relieve the tenants of the consequences of bad bargains. We do not admit, and we never have admitted, that those who have exacted legal rights in past times have been guilty of an act of injustice, and we have no right to rip up old and past bargains, and exact from, the people, who, after all, only use their legal rights, some kind of restitution in the name of justice. We do not admit that. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) has appealed to the analogy of the Crofters Act. It in quite true that by a very violent provision adopted to deal with a very violent and extreme state of things the Crofters Act did give power to deal with arrears. I again protest against the general principle laid down by hon. Gentlemen opposite, which is that every time this House, in the face of a great emergency, chooses, rightly or wrongly, to overstep the ordinary limits of policy which dictates its legislation, that is to be dragged into a precedent which is to regulate all its behaviour when it is dealing with a different state of things. If every time we pass what is admitted to be exceptional legislation for Ireland, it is to be used in justification of what is admitted to be exceptional legislation for Scotland, or if every time we adopt what is admitted to be exceptional legislation for Scotland, it is to be dragged into a precedent for further exceptional legislation for Ireland, we are

  123
  entering upon a process which can have no determination whatever. I must point out that there is a great distinction between the case of the Crofters Act and the case we are now considering. When the House of Commons passed the Crofters Act they had to deal with a population which had universally got into arrear, under a state of things the exact cause of which it is not now necessary to inquire into. But we are now dealing in Ireland with a condition of law which has given the tenant for the last six years power of revision. We are dealing under this clause with two classes of tenants; firstly, with the class of tenants under leases, and secondly, with that class not under leases. Do I understand that the case is given up with regard to the class of those not under leases, because I think the argument I have put forward is conclusive with regard to the tenants not under leases? Now, it appears to me that in their dealing with the class of tenants under leases, the House has acted in a most generous manner. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: No, no !] The House has done for the leaseholders of Ireland what no Government in any country, as far as I know, has ever done before. We go the full length of anything which has been claimed for the leaseholders of Ireland by those who claim to represent those leaseholders, and all we ask now is that the action we have taken in admitting, by a violent departure from every recognized principle, the leaseholders of Ireland to the benefits of the Act of 1881, shall not be retrospective. Surely we are not making a great demand on the House when we ask them to assent to the proposal contained in our measure, which was also the proposal contained in the measure brought forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I do not understand that the right hon. Gentleman has stated the true construction of this clause. I do not understand it is confined to leaseholders. It is intended to apply to all persons who have had judicial rents fixed. This clause is a specimen of that exceptional legislation to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. The position of the matter is this—that in passing what the right hon. Gentleman calls the exceptional legislation of 1881, Parliament enacted that the
  124
  judicial rents should not commence until after the decree of the Court fixing the judicial rent. That has been felt in Ireland, as admitted by the right hon. Gentleman, to be a grievance. It has been felt that the judicial rents ought to commence at a much earlier date than the decision of the Court. It is simply a question of time. We are introducing retrospective legislation in saying that the judicial rent shall date back to the gale day next after the date of the application of the tenant—that is, one or two gale days preceding the date of the decision. The clause will be retrospective in any case. If upon the application of the leaseholder or other tenant, the Court decides that whereas his rent has been £30 it ought only to be £20, the question is when the payment of the £20 shall commence. The present law says it shall not commence until after the date of the judicial decision. The Government propose that it shall commence on the gale day next after the settlement. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Limerick (Mr. Finucane) proposes that it shall commence on the gale day next before the application, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins) proposes, as a compromise, that it shall commence on the actual day of the application. There can be no question of principle involved in this. The question is simply whether this Relief Clause shall be fairly and justly administered. Surely there can be some solution found which will save the time of the House, and, at the same time, do generous justice to the Irish tenants.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Generous justice at the expense of the landlords. In order to clear up the confusion, I wish to say that when I said the word retrospective, I used it in a very different sense to what the right hon. Gentleman thinks. I do not consider legislation is retrospective which says that a man shall make an application to the Court, and whatever the Court decides shall date from the date of the application. A man who comes to the Court does not say, "Relieve me of future payments;" but he says, "Relieve me of past payments which I have made, or which I ought to have made." [Cries of "No, no !"] I think I am putting the matter quite accurately. The proposal

  125
  of the right hon. Gentleman is that when a tenant comes to the Court, he shall ask the Court to relieve him of payments he ought to have made. [Renewed cries of "No, no !"] the proposal of the Government is that a man should only ask for relief in regard to the payment he is going to make or ought to make.
  MR. CHANCE: The Amendment would not enable the Court to relieve a man from any liability which had accrued before the date of the application. That is perfectly clear. But what it would do would be to provide that the first rent payable by him after the date of application should be the new rent, and not the old excessive rent. It would not affect his prior liability to the extent of one farthing.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary misrepresents the position. If an application is made in the month of July, the next gale will be payable in November. Under the Bill of the Government, the relief would date from the month of November; but under the Amendment it would date from the month of May. That is really the whole point.
  MR. PARNELL: It appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) used an expression just now which shows that the Government are in accord with us; but they are misrepresenting the effect of their own clause. We do not wish that the Amendment shall refer to sums payable by the tenant before the date of the application, and, in point of fact, it does not apply to them. If the right hon. Gentleman will read the words of his own clause, he will find that the clause, as it now stands, will compel a tenant, after the decision of the Court has been given reducing his rent, to make payments on the old scale, and not on the reduced scale, in some cases to the extent of a whole year's rent, and in many cases to the extent of six months' rent. That is absolutely so; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland will not contradict the statement. How does the clause run? It runs as follows:—
  "When the Court on application fixes a judicial rent for a holding, the Court shall order that such judicial rent shall be the rent payable by the tenant of the holding as from
  126
  the gale day lest after the making of the application."
  Suppose the application is made anytime before the next gale day, and that the next gale day is the 1st of November, the new rent will commence to run from November; but the tenant will have to pay the old rent after the date of the application, because, recollect, that no agricultural tenant in either England, Ireland, or Scotland pays his rent upon the day on which it becomes due. Although the gale of rent in question may be due on the 1st of November, it would in no case be payable until the following May. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: No, no.] That is the custom on all the estates with which. I am acquainted. The right hon. Gentleman may know of some exception, but I never heard of the payment of a gale within a gale. In many cases where rents are payable yearly, they are not payable for 12 months after they become legally due. Let me take two cases, one of them payments of a gale within a gale, and the other a case where rent is payable on one gale day for the preceding gale. In the case of the rent becoming due next November, where the rent of the estate is ordinarily payable six months after it falls due, the tenant would pay, the next May, the old unreduced rent for the half-year. In the second case, where there is only one rent-day in the year, the tenant would pay the year's rent legally becoming due in November; that year's rent would also be the old unreduced rent. Now, I think that is a striking and a glaring injustice. This Amendment does not deal with payments which were made or can be made before the date of the judicial decision; but we say that this clause should deal with payments ordinarily payable immediately after the date of the judicial decision. I say that the rent ordinarily payable at the date of the application should be the reduced rent, and not the old unreduced rent. I think that it is a perfectly fair proposition; it does not import retrospective action into the Bill; it has been sanctioned in the case of the Arrears Act of 1882, and it is a principle which I submit the Committee should adhere to on the present occasion. The section of the Arrears Act provides that where it appears that in the ordinary course of dealing between the landlord and

  127
  tenant, the rent has usually been paid on a certain date after it is legally due, the section in question shall apply to the date on which the rent is due. That is precisely what we want to have followed in this Bill; otherwise you will have, in the majority of cases, the old rent following on the tenant for fully six months after the date of the judicial decision, and in some cases for 12 months. I say that is a clear injustice and anomaly, and it is one which the Government are bound to redress. The way in which the Government have met this Amendment augurs very badly for any satisfactory solution of the arrears question, which comes on for discussion on Amendments to later portions of the Bill. But as regards this particular question, unless you wish to make the Bill a mockery, at all events for six months after it is passed, you will be obliged to adopt some Amendment in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for East Limerick (Mr. Finucane); and you must recollect that this period of six months will be that in which the tenants find it most; difficult to pay their rents. We should have been satisfied with the provision that the rent "shall be the rent ordinarily payable by the tenant of the holding on the gale day next after the making of the application." Would the Government agree to an Amendment of that description? It would got rid of the appearance of retrospective action incidental to the use of the word "preceding" in the Amendment of my hon. Friend. It is true that we cannot debate the whole of this question at the present time; but it would be possible to introduce the matter on Report. If the Government agree to what is now proposed, the clause would then run—"Shall be the rent ordinarily payable by the tenant of the holding on the gale day next after the making of the application."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I hope the Government will agree to this proposal. My hon. Friend wants to provide that this reduction shall take place on the hanging gale. The word "ordinarily" is in the Act of 1882, and I think the least the Government can do is to accept the proposal before the Committee. The matter is not one easily intelligible to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is one which, the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) can well
  128
  appreciate. If the word "ordinarily" be inserted, it will make the Amendment effective without reference to the hanging gale. I think even the Parliamentary Under Secretary does not expect to get his rent before the usual time.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet): There is no hanging gale on my estates; it was bought up years ago.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: That makes the case worse for the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because he must have expected it from the tenants long ago. [Colonel KING HARMAN: I bought it up.] All that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) asks is, that the hanging gale shall not be a bone of contention between landlord and tenant in Ireland.
  COLONEL WARING: There is one statement that I wish to make—namely, that the hanging gale is not recognized, and does not exist in the North of Ireland, because it has been compounded for and bought up half a century ago. I am old enough to remember the occurrence on the estate of my grandfather.
  MR. CHILDERS: I had the honour of taking a part in carrying through this House the Arrears Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian, and I can say that this question of the hanging gale was thoroughly threshed out in the discussions which took place on that measure, and I think we may clearly infer, from the debates of that day, what the hon. Members for Cork (Mr. Parnell) and East Limerick (Mr. Finucane) desire. There is no question that, although on a few estates in Ireland the rents are paid within a few weeks of becoming due, on the vast majority of estates there the rents are not paid until six and twelve months afterwards. We have had the whole of that question thoroughly discussed on the Arrears Act, and precisely the same remarks were made by hon. Gentleman on the side of the House opposed to us then, as have been made to-night, and the conclusion come to was exactly in the terms of the statement made by the hon. Member for Cork. I would, therefore, press upon the Government to adopt these words which I think constitute a perfectly fair compromise.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I remember that so difficult was this question that when the Arrears Bill was introduced, it did not contain any provision with regard to it; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) had to ask the House to go into Committee pro formâ, in order to put in the provision about the hanging gale. The debate lasted four days, and the House resolved that the words of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) should be included. The word gale is always held in the minds of the peasantry to mean 12 months rent, and that is the meaning in the Act. Would it not be unfortunate if the tenant paid rent on the 25th March, 1889, getting a receipt to March 1888, and then after applying in May for a reduction of rent, that reduction were only to begin in 1889? That is exactly what will happen under this section. The tenant would not get the benefit of the clause till then, if the word gale were used in a popular sense. I trust the Government will give some reason for not adopting the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I suggest, as they are desirous of increasing the loyalty of the people, that they should not in this case give with one hand while taking away with the other.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I do not know to what extent the information and experience of the Government leads them to discover in the Amendment any large or adequate principle on which they ought to rely, and to which they think they ought to adhere; but if there is no principle of the kind I would advise them to accept the compromise which seems to be proposed from two quarters of the House. But I wish to be distinctly understood only to advise that compromise being accepted; because, so far as my information goes, there does not appear to be any very important principle involved; and to say that if the Government do not choose to accept the Amendment, without questioning their motives, I shall vote with them, because I think hon. Gentlemen opposite are dealing out very hard measure to the Government with, references to this clause. I was present here some minutes after 8 o'clock, and, having returned after 10 o'clock, I own that I am greatly grieved and exercised in my mind that the Committee should not
  130
  have made greater progress than they have with the clauses of the Bill. I recollect that the boa. Member for East Mayo, in his speech on the second reading of the Bill, said, when he came to Clause 2, that he had no fault to find with it, and that he considered the clause to be satisfactory. He said the clause had the approval of the Irish Party, although the Government might have given way some time ago. I must also take into consideration that on many large and important matters the Government have, in spite of all kinds of hostile insinuations and imputations brought against them, come down and frankly met, and endeavoured to meet, the views of Irish Members on this question of relief of Irish tenants. Now, I put this to hon. Members opposite, and, in doing so, I think they may know I am not taking a partisan course, and that the observations I am making are perfectly unprejudiced and fair. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have at heart the interest of the Irish tenant, and in the interest of the Irish tenants they are disposed to cast aside and not allow themselves to be influenced by any memories of the past and former conflicts in this Session on the question of the Government of Ireland. But can the Government put themselves in that position? It is impossible. The Government of the United Kingdom is bound to consider the interest of all classes. It cannot altogether, on every point, sacrifice the interest of the landlord class. The point I wish to put is this—if we are to arrive at a harmonious Parliamentary Settlement of this question, hon. Gentlemen opposite must make allowances for the Government, and admit that they have made enormous concessions, which have not been obtained from any former Government. I appeal to hon. Members to reflect that they ought not, by discussing at great length Amendments on minor points, seek to screw the landlord class out of the protection of the Government. I think the remainder of the Bill may be discussed calmly and without serious difficulty; but, with regard to this Amendment, I appeal to hon. Members to consider the period at which we have arrived, the utter impossibility of carrying through this legislation in the present Session, if every point of detail is to be discussed, and the great interests

  131
  involved. Unless some change in the attitude of hon. Members opposite takes place, I greatly fear that the interests of the Irish tenants will be most seriously compromised. I have been encouraged to make these remarks mainly by the tone of the hon. Member for Cork 'Mr. Parnell), and I venture to express a hope that, having regard to the great responsibility resting upon hon. Members opposite and upon the Government, we may make progress with the Bill as a whole, and allow to stand over points of a minor character.
  MR. PARNELL: I certainly have a desire to approach the consideration of this Bill from the point of view recommended by the noble Lord who has just sat down, and I should be very sorry that either I or my hon. Friend should do anything in the direction he has indicated of preventing the passage of the Bill. I do not think we have unduly pressed the Government in anyway, so far as the Amendments we have put down are concerned, and since the announcement of the Government, I must say that we have abandoned the intention of moving many Amendments which are still on the Paper. I desire, as much as I possibly can, to make the passage of this Bill through the Committee as easy as possible, and that, I believe, is a feeling which influences all my Colleagues; but the question under consideration is a very important one, and we have put it to the Government very fully. It is a question of rents payable during the coming winter, and which will be on the old scale, unless the Government agree to the Amendment we have suggested as a compromise. Now, surely, that is the root and principle of the Bill. If the Bill is not to take immediate effect in Ireland, a very large portion of its ameliorative effect will be lost and destroyed. Surely, when we point out this fact, we are entitled to the consideration of the Government. Now, in order to show that I acknowledge the justice of the advice of the noble Lord, I shall suggest to my hon. Friend that he should withdraw his Amendment, and consider the question of compromise, and that the Government should announce their views on the subject. The question has been fully debated, and I shall be glad to hear what the Government have to say on the withdrawal of the Amendment.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster): The Government are unable to accept, at present, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cork. They must oppose the Amendment which has been put from the Chair; but they will consider all the arguments that have been presented to them between the present stage and Report, and they will then say whether they think it is possible to make any approach to the settlement of the question in the direction which the hon. Member for Cork suggests. I must again ask the Committee to proceed as quickly as possible with the Bill, having regard to the very important issues which have been raised by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. FOX (King's County, Tullamore): It is, unfortunately, the fact that many of the Irish tenants are three years in arrear with their rent, and, if you are to give them a fair start, it will be absolutely necessary that they should be relieved of this onus. I propose that the Land Commissioners' Court should be able to deal with the rent duo in the manner proposed in my Amendment, because that Court is more competent to do so than the County Courts, which, as at present constituted, have not the confidence of the people, and because the procedure would, be far more simple.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 15, after "application," insert—"And if the application is made under the next succeeding section of this Act, then as from the gale day when any of the rent for the non-payment of which proceedings therein mentioned are brought began to run."—(Dr. Fox.)
  Question proposed. "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. PARNELL: This is a matter which involves the same principle as that contained in the preceding Amendment, and I think it had better remain over.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 16, to leave out "may" and insert "shall."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Consolidation of proceedings in ejectment, and application for fair rent).
  MR. PINKERTON: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 23, to leave out all after the word "where" to the first "of" in line 24, and insert the words "by reason of the non-payment of."—(Mr. Pinkerton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): The object of this clause is this—it is intended to give a benefit to the tenant, and to enable the Civil Bill Court, when an action is brought for ejectment in a case in which a judicial rent has not been fixed, to fix a fair rent for the holding, and to dispose of the ejectment at the same time. A number of Amendments are now sought to be added to the clause which will divert it from its original purpose. Inasmuch as the Civil Bill Court has jurisdiction itself to fix a fair rent of the holding without the intervention of the landlord, it was considered desirable that the Court in which the ejectment was pending should fix a fair rent and stay the ejectment proceeding until that was done. That is the object of the section. It is not a very important section, and a number of Amendments have been put down which, as I say, would practically destroy it for its original purpose. We had intended to provide for the case of ejectments brought in the Civil Bill Court. Inasmuch as these proceedings in regard to a fair rent may be brought by a present tenant who has never come into Court on account of having a fair rent, it seems unreasonable that there should be a general power other than that which exists under general legislation by which tenants may have proceedings hung up when they are proceeded against for rent. Where an action is pending in a Superior Court against a present tenant, and that present tenant wants to have a fair rent fixed, he can get a stay of proceedings in that Court until his fair-rent question is disposed of. That is the law under the Act of 1881. There are a number
  134
  of Amendments that it would be out of order to discuss dealing with ejectments and bankruptcy and overlapping the provisions already in force under the Act of 1881. I am afraid that if all those Amendments are moved and discussed the influence of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) will not have much weight in securing rapid progress of the measure, because it is obvious that a great deal of time will be spent upon these matters. It seems to me that it would be a very desirable thing, as this clause is not a very material one, for the hon. Member for Cork to act upon the principle ha has very fairly intimated, and to get the clause disposed of rapidly.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: If the Government want to make progress, if the suggestion of excision which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made were directed against Clause 4 instead of against Clause 3 it would be valuable. If any clause is to be dropped it should be Clause 4. I would say this to the Government—if they will give us a guarantee that Clause 4 will be dropped, they can have this Bill, so far as we are concerned, at the most in a couple of days. I am sure that, considering the period of the Session and the odour that now prevails in this House, it is almost out of the question to expect us to carry on civilized proceedings here. I would suggest to the Government that they should give us some statement as to Clause 4—it might not be strictly in order, but, having regard to the state of collapse in which we are, I am sure that you, Sir, would allow them to say what they intend to do in the matter of this Clause 4, which deals with the substitution of a written notice for the execution of an ejectment, and Clause 19, which deals with the hearing of appeals under the Land Act. We are not within measurable distance of Clause 19 now; but I think that if we had a statement as to Clause 4 considerable progress might be made to-night. I would ask whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with that clause?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster): I am afraid I cannot meet the request of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford in regard to Clause 4; and as to Clause 19, we shall deal with that when we reach it,

