Sitting of 28 July 1887

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Thomas Charles Baring, esquire, for City of Londan.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Considered as amended—Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway (City of Dublin Junction Railways).
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Mining Accidents Insurance (Scotland) * [343]; Post Office Savings Banks and Government Annuities* [344]; Metropolitan Board of works (Money) [345].
Report of Select Committee—Stannaries Act (1869) Amendment [No. 245].
Committee—Irish Land Law [308] [Fourth Night]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Incumbents Resignation Act (1871) Amendment* [323].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION WATER BILL [Lords] (by Order).

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY): In accordance with a Notice I have placed upon the Paper, I beg to move to leave out from the Word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the Words—
    " This House is of opinion that the allowance of a term of ninety years for the redemption of the said annuities is contrary to the spirit of Standing Order 173A of this House, but having regard to the special circumstances mentioned in the said Report, orders the Bill to be considered To-morrow."
    I hope that I shall not find it necessary to trouble the House at any length on this matter; but it is one of some importance, and I do not think I should be discharging the duties of the Office I have the honour to fill if I refrained from calling the attention of the House to it. It will be in the recollection of the House that some years ago Standing Order 173A was passed, a portion of which I will read. It provides—
    "In the case of any Bill promoted by or conferring powers on a Municipal Corporation or Local Board, Improvement Commissioners, Town Commissioners, or other local authority or public body having powers of local government or rating, the Committee on the Bill shall consider the clauses of the Bill as to whether the Bill assigns a period for repayment of any loans under the Bill exceeding the term of sixty years, which term the Committee shall not allow in any case to he exceeded, or any period disproportionate to the duration of the works to be executed or other objects of the loan."
    It is manifest, then, that when it is asked, in the case of a Bill promoted by any Corporation or Local Board, for borrowing powers for a period for the repayment of the loans authorized by the Bill which exceeds the term of 60 years, the Committee to whom the Bill

    301
    is referred shall not in any ease allow that term to be exceeded. The Bill now before the House is a Bill promoted by the Corporation of Sheffield, and one of the objects of the Bill is to take over a very considerable scheme of water works. The question was raised, on the consideration of the Bill by the Committee, whether its provisions came within the scope of this Standing Order, and the Committee apparently came to the conclusion that they did not. The Bill contains a provision for purchase of the existing water works from the Company, and the consideration to be paid for the water works is not confined to the payment of a lump sum of money down, but there is power to create certain annuities—annuities which represent, in fact, the dividend to be received by different classes of shareholders of the Company—and these annuities are to be assigned to the several shareholders. The Bill also contains a provision for the compulsory redemption of such annuities, after the lapse of a certain number of years, by the creation of a sinking fund to pay off the annuities. This sinking fund will be found to rim for 90 years, and therefore the Bill is in conflict with the Standing Order which requires that no sinking fund shall run for a period beyond 60 years. I understand that it was impressed upon the Committee that there is a distinction between this case and that which the Standing Order is supposed to deal with, and the Committee, in their consideration of the Bill, ultimately conceded that contention, and decided that this application, on the part of the Sheffield Corporation to take over the Water works Company was not one which came within the Words or meaning of the Standing Order which requires that any loan must be repaid within a period of 60 years. No doubt it may be urged, with some force, that in this case the obligation is not a contract for a loan, but, in fact, an obligation of another nature, which is to remain due from the Corporation to the Water Company, and to stand over with respect of the undertaking purchased. The Committee came to the conclusion that if the Corporation had bought those works for a lump sum of money, and if they had gone into the market to raise that money, there must have been a provision for the repayment of the loan within a period of 60 years.
    302
    But because they did not pay for the undertaking with a lump sum of money, but allowed the shareholders of the Company to receive annuities on account of which the undertaking is to be transferred, there was not, necessarily, an obligation created which should be discharged within 60 years. If hon. Members will refer to the discussion which took place when the Standing Order was adopted, it will be seen that it was stated by those who recommended the adoption of the Standing Order, that their object was this—that there should not be laid upon any Corporation an incumbrance in regard to any undertaking which should survive a period of 60 years—that in any undertaking sanctioned by the House there should be an obligation to pay off any loan contracted within 60 years, so that at the end of 60 years the Corporation should enjoy whatever it had purchased free from any kind of obligation or incumbrance in respect of it. One most honoured Member of this House, who has only recently passed to the other House—Mr. Sclater-Booth—introduced and strongly recommended the Standing Order, and upon his recommendation the term of 60 years was fixed. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Sir John Simon) raised an objection; but he stood entirely alone, and other hon. Members, among them my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair), spoke strongly in favour of the limit of 60 years. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) made use of this language. He said that in reference to the objection taken by the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury, he (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) certainly thought that be years was a period quite long enough for imposing a burden upon any community; and he pointed out that a rate of 1 per cent would be sufficient to provide for the paying off of any ordinary loan within 60 years, and therefore that there could be no justification for imposing a heavier burden upon ratepayers who wish to borrow money for sanitary or other public improvements. No doubt, in some instances as long a term as 60 years has been allowed; but such a period has been considered far too long, and in dealing with the spirit of the Standing Order it is certainly undesirable that the ratepayers of any

    303
    Municipality should be burdened in I respect of any charge made for sanitary or other improvements for a lengthened period. It is admitted, in this clause, that if the undertaking had been purchased, and the money paid by a loan created for the purpose of discharging the purchase money, the transaction would have come within the letter and spirit of the Standing Order. But it is contended that because the money was not paid down in a lump sum, but is treated as an annuity, the promoters of the Bill are outside the Standing Order. Now, I submit to the House that it does not really make the slightest difference with respect to the principle of dealing with the Municipalities, and their incumbrances, whether the incumbrance is in the nature of a mortgage for unpaid purchase money, or in the nature of a mortgage adopted for the purpose of paying off a Joan. It cannot matter whether the debt is to be accompanied by a provision to pay it off in full, or whether the persons who sell are to be paid off by annuities. The obligation in respect of the two cases must be the same, and if we adopt the argument which was put before the Committee we are left in the following absurd position. I have said that the shareholders are to be paid by annuities, but in regard to one class of the shareholders they have the option of taking the money instead of annuities, and it depends upon how these shareholders exercise their option—whether they are paid off at once, or by annuities. It depends, therefore, upon the exercise of this option whether the Standing Order applies or not. Now, I have thought that this is a matter which. I could not pass over without drawing the attention of the Douse to the conclusion which the Committee has arrived at, but I do not wish to do more than draw the attention of the House to the matter. The Committee base their view of the question whether this transaction comes within the meaning of the Standing Order upon circumstances in regard to which, I am bound, with the greatest respect, to differ from them absolutely. I cannot conceive how they have been led to arrive at such a conclusion. But the Committee go on to point out that the works purchased are of a very large and permanent character, and that the Corporation ought
    304
    not to be compelled to carry out works so much larger than are required for the present wants of the inhabitants without being allowed at least 90 years for the repayment of the purchase money. Now, this was a question which the Committee had power to examine into, but which we cannot examine into. I desire to pay all respect to the opinion of the Committee, and I will admit that the works are possibly greater than are absolutely required now, and that the Corporation are undertaking a larger supply than is necessary for the present wants of Sheffield. Possibly that, may form a reason for allowing extended terms to the Corporation of Sheffield, and, therefore, I will not ask the House to reject the practical conclusion to which the Committee have arrived. But I think it is most desirable for the House to lay down, as clearly as it can, that the suggestion that this transaction is outside the scope and meaning of the Standing Order is one which ought not to be entertained for a moment. If it were allowed, the Standing Order could be put aside in almost every case. It would only be necessary for the purchaser to provide that the vendor shall not be paid in full, but shall have a mortgage on the undertaking, to get rid at once of the effect of the Standing Order. Then again, if the Corporation promoting new works, instead of paying the contractor in money, were to pay him in bonds, they would be able to get outside the Standing Order. I think it is most desirable to lay flown clearly that these transactions, if not literally, are in spirit, contrary to the Standing Order, and I do not see how the House is to come to any other conclusion. Having called attention to the matter and entered this protest, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, the great extent of the water Works in question, as proved before the Committee, and their excess over the present needs of Sheffield, I shall not ask the House to reject this part of the Bill. I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the Word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "This House is of opinion that the allowance of a terra of ninety years for the redemption of the said annuities is contrary to the spirit of Standing Order 173A of this House, but, having

    305
    regard to the special circumstances mentioned in the said Report, orders the Bill to be considered To-morrow."—(Mr. Courtney.)
    Question proposed, "That the Words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    COLONEL HAMILTON: As a Member of the Committee, which was presided over by a right hon. Member of this House, I should like to say a few Words in order to explain the reasons which induced the Committee to arrive at their decision. They had before them Standing Order 173A, and the conclusion they came to was that there was nothing to prevent the repayment of the money being extended beyond the term of 60 years. They were of opinion that the Standing Order does not contemplate the raising of money by annuities, and that they had also placed before them the fact that the purchase of the scheme would involve the acquisition of works that were greatly in excess of the requirements of Sheffield, and, furthermore, their attention was called to the terms and facilities with which other towns in the neighbourhood had been able to raise money. Take the case of Manchester. In that case the Corporation have been able to raise money to be repaid in 80 years, at a cost which imposes upon the ratepayers a rate of ¾d. in the pound; in Leeds, with a similar term of 80 years, a rate of ¾d. is imposed; in Wolverhampton, 75 years, at ½d. in the pound; and at Huddersfield, 110 years, at ¼d. in the pound. Had the Committee not given way, and consented to take a lenient view of the matter, the result would have been that the ratepayers of Sheffield would have been saddled with the charge of 2½d. in the pound for the redemption of this debt within a period of 60 years. As the Bill now stands, it is proposed that the sum requisite for the purchase of the Works—namely, £489,000—should be paid off within 60 years, and treated as borrowed money to be paid off within that period. There are, however, further Works which were not originally contemplated in the scheme of the Corporation, or in the scheme of the Water Works Company, and those Works it was proposed to pay off by irredeemable annuities. In deference to the wishes of the Treasury, that proposal has now been brought down to that which is contained
    306
    in the scheme now before the House—namely, the creation of annuities extending over a period of 90 years, and those annuities apply to £1,500,000, upon which the rate payable by the inhabitants of Sheffield, instead of being 2½d. in the pound, will be one of 1¼d. in the pound, and will even then be greatly in excess of what any other town in Yorkshire is at present required to pay. This, however, is due to the fact that Sheffield is saddled with works which are so much in excess of their requirements. It must, however, be borne in mind that these Works are not ordinary water works, but that water is to be supplied under a scheme of gravitation of a very substantial nature without having to resort to pumping stations, so that, in all probability, the works themselves will be much more valuable 60 or 90 years hence than they are to-day. The question, therefore, arises why should the inhabitants of Sheffield be bound to pay such a rate to-day as will enable them to hand over these valuable Works entirely free to their successors two generations hence. That is the view which induced the Committee to pass over this Standing Order, and to allow the repayment to be extended over a period of 90 years.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): My hon. and gallant Friend has given some reasons, no doubt, which are of some force as to why Sheffield should obtain some relaxation of the Standing Order which has been alluded to with reference to the period over which the repayment of the purchase money for these water Works should be extended; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman has spoken of the scheme as though the Committee had no other option than to grant an extension of the time named in the Standing Order. Now, the point which the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means alluded to, and enforced with great strength, was that, if this money had been borrowed in the ordinary way, it would clearly have come within the Standing Order, and it would then have become impossible for the Committee to have departed from the provisions of the Standing Order. The Corporation of Sheffield, instead of raising money by loan to pay off the whole of the purchase

    307
    money at once, proceeded to raise the money by means of annuities; and the Committee seem to have been under the impression that in that case they could depart from the terms of the Standing Order and give the Corporation a further period for repayment. Now, I entirely agree with every Word the Chairman of Ways and Means has stated upon this matter. If the doctrine which has been established by the Committee in reference to this question were to be allowed to pass without record and without a protest in this House, it would, in my opinion, destroy the whole object Parliament has had in view in passing that Standing Order. It would enable any Corporation to come before a Committee of this House and justify the Committee in granting such an extension of time as would practically drive a coach and four through the Standing Order. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Colonel Hamilton) called attention to several instances in which a longer period than 60 years has been allowed to Public Bodies for the repayment of loans for Works of one kind or another; but my hon. and gallant Friend omitted to say that in everyone of those cases the extension was allowed before the passing of this Standing Order. Not one of the oases to which my hon. Friend alluded has been dealt with in this way since the passing of the Standing Order, and it was expressly in order to prevent such things being done in future that the Standing Order was passed. The House knows very well that on many occasions the indebtedness of Local Authorities has been brought before the House, and that it has been shown to be of the most serious character. It has undoubtedly grown up to a considerable extent owing to the long terms which have been allowed for the repayment of the money borrowed in connection with Works of this kind. Previous to the passing of the Standing Order there was scarcely any limit imposed by a Committee of the House of Commons, and it was to prevent an accumulation of debt to be placed on the shoulders of future ratepayers rather than present ratepayers—it was to prevent that process from being continued that the Standing Order was passed. I am prepared, however, to admit that there are circumstances in connection with Sheffield which would make the burden a very
    308
    onerous one if the limit of 60 years were adhered to; but I think the proper course for the Committee to take would have been to have reported the whole of the circumstances, and to have asked the House to enable them to depart from the Standing Order. If that course had been adopted, no harm would have been done; but I think great harm would result if the method adopted by the Committee were allowed to pass by this House without protest. I am certainly not prepared to do anything which would have the effect of throwing out the Bill or, adding unduly to the burdens of the ratepayers of Sheffield; but I think the House is indebted to the Chairman of Ways and Means for having brought this evasion of the Standing Order before it. The hon. Gentleman now asks the House, in allowing the Bill to pass, to place on record its opinion that the mode of repayment proposed by this Bill is one which is contrary to the spirit of the Standing Order, and that it is perfectly immaterial, so far as the ratepayers are concerned or the Standing Order is concerned, whether the repayment is made in the shape of annuities or by means of money lent. I think the hon. Gentleman is right in taking that course, and therefore I entirely agree with the Resolution he has submitted to the House. I am sure the House will arrive at the same conclusion.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I cannot complain of the remarks which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board or from my hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means. They seem to have taken a course which is only consistent with the official position they occupy—namely, to maintain and support the Standing Orders of the House. This Standing Order requires that a locality borrowing money should repay the money borrowed within a period of 60 years. I am, however, obliged to both of them for the acknowledgment they have made that there are special circumstances in this case which have practically justified the decision of the Committee. No Member of the House who has the least acquaintance with the circumstances could come to any other conclusion. The fact is, that the Corporation of Sheffield did not come to Parliament to purchase these water Works until the proprietors—

    309
    namely, the Water Company, had themselves come to Parliament for an extension of their powers, which would involve the levying of an increased charge of 25 per cent in perpetuity on the ratepayers of the town of Sheffield, That compelled the Corporation to take an adverse movement against the Company. There has been no attempt, I can assure both the Chairman of Committees and any right hon. Friend—there has been no design whatever to evade the Standing Orders of this House on the part of the Municipality. What has been done was this—that when the Water Company were in the other House of Parliament overtures were made to the Corporation to purchase the Works. The proposal included a scheme of annuities with a provision that the Corporation should buy out with a lump sum the preference shareholders. I have only to say, in justification of what has been done, that the Works are at the most of exceeding magnitude, and it was considered necessary that that should be so in consequence of a frightful accident which occurred 25 years ago through the bursting of a reservoir, which entailed an expenditure of nearly £250,000 upon the Water Company, with a great destruction of property and loss of life. It has since been resolved to construct a system of water Works in Sheffield upon a gigantic scale, capable of supplying nearly double the present population of the town, the cost being thrown upon the next 60 years or upon two generations. That, however, would have involved a distinct rate of 2½d.. to 3d. in the pound upon the town of Sheffield. But having regard to the rates which are already paid there, and to the depression which exists in the heavy iron trades which are carried on there, having also regard to the fact that some of the large Works are already paying from £500 to £600 a-year in rates, and will have to pay increased rates under this Bill, it was considered that it was very undesirable to impose such an increased burden upon the industry of the town, which might divert the heavy iron trades from the interior to the coast, as has already been the ease to some extent, Reference has been made to other towns which have been allowed a longer period for the repayment of loans obtained for the purpose of carrying out sanitary and other public im-
    310
    provements before this Standing Order was passed in 1882 or 1883. What is the fact in respect of our neighbouring towns? I believe that Sheffield is the largest town in England which has not the control of its own water Works. In the case of Huddersfield, the cost of the water Works has been more than £2,000,000, and the Corporation have been allowed 110 years for the repayment of the money, the consequence of which is that the burden imposed upon the ratepayers only amounts to ¼d. in the pound per annum. Sheffield by this Bill consents to bring itself under a contribution of 1¼d.. in the pound; whereas if the whole cost of the Works is to be defrayed within 60 years a rate of 2½d.. must be imposed, notwithstanding the fact that at the end of the 60 years the Works will be quite as good, if not better, than they are now. It must be borne in mind that these are permanent works, which will be quite as good centuries hence as the Roman aqueducts constructed under Caesar, The Corporation of Sheffield are not attempting to construct works which are not of absolute necessity. Unlike gas and other things, people must go on drinking water until the end of time; and I think it is unreasonable to throw the whole burden of the cost upon the present generation. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the Chairman of Ways and Means only desire to observe the spirit of the Standing Order and do not propose to take any step which would really strike at the passing of the Bill and prevent it from coming into operation, and seeing that they have admitted the special circumstances which, give Sheffield a claim upon the consideration of the Committee, I trust that the House will now allow the Bill to be considered, and will consent to its being read a third time.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLHY): As one of the Representatives of Sheffield I thank the Chairman of Committees for the course he has taken, and I think I may be permitted to say, on behalf of my constituents, that we by no means dispute the contention involved in the Motion now before the House. We accept the terms of the hon. Gentleman's Motion with great gratitude, recognizing in them a

    311
    desire to dispense in what is undoubtedly an exceptional case, with the terms of the Standing Order. In that sense we accept the hon. Gentleman's proposal, and I think the House may more readily accept it, when it is aware that it arises from circumstances peculiar to the individual case, and need not in any way fetter the future judgment of the House.
    SIR HENEY JAMES: I only wish to say that my constituents are suffering grievously, both rich and poor, from the operation of the Standing Order. I therefore wish to express my dissent from the words of my hon. Friend, when lie says that no precedent should, be established from the action of the Committee. I think the Committee deserves great praise for the step they have taken. The operation of the Standing Order has already effected a considerable amount of evil in regard to the carrying out of sanitary works by imposing upon Municipalities unfair periods for the repayment of borrowed money. By the Standing Order you restrict the period for the repayment of money, and you make the present ratepayers pay out of their own pockets, not only for necessary works, but for works making provision for a much greater area than is now unprovided for. You not only in this case make the present ratepayers supply water works for future ratepayers, but for ratepayers who do not exist at all. The consequence is that every person after the 60 years imposed under the Standing Order will get his water free from the Corporation, or, at any rate, at a very much cheaper rate, and persons who are not ratepayers at all will have similar provision made for them. I look upon the Standing Order as of so harsh a nature that I am certain the time has come for repealing it. At present it is having the effect of checking the progress of sanitary works in every district, and it is casting an unnecessary burden upon the Municipalities. I shall not divide against the present Resolution, but I trust that when a fitting opportunity comes the matter will be reconsidered.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I should not have said anything at all upon the matter but for the words which have fallen from the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James). It seems to me that the disposition to increase local indebtedness is
    312
    one which ought to be watched most carefully, especially in the neighbourhood of Sheffield. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) knows there is a district only a few miles outside Sheffield there which is entirely bankrupt, and utterly unable to fulfil its legal obligations. Under these circumstances, I think the House ought to be exceedingly careful how it consents to relax the powers it has armed itself with under the Standing Order. It is very easy, indeed, to contract debts, but not so easy to meet them, and there ought to be the strongest opposition on the part of the House to any proposal to extend the terms of repayment, or to relax the terms which have been imposed upon those who borrow in regard to the repayment of the loans they contract in every case the persons borrowing ought to feel sensible pressure in the method of repayment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    Resolved, That this House is of opinion that the allowance of a term of ninety years for the redemption of the said annuities is contrary to the spirit of Standing Order 173A of this House, but, having regard to the special circumstances mentioned in the said Report, orders the Bill to be considered To-morrow.

  DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY (CITY OF DUBLIN JUNCTION RAILWAYS) BILL (by Order).

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    " That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Before the House resolves to take this Bill into consideration, I wish, Mr. Speaker, to ask your decision on a point of Order—namely, whether it is in accordance with precedent that when a Vote of the House has been unanimously come to upon a particular point determining that a Bill should not be take a into consideration, it is in Order in consequence of some technicality to evade that decision, and within three days afterwards to re-thresh out the same subject. If that is a course in accordance with precedent it is one

    313
    which may be repeated over and over again. I therefore ask whether it will be in Order to permit the present Motion to be put in view of the fact that the House practically cams to a unanimous determination upon the matter last Monday?
    MR. SPEAKER: It is quite true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has stated, that the question which the House is now asked to consider was virtually decided the other evening; but technically the Motion that the Bill be now considered having been negatived, does not prevent the same Bill being brought on for consideration 24 hours afterwards. It is a technical point upon which I have no power to interfere, whatever I may think of the proceeding now taken to re-open the matter again. As a point of Order, it is not in my power to stop this proceeding.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Then I will ask the Government to say whether, under these circumstances, they will consent to the time of the House being wasted, as it must necessarily be, in an acrimonious discussion which will probably last for several hours, and which is simply going over the same ground that was gone over on Monday, or whether they will not support a Motion for the adjournment of the consideration of the Bill for three months, or any other Motion that will kill the Bill?
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: In supporting the Motion that Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now rend a second time, I wish to call the attention of the House to the facts of the case.
    MR. SPEAKER: We have not reached that Motion yet. The Question before the House is that the Bill be now considered.
    MR. P. M'DONALD: I rise for the purpose of moving that this Bill be considered on this day three months. As has already been stated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford, the Bill was debated at considerable length on Monday, and virtually and practically the sense of the House was expressed on that occasion in the unanimous rejection of the Bill. By a technicality, however, the promoters of the Bill are enabled, under the Rules of the House,
    314
    to bring forward the measure again, and to require us to go over the same ground, and I am afraid that considerable time will be occupied unless the Government, in their wisdom, take what I believe would be the proper course for them to take, and cut the matter short by insisting that if we must go to a vote we should do so at once. I consider that it is totally unnecessary for me to travel over the arguments which I used on the last occasion; and, therefore, I shall simply confine myself to one or two observations, one of which is that, notwithstanding the unanimous expression of opinion on the part of the House on Monday evening, the promoters of the Bill have utilized the time which has elapsed since in getting up through the medium of the Lobby an amount of support which, in my opinion, is undeserving of the consideration of the House. I admit that there are some of my Friends sitting on those Benches who differ with me on that point. It is not, however, a Party Question which is now occupying the attention of the House; and, consequently, We are at perfect liberty to take different sides on the question, as no doubt we shall do on all other matters where we are not bound by Party ties. I shall say no more on this subject, but shall simply move that the Bill be taken into consideration on this day three months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the Word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the Words "upon this day throe months."—[Mr. Peter M'Donald.)
    Question proposed, '' That the Word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    DR. KENNY: I will ask the Government whether, considering the great waste of time which must take place if this Bill, which has already been discussed, is to be again considered, and the very important work delayed in which the House will be engaged in a very short time—whether they "will not use their power to cut short the discussion. If not, we shall feel bound to enter into it at length, and certainly a very considerable waste of time must take place. I think it would be better to put an end to the discussion by taking a Division at once, without wasting further time in debate.
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: I would also make an appeal to the Government, but in a different sense from the appeal that has been made by the hon. Member who has just sat down. This Bill came forward for consideration on Monday last, when there was, from circumstances to which it is not necessary to allude, a very thin House. Many of those who support the Bill were unaware that it was coming on, and through a misconception, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast (Mr. Ewart), who is in charge of the Bill, failed to challenge a Division on that occasion. Therefore, those who are in favour of the Bill thought that they were justified in bringing it forward again on the earliest possible occasion, and I must apologize for taking a leading part in support of it, seeing that I am not an Irish Member. I do so, however, because I have for years taken a deep interest in the Irish mail contract. Many hon. Members will be aware that I took an active part in bringing about the rescinding of the contract with the London and North-Western Railway Company with regard to the Irish mails, and in procuring it for the Irish Mail Packet Company; and I hold that the measure now before the House is intimately connected with that great mail service. I should like to explain to the House that this is merely an enabling Bill to sanction a step for raising money to carry out the provisions of a Bill that was passed into an Act a few years ago. It is not a Bill to carry out a new scheme, but merely an enabling Bill for raising money to carry out a scheme which has already been sanctioned. As, however, that scheme itself has been challenged by several hon. Members from Ireland, I will, with the leave of the House, make one or two observations in explanation of the original Bill. The Bill of the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company provides for the construction of a high level line of railway between West-land Row and the Amiens Street Station in Dublin. That Bill places the North of Dublin physically in connection with the railway system in the southern part of the city, and thereby confers an enormous boon upon the inhabitants of Dublin, both as regards the passage of goods and the conveyance of passengers. It places within the reach of the North of Dublin the whole of the well-known
    316
    seaside district on the South-West, which is now almost inaccessible to them, and it will, if constructed, be in every respect for the benefit of the City of Dublin. It does more than that, however, because it places the Province of Ulster in railway connection with the Port of Kingstown, where the English and Irish mails twice a day are received and exported, and it also places the South of Ireland in direct physical connection with the same port of Kingstown, thereby bringing the whole of Ireland—North, East, West, and South—in connection with Kingstown. I know that it will be said by some hon. Members that another scheme winch has been projected to form a junction running on to the Kingsbridge Station in Dublin will be preferable to this scheme; but I will point out that if that scheme is carried into effect, the Province of Ulster, which is the richest and most prosperous province in Ireland, will be altogether cut off from any physical connection with the Port of Kingstown. It is said that the City of Dublin is opposed to this scheme. Now, what are the true facts of the case? The Chamber of Commerce in Dublin, as nobody will deny, represents the true commercial interests of that City. [Cries of "No, no!" from Irish Members.] Then if the Chamber of Commerce does not represent the commerce of Dublin what does?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It does not represent the commerce of Dublin; it only represents the Orangemen.
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: It is always supposed that a Chamber of Commerce represents the commercial interests of the town in which it exists, but if the Chamber of Commerce does not represent the material commercial interests of Dublin, does the Press of Dublin afford any representation of the real feeling of the inhabitants of that City, because I find that the three leading morning papers in Dublin—The Dublin Express, The Irish Times, and The Freeman's Journal, as well as the two evening papers—The Evening Mail and The Evening News—all contain articles in favour of this scheme, and all of them condemn the action taken, no doubt in perfect good faith, by hon. Members the other night in opposing the scheme? Now, I want to point out to hon. Members who come from Ireland that this is not the

    317
    time of day when We can afford to show any division of front in regard to this great mail service, which has been of such marked benefit, not only to Dublin, but to Ireland. Many hon. Members who now represent Irish constituencies have not long been in this House, and therefore may be unaware of what took place a few years ago in regard to this mail question. It was proposed by the Government of the day to give the conveyance of the Irish mails to the London and North-Western Railway Company, at any rate with regard to the passage across the Irish Channel. Well, what happened? In the first time in my experience—I wish the occasions were less rare—every person in Ireland, every Irish Representative in this House banded together in favour of the retention of the Irish mails in the hands of an Irish Company, having offices in Dublin and working from Dublin. When they presented such a unanimous front to the Imperial Parliament, the Imperial Parliament at once gave way and handed over to the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, the Mail Packet Service. Do hon. Members suppose that if the people of Ireland ceased to show their interest in this subject, that when the contract comes up for revision, Parliament will again consent to act in this way? Do hon. Members suppose that if the Province of Ulster is to be excluded, and you persist in giving her no physical connection with Kingstown, you will induce the Representatives of Ulster to co-operate with the other Irish Representatives in securing the mail service for Dublin, or that you are likely to get a renewal of the contract? It is because I am desirous of doing all I can in favour of the continuance of the present mail service that I support the present Bill. If we pass this Bill, and enable the scheme which was passed three years ago to be carried out, the mails will be distributed from the capital of Ireland to every part of the country, and we shall have an unbroken front, and be able to act together in future as We have in the past. I am sorry to trespass so long upon the time of the House, but the matter is one of the highest importance to Ireland. Let me ask what is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on the subject, as represented by the Post Office? The Postmaster General, speaking for the Govern-
    318
    ment on the ground of utility and also of economy, has already expressed himself strongly in favour of the scheme. To anybody who knows Ireland, the reasons of the right hon. Gentleman are obvious. It is evident that if yon make Amiens Street the Central Railway Station in Ireland for the distribution of the mails, there will be but one service from the post office, which is situated only half a-mile from Amiens Street, and from Amiens Street the American mails can be delivered without a break, and will reach all parts of Ireland much more quickly than they do now.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: In what way?
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: If the hon. and learned Member will allow me, I "will explain. Connecting lines will be made between Westland Row and Amiens Street, and the train will proceed direct with the English passengers and mails from Kingstown to Amiens Street. From Amiens Street the mails and passengers will proceed direct by the Great Northern line to Ulster, while the mails intended for the Midland Great Western Railway will go down by a loop line, the other mails being conveyed to the Great Southern and Western Railway direct to the City of Cork and Queenstown. In that way there will be no loss of time whatever. The physical connection will be perfect, and all parts of Ireland will be united in one great mail system. I would ask hon. Members to look at this question from a broad point of view, and let us pass this enabling measure, which is no new measure, but only a Bill to give effect to an Act of Parliament which has already been passed, and in regard to which I have shown the House that the results would be of a most satisfactory nature.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Having been appealed to by the hon. Gentleman opposite, I wish to say that any assistance I can give to bring this discussion to a close I shall be exceedingly glad to give.
    MR. SEXTON: What view do the Government take of the Bill?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman must be well aware that the Government have no control over Private Bill legislation; that it is in the

    319
    power of hon. Members to discuss all questions relating to Private Bill legislation, and that there is no power on the part of the Government to prevent them from doing so; but I trust that under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the House will be content with one speech in reply to the speech of the noble Lord behind me, and then will consent to divide. [Cries of "No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen say "No, no!"
    MR. T. M. HEALY: We wish to know what side of the Government intend to take?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: My only anxiety is to arrive at the consideration of the much more important measure which stands on the Paper with as little delay as possible, and I appeal to hon. Members in perfect good faith to assist the House in doing so. I know the importance of this particular measure, and I desire that the opinion of the House should be expressed upon it; but after the debate which took place on Monday last, I think the House is in possession of sufficient information to enable it to arrive at a decision at once. It seems to me that the speech of the noble Lord ought to be replied to; but that there is no necessity for a prolongation of the debate, either in the interests of hon. Gentlemen opposite, or of the whole House.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton), in support of the Motion that the Bill should be now considered, referred to his own experience as a Member of this House. Now, not only in regard to length, of service, but also in respect of knowledge of Ireland, I think I have as strong a claim as the noble Lord to be heard. As to the motives of hon. Members who support the Bill, I have no doubt that they are of the highest order, and I will say nothing in regard to the assertion that the newspapers of Dublin are in favour of this arrangement. I will say nothing, except that it would be an unfortunate thing if we were to discuss the questions that come before us mainly upon the ground that they are supported by such and such newspapers, instead of inquiring into the merits of the case ourselves. This Bill relates to an Act of Parliament which has already been passed, and that has been assigned us a reason why we
    320
    should pass the present Bill. What I would now ask is, why is this Bill before the House? Is it because those in charge have thought so little about the measure, knowing that it is strongly opposed by the inhabitants of Dublin, that they have not thought it worth their while to go on with the Bill already passed, but have allowed the powers which they obtained some three years ago to lapse? Although the question has come upon me somewhat by surprise, I do not think that I am in the slightest degree misstating the facts of the case. If, however, the Act has lapsed in respect of its most important powers, what is the reason which induces the promoters to come forward again now? They are coining forward, as a matter of fact, simply for the purpose of killing another Bill. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, I go no further than to say that that is my opinion, and I would appeal to my experience in Ireland, my experiences in this House, and the experience of hon. Members opposite in regard to the course I have taken upon any public question which has been brought before Parliament, to say whether I have ever attempted to censure the conduct of individuals lightly. I may add that I have no interest, even to the extent of one shilling, in this Bill, nor in the other competing Bill which has already passed all but its last stages in both House of Parliament; but I do maintain that that Bill is a much preferable measure to this by which the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Company are now attempting to revive the discarded Act. In the first place, the Act which they are attempting to revive I assert would create a great eyesore in the City of Dublin. It proposes to carry a railway by means of bridges across the River Liffey, between Carlisle Bridge and the Custom House of Dublin, a building of which we are very proud. Moreover, I challenge any engineering authority acquainted with the subject to show that the line which has already been sanctioned by Parliament, and by means of which it is proposed to unite the Great Northern Railway System of Ireland with the Kingstown and Dublin Line, will lessen the journey within half-an-hour so much as the time I that will be saved by another line also before this House, which proposes to connect the Great Southern and

    321
    Western System with the Kingstown and Dublin Line. That Bill creates no eyesore, but it provides a new service, which, will be of extreme value to the people of Dublin and to the people of the surrounding district, and it will extend for about five or six miles, from Booterstown to Inchicore. I would ask hon. Members who can know very little about the merits of the case to place some confidence in the opinion of Members from Ireland who really do know something about it. I have travelled, at one time or another, in all 100,000 miles over the Great Southern and Western and the Dublin and Kings town Railways, and therefore I know every inch of the ground, and the direction it is proposed to take from West-land Row by Booterstown; and, as a man of the world, it appears to me that the connections it is intended to form by means of the Great Southern and Western Bill is infinitely the better one, and would be more economical, and more for the interests of the people of Dublin, than that which is now attempted to be carried out.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: This is a very important measure, and I am sorry to interpose between the House and the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) and the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy).
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I did not get up to speak at all.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Probably the hon. and learned Member will have the opportunity of making 40 or 50 speeches later on in the evening, and my rising now will afford him a little breathing time.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: As a point of Order, may I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether, upon an occasion when I did not rise at all in any way to attract the attention of the House, it is regular for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to taunt me, as a reason why he should be allowed to speak, with intentions to make 40 or 50 speeches later on in the evening?
    MR. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not insist upon any imputation of that kind.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman also referred to me. I also say that I did not rise at all, nor have I any intention of speaking on the Bill.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I did not intend to cast any taunt or imputation upon the hon. and learned Member for North Longford. Perhaps the two hon. Gentlemen only intend to make 30 speeches between them. [Cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"] This Bill is of great importance to the locality from which I come, as it is sought to connect Kingstown and Belfast with it by means of the Great Northern Line, and to connect Belfast with Cork by the Great Southern and Western Line. That would be of immense advantage to the whole of Ireland; and I trust that the House will not treat such a proposal lightly. I was happy to hear that the Press of Ireland is strongly supporting the measure. The line which this Company proposes to make is only some two miles longer than that which is proposed to be made by the Great Southern and Western Company; and it would have this great advantage, that it would connect the whole of Ireland. I therefore hope that in any decision at which the House may arrive they will take into account the fact that all parts of Ireland should receive justice. I know that there are many inhabitants of Dublin and many Nationalist Members who oppose the Bill on æsthetic grounds. They believe that it will quite spoil the look of the Liffey.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Perhaps the Boyne.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Well, at any rate, the Boyne is a better river than the Liffey. The Liffey, at the present moment, is a standing reproach to the resources of modern civilization. It is the main sewer of the town, and nobody who has any respect for himself would ever think of remaining on Carlisle Bridge in order to see what view he could get of the Custom House, he would be likely to be too much occupied, during the time he was on the bridge, with holding his nose to be able to make much use of his eyes. There is one matter which I wish to point out, and that is that the Company are bound by one of the clauses of the Bill to erect a bridge of a most handsome and ornamental description; and I have no doubt that before the final plans for this bridge are decided upon they will be submitted to the Corporation of Dublin, and as the taste of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), who will be Lord

    323
    Mayor, is well known, I have no doubt he will be able to see that the bridge, when erected, will remain a standing-testimony of the æsthetic capabilities of Irish Nationality. I do ask the House to pass the Bill, which I believe will confer the greatest possible advantage upon the whole of Ireland. In regard to the money, all that is wanted to complete the subscription, is a sum of £50,000. Promises have already been received to the extent of £50,000; and if the Bill is passed, there is every guarantee that the Company will at once proceed to carry out the scheme authorized by it. That scheme would have been carried out long ago if it had not been for the fact that the Great Midland Company and the Great Southern Company withdrew from their share of the guarantee. If this Bill is passed, I believe that the line will be completed in the course of a year and a-half.
    MR. DWYER GRAY: I do not propose to occupy the time of the House at any length; but after listening to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman I think the promoters of the Bill will be ready to exclaim—"Save us from our friends!" Probably, if the physique of the hon. and gallant Member would allow him, he would be quite ready to make 40 or 50 speeches on any occasion; but it is quite certain that he would not make one of thorn without endeavouring to cram them with little jokes, and say something that was likely to be offensive to someone. Notwithstanding the irritating remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I must ask the House to allow this Bill to pass. I fully acknowledge the inconvenience of discussing a question twice over. I was not present when the Bill was discussed on the previous occasion, and it appears to me that those who were interested in supporting it by argument were by some accident or other not in the House at the time. I would submit that the opposition to the Bill is not only unfair, but unwise. It is unfair because this Bill is merely a financial measure. The merits of the question whether this loop line should or should not be sanctioned by Parliament was decided three years ago. It was only because two of the Railway Companies who originally gave in their adhesion to the scheme, and were willing to join in the guarantee for the carrying out of the scheme which.
    324
    was necessary for the purpose of raising the funds, have since receded from the undertaking they entered into at that time, the remaining Company who desire to carry on the scheme are obliged to come to Parliament for further financial powers. I think, therefore, it is unfair to get tip an opposition to the principle of the scheme itself upon this Bill, which simply deals with finance. Indeed, I think that if we follow the spirit of our Standing Orders, it is only the question of finance which should be discussed upon a Financial Bill. As, however, the merits of the scheme have been gone into, I submit that the arguments in favour of allowing the Bill to pass are irresistible. I altogether deny that the Bill has been brought forward now because it is desired to kill a competing Bill which is also on the Notice Paper. I know, as a matter of fact, that this Bill is the result of lone negotiations extending at least over 12 months, entered into between three or four public bodies, for the purpose of endeavouring to get over the difficulties occasioned by two of the Railway Companies originally concerned receding from their guarantee I also deny that this is to be treated as a competing scheme. One of the promoters of the Great Western and Southern Bill said to me, no longer ago than yesterday, that whether the present Bill was passed or not they intended to go on with their Bill. There is nothing whatever to prevent both of the lines connecting the Kingstown Railway with the Southern Railway on the South, and the loop line connecting all the Railways of Dublin with the North, being carried out. It has been urged against this Bill that it would disfigure one of the great buildings of the City of Dublin. Now, I fully acknowledge that that is an objection, and if it could have been possible by defeating this Bill to secure a railway connection between the different railways having termini in Dublin without that objection I should only have been too delighted; but that is utterly impracticable. It is not a fact that there is no obstacle to running the line on the other side of the Custom House, -whore there would be no disfigurement so far as the view from the O'Connell Bridge is concerned, nor is it the fact that the only objection is the opposition of the Port and Docks Board, although, no doubt, the opposition of the Port and Docks Board would probably be fatal to any such

    325
    scheme. But that is not the sole or the main objection to the running of the line on the other side. If the line were constructed on the other ride it would come on the wrong side of the Great Northern Railway. The Great Northern Railway Company have said all through that they will not permit a connection with their line on that side, because it would involve the coming in of two sets of trains from opposite directions. They maintain that the line must be a continuous one, and that there shall be no risk either of stopping traffic or of bringing about a serious accident. That is an insuperable difficulty to the proposal for carrying the railway by means of a bridge on the other side of the Custom House, because that would necessitate the line itself being brought in on the wrong side of the Great Northern Railway. I am, therefore, in favour of this scheme as the only scheme which will bring that railway system into proper connection with the other lines running from Dublin. I cannot comprehend how my hon. Friends, who are to deeply interested in the welfare of Ireland, fail to recognize the danger which faces them if they decide upon the rejection of this scheme. I think, if there is any doubt on the subject, the remarks which were made by the Postmaster General on Monday ought to have satisfied them. Speaking in his official capacity, he put it with perfect plainness that there is imminent danger of the existing mail service being discontinued, if a connection between the railways having their termini in Dublin is not established. And here, I think, we are able to find the real secret of the reluctance of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to accept this scheme, and the intrigues in which they have been made the tool in order to defeat any scheme for the complete connection of the railway systems in Dublin. Two or three years ago a proposal was defeated which, would have handed over the Irish Mail Service from the Dublin Steam Packet Company to the London and North-Western Railway Company. The contract which was afterwards entered into has now only six years to run, arid I need not remind hon. Members that the Chairman of the London and North-Western Railway Company has a long sight, and is able to look over a long distance. Now, if it was stated two years ago that Dublin and all the other railway systems
    326
    would soon be connected, and if it is the fact that the assurance then given has not been carried out, that fact alone may be converted into a strong argument in favour of entering into a new contract in favour of the London and North-Western Railway Company, and their intention to carry the mails direct to Dublin, instead of to Kingstown, would be simply irresistible. There can be no doubt that the Directors of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company are enormously influenced by the London and North-Western Company of England. Why that should be so I do not know, and, without intending to say anything offensive, I must say that I believe the Great Southern and Western Railway Company are the more "cat's-paws" of the London and North-Western Company. If this Bill is defeated, there will be an almost irresistible argument in favour of the London and North-Western Railway Company, and it will be used as a strong weapon in favour of the scheme which was defeated a year or two ago. There would also be the danger of diverting a portion of the mails from Dublin to Stranraer and Larne; and there can be no question that, except in regard to the connection with Kingsbridge and the South, this loop line is the only practical line for the regular conveyance of the mails. No doubt, the other scheme would make the line two miles shorter between Cork and Kingstown than the proposal now before the House; but it would shut out the North altogether. There is a strong feeling in the North of Ireland in favour of this Bill; and if it is defeated through the exertions of the Irish Members, whether rightly or wrongly, an impression will be created that the Irish Members generally have no interest in the prosperity of that part of the country. My opinion is, that whatever connection the House is inclined to adopt, it should be a comprehensive scheme for the advantage of the North of Ireland as well as of the South. That, I think, is the proper position for every Irish Member to take. The idea that the Irish Members, as a body, are antagonistic to the interests of the North of Ireland, is an idea which I take the liberty of repudiating, although there are a great many persons beside the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) who make that suggestion, and a

    327
    good many persons in the North, who believe it with regard to the question of convenience. The difference between the two Bills is this. There is now a practical certainty that the money for this scheme will he found. Three responsible Railway Companies have entered into a combination by which they have bound themselves to guarantee £9,000 a-year each, representing, at 4 per cent, a capital of £22,5,000. A citizen of Dublin, Sir Edward Guinness, has undertaken to subscribe £50,000, and there is a guarantee from the Steamship Company to subscribe another £50,000. If the other Bill is carried to a Division I shall vote in favour of it; but it is, at any rate, doubtful whether the money for that scheme will ever be found; We have no kind of assurance, and the prospectus which has been issued by the Company simply states that under certain conditions the Great Southern and Western Railway will provide £100,000. I challenge any supporter of that scheme to say that there is a certainty of the money being subscribed. I have been told, on good authority, that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company have written to the promoters of the Bill, stating that the representations contained in the prospectus are untrue and repudiating them. What they say is that their guarantee goes to this extent only—that if a certain sum of money is subscribed they will also subscribe; but that is a very different thing from giving a guarantee for the subscription of the whole of the capital; and the difficulty of raising the money may be found to be very great. We are, therefore, placed in this position. There is a scheme before Parliament which was passed three years ago, the only opposition to which is an æsthetic one against the disfigurement of an important public building. If, however, the scheme is carried out, all the railway services from Dublin will be provided for in the North as well as in the South, and the money which is necessary to carry it out, to the extent of £300,000, will be available at once. If we are going now to defeat that scheme, and to endanger the carrying out of those Works, the carriage of the American mails to Queenstown, now contracted for by the Mail Packet Company, for which we fought so hard two years ago, will be endangered, and solely because
    328
    there is another Bill before the House which may or may not be curried out, and which will only do one-third of the work which the present Bill proposes to do. I would entreat all my hon. Friends who have not made up their minds to think once or twice before they record their votes against this Bill. I firmly believe that if they do vote against it they may discover, when it is too late, how great an injury they have done to the interests of Ireland.
    MR. R. W. DUFF: As I was Chairman of the Committee which considered the alternative scheme promoted by the Kingstown and Kingsbridge Railway Company, I hope I may be allowed to say a few Words. The point which has been raised here was brought before that Committee, and there can be no doubt that, if the Bill now before the House is accepted, it will practically kill the Bill which has been passed, and upset the decision of the Committee. I am not going to enter into all the points which have been mentioned by the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton); but I may mention one of them, in regard to the Post Office. We had evidence in reference to the Post Office arrangements, and that evidence went to show that the proposed Kingstown and Kingsbridge line would afford a saving of half-an-hour in point of time. At present the mails have to be driven across Dublin, and the alternative scheme will afford a much more rapid means of communication.
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: What are the mails which the hon. Gentleman refers to? There are also the Canadian mails to Londonderry.
    MR. R. W. DUFF: I refer to the mails to America. The great bulk of the mails from London are carried by the London and North-Western Railway Company. They arrive at Kingstown, and on reaching Dublin have, by previous arrangement, to be taken in cars across Dublin. If this line is constructed they will be taken straight on to Cork. The line which it is proposed to construct under this Bill had more than three years to comply with the provisions of the Act of Parliament; but the Company have never been able to raise the capital to enable them to construct their line. What I say is that if you pass this Bill you will practically upset the decision of the Committee on the Kingstown and Kingsbridge line, and

    329
    that you will kill a project which this House has already sanctioned. The hon. Member for the St. Stephen's Green Division of Dublin (Mr. Gray; says that this is only to substitute one Company for another; but I maintain that, under the provisions of this Bill, Parliament is called upon to give entirely new financial powers, and powers which ought not to be granted without going into all the points which have been raised. I maintain that if the House consents to pass this Bill, they will practically upset the decision arrived at by a Committee after six days' careful investigation.
    MR. MURPHY: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken says that if we pass the present Bill we shall be upsetting the decision of his Committee. He forgets that if we reject that Bill we should, be upsetting the decision of a previous Committee, who passed the Bill giving powers for the construction of this line. The Bill now before the House does not propose, as far as I can see, to extend the time for the purchase of land, or for the execution of the Works contained in that Bill; and, therefore, so far as the Company are concerned, they are not at present seeking to extend their powers for the purchase of land, or for the construction of this railway in any respect. Personally, I am quite satisfied of the bona fides of the promoters of this undertaking; and anybody who has followed the negotiations which took place for some time after the passing of the original Bill for making this loop line will know that the failure of the Great Southern and Western Company to adhere to their portion of the guarantee, and the difficulty of substituting any other guarantee for that of the Great Southern and Western Company, has been the cause of all the difficulty, and has caused the necessity for the present Bill. I have no doubt of the bona fides of the promoters of the Bill, and I am convinced that if they obtain the present measure their scheme will be carried out. The only tangible opposition I have heard to this scheme is the disfigurement which it may occasion to a particular portion of the City of Dublin. I fully admit that it will be, to a certain extent, a disfigurement to the city. But, although I have given all possible weight to that argument, I do think that the anticipated disfigurement is a good deal exaggerated in people's minds.
    330
    The Corporation themselves, when they were opposing the Loop Line Bill, erected a structure made of wood in the position in which this railway bridge will be placed. It was put up in order to enable the citizens of Dublin to judge what the effect would be in regard to the architectural beauty of the Custom House and Beresford Place. Now, I saw that wooden structure, and I must say that the effect it produced on my mind was altogether contrary to that which the Corporation of Dublin intended or expected it to produce. It is solely in consequence of the failure of one or two of the proposed guaranteeing Companies to carry out the promises they originally made that this Bill has been rendered necessary for the purpose of recasting the capital powers of the first Act. I think the House ought to allow the Bill to proceed. I do not say this in any spirit of opposition to the other scheme; on the contrary, I should like to see both of them passed, and I do not think that if the House consents to the present Bill there will be any great danger of defeating the scheme of the Kingstown and Kingsbridge Company. I have no doubt that that Company will carry the American mails, and there can be nothing else for the two lines to compete for except the conveyance of the mails.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: the First Lord of the Treasury has made an appeal to this side of the House, and I venture to make an appeal to him in return. We have heard a good deal about the dignity of the House of Commons and the desirability of carrying on its Business in an orderly manner. On Monday last the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland stated that the opposition to this Bill would have the support of the Government.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: No. What my right hon. and gallant Friend said was that he spoke in his individual capacity. In regard to Private Bills the present Government follow the invariable rule of being neutral in their attitude. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!]
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I regret that I said the right hon. Gentleman expressed the views of the Government. I should have said that he expressed his own views. The point, however, which I desire to put to the First Lord of the Treasury is this—whether, in view of the orderly and decent character of the

    331
    proceedings of the House of Commons, he will permit a precedent to be established which will be absolutely fatal to the orderly conduct of Private Business in future? If the promoters of a Bill, which has been practically rejected by the House on Monday, come back on Thursday and re-entangle the House of Commons in a fresh series of discussions, I am afraid we shall have invented a machinery of obstruction which has never hitherto been adopted by the most extreme Obstructionists. It is from that point of view I desire to address the Government, and to ask them whether, being Conservators of the dignity of the House, when the House has come to a unanimous decision on Monday, and Members have not even ventured to challenge that decision, such having been the effect produced by the speech of the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland—whether we are now to be allowed, owing to a system of canvassing which has been conducted in the Lobby, together with private pressure and secret understanding, or, to use the word mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for the St. Stephen's Green Division of Dublin (Mr. Gray) of intrigue—to induce the House to reverse a decision which was unanimously come to on Monday? If such a course is taken, what will be the position of the Government, and what will be thought of them outside this House? We hear a great deal about Irish obstruction, and now we have this spectacle—that a Member of the Government in opposition to the Bill induces the House by the force of his eloquence and his arguments to reject a particular scheme on Monday; and yet the promoters of Private Bill legislation are able to take advantage of a technical point to involve the House in a further discussion on Thursday. If that is to be the course which is to be pursued in future, then good-bye to your orderly conduct of the Private Business of the [House of Commons, seeing that it will hand over the future procedure of the House in regard to Private Bill legislation to a course of canvassing in the Lobby. I will ask the Chairman of Ways and Means if there is any precedent whatever for the present proceeding? I challenge any hon. Member to show a precedent. It is an attempt to focus the House of Commons by a system of private pressure brought to bear upon hon. Members in the Lobby.
    332
    I have listened with great attention to the speeches which have been delivered in the course of this debate, and I quite agree with the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Banff (Mr. R. W. Duff) when he said that if this Bill is adopted it will wreck the other scheme, which has practically received the sanction of Parliament this Session. Why did not my hon. Friend the Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin (Mr. Murphy), whose name is on the back of the Bill, come forward directly as one of its promoters?
    MR. MURPHY: I hope my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to explain that although my name appears on the back of the Bill I have no personal interest in it, either directly or indirectly.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Certainly the name of my hon. Friend appears on the back of the Bill.
    MR. MURPHY: That is quite true, as I approve of the Bill; but I am not a promoter in the sense of having any pecuniary interest in it whatever, or in the sense in which the Word "promoter" is generally understood.
    MR T. M. HEALY: Of course, I accept the disclaimer of my hon. Friend that he has no connection with the Bill except that his name is on the back of it. If he had been in a different position I should have asked him to explain why, during the three years the Company were promoting this Bill and had power to make the line, they permitted that power to lie dormant, and why they waited until a rival scheme had passed unanimously through this House before they took any steps to carry out their own project? The conduct of the promoters reminds me of a certain animal which, having been hybernated for a certain period, suddenly springs into life in order to cut the throat of something else. It is quite evident that only one of these two schemes can succeed. No goods traffic will pass along this line, and therefore the success of the scheme must rest on the passenger traffic; and I would ask what persons would be likely to put their money into the scheme? I fully admit that the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool did us good service on the question of the Irish packets two years ago, and I am grateful to him for his powerful intervention on that occasion. I did not know, until the hon. and gallant Gentleman

    333
    the Member for North Armagh rose to make his speech, that it was possible to; introduce politics into this matter. I found out, however, that it was quite possible to do so. But I would ask if it is not the fact that if this scheme is carried into effect, so steep and precipitous would be the incline that would be necessary to connect the line with: the Great Southern and Western Railway and the South of Ireland that the Great Southern and Western Railway had good reason for hesitating before joining in a project that would be practically useless to them? What would be the case if we were to have English gentlemen taking advantage of this line—presuming it to be ever made—as tourists? [A laugh.] Certainly, there would be tourists who would be anxious to go South; but if they found they had a dangerous line to travel over it is not impossible that they might be deterred. One single railway accident to a tourist would be disastrous to the entire passenger traffic that goes to the South of Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen opposite profess to be greatly interested in the mail question; but I cannot see how the question can affect the mail traffic in any way. The American mails will not go to the North of Ireland, but they will go South, in order to reach Queens-town, and I cannot conceive how it can be supposed that the American mail traffic wants to go over the Liffey. If the promoters of the Bill wished to make their scheme of three years ago acceptable to the public, they would have laid it out so that a bridge would have gone east instead of west of the Custom House. The citizens of Dublin would have welcomed a bridge in that direction; but the promoters of this line seem determined to force this scheme down the throats of the people of Dublin, whether they like it or not. I would appeal to English Members to come to a decision upon the matter without reference to Party considerations. I would ask them to remember that a Select Committee upstairs have passed a rival scheme on the distinct understanding that the present scheme was dead. This scheme has only got fresh vigour because a rival scheme has been projected. It was practically dead, and it is now presented to the House in a dog-in-the-manger sense, because it wants to kill another Bill. In my judgment the
    334
    Bill now before the House is an attempt to kill an honest endeavour on the part of those who have been doing their best to promote the carriage of the American mails to Queenstown, and to keep up the service to Dublin.
    THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. T. D. SULLIVAN): I feel bound to say a word or two upon this question as representing the Corporation of Dublin, and also as representing the citizens of Dublin in a double capacity, being one of the Members of Parliament for that city. My hon. Friend the Member for the St. Stephen's Green Division has quoted in his speech some remarks which were made by the Postmaster General on Monday, as if they told in favour of the loop line, and as if they did not tell in favour of the other scheme. Now, what the Postmaster General was anxious to secure was not this particular scheme, but some connection between the Great Southern and Western line and the Kingstown line; and, inasmuch as the Kingsbridge Junction would fulfil that purpose, then I maintain that the quotation of the hon. Member from the Postmaster General is of no account whatever. When the question of the Kings-bridge Junction was before the Select Committee certain Government officials were examined. They distinctly gave their preference to the Kingsbridge line as more convenient for their purposes from a military point of view. If I recollect rightly a military gentleman was examined, who favoured very strongly the Kingsbridge Junction. The Postmaster General has also expressed himself satisfied with the alternative Bill, which has passed through all its stages except the third reading in the House of Lords, which is little more than a formality. Therefore, I contend that the arrangement, so far as the carriage of the American mails is concerned, may be put out of the question. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh has also sneered at aesthetics; but I would ask how hon. Members would receive a proposition to carry a railway 20 feet high, either on arches or upon tressels, around Westminster Abbey? Every consideration of that kind is to the advantage of the Bill we desire to see carried out, as against the one which is involved in the present scheme. At present the Custom House has the finest view which

    335
    can be obtained in the City of Dublin, and it is our desire to preserve it, if we can. I ask why this House should endeavour to destroy it? The beauty of Dublin was made by the Irish Parliament. The Custom House of Dublin was built by the Irish Parliament, and it is the finest pre-Union building in that city. Is this what the English Parliament are going to do for us—namely, to destroy the beauty of the City of Dublin, created as it has been by the Irish House of Commons, and paid for by the Irish people? If there was any great purpose to be attained by the making of a loop line; if it would develop the trade and commerce of that city, I would not oppose the Bill, but I utterly deny that it will have any such effect. It will really do nothing to promote the trade and commerce of the country. When the question was before the House on a former occasion, I believe that the House of Commons at that time, and the Parliament altogether, would not have sanctioned this loop line if there had been a rival scheme put forward at that time. When this Bill was originally promoted, it was a question of that measure or nothing; and, of course, there was a natural desire that some arrangement should be made to expedite the transfer of the mails. We have now another scheme before us, and, therefore, the whole conditions which led Parliament to consent to the construction of this loop line are entirely changed. I hope that the House of Commons will not consent to impose this monstrous deformity upon the capital city of Ireland. It was only yesterday that the Prime Minister of England spoke of the desirability of establishing local government in all parts of the Kingdom for purely local affairs. Well, Sir, let the House of Commons make a beginning. Let them allow this question, as being purely a local one, to be settled by the Irish Members among themselves. There is very little difference of opinion among us. We are quite willing to take the vote of the majority of the Irish Members; but we ask the House of Commons not to impose on Dublin a monstrosity in opposition to the will of the people of that city, the Corporation of Dublin, the Local Authorities, and the majority of the Irish Members. This House has cursed Dublin with poverty; let it not curse
    336
    Dublin with ugliness in addition. I will only say that if any great national advantage could be derived from this Bill I should be ashamed and sorry to I oppose it; but there is nothing of the kind to be obtained. No doubt it will suit the convenience of a few persons—railway directors and railway shareholders; and, of course, such people I have no mercy when any question of æsthetics is considered. There is nothing that is sacred to a railway engineer, who merely desires to carry out his scheme in the best way he can. The people of Dublin, however, are entitled to have their feelings and opinions in this matter, and there is no reason why this deformity should be inflicted upon their city. I hope that the House of Commons will not, by virtue of its power and strength, impose upon Dublin and upon Ireland a scheme which is not required, but which is opposed, not only by the Local Authorities of Dublin and by a vast majority of the people of that city, but by the majority of the Irish Members.
    MR. DEASY: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) has said that the support which this Bill is now receiving has been got up by agitation in the Lobby. Now, I should have expressed my views in regard to the measure if I had not been perfectly certain that the question would come up again, and if my hon. Friend (Mr. P. M'Donald) had made a Motion that the Bill should be considered on that day three months, I and my hon. Friends would have been prepared to have advocated as strongly as possible the acceptance of this scheme. If there has been any monopoly of intrigue in the matter, it has been entirely on the other side. Let me say for myself that I have been approached for, at least, a score of times by the opponents of the present Bill, while not a single Gentleman who has been promoting the Bill has addressed a single Word to me about it. Until at a late hour yesterday, the hon. Member for Tipperary asked me if I would see the promoters. It is only this moment that an hon. Friend behind me has passed on to me a note from the resident engineer of the promoters, canvassing me for my vote. But while there has been, an absence of approach from those who are interested in carrying out the

    337
    scheme, I have been approached at least 20 times by Gentlemen on the other side. We are asked why the promoters did not go on with their scheme three years ago, when they succeeded in getting their Bill passed. I do not think it lies in the mouths of the opponents to taunt the promoters with not having proceeded with it when the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, who were originally parties to the promotion, were the very gentlemen who killed the further progress of the scheme themselves by withdrawing from the guarantee they originally gave, and going over to the other side. Why did they do so? It was because, in my opinion, they did not think there was the slightest possibility of otherwise preventing the connection authorized by the Act from being made; and they wanted to avoid the odium which they imagined would be cast on them, and which, to some extent, has already been cast on them, by the people of the South of Ireland, of doing what in them lay towards completing the communication between Kingstown and Queenstown. The Postmaster General has now not only warned the people of Dublin of the danger, but almost of the certainty of their losing the carriage of the American mails if there is further delay, and he has gone the length of supporting the present Bill, and of saying that he believes it is one which ought to be passed by the House. The Lord Mayor of Dublin has told us that the people of that city are against the Bill; but how are we to know that when we have two of the Representatives of Dublin on one side and two on the other? [An hon. MEMBER: Only one against.] I am reminded by my hon. Friend that there are two Members for Dublin in our favour and only one against, the other Member not having recorded his opinion either one way or the other. A good deal has been said about the feeling of the Corporation of Dublin, but they do not represent the people of Dublin—at any rate as well as its Parliamentary Representatives, being elected upon a much more narrow franchise. I have only a few words more to say. I have no personal predilection for one line as against the other. If I had a choice. I think I should be in favour of the Southern line as a connecting link between Queenstown and Inchicore; but an
    338
    hon. Member has told us—and lie is a man of great experience in railway work—that he does not believe that the two lines will materially interfere with each other, and that if the Northern link is made, there is nothing to prevent the Southern link from being made also. My position in the matter is this. I desire to have some kind of direct communication between Kingstown and Queenstown. I do not care how the communication is brought about, but I do believe that this is the only feasible and possible scheme, and I do not see for a moment how the promoters of the Booterstown and Inchicore line can raise the enormous sum that will be necessary to carry out the alternative scheme in addition to the guarantee that is to be given by the Great Southern and Western Company; whereas the promoters of the scheme now before the House only require the present Bill to be passed in order to secure that their line will be carried out at once, and to insure that the works will be commenced early in October next. It is, therefore, in the interest of the Irish people that I appear here to support the Bill. I am not in favour of the one scheme more than the other, and if I have any leaning at all it is in favour of the Southern connection. In the vote I am prepared to give, I shall not vote for one Line or one Company against the other; but I shall vote for the question whether we are to have a communication established or not.
    MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes; but after the course I took on the last occasion when this Bill was discussed, and after the support which I then gave to the Southern line of communication, it is necessary that I should say a word. In my opinion, it is quite clear that one of these Bills must kill the other. I, like the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Deasy), do not care one straw which Bill survives, provided that a direct mail passenger communication is established with Cork; but after full consideration I find no reason to change the opinion which I expressed last Monday. In the tremendous pinch of competition which is likely to arise for the conveyance of the American mails there is an absolute necessity on the part of Cork to maintain its supremacy. A burnt child dreads

    339
    the fire, and I cannot ignore the fact that three years have elapsed since the present Company obtained their; Bill, and that nothing has yet been done to give effect to it. Therefore, I feel bound to use my influence and give my vote in favour of the more direct communication between Booterstown and Kingstown. I do not propose to enter into the question in detail. I have had some doubt, and I have thought over the matter carefully, especially as to whether the promoters of the alternative scheme will be able to find the money or not; but I prefer to risk all that in view of the fact that the other Company has already been caught napping. If this Bill is rejected, I think there will be a fair claim on the part of the Great Southern and Western Company to claim the assistance of hon. Members who may take part in the rejection in raising the necessary capital to make the Southern communication which, in my opinion, is the best means by which the carriage of the American mails can be conducted.
    MR. O'KELLY: My hon. Friend the Member for West Mayo (Mr. Deasy) has appealed to the House to support the present Bill on the ground that the majority of the Representatives of Dublin are in favour of it. In reply to that remark, I say that the Parliamentary Representatives of Dublin are not so much entitled to represent the citizens of Dublin as the Corporation. In all matters that affect the interests of that city I hold that the Corporation of Dublin are much better representatives than the Members for Dublin. The Members for Dublin are a political accident. They are represented by a wider and perhaps a more popular suffrage than the Corporation; but they have been returned to this House upon a national issue which has nothing to do with this question, and I am perfectly convinced that if the question were submitted to a vote in the City of Dublin, 90 per cent of the population would vote against this Bill. From a practical point of view the construction of this line will be a waste of money, and the line when constructed will save little or no time. It can certainly never be a paying concern. The line which is proposed to be constructed to Booterstown must inevitably be made some time or other, and it will not only
    340
    develop the material interests of Dublin and Cork, but those of a large district outside Dublin. It is a line that ought to be made, and I believe that it will bring about financial results in the future of a most satisfactory kind. Under these circumstances, I hope that English Members will take into consideration the feeling of the people of Dublin, and the fact that the scheme now before the House, while it may be of advantage to a portion of Dublin, will contribute nothing to the business and wealth of that city, whereas the rival line will be of the greatest utility, not only in the present, but in the future. It will not only enable the mails to be carried cheaper and quicker, but it will help to develop property that is now locked up. With regard to facilitating the carriage of the mails, I hope my hon. Friends will not lay too much stress on that issue. The time may come when the mails will not go from Cork at all, and I, for one, certainly hope to see the day when they will go from Galway, from which port they certainly ought to go. [A laugh.] Hon. Members laugh; but we are Representatives of the whole of Ireland and not of Cork alone, and it is our business to have regard for the interests of the whole of Ireland and not of one spot alone. English Members must see plainly that there is no Party issue involved in the matter, and I think they ought to see that the interests of Dublin will be better served by the construction of the proposed line from Booterstown to Kingsbridge. I therefore trust that they will vote in favour of that scheme.
    MR. LANE: I should have been contented to give a silent vote if the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald) had not stated that he was influenced in the decision he has arrived at by the consideration that the question deeply affects the interests of Queenstown and Cork. Now, as one of the Representatives of Queenstown and the County of Cork, I feel that it is impossible for me to give the vote I intended to give without explaining the reason which induces me to do so. The hon. Member for Cambridge, from the moment the opposition to this Bill was started, has done all in his power to further the rival scheme. He has given evidence in support of it both in this House and in the House of Lords, and

    341
    he has done everything to forward its interests in the South of Ireland. Under these circumstances, I wish to explain why it is that I give a vote which, having regard to the remarks of several previous speakers, may be supposed to be antagonistic to the line which the hon. Member favours. I certainly intend to vote for the third reading of this Bill. When the alternative Bill was introduced, I certainly, at the request of my constituents, supported it in every way I could, because at the time I believed the loop line to be dead, and because I also believed that the alternative scheme was a better one. I have seen no reason whatever to change my mind on that subject. I still believe that the Southern Line is by far the best scheme for the South of Ireland, and certainly for the carriage of the American mails. But for the last few months I have done my utmost to ascertain from the promoters of the Southern Line what the prospect is of their being able to raise the large sum of money that will be necessary to enable them to construct their line if their Bill is passed by the House; and I must say—and I say it with the utmost regret—that I have not been able to satisfy myself that there is even a remote contingency of the promoters being able to raise the necessary capital in such a manner as to enable them to go forward with the construction of their line. They have substantially the guarantee of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to subscribe £100,000 towards the capital of the Southern Junction Line; but that guarantee has been given solely and expressly on the condition that the remaining £200,000 required as a guarantee for the construction of the line must be bonâ fide subscribed capital. That is the most serious point in connection with the whole of the question. The £200,000 must be bonâ fide subscribed capital, and up to this afternoon the Southern Junction Company Have not been able to give an assurance that that sum will be raised. I have endeavoured in every way to support and forward the scheme; but I cannot find that promises towards the direct guarantee to a greater extent than £20,000 out of the £200,000 have been given, and that leaves £180,000 to be subscribed within a limited time. Now, having regard to the fact that the very strong and
    342
    active canvass which to my knowledge has been made during the last six months has only resulted in a subscription of £20,000, I fail to see where the rest of the capital is to come from. That is a point which has weighed very seriously upon my mind, and has induced me to take no step which may prevent the other line from being proceeded with, although lam not in favour of the loop line, and the alternative scheme has all my sympathies. I believe that all my hon. Friends who will vote with me feel for the citizens of Dublin in the prospect they have of seeing the view from the O'Connell Bridge interfered with by the erection of a bridge between it and the Custom House. We have a strong objection to any measure that is likely to disfigure that city; but against that objection they have to take into consideration the prosperity of Dublin, which is interwoven with that of the whole of Ireland. We have the assurance of the Postmaster General that unless one or other of the two lines is constructed the continuance of the American mails is very problematical. On the other hand, there is only a very remote prospect of the Southern Junction being made; and, under these circumstances, it seems to me that at the present moment we, who are so deeply interested in the South of Ireland, and in the continuance of the American mails by the Queenstown route, are bound to vote in such a way as will prevent us from being deprived of both of the lines which have been projected to connect Cork with Kingstown. My hon. Friend who has just spoken says that he supports the Southern line because he hopes that in a short time the mails will go byway of Galway. If the hon. Member is consistent in that view he is bound to vote for the loop line as the only means by which his idea can be carried out. But that is only a bye question in the main issue. The real issue which the House has to decide is, whether we are to have any or no connection between Kingstown and Queenstown as the port of embarkation for the American mails. I believe that, by giving my vote for the Bill now under consideration, I shall not in any way prejudice the progress of the other Bill, and I trust that in the interests of the country both Bills may proceed.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY): I