  135
  or come within measurable distance of it. It does not appear to me that the consideration of Clause 4 is important in. the discussion of Clause 3. Clause 3, as we have said, is not a very important clause, and we would therefore ask the Committee to proceed with it rapidly, or to negative it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: For the information of the Government I must say that we have not as yet proceeded to put down Amendments to Clause 4; but a vast number are in course of preparation; and unless the Government are aided by the clôture in enforcing the clause, I believe it will take a long time, probably a week, in discussing this one question. I hope the Government will not think I am in any way exaggerating. Probably they will agree to postpone Clause 4. That would relieve the Committee to some extent; but, failing that, I must say that while as regards Clause 3, I in principle accept it, and do not think it need lead to a great amount of discussion. I feel that unless you postpone Clause 4, and thereby leave over all discussion on it, so that we may not address ourselves to it in a state of aggravation, I am afraid that great delay will be experienced on Clause 3.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not know that we are quite in Order in discussing what ought to be done on Clause 4. So far as I am concerned, I should wish to avoid every possible word in the nature of aggravation, and everything which could possibly produce ill-feeling on the part of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. But the Government feel it to be necessary to persevere with Clause 4. It is impossible for the Government to persevere with this Bill if protracted delay occurs upon any of the clauses. The responsibility, therefore, of wrecking the Bill must rest with hon. Gentlemen opposite, if protracted discussion and undue delay occurs upon any of these clauses. The Government are quite prepared to afford the most complete facilities for discussion, and fair discussion, upon the principles involved in any clause of this Bill but the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and those associated with him, will sea that the nature of a discussion which is to last over a week on any one of these clauses is a matter the Government must fake into very serious consideration with re-
  136
  gard to the further progress of the measure.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I should be very sorry to think that at this period anything in the nature of a threat was used on one side of the House or the other. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that I only referred to what might take place—I put it in a subjunctive way. As to what the right hon. Gentleman says about wrecking the Bill, I would point out to him that the life of the Government has been staked upon the passage of this measure.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This discussion is wholly irregular, and it would be convenient if the debate wore confined to the clause before the Committee.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I admit, Sir, that you have allowed us considerable latitude in dealing with these clauses—as much latitude as we could claim in the discussion of a matter of this kind. But I think, Sir, you will agree that very frequently very substantial benefit has resulted from a little latitude having been given in such matters as this. If the Government will agree to postpone Clause 4—I am going no further than that. [Cries of "Order!"] The Committee will see that what I am saying is strictly relevant to this Amendment. I would advise the hon. Member who has moved the Amendment to withdraw it in order that we may be able to apply ourselves to the consideration of some important matters later on in the Bill. I think there is some force in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that the Government have proposed this clause in the interests of the Irish tenants, and that if we do not accept it without considerable discussion they will feel inclined to withdraw it. I am not inclined to say that from their point of view there is not great force in the position, having regard to the necessity for making progress with Supply. I would remind the Government, however, that we should not feel inclined to press discussion upon this clause, or in Supply, if certain obnoxious proposals are withdrawn from the Bill. I would ask them whether, with the view of bringing about harmony, and without prejudice to their intention of proceeding with the succeeding clause, they could not agree to postpone it, and leave for the Committee only the discussion of those questions

  137
  with regard to which we are all practically agreed?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I wish to make myself perfectly clear. I desire to avoid everything which would produce irritation amongst hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite; but the Government feel it to be absolutely essential to proceed with Clause 4. Under the circumstances, it would be unreasonable that we should postpone the clause and take it out of its proper order. We desire to give the Committee an opportunity for full discussion on the clause; but it certainly appears to me that it would be more fair and straightforward on our part to take it in its proper order, and to listen to any objections which, hon. Gentlemen may have to offer to us. We believe Clause 4 will be a benefit both to the tenants and to society in Ireland, and we advocate and support it on these grounds. That being our view of the matter, we are quite unable to accept the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. DILLON: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland will not object to tell us something more as to the meaning of this clause. Might I ask him this question? Whether the clause will enable the landlord, if he is in a position to bring an action for ejectment at all, to compel the tenant to get his rent fixed in the County Court? Supposing a landlord brings an action for ejectment, will this clause deprive him of the right which he ordinarily' exercises in the Land Court of getting a fair rent fixed by the Land Commission, if he prefers so to do? My attitude on this clause will be to a great extent influenced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer on that point.
  MR. GIBSON: the clause will not displace the power which already exists. The defendant has an option in the case, but he need not exercise that option unless he likes. Where an ejectment action is brought in the Civil Bill Court, the defendant may give notice to have a fair rent fixed in that Court, if he likes.
  MR. DILLON: It does not deprive him of any right in the Land Court?
  MR. GIBSON: No; I do not think it does. Under Section 13 of the Land Act of 1881, where an action for ejectment is taken in any Court, whether the Civil Bill Court or otherwise, if the
  138
  defendant wants a fair rent fixed he can apply for a stay of proceedings in that Court, without reference to these proceedings at all; and he may, under the Act of 1831, apply to have a fair rent fixed by the Land Court. That is his position under the Act of 1881, without the assistance of this clause. There is no doubt about the law as I understand it, and as I state it to the House. We intend, in this clause, that where there is an application pending in the Civil Bill Court for an ejectment, the defendant, without being limited as to time, and without being compelled to put the matter off to a distant period, might have his case of ejectment and his fair rent disposed of at one and the same time. That was our intention in introducing the clause. The rights that existed under the Act of 1881, giving the tenant power such as I have stated, are in no way affected by this clause.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: As I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman, this is to enable the tenants to apply for benefits to the County Court Judges. Well, my experience of the County Court Judges is that they have, in all eases, refused to give that stay of proceedings which he contemplates, and which I have always urged they ought to give when asked for. They have invariably said that cases of this kind should be proceeded with on the determination of the tenancy. My position with regard to this clause and the Amendment is this, that the whole thing in not worth contending for, and that it will not be a particle of use except in some counties of Ireland. For us to think that the tenantry of Ireland would get anything like general relief from the County Court Judges is perfectly fallacious. I do not think it worth while to fight over this 3rd clause, or worth wasting a minute's time over it. I admit that in one or two of the eases in which the option might be taken there would be County Court Judges in whom the tenants would feel confidence; but in many other cases this would not be so. So far as I should be able to give advice to my hon. Friends around me, it would be better not to contend for this clause at all, and to have it struck out, in order to mark our appreciation of the value which we at all times set upon the consideration which the ten-

  139
  antry receive at the hands of the County Court Judges.
  MR. DILLON: I must ask one other question, because I am unable to understand what the effect of this clause would be. In reading the clause a doubt has arisen as to the effect it would have on the minds of the tenants. My doubt is this—the clause gives an additional right undoubtedly to the tenant to apply to the County Court to get a fair rent fixed when an ejectment is pending against him. The County Court may thereupon dispose of the ejectment and of the fair rent. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether, in his opinion, it might not seriously prejudice the tenant to get a stay of examination pending the decision of his application to the Land Court for the fixing of a fair rent; because the County Court Judge will be in a position to say—"Why should I give a stay of execution? The tenant has now a right to have his rent fixed by me without delay at all, why, therefore, does he not come to me? Why does he ask for a stay in order that he may go the Land Court? He will not trust mo to give a fair rent, therefore, I will not give a stay of execution." I put that question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. Does he really think that there is any force in that objection?
  MR. GIBSON: I do not know that anything I could say would remove the prejudice which the hon. Gentleman seems to have against the County Court Judges of Ireland. For my own part, I do not believe that the Irish. County Court Judges, who ere honourable men, would be at all likely to act in the way the hon. Member suggests.
  MR. DILLON: Allow me to explain my objection. The Judge might say that his only reason for not arresting the ejectment in order to enable the tenant to go to the Land Court was the delay which would be brought about.
  MR. GIBSON: No doubt, if the County Court Judge saw that the tenant's object in asking for a stay was not a banâ fide desire to receive full justice, but merely a wish to bring about delay, he would take that into consideration. But the hon. Member's objection that the County Court Judge might be angry at the litigant going away from him,
  140
  and preferring to have his fair rent fixed by another Judge, docs not seem to be one which should weigh with the Committee. It is a question upon which we must each form our own judgment; and all I can say is that, having known the County Court Judges of Ireland for many years, and knowing how they are respected by the people——
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Oh, oh !
  MR. GIBSON: Yes; knowing how they are respected by the people, I do not believe for a moment that they would be actuated by such motives.
  MR. PARNELL: I think it is admitted, even by those who think least of the County Court Judges in Ireland, that, at all events in some districts in that country, this clause may be of some use. Under the circumstances, I would ask my hon. Friends who have Amendments on the Paper not to delay the progress of the Committee by bringing forward their proposals. I would propose to them to allow the clause to pass quantum Valeat.
  MR. DILLON: I will not pursue the matter any longer. I have explained that my mind is in a state of doubt. My doubts are not removed, and it is still a question with me whether the clause is of any value at all.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LEA: I had intended to move the following Amendment:—Clause 3, page 2, line 26, after "prescribed," to leave out to the end of of the clause, and add—
  "Give notice of an application to the Land Commissioners to fix a fair rent of the holding, and the Court should thereupon fix a fair rout, pending the fixing of such fair rent the proceedings in ejectment shall be stayed, and the Court in fixing such fair rent shall ascertain what would have been the fair rent of the holding during the period for which such arrears had accrued, and if it should be proved that the fair rent of the holding should be less than the sum sued for, then the Court will estimate the amount of such arrears upon the basis of such fair rent, and having ascertained the amount that would be due to the landlord, the Court in which the ejectment proceedings are pending may make an order for the payment of such arrears at such times and in such instalments as may to the said Court seem fair and reasonable."
  Having regard to the convenience of the Committee, I do not propose to proceed with this Amendment, though I think it is one which is very important, and would be very useful if the Government

  141
  would accept it, Will the Government accept it? I do not wish to hamper them, and I will not move the Amendment unless they are prepared to accept it.
  [No reply.]
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Substitution of written notice for the execution of an ejectment).
  MR. PARNELL: I regret very much that the Government have introduced this clause into the Bill. I regret it now more than ever since the change which the Government have intimated their intention of introducing in the main structure of the Bill. It must be obvious to everyone that a Bill of this kind, of this complex character, involving as it does so many points of law, cannot be passed at this period of the Session by being treated as a whole, as an uncontentious Bill. But if in a conspicuous part of the Bill, on the very second night of the proceedings in Committee, the Government thrust upon us a clause of this obnoxious character which abounds in contentious matter, and which is entirely opposed to the whole principle and spirit of the Bill, it must be obvious that great delay—perhaps a fatal delay—in the passage of the measure may take place. Now, Sir, the blame of this position is not with us. The blame of the introduction of this clause into the Bill is not with us. The clause is entirely foreign to the rest of the Bill. It has no reference whatever to the rest of the Bill, which is admittedly, with the exception of the clause referring to leaseholders, a Bill of a temporary character. Why, since you refuse to introduce permanent matter into the Bill beneficial to the tenants on the ground that the Bill is of a temporary character—why do you introduce permanent matter hostile to the tenants and repugnant to the advocates of the tenants? Why do you introduce matter of that kind into the Bill at this stage? I would appeal to the Government to reconsider this matter, and if they will not strike this clause out of the Bill, I would ask them, at all events, to postpone it until the rest of the measure has been got through. After the rest of the Committee stage of the Bill has been disposed of, they will have ample time to
  142
  consider what they will do—indeed, they will have in the meantime an opportunity of considering the arguments for and against the inclusion of this clause in the Bill. I think they ought to take into consideration the accelerated progress the Committee has made with the Bill during the last half hour, in fact since the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). There is an old saying which was once made by a wise man, "Take the tide at its flood." I would request the Government to take the proceedings on this Bill at their flood, and to go on with the non-contentious clauses. I would urge on them to take advantage of the happy disposition which now prevails amongst all sections of this House, and to accelerate the progress of the Bill through Committee while everyone is in good humour. I am now arguing for a postponement of the clause. What in the world is the use of producing this contentious matter, like the famous apple in the olden heathen time, throwing it down on the floor of the House for the purpose of setting us by the ears. What is the use of doing this—what is the use of putting us all into a temper when they have an opportunity of dealing with this clause in a spirit of harmony? That spirit has undoubtedly characterized the proceedings upon this Bill since its introduction into Committee, and it has specially characterized our proceedings during the last half-hour, or since the appeal of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill). I would earnestly implore the Government to look on this matter from this common sense point of view—they are dealing with 670 Members of Parliament, and it is of great importance to keep these Members in good humour. It is of great importance while they are willing to make rapid progress, not to say anything or do anything of an obnoxious character, which will have the effect of damaging the good humour which prevails, and of delaying our proceedings. I speak words of wisdom, I am sure, when I implore the Government to hearken when I ask them if they are not willing to strike out the clause altogether, at all events to postpone it. I beg to move that the clause be postponed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be postponed."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.): I do not undervalue or underrate the importance of what has fallen from the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). I do not know whether I ought to describe it as a warning or as a threat. [Interruption by Mr. PARNELL.] I did not use those words in an offensive manner, but undoubtedly the speech of the hon. Gentleman conveyed, and I think it was intended to convey, a warning to say the least of it to Her Majesty's Government that if they persisted in going on with this clause in its present position they were preparing for themselves something that could not be described as a bed of roses during the next few days—during the discussion of this Bill. What is the ground which the hon. Member has brought forward as an argument to induce us to accept the suggestion which he has made? It is that we are superfluously and unnecessarily introducing by this clause contentious matter into the Bill. What, Sir, is the hon. Member's definition of contentious matter? It appears to me to mean matter which is not wholly agreeable to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. So far as I can understand it in no other sense of the word is it contentious. So long as we were merely interfering with the rights of landlords we were not introducing contentious matter. So long as we were cutting down privileges which have been secured to the landlords by custom and legislation, we were not doing anything of a contentious character. As soon as we bring forward a clause which, in our opinion, is certainly not a landlord's clause, but which we believe to be a clause well suited to facilitate the better government of Ireland, then we are accused by the hon. Gentleman of introducing what he calls contentious matter. All the threats and warnings which he has in his power to hold over our heads, all the various kinds of future difficulties which he has it in his power to put in our way, and which he now brings before our notice in order to induce us to drop this part of the Bill which we think of not less importance than many other parts of the Bill for the better government of Ire-
  144
  land, and for the settlement, or, at least, the temporary settlement, of the Irish difficulty. It appears that if the course which the hon. Member suggests to the Government were pursued, the whole course of legislation in this country would henceforth be at the mercy of any section in the House who had it in their power to tell the Government of the day that if they brought forward certain clauses which that section were prepared to describe as contentious, they would have great difficulty in passing the measure, I think the hon. Gentleman has for a moment forgotten the enormous benefits which many parts of this Bill are calculated to confer upon the Irish tenants. The hon. Member apparently disliked this particular provision. It is not a landlord's provision at all; but, surely, the hon. Member must see that it is hard upon the Government, it is unjust to the Government, to applaud them so long as they merely carry out suggestions which commend themselves to hon. Members below the Gangway, and to accuse them of introducing contentious matter when they declare their intention of carrying through to the best of their ability a clause they sincerely believe to be of the first importance for the better Government of Ireland. The Government cannot yield to the temptation, great as it is, hold out by the hon. Member for Cork. Be it for good or evil we must adhere to the policy laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, which is in conformity with every declaration which the Government have made upon this question, and carry it through as best we can.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I hope the Committee will pardon me trespassing upon their patience so soon after having addressed observations to them on other matters. I know very well—no one knows better than I do, how small, how exiguous, how almost nothing is my influence with the Government upon any single question of home or foreign policy. Bat in spite of this very discouraging circumstance, I still venture to offer some observations upon what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. I was given to understand—I suppose on insufficient basis—that the Government