    343
    understand that during my absence from the House an appeal has been made to me for an expression of opinion on the matter; and it is partly in response to that appeal, and partly in the hope that by taking a stop which I think will be in accordance with the desire of the majority, the question may, at least, be brought to a decision. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) has asked if there is any precedent for re-opening a question of this kind after it has once been decided that a Bill should not be reconsidered. I am not aware of any. I can, however, recollect one instance in which a Bill of public interest was some years ago rejected, and subsequently revived and passed through all its stages. I refer to the Bill for the abolition of Purchase. It is, therefore, impossible to say that there may not be some kind of warrant for what has been done to-day. At all events, we are face to face with the fact that the Bill is here, and we cannot get rid of that fact except by a vote. I therefore hope that the House will proceed to take a vote at once. Now the real question is—Shall the vote of the House be influenced by the decision which was come to on Monday last? As far as I understand that decision, it was taken under a double error. In the first place, the opponents of the Bill ought to have secured their purpose by requiring that the Motion should be put that the Bill be considered on that day three months. They had power to do that, but by some inadvertence a grievous error was committed. On the other hand, it was by no means clear, if a vote had been pressed on that occasion by the demand of the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Ewart), which way the decision would have gone, because the voice of the House is very different from the voice of the Lobby. The hon. Member for Belfast committed an error, and perhaps, under these circumstances, it would now be as well to proceed on the assumption that a double error was committed, and to vote as if nothing at all had happened. We have now had an expression of opinion from all parties, and from different sections of the Irish Members. It appears that even in Dublin itself there is a difference of opinion. As I. understand, the hon. Member for the St. Stephen's Green Division of Dublin (Mr. Gray) has spoken strongly in favour of the Bill, while another
    344
    Member for Dublin—the Lord Mayor—has spoken as strongly against it. Having had an expression of opinion from all parties, I would venture to suggest that the debate may now be brought to a close. I hope that hon. Members will agree that the first step in order to take a Division is to close the debate, and in order to secure that end I claim to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided:—Ayes 247; Noes 85: Majority 162.—(Div. List, No. 328.)
    Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 216; Noes 114: Majority 102.—(Div. List, No. 329.)
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: Mr. Speaker, I claim "That the Main Question be now put."
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question is that the Bill be now considered.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask you, Sir, a question upon a point of Order. If the Main Question is put, will not that prevent any hon. Gentleman who has objections to the details of the Bill moving Amendments?
    MR. SPEAKER: The action taken by the House will not prevent the course being taken which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests; but Notice must be given of Amendments,
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Then may I ask you, Sir, as we have had no opportunity of putting down Amendments, whether there would be any objection to the adjournment of the debate being moved? It must be borne in mind that this Bill was brought in very hurriedly. Would there be any objection to an Amendment providing that the Company might be obliged to find its money within three months?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question which is now to be decided is that the Bill be now considered; therefore the course suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman would not be in Order.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is impossible for the hon. and learned Gentleman to make such a Motion. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had not risen to a point of Order, I should have at once proceeded,

    345
    to put the further Motion, in order to complete the Motion already carried.
    Main Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered." put.
    The House divided:—Ayes234; Noes 83: Majority 151.—(Div. List, No. 330.) Bill considered.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what Question has been now considered?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Bill now stands for third reading on some future day, and the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to put down whatever Amendments he thinks proper.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I understand that the Question you put was "That the Question be now put."
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question I put from the Chair was "That the Bill, as amended, be considered."
    MR, T. M. HEALY: I understood the noble Lord moved not the Question "That the Bill be now considered," but "That the Question be now put."
    MR. SPEAKER: No; nothing of that sort was done. It was moved "That the Question be now put;" and after a Division upon that the noble Lord claimed to move the further Question necessary to bring to a decision the Question already put from the Chair.
    MR. CHANCE: Is it competent to debate the Bill now?
    MR. SPEAKER: No; that would be out of Order.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to give Notice that on the Motion for the third reading of this Bill I shall move that the Bill be re-committed, with a view to certain Amendments, and I may add that such a course was adopted in the case of the Manchester Ship Canal Bill.
    Ordered to be read the third time.

QUESTIONS.

  RIVERS POLLUTION—THE RIVER CALDER, LANCASHIRE.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTHasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the attention of the Board has, from time to time, been called to the polluted state of the River Calder in Lancashire at and below Burnley; whether he has seen a recent Report of the medical officer to the Padiham and
  346
  Hapton Local Board, speaking of the "unhealthy and unpleasant condition" of the river; also a report of a Coroner's inquest at Padiham last week, when the jurors expressed themselves freely on "the disgraceful state of the river, especially during the recent dry weather;" and, whether he will take any action in order to protect the health of the large population residing near the Calder?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I have seen the Report of the inquest held by the Coroner at Padiham last week, and have to-day received from the Padiham and Hapton Local Board the Report of the Medical Officer of Health with regard to the polluted state of the River Calder. I have reason to believe that the river is seriously polluted by sewage; but the Local Government Board have no power to institute proceedings under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act against those who are responsible for the pollution. Those locally interested have the remedy in their own hands by instituting proceedings under the Act referred to. The Local Government Board will, however, communicate with the Town Council of Burnley and the Padiham and Hapton Local Board on the subject.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE DOWNSHIRE BAND—BELFAST.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the action of Colonel Forbes and Mr. M'Carthy in fining the Downshire Band for playing with a Sunday School excursion in Belfast, on Saturday the 2nd July; whether the Loyal Union Band, playing sacred airs and "God save the Queen," while with the Ormeau Road Methodist Church excursion, was fined at the Petty Sessions, Belfast, on the 14th July; whether any attempt was made to interfere with the bands playing on the 12th of July; and, whether it is intended to take any steps with regard to this action of the magistrates?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, that Colonel Forbes reported that on both the occasions the bands were fined because they caused a public obstruction after being cautioned by the police.

  347
  The second case, however, is still sub judice, as the Resident Magistrates complied with the request of the solicitor for the defendants to take the case to the Queen's Bench Division of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice.
  MR. SEXTONasked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, If his attention had been drawn to a Resolution adopted at a great public meeting of the citizens, in which it was stated that, while they disapproved of band-playing, they considered the recent prosecutions of these bands illegal, and condemned the action of the Resident Magistrates, and affirmed that the course pursued was likely to arouse the passions of the population and to lead to disturbances of the peace? He would also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government would consent to such an alteration in the law as would give the defendants sentenced by Resident Magistrates the same right of appeal as in England?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I have stated that in the second case the right of appeal has been granted.

  SCOTLAND—THE REGISTER HOUSE, EDINBURGH—THE SASINE OFFICE.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON&c.)asked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is a fact that the Regulations on page 4 of the Treasury Minute dated 27th March, 1881, anent the Register House, Edinburgh, have not been complied with—that is to say, that no First Class Clerk has been employed in the Central, Glasgow, Northern, or Southern Districts of the Sasine Office, as second in command to the Assistant Keepers; and, whether it is true that the Third Class Clerks of the Sasine Office do exactly the same kind of work as the Second Class Clerks—namely, drafting the Minutes, collating the record, and preparing the index; if so, will Her Majesty's Government consider the expediency of revising the Minutes of the 27th March, 1881, as promised therein, with a view to bettering the position of the inferior grades of clerks, who have been performing the duties of the superior grades during the past seven years'?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied)said, he was not aware that the number of First Class Clerks on the
  348
  establishment of the Sasine Office, Edinburgh, was at present less than that fixed by the Treasury Minute of 1881. It was within the province of the Head of the Department, the Registrar of Sasines, to apportion the work of the Office among his staff as he might think best in the public interest. The Treasury was not at present prepared to make any alteration in the existing arrangements.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—CONSTABLES ON PROTECTION DUTY.
  MR. KENNEDYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether constables on protection duty with Lewis Goulden, of Lavagh, County Sligo, and Robert Broder, Lesanagh, County Sligo, have been working for weeks past like ordinary labourers, not wearing their uniforms or side arms; whether he can state if constables so engaged are receiving any remuneration for such work; and, whether he can state who pays car hire for police whilst travelling through the country with Goulden on Sheriff's bailiff's duty and in capacity of summons server?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the Inspector General reported that it was not a fact that the constables referred to had been working in the manner alleged. The persons who employed Goulden paid for the car whilst he was acting on their behalf, or otherwise it was paid by Goulden himself.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE COOLGREANY EVICTIONS— DISTURBANCES AT WEXFORD.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated in The Irish Times of the 25th instant, that at Wexford on Saturday night last a mob of some 3,000 persons assembled to meet two prisoners being brought under escort to gaol, for having taken a violent part at the recent evictions at Coolgreany; whether they stoned the escort during their passage to the gaol; whether one constable was killed, leaving a widow and a number of children; and, whether he has any information as to the cause of this unfortunate incident?
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: Before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman answers that Question, I beg to put a supplemental Question, which is this—Whether subsequent inquiries have not proved that the death of the policeman was purely accidental, and whether he has read the report of the evidence given by the prison doctor at the Coroner's inquest? [The hon. Gentleman then quoted the evidence in question.] He would also ask, whether the jury did not return a verdict in accordance with the medical testimony, which was that death was duo to disease of the heart and congestion of the brain; and whether Judge Harrison, in opening the Assizes on Tuesday last in Wexford, said—
  " It was at first reported that a constable met his death on that occasion; but that, I am happy to say, was an erroneous report? "
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is now making a counter statement to establish a different state of facts; but he has not yet heard the answer of the Minister to the original Question.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: I will then ask that an answer to the first Question be given.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, he thought his answer might obviate any further Questions on this subject. He had not read the whole of the documents to which the hon. Member referred; but he had read sufficient to enable him to give an answer to this Question. The Constabulary authorities represented that it was a fact that a large number of persons assembled on the night mentioned to meet the prisoners who were being brought from Coolgreany. It was reported that some shouting and rowdyism and stone throwing occurred. A constable named James Riley, who was standing in front of the gaol, fell down, and he was picked up dead. There was no evidence that he was struck by a stone, and there was no mark of violence except a mark on the head caused by the fall. The medical evidence showed that death was caused by heart disease and congestion of the brain. The constable was a married man; but he (Colonel King-Harman) was unable to say how many children he had left.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: I would like to supplement the answer given by asking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether it is not a fact that a year and a half ago this man had an attack of heart disease; and whether, on this day, he was not on duty from 7 o'clock in the morning till 10 at night; and whether the authorities will take into consideration the desirability of granting some allowance to the family?
  COLONEL, KING-HARMANsaid, he had no information as to whether the constable had a previous attack of heart disease. He might add that the family of the constable would be looked after, as suggested by the hon. Member.

  WAR OFFICE—THE IRISH MILITIA— THE MARTINI-HENRY RIFLE.
  COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that two old Snider rifles belonging to the 9th Battalion Rifle Brigade (Irish Militia) burst during the practice at Mullingar a few days ago; and, whether there is a certainty, in accordance with promises made, that all the Irish Militia will next year, in time for their several periods of training, be armed with the Martini-Henry rifle, the old Snider being withdrawn?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. NORTHCOTE)(who replied) said: A Report has been received of the bursting of one Snider rifle belonging to the 9th Battalion Rifle Brigade (Irish Militia). The rifle had been examined and reported fit for use, and at present the accident cannot be accounted for. This is the last training at which the Irish Militia will be required to use the Snider rifle. They will have the Martini-Henry next year.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SALES UNDER LORD ASHBOURNE'S ACT.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How it comes that a delay of over six months occurs in connection with sales under Lord Ashbourne's Act, during which time no information is vouchsafed to the parties interested, although tenants and landlords have, in the first instance, agreed as to the terms and manner of sale?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners report that when agreements for sale are lodged with them, and the parties comply with any preliminary requisitions, the Commissioners at once proceed with the case, and notify to the parties whether the application for advance has been provisionally sanctioned or refused. In no case has there been any such delay in those preliminary inquiries as that alleged in the hon. Member's Question. When advances are sanctioned the subsequent proceedings depend upon the manner in which the title is presented, the nature of the case, and the state of business; but the solicitor, or any person interested, can always ascertain the exact position of the proceedings. The requisition on title, and all other requisitions of the Commissioners, are communicated at once to the solicitor engaged in the case.

  EXTRAORDINARY TITHE ACT, 1886— THE LAND COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. BROOKFIELDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can now give the House any further particulars as to the progress which the Land Commissioners have made in connection, with "The Extraordinary Tithe Act, 1886?"
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The preliminary inquiry and survey, embracing 497 parishes, is nearly completed, and meetings in each parish, following thereon, conducted by Assistant Commissioners, are now being held, and will be continued with as much despatch as may be practicable.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—THE "BLACKWATER FEVER" ON THE GOLD COAST.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is the fact that, within the last six months, a malignant fever, called the "Blackwater fever," has, owing to the want of proper sanitary arrangements and good water, broken out on the Gold Coast, and proved fatal already to about 50 per cent of the European residents; whether it is a fact that the Natives of Cape
  352
  Coast Castle have recently elected representatives to act as a Local Board of Health, and have petitioned the Governor to approve of such appointments, and to grant them the necessary powers to deal with the present insanitary condition of the town; what answer the Governor has given to such Petition; and, whether, if such Petition has been refused, he will instruct the Gold Coast Executive to grant the necessary powers and recognition of such Elected Board as has been petitioned for, and otherwise encourage the formation of Local Boards in the other towns of the Colony?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON)(who replied) said: "Blackwater fever" is not a specific disease, but is a name given by certain doctors on the Gold Coast to a specially severe form of the ordinary remittent fever of West Africa. The rainy season this year has, no doubt, been more than, usually unhealthy; but there is no reason to attribute this in any special way to want of good sanitary arrangements and good water. Indeed, the Papers recently laid before Parliament (C. 5,071, pp. 104 and 241) show that a great deal has been done in the way of improvement in these matters, and the efforts of the Government are being continued. The statement that 50 per cent of the European residents have died is, I have every reason to believe, greatly exaggerated. I have received no Report of the election of a Board of Health at Cape Coast, or of any Petition to the Governor on the subject. I will, however, make inquiries. It has been the policy of the Colonial Office to encourage the formation of Local Bodies for district administration, especially in regard to sanitary matters, as the hon. Member will see by referring to the passage printed in Papers laid before Parliament in 1884 and 1885 (C. 4,052, p. 101, and C. 4,477, p. 141).

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTIONS AT BODYKE, CO. CLARE—COST OF THE MILITARY AND POLICE.
  MR. COXasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can now state what was the total cost to the country of the military and police forces engaged in carrying out the recent evictions at Bodyke?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the Inspector General reported that the total cost of the police who were engaged at these evietionswas£l, 0,204 s. 9d. He had not yet received a statement as to the cost of the military engaged at Bodyke.
  MR. CHANCE: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me the amount of rents in respect of which the people were evicted? Was it greater or less than £ 1,000?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I am not aware.

  WAR OFFICE-REGIMENTAL BANDS AT PUBLIC FESTIVALS—THE QUEEN'S REGULATIONS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to two advertisements in The Bridport News, of 22nd July, in one of which it is announced that the—
  " Splendid band of the First Battalion Dorsetshire Regiment (39th Foot) will play at the Annual Flower Show on 11th August,"
  and in the other of which it is announced that a "Grand Gala of the Primrose League" will be held at the same time and place; and, what steps he will take to prevent this intended evasion of the Regulations in regard to military bands?
  MR. JOHNSTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, may I ask him whether steps will be taken to prevent the attendance of any member of the Primrose League at any flower show at which a band of any of Her Majesty's regiments may play?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I think I shall sufficiently answer both Questions by saying that I have not seen the advertisements referred to; but I am informed by the General Officer commanding that the Bridport Flower Show, at which the band of the Dorsetshire Regiment is to play, has no connection with any gala of the Primrose League.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— THE "KEW GARDENS BULLETIN."
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention had been called to the publication called Kew Gardens
  354
  Bulletin, which it was promised should contain particulars of the objects, specimens, and Reports received at the Government Gardens, Kew, and sent therefrom, and to the fact that this information has not been furnished, although numbers of The Bulletin have been issued since the promise; and, whether there is any likelihood of the promise made being carried out, and that the Reports from officers and expeditions, and the receipt of objects, specimens, plants at, and sent out from this Government establishment since 1882 (the date of the last Report) will shortly be forthcoming?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): The, Kew Gardens Bulletin is published monthly, in accordance with a promise to that effect which I gave in this House on the 17th of March last. It does contain the particulars of the objects, specimens, and Reports received at Kew Gardens and sent therefrom. The Annual Report for 1886 is now just going to press, and I hope that the arrears from 1882 of these Annual Reports will be worked off in a few months. There have been no expeditions or officers despatched from Kew for some years; but Reports from expeditions sent out by Societies (such as the Geographical) and by private individuals are sometimes forwarded by them to be reported on, and the results are published in the journals of these Societies, or by private individuals in works of travel.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY AND DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE PENSION FUND.
  MR. P. M'DONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Irish Government will furnish a duly audited and certified Return of all receipts and ex-expenditure of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police Pension Fund, now amounting to £133,489, and lay it upon the Table of this House, same to be with form of Dr. and Cr. account, and specifying the annual amounts received, and from what sources; also the amounts paid, and to whom and for what services paid, since the establishment of the fund in 1836; and, whether the officers of the Force, and for what services rendered, have received any payments out of this Fund; and, if so, what amount, as compared

  355
  with the gross payments made to the rank and file or the widows and orphans of all under the ranks of officers?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Constabulary Force Fund is not a pension fund of the Constabulary, and has no connection whatever with the Dublin Metropolitan Police. As already explained to the hon. Member, this Fund is strictly applied to the purposes laid down by the Constabulary Act of 1866—namely, the reward of meritorious members of the Force, and for the relief of the families of members of that force. The officers of the Force participate in like manner with the men in the benefits of the Fund. It would not be practicable to give the detailed Return asked for, the vouchers being forwarded to the Audit Office from time to time. An account of the receipts and payments of this Fund is rendered monthly by the Receiver of Constabulary to the Controller and Auditor General with his other accounts, and he receives annually from that officer a certificate which shows the balance due.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether this Fund was not raised by the contributions of the men in the Constabulary Force? He desired to know upon what principle the Government refused to allow the members of the Constabulary Force to ascertain for themselves in what manner the money was expended, especially as there was a suspicion that ex-Detective Inspector French had received some of it? What objection was there to laying the Return on the Table?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, if the hon. Member would put the Question on the Paper, he would endeavour to answer it.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he would raise a debate on the question on the Vote for the Chief Secretary's Office.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) ACT—PROCLAMATION OF CO. FERMANAGH.
  MR. H. CAMPBELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state the grounds on which the Government proclaimed the County of Fermanagh under the Coercion Act, seeing that only one outrage has been reported by the Constabulary; when, and in what
  356
  part of the county did the outrage take place; what were the names of the parties concerned; and, whether they have been convicted?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: Fermanagh is one of those counties that have been proclaimed only under those parts of the second section which deal with taking forcible possession and assaults on officers of the law. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, in his answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) on Monday last, explained the principle upon which the Government acted in putting this part of the Act in force in all the counties in Ireland. The outrage to which the hon. Member refers had nothing to do with the action of the Government in this matter.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Arising out of the answer of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, may I be allowed to ask him if the attention of the Government has been called to the following paragraph in the address of Mr. Justice Murphy recently to the Grand Jury of the County Fermanagh:—
  "Nothing (said Judge Murphy) can exceed the peace and quiet obtaining in this, as I trust: I may call it, your prosperous county. The bills to go before you are only two in number."
  May I ask him whether, in face of the assertions as to the peace of the county made by Mr. Justice Murphy the Government think it likely to contribute to the peace——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. Gentleman is at liberty to put the first part of the Question; but he is now drawing an inference.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Then I will ask whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the learned Judge's Charge; and whether he will distinctly state the ground on which this peaceful county has been subjected to the stigma of coercion?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I have not read the charge referred to. [Mr. W. REDMOND: You ought.] The Proclamation under which Fermanagh has been proclaimed is simply an extension of a certain principle which during the debates on the Bill one of the hon. Members below the Gangway moved

  357
  should be extended to the whole of Ireland.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to say, Sir, as being that hon. Member, that that is not so.
  MR. W. REDMOND: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman I beg to give Notice that, as a Representative of the county, I shall take the earliest opportunity of protesting against the infamy of placing these peaceable people under the stigma of coercion.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I wish to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he refers to the Motion I made that Party riots should come under the jurisdiction of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Now the hon. Member mentions it, I believe it was he who proposed that the clause should apply to all parts of Ireland in order to prevent Party disturbances. I think he meant it chiefly to refer to the North of Ireland.
  MR. SEXTON: I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, whether the Proclamation of this County of Fermanagh does not take the two offences of taking and holding forcible possession and assaults upon constables and other ministers of the Crown out of the ordinary jurisdiction and convey it to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction composed of two Resident Magistrates; and whether that change of jurisdiction arises from the prevalence of these two offences, or from the circumstance that the ordinary tribunals had failed to deal with them?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The county was proclaimed, among other reasons, because intimidation prevails there, and because there are 15 persons subjected to Boycotting?
  MR. SEXTON: I must press this matter. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has just said that intimidation prevails in Fermanagh. I would ask him whether it appears by the Official Returns sent by the Inspector General of Constabulary, and issued from Dublin Castle, that in the last six months there has not been reported by the police in the County Fermanagh one single case of intimidation? I refer, Sir, to the Report in which intimidation is classed under two heads—the first including intimidation by threatening
  358
  letters and notices, and the second "otherwise;" and in the six months these two heads are represented by blanks; and I would ask him, seeing that the two crimes of taking and holding forcible possession and assaulting constables, and other ministers of the law have been transferred from the ordinary to special jurisdiction, whether he is aware of the fact certified by the Inspector General of Irish Constabulary, that in the County of Fermanagh, in the course of the last six months, not one of either of the two classes of offences has been committed?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I have not referred to the Return mentioned by the hon. Gentleman; but I have a Return which shows that there are 15 Boycotting cases in the county.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND) NENAGH SUMMER ASSIZES—CHARGE OF MR. JUSTICE HARRISON.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the address of the honourable Justice Harrison to the Grand Jury, at the Summer Assizes at Nenagh, County Tipperary, on the 12th instant, in which the following passage is reported:—
  "These were the entire cases to go before the Grand Jury, and he should say that it was a very satisfactory state of things to be found to exist in this very fine and important county, and he was very nappy to be able to congratulate the Grand Jury upon it. So far as he could judge from the official records, the county wag in a most peaceable condition, and he sincerely hoped that such would continue;"
  whether this condition of the county, as stated by Judge Harrison, has been verified by other Judges on Circuit to the same effect; and, whether he can state the grounds on which the County of Tipperary has been proclaimed?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Government could not consider the state of the County of Tipperary solely as exemplified by the information before the Judge of Assize. There is a great deal of intimidation existing; 110 persons are reported as more or less affected by Boycotting. Violent Resolutions are adopted at meetings and reported in the Nationalist Press, and a large number of persons

  359
  require special protection to preserve them and their property from outrage.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: In what portion of the county docs this state of things exist?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I have not the papers with me stating the exact localities; but it prevails in several parts of the county. The Southern portion, I think, is the worst.
  MR. SEXTON: As this county is proclaimed under the first four clauses of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act, which change the trial of indictable offences, and provide for a special jury in any case, I wish to ask if it can be alleged, on the authority of the Judge of Assize, or on that, of any official, that in any case local juries have failed to give a conviction where a conviction was due to justice?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I shall be obliged to have Notice of that Question. I think I might refer to the Assizes of last year. [Cries of "This year!"]
  MR. MAC NEILL: I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether it is not a fact that at the Spring Assizes of this year the Judge complimented the Grand Jury of Tipperary on the peaceful condition of the county?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I am afraid my memory will not carry me back so far.
  MR. MAC NEILLsaid he would refresh the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's memory by repeating the Question on a future day.
  MR. ANDERSON: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman from whom these Reports come which are alleged to be confidential; and if there is any objection to place a Return on the Table of the number of cases reported, and a copy of these Reports?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The Reports come from the officials of the counties, in whom we have full confidence. They are the same men employed by previous Governments, and no well-sustained complaint has been made against them. Of course, we cannot place on the Table confidential Reports.
  MR. MOLLOYasked, was it not a fact that these Reports were sent by the Chiefs of Police?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: No, Sir; the Government, in the first instance,
  360
  receive Reports from the Divisional Magistrates.
  An hon. MEMBER: Landlords.
  MR. MOLLOYasked, had not the Resident Magistrates these statistics submitted to them before they were sent to the Irish Office?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The statistics do not in all parts of Ireland represent the real state of the country.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he can throw any light upon a subject respecting which the Parliamentary Under Secretary is in complete darkness—it is, why 14 counties in Ireland have been proclaimed in respect of those sections which relate to forcible possession and assaults upon police officers and other ministers of the law? I wish also to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he is aware that the official Reports of the Inspector General show that in these 14 counties so proclaimed not one of either of these two classes of offences has been committed or reported during the present year? I would ask, Sir, how it is that these 14 counties, which the Inspector General reports have been so completely free from crime for so long a period as half a year, are now proclaimed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have before stated, in reference to the subsections to which the hon. Gentleman refers, that, in my opinion, it would have been more desirable if the House had followed the example set in regard to the first sub-head of Sub-section 3, and made it a part of the general law of the land.

  WAR OFFICE—SALE OF CAMBRIDGE HOUSE, PORTSMOUTH—THE TOWN STATION AND DOCKYARD.
  MR. JENNINGSasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the fact that an important freehold property, being the site of Cambridge House and grounds at Portsmouth, belonging to the Government, which is the only available land between the Portsmouth Town Station and the Dockyard, is to be offered for sale by public auction early in August, contrary to the strongly expressed opinion of the Officer Commanding the Royal Engineers at Portsmouth, the General Commanding the

  361
  Southern. District, and, it is understood, the Inspector General of Fortifications; if so, on what grounds is this sale to take place; what, if any, reserve price has been placed upon the property; and is there any objection to place the opinions of the Commanding Officers in question upon the Table for the information of Members; and, will the proceeds of the sale, should it take place, be applied to the purposes of the Army Estimates, as an appropriation in aid, or how will the money be dealt with when received?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Cambridge House, Portsmouth, is being sold in accordance with competent professional advice. A portion of the property will shortly be offered for sale in lots; but the manner of disposing of the remainder is not yet decided. My hon. Friend being a great advocate of economy, would, I should have thought, have agreed in thinking it absurd that the residence of the officer commanding the Royal Engineers at Portsmouth should occupy the whole of a property for which we have already been offered the inadequate sum of £30,000. The proceeds of the sale will be applied as an appropriation in aid.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON WARLIKE STORES—WAR DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS HOLDING SHARES IN PUBLIC COMPANIES.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, what steps have been taken, in pursuance of his recent Memorandum on the subject, to ascertain what, if any, officials of the War Department, civil or military, now hold shares in "a firm of any kind which enters into contracts with the Department," certain Companies, such as Railway Companies, being excepted and, whether the excepted Companies will be more particularly defined, so as to avoid any evasion of the Memorandum, which has been issued in accordance with the strong recommendation of the Royal Commission on Warlike Stores?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E STANHOPE): I have already explained to the House the nature of my recent Memorandum, and I am responsible to Parliament for seeing that my orders are obeyed. If
  362
  any breach of those orders takes place I shall know how to deal with it.
  MR. HANBURY: In consequence of he unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I shall call attention to the subject on the Votes.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—RETIREMENT OF SENIOR RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated in The Standard of 26th July, that t has been decided to retire a number of the senior Resident Magistrates, and to fill their places with younger men, who will be better able to undertake the onerous duties involved in the operation of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act; and, whether the Government has selected persons for this purpose of the sufficiency of whose legal knowledge the Lord Chancellor is satisfied?
  MR. MAC NEILLalso asked, in reference to the administration of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act, Whether it is true, as stated in The Daily News of 26th July, 1887, that it has been resolved to retire a number of the senior Resident Magistrates, and to fill their places at once with young and active men; how many Resident Magistrates are about to retire; whether the retirement is to be compulsory or voluntary; how many new appointments to the post of Resident Magistrate do the Government intend to make; are Resident Magistrates in Ireland appointed by the Warrant of the Lord Lieutenant; do they hold their offices not for a stated period, but during the pleasure of the Government, and are they liable to instant dismissal without cause assigned, or without pension or compensation; would the right hon. Gentleman have any, and, if so, what, objection to lay upon the Table of the House a list of the gentlemen who are to fill these appointments, with their antecedent occupations, and their qualifications for exercising judicial functions of a novel and difficult character?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: It is the case that four Resident Magistrates have been called upon to retire. They will receive the pensions

  363
  to which their respective periods of service entitle them. Resident Magistrates in Ireland are appointed by Warrant of the Lord Lieutenant. They hold office during pleasure. No appointments have been made in regard to the vacancies about to be created. The Government cannot undertake to lay upon the Table the list suggested. It has been laid down by successive Governments that the selection of persons to fill public offices is a duty of which the Government for the time being cannot divest themselves, and in the discharge of which they act under a full sense of their responsibility in the matter.
  MR. MAC NEILL: How many new appointments to the post of Resident Magistrate do the Government intend to make?
  DR. TANNER: How many of those senior Resident Magistrates who are to be retired are Roman Catholics?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I have not the least idea.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I must press for an answer to my Question. How many new appointments do the Government intend to make?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: They have made none; but I suppose they will make as many as are necessary.
  MR. M'CARTANasked, if it was intended to make Mr. Newton, the London police magistrate, an Irish Resident Magistrate?
  MR. CHANCEasked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to give the names of the four gentlemen who were to retire?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid that if the hon. Gentleman would give Notice of the Question he would see whether the information could be given.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONasked, if Mr. Cecil Roche, who was only temporarily appointed last year after an election speech, had been specially promoted owing to the fact that the other day he had the firmness to decline the presentation of a salmon?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of this Question.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)— SHORTHAND WRITING IN DORNOCH SHERIFF COURT.
  MR. A. SUTHERLANDasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his
  364
  attention has been called to the delay and inconvenience caused by the want of an official shorthand writer in the Sheriff's Court at Dornoch; whether it is the fact that recently one of the parties to a case before the said Court complained that, under the present system, words were being put into the mouth of a witness which he had never used; and, whether, in the interests of justice, and for the convenience of the Judge, the services of a shorthand writer will be secured for the future?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD), in reply, said, he had not had time to inquire into the alleged inconvenience; but he would point out that the shorthand writers were paid by fees, and it was impossible to get an efficient shorthand writer to reside in Dornoch.

  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE— ORDER OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the test of the recent Order of the Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, which contains the following paragraph, was shown to him before it was issued:—
  " The police are drawn from the public, and are a selected body. Those who fail to do their duty, and are discovered, are returned to the ranks of the public. If, therefore, the allegations recently made against the police are in any way correct, they reflect with still greater force upon the public; "
  and, whether he sanctioned the issue of the Order?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Order referred to in the Question was not shown to me before it was issued, and accordingly it had not received my sanction.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: As it appears that the Chief Commissioner of Police is alone responsible for this Order, I shall call further attention to it on the Vote for his salary.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE BECHUANALAND EXPEDITION—EXPENDITURE.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What was the total expenditure in the financial year 1885

  365
  on the Bechuanaland Expedition, for which a sum of £500,000 was taken in the original Army Estimates of that year; and. what was the total cost of the Expedition in the financial years 1884 and 1885 respectively?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN), in reply, said: The information which the hon. Member requires will be found in page 173 of the Army Appropriation Account for 1884–5, and page 165 of the Account for 1885–6. The expenditure for the two years is there given as—for 1884–5, £436,812 1s. 1d.; and for 1885–6, £451, 402 3s. 5d.; total, £888,214 4s. 6d.

  MECHANICS' INSTITUTES AND FREE LIBRARIES—SUPPLY OF BLUE BOOKS.
  MR. CALEB WEIGHTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has provided in the Estimates for supplying Mechanics' Institutions and Free Libraries with Parliamentary Returns of County Expenditure and other Returns which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to supply to those Institutions?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN), in reply, said, his Predecessor (Lord Randolph Churchill), in replying to a Question as to the supplying of Parliamentary Papers to Mechanics' Institutions and Free Public Libraries, drew a decided distinction between these two, and it was in regard to the latter only that the promise was made. In accordance with that promise, provision was made in the Estimates for 1887–8, a nominal sum of £100 for the issue to Free Libraries of Parliamentary Papers; and that would give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the principle of the grant. In accordance with the decision of the House, the Treasury would proceed to deal with the applications they had received, or might receive, from Free Libraries for grants of Parliamentary Papers.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE OFFICAL RECEIVER IX BANKRUPTCY.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Secretary to
  366
  the Board of Trade, Whether it is a fac that under small bankruptcies the Official Receiver, as Trustee, can remove the whole of the bankrupt's goods from the premises the day before the rent becomes due, in order to avoid its payment, and that such goods cannot, as in ordinary cases, be followed by the landlord; and, as such Trustee has still the power of holding the premises and preventing a new letting, whether it is a fact that when he afterwards disclaims the landlord can only prove as an ordinary creditor for his rent both before and after the removal of the goods; and, if so, whether he can frame any Rule that will provide a remedy for this grievance?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether, even under the circumstances mentioned in the Question, the landlord would not still be placed in a much better position than any other creditor, being secured to a certain extent; whereas the other creditors might lose the whole of their debts?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I am afraid I cannot express an opinion on the latter Question. The law, as it has been judicially interpreted, appears to be in accordance with the terms of the Question put by the hon. Member (Mr. Dixon-Hartland). The point raised by him, together with certain other questions involved in the present Law of Disclaimer of Leasehold Property, is now under the consideration of the Board of Trade, who are in communication with the Lord Chancellor on the subject.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— CO. WESTMEATH.
  MR. TUITEasked I the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What number of cases of taking and holding forcible possession, or of assault on the Sheriff or his bailiffs, have been reported from the County of Westmeath during the 18 months ended the 30th June last; and, whether, since the 30th June, any case or cases of the kind referred to have been reported to the Inspector General of Constabulary?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The Inspector General of Constabulary states that no cases of the

  367
  nature referred to have been reported from the County Westmeath during the period named.
  MR. TUITE: Then may I ask why the county has been proclaimed under that section which specially relates to those offences; and whether it was to facilitate the evictions now pending upon a certain estate?
  COLONEL KING- - HARMAN: The County of Westmeath is reported as being in a dangerous condition. There is an immense amount of intimidation in the greater part of it.
  MR. TUITE: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is not a single case of intimidation in the county?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: No, Sir. I am aware, from my own personal knowledge, that there are a great many.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT—COAL MINERS OF LANARKSHIRE.
  MR. CUNNINGHAM E GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is aware that the Weights and Measures Act has failed to protect miners in Lanarkshire from being obliged to furnish 22½ cwts. for a ton; and, in view of his statement that the miners would find protection against this irregular practice under that Act, if he can suggest any mode of dealing with the grievance?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): If any miner in Lanarkshire has been obliged to furnish to his employer 22½ cwt. for a ton, that employer is, I am advised, liable under the 41 & 42 Vict. c. 49, to a fine which can be recovered before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and a moiety paid to the informer, and that is the mode of dealing with the grievance which has been approved by Parliament after repeated discussions. If a miner agrees to furnish coal at an agreed price per cwt. or per 22½ cwt., that, no doubt, is not reached by the Weights and Measures Act, and I cannot suggest any mode of preventing that practice.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked whether, in view of the fact that the hopes of the miners were turned to this matter, and that great excitement existed in Lanarkshire in regard to it, the Home Secretary would consider whether he could not introduce into the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Bill some
  368
  provision to meet the grievance to which he had referred?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he should be most happy to pay the fullest attention to any grievance that existed; but the grievance stated in the Question of the hon. Member was met by the existing law. He was not quite sure that he apprehended what more the hon. Member wished him to state.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether the Home Secretary was aware that the point had been decided against the miners within the last fornight?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I must ask Notice of that. I am not aware of it.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— THE NATIONAL GALLERY—THE STEPS TO THE NEW ROOM.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the First Commissioner of Works, If it is contemplated to replace the existing mean stone steps that lead to the new rooms of the National Gallery by steps of unpolished marble more suitable to the surroundings?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): The question of the material to be used in the steps of the new staircase of the National Gallery received my full consideration; and, having regard to the constant heavy wear upon these steps, especially at holiday times and in bad weather, it was decided that, in the circumstances, Craig-Leith stone, which has been used, was a more suitable material for the position than marble. There is no intention of making any change in these steps.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS— RETURNS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been drawn to a Return just laid upon the Table, showing the working of the Labourors Acts (Ireland); whether he has observed that the total number of cottages applied for to the 31st March last is 18,218, the total number erected being 1,633, the cost of erection £153,240 19 s.,5d., and the cost of preliminary expenses £55,026 18 s.6d..

  369
  including £3,020 2s. for shorthand writers, £3,195 12 s. costs of solicitors and counsel incurred by Local Government Board, expenses of Medical Reports £3,906 10 s. 2d., solicitors' expenses £11,135 1s. 7d., expenses of defending appeals against cottages authorized £l,754 11 s., besides an item of £20,138 16 s. 11 d. under the head of "other expenses;" whether he has observed that in 55 out of the 93 unions included in the Return, no cottages have been built, and if it is a fact, as shown in the Return, that a sum of £13,421 11 s. 2d. has been spent in these 55 unions without anything to show for it; whether, looking to the number of headings under which the expenses are given in detail, he can say what the £20,138 16 s. 11 d., given as other "expenses," was for; and, whether he will consent to the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the working of these Acts?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the figures were substantially correct. A comparison could not well be drawn from the preliminary expenses and the number of cottages actually erected, as most of these were for schemes as well as the cottages applied for. With regard to the 3rd paragraph, it related to schemes put forward and not subsequently carried out. The amount of £20,138 16 s. 11 d. was for expenses, including the cost of printing notices, maps, and plans, payments to clerks and Returning Officers, and such other incidental expenses not expressly mentioned. The Government had now under consideration the question of appointing a Committee to look into the whole working of these Acts.

  SPAIN—ALLEGED SHOOTING OF AN ENGLISH SEAMAN BY A SPANISH SENTRY AT BILBAO.
  ADMIRAL FIELDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has inquired into the truth of the report of an English merchant seaman having been deliberately shot dead by a Spanish sentry in the port of Bilbao, whilst on the quay near to his ship; and, whether satisfaction for the outrage, if true, has been
  370
  demanded, together with compensation for the poor man's family?
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked, Whether the Undersecretary's attention had been drawn to a letter in The Standard of last Saturday, in which it was stated that serious outrages were constantly being committed on English subjects by Spaniards; whether he had any information in his possession confirming that statement; and whether he would communicate with the English Consuls on the subject?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): the occurrence referred to by the hon. and gallant Admiral took place on Sunday, July 1st. The Consul at Bilbao reported it, and stated that he was taking the depositions in the case; that the Military Commander had promised a strict inquiry, and that the sworn Consular depositions should be attached to his proceedings. Whilst the investigation is being made it is premature to pronounce on the propriety of a demand for compensation. With regard to the Question put by the hon. Member opposite, we have certainly noticed cases of outrage committed on British subjects. These have been immediately inquired into by the British Representative.

  CELEBRATION OF THE JUBILEE YEAR OF HER MAJESTY'S REIGN—THE NAVAL REVIEW OFF SPITHEAD— THE ACCIDENT ON BOARD THE GUNBOAT "KITE."
  ADMIRAL FIELDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in view of the lamentable accident which occurred on board a gunboat whilst saluting at the Naval Review, the "Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty" will require that the Regulations, which prohibit vessels armed with such few guns from saluting at any time, be strictly enforced in future?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The Kite formed one of a group of gunboats combined for the purpose of firing a salute, of which her share was three rounds from each of her guns. This combination was arranged in order to meet the spirit of the Regulations referred to, which are intended to prevent any single vessel with a small number

  371
  of guns having to fire salutes. I do not consider that the incident involved any breach of the instructions. The accident was certainly not due to any necessity for maintaining a rapid fire.
  ADMIRAL FIELDasked, whether the views which the noble Lord had just expressed were those of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Certainly.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) ACT—PROCLAMATION OF CO. KILDARE—MR. JUSTICE HARRISON'S CHARGE AT KILDARE.
  MR. CAREWasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention had been called to the fact that Mr. Justice Harrison, in his Charge to the Grand Jury of County Kildare at the recent Assizes, said—
  "There is nothing in the statistics of the county, or in any of the Returns, that calls for any remark from me as reflecting on the peace and good order in this fine County of Kildare;"
  and, whether, if the information which he has received as to the condition of the county does not agree with the information received by the Judge, he will state the grounds upon which the county has been proclaimed under the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: Sir, in proclaiming the county under the two clauses of sub-section 3 the Government were influenced by the considerations already described in answer to a Question put by the hon. Member for Fermanagh (Mr. W. Redmond). I may add also that there are 59 persons, more or less, Boycotted in the county, and that intimidation in the county is sufficiently proved by the Nationalist Press itself.
  MR. SEXTON: With respect to the case of Kildare, I have to ask how it is the Government have proclaimed it under the clauses relating to forcible possession and assaults upon constables, &c, seeing that the Inspector General reports there has not been for the last six months one case of forcible possession or assault upon any minister of the law, or one case of intimidation either by threatening letter or otherwise? I would further ask if intimida-
  372
  tion exists in the County Kildare, why the Government did not proclaim it under Sub-sections 1 and 2, which relate to intimidation, and not under Sub-sections 2 and 3, in respect of which no offences have been committed in the county?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that the Government did not wish to impose the more severe provisions with regard to Kildare, because only certain portions of the county were in a bad state, the other parts being fairly well conducted. [The right hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted a case from a Nationalist newspaper, in which a man was stated to have attended a meeting in order to apologize for having shod the horse of a land-grabber, and in order to make a pledge that he would not again work for such a person.]
  MR. SEXTON: On that case—[Interruptions]—hon. Members must have patience, for this concerns the liberties of our people—I have to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether the case cited in justification of the Proclamation dons not come under the subsections of Clause 2, and not under the sub-sections under which the county is proclaimed?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: If the hon. Gentleman desires that the county should be proclaimed under the more severe section it can be done.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—ISSUE OF SUMMONSES, CO. KILDARE.
  MR. CAREWasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the conduct of Mr. William Tyrrell, J.P. of Ballinderry, County Kildare, Whether he will state the name of the magistrate who issued the summonses against Thomas Killeen, of Cardenstown, and the Widow Munroe, of Colehill, County Meath, also the name of the magistrate who directed Mr. Tyrrell to serve the summonses; whether it is in accordance with practice for a magistrate to act as a summons server in any case; whether he can now mention the number of witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant; by what authority Major Traill, R.M., who heard the cases, allowed 10 s. 6d. costs in Killeen's and £l in Widow Munroe's case; whether he offered to increase the costs against Killeen to £1 if Mr. Tyrrell cared to accept them; and, how

  373
  these costs were respectively made up, considering that no solicitor was employed in either case?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The summonses for trespass against Killeen and Munroe were issued by Mr. Handy, J.P., and Mr. Odlum, J.P., respectively, and they also authorized Mr. Tyrrell to serve them. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 93, s. 12, Clause 2, allows any person other than the summons-server whom the complainant shall employ to serve a summons, if the Justice issuing the same shall so direct or permit. Mr. Tyrrell, therefore, legally served the summons. One witness in re Killeen and one witness in re Munroe were examined on behalf of the complainants. Costs were awarded in each case under the authority of 14 & 15 Vict. c. 93, s. 22, Clause 9, and in the amount that seemed fit to the Bench of Justices hearing the cases.

  EDUCATION COMMISSION—AMOUNT AND DISPOSITION OF CHARITIES IN WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, How soon, and what, steps will be taken to complete and publish information respecting the amount and disposition of charities in Wales and Monmouthshire?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I can only refer the hon. Member to the statements made in the course of the debate on the Vote for the Charity Commission by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury and myself, to the effect that the information required could not be obtained without an increase of the staff of the Commission. Much information on this subject is to be found in Lord Robert Montagu's Return of 1866–1876, in which the particulars of the Charities then known to exist are stated county by county. On any specific point the Charity Commissioners will be ready to furnish the hon. Member with information, if he will call at their Office.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS)— CHARGE OF ASSAULT AT BOW STREET POLICE COURT—MISS PARTON'S CASE.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for
  374
  the Home "Department, Whether his attention has been called to a case heard by Mr. Bridge at Bow Street Police Court, on Friday, in which Miss Rosa Parton charged Police Constable James Butler, a warrant officer of the Clerkenwell Police Court, with an assault upon her; whether Miss Parton stated, that on the 16th June, whilst attending at the Clerkenwell Police Court as a prosecutrix, Constable Butler
  "Struck her three sharp blows on the breast, from the violence of which she almost fainted;"
  whether Mr. H. G. Sworn, M.R.C.S., of 16, Albion Road, Holloway, stated that he—
  "Examined Miss Parton, and found on her breast a large bruise, three inches by six inches, badly swollen; and that a mere push would not have produced what he saw; it must have been a blow;"
  whether Miss S. C. Parton, the complainant's sister, stated, that on the day of the assault she told the magistrate, Mr. Barstow, when they got into the Court, that her sister had been assaulted by the constable at the door, and that—
  "Mr. Barstow was very rude to her; told her not to tell lies; that he didn't believe a word she said; and that they had all been together in a pot-house drinking;"
  whether, although complaint of the assault was made on the 16th Juno to the Inspector of Police, Constable Butler was allowed, after three days' interval, to resume his duties at the Clerkenwell Police Court; whether the Commissioners of Police suggested to Mr. Barstow that it might be well to remove Constable Butler from the Clerkenwell Police Court; whether Mr. Barstow declined to assent to that being done; what course the Home Secretary now proposes to take with reference to the conduct of Constable Butler; and, whether he will ask the Lord Chancellor to inquire into the truth of Miss S. C. Parton's complaint again Mr. Barstow?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have obtained a Report and a copy of the evidence from Mr. Bridge, before whom Miss Parton's case against the constable was tried. It appears from the Report that she did state the constable hit her three blows quick on the chest backhanded; but not that she nearly fainted from their violence. The doctor made the statement contained in

  375
  the Question. The constable did not make his defence, as the charge was withdrawn by the complainant in consideration of his good character and long service, and because she was unwilling that he should lose by conviction the advantages he had thus gained. She thought, also, that the strong words used by the magistrate with reference to the duty of constables at all times to avoid being rough or violent would prevent the occurrence of any violence in the future. The constable, also, through his counsel, expressed his profound regret, and stated that he was quite unconscious of having caused any injuries. Under these circumstances, I propose to inquire further into the constable's antecedents before deciding what further action should be taken with regard to him. The Commissioner of Police did not suggest to Mr. Barstow that it might be well to remove the constable from the Court. I have also obtained a Report from Mr. Barstow. He denies saying to the lady that she told lies, or using rude expressions of any kind. He did say that the attractions of the public-house over the way were the common cause of parties failing to attend when called. He also said that he did not believe her when she said that she had been all the time in the waiting-room. I regret that the magistrate should have made use of these expressions, and I think that the facts seem sufficiently ascertained by the inquiry already made.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS—VENTILATION OF THIS HOUSE.
  MR. WARMINGTONasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been directed to the offensive and injurious smells prevalent in the House and the corridors; and, whether he can state the cause of such smells; and, what steps, if any, have been taken to remove the cause of such smells, and to insure, as far as practicable, purity of air in the House, its corridors, and offices?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): My attention has been, from time to time, directed to the offensive smells prevalent in this House and its corridors, and very recently. I am perfectly satisfied that they do not proceed from any defect in the drainage of the Palace, which is, I believe, now in as perfect a state as
  376
  modern science can make it. I have no doubt that these smells come to us from outside. Observations are being made; but we have not yet been able to trace the smells to their true origin.
  MR. ISAACSasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would put himself into communication with the police on duty in and near the House, in order that they might report upon the emanation of the noxious smells from gullies and ventilators, so that these smells might be traced to their source?
  MR. CHANNINGwished to know whether it was not a fact that the worst smells came from the quadrangle between that part of the House—the Opposition side—and the Tea Room?
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he was afraid that the smells from the quadrangle could be equalled by those which he himself had detected on the Government side of the House. He would be glad to accept the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Isaacs); but he did not think that this kind of offender could be arrested.

  ADMIRALTY—NAVAL RESERVES—THE COASTGUARD—H.M.S. "SHANNON."
  DR. TANNERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is a fact that a number of Coastguards stationed in the South of Ireland, latterly received orders to join H.M.S. Shannon, as part of her crew, on the 5th instant; whether 21 of these men. Coastguards from the Cork District, after answering the summons, on arriving on board, were then informed their services were not required; whether these men's fares and return fares are to be paid by the Admiralty; and, what individual is responsible for the alleged blunder?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The facts are generally as stated. After the embarkation of the Queenstown Division of Coastgurdsmen had been ordered it was decided to replace 20 of them with a corresponding number of Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers. The Shannon having proceeded to sea, the telegram ordering this change did not reach her in time to stop the men from starting for Bantry. There is no intention of charging the railway fares against the men.

  POLICE COURTS (METEOPOLIS)—THE HAMMERSMITH POLICE DISTRICT.
  MR. FISHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can now say when the establishment of a whole day Court for the Hammersmith Police District, in accordance with the promise given by him, will be carried into effect; whether, when that change takes place, it is intended to enlarge and improve the Police Court of the District; and, whether, unless such alterations are to be speedily undertaken, he will at once take steps to better the unsanitary and indecent accommodation provided for prisoners awaiting trial who are at present huddled together for several hours without distinction of age or sex, sometimes to the number of 20 and more, in a strong room 14 feet seven inches by nine feet seven inches?
  MAJOR GENERAL GOLDS WORTHYalso asked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether the Hammersmith Police Court will be a whole day Court before the winter commences, as great hardship is inflicted by the present arrangement; whether his attention has been called to the insufficiency of the buildings at this Police Court, and the desirability of increasing the accommodation both for tried and untried prisoners, and of at once re-arranging the sanitary arrangements with a greater regard to public decency; whether, as the so-called Hammersmith Police Court is situated in Fulham, and that prisoners from a very large area outside of Hammersmith are tried at the Court, he will consider the desirability of altering the name of the Court to that of "The West London Police Court," or some similar designation; and, whether he will arrange that in all cases at the various Police Courts of the Metropolis male and female untried prisoners may have separate waiting and retiring rooms, and that, as far as possible, innocent and respectable people may not unnecessarily be brought in contact with the hardened and abandoned criminal?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): In January, 1887,1 addressed the Treasury, urging that the establishment of a whole day Court for Hammersmith had become necessary. The Treasury, in reply, properly urged that this result should be
  378
  attained, if possible, without increased expense by the re-modelling of the existing Court districts or re-distribution of the existing magisterial staff. Thereupon, on February 21, I appointed a Departmental Committee to look into this subject. Their Report will be presented in a few days, and thereupon immediate action will be taken, as soon as Treasury sanction can be obtained and the necessary sums have been voted by Parliament. The buildings of the Police Courts are in charge of the Office of Works; and I will confer with that Department as to any alterations necessitated by making Hammersmith a whole day Court, and as to immediate steps to remedy the state of things which is described in the Questions. I may say that the whole question of the accommodation for prisoners awaiting trial at the various London Police Courts, including, of course, Hammersmith, has been since June the subject of a special inquiry conducted at my instance by Sir Edmund Du Cane. I will consider whether a change in the title of the Court now called the Hammersmith. Police Court will be necessary.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—PAYMASTER GENERAL OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY.
  MR. HENNIKER-HEATONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it be true that, owing to the irregularity of an official, the Paymaster General of the Court of Chancery now pays all sums over £20 in crossed cheques without the consent of the payee, thus causing considerable inconvenience to persons who do not keep banking accounts?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON), in reply, said, that the statement was correct; but its raison d'être was not set forth in the Question. The practice was in conformity with that followed in other Departments and in mercantile transactions. It was not causing any inconvenience.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) ACT—PROCLAMATION OF CO. DOWN.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state on what grounds the County of Down

  379
  has been proclaimed under the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act by the Lord Lieutenant?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The reasons for proclaiming County Down are the same as those for proclaiming Kildare—some portions of the county are in a state of disturbance.
  MR. SEXTON: I have to ask, as this is the fourth Irish county mentioned on the Paper to-day—Fermanagh, Kildare, Westmeath, and Down—proclaimed in respect of taking forcible possession and assaults on the officers of the law, although the Inspector General says not one of these offences has been committed in any of these four counties—whether the Irish Government have proceeded on the principle of proclaiming counties in respect of offences which have not been committed?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I think the Chief Secretary gave a sufficient answer to this the other day, when he said that in all the counties where intimidation prevails—and that, I am sorry to say, is more or loss the case in every county in Ireland—the Government have taken the precaution of proclaiming the county under the minor and more clement clause of the Act.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the House to take the personal statement of the right lion, and gallant Gentleman against the official Report of the Inspector General, who stated that there was no case of intimidation in these counties? Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman expect the House to believe there is intimidation?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. SEXTON: I did not mean these words in any offensive sense.
  MR. SPEAKER: I interrupted the hon. Member because he was putting his question in an argumentative form.
  MR. SEXTON: I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, does he question the statement made by the Inspector General that there is not a single case of intimidation, either by threatening letter or otherwise, in any of these four counties?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: If Boycotting can be carried on without intimidation the statement may be correct; but as Boycotting exists in all
  380
  these four counties, I hold there is intimidation.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it a fact that Boycotting does not come under paragraphs B and O of the section under -which these counties have been proclaimed?
  MR. R. T. REID&c.): Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman kindly furnish the House with the information and the Reports on which he has acted?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: No, Sir. They are confidential Reports.
  MR. M'CARTAN: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in the case of County Down the Report of the Inspector General shows that from the 1st of January, 1885, to 31st March, 1886, not a single offence of any kind has been committed: and from the 31st March to the 30th June this year only one case—a case of firing—occurred, where an anti-Nationalist attacked the house of Mr. Heron, of Killala, when several parties wore arrested, and the magistrate acquitted them all but one?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that was a matter of detail which he did not remember.
  MR. T. M.HEALY: I wish to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in reference to the answer he has just given, if the House is to understand that the confidential Reports furnished by officials and Police Authorities clash with the published Reports made by the same Gentlemen to the House of Commons?
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether, as the Government rely in justification of the Proclamation of the Irish counties upon casual mention in debate of the number of persons Boycotted and receiving police protection he will lay before the House, without naming the districts or identifying the persons, a Return of the number of persons in each county either Boycotted or receiving police protection?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will give Notice of this Question it will be considered.

  THE LAND COMMISSION COURT—THE COURT VALUER'S VALUATION.
  MR. MAHONYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will state the exact date at which the Laud Com-

  381
  mission adopted the practice of sending a statement of the amount of the Court valuer's valuation by post to the litigants before the hearing of the cases; and the number of appeals lodged respectively during the 12 months previous and the 12 months subsequent to the adoption of this practice?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the Land Commissioners reported that there was no record of the exact date on which the practice of sending the amount of the Court valuer's valuation was adopted; but they believed it was adopted early in 1883. The number of appeals lodged in 1882 was 5,318; and the number in 1883 was 7,880.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION WITH THE LIBRARY.
  MR. KELLY(for Mr. RADCLIFFE COOKE) (Newington, W.) asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is his intention to ask for a Vote of money this Session, so as to enable him to execute during the Recess the works necessary in order to put this House in electric communication with the Library, in accordance with the plan which he has already announced to the House?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): It is not my intention to ask for a Vote this Session; but the question will, I hope, be considered in connection with the Estimates for 1888–9.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (SCOTLAND) BILL—LEGISLATION.
  SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is necessary to have a separate "Technical Instruction Bill" for Scotland; and, whether it would not be possible, by adaptation of wording or addition of clauses, to have one Bill only, and so avoid a discussion of two measures, and the needless introduction of separate legislation for different parts of the United Kingdom? The hon. Baronet added that the Question was put on the Paper a few days ago with the view of accelerating Business.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON&c.)asked, as arising out of this Question, Whether it would not be a more
  382
  simple and expedient course, in view of the different educational systems of England and Scotland, to deal with technical education for Scotland in a separate Bill enabling Scotch School Boards to apply the rates to technical education, as they now did to higher education?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): There is grave reason to doubt whether the attempt to have one Bill only for both countries would not add to, rather than diminish, difficulties attending the passing of legislation for the promotion of technical education, and complicate rather than simplify discussion. From communications received from many quarters, I fear my hon. Friend is mistaken if he supposes that his proposal would be received with favour in Scotland. With reference to the supplementary Question of the hon. Member for Leith, the proposal he makes will receive very careful consideration.

  RAILWAYS—THE THAMES AND SEVERN CANAL NAVIGATION.
  MR. HOLLOWAYasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether it is intended by the Board of Trade to publish with the Papers relating to the Thames and Severn Canal the Memorial presented to the Board on 29th November, 1886, from Mr. John H. Taunton, M. Inst. C.E., the late Engineer and General Manager of the Thames and Severn Canal, and a shareholder in that undertaking; and, whether the Board of Trade will take immediate steps for removing all control of the affairs of the Thames and Severn Canal Navigation from the Great Western Railway Company their nominees and agents?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): It is not proposed to present any further Papers, and the Board of Trade have no authority under any Act of Parliament to proceed in the way suggested I by the hon. Member. The President of the Board of Trade has, however, directed Mr. Courtenay Boyle, the Assistant Secretary Railway Department of the Board of Trade, to visit the locality and to make inquiries with the view of ascertaining whether any, and if so what, arrangements can be made to place the control

  383
  of the navigation in the hands of the, proprietors of the adjacent canals. Mr. Boyle is at the present moment engaged in making these inquiries on the spot.

  ELECTORS IN DRAINAGE DISTRICTS (IRELAND)—LEGISLATION.
  MR. COXasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the legal rights of joint ownership conferred upon tenants in Ireland, the Government will introduce, and press forward this Session, a short Bill providing for the qualification of tenants, holding under statutory terms, as electors in drainage districts in Ireland?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH),in reply, said, this was not so simple a matter as the hon. Gentleman appeared to think. The whole question had been very carefully considered by the Royal Commission on Irish Public Works; and he was afraid it would be impossible for the Government to deal with the subject in the course of the present Session.
  MR. COXasked the right hon. Gentleman, if he was aware that the right hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley), when he occupied the post of Chief Secretary, promised to bring in a Bill dealing with this subject?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was not aware of the fact. The Royal Commission did not recommend any such complete measure as that suggested by the hon. Member.

  METROPOLIS—CHARGES AGAINST THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the recent allegations of jobbing at the Metropolitan Board of Works, and to the numerous similar charges which have from time to time appeared in the public Press, the Government will support the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the action of the members and officers of the Board in dealing with the purchase, sale, and letting of property?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am informed that the recent allegations have already been fully inquired into and reported upon by a Committee of the Metropolitan Board. I have no
  384
  information as to the "numerous similar charges" referred to in the Question; and I am not aware of any reason which would justify the Government in appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the action of the Board.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE ON THE CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  MR. HANBURYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the evidence as to the possible reductions and incomplete audit of expenditure given before the Committee on Army and Navy Estimates, and of the late period at which the Civil Service Estimates are being brought forward this year, he will advise the appointment, early next Session, of a Committee to investigate the Civil Service Estimates, similar to that now sitting upon the Estimates of the War and Admiralty Departments?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): This is a very serious question, and it will receive the consideration of the Government during the Recess. I am not in a position to give any further information at the present moment.

  INDIA—EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS —THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. R, T. REID (Dumfries, &c.)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the fact that there has been no opportunity of discussing Indian questions this Session, and the extreme importance of these questions, he will take care that the Indian Budget is brought on before the 12th August, and while there is still a good attendance of Members in the House?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH),in reply, said, the hon. and learned Member ought to be well aware that it was not in his power to name a date on which the Indian Budget could be introduced, and it was not in his power to express an opinion when it would be possible to do so. He should be exceedingly glad if it were possible to do so on or before the 12th August.
  MR. BRADLAIJGUHgave Notice that when it was introduced he should raise the question of Burmah.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, ample Notice of the introduction of the Budget would be given.

  THE CHARITY COMMISSION—INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, WALES.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is aware that the Charity Commissioners have suspended their operations in Wales owing to the expectation, confirmed by the promises of successive Ministries, that a measure dealing with Welsh Intermediate Education would be introduced; and, whether, in view of the need of such a measure, the Government will undertake to introduce a Welsh Intermediate Education Bill at the beginning of next Session?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The question will be considered during the Recess with a view to legislation next Session?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is exactly the promise which was given by his Predecessor last Session?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not aware of it.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: The operations of the Commissioners have been suspended six years. Cannot a pledge be given that a Bill shall be brought in at the commencement of next Session?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope it may be possible; but I cannot give a definite engagement.

  LICENSING LAWS—LEGISLATION.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, seeing that the promised Local Government measure comprising alterations in the Licensing Laws has been abandoned for this Session, and seeing that no opportunity has been afforded for the discussion of the Resolution endorsing the popular veto. Her Majesty's Government will, following the precedent of 1871, introduce a suspensory Bill prohibiting the issue of any fresh licences at the next Annual Licensing Sessions throughout the country?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The hon. Baronet must be perfectly aware that a
  386
  measure of this kind would not be either short or simple. It is a measure which will lead to great opposition, and I cannot undertake that it will be introduced this Session.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—COAL MINES, &c. REGULATION BILL.
  MR. P. STANHOPEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is now in a position to definitely fix a day when the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Bill will be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH:),in reply, said, he must repeat the answer he had already given to hon. Members, that until he could see a little further as to the progress of Public Business he was unable to name a day for proceeding with the Bill.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS LAW CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL.
  In reply to Mr. KING (Hull, Central),
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)said, the Secretary of State for India had called the attention of the Indian Government to the Merchandise Marks Bill, and recommended there should be legislation in India upon the subject.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  SIRWILLIAM HARCOURT: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, When he will state to the House what Bills he intends to proceed with this Session? I think it would be a great convenience to the House if, before the close of this week, we have some notion of what is the future legislation which the Government intend to proceed with this Session.
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have already determined to state the views of the Government with regard to the legislation of this Session on Monday. I think it will lie more convenient that I should do so they, as 1 think the statement will be more complete than any I could make at the present moment.
  MR. BROADHURST: Is it the intention of the Government to go on with the Allotments Bill on Monday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We certainly hope to do so.
  MR. PICTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when Supply will be taken again?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If the hon. Gentleman will toll me when the Irish Land Law Bill will be out of Committee I will answer his Question.
  MR. PICTON: Are we to understand that Supply will not be taken again until the Irish Land Law Bill is out of Committee?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I must reserve my answer to that.
  MR. BURTasked, whether it was likely that the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Bill would be taken next week?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the Bill would be taken next after the Irish Land Law Bill, except in so far as the exigencies of Supply would compel them to take Supply. The Government would be under the absolute necessity of taking Supply next week, as it was utterly impossible to go on without certain Votes; and, therefore, he was unable to indicate a day when the Bill would be taken.

  LUNACY DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether an attempt would be made to reach the Lunacy Districts (Scotland) Bill to-night?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It will be impossible to take that Bill this evening. We cannot afford the time.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) ACT—PROCLAMATION OF CO. KILKENNY.
  MR. CHANCEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the fact that the County of Kilkenny had been proclaimed under all the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act, save those relating to illegal Societies, would he take steps to have withdrawn the statistical statement that within three months only one offence occurred, and that a threatening letter, and to punish the persons who had so grossly misled the House, according to the allegation of the right hon. Gentleman?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, he should decline to answer the Question.

  DISTRESSED UNIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What course he intended to pursue in relation to the Distressed Unions (Ireland) Bill?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, that would depend upon the hon. Gentleman himself, seeing that he had himself put down a block to the Bill.
  MR. DILLONsaid, his object in putting a block to the Bill was to insure its being discussed before 12 o'clock at night.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— STATISTICS.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the information laid before Parliament by the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland, relating to police statistics as to Irish crime in the last six or seven years, during which time the House had passed so much criminal legislation, did not give an entirely incorrect view of the real state of crime prevailing in Ireland; and, if so, whether the Government would not take steps which would give to the House a true picture of the terrible state of affairs in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The statement of the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland is perfectly accurate. I have improved the method of taking statistics since I have been at the Irish Office; and if the hon. and learned Member has read a Memorandum which I laid on the Table of the House with reference to statistics, he will see that the statement of the Under Secretary is practically confirmed. A full and complete view of agrarian crime in Ireland cannot be obtained from Police Returns.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I read the right hon. Gentleman's Memorandum, which I think quite misleading. I would like to ask him what means he proposes to take—it cannot be done by magic lantern—to give the House a complete view of the lurid state of Ireland alleged to exist?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot deal with that question in the course of an answer; but I will ask the hon. and I learned Gentleman to recollect that I

  389
  have said that every statement made | statistically about crime in Ireland errs—if it docs err—by being under the mark.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask, whose fault it is that every statement made with respect to crime in Ireland is under the mark; and what stops have been taken to punish the persons who have hitherto been misleading the House?
  [No reply.]

  PARLIAMENT—STATE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE IRISH LAND LAW BILL.—STATEMENT.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Before we proceed to consider the Orders of the Day, I wish to refer to the state of Public Business, and to ask the attention of right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway. I have already stated to the House that it will be absolutely necessary that we should go into Committee of Supply in the early part of next week. As I believe that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, opposite are most desirous that the Irish Land Law Bill should be speedily passed, I wish to appeal, with the most perfect good faith and good feeling, to them to assist the House and the Government in proceeding with the consideration of the Bill in Committee with as great rapidity as is compatible with the very important considerations that are involved within the four corners of the measure. It is, I am sure, the desire of the House that the Bill should be speedily passed into law. The Bill restrains, or it is intended to restrain, any cruel or harsh action on the part of the landlord, and it must be obvious that delay—and serious delay—puts it in the power of those who wish to deal harshly with their tenants to do so. That is only one argument which I might use to hon. Gentlemen. But the state of Business, the period of the Session, and the circumstances under which we are placed, will make it exceedingly difficult to carry the Bill into law unless it is passed through Committee in the very earliest day of next week. I use no throat and make use of no word of menace. I am most anxious that it should be passed, and I ask the assistance of all who are desirous that it should be passed, in order that delays
  390
  which may have the most serious effect upon the Bill may not take place.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am sure that there will be every feeling on this side of the House—both above and below the Gangway—to do everything to expedite the passing of this Bill, consistently, of course, with the fair and full discussion of the very important matters contained in it. I hope that the Bill may be passed at an early period; but that must depend, of course, upon the nature of the questions which arise. The urgency of Supply will not interfere with the proper discussion of this Bill. The Government, if they want any Vote in Supply, can take it any day. Therefore, I hope that the discussion on this Bill may go on. We have only been considering the Bill in Committee for three days, and a great deal has been done in that time. I do not think that hitherto there has been any undue discussion, and I hope that the Bill will progress in that manner.