  145
  were prepared to contemplate with, an open mind the policy embodied in Clause 4, and I own that when I hoard of the changes which the Government were disposed to make in the general framework of the Bill nothing gave mo greater satisfaction or hope than the information which reached me, that in respect to Clause 4, the Government might be disposed to consider with an open mind any observations which might be made with regard, to the clause. Recognizing entirely that on this point I am not likely to gain the smallest support from any section of the House, I think it is my duty, owing to my experience—not very large perhaps—owing to the knowledge I possess of the relations which exist between landlord and tenant in Ireland, and the manner in which these relations are influenced by certain parties, to make my protest against this clause in its present form. With this preamble let mo say that what I would like the Government to consider is this—let them take this clause as a Bill by itself; let them put aside all the other clauses of the Bill. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for a fair and candid consideration to this point. Would they be disposed to urge this clause in the form of a Bill? The Government attach enormous value to this clause; they think that it will produce a great amelioration in the state of social order in Ireland; they think it will avoid the disturbances which arise from evictions. I want to know from the right ton. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant if he would take up his present position if this clause stood by itself? What would this clause do? It would do no more than, and it could do no more than, postpone for six months the disturbances which now arise at the original evictions. If the clause stood by itself it would not produce any real or permanent amelioration of the state of social order in Ireland, as social order is affected by evictions. It would merely postpone evictions. Well, postponement under ordinary circumstances is a great weapon, but postponement with regard to evictions in Ireland hardly seems to me to be worth the trouble and bother which the Government are likely to give themselves in respect to this question.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am reluctant to interfere with the course the noble
  146
  Lord is pursuing, but it is obvious that if on a Motion for the postponement of a clause that clause can be discussed, the labours of the Committee may be considerably enlarged. I think that on a Motion for the postponement of a clause, the reasons for postponing the clause are all that can be properly gone into.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I hardly recollect the postponement of the clause having been moved, but I bow at once to your decision, Sir. With respect to the postponement of the clause, I have an important argument to urge. What you want to do in Ireland, what the Government really and seriously want to do in Ireland, and I hold they have proved that such is their sincere desire, is to stop harsh and unreasonable evictions. If your Bill is passed, as I feel sure it will be, and as I am sure it ought to be, you can stop harsh and unreasonable evictions without this clause. You can stop them in their origin, and it is better to stop them in their origin than to postpone them in their progress. That is a point, I think, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary ought to consider. Well, now, Sir, it is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said just now, and I have not a word to utter against what he says—this Bill, as a whole, confers enormous benefits on the Irish tenants. Certainly it does, and no hon. Member below the Gangway opposite will disagree with the proposition. But still, if this Bill without Clause 4 confers enormous benefits on the Irish tenants, why should you not, as the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) suggests, postpone the consideration of Clause 4 until you can look at the Bill as a whole without Clause 4, and judge fairly of the effects of the clause? Is that an unreasonable proposition? I quite recognize that the Government have solid and good reasons for proposing Clause 4, but I do not think the Government will contradict me when I say that there are grave doubts as to the rises which may be made of Clause 4 by certain parties. Now, always sticking to the question of postponement, what I wish to point out is this, what the Government have to do at this period of the Session is to avoid as far as they can without a limitation of their Ministerial responsibility unnecessary conten-

  147
  tious matters. What they have to fear in Ireland is not the action of the Irish landlords as a body, but the action of certain landlords. It has been only a certain section who have taken advantage of the law. Now, suppose the Government agree to postpone Clause 4; suppose they wait till the whole Bill without Clause 4 has been passed through Committee; and suppose they then consider the effect of the Bill on social order in Ireland with regard to the prevention of harsh and unreasonable evictions; and suppose they then say to themselves—"This Bill as it stands now will, in our opinion, not so adequately provide against harsh and unreasonable evictions, and against disturbance of social order from which harsh and unreasonable evictions may arise as we think it should," then it would be in their power to bring up Clause 4 at the end of the Committee. I do hold, and I venture to speak with some positiveness and confidence in this matter, that Clause 4 raises at this stage of the Bill unnecessary contentious matter, and raises, in spite of all the plausible reasons which may be advanced in favour of it, the gravest doubts as to the use to which it may be put by certain landlords, and remembering always that it is certain landlords and not the body of landlords who have continually exercised and given trouble to the Irish Government, I do appeal to the Government within the limits of the ruling of the Chair to consider, without prejudice, whether they would not get on rapidly with their Bill, whether they would not put the Committee into a most reasonable and harmonious frame of mind, and further, whether they would not secure great credit to themselves as an Administration capable of carrying through Parliament a Bill full of difficult and controversial questions without unnecessary discussion, if they consented not to the abolition of Clause 4, not to the abandonment of the clause, but merely consent to this, urged upon them by one who, whatever he may be, has not proved himself an enemy of theirs, to postpone this clause until the end of the Bill, and then, after considering the effect of their Bill as it stands without the clause, to make up their minds as to whether the clause is necessary or not. I pledge myself to the Government that, if they adopt the course suggested, and
  148
  if after carrying the rest of the Bill through Committee they still consider it necessary to proceed with the clause, I shall not have one word to say against the clause.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: In the few remarks I have to make, I shall confine myself to the proposal that the consideration of this clause be postponed. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) has advocated the postponement of this clause, because, he says, that proceeding with its consideration now, may disturb the harmony which, to present appearances, reigns in this Committee. I must say, Sir, as an Irish landlord, as one of that unfortunate class which is now being dealt with, that the harmony which appears to exist in the Committee at the present moment is not such as gives me, at any rate, unbounded satisfaction. I sometimes feel inclined to compare myself to that well-known animal, the eel. If it could speak, I wonder whether the eel could feel any satisfaction at the fact that those who were about to skin it were in an exceedingly good humour in anticipation of the operation. I think that the Committee should deal with this matter quite apart from any feelings of harmony, should deal with it purely and simply as a matter of justice. I hope that the desire to maintain the harmonious frame of mind in which the Committee is said to be may not influence the Government to postpone one of the most important clauses of this Bill. My noble Friend the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) has advocated the postponement of the clause, although he does not appear to think he has much influence with the Government. If the Government consent to the postponement of this clause, we shall be led to believe that they adopt that exiguous policy, whatever that is, spoken of by the noble Lord. I must say I do not think it will redound to the credit of the Government if they consent to postpone one of the most important clauses of the Bill to satisfy the good humour which at present reigns for a short time—I am afraid only for a short time—below the Gangway opposite, or to satisfy the exiguous proclivities of my noble Friend. The hon. Members below the Gangway opposite hate this clause, and I well understand why. They live upon evictions, and they

  149
  would have no ground for their policy if they did not have evictions. This clause does away, at any rate, with double evictions. It will, at any rate, prevent those evictions being made so admirably to suit the political ends of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway.
  MR. SEXTON: Are we discussing the clause now.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I hope the Government will stick firmly by this clause, that they will proceed at once to its consideration, and not allow themselves to be diverted from a course which I believe to be pursuant to the ordinary course pursued by the House, because the postponement of this clause would, to my mind, be tantamount to a consent to its abandonment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My noble Friend the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) has proposed to the Government a course which I fully anticipated—judging from the speech he made upon the second reading of the Bill—he would urge upon us, because on the occasion of the second reading he expressed views in regard to the clause by no means favourable to its general merits. I understand he has put before the Government two alternative policies. One is to embody this clause in a separate Bill.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No, I never said anything about that. What I asked the Government to do was that if they wished to ascertain the true merits of this clause to consider it as if it were a separate Bill, and not connect it with the other clauses of this Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALF0UR: I am rather surprised at that argument, because it appears to be contradictive of the argument the noble Lord advanced in a later part of his speech. He advised us to defer the clause until we could consider it in relation to all the other clauses of the Bill, and not as a separate clause. The argument he urged in the first part of his speech did not appear to be wholly consistent with the view he expressed at the end of his speech. What would the Government gain by postponing this clause? If we wished to abandon it, no doubt we might break our fall, so to speak, by postponing it. We might cover the appearance of giving up what we believe to be an
  150
  important principle, and finally the abandonment of the clause might under the circumstances pass almost unnoticed. But if we do not mean to abandon the clause what should we gain by postponing it? The noble Lord has suggested that what we should gain would be the power of looking at this clause in relation to all the other portions of our measure. I do not think any alterations are likely to take place in this Bill which will in any way affect our estimate of this clause; our estimate of this clause might be affected if Clause 22 of the Bill were abandoned. If the Committee were to induce us to abandon clauses on which we rely for stopping harsh evictions, then it might be that we should feel that this clause should be abandoned. But from what I have been able to collect there is no section of this House, belonging to any Party they may, who desire us to modify, at any rate to weaken, any part of our Bill which is intended to stop harsh evictions. If the clauses of our Bill pass in their present form, or even, as I think they will, in a strengthened form, then no change is likely which can by any possibility induce the Government to think they were ill-advised from the point of view of Irish Government, in bringing this clause before the House. I really do not see what we should gain by carrying out the policy of the noble Lord, except those advantages to be derived from delay, which, I thought, in another part of his speech, he rather sneered at when they wore employed in a different sphere of Government. I should be entirely out of Order in discussing the merits of this clause; but I must enter my protest, at this early stage, against the doctrine laid down by the noble Lord to the effect that the clause will merely postpone evictions without diminishing their number. It is the opinion of the Government that it will diminish Irish evictions, and it is because we believe that, and because we believe it has other merits, that we shall be glad to dilate upon during the progress of the clause, that we feel we cannot abandon the direct and straightforward course; but that we must take this clause and pass it through in the order in which it appears in our measure.
  MR. T. M. HEALY:May I point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief

  151
  Secretary has somewhat understated the effect of postponing this clause. He has stated in reply to the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) that the only effect of postponing this clause would be to break the fall of the Government if they meant to abandon it. The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the point made by the noble Lord—namely, the effect upon the minds of the Irish Party of the passing of the subsequent stages of the Bill in relation to the clause now before us. It is just possible, after we have seen the rest of the Bill shaped and moulded, that we may look favourably upon this particular clause as a moans of doing something to stop harsh and unreasonable evictions, and it is upon that ground that I support the proposition for the postponement of the clause. the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson), whose incursions into these debates we are always happy to receive, has rather sneered at the fact that the Irish Nationalist Members are, as he says, in a good humour. That, to him, was a matter of no account. Surely we are the representatives of the Irish people, and it may be presumed that our good humour might radiate and affect the four and a-half millions of people we represent. It has been said we are in a good humour—I say nothing as to the quality of the good humour—and that being so, I ask, is it a, small matter that good humour should prevail on our part in view of the fact that the Irish Government have found themselves compelled to proclaim all the counties in Ireland under the Coercion Act? I invite the Government to look at the position assumed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). It invariably happens that in all Parties there must be more or less division of opinion as to the way in which clauses should be contested or fought, as to whether particular points should or should not be pressed; but what the Government must have recognized is the reasonableness of the course suggested by the hon. Member for Cork. Seeing that the claim of the Government is that certain subsequent clauses of the Bill will prevent the tarrying out of harsh evictions, we are entitled to consider this clause not as if it were the 4th clause of the Bill, but as if it were
  152
  the 36th. There are 35 clauses in the Bill, and the Bill, as a whole, is described as "A Bill for preventing harsh evictions." Surely, Mr. Courtney, this clause can only be a subsidiary clause, and from the point of view of draftsmanship, I urge upon the Government that we are entitled to have the full scope of the proposals of the Government before us before we address ourselves to the consideration of this clause. I hope I have said nothing which can import any element of unpleasantness into this discussion. The Government must remember that we are anxious in a high degree that this Bill should pass; we have not disguised from the Government that anxiety. When the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was before the House in 1881, the Irish Party took up a certain attitude in consequence of the attitude of the House of Lords. We know that this Bill will pass their Lordships, and therefore there is no reason for disguise on our part. We, on the part of the people of Ireland at large, are anxious to prevent Irish evictions. We are anxious for the passage of this Bill in the best shape it can be moulded into. Under these circumstances, I consider the recommendation of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) ought to find favour with the Government. We have always found the noble Lord a practical politician. [Laughter.] I trust hon. Gentlemen will understand my words in the sense I intend them. I say we have always found the noble Lord a practical politician, and I mean that he is a man who understands the House of Commons, and he treats men as men, and not as statues or creatures without feeling or passion. Under these circumstances, I do hope the Government will not be heedless of his recommendations. A hostile attitude on the part of the Government in this matter can do no good, and may be provocative of much mischief. What is to be gained by refusing to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell)? We will not accept the consent of the Government in any sense as a triumph, or in any sense as a virtual abandonment of the clause. We will simply accept it as a postponement of strife until we can see into what shape the rest of the Bill is moulded by

  153
  the Committee. Seeing that we are almost at one upon the general scope of the measure, I earnestly hope the Government will agree to the present Motion. I must, in conclusion, deprecate one observation which fell, no doubt in a hasty moment, from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith). The right hon. Gentleman, who is seldom hasty, said that if this Bill were delayed the Government would be obliged to drop it. I think he will find some difficulty in reconciling that observation with the previous declarations of Her Majesty's Government. Of course, it is difficult to reconcile all the declarations of Her Majesty's Government in regard to this Bill with the Bill as it is now proposed; but that is a matter I do not care to enter upon now.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I have an Amendment on the Paper for the rejection of this clause, and therefore it may seem, to the Government that any advice or counsel of mine is more or less suspect. But I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is with no sinister view upon the future prospects of the Bill that I venture to support the contention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) and of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill). On the contrary, as has been stated by previous speakers, we are all deeply interested, and thoroughly intent upon the passing of this Bill in as efficient a shape as possibly may he for its great object—namely, the prevention of harsh and unjust evictions. Now, the Government have no doubt up to this point fairly met the spirit of the bulk of the Committee. There is no doubt that the reception that they have given to the various Amendments which have been proposed has been thoroughly fair, and on the whole animated by a just spirit. Why on earth should there now be any interruption of that spirit? As I understand, the hon. Member for Cork has stated a very good and business-like reason why this clause should be postponed. There can be no reason, on the other hand, why the clause should particularly figure as Clause 4. The clause will be just as operative if it comes at the end of the Bill as if it conies in the middle of the Bill. The care of the Committee is, and
  154
  should be, that we should get as far on as we possibly can with the Bill, upon the clauses and provisions of the Bill upon which we can get the greatest amount of agreement. The great object of us all must be to get through the Bill as quickly as we can; but if a highly contentious matter of this kind be introduced now the thread of the discussion will be broken, and the harmonious spirit which has distinguished the discussion of the Bill last night and tonight will be seriously disturbed. So far as we in this part of the House are concerned, it is not merely because we object to the clause, but it is because we are in earnest in desiring the Bill to pass in an efficient shape that we strongly concur in the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell)
  MR. CHANCE: I assume it would be quite out of Order to discuss in detail the provisions oil Clause 4; but I hope that by the indulgence of the Committee I may be allowed to point out as an argument in favour of the postponement of this clause, that, so far as I can gather from the speeches made in this debate, the principle of this clause is completely misunderstood. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) and the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench who have spoken upon this question, have very plainly stated that the operation of this clause is not to diminish, but to postpone evictions. I think it will be found by hon. Members, if they read the clause carefully, that the whole postponement of evictions only amounts to three days.
  MR. DILLON: I think it unfortunate, Mr. Courtney, that we should find ourselves, after two nights of very satisfactory progress of Business, plunged again, practically speaking, into the Crimes Act. Surely the Government might have been content with the Crimes Act for two or three months, and might have refrained from introducing into such a Bill as this an enactment which would far more appropriately find a place in that Act. If the Government wanted a clause of this character, why did they not place it in the Crimes Act instead of in the Land Bill? We have just heard a speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) in a tone which reminded me