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

  COMMITTEE [Progress 27th July.]
  [FOURTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Amendments of General Application.
  Clause 4 (Substitution of a written notice for execution of an ejectment).
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 37, to leave out the words "does not exceed one hundred pounds," and insert the words "exceeds fifty pounds."
  Question, "That the words 'does not exceed one hundred pounds' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  MR. CHANCE: After the declaration we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith), although I think that the Amendment in my name is an important one, I desire to withdraw it from the Taper, in order that we may pass to Amendments of still greater importance.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I confess that I do not know on what principle the authorities in the other

  391
  Chamber proceeded when they inserted I in the Bill the words I propose to omit—for I think I am right in saying that they were not in the Bill originally. If the landlord is to make use of this clause whenever lie likes, then I think it is a matter of common sense to make it universal in its character; but the idea of providing that the clause should be restricted to tenancies of £ 100 a-year, and then proceeding to say that the landlord, if he likes, may extend it to all other tenancies, is to my mind monstrous. I invite the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to explain the position taken up by the other Chamber, because I have some difficulty in understanding the reason which induced thorn to insert those words. Do they think that Irish Members are so exceedingly simple that they are to be imposed on by the very transparent device of these words which make the clause universal in effect? If the clause is intended to be universal, the honest thing is to make it universal in so many words, and not pretend that you are doing something else. I invite the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to say on what principle he defends this wording. He has admitted that the effect of the words is to abolish tenancies of under £100. It is perfectly clear that this is eviction; and, that being so, it is idle to say you are placing any restriction, on the clause when you leave it to the landlord's option to say whether it shall be universal or not. I therefore beg to move to leave out all the words from "and" down to "section" inclusive.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 37, after the word "year," leave out from the word "and" to the word "section," in line 40.—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I hope the hon. Member will not think it worth while to press this Amendment. He is aware that this clause is introduced mainly on the ground of order, and I apprehend that the interests of public order are not likely to be affected in the case of tenancies exceeding £100 a-year.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: My Amendment is that the restriction of £100 should be preserved.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the clause was originally drawn, there was only one class of tenancies referred to—namely, those under £100. I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I ask whether these words are capable of being defended or not, and, if they arc, whether the right hon. Gentleman is competent to defend them? The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that we put Amendments on the Paper without considering their effect, and that it is a sufficient answer to them simply to address to us a request to withdraw them. I shall be ready to consider the course of withdrawing the Amendment when the Government have given their reasons in defence of the words.
  MR. PARNELLIt is obvious that the only result of a Member making a short speech in support of his Amendment is that the right hon. Gentleman representing the Government does not apparently take the trouble to consider the effect of the Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman having tried several interpretations of the Amendment, and found that they wore incorrect, simply requested my hon. Friend to withdraw. The Amendment provides that where the rent of the holding exceeds £100 by the year the landlord shall have the option of proceeding in the face of the limitation in the previous part of the clause which renders it obligatory to proceed in this new fashion. I do not understand why you wish to give the landlord au advantage with your left hand which you take away apparently at the commencement of the clause with your light hand, and I submit that the further advantage you propose to give is unnecessary for the landlord.
  MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman has said that in the case of capitalist farmers there is no necessity to provide this now means, because, in their case, there is no chance of a breach of law and order. That is a strong argument in favour of icy hon. Friend's Amendment. The portion of the clause which he proposes to leave out provides that in all cases of tenancies under £100 a-year the landlord must proceed by the new clause, and it goes on to say that in cases of tenancies exceeding that rental

  393
  he may proceed either by the new or old method. We wish to take away from the landlord that option in the case of tenants of over £100 a-year; and it is deliberately confessed by the Government that it is for the benefit of the tenant that the landlord should not be allowed to do as he likes. Two utterly inconsistent stories are told with regard to this clause by the Government; one is that the clause is in favour of the landlord, the other that it is in favour, of the tenant. If it were in the interest of public law and order to compel the landlord without option to proceed on a certain line, we could understand it to be for the benefit of the tenant; but to say that the landlord is to have this option and the tenant no option at all shows that the benefit of the tenant is altogether out of the question. Will the Government extend to the tenant the option throughout the whole of these proceedings? The Government say that this Bill is for the purpose of preventing harsh evictions; but if that is so, would not the tenant require to have the option? If the Government will make this clause optional for the tenant, I guarantee that it will he passed within the next 10 minutes. That is a fair offer, and it is a test offer. I call upon the Government to tell us whether they will make this clause optional for the tenant or not. It is an absurdity for them to pretend to engineer this Bill through the Committee, and to misrepresent the whole meaning and effect of the Amendments which we propose from these Benches. The right hon. Gentleman having got up to prove that the Amendment of ray hon. Friend was unnecessary, without taking the trouble to read the 4th clause, simply says in effect—"I cannot understand it; I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am certainly not going to bandy words with the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). I assumed from what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) that Amendments which were not of first-class importance would be treated in the briefest manner. With reference to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for East Mayo that we should extend the option in this clause to the tenants, I have to say that I am not particularly
  394
  in love with this principle of option; but I certainly cannot by any possibility assent to its extension to the tenants. If the Committee think it worth while to put the meaning of this part of the clause in an altered form I should not be disposed to offer opposition to it.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I could understand this clause applying to all holdings largo and small; but the Bill expressly limits its operation to farms of £100 a-year and under. I do not understand the objection to the Amendment on the part of the Government; but there is nothing to be gained by wasting the time of the Committee on such small matters as this, and therefore if the Government considers this option, essential to the clause I should be sorry to stand in the way.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will agree to strike out these words which I think must have been introduced in "another place" by Lord Fitzgerald, who is, of course, free to make ducks and drakes with the English language.
  ME. A. J. BALFOUR: I am perfectly ready to restore the Bill to the shape in which it left our hands; but that is not the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member.
  MR.. T. M. HEALY: We have now the Government telling us that they do not admire the words of Lord Fitzgerald. If that is so, why do you not strike them out of the Bill? You say you want to restore the Bill to its original shape, but the Chairman, will not allow you. You have, therefore, no alternative but to strike out the words which you admit are ridiculous.
  MR. O'DOHEETY: I do not think the Government have sufficiently considered the procedure established by the Act of 1860 with regard to evictions. There was never such a thing heard of formerly as making tenants caretakers. We have been told by the hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) that the tenant was formerly seldom or never evicted: that he remained in under acknowledgment, and that it was only in case he committed waste that he was evicted. But now the landlords have discovered a defect in the Act of 1860, and they always restore their tenants as caretakers, and not under the acknow-

  395
  lodgment form in the Act. If the land lord wished to restore a man to the position of tenant there was a provision of an Act of Parliament of which he could avail himself.
  MR. PARNELL: I do not think it is worth while to prolong this discussion if the Government have made up their mind not to yield, nor do I think it necessary to take a Division on the Amendment. My hon. Friend's Amendment is in favour of tenants of over I £100. I hope it will be clearly understood amongst the tenant farmers of Ulster that the Government have resisted this Amendment, which would have restored them to the position which the Bill in its first line gave them. The bill in its first line exempts tenants of this class from the general effects of the clause; but here you put in words tantamount to a proviso giving the landlord the option of proceeding in either way. I trust the Orange tenants will understand that my hon. Friend has interfered in their behalf, and that the Chief Secretary for Ireland has committed himself to the course of opposing the Amendment.
  MR. WADDY: The peculiarity of this clause is that it is universally objected to; everyone says it is wrong. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary says he does not like the words; lie makes three mistakes with, regard to their meaning—good-humoured mistakes, I believe—and so it is that we find the clause is to remain in its present form, although nothing can be said in favour of it. I think we ought to say something in favour of the clause before we stultify ourselves by passing it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. O'KELLY: The Amendments which I rise to move are consequential of one farther down the Paper, the object of which is to carry out what I believe to be the intentions of the Government in this Bill—that is to protect the tenant in his present position, and to say that nothing; in this Bill shall place him in a worse position than he is now. Under the existing law the tenant has certainly six months for redemption, and by my Amendment I propose that he shall be assured of having that full time for the purpose. I might say that my Amend-
  396
  ment, in fact, hardly goes far enough, because it does not place the tenant in as good position as he is under the existing law, inasmuch as, owing to the custom of postponing execution, the time of taking possession practically extends to nine, 12, and even 15 months in extreme cases. By the adoption of this Amendment the Government would merely place the tenant in a position to which he is now entitled by the strict letter of the law; and, under those circumstances, I trust they will agree to it, and carry out in. good faith the intention of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 40, to leave out all the words after "which" to "possession" inclusive, in line 41, in order to insert the word "redemption."—(Mr. O'Kelly.)
  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 the Amendment now moved by the hon. Member for North Roscommon has to be discovered by referring to other Amendments further down on the Paper. It was considered advisable that the old powers of the Court of Chancery should be embodied in the Act of 1860, under which, without any reference to the Court of Chancery, the tenant might be in a position to go to the Court, whether the landlord liked it or not, in order to compel the landlord to take the money due, and re-admit him as tenant. So that the whole procedure of the tenant who has been evicted is governed by the provisions of the Act of 1860, which are referred to in this clause; and what I understand the hon. Member to want is to omit this statutory provision altogether. I confess that that appears to be a very dangerous and undesirable thing to do, because in 99 cases out of 100, if the tenant has the rent, he can settle with the landlord without having any recourse to the Court, for the landlord would not be particularly anxious to increase the burden of costs to no purpose, and simply for the advantage of some solicitor. As I have said, in the majority of instances the landlord, if there is to be redemption, will take the man back, and reinstate him, and if he chooses to do that it will

  397
  again set up the old tenancy. But it is necessary to provide for cases of dispute; and -when the parties are unable to come to an agreement, application to the Court is necessary, and the question is decided by the Court judicially. Now, this machinery of the Act of 1860 is necessary; it applies to all cases of ejectment for non-payment of rent, and I do not think it can be dispensed with. It is impossible to leave the question at large; and the Government, therefore, found it necessary to have this procedure distinctly referred to, and incorporated in this clause.
  MR. O'KELLY: Will the Government introduce some more simple method of procedure?
  MR. GIBSON: It appears to me that the method is simple enough already. As far as I know, in nearly every case the landlord, unless he is fit for a lunatic asylum, will take the money, and reinstate the tenant. The landlord may be a sadder man after the passing of this Bill; but I do not think the clause will drive him out of his mind. I think he will remain the same sane being as heretofore.
  MR. PARNELL: This is an instance of the way in which the responsible officers of the Government who have to determine questions of policy leave the Committee in a matter of this importance. One of the main Amendments which will have to be brought on and fought out on this clause is before us; and it is under these circumstances that the higher officials of the Government—the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, who appealed to the Committee to make progress with the Bill—leave behind them the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, who has treated his opponents with courtesy, I admit, but who, I humbly submit, is not in a position to answer with regard to questions of first-rate policy. This is one of the points to which I drew attention yesterday. It is the point which refers to the expense and difficulty in respect of the machinery necessary to be employed by the tenant in order to obtain a writ of restitution. We were informed yesterday that it was a point on which the Government were willing to meet us; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not attempted
  398
  to meet us in any way. He simply relies on the naked words of the clause, which deprives the tenant of his old statutable right that was the substitute for the ancient Common Law right of the Irish tenants, and which relieved him of, or took away, as far as possible, the difficulties that lay in his way of obtaining a writ of restitution. Now, what are the reasons given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman? He tells us that if this clause becomes law, where a landlord is willing to accept the rent and costs, the tenant can be then restored as a present tenant, and that no landlord in his senses would do anything else but accept the rent. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not in the minds of the Irish landlords; and I have always understood one reason why this Bill is introduced is that there are many landlords in Ireland who have no sense, and who appear to do what would not be done by persons in the possession of reason and common sense. It is this class of landlords that we want to deal with; it is this class of landlords for whose restoration to a sanitary condition of mind the Government have brought in this Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the landlord, if he were in his senses, would agree to reinstate the tenant in his tenancy on the payment of rent and costs. But we do not know that that will be the case, seeing that rents are to be re-adjusted, that leaseholders are to be re-admitted, from whom the rack-renting landlords have derived their chief subsistence since the Act of 1881 took the smaller tenants out of their grasp—we do not know that they will not serve these notices, which they will get with the greatest facility, and that they will not break up the status of the tenants. The effect of this will be that the position of the tenants under the Act of 1881 will be irreparably injured or lost; and that is what always happens under the so-called remedial legislation passed in this House for Ireland. Acts of the kind appear very fair; but if you take them in connection with other Acts of Parliament previously passed you will find that, while appearing to give, they in reality take away the substance. It is most deplorable that the Government should leave the right hon. and learned Gentleman—who must be an Irish landlord's

  399
  man—as their only spokesman on an Amendment of this first-class character, I have shown—and it cannot be contradicted—that the landlord under this clause, will have the power of obtaining a decree against the tenant before the customary time; he will then be entitled to serve this notice, and having served it the status of the tenant will cease, and he will become a caretaker. The right hon. and learned Gentleman answers this by a reference to the state of mind of the Irish landlords. I should have hoped that we might have been met in a different way on an Amendment of this character. We were told yesterday that the question of the cost of restitution would engage the attention of the Government; but we have heard nothing about that to-day. Really, this question is not arguable upon the ground put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The broad principle of my hon. Friend's Amendment is this—that the tenant shall be permitted to redeem, on payment of rent and costs due, within six months after the service of the notice. Will the Government give a straightforward answer on that question; will they allow the tenant so to redeem; will they accept this Amendment, or bring up a clause before the Committee stage is closed to carry out its intention? If not, it is certain that we shall have to fight very hard in support of the Amendment, and I trust there is sufficient justice and common sense on the Treasury Bench to say that our proposal will be entertained.
  MR. GIBSON: The hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) has said a good deal about the question of hanging gale; but the hanging gale has nothing to do with the Amendment before the Committee, because, whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Roscommon were agreed to or not, the question of the hanging gale would remain unchanged. The hon. Member for Cork has referred to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland have left the House; but I would point out to him that it is perfectly impossible that my right hon. Friends can be present throughout the whole of these discussions; that they should not occasionally be absent for a few minutes.
  400
  You cannot get rid of this question of the intervention of the Court by merely saying that a man shall be entitled to redemption if he pays the rent and costs. The landlord in the present case; when the notice is served, becomes the legal owner, and the tenant has only the equity of redemption. It is of no use your saying that the tenant is to be entitled to redemption unless he can gat an order from the Court when the landlord has refused to receive the rent. As I have said, the landlord is to become owner; and if the landlord will not agree to the terms the man must apply for an order to the Court. How is this question of redemption to be settled otherwise, if the tenant offers a sum of money, and the landlord says it is not the right sum? Is the offer of a wrong sum to entitle the tenant to redemption? [Mr. PARNELL: It never occurs.] The hon. Member says it never occurs; but my experience is altogether contrary on this point, and I object to the hon. Member telling mo what are the facts in cases of this kind. If the restitution of the tenant does not take place, it is because the tenant and the landlord cannot come to terms; and if they cannot come to terms you must get a judicial act. If the landlord asks too much, it is the wor3e for him, and that is a thing which the Court would take into consideration in fixing the costs. But the question is whether the tenant, having only the equity of redemption, is to be absolutely restored to the old tenancy merely by the fact that he tenders the rent and costs? It is obvious that if the parties do not agree there must be an application to the Court. I trust I have succeeded in conveying my argument clearly to hon. Members. I think I have, at any rate, succeeded in showing that the Amendment is not of that capital kind which the hon. Member for Cork considers it to be; and, that being so, I trust we shall be allowed to get on to some more important matter.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I have no wish to obtain a dialectical advantage over the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but I fool sure that when he sees the real nature of the case he will feel the force of my hon. Friend's Amendment. I appreciate the tone of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer to the hon. Member for Cork

  401
  (Mr. Parnell); but if lie wishes to do justice to the tenant, as no doubt he does, he must accept the Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is under the impression that when the tenant has made a private settlement with his landlord he is restored to his old status of a present tenant: but that, I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman, is not the case. I have known cases where the man having paid his rent and costs has, nevertheless, been evicted upon the title, because of his allowing the six months to elapse. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had any experience of Civil Bill Courts he would discover that this Amendment is absolutely necessary if the tenant is to have justice. I feel sure that if the noble Lord opposite the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton), who is also an Irish landlord, had heard my hon. Friend's arguments, he would have seen the necessity for the Amendment. The ordinary Irish tenant will not be restored, I do not say to his former tenancy, but to any tenancy, unless at the time of the payment of the redemption money it is agreed that the money shall be taken in redemption.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. O'DOHERTY,resuming, said: The tenants are, as a rule, poor and uneducated men, unacquainted with legal formalities. In their ignorance they may think that all that it is necessary to do is to go to the agent and say—"Here is the money, will you take it and sot me up?" The agent before whom they go may be a dishonest man, and if the case is subsequently brought before the Court the tenant may relate what happened, but may find that, after all, he has lost his tenancy, because he may only be able to say—"Well, I wont in and paid what I thought was against me, and the agent never said a word." The agent might say—"I did not say anything about his being restored—I did not intend that he should be restored, but took the money in payment of arrears," and in this way the tenant loses his tenancy. I admit that in most cases the tenant will never discover that there has been an alteration in his tenancy. What is the position of a tenancy which is
  402
  created by the mere payment of rent? I say the title to a tenancy as a present tenancy is gone, and that in future the position of the tenant will be utterly and completely different from what it was before. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite may say—"In equity his position is the position of being restored to his former tenancy." But I very much doubt that that will be so even in equity unless there is some evidence given of an actual agreement for reinstatement, which evidence it may be impossible to get. The case has frequently arisen on applications by tenants to avoid the cost of restitution. I have been myself put in this unhappy position as to tenancies. The Sheriff of Donegal has, unfortunately, too many cases of eviction on his hands, and one of the provisions in regard to the Sheriffs is that if the landlord wants them he must pay them mileage. Well, whatever the landlord may have to pay in that way he will adopt means of recovering from the tenant—he will save a mint of money which he would otherwise have to pay for mileage under this clause If he brings the Sheriff to a tenant's door he must pay his travelling expenses, and he cannot charge the tenant with them. But what does he do? He says to the tenant—"I will make you pay for this indirectly, if you do not make good my expenditure; I will put you to the cost of restitution." This is a system which is adopted, and I speak confidently upon the point, because I am speaking from a largo experience. I was told this myself by a Sub-Sheriff to whom I went when endeavouring to save a man the costs of restitution. I said—"I will not pay the mileage, as the law says it is to be borne by the landlord, and you have no right to exact it from the tenant." "You are right," he replied; "but if you do not pay these costs you will have to get a writ of restitution, which will be a far more expensive business for you." In this way I was compelled to make good the expenses, and the tenant was called upon to pay what no one had any right to call upon him to pay. I ask, is the law now to be the same as it always was? I ask, is this new machinery to be the same as ever, so far as the landlord is concerned? Does it not save him the expense of the mileage of the Sheriff in every case—is it not plain that the right of restitution can be

  403
  made the means of oppression and the extortion of an unfair payment? I am bound to say that my experience in these matters does not extend to the Superior Courts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite will remember a case—and the Committee also will recollect it—in. which in the case of a landlord who objected to a writ of restitution a question arose as to the landlord's profits whilst he was in possession. Well, but is this not a section to keep the tenant in possession? How on earth under this section and under this Bill could a question as to the landlord's profits arise? The latter part of the proposal provides that the landlord shall be responsible for nothing during the period of redemption. If a man is not disturbed no question can arise about the landlord having profits. I am sorry to be obliged to call the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the Rules of the County Court. He is under the impression, no doubt, that the amount for which a man is decreed with the costs is all that he will have to pay; but that is not so. An account is taken of the rent owing up to the very day on which the account is taken—under the County Court Rules the man must pay not only the debt and costs, but every penny accruing up to the day on which the account is taken. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has evidently not considered this Amendment one of first-class importance. He has not thought it a serious Amendment, though why I cannot say, because I must remind the Committee that it was one of the very first Amendments put down on the Paper. I am afraid I must trouble him for some time further, because there is a question of very serious injustice to the tenants involved, and because this Amendment will be an important remedy and improvement to the Bill, and no matter how the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks upon it its acceptance would obtain for the landlords far more rent than they are otherwise' likely to receive. What are the Government legislating for? Is it for the landlords, who will use the processes of the Court for the purpose of exacting from the tenants all they can? Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman follow out his rule and legislate against those who are doing injustice, and after he has done that I venture to say
  404
  that there will be very few writs of restitution applied for. I know too well what the tenants will have to do unless he has some regard for their interests in this matter. The proceeding which at present has to be adopted is one of those which gives the solicitor the greatest possible amount of trouble. He has to make exhaustive calculations, and all sorts of arrangements as to which the tenant has to be informed. He finds out the persons with whom, and the places at which, the money is to be lodged, and then he has to prepare a document as long as my arm. This document, which is one for which there is no precedent, has to be written out and served on the landlord, a piece of professional work for which no solicitor would be recompensed by a payment of £5, even in the Civil Bill Court. When the case is before the Superior Court £10 would never pay the solicitor, and should there be long affidavits £20 might not be sufficient. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland himself were engaged, he certainly would have to be paid far more than this. The application for writ or order of restitution to restore the tenant to possession of the land under the Act of 1860 is in the form given in the Schedule. Notice of application has to be given to the plaintiff, and when the notice of application has been served, as soon as the tenant says—"I want to be restored," the landlord has to servo him with a notice if he claims any rent which may have become duo since the signing of the decree. He has to give the party applying for restitution two clear days' notice of his demand. First the tenant or plaintiff is to serve notice, and next the landlord is to serve a cross notice, saying—"Before I can let you back again, you must pay me all you owe me and all the costs." And then what happens? If further rent has become due in respect of the land, the party applying for restitution will have to pay all that further rent awarded by the Court in addition to the sum ascertained to be the rent and costs. What is the condition of the Irish tenant under these circumstances, broken down by this process, and with arrears to pay calculated down to the very day of the decree, which may be a year and a-half since the notice of ejectment? Why,

  405
  the writ of restitution, under the circumstances, could be put aside by any landlord. The Committee must bear in mind that we are legislating against men who will use the Court and its machinery for the purpose of extracting from the tenants what is not their due. The object we should have in view ought to be to do justice between man and man; but, as matters at present stand, J the great expense to which the tenant is put is an entire bar to restitution. I have pointed out that the tenant would have to pay every penny which the County Court Judge will find has been running whilst he has been out of possession of his farm. I have told the right hon. and learned Gentleman what the experience of the tenant is in the Civil Bill Court. The experience of the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself has been in the Superior Courts, and I have pointed out to him that the question of the landlord's profits which arises in his mind does not really come up in this case. I declare this to be an Amendment of first-class importance, and if it is not accepted, as I have shown you, the clause may be used to frustrate every other beneficial object you may have in view in the Bill. I cannot believe that because I have more experience in matters relating to the Civil Bill Courts than the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that he will maintain the position he has taken up, and will conceal his real opinion as to the exact position in which the tenant stands, if you continue this process of writ of restitution. The continuance of that process would mean the utter ruin and complete destruction of the poor tenant—it would mean the exaction of future accruing arrears which it would be impossible for him to pay. Under all the circumstances of the case, I feel confident that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that this Amendment is one which ought to be adopted.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I cannot help thinking that these discussions, although they may be very interesting to lawyers, are somewhat too technical for ordinary Members of the Committee to follow. After all, an ordinary Member of the Committee must try to guide his conduct by common sense, more than by legal jargon, of which we hear so much—I do not wish
  406
  to use the expression in any offensive sense to hon. Gentlemen. I want the Government to understand that this is a critical Amendment, and one of first-class importance. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would give me his attention for a few moments. The case stands thus. A landlord evicts a tenant, or serves upon him a notice under the new procedure. The tenant afterwards seeks to redeem. He has six months within which to redeem, but a dispute arises between himself and the landlord. I am supposing a case that is not at all unlikely to happen. A dispute, I say, arises between the landlord and tenant. What, then, is the tenant's position in such a case? If the landlord stands out the tenant's hand is forced. The only remedy he has is this—he is forced, at enormous cost, to sue for a writ of restitution. Now, it is all very well to tell me that a tenant has six months within which to redeem; but a statement such as that has to be considered in all its bearings. The only way in which he can enforce his right, if a dispute arises, is by writ of restitution, which, in 99 cases out of 100, is impossible, so that I maintain that the right of redemption in such cases practically goes for nothing. Now, I want to suggest a compromise to the Government, and one that, I think, they might very fairly accept, and one which, I think, hon. Members below the Gangway may also very largely accept. Suppose a dispute has arisen. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that the landlords are sensible men, and that he cannot conceive that a landlord would refuse to come to terms with his tenant. Well, I admit that a great majority of Irish landlords are as sensible as other people; but we are legislating for a minority of the landlords in Ireland, and if it were not that the minority is a minority of unreasonable men I should not be forced into taking the position which I have taken on this Bill. The compromise I have to suggest is that the tenant should be entitled to redeem, and that in the case of any dispute arising between the landlord and tenant the onus should be upon the landlord of showing cause against the redemption. I think that is a reasonable suggestion. It will protect the statutory tenant, and will not impose

  407
  upon him heavy costs, while it will prevent unreasonable landlords from recovering unreasonable costs, which they have done too frequently.
  MR. PARNELL: I have no hesitation in saying that if my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment were in his place—as he is not—he would have no objection in accepting the compromise proposed by the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) to the effect that where a dispute arises between a landlord and a tenant, and where the landlord refuses to allow the tenant to redeem within six months, then the onus of taking the proceedings should be thrown on the landlord, instead of upon the tenant.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: Whatever the dispute may be, it could only be with reference to costs accruing after the decree. What the right hon. Gentleman opposite mentioned to us—namely, the amount of the profit the landlord might have made on the farm while in possession—is not at all contemplated by this section. It only contemplates the tenant remaining in possession.
  MR. GIBSON: If the tenant offers the rent and costs, and the landlord says that that sum is not right, and there is a dispute, it can only be settled by the Court.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: Not at all.
  MR. GIBSON: That is the present law as I understand it. The landlord says to the tenant—"The sum of money you offer is not enough." Then there is a dispute about the matter, which has to be settled by the Court. As I understand it, the amount is to be ascertained by the Court; and the question seems to be, is the Court to have any function at all in the matter? If a dispute arises between landlord and tenant, that dispute ought to be—if there is any arrangement as to interim profits, or any question of that kind, which the hon. Gentleman says would not exist under the clause as it stands—that dispute, I say, ought to be plainly settled by the Court. I do not know whether the hon. Member is willing that the clause should be amended; but I think he accepted it in that respect. The rent is endorsed in the Court, and the costs are endorsed; and, therefore, if the tenant conies into the Court, and has a document of title as to the rightness of his offer, that document is an order of the Court. If
  408
  there is a dispute on the one side or the other the tenant has the document of the Court in his favour. We seem to have here merely a dispute about words, because the real substance of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman raises the question as to whether the Court is to have jurisdiction in the matter at all, or is it not? The machinery by which such jurisdiction can be exercised is provided by two long sections of Baron Deasy's Act. There are a vast number of important clauses to discuss, and if we are to discuss them all at this length, the elaborate sections of Baron Deasy's Act, and reconstruct the Bill, it appears to mo that there will be no end to our discussions. I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind that it may be possible on future occasions to introduce great improvements in the general Land Law of Ireland; but at present we are dealing with a question of machinery, and I can assure the hon. Member that if the Government thought there was any real injustice or hardship in this matter, they would take steps to introduce it expeditiously. It is because I believe that this Amendment would destroy the entire legal procedure of the Act of 1860 without putting anything in its place that I object to the Amendment. It would be a very embarrassing thing for the Government to involve itself in the reconstruction of the Act of 1860, and I would therefore urge the hon. Member not to press his Amendment.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am not desirous of shutting out the action of the Court at all, but I have the greatest objection to forcing the Irish tenant into Court. He has had too much to do with Courts; and it is an open question in my mind, if we had the option of getting rid either of the lawyers or the landlords, whether I should not prefer to get rid of the lawyers rather than of the landlords. I therefore desire to keep the Irish tenant out of Court as much as I possibly can; and what I am willing to do in the compromise I have suggested is to give the ultimate decision to the Court in the case of the landlord and tenant not being able to come to terms. I am for going to the Court with the onus upon the landlord of proving his ease. I appeal to the Government upon this question, which, after all, is not a very large one, and which is one upon

  409
  which they can give way without any sacrifice of principle. I do not think they can accuse me of putting difficulties in their way, or of endeavouring to embarrass thorn. I have never made a speech of more than 20 minutes since I have been in this House, and I certainly have not made long speeches upon this Bill, I will merely say that if they accept this compromise they will smooth away all the difficulties which are in the way of thin part of the Bill.
  MR. GIBSON: What I intended to explain was that the existing law carries out the hon. Member's desires.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I know it does in a way, but I want to alter that way. I am prepared to assent to the view that the Court shall settle the matter; but I say that the tenant is not able to go to the Court for a writ of restitution in 99 cases out of 100 What I want to do is this—to force the landlord to accept the tenant's offer, and to give him the right to go to the Court to enforce a further payment if he can show that he has not received enough.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I forgot in one part of my statement to refer to that which seems to me to have given rise to an entire mistake in this matter. I have all through stated that I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman is labouring under a mistake as to practice. I want to show the right hon. and learned Gentleman how we stand. You are providing for the relief of evicted tenants, and you are also providing for the reduction of the amount of rent that tenants have to pay. I will ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England to listen to me. You are providing not merely that the tenants shall not pay the full amount due, but you are making provision for some permanent abatement; and what, under the rules empowered under Baron Deasy's Act, do the County Court Judges do—Judges who have never done anything for the Irish tenant—what do they do when the tenant comes in with the full vent and costs, and puts it down in settlement of the landlord's claim? Why, the landlord may say—"No; I will not have that, but I will have every penny which has accrued for a year and a-half, during the -whole time the decree has been running." It cannot be denied that the Court would agree to that. It is the
  410
  148th rule of the Civil Bill Courts, and I myself have had to experience its working in cases of redemption. But that is not all. I doubt if any question or dispute could arise, because everything is settled plainly in the document which has been referred to. The only case where any difficulty could possibly arise would be where the landlord has been in possession, and where some profit is claimed. But why should not the tenant be reinstated, allowing such questions as this which may crop up to be decided bylaw. Does the Committee understand this, that the tenant can never recover payment of his costs? No matter how unreasonable the case against him may be, he can never get his costs. I am quite satisfied as to that, so far as the Civil Bill Courts are concerned. I have actually known cases where even the Judges were against the landlords, and yet the tenants could not get their costs. Now, this is the position which the hon. Member for South Tyrone has put—the tenant may be put to all manner of expense, and yet he never can recover any of his costs, no matter how right he may be. If a dispute arises between the parties, it can only be about the landlord's profits—what else can it be about? You do not want the tenant to pay the subsequent gale surely, and every penny that has accrued up to the day he has applied for restitution of possession? Let the tenant go and pay the amount endorsed on the decree, or the amount of the order under the 22nd clause, and let that amount give him a right of restitution. If you would arrange that a man having so tendered and so paid should be restored, and that every tenancy made with him should be a present tenancy, that would do. Except in equity and by estop a present tenancy should be given, and that would be enough. I think there ought to be no difficulty in accenting the Amendment.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I wish to say a very few words on this subject. It is not a question as to whether the present law is a good law or a bad law; but it is quite obvious that we cannot reconstruct the Land Law of Ireland in a Bill which is intended to be a temporary measure of relief. What I wish to do is this. I wish to appeal to hon. Members opposite to bear in mind that if Amendments

  411
  of this character are to be debated in this way in the House it will kill the Bill. It is not that the Amendments themselves may not be Amendments such as, Tinder other circumstances, it may be quite proper to consider—it is not that they are not Amendments which it may be quite proper to consider when the Land Act of 1881 is being amended and dealt with by this House ab initio. But I wish to appeal to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and to tell them that if they desire the Bill to pass they must understand that considerations of time, and time alone, render it impossible to give that consideration which may be most necessary before questions of this character can be settled. We do not alter the law adversely to the tenant; we do not in the slightest degree injure his position; and if hon. Gentlemen opposite think that a change in the law is necessary, and put their desire for that change before the advantages which are to be given, as we hope and believe by this Bill to the tenant, then I say they run great risk of killing the Bill on the mere point of time. I put that consideration fairly, and without the least anger or prejudice. I put it before hon. Members in order that they may fully realize the extreme difficulty of the position in which they place the Bill by pressing Amendments of this character. Amendments to the general Land Law, and not to this particular Bill.
  MR. PARNELL: All I can say, Sir, is that if there is no time to discuss and debate this Amendment at fair and reasonable length, then there is no time to discuss and debate any Amendment in the whole Bill. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is unreasonable that Amendments should be discussed and debated.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I said Amendments to the general Land Law of Ireland.
  MR. PAENELL: The right hon. Gentleman admits that it would be reasonable to discuss these Amendments, if there was time. Then, all I can is that in the consideration of an Amendment of this importance it is the duty of the Government to find time. The right hon. Gentleman and his Government were able to find time and to give nearly the whole Session to the discussion and debate of a Coercion Bill, his a singular thing that they are not
  412
  able to find time to discuss and debate a few Amendments of an ameliorating character. Sir, it is not the intention of my hon. Friends or myself to discuss or debate at length many of the Amendments to this clause. At my instance. I may mention, hon. Members who had placed Amendments on the Paper yesterday and the day before have taken off nearly half of them, and of those which remain, I suppose, fully one-half are consequential Amendments. Of the half of the Amendments which are not consequential Amendments we should have carefully considered which we should have brought forward for the consideration of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has not met us fairly when he refuses to allow us time to consider important Amendments, when he threatens or suggests—I will not say threatens—that the Bill shall be withdrawn unless we refrain from discussing the few vital Amendments, one of the four or five vital Amendments to this clause which we had intended to press. Now, I do not think it is an unreasonable course for us to adopt to select four or five Amendments out of 90 which were put down, and out of 190 which might have boon put down, for discussion and debate. It is not our fault if the right hon. Gentleman, by introducing a permanent alteration of the Irish Land Law in a Bill avowedly of a temporary character, compels us to ask the House in our turn to consider permanent matters also. Now, it will be very easy for the Government to say that they will endeavour to introduce alterations into the Bill on Report in the direction suggested by the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). It will be quite easy for the Government to give such an Amendment; and even admitting that the Amendment of my hon. Friend carries with it unforeseen consequences, the Government Law Officers can easily undertake on the Report stage to construct a new clause, and to propose Amendments in the Bill dealing with Baron Deasy's Act in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The wishes of the hon. Member were very fairly and plainly explained to the Committee. His suggestion is a reasonable one—namely, that; where a tender of rent arid costs has been made to the landlord, or it may be

  413
  has been made to the Sheriff, at any time within the six months allowed for redemption, then the onus should be thrown on the landlord to initiate proceedings to disallow the tenant's title. That is a reasonable proposition; and I am informed by hon. legal Friends around me that the Government would find no difficulty in the world in framing a section so as to carry out that object. That proposition has boon made, and I hope the Government will accept it. It is a matter of great and vital moment: and if the Government do not accept this | proposal, depend upon it the titles of the small tenants in the West and South of Ireland will be broken wholesale.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The clause itself changes the law in a most important way; and I do not think the Irish Members, whether from North or South, have gone out of their way at all in order to make the law fall as lightly as possible on those who come under it.
  MR. CHANCE: Might I point out the precise thing which is to be done? It is desirable that an Amendment, in the sense of the observations of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, should be drawn up. The Government allege that there is no time to make these alterations; but I venture to say that in five minutes the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, or the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England, could draw up an Amendment which would carry out to the very letter, with the extremest exactitude, what the hon. Member for South Tyrone desires. What we want is that instead of going into Court in a non-contentious case—instead of being eaten up and ruined by law costs—the tenant should be enabled to go to Sheriffs' officers and pay over to them the rent and costs, and get automatically a receipt for that, accompanied by some form, or writ, which should entitle him to come into his holding, and that if then any other trouble happens to take place the onus of proof should fall on the landlord's shoulders. I deny that there would be any difficulty in carrying that out. The whole thing could be done in five minutes or less; and yet the Government, on this point, which is a vital one, which would save the tenants of Ireland thousands of pounds, will not do what is desirable.
  DR. COMMINS: We know that if a settlement is made between landlord and tenant, ending the six months allowed for redemption, that settlement will not reinstate the tenant in his former tenancy unless there is a long written document, or something that would be very expensive, in order to show that it is a free gift to him. The whole question here is a question of the status of the tenant. Is he to be allowed to preserve, by payment of the debt and costs, the status of a present tenant, entitled to the benefits of the Act of 1881, or is he not? It is stated that the whole object of this section is to deprive him of that status. Now, carrying the idea of the hon. Member for South Tyrone a little further, I would ask the Government to consider, if they will condescend to meet us at all in this matter, whether they cannot make the payment or the settlement between the landlord and tenant, during the six months allowed for redemption, to be a primâ facie restoration of the former tenancy? I would also ask that the burden of proof should be upon the landlord.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 142: Majority 22.—(Div. List, No. 331.)
  MR. JAMES STUART: I have been asked to move the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Bern-nard Samuelson); but as its rejection would also involve an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) I would like to be allowed to move the latter instead.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is a manuscript Amendment before that.
  MR. O'KELLY: Yes, in my name, in page 3, line 2, after the word "of," to insert "not less than." However, this is a consequential Amendment to an Amendment which has not been successful; therefore I will not move it.
  MR. JAMES STUART: The Amendment I beg to move is in page 3, line 2, to leave out "six," and to insert "twelve." I move that because this clause, which stands in the middle of the Bill, will have such a severe, and I believe such an injurious action upon the tenant, that I desire, in common

  415
  with many others, to make amends to the tenant for the action of the clause, and more especially at the commencement of the working of the clause, that the tenants may not be taken unaware by the action of the provision. I feel, Sir, considering the circumstances of the case, that the tenants will suffer injury through the serving of this notice, which will come in the form of an ejectment upon them like a wolf in sheep's clothing, and without the tenant really apprehending what is being done. I think, Sir, that the object of this Bill being to postpone as far as possible, and to prevent as far as possible—at least, so the Government say they intend—ejectments, I think that the end professed by the Government in the Bill would be served and assisted by the substitution of 12 months for six in this place. No doubt, many of us on this side of the House would have been more pleased with this Bill if this clause had been left out; and if the existence of the clause—which I do not propose to argue as a whole at present—had not left us in doubt as to whether, on the whole, we really desire the Bill ultimately to pass or not. But there can be no doubt that the substitution of 12 months for six months in this particular part of the clause would help to reconcile many to this Bill, and to make many people feel that the object of the Government was not, as some imagine it to be, from the existence of this clause, to give additional facilities to the landlords. I have no doubt of the good faith of the Government; and I trust that they may find it in their power to accept this Amendment, fixing the period at 12 months instead of six months. I beg to move the Amendment on the Paper.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 2, leave out "six," and insert "twelve."—(Mr. Stuart.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I think that no one has ever suggested that this Bill, taken as a whole, is a Bill in the interests of the landlords. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman is to substitute 12 months for six mouths as the period of redemption, and the object he has in view is to prevent the tenant being taken by surprise, as he has expressed it, by the clause as it stands. I
  416
  think the object of the hon. Gentleman is a good one in itself, and deserves consideration, and I shall be quite willing to state the view of the Government as to the means by which the end in view may be attained. I think the method suggested by the hon. Member is not practicable. The period of six months is no doubt a necessary, and, on the whole, a beneficial incident of the present, but it has difficulties. During that six months neither the landlord nor the tenant know what position they stand in relatively to each other. The period is a period of expense, and it will be a serious evil, and will not conduce to an ultimate settlement, if we increase the period to 12 months; but while for that reason we cannot accept the Amendment the hon. Gentleman has moved, we think there is something to be said for the argument he has used in support of the Amendment, and I shall be prepared shortly to suggest to the Committee as an alternative that it might be a good thing to introduce an interval of a month between the time at which power is obtained from the Court and the ejectment of the tenant—between the time at which power is obtained from the Court and the ejectment of the tenant and the time at which the notice is served by which the ejectment will be carried into effect. Whether that will meet the views of the hon. Gentleman I do not know; but I think everyone will feel that in carrying that out we have the interests of the tenant in view. What I propose is to insert an Amendment providing that the notice may be served "after one month from the date of the judgment, and not earlier, save by leave o f the Court.''
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I agree with my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment—that is, so far as the assertion of a principle is concerned I entirely agree with him—but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in the rather important announcement he has made, seems to suggest another Amendment fur securing the same purpose. The right hon. Gentleman suggests this interval—I suppose in the form of a now clause.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know how it would be best to introduce it; but perhaps it might be convenient for me to read the Amendment as it might be inserted. These words might be inserted in line 4, page 3, after the word "served"

  417
  namely, "after one month from the date of the judgment, but not earlier, eave by leave of the Court."
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Yes; the tenant, as I understand it, will have a period given between the landlord getting the decree in the Court and the service of the notice that that decree has been obtained. Of course, so far as that goes it gives the tenant a clear month, and is, therefore, a distinct advantage to him. I venture to suggest that even if the Government do not see their way—I shall regret it if they do not, but if they do not—to acceding to the spirit of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman and extending the time for redemption, that they should, if possible, give one more condition in favour of the tenant. They have given one condition, as the Chief Secretary for Ireland has just announced; but there is one step which they might take, and, I think, without any serious disadvantage to the landlord, and with considerable advantage to the tenant. They should give the tenant a clear month of undisturbed possession between the service of the notice and the actual ejectment. The effect of the two things together—namely, the arrangement that the Chief Secretary has announced the willingness of the Government to accede to, and the change I venture to press upon them, would be that the tenant would have two clear months in which to bestir himself and to look around him, and, if possible, to come to terms with his landlord. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that this second concession is in reality less than it would appear, because by the law as it stands—if I am well informed—the tenant has 10 or 11 days between the service of the notice and the disturbance of his possession. Then the amount of the eon-cession that I venture to suggest to Her Majesty's Government is in reality no more than 20 days. The result of the two concessions would be, as I have already said, that the tenant would have two months to turn round in. I very respectfully, and with a very earnest desire to forward the progress of this Bill, venture to make that suggestion to Her Majesty's Government, and to express the hope that they will give it their favourable consideration.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I would point out what the Government must know
  418
  very well The Sessions in Ireland at which ordinary appeals are granted are the December Sessions, which last three weeks; and a decree made at the Sessions may not issue until the day the Court rises. All the decrees are dated the first day of the Sessions. Three weeks, therefore, of the month of so-called undisturbed possession of the tenant may have to be necessarily consumed by the proceedings in Court. In the county with which I am connected it is known that the Sessions will last through the ordinary time, and all decrees date from the beginning of that period—no single decree can issue before the termination of that time. Then the landlord has to serve the relieving officer with notice, in order that, if necessary, he may be prepared with accommodation in the workhouse for the persons to be evicted. Under the existing law it is necessary that that process should be gone through before the Sheriff can execute the decree. It is possible that another month would elapse through delays of this kind before the decree could be executed; so that, in point of fact, what professes to be a boon in the matter of the extension of time, may be an absolute shortening of the time. I declare that as one who has had practical experience. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) suggests that the tenant should be allowed to remain in undisturbed possession for another month before any proceedings against him as caretaker could be taken. That really adds nothing to the advantage of the tenant, because, as I already pointed out, the period during which the Sheriff ordinarily would have to make his arrangements before evicting would cover that time. So that if two months were added, the position of the tenant, after the passing of this Bill, would not be improved in regard to this question of time. If the right hon. Gentleman would move an Amendment to the effect that the notice should date from the last day of the Sessions, which is the date from which all orders run, it would be satisfactory in some measure; because, until then, and until three days after the Sessions rise in fact, no decree can be given out. After the period of the delivery from the Clerk of the Peace to the plaintiff's solicitor a month should run. That would mean a month. I am

  419
  glad to see that the hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) assents to that proposal. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not understand that the Sessions in Ireland last so long, and did not understand that every decree is dated from the first day of the Sessions. I say, again, I am speaking of what I know. Therefore, in point of fact, if the concession is intended in a generous spirit, it will be given as from, the time when the decree should not be entertainable. I am sure that the period which would thus be allowed would be a very short time if the right hon. Gentleman will advise the Government to retain the power of claiming arrears which might accrue up to the time of redemption. However, on that matter I am not able to tell the Committee anything more than what I know by practical experience, and that is that if the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary were accepted even, and that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, it would shorten rather than lengthen the present period of redemption.
  COLONEL WARING: the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle is almost identical with one I myself made yesterday. We Irish landlords should be entirely satisfied if that arrangement were carried out.
  MR. PARNELL: The suggestion that there should be one month between the decree and the service of the notice, and a further interval between the service of the notice and the tenant's eviction—that I take it is the proposal—["No, no!"] Yes, the suggestion made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland has reference to the interval between the ejectment decree and the service of the notice to leave, and the further suggestion of the j right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle is that there should be an interval of a month between the service of the notice and the loss of the tenant's status by his becoming a caretaker. I understand that these are the two suggestions before the Committee. Well, with reference to these suggestions, I have to say that I think it would be better that there should be one period, and that that period should be a longer time than is proposed. Instead of giving a period after the obtaining of the
  420
  decree and prior to the service of the notice, you should give a period of grace to the tenant after the service of that notice, because the tenantry in Ireland are not used to decrees, and are ignorant of the state of the law; and would not attach that importance which it would be necessary to attach to a decree under the clause of the Government. The tenant might let slip his time. When, however, he got his notice, there would be a new step, and his attention would be attracted by this. He would, of course, commence to inquire what was the significance of this notice. If you, therefore, give your period of grace after the service of the notice, I think it would assist the tenant; and I do not see what harm it could do to the landlord. If you do this, the period allowed would assist the tenant much better than you would assist him by dividing the period into two terms. I would suggest then that if the Government would agree to give three months interval after the service of the notice and after the tenant becomes a caretaker, that we might close this question with regard to the extension of the period of grace. It seems to me that what I propose would carry out the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and also the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, except that the landlord, instead of losing two months, would lose three, which is not a very large extension of time for the tenant.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must say that it is rather irregular to go into this question on the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I am sorry that the proposal I made on the part of the Government should not have been met in a more favourable spirit. As to the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, we are prepared to accept it, though I would point out that there is, perhaps, more in the question than some of the hon. Gentlemen near me might think. I do not think the Committee has thoroughly apprehended the real position of the tenant under this clause—they seem to have in their minds what he is supposed to lose, but I do not think they have reflected upon what he gains. When a landlord evicts a tenant the latter does not become a caretaker, he goes out neck and crop; but under our clause,

  421
  as it stands without either of the Amendments suggested, the tenant is placed in a better position, because he cannot be turned out under any circumstances for 11 days at least after the service of the notice. Hon. Gentlemen appear to consider that it is a matter of indifference to the landlord whether a man is made compulsorily a caretaker or not. There is no hardship to a landlord if he voluntarily makes a man a caretaker, but there may be considerable hardships in a landlord being compelled to take a man for a month as caretaker without being willing to do so, and the reason of this is obvious. During that month a man admitted as caretaker might commit serious waste, and there is no means of stopping him. The landlord is powerless to stop him—the landlord is powerless in the matter, and must admit the man, although he may be a person to whom the landlord may have the very strongest objection, and whom for many reasons no may have every right to get rid of. The man will be fastened in the holding for a month, during which period he may do any amount of damage. I only state that in order to show that from the landlord's point of view it is a considerable concession for us to carry out the request which has been made to us. But for the sake of peace, I think we are justified in not refusing the suggestion which has been made. I trust we shall not be pressed to go further in the matter. As to the suggestion by the bon. Member opposite (Mr. O'Doherty), be raised a question connected, I think, with the practice of Quarter Sessions. Well, I have no knowledge of the practice of Quarter Sessions, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when we talk of a month we mean a month. At any rate, we will inquire into the matter, and if we find that the Amendment suggested does not really give the tenant a full month between the obtaining of the decree and the execution of it, we will introduce a further Amendment to carry out what is really the intention of the Government.
  MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr.): I quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman says, that he will take care that a month is given if he finds that his Amendment will not have that effect. But he has not touched the point to which the hon. Member (Mr. O'Doherty) drew attention. The decree is dated the
  422
  first day of the Session, but it may not be issued until the last day of the Session, and then before it can be served two days notice is to be given to the Poor Law Guardians. Then there are three days notice for appeal, so that by giving only a month you are absolutely shortening the period. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the month he refers to? If there is to be two months given in the sense in which we have spoken, then we can quite understand that there is a full month granted. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the month given or offered should be a month beginning one month after the date of the decree? Otherwise, instead of the right hon. Gentleman giving anything to the tenant, he would be actually taking something away from him and shortening the period of grace. It must be borne in mind that a month may elapse between the day of the issue of the decree and the day upon which it is served. That you cannot, help. Therefore, giving a month means nothing. If you say that you give two months, then you are practically carrying out the proposal that you yourselves have made. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland understands this matter clearly. If he does not, it is probable that we shall be involved in a long discussion on it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I perfectly understand the matter.
  MR. MOLLOY: Then I will not go further into it.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: Might I mention, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland seems to be in error, as to no precaution being taken to prevent waste during that month, that there is a special provision in the Act of 1860 which provides for a tenancy or occupancy of 29 or 30 days or any shorter period, and in such provision it is enacted that if such tenant attempts to do anything wrong you can go to the magistrates and summarily put him out for it. That procedure was referred to Yesterday.
  MR. O'KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the undertaking that the month will start from the final day of the Sessions in which the decree is issued?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I perfectly understand the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, and I think it well worthy

  423
  of consideration. I shall be glad to do what I can to carry out his suggestion. We must, however, have some time to consider the matter, for the reason that we are dealing here not only with judgments in the Inferior Courts, but with judgments in the Superior Courts, and there may be some difference between the one and the other. My view is that the practice of the Inferior Courts may be such that it probably may be the best plan to mate it two months from the first day of the Session. If hon. Members will allow us to wait until the Report stage, we will consider the matter and take steps to bring about a satisfactory settlement of the point in question.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Shoreditch withdraw his Amendment?
  MR. JAMES STUART: Yes.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Roscommon move Amendment No. 34?
  MR. O'KELLY: Yes. I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, after "notice," to insert—
  "Shall state truly the exact amount to be paid for redemption, and the place or places where and the person or persona to whom the same may be paid or tendered during the said period, and."
  The object of this Amendment is to facilitate redemption. I move it in view of the difficulty that ignorant tenants sometimes experience in finding the proper persons to whom payment may be made. I think the Government will agree with me that this is a landlord's Amendment as well as a tenant's Amendment, and they will probably have no difficulty in accepting it.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 3, after "notice," insert "shall state truly the exact amount to be paid for redemption, and the place or places where and the person or persons to whom the same may be paid or tendered during the said period, and,"—(Mr. O'Kelly.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GIBSON: We are perfectly ready to accept the proposal.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg, Sir, to move, according to the understanding
  424
  which has been arrived at, the manuscript Amendment which I have handed to you, that is to say, in page 3, line 4, after the word "served," to insert "after one month from the date of the judgment, and not earlier, unless the Court so permit."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 4, after the word "served," insert "after one month from the date of the judgment, and not earlier, unless the Court so permit."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: On behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name. I do think the Government ought to accept this proposal. It does not strike at the principle of the clause, but simply amounts to a very trivial detail in it. Under Baron Deasy's Act, the Act of 1860, the landlord got very great protection in the matter of the person upon whom he was to serve notice for the execution of an ejectment. He had only to serve the party in. occupation of the land when he served the ejectment. This section, following out the principle laid down in Baron Deasy's Act, states that the notice is to be served on the person who at the time of service shall be in possession of the land, so that if at any time between the obtaining of the ejectment and the service of the notice the occupier of the land is not in actual possession, though he might retain his interest in it, it will be competent for the landlord to serve the notice upon the person actually in possession. The ejectment decree might, therefore, be obtained and served without the knowledge of the person most interested, because he may not be on the land at the time of the service of the notice. I think that that is very unfair. It is conceivable that a very long interval might elapse before the absolute ejectment takes place under this clause. It is a common thing, after judgment has been obtained in the Superior Court, for a long interval to elapse before it is put into force, and it is quite possible for some change to take place in the occupancy during that interval. What I propose is, that the landlord should be bound under this clause to serve the notice upon every person served with

  425
  the writ or process in such ejectment by striking out the words "who at the time of the service of the notice shall be in possession of such land." No hardship can be inflicted on the landlord. Persons who have what may be valuable interests in their holdings may have their rights lapse without any knowledge being conveyed to them that the time of redemption is running. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) will see I make this proposal perfectly bonâ fide to remedy what I think is a defect in the machinery of the clause. My Amendment does not strike at the principle of the clause, and, therefore, the Government may fairly be inclined to accept it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 7, to leave out all the words from the word "who "to the word "land," inclusive, in line 8.—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. GIBSON: If this Amendment were carried, it would directly place power in the hands of the tenant to frustrate the object of the clause. In order to dispossess the tenant by a process of eviction, or by the service of this notice which is substituted for the ordinary writ of possession, it is necessary that the notice should be served on every tenant who is in possession, and the words which are proposed to be struck out are words which direct that should be done only upon the person originally served with the writ who, at the time of the service of the notice, shall be in possession of the land. Now, if these words were struck out, the effect would be that if a man were in possession as under tenant at the date the writ was served, he, by retiring from the scene, may make it wholly impossible for the landlord to serve on him the requisite notice. [Cries of "No, no!"] That will be the effect of leaving out these words. What we provide is that a certain number of persons shall be served with the writ—the tenant and the under tenant. What you must provide for is a service of the notice which is to consummate an ejectment. If you were to provide that the persons originally served were only to be served with this notice, you would practically render it impossible to carry out an ejectment at all. Suppose the
  426
  writ is dated the 1st of January, and the service of the notice is not till eight or nine months afterwards, and some of the tenants are dead and have no next-of-kin or representative. According to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. M. Heal} the result would be that you would never be able to carry out an ejectment at all, because you would not be able to serve the persons who were originally served with the writ. It is quite possible to conceive that a man would retire from the scene so that he could not be served with the notice. Besides, if a person originally served died or left the country, say in the ordinary course of matters, an ejectment could not be brought to an effective conclusion. For these reasons we cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, and I do not think that he will say that the reasons I have urged are not of great weight.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I take the liberty, Mr. Courtney, of contradicting the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the flattest manner consistent with politeness. I took considerable pains, which have apparently been of no avail, to explain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Committee, in the remarks I made in introducing this Amendment, wiry it would not have the effect the right hon. and learned Gentleman imagines it would have. It will not have such an effect, because this section takes power to serve an ejectment in a prescribed manner, and it goes on to direct that the prescribed manner shall be in such manner as shall be prescribed by the County Court Judge. Unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman means to contend that the County Court Judges of Ireland are men wanting in intelligence and capacity, so that they are not able to frame a rule to meet the particular case he puts, then I fail to see the drift of his remarks. The clause provides that the service shall be in the prescribed manner; but it goes on to direct that the service may be by postage, so that really the right hon. and learned Gentleman has conjured up a difficulty which could not by any possibility exist, and he has not taken the trouble to explain how the difficulty I have suggested to him as arising from the present form of the clause could possibly be met—namely, the case of the tenant who might without any

  427
  sinister object, who might without any object of frustrating the ejectment, but in perfect good faith and for reasons which rendered it necessary, have been compelled, for one reason or another, while retaining his interests in the holding, to quit the holding temporarily or permanently. I have to complain that an Amendment of this reasonable character has not been met by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a candid spirit. In the speech to which we have just listened he avoided the real question which has been raised, he avoided the arguments by which the Amendment is supported, with the only object, so far as I can see, of misleading the Committee and of giving as little information as possible.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to move to insert, after "land," in line 8, "and upon any person legally or equitably entitled to redeem their said tenancy." This Amendment is intended to protect the persons having an interest in the redemption of the tenant right other than the tenant. Cases arise in Ireland in which traders advance money to the tenants to pay their rent, and these persons acquire by mortgage or otherwise an interest in the tenancies, and unless notice be given to them they will lose their rights of redemption, where the tenants themselves are not in a position to redeem. I believe that sometimes in such cases there is collusion between the landlord and tenant. I trust that, in the interest of fair play, the Government will be inclined to accept this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 8, after "land," insert "and upon any person legally or equitably entitled to redeem their said tenancy."—(Mr. O'Kelly.)
  Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GIBSON: The reason why it will be impossible to accept this Amendment is that the persons with whom the landlord has to do are the persons who are actually in possession. It is wholly, impossible for him to ascertain who are persons who have an interest in the tenancy, or who may be entitled legally or otherwise to redeem a tenancy. An inquiry of such a nature might be of an endless character, and if a landlord could
  428
  not obtain ejectment until he served these persons, the number of mortgages would be considerably increased. There are already a good number of mortgages, but I think they would be still further augmented if an Amendment of this kind were accepted. It is not altogether unreasonable for me to say that this Amendment ought not to be pressed. I may mention to the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment, no doubt in perfect good faith, that his object is perhaps sufficiently met by an Amendment further down upon the Paper—namely, the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), which requires that this notice shall be published in a paper circulating in the district, and that a copy shall be sent in a registered letter addressed to the tenant. That will give a certain amount of publicity, at all events.
  MR. O'KELLY: Will the Government accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend?
  MR. GIBSON: I shall offer no objection to it.
  MR. O'KELLY: Then I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 8, after "land," insert "in all such cases a copy of the said notice shall be published in a paper circuiting in the district, and a copy shall be sent in a registered letter to the tenant."—{Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GIBSON: May I suggest that the Amendment should be amended by the insertion of the words "if any," after "paper," because it is well known that there are places in Ireland where no newspapers circulate?
  MR. SEXTON: I have considerable knowledge of Ireland, though perhaps it is not so extensive as that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am not aware, however, of any district in Ireland where some paper does not circulate. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman pursue the matter a little further and indicate the district in which newspapers do not circulate?
  MR. GIBSON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree to substitute the word "newspaper" for "paper."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "paper," in order to insert "newspaper."—(Mr. Gibson.)
  Question, "That the word 'paper' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'newspaper' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON: I now beg to propose to leave out the word "such," in line 8. The object of this Amendment is to secure that a notice shall come to the tenant's knowledge. Under the clause, as It stands, unless the person who is legally liable to be served with the notice happens to be in possession, the notice may be posted. In many cases in Ireland the persons legally liable to be served live in other parts of Ireland, or are often absent on business in England and Scotland. I think the notice may be fairly served on any person who happens to be in possession.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 8, leave out "such."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. GIBSON: We have already agreed that the persons to be served are the persons who are really in possession as tenants and under-tenants. It is only such, not those persons who happen to be in actual possession, who are to be served with the notice. You cannot introduce a new person to be served, as the omission of the word "such" would involve. If we agree to this Amendment, we should really have to go back upon what we have already done.
  MR. SEXTON: But if the tenant is away, will the notice be posted on the promises?
  MR. GIBSON: I understand so.
  MR. SEXTON: And will the notice be published in a newspaper circulating in the district?
  MR. GIBSON: First of all you will have to address a registered letter to the tenant, and, of course, the notice will be published in the district under the former Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance), and it suggests the omission of Subsection 2. I desire, upon this occasion, to raise a discussion on the whole of this paragraph, which appears to me to be a paragraph of a very anomalous nature indeed. The result of this subsection and the next sub-section is to effect a legal paradox. It is to make a tenant a caretaker, and while lie is care taker he is to be a tenant. That, I understand, is the effect of this section. [MR. GIBSON dissented.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland shakes his head; but I think I shall succeed in showing that that is exactly the effect of this sub-section. I quite conceive that an absurdity of the kind I mention was not in the minds of the original framers of the clause; it was one of the clever gentlemen who sit in "another place" who succeeded in bringing about this absurdity. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the latter portion of Sub-section 3 he will see that it provides that at the end of the period of six months from the service of such notice the right of redemption shall be at an end. And then it goes on—
  "When a judgment in ejectment for nonpayment of rent has been executed before the passing of this Act, the time within which a writ of restitution of possession may be applied for shall be the time limited by the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ireland), 1860, in that behalf."
  Now, what is the effect of that? From the moment the notice is served the tenant is a caretaker. He cannot lay a finger on any of the plant that is on the holding, or on any part of the crops that are in the ground. From the moment of the service of this notice the crops become the property of the landlord, subject to the tenant's right of redemption, and by the hypothesis the tenant is not going to redeem, because that is the basis on which we start. From the fact that he is a caretaker the tenant has no right to the crops; he cannot sell them, and he cannot convert them to his own use. If, perchance, he should redeem the tenancy, the landlord is to have the whole benefit of the crops, the tenant is to lose all claim to them, and all right to call the landlord to account. Now that, I say, involves a legal paradox.

  431
  The Government cannot mean to deprive the tenant of the property in his crops. What they must mean is this—that though the tenant is for the purpose of this section a caretaker, he is to go on dealing with the crops during the six months allowed for redemption exactly as he would deal with them were he tenant, and that he is not to account for them to the landlord. I think I am justified in maintaining that this section places the tenant in the position of being a tenant at one time and a caretaker at another time. I ask the Attorney General for Ireland why, if the tenant is to be absolutely a caretaker, that is a servant of the landlord, and only able to deal with the crops on the laud as the landlord's servant, and if he can be called to account by the landlord, which this position involves, should this section go on to enact that the landlord is not to be called upon to account for these things? Now, this is the first point I beg to raise upon this paragraph. The second point is the peculiar status which, this sub-section practically provides for the tenant on the service of the notice. Now, unquestionably, the Government originally intended by this section that the tenant was in some way to gain something by having a notice served upon him, instead of being put out. They succeeded in conveying to the House and the country, that in lieu of any right he had under the existing law they intended that he should have a right of continuing in possession during the time in which the period of redemption was running. Up to the present time they have contended that in most cases that will be the effect of the clause. I understand them to argue that the landlord will have no interest in putting a tenant out during the six months. If that be so, and if this section is to be in any sense a benefit to the tenant, I claim that the Government should go the full length of enacting that the tenant shall be preserved in his possession of the holding during the whole period of the six months. There would be no difficulty whatsoever in carrying out that provision, because, instead of enacting that the tenant is to be caretaker, it would be very easy to provide that the service of this notice should in law be a sort of attornment. I appeal to the Government to reconsider the clause in that sense, and I ask them
  432
  that, instead of deciding to make the tenant a caretaker, and instead of leaving him in the position in which the very day after the notice is served the landlord may put him out, either by a magistrate's order or by legal process, they should take into consideration the desirability of continuing the tenant as a tenant for the period of six months by some such process as is now resorted to while the tenant is willing to sign an attornment. On these two points I ask the learned Attorney General to explain exactly what the views of the Government are. I ask that the tenant shall not be put in the extremely anomalous position which this clause, as at present framed, puts him in. It seems to me an absurdity that the clause should make elaborate provision that the Court should not be at liberty to execute its own decree for six months, and at the same time leave the tenant open to the effect of an order made against him in an Inferior Court—leave him to be put out by the landlord as the landlord's servant.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 14, leave out sub-section 2.—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'every person' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. GIBSON: I do not know whether I should be in Order in discussing both points which have been raised by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Maurice Healy), because it strikes me that one of them will be raised upon a subsequent Amendment. It appears inconvenient that on a general Motion of this kind matters should be discussed which will be raised later on. I may briefly say, however, that the reason why there is found in Sub-section 3 the provision exonerating the landlord from liability is this, that where the landlord chooses a caretaker under the existing law, the landlord is responsible for the crops; but where an Act of Parliament creates a caretaker, whether the landlord likes it or not, it would be hard on the landlord that he should be responsible for any loss which might occur during the six months in which the period of redemption is running. I cannot discuss the matter now, because I should not be in Order. With regard to the suggestion that the clause should be amended

  433
  so as to alter the character of the caretaker, and that he should be a tenant for six months certain, all I can say is that the suggestion appears in admissible. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) intends to move an Amendment to the effect that the caretaker shall not La dispossessed for one month. Such a provision as that the Government are willing to adopt. It must be remembered that a compulsory caretaker gets no wages, and he pays no rent.
  MR. DILLON: I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands what our object is. In the Act of 1860 there is provision made for two forms of executing AH ejectment, and in one of those forms it is specially provided that you can execute a decree of ejectment without removing a tenant from the premises, and without reducing him to the position of a caretaker. That is, at all events, the case in regard to sub-tenancies. By signing an attornment, the tenant retains possession of the premises by the leave and permission of the landlord, and the man who signs an attornment is in a totally different position to a caretaker. He can remain in the holding unless he commits waste, and the Act of 1860 provides a remedy for the landlord in case the tenant commits waste. If the tenant commits waste, the landlord can treat him as he would a caretaker; he can evict him by order of the Petty Sessions. Under the Act of 1860 a man who does not commit waste on the holding cannot be evicted by an order of the Petty Sessions, like a caretaker, but he can only be evicted by a Civil Bill process. The landlord has to go before the Quarter Sessions, and the tenant has at least a considerable time allowed him. We have been told over and over again that one of the chief objects of this section is to prevent evictions. Any hon. Gentleman who has studied the question knows that at the conclusion of Sub-section 1, occur the following words:—
  " Upon such service or posting, the tenancy in the holding shall be determined as if a writ of possession under the judgment had been duly executed."
  Well, now, it may appear to some Members that that is inconsistent with our proposal. It is, however, nothing of the sort, because, as I have shown, there is a provision made under the Act of
  434
  1860, by which a tenancy can be determined, and yet the tenant be retained in a totally different status from the position of caretaker. What we ask is that while the effect of the notice shall be to determine the tenancy, the status of the tenant shall be the status of a man who has made an attornment. We are quite content to adopt some provision whereby the tenant shall be left in possession on such terms as the County Court may determine. In justification of our proposal, we may fairly, and without prejudice to Order, point to the extraordinary change which is proposed to be made in Sub-section 3. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland did not give any real or sound reason for the making of that change. We know perfectly well that one of the strongest reasons which prevent landlords from, evicting caretakers, and which induces thorn to leave caretakers undisturbed for the six months, is that, according to the provisions of the Act of 1860, the landlord, in case of redemption, must account for the profits of the farm. This acts as a great terror to the landlords in respect to eviction, because it is very difficult for the landlord to account for the profits of a farm. In the face of that provision, we have the strongest case in asking the Government that the effect of this notice shall be not to make a caretaker of the tenant, but to put him in the position of a man making an attornment. I fail to see that a single reason has been given by the Attorney General for Ireland why this Amendment should not be made. I fail to see why the interests of a landlord need any greater protection, if this clause is passed, as against caretakers than they did before The Attorney General for Ireland stated that all the law does is to enable the landlord to make a caretaker of the tenant. You have refused, up to the present, to grant the tenant undisturbed possession while he is a caretaker. The landlord is as free under this clause to evict a tenant within a week, or, if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) is accepted, within a month of the time the tenant is made a caretaker, as ever he was. Therefore, what ground is there for saying to the landlord—"You shall not be obliged to account to the tenant in the same way as you

  435
  were before this Act was passed?" I ask the Government to consider before they commit themselves to remove by this provision one of the most powerful motives winch has operated in the minds of landlords to prevent them turning their tenants out the moment the tenancy is broken. I earnestly ask the Government to consider seriously whether they cannot meet us in the matter. I am prepared to listen to any reasonable arrangement by which the status of the tenant shall be at least as good after service of this notice as that of a man who has signed an attornment under the Act of 1860, by which it shall be the basis of the clause that during the lapse of the period of redemption the tenant shall be in undisturbed possession.
  MR. MAHONY; I merely want to impress on the Government that they have an opportunity of making the section fair and just without in any way imperilling the value of the clause from their own point of view. They say the great object of this clause is to prevent what they call double evictions; to do away with the necessity for the evictions rendered necessary by the right of redemption. Now, they have an opportunity of still carrying out their object, and yet of doing away entirely with the necessity of the eviction for the purpose of making the right of redemption. They can, at the same time, carry out much more faithfully than their clause at present does the recommendation of the Cowper Commission. The recommendation of that Commission relates solely to the advisability of making the right of redemption date from the period before the eviction takes place. The recommendation of the Commission was that the right of redemption should be dated from the obtaining of the decree. There is an objection to that. The Government say that they cannot adopt that recommendation, because they want to allow time to lapse after the attaining of the decree, in order that the landlord and tenant may come to terms. But by making the right of redemption run from the service of this notice they also do another thing—they change entirely the status of the tenant. That appears to me to be perfectly unnecessary. Why should they change the status of the tenant? Why not make the notice simply apply to the right of redemption, and let the right of redemption run from
  436
  the date of the service of the notice? It appears to me the Government have a great opportunity of meeting us on this point without in any way whatever interfering with that which they have hitherto explained to be the main principle of their clause. I do hope the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) will see his way to make some concession on this point—that is to say, making the right of redemption run from the service of the notice, and not altering the status of the tenant. At the end of the six months from the service of the notice the eviction can take place in the ordinary way, and it will be a final eviction—thero will be no right of redemption afterwards.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think that what is happening upon this clause generally is a startling exemplification of what we get by concessions. Last night we took some 20 or 30 of our Amendments off the Paper with the view of conciliating the Committee. As the result of this, the Government have treated our Amendments to-night with little or no consideration. We have heard since this came on that it is a clause to enable the landlord to avoid the unpleasantness of evictions, but we were never told that it is a proposal to take away from the tenant the six months in which he can redeem his holding. We ask the Government solemnly, do they mean that this House is to strip the Irish tenant of everything which raises him above the position of a serf? By Act of Parliament he has been granted a period of six months within which he can redeem. Now, you are going to strip him of that right, and give him one month instead. We ask you to test your bona fides. The Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) sneers because he does not understand anything about the matter. [Cries of "Order, order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not know who that hon. Member was, but his interruption was most disorderly. If I knew him, I would most certainly call upon him to withdraw.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman's performances in this House have not impressed us with his intelligence, at least upon Irish questions. At any rate, I ask the Gentleman on the Treasury Bench who is doing the Irish work for the Government, does he intend.