  155
  strongly of the Crimes Act debates—a speech full of menace and threat. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of pushing this clause through the House for better or for worse. That is a nice tone in which to approach the Irish Members. The clause is to be forced through this House, in spite of our most determined opposition, for bettor or for worse. In the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman let slip an old conventional phrase. For the thousandth time we heard the old familiar words "a clause necessary for the better government of Ireland." We have had enough of "the better government of Ireland," in the shape of the Crimes Act——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the hon. Member is straying from the point, which is the postponement of the clause.
  MR. DILLON: I may have been straying from the point, Mr. Courtney, and I hog your pardon. My reason for supporting the postponement of the clause is this, that, we can hardly exaggerate the evil effect on the temper of the Committee, and on its capacity for carrying this Bill through Committee in a proper frame of mind if we are to have a desperate fight over this clause, and the clause is to be shoved down our throats by the frequent use of the clôture. It would have an almost incalculably injurious effect on the temper of the Committee. From the time the Government indicated that they were about to change their policy and to offer some substantial concessions to the people of Ireland, we have endeavoured to meet them in a fair spirit. We have endeavoured to forget the past, and, although the time has been so short, to approach the consideration of the Bill as if we had not just been subjected to a Crimes Act. Now, this is all to be done away with, and we are to be plunged into the consideration of a clause like this which is contentious in the highest degree. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland asked for a definition of what was contentious matter, and he said that we regarded as contentious matter everything which was for the benefit of the landlords, whilst we thought that everything for the benefit of the tenants was non-contentious. Why, was not this Bill brought forward for the benefit of the tenants? I reply to the right hon. Gentleman by
  156
  saying that when he introduces into a Bill, professing to be for the protection of the Irish tenants and for the prevention of evictions, a clause which I can only characterize as a fresh machinery for the facilitation of harsh evictions, I am inclined to characterize that as contentious matter in the highest degree. Hon. Members may have observed, some with regret, the continued absence from this Committee, and the dejected air when he was present, of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson). But to-night, when the postponement of this clause was proposed, he was cm his legs in a moment. There is not the slightest doubt in his mind as to what the object and intention of this clause is. If we wanted any evidence as to the contentious character of this clause, we had it directly we saw the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh in his regular Crimes Act attitude, with his war paint on and ready for conflict. That is evidence that we are now on the threshold of a provision which is in the highest degree contentious. And let me say, Sir, without at all entering into the details of this clause, but sticking strictly to the question of adjournment, that for my part I regard this clause as deadly to the interests of the Irish tenants, and, whenever it comes on for discussion, I shall exhaust every form of this House in order to convince my constituents that I have not failed to make every exertion in my power to guard them against one of the most deadly stabs ever aimed at the interests of the Irish tenant. I shall not enter into the merits of the clause, as you, Sir, have ruled that that would be out of Order; but I should like to mention one point. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland asked what would the Government gain by consenting to the postponement of the clause. I answer that they would gain enormously. In the first place, we should be able to deal with the whole of this Bill in the same spirit as we have dealt with the first few clauses. We should get through the discussion of the Bill without a wrangle or a fight. There cannot be a doubt that we should get through the Committee stage of the Bill much more rapidly. But that is not all that is to be gained. I maintain that, if we can come to any terms with the

  157
  Government in the course of the discussion on this Bill, if we find ourselves at the end of the Committee stage justified in saying that we look on the Bill as a measure which will put a stop to harsh evictions in Ireland and afford real relief to the tenantry of Ireland, the Committee will perceive that there is no necessity whatever for Clause 4. What would be the necessity for a clause dealing with evictions, if you have carried a measure putting a stop to harsh evictions. There is never any other kind of evictions in Ireland than harsh evictions. There may be perhaps half a dozen evictions a-year of drunken and broken-down men, but the Irish tenant never leaves his home unless he cannot possibly help it; and, therefore, if you pass a measure which will have the effect of stopping harsh evictions, you will have no necessity for this clause. If this Bill shows any prospect of attaining its object, the universal opinion of this Committee will be that there is no necessity for Clause 4, because we shall be able to look forward to a breathing space, in which we shall be spared evictions in Ireland, and then, at the end of what I hope will be a peaceful and fruitful discussion, the Government will be able to say that the clause is entirely unnecessary.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The speech just delivered by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has made it quite clear to the Committee that the real object of endeavouring to obtain a postponement of Clause 4 is to postpone a dispute and a difference which would be as bitter at the end as at the beginning. The hon. Member for East Mayo has told us that, at whatever time this clause is taken into consideration, he will give it his most uncompromising opposition, because he regards it as a most deadly stab at the interests of the Irish tenant. We know, therefore, perfectly well that whether we encounter that opposition at the end of the Committee stage or now, we shall have to encounter it. If it was possible to disarm the opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite without any sacrifice of principle, we should be glad to do so. But we believe this clause to be necessary in the interests of the tenant. [Laughter,] I never laugh at the observations made by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway when they take a view in opposition to my own, and I venture to
  158
  think that I am entitled to say what I believe. I say we believe this clause to he necessary in the interests of the tenants of Ireland and in the interests of the peace of Ireland. We believe it will stop harsh and unnecessary evictions, and that it will save a vast amount of pain and sorrow and trouble. Holding that conviction most completely and thoroughly, we cannot abandon the clause; and if we are called upon to lace the uncompromising opposition of the hon. Gentleman and those who are associated with him—painful as it will be to us, and deeply as we shall regret having to meet it at all—we prefer to meet it in the order in which the clause stands in the Bill rather than appear to give way when we do not really intend to give way, and when we intend to hold to the principle involved in this clause. We prefer to meet the opposition now in the best temper we possibly can, and without desiring in the slightest degree to raise any angry feeling that can by any possibility be avoided, rather than meet it after discussion which may last one or two or three days. No, Sir; I hope and trust that this measure will be, as described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley), a just and considerate measure, and a measure for the advantage of the tenants in Ireland. It has been proposed in that spirit by the Government, and is being carried through the Committee in that spirit by the Government. There has been no reasonable suggestion made by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway which we have not been desirous of adopting; and if it can be shown that there is any provision in the clause which is not necessary, we shall give any suggestion made with a view to Amendment the most careful consideration.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Courtney, I think there can be no doubt whatever that those who support the postponement of this clause do so because they are hostile to the clause. A postponement is only suggested as a step in the direction of a withdrawal of the clause. And this desire for the withdrawal of the clause proceeds from two separate reasons. It comes, in the first place, from those who consider that the clause is, in itself, a bad clause, and who see in it, as has been just stated by the hon. Member for

  159
  East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), a deadly blow struck at the tenants of Ireland. They believe it to be wrong in every respect, and are prepared to give it an uncompromising opposition. They do not see their way at the present moment to defeat it, but they hope to postpone it, and probably they calculate that when the Committee is wearied with, the discussion, it may consent to its withdrawal. Another suggestion for the postponement is made by those who are not altogether—not necessarily, at all events—hostile to the clause as it stands, but who have in view the undoubted difficulties in which the Committee will be placed if the Government determine at once to proceed with it. No doubt, in its present shape, the clause is, I believe, under an entire misapprehension, opposed by the bulk of the Irish Members, who will give to it that kind of opposition with which the House is familiar. Well, Sir, under these circumstances, I can well understand that many hon. Members may think that the Government should take into consideration the time of the Session, and that, unless they can say that the interests of the country and their own position as a Government are intimately concerned in the maintenance of the clause, they should be prepared to abandon it as altogether unnecessary. That is a view which may be urged with great force on the Government, and which, I have no doubt, the Government have fully considered. It is a matter entirely for the responsibility of the Government. If they think it is impossible for them to yield to that consideration; if, after the threats of the hon. Member for East Mayo—we need not mince words, and we are bound to say distinctly that threats have been used——
  MR. DILLON: What kind of threats?
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has used threats which are familiar in the mouths of the Irish Members——
  MR. PARNELL: I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to inquire whether the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that my hon. Friend has used threats?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not observe anything out of Order.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for East Mayo has said, in language which we have often heard from the same quarter, that if
  160
  this clause were persisted in, he would think it his duty to exhaust every form of the House in opposing it. We all know perfectly well what that means. We have had experience of the capacity of the Irish Members to exhaust every form of the House, and to exhaust the House in the process. I say that it is a distinct threat; and, looking at this proposition in view of that threat, I shall accept the decision of the Government as final and satisfactory upon their responsibility. Well, now, I have said that the objection to the clause is of two kinds. There is the objection based upon the difficulty in which the Committee will be placed if the clause is persisted in; and there is also the objection on the merits. I think the Committee will be placed in great difficulty by the ruling which you, Mr. Courtney, have most properly given, directing us not to discuss the merits of the clause. I must, at the same time, refer to one statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo. The hon. Member says he believes this clause is a deadly blow struck at the Irish tenants. If he can persuade me that that is a fact, I think I shall be inclined to join him in exhausting every form of the House in opposition to the clause. I do not think, however, that this clause is against the interests of the Irish tenants. I believe it is in favour of the tenants; I believe that it is one of the most important provisions of the Bill, and that it carries out the object of the Bill in so far as putting a stop to harsh and unnecessary evictions is concerned. It is admitted, that what it does is to postpone—[An hon. MEMBER: No, no !] An hon. Member below the Gangway contradicts me before I have said anything. I suppose it may postpone something. Perhaps the hon. Member will wait to hear what, in my judgment, the clause postpones. I say I believe it is admitted that the effect of this clause will be, in some measure, to postpone the eviction. In place of the eviction which now takes place as the first proceeding, there will he the notice, and the eviction, when it comes, will come six months afterwards. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, let hon. Members put their own view when their time comes. That is undoubtedly the intention of the clause. But it is said that the very fact that the first process is such an easy process, and that it does not lead to an evic-

  161
  tion with all the odium which an eviction brings on the landlord, will induce a multiplication of the first process, and will in the long run lead to a multiplication of evictions. That is a serious objection if a justifiable one, and I want to ask one question. Am I not right in the assumption I make that before the first process, the serving of the notice, can take place, the equitable jurisdiction of the Court under Clause 22 will intervene? I am precluded from dismissing the matter in detail, but I do beg hon. Members below the Gangway to consider that point. That is my view, and that is the view of the Government. If the clause does not carry out that view, I have no doubt the Government will be prepared to amend the clause in order to carry it out. As regards the tenants who come under the Equitable Jurisdiction Clause, the equitable jurisdiction of the Court will be interposed before even the service of the notice can take place. I see that an hon. Gentleman below the Gangway shakes his head. I again impress upon him that that is the intention of the Government. I say let us get to the clause and discuss it, and if we find that the intention of the Government cannot be carried out, let us amend the clause so that it may be carried out. Now, I proceed one step further. If I am right, if the clause, as it stands at present, does interpose this equitable jurisdiction, and if the Government are willing to amend it in that respect if it does not, I ask the hon. Member for East Mayo, who is, I am sure, perfectly fair in matters of this kind, when he thoroughly comprehends the question, can he say that, under the circumstances, this is a measure which will not postpone evictions?
  MR. DILLON: Clause 22 does not do that.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: Clause 22 interposes the equitable jurisdiction of the Court as to whether or not there shall be a stay of proceedings——
  MR. DILLON: Up to £50.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I know; and when we come to discuss the clause it will be very proper to consider whether or not that equitable jurisdiction shall be extended to cases of over £50. But I say that if we go up to £50 we shall cover 999 out of 1,000 harsh evictions. There are very few harsh evictions above £50; therefore it
  162
  is hardly worth while to interfere with the argument for such a point as that. But the 22nd clause interposes the jurisdiction of the Court when the landlord proposes to serve a notice under Clause 4 to say—"No; under the circumstances that have been brought to our notice we order a stay of proceedings." Thereupon it intervenes in the method proposed under Clause 22. Then I say, under these circumstances, that I deny altogether that it can fairly be said that Clause 4 strikes a deadly blow at the tenant, or tends to encourage harsh evictions. One word more before I sit down. Suppose after we have dealt with the Bill and inside all the Amendments we can make in the interest of the tenants and in justice to all parties, suppose this clause still remains in the opinion of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway an objectionable clause, is it to be their contention that every line of this Bill—which is a large measure, a generous, a liberal measure, which they admit they desire to see passed—is it their contention that every clause, every line, every word, in the Bill shall satisfy their views? If so, I might complain of them as Canning complained of the Dutch—
  "In matters of commerce the fault of the Dutch
  Is giving too little and asking too much,"
  It is all very well to talk of the harmony of our proceedings; but is that harmony only to be sustained by conceding everything to the view of a small section of the House of Commons? I think hon. Members will see that is really an impossible condition.
  MR. SEXTON: We have been beaten in 10 Divisions.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member interrupts mo to say they have been beaten in 10 Divisions, and that leads me to make another remark. What is the nature of the harmony that has accompanied our proceedings? Up to this time we have been dealing with the most magnificent concessions ever made to Irish tenants. [Cries of"No, no!"] Yes. I say the Government, with the assent of all Parties in the House, have now made concessions to Irish tenants that have been refused by all previous Governments; that when suggested by minorities in the House have been denounced by the Government of the day as breaches

  163
  of economic law and of the sanctity of contract, that could not by any possibility be entertained. All that has gone to the winds, and enormous concessions are made by the Government. Well, it is upon these concessions that hon. Gentlemen have taken 10 Divisions, and complain that they have been beaten in them. Well, I do not see the force of the complaint of hon. Members below the Gangway. If they had said, when Clause 1 was under consideration—"Here is a magnificent concession; we admit its generosity; we will not haggle over it; we will ask for nothing more; we will take it for what it is;" then they would have some ground for saying, when we come to a clause they oppose—"Now we have cause to press our objections." But not a bit of it. They press for further concessions, and we know that that is always the case. In the first instance, a grievance is brought forward in moderate terms. It carries conviction to every mind in the House. But when the House of Commons agrees to deal with that grievance there is no acceptance of the settlement by hon. Members below the Gangway; but the concession is made the ground for further demands. Well, I have been drawn further into contentious matter than I intended by the interruptions to which. I have boon subjected; but I do not complain of them at all. In conclusion, let me say even if this clause, when the Bill is passed, is considered an objectionable clause by hon. Members below the Gangway, I ask them to treat this matter as one of account, and to consider the balance of the account.
  An hon. MEMBER: How about the Crimes Act?
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: Well, Mr. Courtney, I do not think you would allow me to discuss the Crimes Act on the question of postponing this clause. But I will only say I know perfectly well what are the views of hon. Members about the Crimes Act; and if they think it necessary to throw them into the account, then I say it is absolutely impossible to satisfy them, and I would advise the Government not to try.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to move that you, Sir, do report Progress. A very important measure is waiting to come on, and unless it is considered and
  164
  passed without delay it will be useless We waited until 2 yesterday morning to deal with it, but could not do so, because of the time occupied in other Business. If the Government like to accept the responsibility of dropping the Bill let them do so; but if not, thon the Bill must be considered now. It is time to remember that there are other parts of the Three Kingdoms in existence besides Ireland. Scotland exists. The measure is one upon which social order in part of that country depends. I think, as it is now 20 minutes to 1 o'clock, and that we waited until nearly 2 yesterday, the Government should now give us an opportunity of considering the Lords' Reasons for disagreeing with our Amendments to the Crofters Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Clark.)
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I must ask the Committee to come to a decision on the question of postponing the clause. The discussion we have had has, I think, exhausted that subject, and that question being decided I shall then be prepared to consider the question of reporting Progress.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 112; Noes 220: Majority 108,—(Div. List, No. 323.)[12.35 A. M.]
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) had concluded his observations by recommending the Government, whatever they might do in their Bill, to take care to do nothing to please the Irish Members. Of course, we who are familiar with the right hon. Gentleman's later manner are not surprised at his tone; but whatever his views may be, we have reason to be grateful to him for supplying an unanswerable reason why the Motion before us should be carried. He has given ample reason for postponing this clause, because hitherto we have been dealing with the proposals of the section as they affect subsequent proposals in. the Bill as it stands in its present form. But the right hon. Gentleman tells us, with that special knowledge he sometimes assumes as to what the Government are