  437
  to allow the landlord to put the tenant out within one month of the time he chooses to serve his registered letter on the tenant; if so, what is going to become of the other live months' redemption? No answer is given, and that is our reward for taking Amendments off the Paper; we are not even to get intelligent replies. I seriously ask the Government for a plain answer to my question—what is going to become of the six months' redemption?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman considers that he and his hon. Friends have made a great concession by taking Amendments off the Paper. They have, no doubt, taken many Amendments off the Paper, and I am glad of it; but still they have left upon the Paper the not insignificant number of upwards of 50 Amendments to this clause. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was in the House, I rather think he was not, but if he was he must know we have attempted to meet, by substantial concessions, the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have adopted one large Amendment in favour of the tenant in the 1st sub-section, and we have, on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Morley), adopted another very large and substantial Amendment to this sub-section. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) asks us two or three questions as to the status of the tenant after the service of the notice. Let me point out to him what, I think, he cannot know, or he would not have brought this question before the Committee—that, in so far as this clause affects the status of the tenant after eviction, it affects it for the better. In the process of eviction the tenant may be instantly turned out; under the clause we have drafted the tenant at once becomes a caretaker, and the whole object of this sub-section is to prevent the tenant being turned out neck and crop, and to compel the landlord, whether he likes it or not, to accept him as caretaker.
  MR. DILLON: Not at all.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: You must be dreaming.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Member for North Longford asks what is to happen with the six six months' right of redemption. The
  438
  tenant's right of redemption for sis months remains exactly where it is under the existing law. The tenant has, under the existing law, six months in which he can redeem. Under the law, as it will be if this clause be passed, the tenant will have, for six months after the notice is served, the same right of redemption with this difference—that during the first of those six months he will be kept compulsorily in his holding, whether his landlord likes it or not, whereas, under the existing law, he may be turned out at once.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: He never is, and that is just the difference.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman says the tenant never is turned out.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Never in a month.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He is constantly turned out. But I need not labour the question further; I think I have answered the questions of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have shown him, I hope, to his satisfaction, that we have approached this subject in a spirit of conciliation.
  MR. PARNELL: I fail to see the spirit of conciliation of which the right hon. Gentleman boasts so much. I do not think that a clause of such stringency has ever been passed through Committee in so short a time and with so few concessions on the part of the Government as this clause. The large concessions of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks only exist in his own imagination. The right hon. Gentleman surely does not suppose that we are satisfied in the slightest degree with the nature of the concessions he speaks of. Those concessions are very small; they are almost worthless. So much for the concessions of the right hon. Gentleman; we estimate them at their true value. But, Sir, I rise to refer to the extraordinary mis-statement the right hon. Gentleman has just made as to the object of this clause. He said that the object of this sub-section is to compel the landlord to keep the tenant as a caretaker after the service of the notice. There is not the slightest foundation for the statement. The landlord is not compelled by the sub-section to keep his tenant as a caretaker for six months.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said for six months. If the hon. Gentleman

  439
  will allow me, I will explain. Under the clause as it at present stands he must be retained as a caretaker for 11 days; but under the clause as it is pro posed to be amended he must be retained as a caretaker for one month.
  MR. PARNELL: The right hon. Gentleman did not tell the Committee just now that they proposed to turn the 11 days into a month and to take that month out of the six months' period of redemption. The whole extent of the concession he makes in reply to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle(Mr. John Morley) is that he gives 19 days extra time in which the landlord will be compelled to keep the tenant as caretaker. It formerly was 11 days, it will now be 31 days, and the 31 days are to be taken out of the period of redemption. I wonder the right hon. Gentleman has the face to get up and boast to us and the Committee of the wonderful concessions the Government have made. This is but another instance of the disingenuous way in which we have been treated by the right hon. Gentleman all through these discussions. He has tried to hoodwink the Committee and the country in regard to the nature of this clause from the very first. Now, that the false pretences have been taken from this clause the right hon. Gentleman boasts of concessions. We regard his concessions and the clause very much in the same light, which is anything but a favourable light. The right hon. Gentleman need not suppose that he has got this clause under any idea on our part that he has made any concessions or that the clause is anything but a terrible injury to the tenants and a scandal to the Irish Government.
  MR. DILLON: I am astonished that the Chief Secretary for Ireland puts forward the theory of concession. It is supposed to be a great concession that this process is to be delayed for a month. We all know perfectly well what the effect of this provision is, we know that it is to expedite evictions. The execution of the decree is a scandalous and expensive process. The landlord holds back his decree for three, four, five, or six months, in the hope that the terror of that decree will bring the tenant to a settlement but under this clause a landlord will not delay for a single hour. It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend the Member for
  440
  Cork (Mr. Parnell) said, this clause may pass, but it will pass simply by threats and bullying. We may be induced by the benefits of the rest of the Bill to abate our opposition to this clause, which, but for its being incorporated in the Bill, we should fight exactly on the same lines as we fight a Coercion Bill. That being so—[Cries of "Divide, divide!" and Mr. T. M. HEALY, loudly: Order, order!]—what will be the effect of this clause? You are bringing in a Bill to bring happiness to Ireland, and in order to bring happiness to Ireland you are going to throw 8,000, 9,000, or 10,000 tenants scattered all over Ireland at the feet of their landlords, to deprive them of the benefits of your own Bill. I mean to say that 10,000 of these notices will be served directly this Bill is passed. You will have a fresh gang of discontented men in Ireland. Instead of bringing happiness to Ireland, the victims of the 4th clause will form a new association—will start a Plan of Campaign of their own. I warn the Government that they will find themselves this time next year——[Interruption.]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Get up and say what you have to say. [Loud cries of "Order, order!") I protest——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I call upon hon. Gentlemen to keep silence, and must now call upon the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) to apologize and withdraw his words.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I have only one life to lose, and I will lose it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I again call upon the hon. and learned Member to withdraw and apologize.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr. Do Lisle) was talking and interrupting my hon. Friend. Gross interruptions came from him. Now, Mr. Courtney, I consider that, if I am to be called upon to apologize, an apology ought first to come from that Gentleman. Mr. Courtney, I have been suspended for a week once this Session, and if I am suspended again it will be for a fortnight. I shall be very sorry to be suspended at your hands; but let it be done.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have no alternative. The hon. and learned Gentleman declines to withdraw.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not say that, Sir. I said that the hon. Gentle-

  441
  man the Member for Mid Leicestershire ought to be called upon to apologize first.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I again call upon the hem. Gentleman to apologize; and I ask him also to withdraw his words.
  MR. T. M. HEALT: We have been subjected to the grossest interruptions, not once, but many times. I claim at your hands the same protection as you are affording to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Are those Gentlemen to be allowed to insult us?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly not. I have interposed to prevent insult. On this occasion I called "Order, order!" when I heard the interruption, which was not a very loud one. I called "Order, order!" and if there had been any repetition of the disorder, I should have silenced it. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy; has interrupted in the most disorderly way, and I again call upon him to withdraw and apologize.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Very well, Sir; I withdraw the expression.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Mr. Courtney, may I——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. DE LISLErose——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must inform the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Lough borough Division of Leicestershire (Mr. De Lisle) that his conduct is frequently disorderly. This incident is closed.
  MR. DILLON: As far as I am personally concerned, I have never had the slightest reason to complain of the protection afforded to the Irish Members by you, Sir. When this unfortunate incident occurred, I was about to conclude my remarks. I was appealing to the Government not to add another monument to those of ignorance and incapacity which previous Governments have set up in regard to this matter, and I was warning the Government of the probability of their being called upon by this time next year to pass a Relief Bill for the men who Trill have been dispossessed and deprived of the benefits of this Hill by the operation of the 4th clause.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I desire to say one or two words before this clause is passed. As I understand the clause, the result will be to throw on the roadside 10,000 or 15,000 people. I have
  442
  only to express a hope that every man who is put out will remember his oppressors.
  MR. CHANCE: Let me draw the attention of the Committee to another of the stratagems and tricks which lie concealed in this infamous clause. There are at least 10,000 or 15,000 unfortunate men at present under the threat of eviction. They have judgments hanging over their heads for rents which Her Majesty's Government, by their Royal Commission, composed of three Tory landlords, have admitted to be unjust rents. As long as these men stand by their holdings they have at least the advantage of knowing that they are not deprived of the ordinary rights of citizenship, but have the right to exercise the franchise. Now, what is another of the infamous effects of the provisions contained in this clause. Upon the receipt of this notice tenants become caretakers. The day before a Registration Court sits in any county which may be shortly before an election contest, the landlords, by mere service of notices through the post, may degrade the Irish tenants to the position of caretakers, and deprive them of their right to vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fast that he has an Amendment on the Paper dealing with this point. When we come to his Amendment, the subject can be discussed; but he is not entitled to anticipate his own Amendment.
  MR. CHANCE: I apologize for anticipating the Amendment, Sir. I understand that we were in a sense discussing the sub-section generally. In addition to that, Sir, I may frankly say that one of my objects in making my statement now was that I saw the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) showing signs of uneasiness, and I suspected I should not have an opportunity of going into the question later on.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 218; Noes 169: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 332.)
  [12.0 MIDNIGHT.]

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER IN DEBATE— SUSPENSION OF MR. T. M. HEALY.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am under the necessity of sending for Mr. Speaker, and until he arrives the Sitting is suspended.
  The CHAIRMAN then left the Chair.
  MR. SPEAKERreturned, and the Mace having been placed upon the Table,
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): Mr. Speaker, I have to report that during the course of the Committee interruptions to the proceedings occurred on the part of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), which I called upon him to apologize for and withdraw. He did withdraw, but complained that he had been excited by the action of the hon. Member for the Lough borough Division of Leicestershire (Mr. De Lisle). A Division followed, and while Members were leaving the House the hon. Member for the Lough borough Division of Leicestershire came to my side and expostulated, or, at all events, remonstrated with me somewhat, for not having been allowed to make an explanation. While he was doing so the hon. and learned Member for North Longford approached from the back and addressed the hon. Member for the Lough borough Division of Leicestershire in these words—"Come out, De Lisle," or "Come out here"—I am not sure of which word he used—" if you are a man. If you interrupt me again I will break your neck." As the incident happened while hon. Members were leaving the House, I did not conceive that I myself had any authority to do anything in the matter, and I have asked you to return to the Chair in order that you may deal with it.
  MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. and learned Member for North Longford in his place?
  MR. T. M. HEALYraised his hat.
  MR. SPEAKER: Has the hon. and learned Member anything to say by way of explanation?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Very little, Mr. Speaker. Sir, it is perfectly true with regard to what has been said by the distinguished Chairman of this House, and I am very glad, indeed, that an incident like this has attracted so full an audience, seeing that for hours we have been discussing the interests of the Irish tenants in an empty House. [Cries of"Order, order!" and interruption.] If I am to be interrupted I shall resume my seat.
  The hon. MEMBER accordingly resumed his seat, amidst cries of "Go on, go on!" from the Irish Members.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I have only one course to pursue, if the right hon. and learned Member will not make any explanation.
  MR. T. M. HEALY(having consulted with the hon. Member for Cork, Mr. Parnell): I will make an explanation, Mr. Speaker, if I am permitted to do so. ["Oh, oh!"] I will not do so if this goes on. I desire, Sir, in the first instance, perfectly to recognize the fair ness and the courtesy with which we have been treated by the Chairman of Committees. I do not think, however, that this is an occasion for any such action as was taken by you, Sir, with regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) the other night. I do not think that there is any parity between the two cases at all. This is one——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This is not the language of an hon. and learned Member who is called upon to explain language such as this—(holding up a slip of paper). I must ask the hon. and learned Member to explain it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am endeavouring, Mr. Speaker, to put in the best language I can the position in which I felt myself placed. I feel placed in this position—that while we are accused on this side of interruption—which is perfectly true and I freely admit it, so far as I am concerned—what we consider is that interruptions coming to us from the other side are interruptions directed against us personally, and have a distinctly aggressive and provocative effect, altogether independent and apart from debate in this House. I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that, as far as I am concerned, the whole incident is hateful to me. I feel, however, no regret, as far as I am concerned, for the course I have taken. I am willing to abide the consequences.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Then I name you, Timothy Healy, to the House, for having violated, the Orders of the House in regard to the decorum of the House.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It is with infinite pain, Sir, that I have to move that Mr. Timothy Healy be suspended from the service of the House.
  Motion, made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Timothy Healy be suspended from the service of the House."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
  MR. SPEAKER: The question is, that Mr. Timothy Healy be suspended from the service of the House.
  MR. CHANCE: I am very unwilling, Sir, to interfere—[Cries of"Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! As many as are of that opinion say "Aye." [Cries of "Aye!"] The contrary "No." [Loud and repeated cries of "No!"]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg that none of my hon. Friends will vote against the Motion. I am going out.
  The hon. and learned MEMBER then loft his place and walked out of the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER: The "Ayes" have it. [Laughter from the Ministerial side of the House.]
  The following is the Entry in the Votes relating to this subject:—
  When the numbers had been declared, the Chairman quitted the Chair, having informed the Committee that he had requested the Speaker to return to the House.
  Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair:—
  Whereupon the Chairman reported to the Speaker that during the course of the Committee, interruptions to the proceedings occurred on the part of Mr. Timothy M. Healy, the honourable and learned Member for North Longford, for which he apologized, hut complained that he had been excited by the action of Mr. de Lisle, the honourable Member for Lough-borough. That, whilst Members were leaving the House for the Division, Mr. de Lisle came to him and was conferring' with him regarding an explanation he had desired to offer to the Committee, when Mr. Healy approached Mr. de Lisle, and said to him, "Come oat, de Lisle, if you are a man. If you interrupt me again, I will break your neck," and that, as these words had been used whilst the Committee was engaged in a Division, he thought it advisable to report them to the Speaker.
  The Speaker asked Mr. Healy if he had any explanation to offer to the House:—
  Mr. Healy accordingly was heard; and in the course of his observations used these words:—
  "I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that, as far as I am concerned, the whole incident is hateful to me. I feel, however, no regret, as far as I am concerned, regarding the course I have taken.
  446
  I am willing to abide by the consequences;" and he thereupon withdrew:—
  Whereupon Mr. Speaker Named him to the House for having violated the decorum of the House.
  Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Timothy M. Healy he suspended from the Service of the House," put, and agreed to.
  MR. CHANCE: I beg, Sir, to draw your attention to the fact that a number of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite have marked this occasion as a Party triumph by jeers and laughter. [Cries of "No!" "Name!" "Order, order!" and "De Lisle!"]
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I feel bound, though we have boon most painfully compelled, I think, by our duty, to support the Motion that has been made, as it was impossible to justify the conduct of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford—I feel bound, I say, to implore you, Sir, for the honour of this House, to exorcise your authority to prevent—[Interruption from the Ministerial Benches, and cheers from the Irish Members]—the systematic—[Renewed interruptions from the Ministerial Benches.]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I say—[Continued interruption]—Oh! You may move to suspend me, too, if you like—["Oh, oh!" and cheers from the Irish Members].
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I appeal to you. Sir, for the honour of the House—[An hon. MEMBER: Is there any question before the House? and Cries of "Order, order!"]—to use your influence to prevent the systematic insult and provocation proceeding from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite——
  Lord HENRY BRUCEhere rose; but Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT not giving way—[Cries of "Order!" and "Sit down, Sir."]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Does the noble Lord rise to a point of Order?
  LORD HENRY BRUCE: I do rise to a point of Order, Sir. I want to ask if the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in addressing the House now?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am making an appeal to you, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I understood that the right hon. Gentleman

  447
  rose to a point of Order, and to make an appeal to me.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I rose to make an appeal, and I think the noble Lord is one of the persons—[Cheers from the Irish Members.]
  LORD HENRY BRUCE (repeatedly): I am not. I never said a word.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (continuing)—who have taken part in that which we have witnessed to-night, and against which I am appealing to you, Sir—the systematic insult——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is no question before the House. Of course I was willing to hear the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman has now made, and I can only assure him and the House, that disorder, from whatever side of the House it proceeds, is always reprehensible, and I think it has always met with repression at my hands. I deeply regret the occurrence which has just taken place, and I hope, for the honour of the House, that there will be no recrimination, and that both sides will preserve that Order which is essential to our debates.
  DR. J. E. KENNY: Before you leave the Chair, Sir, may I be allowed to offer a few observations by way of explanation?
  MR. SPEAKERleft the Chair without reply.
  THE CHAIRMANthereupon resumed the Chair, and called upon the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) to proceed with his Amendment.
  MR. CHANCE: I trust, after the painful occurrence which we have just witnessed, that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite will——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to the Amendment?
  MR. CHANCE: I will do so, Sir. [Laughter from the Ministerial Benches.] This is shameful—[Cries of "Name, name!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN; Order, order! I do not know who gave vent to that provocative laughter. [Cries of "De Lisle," and cheers from the Irish Benches.] It was most disorderly and irregular. As the accusation has been made against the hon. Member for the Lough borough Division of Leicestershire, I must call
  448
  upon the hon. Member to say whether or not he was the author of that mocking laughter?
  MR. DE LISLE: As you have appealed to me, Sir, I will, with your permission, most absolutely, and in the most unqualified manner, declare that on this particular occasion, as on many other previous occasions, when my name has been called out, I did not even smile.
  MR. CHANCE: The Amendment I now move deals with altogether a technical point—only a very small one. I feel, however, I can claim the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England to the matter—[Interruption.]
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. CHANCE: The first part of this clause we have already passed provides that where the plaintiff shall elect to proceed under the section, the notice may be served upon the person who at the time of the service of the notice shall be in possession of the land, and on such notice being served the tenancy in the holding shall be determined as if a writ of possession under the judgment had been duly executed. I have no objection to that, but the second paragraph commences—"Every person upon whom such notice"—really, Mr. Courtney, I cannot raise my voice sufficiently to make myself heard, such is the noise in. the House.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. CHANCE: It says—
  " Every person upon whom such notice is served shall thereupon be deemed to be a person put into possession as a caretaker."
  I take objection to that as in no way qualified by the condition precedent. Under the second paragraph, if the notice is served by post upon any person in possession of the land that person will, thereupon, become a caretaker. If the notice is served on the head tenant alone the other tenants may lose their tenancy. I, therefore, desire to amend the clause by making it clear that as a condition precedent to this change of status, every person who is entitled to be served with a writ shall be so served. I propose to amend the clause thus—to leave out the word "every," adding to the clause the words "such notice as aforesaid having been served upon every such person as aforesaid, each such,"
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 14, after "(2),"insert—"Such notice as aforesaid having been served upon every such person as aforesaid, each such."—(Mr. Chance.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I am not at all disposed to dissent from the words the hon. Gentleman suggests; but I do not think they are necessary. I will undertake to provide that the change of status shall not occur until the notices is served on each person.
  MR. CHANCE: That quite satisfies me. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have regard to the condition precedent.
  MR. GIBSON: I give a pledge that we will provide that every person entitled to be served with a notice, shall be so served.
  MR. CHANCE: Then I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member move Amendments 55b and 55c?
  MR. CHANCE: No; Amendments b and c were consequential.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: With respect to Amendment numbered 56, and also Amendments 57, 58, and 59, they refer practically to the same matter, and may be dealt with at the same time.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member in whose name Amendment No, 56 stands is not here. I am at a loss to understand how it makes sense.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I think, Sir, that the Amendments that follow will make sense. I will show how the clause will read if the Amendments are accepted. No. 57 will insert, after "possession," the words "for six months certain;" and the other Amendments will leave out all the words down to the end of line 25. The section, then, would read thus—
  " Every person upon whom such notice is served shall thereupon be deemed to be a person put into possession for six months certain."
  This is really the time when the promised Amendments of the Government with reference to the period of redemption should come in; and this is also the
  450
  time to discuss, at once and for all, the origin of this system of appointing caretakers. It is the opinion of many Members of the Committee, and of some Members of the Government, that it was established under the Act of 1860; but it is nothing of the sort. That is not the case. The old law provided for an out-and-out eviction, and it also provided for the case of the Sheriff getting legal possession for the landlord without removing the under-tenant and occupier. The procedure in olden times was that a writ was sent to the Sheriff, and he was directed by the solicitor in the ease as to whether or not absolute possession was to be taken. If he was directed to take absolute possession he cleared the land; but if, however, he got directions to allow the parties to remain until they could make a settlement, the procedure was provided by the 94th section, which is to the effect that the Sheriff, or his officer or bailiff, may, with the consent of the plaintiff—namely, the landlord—execute any writ without removing from the possession of the land or premises any under-tenant or occupier who shall, at the time of execution, sign forms of acknowledgment. The Committee is aware that there are two forms of acknowledgment—one substantially leaves a man tenant-at-will, and the other provides that the sub-tenant's interest shall still continue. That is clearly a benefit to the tenant; and I submit that under the Act of 1860 it amounted to the vested interest of the sub-tenants. By your provision you deprive sub-tenants of this benefit, and really turn labourers on a farm into weekly tenants. Do the Committee mean to turn into caretakers the honest, hard-working men who were, in point of fact, entitled to remain in possession but for the failure of the immediate tenant to pay the rent? Further on, in the Act of 1860, provision was made for the tenant himself, or any other occupier signing the acknowledgment. The procedure in this respect was altered by the Civil Bill Acts, but only very slightly. What I want the Committee to understand is that in none of these cases where the men were put in under acknowledg-removed to Petty Sessions. I appeal to ment or attornment could a case be the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland as to whether that is not so? Under the old

  451
  law, under the old acknowledgement, and under the Land Act that you yourselves passed in 1860, provision was made for the restoration of the man to his holding; and provision was further made that if a tenant misconducted himself, and committed waste upon the holding, application could be made to the Petty Sessions. When we were discussing this matter yesterday, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) told the Committee that he never knew of a man being turned out unless he was committing waste. It is quite evident that the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot have studied the Act of 1860. The procedure for turning out a man at Petty Sessions is the entire device and construction of the land agents of Ireland. I entirely acquit the landlords of any blame in the matter, because it is well known that the authors of that provision were the land agents who sat in Petty Sessions. They brought the Sheriff on the ground, and said to him—"Don't execute the writ in the way provided by Statute, because, if you do, we shall have to go before the Civil Bill Court; put the tenant in as caretaker, and then we will proceed against him at Petty Sessions." That is the history of the system of caretaking—a system which is, in my opinion, not only without statutory foundation, but which is directly contrary to Statute. The Government are well advised in this matter in having a special provision that a certain section of the Act of 1860 shall apply to this. The 86th section of the Act of 1860 provided for the case of the old cottier tenants in Ireland whose tenancy was determined by a notice to quit. The section provides for the case of any person who shall have been put into possession of any lands or premises by permission of the owner as servant, herdsman, or caretaker. I submit that that section of the Act of 1860 only-referred to hired servants. A few hours ago I tried to save the tenants of Ireland by a reference to the Rules of Court; but the answer of the Government was that I was changing the Act I of 1860. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) contended that the Government did not intend to change the Act of I860; but I maintain that they are changing the Act of 1860, inasmuch as they are intro-
  452
  ducing a fundamental change which was never intended by the authors of that Act. When we try to save the tenant of Ireland from the consequences which are involved in your change of the law we are accused of a change of tactics. I submit that the change in tactics is to be found upon the part of the Government. Now, I will only refer to one other section of the old Act—namely, the one which has reference to recovery in case a tenant misconducts himself. Supposing a person put into possession under a form of acknowledgment and becomes a tenant-at-will, the 84th section applies to him; and that section provides that if a tenant-at-will maliciously injures or destroys any part of the premises the landlord can come in. The practice of appointing a man as caretaker is really one of the screws invented by the land agents of Ireland, and it has no sanction whatever in the legislation of the country. Is it too much to ask that the Government will reconsider whether or not they will not refer back now, and take bodily the provisions of the Act of 1860, and apply them to the evictions under this Bill? We will accept these provisions; because under them a man will remain in possession for six months certain, unless he commits waste, in which ease I have no sympathy with him. I beg to move to insert, after the word ''possession," in line 15, the words "for six months certain."
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 15, after the word "possession," insert the words "for six months certain."—(Mr. O'Doherty.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GIBSON: Under the Act of 1860 a landlord, when he got possession of the promises by execution, could do what he liked with the premises. In the first place, he might clear the promises altogether, and keep them on his hands for six months; or, in the next place, he might get the party to sign an attornment for the six months, and, at the end of that period, make an arrangement with the under-tenant. In the next place, it was possible for him to create the under-tenant a caretaker. Each and all of these processes were at the choice of the landlord; and the Act of Parliament never contemplated that the

  453
  person who was dispossessed should have any right whatever to force one of these methods upon the landlord against his will. The common process now adopted in most parts of Ireland is that during the six months the dispossessed tenant should be allowed to remain in the holding as a caretaker. The man does not pay any rent; practically, he lives rent free. Now, our proposal is this—that, whether the landlord likes it or not, the people who are dispossessed, or whose tenancies are determined, shall be turned into the position of caretakers. We have made a very substantial concession in this matter; but I am afraid that concession is only an invitation to hon. Gentlemen opposite to make further demands upon us. The concession we make is upon the very lines suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley).
  MR. O'DOHERTY: It is perfect nonsense to talk about half-a-year's rent, when the whole of the tenant's interest is in mortgage. If the Government are well advised in this matter they will agree to the Amendment I suggest.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. CHANCE: I do not think the Amendment I now have to propose will lead to any long discussion, and I trust and believe that the fate of this Amendment will be completely different to the fate of other Amendments we have been disposing of. I have pointed out already that, although a decree for eviction may be hanging over the man's head, so long as he is in occupation he is entitled to exercise the franchise. We are told that great benefit is to be conferred by this Bill upon the tenants of Ireland. But I desire to point out to the Committee, and especially to the Dissentient Liberals, that the result of this section is that in the case of 10,000 or 15,000 men who are already under sentence of eviction, the service of this notice through the post converting them into caretakers will prevent them exercising the franchise. If this clause stands without this Amendment there is nothing now to prevent the landlords of Ireland, on the 19th July, by a more service of notices through the post, disfranchising between 20,000 and 25,000 tenants, I make the Govern-
  454
  ment a present of this position. I am convinced that this result never struck the draftsman of the Government; but such a result will undoubtedly follow. It may be said that where there is a house on the holding, and that house is in possession of one person who was formerly tenant, but who has become caretaker, that person would be entitled to exercise the franchise as an inhabited occupier. The answer to that is that this clause makes every sub-tenant a caretaker. If there are two or more persons living in the house, each of whom has been served with a notice, they are all degraded to the position of caretaker, and none of them will be entitled to the franchise. In the case of large farms there are often two or more persons working the farm. If these persons live in one house, two of them, at least, will be entitled to the franchise as rated occupiers; but, on being degraded to the position of caretakers, they lose the franchise; two of them living in one house, neither of them can be registered as an inhabited householder. I do not believe it is the intention of the Government to affect the status of the tenant in this way; but if the Government permit this clause to pass in its present shape, there will be the greatest inducement to commit fraud; there will be the strongest inducement to landlords in the districts of the North of Ireland, the representation of which depends upon a few hundred votes, to serve those notices and destroy the tenancies, and thus secure a double advantage. I appeal in this matter, with confidence, to the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). I ask them, will they allow this thing to be done? I do not believe they will; and I move this Amendment with the full conviction that it will be carried without a dissentient voice.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 21, after "caretaker," insert—" Provided always that so long as a person is in actual occupation of a holding or any part thereof, such person shall, notwithstanding anything in this section contained, be deemed for the purpose of being registered as a vote for voting at any Parliamentary or Poor Law election to be a tenant."—(Mr. Chance.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A..T. BALFOUR): I am sure we shall all be of opinion that we should not retain anything in this Bill to modify the franchise. I conceive that if the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were carried we really should alter the franchise. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I may be wrong in law, but I will explain what I conceive the law to be. Under the law, as it at present stands, I believe that when a tenant is evicted, he, no doubt, ceases to have his vote. A tenant will not lose his vote more effectually under the new process than he does under the old; therefore, you would really be altering the franchise and not altering the Land Law if you embody the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman in the Bill. That is the chief objection I have to the Amendment. There is another objection to the Amendment, and that is that if the proposal of the hon. Gentleman were carried into effect there would be a different franchise for the borough than there is for the county. A tenant who is evicted in a town would lose his vote, but a tenant who is evicted in the county would not lose his vote. I think that these two objections ought to induce the Committee to disagree with this Amendment.
  MR. CHANCE: The right hon. Gentleman obviously speaks under a complete misapprehension as to the effect of this clause. I take him upon his statement that this is merely a Bill to alter the Irish Land Law, and not to modify the franchise. He does not desire to make any alteration in the condition of the tenant so far as the franchise is concerned. What is the law now? It is that until the tenant is physically divorced from his holding he shall retain his position as far as the franchise is concerned—until he is physically divorced, be he put out as caretaker or otherwise, he retains the franchise. I desire that the law shall remain entirely in the same position. I desire by this Amendment that until a tenant is physically put out of us holding no piece of paper served through the post shall destroy his franchise. I hold, therefore, that the result of this Amendment indubitably is to substantially retain the law in its present condition. It uses the same period and the same means to mark the destruction of the franchise.
  456
  That, I think, disposes of the second argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I am perfectly aware that Clause 4 applies only to agricultural holdings, and it is for this very reason that I confine the Amendment strictly to cases which would be affected by Clause 4. I am sure there are many hon. Gentlemen in this House who are perfectly familiar with the Franchise Law. There are many lawyers on the Front Government Bench, and there are many on the Front Opposition Bench, and there are many lawyers in other parts of the House; and I ask them to consider this question, and express independent views in the matter. I hold that if this Amendment is not carried it will be in the power of the landlords of Ireland to disfranchise whenever they please from 20,000 to 25,000 men. It will be within the power of the landlords of the North of Ireland in constituencies like those of North Tyrone and South Tyrone and North Fermanagh just before the 19th of July, by the mere service of these notices through the post, without the slightest intention of carrying out the evictions, to destroy the franchise of tenants for two years. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) as to whether he desires to retain his seat through a subterfuge by the means of this clause? I am sure he does not. I ask for his vote on this occasion, and I think I shall get it.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I hope the Committee will accept this Amendment. There are many constituencies—and my own is amongst the number—in which these notices would probably be used for purposes of disfranchisement. It might be said that landlords would not incur the trouble and expense of serving the people with notices merely for such a purpose—that they would not issue the notices unless they intended to act upon them to the extent of eviction. But that is not the case at all. I do not exactly know the cost of serving the notices, but suppose it is £3 or £4. I know that in a closely contested constituency like my own, where the landlords are all on the side of the minority, they would consider it a cheap method of getting voters out of the way to serve notices at this rate upon tenants shortly before an election. There are very few tenants even in the North