  165
  going to do—I do not know whether rightly or wrongly—that the Government have several valuable concessions to make that will entirely reconcile us to Clause 4. That is an unanswerable reason for postponing Clause 4 until we see what these valuable concessions are. We are quite willing to attach the greatest weight to what the right hon. Gentleman says as to the value of these concessions; but we desire to see them on the Paper, and know exactly what it is the Government propose. We do not wish to take all these important matters on trust, and to accept his observations, until we see exactly how we stand. That being so, I hope my hon. Friend will press his Motion, and that the Committee will accept it as a reasonable one.
  MR. MAHONY: In listening to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain), I was very much struck by the great stress he laid upon Clause 22, and it did strike me as one of the strongest arguments that could possibly be brought forward for postponing the consideration of this clause until we know what Clause 22 is going to be. And I would call the attention of the Committee to another matter. In this Clause 4 the Government are not adopting the recommendations of their own Commission; they are adopting a perfectly different method of gaining the object the Cowper Commission had in view. I merely throw this out as a suggestion to the Government. Would it not be possible for them to assent to the postponement of this clause; would it not be possible—if the other clauses of the Bill are made a reality, and afford real protection to the tenants against harsh evictions—with the concurrence of the House, to adopt in some different form the recommendations of the Cowper Commission? I do not say it will be, but it might be, possible for them to protect the tenant to such an extent that our hostility to the recommendations of the Commission might, in another form, be a great deal less than it is as the Government now propose to carry it out. I throw this out as a suggestion to the Government to reconsider the clause, which, if they force in its present form, must meet with our bitter hostility. We do not know what Clause 22 is going to be, so the argument of the right hon. Gentleman falls to the ground. His argument
  166
  was based on the protection afforded by Clause 22, as to which we know nothing at present. The right hon. Gentleman asked what the Coercion Bill had to do with the present clause, and why it should be thrown into the balance; but surely the Dissentient Liberals throw it into the balance with their own convictions when they voted for coercion as a balance to this remedial measure. We contend that you will, to a very large extent, destroy the remedial effects of this measure by this clause.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This is not quite speaking- to the question of postponement.
  DR. COMMINS: If the Committee willallow me a few seconds before we go to a Division I will not longer protract the discussion. I have listened attentively, but I have failed to hear one single argument in favour of the retention of the clause in its present position. The question is not on the merits of the clause. The panegyric on the great benefit it will be to the tenants of Ireland, so feelingly bestowed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), is altogether beside the mark. It may be all his fancy paints it, or it may be what we believe it to be, merely a further instalment of the Coercion Act; but the question is, ought it to be discussed now or at the end of the Bill? Now, naturally, and in the logical order of things, execution comes after sentence, and eviction can only take place after all attempts at reconciling landlord and tenant have failed. When all remedial measures proposed to be introduced have failed in their effect, eviction comes in the last scene of all. Why, then, introduce a discussion of the method of eviction in the middle of the Bill? Is it intended for the purpose of shipwrecking the Bill, that the Government might get the credit of the concession they are willing to make now, but which they are ready to throw over if we discuss this section longer than they think sufficient? Threats have been spoken of; is there a threat in this? Why not have this clause at the beginning or the end of the Bill; in the middle it certainly is not in its proper place. We ask you what is to be the position of the Irish tenant; what is to be the law that regulates his relations with his landlord; what is the procedure

  167
  by which he may be protected from his harsh landlord? Let us know these things before we come to the method of exterminating him. I really cannot see any reason for inserting the clause here, and there are strong reasons for postponing it.
  MR. HUNTER: I beg, Sir, to move that you do now leave the Chair.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Question is, that this clause be postponed.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 150; Noes 212: Majority 62.—(Div. List, No. 324.) [1.5 A.M.]
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. W. H. Smith,)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

CROFTERS HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' REASON.
  Lords' Reason read by the Clerk at the Table as follows:—
  Reason of the Lords for disagreeing to one of the Amendments made by the Commons.
  The Lords disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 1, line 19, for the following reason:—
  " Because the Bill, as it left their Lordships' House, was simply a Bill to protect crofters who had made application under the Act from being made bankrupts pending the hearing of their cases by the Commissioners; but the Amendment of the Commons would introduce an important principle, not in the Bill as it left their Lordships' House, and one which, in the opinion of their Lordships, would constitute an undue interference with contract, and which, if applied to land, would equally apply to all other commercial transactions."
  With this exception, the Lords agree to the Amendments made by the Commons to the Bill.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): It will be remembered that this Bill was originally brought in in the other House, and it was a measure brought in for a specific purpose. It was discovered, on an examination into the probable operation of
  168
  the Crofters Act of last year, that a mistake had been committed, and that that mistake was that the Bill, as passed through Parliament, left it so that in the case of any crofter, who, in any proceeding taken against him in a Court of Law should become bankrupt, he might thereby lose the benefit of the Act. It was thought, both in this House and in the House of Lords, that this was not fair or just, and that means should be taken by an amending Act to remedy the defect discovered in the Act of 1886. Accordingly, this Bill was brought in in the House of Lords, and sent down by that House to this, where it was discussed; and the result was that the Lords accepted almost all the Amendments to the Bill agreed to in this House, for the purpose of more completely carrying out the object for which it was introduced. But my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour) brought in a clause, or, rather, an addition to a clause, which practically amounted to a new clause, by which the Bill was made to declare—
  "That this Act shall apply, notwithstanding that the crofter may have granted a bond, bill, or other document of debt for the rent due by him, or any part thereof, and if such rent or any part thereof in excess of the amount which the Crofters Commission shall determine ought to he paid, shall be recovered from the crofter by any bonâ fide onerous assignee, indorsee, or other holder for value of such documents as aforesaid, the crofter shall be entitled to repetition of such excess from the landlord or to credit in account with the landlord in respect thereof."
  Now, I hold that that Amendment undoubtedly introduced an entirely new question into the Bill. I did not myself object to it for reasons I will state; but I would point out that those reasons tell both ways. The reason for the acceptance of the clause was that in one or two eases landlords had received bills of ox-change for the amounts due from their tenants, and it was evidently open to the possibility that the landlords might put those bills into circulation in the ordinary way, by getting the amounts due upon them in the market, so that the holders of the bills might come upon the crofters to recover their money, and thus reduce them to a state of bankruptcy. But it will be seen that this introduces an entirely new principle into the measure—namely, that a written agreement between a crofter and his landlord may be set aside. The Lords

  169
  having taken this objection to the Amendment adopted by this House, I shall move that the House of Commons agree to their Lordships' Reason, I do not think there need be much alarm as to landlords obtaining bills of exchange from the crofters. Although it is said that they will make use of these bills by putting them into the circle and raising the amounts due upon them, I feel satisfied that if any landlord should be so unwise as to try that course, he will find that he will be unable to get anything like a remunerative price upon such bills, because even the most active money-lenders who ever advanced money upon bills would hardly be inclined to advance money upon the bills of Highland crofters who are in arrear with their rent. The Lords have met this objection on the ground of principle, and I now move that this House do not insist on the Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth not insist on the Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR (Clackmannan, & c.): I have, Sir, to move, as an Amendment, that this House do insist on the Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed. In the Crofters Act of last year a provision was introduced in Committee which, in substance, gave the Crofters Commission power to deal with the question of arrears, and by Section 6, Subsection 5, it provided that when an application to fix a fair rent was presented, the Commissioners should have power to take into consideration the amount of arrears of rent due and determine what amount of those arrears should be paid. It was found that that Act was not so effective as I believe on both sides of this House it was intended to be, and a Bill for the purpose of remedying the defect was very properly brought in by Her Majesty's Government and introduced in the other House, from which it was in due course sent down to this. The main provision of that Bill is contained in (Section 2, which provides that proceedings shall not be taken for the sale of a crofter's effects where there is an application to fix a fair rent; and the Bill further provides machinery for carrying out more effectually than was done by the Act of last year the plain, and I may say the admitted, intention
  170
  of both sides of this House. It was represented to me that in certain cases crofters in the North of Scotland had been persuaded to grant bills of exchange to their landlords for the amounts due from them as arrears of rent, and the question arose whether such a procedure would not have the effect of depriving them of the benefits of the Act. It appeared to myself and others that it would be contrary to the intention of the Act of last year, and of the Bill of the present year, if the crofter, by giving even a written acknowledgment of a debt due in another form, should be deprived of the benefit of the Act—in short, if he who already admitted owing a debt to his landlord should be persuaded to acknowledge that debt by another process, and thus render himself liable to a procedure which would take away any advantage the Act was intended to confer. I certainly thought it would be an invasion of the principle of the Act if, directly or indirectly, any crofter, by being persuaded to give a second acknowledgment of his debt to his landlord, should thereby be deprived of the benefit of the Act. I do not here go into the question whether, if the Bill should simply remain in the hands of the landlord, it would be prejudicial to the crofter. I should be inclined to think it would not; but I am of opinion that it is far hotter there should be no doubt left in regard to the matter. But as to the other matter, where the crofter not merely has granted a bill, but where the landlord has done what, under the circumstances, he would clearly be entitled to do, and has discounted the bill and obtained money on I it by putting it into the market; it would, of course, be impossible, where a bill has been so dealt with, to enter into any question with the person who has got the bill as to the matter of debt between the crofter and his landlord. Thus, therefore, a case was shown in which the object of the Act of last year would I clearly be defeated, because by the granting of a bill which is passed from the hands of the owner for value the intention of the Act would necessarily be frustrated. It was with a view of remedying this defect that I moved the Amendment which was adopted by this House, and to which their Lordships have disagreed. The view which at the I time I brought it forward was taken of

  171
  that Amendment by the House of Commons may be gathered when I state that it was accepted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, as representing Her Majesty's Government, as well as by the House at large, and it was, I think, accepted quite justly. It appeared to this House, without the slightest difference of opinion on the subject, that that Amendment was a necessary complement to the provision already made by the Act of last year, and that without it there might be some danger of that Act being in many cases rendered ineffectual. The Amendment was, consequently, agreed to, and the Bill so amended went back to the House of Lords. It has now been returned to us with the Amendment we agreed to struck out, and with a Reason for taking that course which, with great deference, I submit is no reason at all. I can only say, from the terms in which that Reason is couched, that those who drew it up in the other House, and who are responsible for the rejection of the Amendment, have entirely misapprehended its object and effect; and I believe that if they had understood its object and effect they would not have taken the course they have pursued, and would not have put forward the Reason they have assigned. Their Lordships say that—
  "The Bill, as it left their Lordships' House, was simply a Bill to protect crofters who had made application under the Act from being made bankrupts pending the hearing of their cases by the Commissioners."
  That, I think, is not an unfair summary of the object of the measure; but unless this Amendment be accepted, it will be perfectly possible to make crofters bankrupt by procedure on these bills of exchange. They could be made bankrupts by the banks or holders for value into whose hands the bills may fall. Therefore, I say the Amendment is entirely in accord with the intention of the Bill. But let us look at the second part of their Lordships' Reason. They go on to say—
  "But the Amendment of the Commons would introduce an important principle, not in the Bill as it left their Lordships' House, and one which, in the opinion of their Lordships, would constitute an undue interference with contract, and which, if applied to land, would equally apply to all other commercial transactions."
  Now, I think it is quite impossible for anyone who has been accustomed to read, even in the most casual manner.
  172
  I the pamphlets and other literature emanating from the Liberty and Property Defence Association, not to recognize very familiar language in this second part of their Lordships' Reason. But I put it to the House whether it is not plainly misapplied in this case, because the Amendment which I moved introduced no new principle. The whole question is whether arrears are to be considered and taken into view. That question was settled last year, and it was acknowledged this year. Therefore, it is not a question whether the arrears are to be taken into view or not; because, if the Crofters Commission think they ought not to be paid in full, they have power to give effect to their opinion. What new contract is there about a man acknowledging a debt? If he gives a bill or an IOU for the amount, what he does is not to make a now contract, but simply to acknowledge a liability already incurred. It is introducing no new principle whatever, and I submit that the idea that my Amendment constitutes an undue interference with contract is a wholly false accusation. What the House has to do now is to consider whether the proposal which I made, and which was unanimously accepted by the House, should not be adhered to. I do not propose to delay the House by prolonged arguments, but simply to submit that no sufficient reason has been shown for disagreeing with that Amendment, and that there must have been some disagreement or misunderstanding on the part of their Lordships. I shall move, therefore, as an Amendment, that this House doth insist on the Amendment to the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the Question the word "not."—(Mr. J. B. Balfour.)
  DR. CLARK: The statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman [Mr. J. B. Balfour) has been so explicit that it is only necessary for mo to add one or two words. Sir, this Bill gives nothing. It merely gives power to the Crofters' Commission to interfere, if they are satisfied that a landlord is trying to evade the provisions of the Act, with a view of stopping the proceeding of ejectment until they hear the case. Now, if you do not give them this power—and remember the composition of the Commission it consists of a shipper,

  173
  a factor, and a big farmer; not one of the crofters is represented upon it—the Act will be simply evaded; and very powerful evidence will be required before the Commission will act, if you do not, by this clause, make it compulsory upon them to do something. If the Amendment is not passed, the provisions of the Act will I be used against the crofters; they will be made bankrupt, and they will be evicted, without a chance of ever making themselves heard. A good deal of kindly persuasion has been used by the landlords—the right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Lord Advocate) says only in two or three cases—but I know two landlords in my county, and one in Argyllshire—they are all Liberals, too—who, taking advantage of the fact that the Government will not carry out the Act, and appoint assessors, and valuers, and Sub-Commissioners, are saying to the tenants who are in arrear—"Unless you give us a bill we will at once evict you." I can produce numberless letters in which this statement is made, and numbers of the tenants have given bills on this condition. Now, all we ask is that persuasion of this sort shall be brought before the Crofters' Commission before the man is turned out and sold out; and that the Commissioners, if the evidence supports such statements as these, may interfere and prevent the eviction.
  MR. FINLAY (Inverness, & c.): I desire to say a very few words in support of what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend in front of me (Mr. J. B. Balfour). I do hope the House will adhere to this Amendment, which, as has been said, consists of two parts. To the first I cannot conceive that any solid objection can be advanced. It merely provides that a crofter shall not lose the benefit of the Act of last year by reason of his having given a bill for the rent which he owes to his landlord. Will any hon. Member of this House rise and say that it is unreasonable that such a provision should be made? If provision should be made in respect of a crofter's rent, surely it should also apply in the case of a bill given as security for the rent. The second part of the Amendment deals with he case of a landlord who has got such a bill and has discounted it. To this second part an objection has been raised by the right hon. and learned
  174
  Gentleman opposite (the Lord Advocate) to this effect—that there will be very few such eases; and he apprehends that not many crofters' bills would be discounted in the market. I understood the Lord Advocate to say that there are cases in which the landlord has taken bills from the crofters for rent. Well, then, if he takes a bill, he takes it presumably for the purpose of discounting it. Then, in the second place, it is said that not many money lenders would accept the security of a crofter's bill. Perhaps not, if only the crofter's name were upon it; but he may take it with the landlord's endorsement. That brings me to the second part of the Amendment, which would prevent a landlord doing indirectly that which the Act already says the landlord shall not do directly. That is a just and equitable provision, and I hope the Amendment will be agreed to in its entirety.
  DR. R. MACDONALD: I wish to say a very few words in support of the view taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour). The Lord Advocate says that the House of Lords have accepted all the other Amendments moved by this House; but the truth is that not more than half of them were accepted. But even if they had been, that is no reason why we should give way on this occasion. The Lord Advocate says there are only two or three cases in which bills have been given; but if he looks into the matter he will find himself very considerably mistaken. There is one estate in the North of Scotland where, I am told, all the business done between landlord and tenant has been in giving bills in this way. As to talking, as their Lordships do, about breaking contracts and agreements, I say the word agreement ought not to be used in this connection. What are the facts? If a man holds a pistol at your head and demands the contents of your purse, your purse is given under pressure; and so these bills have been given under threat of eviction. Then, again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate makes a point of the assertion that money lenders will not buy up these-bills. Well, we have no money lenders in the North of Scotland, I am glad to say, except the banks. What we are afraid of is, not that the landlords will

  175
  sell the bills, but that they will use them for the purposes of eviction; for we know by their previous conduct that they would be ready enough to do so. Now, I want to point out that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate accepted this Amendment on the part of the Government without any discussion whatever. He thought it was so just that he accepted it without discussion, and now he comes to the House and says—"Oh, yes, that was so; but there is a new principle involved." There is no new principle involved, as has been well explained by the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay). I felt I could not give a silent vote on this subject. I think it is a very mean and Contemptible thing for the House of Lords to insist on the exclusion of such an Amendment, considering that there are only a few hundred pounds involved altogether.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling, & c.): I rise merely for the purpose of asking you, Sir, as to the effect which would be produced if the Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. B. Balfour) was carried. It is an Amendment insisting on an original Amendment which was inserted in this House. Perhaps you, Sir, would tie good enough to tell us whether that would have the effect of endangering the life of this Bill. There is an apprehension of that in the minds of some hon. Members; and, naturally, there is no desire in any quarter of the House to endanger the Bill. If the insistance upon the Amendment in its present form would have that effect, it might materially alter the course we ought to pursue, and in that case I should be inclined to suggest that the debate should be adjourned.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question I shall put from the Chair is—"That this House do not insist upon the Amendment with which the Lords have disagreed." It will not be competent to move any Amendment upon that, and the course taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour) will be to say "No" to that proposition. It may be competent, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees to that proposition, to move afterwards an Amendment in the form of a provision, or any Amendment, in short, which may appear
  176
  fit to the right hon. and learned Gentleman dealing with the subject.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I gather from that, Sir, that the proper course will be to agree to the Motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Lord Advocate) in the first instance, and then to endeavour in some way to amend the Amendment in order to re-more the objections of the Lords.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has rightly gathered my meaning.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I have no right to speak again, except with the permission of the House; but, after hearing what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. B. Balfour), I have to say that certainly it is the wish of the Government, as it is the wish of all parts of the House, that this Bill shall not fall. I would suggest that the Motion that I have made should be agreed to, and that then some arrangement should be come to by both sides of the House. The debate might be adjourned for this purpose.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: Would not the more convenient course be—as I am quite sure that the Lord Advocate would be as sorry as we should be to see the Bill lost—to adjourn the debate at this point? We might then endeavour to arrive at some compromise or some understanding on a form of Amendment which would be satisfactory; therefore, before we proceed with the matter further, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. J. B. Balfour,)—put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday.

  MARKETS AXD FAIRS (WEIGHING OF CATTLE) BILL [Lords]— [BILL 317.]
  (Sir Richard Paget.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 25th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 2 (Application of Act).
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I should like to know why the word "legal" is introduced into this clause. I beg to move its omission. Supposing a prosecution is brought under this clause, and a conviction is likely to be obtained.

  177
  The owner of the tolls might set up the contention that this was not a "legal" fair or market, and so the whole onus of proving the legality of it would be thrown upon the complainant. If a man takes the tolls for a fair or market that should be presumptive evidence of the legality of that fair or market.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, to leave out the word "legal."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'legal' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: This word was inserted, after controversy, in "another place," and I have authority for stating that the word is of importance as giving an absolutely correct definition of the scope of the Bill. I am not personally acquainted with the details of the matter; but I am assured, on the highest authority, that the Bill has been drawn with great deliberation, and that every word has teen well considered. I should think myself that the word is a necessary word, and is of itself a sufficient description, and that so far from encouraging litigation it will tend to prevent it. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: We are almost at one on this Bill. Supposing that I have a fair or a market in any country place, and it is a matter of doubt whether it is a legal fair or not, but still nobody contests my right, I choose not to set up a weighing machine, nor to comply with any of the provisions of this Bill. A man brings a pig to my market, and as I provide no weighing machine he proceeds against me. Then before the magistrates—who are most likely to be the friends of the market owner—I set up the contention that the complainant has got to prove that this is a legal market. The onus is thrown upon him, and that is all my point. I was not aware, until the hon. Baronet (Sir Richard Paget) mentioned it, that the subject had been a matter of controversy in "another place." If so, it strengthens my contention that it is a doubtful point, and I would respectfully urge that the word should be omitted. Then we should see whether the Lords would insist upon it. I think, if not, we shall be doing a very dangerous thing. If the legality of
  178
  any of these fairs is in doubt, all the more is it necessary that we should make them comply with the law. Then, again, the clause, as it stands, will lead to this absurdity, that a man who has a legal right will be made to do a certain thing; whereas a man who has usurped or assumed a right will not. I contend that this is the only meaning which can be attached to the word.
  MR. CHANCE: I would point out, as strengthening the argument of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy), that a Court of Summary Jurisdiction has no right to try any cases of title. So that all the defendant, who is summoned by a poor prosecutor, will have to do is to say—"I demand that the person prosecuting me shall show that I have a legal market. I decline to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court until that point is settled." Thereupon, the jurisdiction will he at once changed; the prosecutor will have to go to some other Court, and a long question of title will have to be fought out. I know something about market rights in Ireland. In one case investigations had to be made back to the 17th century. To say that that ought to be done before a paltry penalty under this Bill can be recovered is an absurdity. There is an additional reason why this word should not be allowed to remain part of the Bill. It is an unreasonable and au unfair thing that a man, because he enjoys a right to which he has no legal title, should escape obligations which are bound upon other men whose rights have a legal sanction.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I think that the danger apprehended by hon. Members opposite is not a very real one. Markets are created commonly either by prescription, or by charter, or by a private Act, and this Bill refers to au Act of Parliament passed in the year 1817–10 & 11 Vict. c. 14—and you have only to look at that Act to see what sort of markets are intended to be affected. I think we should be striking altogether against the principle on which that Act was passed if we did not include the same legal definition which is to be found in the Act of 1847. There are, undoubtedly, some public places in which something in the nature of a fair is held; but they have no legal status whatever, and it will impose a very serious burden if the

  179
  costly machinery rendered necessary by this Aft, which is only intended to apply to market places and towns where there is a considerable and regular trade, is to be provided there also.
  MR. MARK STEWART: It appears to me that the word owes its existence to a subsequent phrase in the same line, in which tolls are spoken of as being "authorized." Therefore, if we have market fairs in which these tolls are being taken, there is a definition at once. It does not seem necessary that the word "legal" should stand, and I hope my hon. Friend (Sir Richard Paget) will withdraw it.
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: When my attention was drawn to this word I consulted those who were conversant with the subject, and they said it was necessary. But the debate which has taken place has been sufficient to convince mo that the Bill will be just as well without the word as with it; so I will not oppose the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived; word struck out accordingly.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Interpretation) agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Accommodation for weighing cattle to be provided).
  COMMANDER BETHELL: With regard to the phrase "proper buildings or places" in line 20, I should like to ask whether we are not rather going outside the object of the Bill, which is really to provide weighing machines for cattle at markets and fairs? It is a question, in my mind, whether those words will not place a heavy responsibility on those who are responsible for the markets. It may be a very convenient thing to have all these buildings; but all that is necessary is a machine for weighing cattle.
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: The words "proper buildings or places" are merely buildings or places necessary for the weighing machine. I do not think any objection can be taken to the words.
  On the Motion of Sir RICHARD PAGET, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 22, before "machines," insert "weighing;" in same line, leave out "proper;" leave out the word "that," in order to insert the word "the;" and after "purpose" insert the words "of weighing cattle."
  Amendment proposed, in line 23, after "proper person," insert "to have charge of such machines and weights, and to."—(Sir Richard Paget.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is not that imposing rather a severe task? Surely the man who takes the tolls might look after the weighing machines.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  On the Motion of Sir RICHARD PACKET, the following Amendments made:—In line 23, after "machine," insert the words "and weights"; and in line 25 add—
  "The market authority shall have the accuracy of such weighing machines tested twice every year by the local inspector of weights and measures, and the cost of such inspection shall be borne by the market authority."
  Other Amendments made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Cattle to be weighed at option of buyer or seller) agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Penalty for refusal to weigh cattle, or to give ticket, & c).
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: The Amendment I desire to move at the end of this clause is to substitute for the penalty of £5 contained in it the penalty of 40 s. This last I find is the penalty provided in the Act of 1847 for the minor offences referred to. The next clause deals with the more serious offence of knowingly assisting at a fraud, and here, in that, I propose to leave the penalty at £5.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 22 and 23, to leave out the words, "five pounds," and insert the words "forty shillings."—(Sir Richard Paget.)
  Question proposed, "hat the words 'five pounds' stands part of the Clause."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I agree with the hon. Baronet that the penalty is too high; but, while accepting the Amendment, I would suggest to him it would be reasonable to add a minimum penalty—say, of 2s. 6d., not too high, I think, for offences of this sort, committed by the people who have the benefit of the tolls.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD GLARKE): It would

  181
  be very inconvenient, I think, to adopt that course. we are familiar with the provision of a penalty not exceeding 40 s.; but we have no precedent for including a minimum as well.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes; plenty of them—the Irish Fishery Acts; the Game Acts.
  MR. CHANCE: The Musical Copyright Act.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: If the clause is to be operative at all, a minimum penalty should be provided. Who would take action in such a case, when the penalty imposed might only be a farthing? I would be satisfied if the costs followed conviction, but there is nothing said about costs. Suppose I am charged a penny for "bringing a pig to market, and do not get it weighed properly; I issue a summons, and it costs me, perhaps, 5s. before the matter is decided, and the defendant pays a farthing damages. A pretty kettle of fish. I should have made of the business.
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: Of course, as a rule, the costs would follow the verdict. I wish to make it clear that this clause only deals with minor offences; and, under the circumstances, I think it is desirable to follow the precedent of the Act of 1847 upon which this Bill is based.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I give way on the point, provided that the Government agree that the costs in every case of conviction shall be paid by the defendant.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKE: That is a question for the decision of the magistrate.?, who have authority under the General Act.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes; that is all very well for Englishmen, who have English magistrates to deal with; but we must address ourselves to the point of view that applies to Ireland. The people who will be aggrieved by the offence or neglect with which the clause deals will be butchers and farmers, a class who will have no representative on the Bench; it will be the gentlemen who own the tolls who will be represented on the Bench, and they will let off their friends. I do not think that the case will be met by the imposition of a farthing damages after conviction, and I shall move an Amendment as to costs.
  Question put, and agreed to; words substituted.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: And now I propose my Amendment after the word "shillings."
  Amendment proposed,
  To add, at the end of the Clause, the words "Provided, that the costs of the complainant shall in every case of conviction be paid by the person convicted."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR. EDWARD CLARKE: I hope the hon. and learned Member will not insist upon putting these words in; it will be altogether a departure from the general practice, and I do not think even those eases which come within the hon. and learned Member's own experience would justify this being done. He will see the clause deals with such matters as refusing to weigh, objecting to weigh at a particular time, or neglecting to give a docket of the weight, or giving a false weight; and on these points complaints might be made of the most trivial kind, and rather for annoyance and vexation.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then there would be no conviction.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKE: Under these circumstances, I do not think it would be proper to deal with this matter in an exceptional way. I would rather leave it to the discretion of the magistrates.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the Government provide that such a Proviso shall extend to Ireland? What is the use of our wrangling about it? It does us no good; it is waste paper so far as Ireland is concerned: we cannot enforce it unless you put those words into the Act.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKE: I could not consent to impose this very invidious distinction as regards Ireland.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 70: Majority 20.—(Div. List, No. 325.)[2.10 A.M.]
  MR. CHANCE: I desire to add, at the end of the clause, the words "and not less than half-a-crown." Without something of this kind the Act in Ireland will be little better than a

  183
  farce. Complainants will have to pay the costs, and the result in Ireland will be that the Act will be a dead letter. I think the Committee will consider that if a man neglects his duty he should be made to suffer to some small extent. It is idle to allow a friendly magistrate to let him off with a farthing damages.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "and not less than half-a-erown."—(Mr. Chance.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: I entirely sympathize with the desire of the hon. Member to make the Act effective: but I hope he will not press this Amendment. Although, as has been said, there are instances in Ireland where, when the minimized penalty is introduced, they are opposed to the general spirit of the law, it is unusual to introduce such in measures of this kind. I hope the hon. Member will be content to leave the Bill as it stands, which, while it gives the magistrates power to inflict a penalty of 40 s. for offences of a slight character, also gives power to the Court to impose on the offender the cost of the proceedings. I hope the hon. Member will leave this to the discretion of the Court, and not introduce into the Bill a principle foreign to our legislation.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTON: I think the proposal is a reasonable one. Offences against the clause, though they might be slight in themselves, would practically make the Act a dead letter; and if a man refuses to comply with the Act, I think the minimized penalty of 2s. 6d. is not excessive.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: After that expression, of opinion from, the noble Viscount I hope our Amendment will be accepted. We are all at one in the desire that the farmer should not be robbed by the dealer, and to provide against collusion between the latter and the keeper of the weighing machine. If the machine keeper chooses to contravene the Act, then the minimum penalty prevents his doing so with impunity. Suppose I choose to defy the Act, I might very well do so if I had a friendly Bench of magistrates to whom the appeal might be made—not that I am ever likely to find a friendly Bench anywhere—bnt if the Bench give a decision
  184
  imposing a nominal fine I might go on defying the law, and find it my interest to do so. The Bill is designed in the interest of the farmer. Pressed, as he is, with foreign competition and low price, at least let him got the price for all he sells, though the price may be a low one.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKE: I do not think that anywhere a Bench of magistrates would behave in the manner the hon. and learned Member has indicated.
  MR. CHANCE: Then the provision can do no harm.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKE: I do not believe such an instance could be found in England, nor can I believe such could take place in Ireland, so long an Irish Members have seats in this house. The matters with which the clause deals vary from cases of trivial neglect to serious offences, and I think the hon. Member would defeat his purpose, that offences should be punished according to degree, and the mention of half-a-crown would seem to point out the sort of penalty that should be imposed. The hon. Member says there are certain Acts that provide the minimum penalties. Incases of penal servitude Judges are obliged to pass sentences of not less than three years——
  MR. CHANCE: The Copyright Act mentions 40 s.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKE: That is the specified sum for which a person sues in an action-at-law—not the penalty I for offences under the law.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir J Edward Clarke) says the offences dealt with range from very trivial offences to others more serious; but I do not think any of the offences can be properly described as trivial. The list is not long. I will read them. They are—refusing or neglecting to weigh when required; refusing or neglecting to deliver a ticket specifying the weight, or giving a false account of the weight. It is idle to say that these are trivial offences, and I cannot see the force of the Solicitor General's argument. Then he says this Amendment is foreign to our whole system of legislation. But has he within the scope of his reading included the Irish Fishery Acts? Not only is there a minimum penalty fixed; but I have known a case in which a man got a j case quashed by the Queen's Bench because he was fined too little [Laugh-

  185
  ter.] It is a well-known case. The gentleman belonged to the privileged class, and he succeeded in inducing the Court of Queen's Bunch to take this extraordinary view of their duty. Over and over again in the Fishery Acts the specific fine is mentioned, and so also in some of the Game Acts, not to mention the Copyright Act. There is nothing, therefore, contrary to the spirit of English legislation in the proposal to insert a minimum penalty. No one can say we are extreme when we wish to fix that penalty so low as half-a-crown, and the opposition to our proposal is simply factious.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I allow the Solicitor General ought to know law "better than myself; but, unless I am very much mistaken, there are many Acts where the minimum penalty is specified.
  SIR EDWAED CLARKE: Name one such.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: Very well, I will name the law imposing a tax on dogs, and I think there are other cases.
  MR. T. H. HEALY: As our suggestions get no consideration, I beg to report Progress on the ground that the Government do not seem to have thought about the matter, as is evident when the Solicitor General talks about trivial and grave offences; the fact being that there are only three classes of offences in the clause. We shall get no benefit from the clause in Ireland, unless we insert words that will insure its administration in the spirit we intend it should be administered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. M Healy.)
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: I hope the hon. and learned Member will not press this Motion. I know he is anxious to see the Bill pass; he stated so the other night, and I have no doubt, from the unanimity of feeling, that we can make it a valuable measure, small though it may be. I have no doubt we can reconcile the little difference of opinion on this point. Surely it is not worth while to sit up another night over the Bill, when we might very well finish it now. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will consent to withdraw his Motion.
  MR. BIGGAR: I am willing to see the Bill pass; but I certainly would advise my hon. and learned Friend to persist in his Motion, unless those who are too stiff-necked to listen to reason will give way on this small point. It is not merely the small matter of a half-crown, fine; it is a question whether rascally owners of fairs and markets shall, with the assistance of magistrates, evade the Act and allow offenders to go snot free. It would be better to lose the Bill than have it a sham in operation.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I hope the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy) will withdraw his Motion. I and many others here are with him in the matter of the minimum penalty, and I shall vote for his Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Just to show there is no ill feeling, and out of compliment to the hon. Gentleman opposite, I will withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 42: Majority 14.—(Div. List, No. 326.)[2.25 A.M.]
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Penalty for fraud) agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Tolls for weighing cattle).
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I have to propose an Amendment to this clause to provide that the Bill shall not cause an increase in existing tolls; that where it is now the custom to weigh cattle the charge shall not be higher than the customary charge. I know that in some cases the charge is 1d., and I do not see why, with no more accommodation, the charge should by this Act be doubled.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 28, after the word"authority," to insert the words "provided that in no case shall such amount exceed any amount customarily charged by the market authority for weighing; cattle prior to the passing of this Act;"—(My. T. M Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: One objection to the Amendment occurs to me, and that is that many markets are held under Statutes that define the amount of toll to be charged, and this amount may be in

  187
  excess of the amount usually charged. The Amendment would compel the continuance of the actual charge, though that may be within the limit of the charge that may legally be made. It may be that under the Statute a charge of 2d. is allowed, though, possibly, the actual charge is 1d. This Amendment would set aside the Statute. Another objection is that the Committee have inserted an Amendment making it obligatory on the Market Authority to have the machine tested twice a-year at their own expense, thus imposing; on the authority a duty whereby a certain extra expense is incurred. Also, I would point out that, as the clause and Schedule are drawn, the words are not exceeding 2d., so the cases I have suggested are provided for.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I recognize there is something in the objections, though they do not apply to the custom in Ireland. But, however, I withdraw the Amendment now, and will consider how the point may be met on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Power to exempt certain markets and fairs from provisions of Act).
  MR. T.M. HEALY: With the object of providing that Market Authorities should make application within a definite period to the Local Government Board, I move to omit the words "any time," in lines 37 and 38, and to insert "on or before January 1, 1888."
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 37 and 38, to leave out the words "any time," and insert the words "on or before January 1, 1888."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'any time' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: I am not sure that I apprehend the object of the hon. and learned Member. May I explain that a market may be now considerable, but it may dwindle down, and the trade become so small that there may be no reason for maintaining the weighing machine. My object is to relieve those markets that are so small as to justify exemption from the operation of the Act. The application to the Local Government Board is
  188
  to be renewed if circumstances still justify the exemption.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: No doubt, there is some force in what the hon. Baronet says; but allow me to point out that there ought to be some public hearing or counterpoise to the application made to the Local Government Board, so that the public are not left unprotected. Perhaps the hon. Baronet will consider it on Report?
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: I shall be happy to do so, and if it seems necessary introduce words fixing a limited time.
  MR. C. T. DYKE ACLAND: It might be expedient also to consider whether it is desirable to provide that public notice should be given of the intention of the Market Authority to apply.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 9 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It would be better, I think, that this clause should not apply to Ireland. I do not know whether there is any objection to that?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY ran IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet): I think it would be an advantage to Ireland that the Bill should apply.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: This particular clause?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The whole Bill as it stands.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I refer to the clause only. I welcome the Bill as a whole; but I think this clause leaves the public at the mercy of the proprietors.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: The clause will, in Ireland, reduce the Bill to a nullity. I should be glad to see a general system of weighing; but if you allow this discretion of the Local Government Board you reduce the Act to a nullity. Let Englishmen who live under free institutions be governed by their own Local Government Board, in whom they can trust; but in Ireland, where there is constant conflict of class and class, it is necessary that the words of an Act of Parliament should be specific, allowing as little discretion as possible to Boards. I certainly would wish to see Clause 9 abolished, so far as Ireland is concerned.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTON: I thick the clause might

  189
  be allowed to be taken now, seeing that the bon. Baronet has agreed to reconsider it on Report. I hope, also, he will be prepared so to remodel the clause, as to require the Market Authority to give public notice of an intention to apply to the Local Government Board for exemption, and that the Local Government Board shall hold an inquiry before granting it.
  MR. CHANCE: It is a novel and dangerous principle to relegate to an irresponsible body the power of saying whether an Act should or should not operate. To some modified extent, the clause might apply to Ireland; but I would suggest to the hon. Baronet that he might substitute the County Court for the Local Government Board.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Remaining Clause, Schedule, and Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported, as amended; to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 337.]

  MUNICIPAL REGULATION (CONSTABULARY, & c.) (BELFAST) BILL.
  (Colonel King-Harmon, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  [BILL 291.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Three by the Committee of Selection."—(Colonel King-Harman.)
  MR. SEXTON: It is somewhat curious, if this is a necessary stage, that when this Bill was before the House on the second reading no Member of the Government seemed to be aware of it. If there is any Rule of the House that requires this to be done I should like to be referred to it, or upon what authority this course of procedure rests. I observe there has lately been an unusual development of official vigilance in regard to these Bills, more especially those that have reference to Belfast, and I have had to face impediments at every stop from official action, such as I am under the impression did not exist in former years. Although the Bill has been long on the Paper, this is the first
  190
  we have heard of this necessity of which I understand the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has received intimation from official sources, and which will have a serious effect on the fate of the Bill this Session. If this Bill goes to a Select Committee, before whom council and witnesses are to be hoard, all I can say is that, if this programme is gone through, we have heard the last of the Bill. I want to know on what day it is proposed the Committee shall sit; and, secondly, I want au assurance that the Committee shall sit from day to day until they report; and also I should like to know will the Committee go through the process of taking the evidence of witnesses? Such a proceeding is wholly unnecessary. A Royal Commission held an inquiry into the subject, extending over three weeks; every point was made matter of evidence, witnesses have testified upon it, and the Commissioners have reported upon it. If it is open to mo to do so, I would leave out, in the Order of Reference to the Committee, the examination of witnesses; and this suggestion is wrapped up in the claim I make that the Bill shall be carried this year. The Royal Commission have pointed out the danger of delay in a town like Belfast, where riots dangerous to property and fatal to life are likely to break out at any moment, and I am here as representing 70,000 constituents who are exposed to the greatest danger until sufficient measures are taken to preserve the peace and order of the town. If the Bill does not pass this year, there is grave danger of serious disturbances in Belfast; and the Government, if they do not make strenuous efforts to pass the Bill, will, in the face of the solemn warning of the Royal Commission, be guilty of a grave dereliction of public duty.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet): I agree in the importance of passing the Bill this Session; but the difficulties in the way are increased by the course the hon. Gentleman is now taking. It was only this afternoon I received an official communication that it would be necessary to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, I acquainted the hon. Gentleman with the fact at the earliest moment, and asked him to serve on the Committee, and I trusted he would assist mo in for-

  191
  warding the Bill. I am fully alive to the importance of the Bill, and have the strongest desire to see it pass.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not given a particle of information on the points addressed to him. He was asked upon what authority or rule it was necessary to refer this Bill to a Select Committee?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: On a Standing Order which cannot be altered.[Cries of "Which Standing Order?"]
  MR. M. J. KENNY: we want to know which Standing Order; and, further, assuming that there is such a Standing Order, why it is not open to the House to suspend this Standing Order? As to the imputation that my hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) seeks to delay the Bill, what ground is there for that, seeing that he seeks to avoid the delay caused by the examination of the crowd of witnesses the Corporation of Belfast will not hesitate to bring over? We are now at the 27th of July, in the dying days of the Session; and to refer a Bill to a Select Committe, before whom counsel can examine and cross-examine witnesses at length, is manifestly a course that will destroy the Bill. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will have to clear himself from the charge of seeking to do this, at the instigation of some person whose name does not appear, by other reasons than those he has given for the action he is now taking.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I hope we may now be allowed to proceed. It is clear that, under the Standing Orders, the Bill comes within the category of those that must be referred to a Select Committee. The Government have, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, every desire to push the Bill forward; and, having in view the period of the Session, it will be in the power of the Committee to expedite its proceedings, so that the examination need not necessarily destroy the Bill.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: What objection is there to move the suspension of the Standing Order?
  MR. JACKSON: I understand there is no precedent for such a course; and it is undesirable for the Government to set a precedent that might be extremely inconvenient in future application.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The Government were not so chary of setting precedents when we had the Crimes Bill before us; and on a very resent occasion they did not hesitate to propose the suspension of four Standing Orders at once. I can entirely bear out what was said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) as to the development of a new official system, in regard to Bills of this kind, and it is carried out with great energy against particular Bills. On the other hand, do we not see Tramway Bills that affect private interests passed without reference to a Select Committee? We do not hear that, though the Ulster Canal Bill affects private interests, it is referred to a Select Committee. Another case in point is the Manchester Ship Canal Bill, to forward which you suspended half-a-score of Standing Orders.
  MR. JACKSON: It was before a Committee on more than one occasion.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: And has not the subject of this Bill been before a Royal Commission? In reference to the Manchester Ship Canal Bill, too, the House imposed on the Committee the duty of reporting by a given day. Why should not a similar course be adopted with this Bill? In the case of the Manchester Ship Canal, it was felt that it would be unreasonable to go over the mass of evidence again; and I say of this Bill that Judge Day's Commission went fully into the whole matter, and, founding myself on the precedent of the Manchester Ship Canal Bill, I will move an Instruction to the Committee to report to the House on Monday.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member cannot do that now. He must give Notice of such a Motion.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Very well, Sir; hut as it would be more respectful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) I will leave him to give Notice for to-morrow.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to be allowed to say that I did not intend to attach any blame to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman). He did inform me of the course he was obliged to take, and I intimated my willingness to serve on the Committee; but I do not think that debarred me from pointing out to the House that which I thought necessary to point out.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I hope the Government will assent to such an Instruction as that suggested, not that the Committee should necessarily report on Monday, but on an early day.
  MR. CHANCE: It would, I think, be more convenient to deal with the whole matter at once, and it would, in the end, save time to adjourn this matter. I am not at all sure that there is an absolute Fixed Rule that requires the reference of this Bill to a Select Committee. The Bill does not affect private rights; it deals with subjects most exhaustively dealt with by Royal Commission, presided over by a Judge who took strong measures to prevent the inquiry being indefinitely protracted. Again, it would be open to the House to suspend the Rule; and, for all these reasons, I beg to move that the debate be adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Chance.)
  MR. JACKSON: I do not rise, Sir, to make any objection to that Motion; but I would point out that the hon. Member must take the responsibility of his Motion. Arrangements have been made for the appointment of the Committee to-morrow.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Unless there should be very serious opposition, I may say there is every probability that the Committee would report on Monday; but, of course, an adjournment would make that impossible.
  MR. SEXTON: It will be satisfactory if the Government will assent to the Committee being instructed to report on a certain day.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The vigilant official who has sprung this information on the House at the last moment should have made his discovery sooner; but surely the Government, with their resources, can estimate how long the Bill will take. They have had a month to bring on their Bill, and that they were not aware of this necessity shows how fit they are to conduct Irish Business.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

MOTION

  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Kimber, Bill to amend the Tramways (Ireland) Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kimber, Captain Colomb, and Dr. Clark.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 338]
  House adjourned at twenty minutes after Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—British Settlements* (189).
Second Reading—Trust Companies (151); Accumulations (81), negatived; Merchandise Marks Law Consolidation and Amendment (170); Public Libraries Acts Amendment (No. 2)* (185).
Commit tee—First Offenders (re-comm.) (182).
Committee—Report—Water Companies (Regulation of Powers)* (172).
Report—Bankruptcy Offices (Sites)* (76); Metropolitan Open Spaces Acts Extension (168–190).
Third Reading—Copyhold Enfranchisement (180); Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment * (184), and passed.
Withdrawn—Merchant Shipping (Transfer of Registry, &c.) (59).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Reading—Local Government (No. 9)* (188).
Committee—Report—Local Government (No. 5)* (146); Local Government (No. 7)* (166).

TRUST COMPANIES BILL.—(No. 151.)
(The Lord Hobhouse.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD HOBHOUSE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was difficult to find proper persons to be trustees under wills and settlements.
2
Trustees had very burdensome duties to perform, and under the existing law they could not receive remuneration for their services unless special directions had been given by the creator of the trust that they might do so. The object of this Bill was to enable Companies to discharge trusts—a function which Corporations could not now undertake, because no profits were derived from the trusts, and because Corporations could not be appointed to fiduciary positions. No doubt the innovation he was proposing was a considerable one, but our present system of the discharge of trusts by wholly unpaid volunteers was as unsatisfactory from the point of view of the owner of trust funds as it was from that of the trustees themselves. Persons intending to create trusts had, in the first place, to find some friends competent and willing to perform the duties; not unfrequently they had to resort to their solicitors to become trustees, but the solicitor must be paid somehow, and the combination of the two offices was a; dangerous thing. There was no trust of long standing in which a change or several changes of trustees did not occur, Every one of those changes involved the original trouble of the choice of trustees, besides trouble and expense in the transfer of securities, while such transfer involved some risk to the property, for

3
which agents must be employed and money must be in a single hand for some space of time; and in a considerable proportion of the cases in which trust funds had been lost, the loss had occurred while property was in transitu. He thought that of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects trustees were about the most ill used. They had a great deal of trouble; they had some risk; they had no pay; they had no thanks; and they usually had a great deal of blame cast upon them. Although not paid, they did not enjoy the position of ordinary unpaid bailees, but were visited by the Court of Chancery with extreme rigour, and treated as though they were enemies of the human race, whom it was necessary to restrain by severe examples from doing wrong. He referred to the case of "Driver v. Scott," and "Bartton v. Beard," as illustrations of cruel hardship. He did not pretend that Trust Companies would be perfect, but he thought they would possess these advantages, which would induce a number of people to employ their services. In the first place, they would always be at hand to be chosen. Then we should have trustees who would be always competent, always willing, who did not die, who did not fall ill, who did not go abroad, who did not become too busy to attend to the trust business, who, being paid, would expect no thanks, would be indifferent to reproach, and might suffer some loss without feeling the sense of cruel injustice which embitters the minds of trustees in cases such as those he had referred to. For instance, Mr. Rigby, Q.C., after saying that it was not likely that such Companies would be an unmixed advantage, added—
"I have myself been so much impressed with he hardship of existing rules of law with reference to unpaid trustees, that I should welcome any well-considered scheme of legislation on the basis of the note which you send to mo I have not been without experience of the working of Trustee and Executorship Companies in the Colonies, and, on the whole, my opinion is that they do good."
Mr. Romer, Q.C., also stated—
"It is clear that now-a-days men of business, of means, and of ability, cannot be obtained to take upon themselves the duties in question; the duties being onerous and attended with heavy responsibilities, while the performer obtains no remuneration, and very often no thanks. It is getting even difficult to obtain a person to fill the offices in question, who has any one of the qualifications I have mentioned or
4
any qualification for the post at all, and I think that something ought to he done, and that speedily."
Mr. Lewis Fry, a solicitor who had conducted a large practice in Bristol, wrote—
"The idea of such an association as you have in view is not new to me, and I entirely approve of it. When I was in practice T more than once made an approximation to your scheme by advising clients to appoint a firm of public accountants in whom I had great confidence as professional trustees at a commission."
Another solicitor, in large practice in Lincoln's Inn, remarked that—
"If the law were altered so as to enable trustees to he paid for their work, I believe the existing Insurance Companies or some of them would at once lay themselves out for this class of business, and I should have often found it very convenient in practice to have such a body to recommend."
With regard to the appointment by Trust Companies, and executors, and administrator? he had ventured to consult the highest authority in England. He had given a copy of the Bill to Sir James Hannen, who said in answer—
"I entirely approve of the objects of your Bill. I would suggest that power might usefully be given to the Probate Court to appoint the proposed Corporations to act as administrators pendente lile."
So much for principle and authority. As regards experience, we had none in England. For some years the South-African Colonies and the Colonies of New Zealand and Victoria had adopted the; system he proposed; and there might be other Colonies, of which he did not know. Colonial opinion was favourable to them. He had seen something of their working in two appeals, he believed the only cases that had come before the Judicial Committee. It would be remembered that Judges dealt with the pathology of human institutions, and saw their seamy side. They were not asked in until some wrong had been done or alleged and a quarrel had arisen. Of course, disputes and friction would arise with paid trustees, as with others. Then their doings were subjected to severe I criticism by their opponents. But even in those cases of complaint, it was not suggested that any instance had occurred of deflection or malversation of trust funds. The strong impression on his mind was that these Companies were playing a very useful part in the communities where they had been adopted. It was certain that they were largely

5
used and had attracted public confidence. In the United States of America the system had been at work n great many years. He had communicated on the subject with the eminent lawyer, Mr. Phelps, who represented the United States in this country, and he wrote to him as follows:—
"The Trust Companies, as they are called in the United States, have been very Successful, and have proved very useful. They transact a large business in the custody, investment, and application of trust funds in various ways; and they are reckoned among our soundest institutions. They do also a considerable deposit business upon which they allow moderate rates of interest, and are much employed for the custody of securities and collection of dividends and coupons thereon. They are frequently named as trustees to whom corporate mortgages are executed. My opinion is strongly in favour of the usefulness, safety, and convenience of such institutions under proper restrictions and regulations."
But he did not expect the House to be satisfied with his opinion. He could quote the testimony of other lawyers of great experience. He had now given to the House all the help he could in the way of principle, authority, and experience, and he would go on to explain the mode in which it was proposed to launch the new system. The Bill had three main objects. The first was the removal of those disabilities which prevented Companies from having a chance of starting; the second to provide due safeguards before they started; and the third was to provide official control to regulate them when they had started in their business. The first object was provided for by allowing Courts and persons, who had authority to appoint trustees, to choose Companies for the purpose, and by allowing the Companies to receive payment for their services. The second object was met by Clauses 12 and 18, which provided that before a Company could start in business it must have a subscribed capital of £100,000, of which £50,000 was to be deposited in Court to be invested in the name of the Paymaster General, and to be a security for the beneficiaries in priority to the claims of any other creditors of the Company, and that the Board of Trade should be empowered to require a further deposit whenever they might think it needful. By Section 18 a Company was required before starting in business to state in the articles of association a scale of charges, and there would be certain re-
6
strictions as to the alteration of such charges. The other clauses of the Bill sought to attain the third object. Clause 16 provided that the Companies should be under the same liabilities and rules as individual trustees. By Section 21 power was given to the Board of Trade to inspect the affairs of these Companies and to appoint an auditor at the Companies' expense whenever needful; an annual statement would have to be made to the Registrar, and by Clause 23 the beneficiaries might without action and in a summary way have an account taken of any funds that belonged to them. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Hobhouse.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HALSBERY)said, he confessed that he had not had an opportunity of mastering the whole of the proposals made by the Bill; but one thing struck him as somewhat startling—namely, that these Corporations were to be entitled, he supposed, to speculate with the trust funds. He understood from the noble and learned Lord that, besides getting remuneration, the Companies were to use the trust funds for commercial adventures. [Lord HOBHOUSE dissented.] If he were wrong he would withdraw the observation. He would only say, that if there was one thing more than another to be guarded against it was that trust funds should be used by those who managed them. The measure would require very careful examination; and while he would not oppose the second reading, he trusted that before further progress was made with it an opportunity would be given to their Lordships to thoroughly master its details.
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that the practice introduced by this Bill had already been in operation in the United States and in various of our Colonies; but the introduction of what he might call a foreign system into this country: required great care. He would recommend their Lordships to read the Bill a second time, as he believed it to be a well conceived attempt to provide for a great want in our legal system; but he thought the measure should not be further proceeded with until it had been carefully examined in detail. He quite agreed with the principle of the Bill as to the delegation of trusts; but there

7
ought to be the most satisfactory guarantees that the trust funds should be preserved intact. He would advise his noble and learned Friend to be content with the second reading of the Bill then, and to re-introduce it next Session, when it could be referred to a Select Committee.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, there could be no doubt that the position of a trustee was one of very considerable risk. Latterly that risk had narrowed down to the general honesty of those who were conducting the legal affairs of the country. In individual eases now and then the risk had become felt, and had involved the most lamentable consequences. It was a risk from which no trustee could absolutely free himself; for it was impossible for any trustee to give that personal attention to every detail, every action, which alone could insure his complete security. On the other hand, it was very difficult to refuse a trusteeship, though many would gladly do so. There was scarcely any trustee who knew whether any property which he believed to be his own was really so, or whether it was liable to; meet the defalcations of those who managed the trust. This measure would, to some extent, meet a much-felt want, and, if its provisions were carefully considered, might be of public service. He had always looked forward to the time when they might see the creation of an official trustee with absolute security for the cestuis que trustent; and he did not think such a measure as this would stand in the way of such a proposal. He trusted the noble and learned Lord would not carry the Bill beyond a second reading that Session.
LORD BRAMWELLremarked that, though not so well acquainted with the Law of Trust as he was, or ought to be, with the Common Law of England, it would not be amiss that he should express his goodwill towards this Bill. One advantage that the Bill possessed was that it was entirely voluntary in its application, no one being bound to employ these Companies as trustees. He Believed that at present trust funds were more often wasted by improper investment, under pressure from the cestuis qua trustent, for the purpose of obtaining higher interest, than from actual dishonesty. That danger would be avoided if the Companies were trustees, as no pressure could be brought to bear to
8
tempt them to invest in dangerous securities. He sincerely hoped the Bill would pass into law.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly.
LORD HOBHOUSEsaid, that he should not proceed further with the Bill this Session, but would, as had been suggested by his noble and learned Friend, bring it forward again at an early period next year.

COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
(The Lord Hobhouse.)

(NO. 180.) THIRD READING.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
On Question, "That the Bill do pass?"
Moved, to leave out Clause 5, and instead thereof to insert the following Clause:—"In making any valuation under the Copyhold Acts the valuers shall take into account and make due allowance for all customs of the manor, fines, heriots, reliefs, quit rents, chief rents, and all other incidents whatever of copyhold or customary tenure, including payments, if any, which the lord may demand for permission to do acts which otherwise would involve forfeiture of the copyhold tenement, and all other circumstances relating to or affecting the land to he enfranchised, including, in manors where the fines are not fixed, ail facilities for the improvement of such land."—(The Lord Hobhouse.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)remarked that the object of this clause had been already fully discussed by their Lordships, and that an Amendment embodying it had been rejected by the House. He trusted that the House would adhere to its decision on the point.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that he desired to support the Amendment.
LORD BEAMWELLsaid, that when the question was last before their Lordships he was afraid if the word forfeiture was not put in the lord would not be compensated at all, where his noble and learned Friend was afraid that if it was put in the lord would be compensated twice. His noble and learned Friend now proposed a clause which would compensate the lord once, and with that he was satisfied, and he would withdraw his opposition, which he had thought it right to make.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he hoped their Lordships would adhere to the decision they had arrived at after full discussion.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) had accepted the Amendment, and his opinion having great weight, it might have led the Select Committee to the adoption of it also. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Hobhouse) had tried to meet the views of those who held that the lord should be compensated for what he would lose while he should not be compensated for what he would not lose. He had himself put down an Amendment to the same effect.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he had not in the least changed his opinion. The noble and learned Earl (the Earl of Selborne), the noble and learned Lord (Lord Hobhouse), and the late Lord Chancellor (Lord Herschell) thought there was danger that the lord might be compensated twice over, and all he said was that if they were satisfied that this Amendment would relieve them of that difficulty, then he had no objection to it.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that the right of forfeiture stood on all fours with the right of escheat. It was a right which conveyed no present income or advantage. It took effect very rarely, but when that happened it brought in so much value that the mere chance of it had a present small value. That present small value had been allowed to the lord for 35 years under an Act deliberately passed, and he had not heard a word which would lead him to recede from the vote which he gave the other night.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYobserved that he could not understand the principle upon which the noble Marquess coupled escheats with forfeiture.
Clause agreed to.
Further Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ACCUMULATIONS BILL.—(No. 81.)
(The Lord Herschell.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD HERSCHELL,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that its object was to prevent testators from directing that their property should be left to accumulate for a period of 21 years after death. The
10
measure would abolish the right which was given to testators by Thellusson's Act of 1799. The Bill came from the other House, where it was agreed to without opposition, and where it was, moreover, supported by the Attorney General. No one would be more unwilling than himself to limit the disposing power of a testator with respect to the objects of his bounty, but he could not conceive that a testator had any natural right to insist that for a certain length of time his property should not be distributed at all. The power of accumulation was a mischievous power. It no doubt gratified the posthumous vanity of a certain number of testators, but it inflicted grievous hardship upon those who were excluded by its instrumentality from enjoying the property left to them. The power of accumulation served no good public end, and when it affected real property was the cause of very substantial and serious injury, for nothing could be more mischievous than to tie up real estate in such a way as to prevent the owner from dealing with it for 21 years. The property remained in the hands of trustees, whose only duty was to collect the income derived from it. Such a state of things could not be beneficial to the tenants who lived upon the estate. The system of accumulation was in opposition to the whole tendency of modern years, which had been in the direction of promoting actual and effective ownership of land. It had been pointed out that it would be reasonable to retain the power of accumulation for certain specific purposes, such as the payment of a testator's debts and the raising of portions for his younger children. He was quite willing that these proposed exceptions to the operation of the Bill should be considered. The point upon which he relied was the prevention of accumulation for the gratification of posthumous vanity. The measure had been received with general favour in the other House, and he trusted that it would not meet with opposition from their Lordships.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that he approved the object of the Bill as explained by his noble and learned Friend, He was, however, dissatisfied with the drafting of the measure, which he feared would go further than was intended and he saw no good reason for abolishing these exceptions to the Thellusson Act, when the accumulation was for

11
payment of the settler's debt, or for raising childrens' portions, to which his noble friend had referred. Great care must be taken in amending the measure. It was proposed by the Bill to repeal Thellusson's Act, which permitted accumulation for 21 years only. Now if they were to begin by repealing that Act, and subsequently to say in general terms that accumulation would be allowed for certain specific purposes, they might be permitting accumulation for those purposes for an indefinite time. The Bill did not make it clear whether accumulation was to be forbidden unless there were some person who, if he were of full age, would be entitled to the income.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he could not help thinking that the Bill was based on an erroneous and bad principle. The noble and learned Earl had criticized some of the provisions of the Bill; but he thought that the principle of perpetually interfering with the disposition which people were allowed to make of their money was one which ought to receive no encouragement at the hands of their Lordships. Persons knew the circumstances of their own families best, and he did not believe that eases of mere wanton accumulation were frequent. The noble and learned Lord had pointed out that the Thellusson Act was a restraining Act. But there were exceptions to its operation, and accumulation was expressly allowed for the purpose, either of paying the debts of the testator or of raising fortunes for children. There were no such exceptions in the present Bill, and he hoped the House would not read it a second time.
LORD HERSCHELLrose to reply, but—
LORD HALSBURYpointed out that as there was no Amendment the noble and learned Lord according to the Standing Order had no right of reply.
After some discussion,
LORD HALSBURYsaid, that for the purpose of enabling his noble and learned Friend to address the House, he would move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(Lord Halsbury.)
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he could see that alterations might be made with advantage to the Bill. He held that cases of accumulation for mere accumulation's sake were more numerous than the Lord Chancellor supposed. If he did not know of such cases he would not have brought forward this Bill. His noble and learned Friend (the Earl of Selborne) had pointed out that in some respects the Bill went too far; if that were so, he would be happy to consider those points in Committee. In the other House the Bill met with no opposition, and was actually supported by the Attorney General. It was not treating the House fairly for the Government to oppose a Bill of this character which was unanimously approved by the other House, especially as it could be easily amended in Committee.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he must protest against the idea that the Government were to be debarred from criticizing and opposing the Bill of a private Member, simply because the Attorney General had spoken in its favour, and it had received the unanimous approval of the House of Commons. The noble and learned Lord himself had admitted the desirability of Amendments such as would entirely alter the Bill. In these circumstances the taunt thrown out was quite undeserved.
On Question, that ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 19; Not-Contents 36: Majority 17.
Resolved in the negative.
Bill to be read 2a on this day three months.

MERCHANDISE MARKS LAW CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Stanley of Preston.)

(NO. 170.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord STANLEY of PRESTON),in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, remarked that the fraudulent use of marks had been greatly detrimental to the trade of this country. Indeed, that was a fact which was only too notorious, and therefore he hoped he should be excused if he did not enter into details, and if he confined his remarks to a few explanatory words as to

13
the circumstances under which the measure had been brought forward. In 1862 an Act was passed dealing with the fraudulent use and the forgery of merchandize marks. That Art was full and complete, and might have been a useful measure but for two unfortunate defects. First of all, there was the necessity of proceeding by indictment; and, secondly, the proof of fraudulent intent was thrown to a very great degree on the prosecutor. Last year a Bill was introduced by his Predecessor in Office (Mr. Mundella), with the aid and advice of the Cutlers' Company of Sheffield, who had themselves experienced great difficulty in dealing with all the eases relating to trade marks that were brought under their notice. That Bill fell through, and when the present Government came into Office it became his duty to consider in what manner they could best deal with this subject. They introduced a Bill for amending the Act of 1862, and shortly afterwards a Bill to consolidate and amend the law, and to incorporate into one Act the Act of 1862 and the Amendment Act. In the meantime Mr. Mundella re-introduced the Bill of the previous year, and by arrangement, a strong Select Committee was appointed in "another place," and these three Bills were referred to it. This Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, was accepted with hardly an alteration by the House of Commons, and in that form it came up from the other House to their Lordships. In its passage through Committee elsewhere the provisions of the Bill were made rather more stringent. The burden of proof was transferred from the shoulders of the prosecutor rather more distinctly to those of the defendant. In other words, the presumption against the defendant was considerably increased. There were some persons who might think that the measure in its present form was somewhat too stringent; but, if he might judge from the tone of the deputation he received, there, was an earnest desire on the part of all sections and classes of the various trades that this foul blot should be erased, and honest trade encouraged throughout the country. It was impossible not to sympathize with such an object as that. He ought, perhaps, to add that if the Bill passed through Parliament it was hoped and intended that similar legislation should be introduced both in India and
14
the Colonies. The Government, in fact, were already in communication with the various authorities in those countries with that object. They hoped that throughout the Dominions of Her Majesty there would be a common agreement to act upon the lines of the legislation which was now proposed to their Lordships. He did not know that it was necessary for him to enter in detail into the provisions of the Bill, but he might mention that an essential change had been made in regard to one of the provisions of the Act of 1862, for it was now proposed to do away with the cumbrous process by indictment, and to deal with these cases by summary conviction, giving, however, a right to a person aggrieved by any conviction to appeal to a Court of Quarter Sessions. There were also clauses in the Bill which were required to protect the watch trade. The British hall mark was looked upon by many in the trade as an indication of British origin; but that was not so. Large numbers of foreign watches were brought to the Assay Office to have the hall mark affixed, and a large trade had grown up of late years in that way. He believed that to a large number, at all events, of those engaged in the watch trade the clauses introduced into this Bill would be entirely satisfactory. In asking their Lordships to give the Bill a second reading, he wished to point out what discredit had been thrown on the trade of the country owing to the use of fraudulent marks. The Government had received representations from all parts of the country that this Bill would meet the objects at which they aimed, and they believed that much might be done by its means to eradicate present frauds and to protect those who were entitled to trade marks in the legitimate use and legitimate value of those marks.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Stanley of Preston.)
LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he should support the Bill, but he wished to point out that it did not in its present form deal with one of the greatest frauds now perpetrated, which was injurious to the farmer and injurious to the poorer classes, and that was the practice of selling foreign imported meat as English meat. He contended that the I butcher should be compelled to mark his meat British and foreign, and to distinguish between the two. Instead

15
of putting all in together at 8d. or 10 d. per lb. he ought to be compelled to put in foreign meat at 5d. or 6d., and so give the poorer classes the benefit of buying cheaply.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE,interposing, pointed out that the noble Lord's observations had no bearing on the present Bill, which appeared, by its title and preamble, to refer to trade marks only.
LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he had thought that it might have been possible under the Bill to deal with a practice which was doing great injury to English farmers and to the poorer classes.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he was extremely glad that this measure appeared likely to pass into law this Session. There could be no doubt that the kind of commercial immorality which it was intended to check had been in some places only too prevalent, and had had a most mischievous effect on trade. It was therefore essential that practices such as those dealt with in the Bill should be put down in the most effectual way possible; and it was better to run the risk of some little inconvenience from the severity of the law than to pass a Bill too weak to deal effectively with the evil. There was, however, one matter to which he desired to call attention. It had been brought to his notice by the evidence taken before the Commission which had been dealing with this subject. There was one kind of fraud so prevalent that it was admitted on all hands to be disastrous and that was the use of some mark or combination of marks for the purpose of leading people to believe that the goods were manufactured by some person other than the person who really manufactured them. He thought it was essential to put a stop to that practice, and he believed it was possible to do so by some Amendment entirely in the spirit of the Bill. If after closing the other avenues to fraud this one were left open it would be made more use of than ever. He believed that the whole of the honest exporters of Manchester would be well satisfied that the fraudulent use of trade marks should be stopped. He was sure that the observations he had made were in harmony with the desires and wishes of the noble Lord opposite, and that he would do his best by this Bill to encourage the conscientious and deter the fraudulent manufacturer.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he hoped their Lordships would give every assistance to the passing of this measure, as it was intended to put an end to a great and growing evil. At the same time one could not help feeling that the Bill was rather a reversal of our whole Criminal Law in throwing the onus upon the alleged culprit of proving his innocence. No doubt it was necessary sometimes to adopt what was called coercive legislation, and the well-conducted portion of the community gladly consented to it, in order that those who were not in favour of honest and fair dealing might, be compelled to refrain; but care should be taken not to arouse sympathy in the wrong direction by going a little too far. In one or two instances the Legislature had acted as it was proposed to do by this Bill, and had thrown the onus of proving his innocence upon the alleged culprit; for instance, those found in possession of Government stores were called upon to account for the manner in which they became possessed of them. Therefore, what this Bill sought to do was not absolutely contrary to our whole I system of legislation, though he thought some safeguards must be placed upon it, and the severity of some of the sections of the measure must be moderated.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

FIRST OFFENDERS BILL.—(No 182.)
The End of Belmore.)

COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to order) (on Re-commitment).
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (Conditions as to abode of the offender).
LORD BRAMWELL LORD BRAMWELL moved its rejection. The clause provided that before releasing any offender the Court must be satisfied that he had a fixed place of abode. It would be much better to omit this provision and allow the tribunal freedom of action.
Moved, to omit Clause 3.—(The Lord Bramwell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, that the powers of the Bill were to be used by Courts of Petty Session all over the country.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 struck out.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 (Act not to apply to Ireland).
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN THE EARL OF MILLTOWN moved its rejection. There was no reason why the Bill, if a good one, should not apply to Ireland as well as England.
Moved, to omit Clause 6.—(The Earl of Milltown.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that this clause was inserted at the instance of Representatives of Ireland. Probably the same persons who now objected to this mitigation of the Criminal Law being applied to Ireland would one day be anxious that it should do so.
Amendment negatived.
Remaining Clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next.

BRITISH SETTLEMENTS BILL [ [H.L.]
A Bill to enable Her Majesty to provide for the government of Her Possessions acquired by Settlement—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a. (No. 189.)

METROPOLITAN OPEN SPACES ACTS EXTENSION BILL.—(No. 168.)
(The Lord Mount-Temple.)
REPORT, [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment moved on Tuesday last on Report, read.
Debate resumed accordingly.
The said amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Further amendments made: Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 190.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.