  457
  of Ireland who are not in arrears; and each one of them, if an Amendment such as this is not accepted, will be liable to have his vote taken away by his landlord by the expenditure of a small sum of money. I do not know whether it is the intention of the Government that the clause should be used in this direction or not; but I think it is probable the Government would be glad to see the clause used in the closely balanced constituencies in the North of Ireland. Anyway, it is an invitation to the landlord party to issue notices of eviction wholesale before the next election. I believe it is the opinion of most of us on this side that the result of this 4th clause making eviction easy will induce many landlords, who hitherto have been deterred from taking this course of proceeding, to evict their tenants; but the desire to evict will be intensified when they find that by serving these notices on the tenants they will not only satisfy their vindictive feelings, but deprive the National Party of a certain number of votes, and secure the probable return of an Orange candidate to Parliament. I am certain, in my own mind, from experience of two elections, that if this Amendment is not accepted, in my own constituency there are many landlords, who otherwise would not dream of serving notices on their hard-working tenants who are in arrears, who will do so immediately when they find that by this small expenditure they may turn the scale and secure a Party triumph. If the Government do not want the idea to get abroad among the people of Ireland that there is an intention to facilitate that course of procedure, and, at the same time, deprive tenants of the franchise, they had better accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I have little hope in making an appeal to the Government, for they appear to have made up their minds in regard to this 4th clause.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I really hope the Government will consider the strong reasons that have been urged in favour of the Amendment. I do not for a moment suppose that the Government intend that the clause should so operate; but there arc very strong reasons given for supposing that it may so operate. The hon. Member who answered the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has disposed entirely of
  458
  the objection that the Amendment would create a different franchise in boroughs and counties.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said an objection was that, while it would leave the law as affecting boroughs as it is, it would make an alteration in counties.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That is exactly what we dispute. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Surely I may be allowed to state an argument. It is said you leave boroughs as they are. That is admitted. the hon. Member for North Fermanagh (Mr. W. Redmond) pointed out that a man was not disfranchised unless he was physically evicted. But now you are going to have a constructive eviction. It is a doubtful and mischievous kind of tiling, and anything may be done under it. They will be more numerous than the actual evictions, for they are much more convenient. These constructive evictions may be used by people who do not intend to carry out an actual eviction at all, knowing very well that constructive eviction by paper notice will carry disfranchisement with it. That is what you ought to guard against. We know very well that in former times notices to quit were served in order to keep tenants under the control of the landlord, that the landlord might have his tenant under the screw. We have heard of such things in England, and especially in reference to elections. In former days tenants were put under notice in order to influence votes at elections. It is perfectly obvious the danger exists here. To what extent it exists I do not know; but those with experience of Irish elections are better judges of how it would be used; but, at all events, here is a possible danger you ought to guard against, the use by landlords of this constructive eviction, not with the intention of actually carrying it out, but merely to influence the result of an election. Surely there is reasonable objection to this.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) made a special appeal to me, and I desire to say that 1 do not think the Government have any sinister intention in this matter. So far as my own constituency is concerned, I do not think that landlords are at all likely to issue these notices on my behalf; and if they did, all I can say is that I should be ashamed to occupy a seat in this

  459
  House by any such means. If this danger exists—and I believe it does to a limited extent—I think the Government would act wisely in preventing all chance of such a state of affairs. I represent a constituency where the two Parties are very evenly balanced, and anyone who is pent to the House from there has to go through a severe struggle; but I have no desire to have the distinction of being Member for South Tyrone by proceedings such as have been indicated.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot think myself there is much danger of the clause being used as suggested. In order that the disfranchising notice should be served, it is necessary, in the first place, that the tenant should be in arrears; secondly, that the Court exercising an equitable jurisdiction should allow the notice to issue. These two things are safeguards against the clause being used with such sinister intention as is ascribed to some of the landlords of the North of Ireland. There is a broad assertion in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He says there is no intention to alter the position of the tenant as regards the franchise; and if, under the present law, he is not subject to disfranchisement until he is physically divorced from the soil by actual eviction, then I understand the Government does not desire that he should be disfranchised by the mere service of notice. It is really then a question of law and fact, and my vote must be determined by what the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland says. If he says that the Government proposal will not alter the present law, will not have any disfranchising effect on the tenant that the present law has not already, then I am prepared to vote for the retention of the clause as it stands. But if it mates any change in the law, then the Government are bound by the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to consent to an Amendment.
  MR. CHANCE: The point of my objection—my allegation—is, that under the clause before there is any physical divorcement the tenant will be disfranchised.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): As I understand the right hon.
  460
  Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, he asks me whether this section makes any change in the franchise law? To this I say that, as I understand it, it will not. Under the present law, in order to evict a tenant the tenant must be dispossessed. If he is allowed to go back as caretaker, then, though the occupation is continuous, his qualification changes, and he has a vote as householder.
  MR. CHANCE: If he is the only occupant of the house.
  MR. GIBSON: The question is as to the actual dispossession, the pushing out of the tenant, and the effect on his vote. If he continues in occupation the inhabitant franchise is not affected. Now, what we propose to do is to substitute for this proceeding a sort of ideal eviction by notice, and how this will affect the franchise I do not understand, except in the way referred to by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, that it will facilitate the process and increase the number of ejectments. This allegation introduced to strengthen their main contention was dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman himself, when he pointed out that the County Court Judge would interpose and prevent the landlord from cruelly and wantonly exercising his right if he were disposed to do so. All I can say is that if, according to the suggestion of hon. Members below the Gangway, landlords would exercise their power to affect the franchise, they would be great fools, for the Northern tenants would not stand it for a moment.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: No doubt it is my ignorance, but I confess I am not able to follow the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The question I want to put is this. I assume, under the present law and under the new law, the same case of a tenant who is evicted and reinstated as caretaker. Under the present law he is first evicted, and then he is reinstated, and as I understand does not lose his vote until he is the second time evicted, and this time deforced from the soil. That is what I understand. But I understand again that under this Bill the tenant, from the moment of receiving the notice which, as the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland says, is an ideal eviction, the equivalent of an actual eviction, he loses his vote. If

  461
  that is so, of course it does make a great difference.
  MR. GIBSON: As I understand the question of the right hon. Gentleman it is in reference to what he describes as the first eviction, and that is the only thing we are discussing, for if the man is put out altogether by the second eviction he is no longer on the premises. The termination of the tenancy does affect the man's vote as a rate able occupier, and in a certain class of cases mentioned by hon. Members it may affect his qualification as inhabitant occupier. The second eviction, as I have said, gets rid of the man altogether. We substitute for that first eviction an ideal eviction, and I say, as a matter of.Franchise Law, that the ideal eviction will do less harm than, the physical eviction of the old law.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I understand that the answers have secured the vote of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham for the Amendment. The test question put was to ascertain the fact that nothing but physical eviction would affect the vote, whether the paper eviction would affect the vote, and the right hon. Gentleman admits that it will affect the vote. We are told that the method of eviction is beside the question; but it is not altogether beside the question, because there is a possibility of a greater number of evictions that makes it the more important to look after this security. That under the new principle evictions will be more numerous the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland does not dispute. I mean that the number of notices will be greater than the number of actual evictions.
  MR. GIBSON: I dispute that altogether.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I understood that he admitted that. We are of opinion that the paper notices will be greater than the present evictions. If that is so there will be much more disfranchisement under the paper notices, which the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland calls ideal evictions, a euphemistic term, and I am afraid his ideal eviction will have a very sad reality. Call them ideal evictions if you like, it is a convenient form of bringing about the same result. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has failed to answer the
  462
  question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and concludes by appealing to the impregnable farmers of the Northern landlords. But that is a doctrine that is not held by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. Your Bill is an admission that tenants could not rely on the Northern landlords. Ulster Members by the hon. Member for South Tyrone demanded a reduction of rents on behalf of the tenants of Ulster, and we have had examples of what the landlords do. Why, as I have said, oven in England in former times landlords have given notices to gentlemen for the purpose of affecting elections. If the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has no better argument than undoubted confidence that no Northern landlords will use this paper process of eviction for Party purposes I think we have insufficient security. If it is possible that this power may be used under the name of a Land Bill having a disfranchising effect on tenants, then I think we ought to make some provision against it.
  MR. MOLLOY: This discussion is an example of how time is wasted by the action of the Treasury Bench. The demand made is a fair and simple one. It is that tenants now in possession of the franchise shall not lose it in any way different to that they would lose it under the existing law. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland says there is no intention to do anything of the sort. I admit that. I do not suggest it is his intention. I do not believe for a moment the Government have any intention of going to that extent. Well, if that is so, why not accept, if not the exact form, the spirit of an Amendment to meet the views of both sides? Alter the Amendment to meet at once the demand on this side and the admission of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I maintain it is simply waste of time for the Law Officers to rise in their places and give opinions as to how the matter will be. No Law Officer can tell us how the Revising Barrister will construe the clause in its reference to the register. There are not barristers in Ireland or England of whom we can say assuredly they will take the same view. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby may be ridiculously wrong or absolutely right, or the right hon. and learned

  463
  Attorney General for Ireland may be the one or the other. What I say is that we raised this question along time ago; we ask that the franchise shall be affected in no way different to the way in which it is affected now. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary says the Government have no intention of making any change; then why in Heaven's name does not a Member of the Government get up and say they will accept or propose an Amendment to carry out that upon which we agree?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The only difference between the old state of things and what I may call the new state of things will be this—that whereas under the old or present state of things a landlord can deprive a tenant of his vote by evicting him for arrears of a rent that may be too high, under the new state of things a tenant could only be deprived of his right to be on the register as a voter after eviction for a rent admittedly a fair one.
  MR. CHANGE: I am sure the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland desires to state with frankness what he believes to be the law. I do not want to be egotistical; but I think that I have had more experience of the law that regulates franchise and registration than he has had, or I hope he ever will have. For the last three or four years I have annually spent some seven or eight weeks in the North on work relating to the subject, and desperate work it is. Now, the present position is this—that physical divorcement is necessary before a man is deprived of the franchise—that alone puts an end to his qualification as tenant. After physical divorcement he can come back as caretaker, and when sole occupier he still has his vote; but where, as is very frequently the case, the man shares occupation with a brother or brothers, where it is a case in which a man and a relative working together live in the house and pay the rent, and eke out a living, the result of the man becoming a caretaker is that both men lose their votes. That is the effect, but the landlord has to go through the process of physical divorcement before the man is disfranchised. But under this new law the franchise will disappear with the service of this paper notice. Two brothers, an uncle and nephew, or whoever it may be labouring to make the rent on a farm of £30 or £40 valuation, by the
  464
  service of this paper notice without any trouble or real intention of carrying out an actual divorcement, absolutely lose the franchise, and in most cases would lose it for two years. That is the plain statement, and now let me draw attention to the wording of the Amendment. It does not give this notice any effect whatever; all it says is that this notice, apart from divorcement from the holding, has no effect on the franchise. Therefore, it is impossible for a lawyer's Nisi Prius arguments to show that it has any effect in altering the law as regards the franchise. All it says is that the alteration of the procedure of the law under Clause 4 shall not extend to the question of franchise. That is the plain statement of fact. I would ask the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) if that is not so, and he has considerable knowledge of registration matters? You have from 10,000 to 15,000 judgment decrees held over by the landlords, and the latter; without going through the trouble and scandal of actual eviction, can, by the service of this paper with a penny stamp, bring disfranchisement upon every one of these tenants.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I have no desire, speaking as an Irish landlord, that the Irish tenant should as regards the franchise be placed in a worse position than he is in at present; and as I do not believe it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that any portion of this Bill should place him in a worse position, I do not see why the Government should not see their way to make the clause plain, so that an Irish tenant may be perfectly certain he is not placed in a worse position under this Bill than under the law as it now exists. Let the Government make it perfectly plain that something more is required than the service of the notice. There is no desire, on the part of Irish landlords, to avail themselves of the clause in the sense suggested, and they would be perfectly satisfied with the Amendment I have indicated.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): There is no ambiguity in the matter; but it is well the House should understand the point before voting upon it. At present a man becomes a caretaker upon the execution of the decree of eviction. He is evicted, and comes back

  465
  as a caretaker, and in that position he loses his vote. He has the right of redemption and other rights; but, as caretaker, he has no vote or qualification to be on the register, Now, it is suggested that the person who is going to be a caretaker shall be in the position of a rateable occupier, because, it is said, he is turned into a caretaker by a paper notice instead of by the process of physical ejectment. In the one case the landlord gets his decree, and the law carries it out, and in the other ease judgment can only issue pursuant to the control and safeguards provided under Clause 22 of this Bill. How is it possible for the Bill to make a caretaker more readily than now? How can it be effected under more harsh circumstances than now, safeguarded as the tenant will be by the provisions of this Bill? Why should a caretaker under the new Act have a right he does not have now of being considered as a rateable occupier? It would be a distinct alteration of the Franchise Law for the caretaker to be regarded as such.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I regret there should be this waste of time, when there is a disposition on both sides to accept a reasonable Amendment. Of the eviction decrees outstanding, thousands are not intended to be put in force; but, under this new clause, hundreds, and I believe thousands, of men could be disfranchised tomorrow morning by the penny post. Then you say this does not change the law, and that you have no intention to change the law, when you know that not one of these men, under the existing law, could be disfranchised without an actual eviction. You do not intend that there should be disfranchisement under the Bill; but you do place power of disfranchisement in the hands of persons who, under certain circumstances, might desire to use it. I do not desire to impute any such intention to a large number of landlords; but if there is risk of its being so used in only one instance you ought to provide a safeguard. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) has spoken out in a reasonable and manly way. Why the Government should go on pertinaciously wasting the time of the House in resisting that which their supporters, the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh and the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr.
  466
  T. W. Russell), advise them to accept, on behalf of the landlords of the North, of Ireland, I cannot understand. It seems to show that the Government are, in their policy, more landlords than the landlords themselves.
  MR. SEXTON: We begin to suspect, from the resistance offered to this Amendment, that there is more in the matter than appears on the surface. The Government profess to desire the same result as that we aim at; and, if so, I am at a loss to understand, after this expression of the mind of the Government, why they are unwilling to import words into the clause to give effect to their intention. Notwithstanding the ardent differences of opinion between the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) and ourselves, we have heard him support this proposal. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has taken a stand honourable to himself, and which, if we could accept him on this occasion as an exponent of the policy of the landlords, would be honourable to them. But, on this occasion, I think we must regard him as more than an average specimen of the Ulster landlord. How does the law stand at present? When the tenant is physically removed from his holding, whether he is allowed to return or not, his qualification for the franchise ceases. The argument of the Government is that when this clause passes the tenant will be in no worse position than under the law as it now exists, and they point out that Clause 22 of the Bill allows the Court to put a stay on the execution of the judgment. But the landlord, when once judgment is taken out, need not stay for execution—he can at once serve a notice under Clause 4, and thereby disfranchise the tenant. The moment that notice is served the tenant passes to the position of caretaker, and his legal qualification to be registered for the franchise ceases. There are thousands of judgment decrees in the hands of landlords, and there are seats in the North of Ireland won from the Nationalist Party at the last Election by very narrow majorities. I think the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) was returned by a majority of less than 100 votes, and there is a rumour that the action of the hon. Member in regard to this Bill has annoyed his landlord supporters, so that they are debating

  467
  whether the hon. Member shall be their Representative again. Well, it may be that this power of disfranchisement may be made to serve the purpose of change. I will do the lion, and gallant Member for North Armagh the justice to believe that he would never hold a scat by any-such device. He certainly never fails to express his opinion frankly. All who vote for him know what kind of man they are voting for and those who are against him have never any misapprehension of the position he maintains. He speaks with the energy of conviction, and I think on this occasion he is entitled to more respectful attention than he has received. It may be that a landlord may have no intention to evict; but where the winning of a seat for his Party depends upon a few votes there is many a landlord would do worse things than serve notices in order to disfranchise tenants. Can this be denied? We who say it know Ireland well. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh is unwilling that such things should happen; the hon. Member for South Tyrone is with us; Members of the Liberal Unionist Party and of the Tory Party unite with us in entreating the Government to insert in the Bill words that will give effect to what they say is their own intention.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Let us see where it is we agree and where we differ. We agree that the present state of the law on this point and the position under this Bill ought to be the same, and that if it changes it, it should be altered. The legal opinion on this side is the Bill makes no change; but we will consider the question carefully, and if we find that there will be any difference whatever between the old and the new state of things, then we will bring up Amendments to assimilate them.
  MR. CHANCE: What we seek to determine is the point at which a tenant loses the franchise. Will the Government undertake that under the new clause, oven when a notice is issued, the point at which a man is disfranchised will be when physical divorcement takes place, if it ever does take place?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; I apprehend the point. If that is the existing law, then it shall be so under the new law.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: But it is not to be on the technical interpre-
  468
  tation of the law, but the law applied to facts, that the tenant shall be left in the same condition as now. I desire we should be understood to mean that the tenant shall stand ipso facto in the same position—that he shall not lose his vote until he is physically expelled from the premises. That is the clear point. If we have a pledge that, as now, a man not physically expelled does not lose his vote, then we may leave it to the Government to carry out their intention as they think fit.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Under the present law a man is held to be in substantial occupation until the forcible ejectment is complete. Now, the Government wish to substitute the paper divorcement from the holding; but I say this proper divorcement will never come home to the minds of the poorer tenants, and they will, without knowing it, lose both social and political status at once. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary should do more than say if the law is so at present so it shall be in the future; he should arrange that the absolute divorcement is the point of disfranchisement.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: We have not had an assurance from the Law Officers of the Government that a tenant shall not lose his vote until he is physically expelled from his holding. Until we have had that assurance we have had nothing.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I can only repeat what I have said, that, so far as I understand the law, it is not the physical divorcement in any shape—[Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT interposed with a remark which was inaudible.]—the right hon. Gentleman is exceedingly impatient at the slightest sound when he is speaking. As I understand the law, it is not the physical divorcement that loses the vote, but the change in the qualification of tenant when he ceases to be rateable occupier and becomes caretaker. I wish to debate this fairly; and let me point out that the Amendment goes far beyond the intention expressed. The Amendment proposes that any person in the occupation of any holding, or part of a holding, shall be entitled to be considered a tenant, notwithstanding anything in this section. That is to say, any person, under any circumstances, from the

  469
  simple fact of being in occupation, is to have the qualification of a rateable tenant, though he may be but a caretaker. Now, with great deference to the legal opinion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I say it is not a question of losing the vote by divorcement from the land; it is a question of losing the vote from ceasing to have the qualification for being on the register.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am glad we have got this explanation, for it is quite clear we are going to get nothing from the promise. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland would have been glad to have made this concession; but the hon. and learned Attorney General for England introduces his Nisi Prius arguments, contrary to common sense and common justice. He says the qualification determines the right to be on the register. But you are altering the whole character of the process of eviction; it is that that makes the alteration of position. I hope we shall stick to this—that while the tenant is physically in his tenancy he shall have his vote. If you alter that position, you alter—if not the law technically—the facts to which that law has hitherto been applied. It is a mixed question of law and fact, and the hon. and learned Attorney General for England adroitly, subtly wraps up the differences that arise in fact and rides off on a technical point of law. That is what we have been at all the evening; we have only just got to the real circumstance and point of the question, and, having now spent an hour and a-half upon it, I suppose we must spend another hour and a-half in trying to convert the hon. and learned Attorney General. We have not got very far. I thought we had made some progress when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary spoke. I was satisfied with his assurance; I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman meant to deal fairly with the question, if he clearly understood what has to be dealt with; and I hope the hon. and learned Attorney General will not go on spinning his cobwebs round the subject, but will allow us to take a common-sense view of the matter. It ought not to be a matter of special pleading; it is a matter of simple justice to the Irish tenant.
  470
  It has been very sensibly said, whether it is likely to happen or not, do not raise suspicion in the minds of tenants, and go to them with the fine-spun arguments the hon. and learned Attorney General has addressed to us. Lot us stick to this. A man shall not lose his vote unless he is physically expelled from his farm. That is a plain commonsense proposition that all the Attorneys General in the world ought not to confuse. If the Government accept our meaning, and will give us an assurance that they will carry out that meaning, then the Amendment will be withdrawn; if not, then I hope the discussion will be continued until we have sufficiently convinced the Committee.
  MR. CHANCE: The hon. and learned Attorney General for England stated that the Amendment would create a new franchise. Now, I confess I heard that with pain and surprise. What is the Amendment? It is a provision that the status of the tenant, so far as his vote is concerned, shall not be affected by anything in the Bill—that notwithstanding anything in this clause his present status shall continue. It leaves the law precisely as it finds it. It does not make a new tenant; but it says that nothing in the clause shall affect the franchise where the franchise existed before. The hon. and learned Attorney General says a man, when evicted, comes back as a caretaker. Very often he does; but the point is this—that until the Sheriff comes down with his posse comitatus, with his crow-bar men, and puts the man and his property off the holding, until that happens the tenancy is not determined, and the tenant may come back even as caretaker if you like; but he must be put outside the holding, and then only does he lose his vote. What we want to secure is, that this paper notice shall not be equivalent to the physical putting out of the tenant, so far as the franchise is concerned. I am sorry we arc met with a series of ingenious technicalities, that the Government do not deal with the substantial point, but ride off on a promise that means absolutely nothing.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I think we are entitled to some further answer, for we are now left in a very peculiar position. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland made a very fair offer,

  471
  that this matter should be considered by the Government on the lines he himself maintained from the first. He had no desire, he said, to make any alteration in the law. But no sooner had he done speaking than the hon. and learned Attorney General for England (Sir Richard Webster) put a totally different construction on the clause, closing the door to all reconsideration. He tells us that the tenant will be disfranchised. We are in this further difficulty—that the hon. and learned Attorney General for England does not agree with the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson); and, therefore, it is not surprising that doubt arises in our minds——
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: How do we differ?
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I will tell the hon. and learned Attorney General where he differs from his Colleague. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) interposed, he asked a plain straightforward question, whether the loss of the vote depended on the physical divorcement from the soil, and the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland said it did. The hon. and learned Attorney General for England said it did not depend on that, but upon the man becoming a caretaker.
  MR. GIBSON: I was asked whether the new process would make any difference in the franchise from the old method, and I said it would not—that the service of the ideal eviction would not produce a greater or less effect than the old method.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: That is exactly the point in dispute. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland said that there would be no physical divorcement from the soil with the new notice, but that the new notice, which he euphemistically calls the ideal eviction, will have the same effect on the vote as the actual eviction. That is exactly the point in dispute. We do not want the ideal eviction to have the same effect. We say that it will be put in force in a vast number of cases where the notices will not ripen into absolute eviction. I will go further, and say that Clause 22 will have to give relief to all tenants against whom judgments are
  472
  now obtained; and when we reach that clause we shall endeavour to give it a retrospective operation. But the point now is, as it was an hour and a-half ago, will you disfranchise tenants by the mere service of those notices, and you say the service of the notice will have the effect of a real eviction? You cannot disguise the effect of this change by any amount of hair-splitting. We do not ask for a decision now, but give a fair reconsideration to the merits and facts of the case, and not to the technicalities of the Attorney General, on which reconsideration would be useless. If you are going to take your stand upon this, that the ideal eviction shall have all the effects of a real eviction, then we are bound to carry our opposition to a Division.
  MR. FINLAY: It is a pity to see so much time consumed when, as I hope, there is no substantial difference of opinion. It is agreed on all hands that the section should not have a disfranchising effect. It has been pointed out that the terms of the Amendment are, perhaps, rather too wide. The law, as I understand it, is perfectly clear that a man, by becoming a caretaker, loses his qualification to vote. At present it is a difficult and troublesome process to convert him into a caretaker. It is now proposed to adopt this simpler process, and though you may say that it makes no change in the law as regards the franchise, yet, in point of fact, a great many tenants might be disfranchised by the service of the notice, and this, I am certain, is not what the Government intend. May I offer, then, a form of words, such as the following, to present a way out of the difficulty-—
  "Provided that a tenant shall not, by virtue of a notice under this section, lose his qualification to he on the register as a voter."
  I think these words will be found free from the objection to the present Amendment pointed out by the hon. and learned Attorney General.
  THE FIRST LOED OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): We will undertake to consider those or other words, in order to carry out what is distinctly the intention of the Government, that no disfranchising effect should be produced by the operation of this clause.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: We should be quite satisfied if the Govern-

  473
  ment accepted the words the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) has just suggested, that these notices shall have no disfranchising effect at all; that the operation of these ideal evictions shall not carry disfranchisement with it under any circumstances. Will the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland tell us that is what he is prepared to carry out?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We cannot go beyond the undertaking I have given, that we will consider words to insure that the law shall not have a further disfranchising effect than at present. We desire to attain the object the right hon. Gentleman himself desires to attain; but we cannot accept the words without full examination and consideration. Beyond that I cannot go.
  MR. CHANCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that these paper notices will, so far as the franchise is concerned, not have the effect of the physical divorcement at present?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have already-said the object sought to be attained by the words will be, if possible, attained.
  MR. CHANCE: Then, under the circumstances, I am sorry to say I feel compelled to divide.
  MR. PARNELL: I hope my hon. Friend will not consider it necessary to persist in this Motion, but will rely on that good sense and fairness in which, I am sure, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will not disappoint us. In that belief we may accept his statement.
  MR. CHANCE: I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, though, I confess, I do so with considerable reluctance.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. M'CARTAN: The Amendment I have to propose is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Waterford (Mr. P. J. Power). According to the present law, when the landlord desires to take possession he obtains a warrant signed by two Justices, and a caretaker is turned out in seven days. I believe, by an Amendment inserted in the present Bill, this will not take place under the new Rules; but the proposition in the Amendment is that the magistrates should be left with a discretion to stay the execution of the warrant they isssue for three months. To this the first part of the Amendment
  474
  is directed, and I do not think the Government should hesitate to accept it. As to the second part of the Amendment, it deals with that provision of the law that requires notice shall be given to the relieving officer of the district before the actual eviction takes place. The object of this is that provision may be made for the relief of the destitute poor whom the landlord proposes to eject from the holding. It is the duty of the relieving officer to make provision for the reception of the poor tenant in the workhouse, and if there is not room in the workhouse lie has to make some provision for the tenant and his family until there is room for them in the workhouse. Now, what we want is that this rule be made applicable to the case of the caretakers under this Bill, and I do not think the Government can have any objection to accept that part of the Amendment. There is another provision which imposes a penalty on the landlord who carries out an eviction of this kind without first serving notice on the relieving officer. It also makes a misdemeanour where either a landlord or any person under him takes down the roof of a dwelling, or demolishes any part of a dwelling, unless that course is absolutely necessary for the purpose of obtaining entrance and possession. We have had cases in Ireland not long ago of roofs having been torn down and buildings demolished where there was no necessity for such measures; and although good landlords do not resort to such action, still bad landlords have done it in the past, and there is little doubt that bad landlords will resort to it again. We want to provide against the power to do that in the case of caretakers as well as in the ease of ordinary tenants. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 25, leave out all after "caretaker" to end of line 41, and insert—"And notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the 89th section of the 'Land lord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ireland), 1860,' it shall he lawful for the justices therein named, at their discretion, to put a stay on the execution of their warrant for giving up possession of the holding for a period not longer than three months from the date of the warrant.
  "And the enactments of the eleventh and twelfth Victoria, chapter forty-seven, intituled 'An Act for the Protection and Relief of the Destitute Poor evicted from their Dwellings in

  475
  Ireland,' shall apply to the delivering up or taking the land occupied by a caretaker under this section before the execution of any writ, decree, order, process, warrant, or otherwise for delivering up or taking possession of same."—(Mr. M'Cartan.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): This is an Amendment which consists of two paragraphs. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to accept the first paragraph, as the Government have already made a concession practically in that direction. But with regard to the second paragraph of the Amendment, we have no difficulty in accepting it, because I think that what the hon. Member desires to secure by it is clearly right, only I am afraid that the actual wording of it may require to be altered.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw the Amendment?
  MR. PARNELL: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to amend the Amendment?
  R. M'CARTANI would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman again with regard to the first part of the Amendment. That Amendment gives a discretion to the magistrates, sitting together, to give three months' or two months' longer stay of execution in certain exceptional cases—in such cases as the right hon. Gentleman himself would think it was fair and reasonable to do so. I think if he looks at the end of the first paragraph again he will have no hesitation whatever in accepting it, and I would appeal to him not to reject this Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, I feel very reluctant to resist the appeal which the hon. Member (Mr. M'Cartan) makes in that way; but we have already given to the caretaker one month's stay of execution, whether the landlord likes it or not. We have further provided equitable provisions which will prevent any injustice; but I think it is rather a strong order to press us to introduce a wholly new equitable jurisdiction, to a new magistrate in another Court, to go beyond that. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not urge us to go beyond the second paragraph of his Amendment.
  MR. M'CARTAN: All I ask is that the occupier may have the right, in certain cases, to have recourse to the Justices. He would have to issue his summons, and then to appear and show reason why the premises should not be given up to the landlord. The discretion now given to the magistrates after the month is to be not less than seven days, and not more than 14; and we only wish to extend that discretion to a period of three months from the date of the warrant.
  MR. CHANCE: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has quite caught the intention of the clause. The position is this. The landlord must go to the magistrates at Petty Sessions. He cannot put out caretakers by his own course, but he goes and gets a warrant, and then comes and turns him out. Now, the magistrates are mostly landlords or landlords' agents themselves; and all that we propose is that these magistrates, themselves landlords, should have a certain jurisdiction to delay this procedure. And why? Because this process of putting out the caretaker is the real physical eviction, and we desire that the magistrates should be given this small jurisdiction, so that it may be in their power to prevent the scenes we have so often heard of in connection with these evictions. We have heard a great deal about these scenes. We have heard of dying men being turned out into the snow. We have heard of pregnant women being put out to deliver their children in the ditch. Now, we desire that the magistrates should be able to say, when a harsh landlord, or when a harsh bailiff or land agent, with instructions from any landlord, comes down and says—"I will throw out a whole country-side at Christmas Eve," we want these magistrates, when the case comes before them, to have it in their power to say—"No, we will not allow you to do that; we are landlords ourselves. The law has given us the power to prevent these disgraceful scenes and these atrocities, and we will not let you do it." The effect would be this, that when a man came and proved the fact that he had a sick wife or a dying mother in the house, the magistrates can say—" We do not want to prevent evictions, but we do want to prevent these atrocities, and we will put

  477
  them down," and then they would suspend the eviction for five or six weeks, and communicate with the landlord whom they know, and tell him that his agent was doing this atrocity and trying to put out the poor, stalling, or dying people. If the matter was thus brought before the proper magistrates, themselves mostly landlords in the county, they would have an interest in protecting the reputation of their class, and in preventing land agents from exercising their brutality unchecked. The Government say that they have brought in this Bill to prevent unnecessary harshness at evictions. When, therefore, we propose an Amendment which will enable landlords to sit as a jury on their own class, are they not bound in common consistency and honesty, independently of humanity and justice, to accept this Amendment?
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I would just like to point out to the Government that the ground on which the power of the landlord to regain possession has been defended was this—that where it could be shown that the holder had committed waste or was doing harm, then the landlord should have the right to come in. Now, I have only to point out that this Amendment will not affect that ground, because the magistrates would not exorcise the discretion sought to be given them by this Amendment, if it were shown that it was a case of waste.
  MR. PARNELL,: I hope, Mr. Courtney, the Government will reconsider this whole matter. It surely must occur to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that there may be cases—probably that there will be cases—where magistrates are applied to for an order of ejectment against a caretaker, in which it might be desirable to give the magistrates the discretion sought for by the first portion of this Amendment. Surely it is rather a strong thing to say that you will not allow the magistrates, sitting in their own Petty Sessional division, and very probably with a knowledge of all the circumstances of the ease, and of any particular hardship that might arise in any particular case, to postpone the eviction of the caretaker in question for the period named by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. M'Cartan) if they think it is right to do so. Does not the
  478
  right hon. Gentleman think it would be very hard not to give these magistrates the discretion to postpone the eviction of the caretaker under certain circumstances? It appears to me that if the magistrates are to be left any power at all, this is a power which might fairly be left with them. It may be true that they have not this power at the present moment in the case of the ordinary tenant; but you must recollect that you are adding very largely to the class of tenant. You are making this jurisdiction of these orders of the magistrates, practically speaking, substitutes for the order of the County Court; and I submit, although it may seem to be only a small matter, that the Government would be well advised if they gave way so far as to agree to the first section of this Amendment.
  MR. MOLLOY: I understood the right hon. Gentleman suggested an Amendment to the second paragraph of this Amendment; but the whole of this Amendment has been moved in one. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is of the same mind—I think he was going to move an Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): With regard to what the hon. and learned Member for Birr (Mr. Molloy) has said, the Government will accept the second paragraph in an amended form; but it will be necessary not only to amend it, but also to insert it in another place later. Therefore, I would ask the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. M'Cartan) to withdraw the first part of his Amendment, and defer moving the second part until we come to the end of the section.
  MR. M'CARTAN: You mean to withdraw the whole Amendment?
  MR. GIBSON: Yes; to withdraw the whole Amendment, and to move the second part of it later.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I ask whether the magistrates have no discretion at present to stay the execution of the warrant?
  MR. GIBSON: Well, yes; so I understood. The way the present law runs is—"It shall be lawful" for the Justices to issue the warrant. "It shall be lawful" for them to do so.
  MR. M'CARTAN: What discretion have they under that?
  MR. GIBSON: I say I think they have a certain amount of discretion from the quotation I have just read.
  COLONEL WARING: As I understand, the practice is to give not less than 14 days.
  CAPTAIN COLOMB: As a magistrate, I think that a good deal of what has fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite is correct, and that, to meet the particular circumstances of sickness or of weather, it would be well worth the while for the Government, before the Report stage, to consider whether they could not deal with the matter. My impression is that we magistrates have no discretion, and that we really have only to be satisfied with the proofs as they stand, and then to give a decree to be executed in not less than seven or more than 14 days.
  MR. CHANCE: I would like to point out, for the information of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), this. No doubt, the words are "it shall he lawful," but to do what"? "It shall be lawful" for the Court of Justice "to issue the writ." They have a duty to perform, and it is not a question of discretion. It is a question of a duty given to them as a ministerial duty to perform, and one which they must perform when the very first man comes in and asks them to perform it. Now, what is our position? The landlords of Ireland say, many of them perfectly truly—especially the hon. and gallant Member for North Down—" We do not desire that these scenes should go on; we admit that there are some bad landlords, and we complain that good landlords are injured by bad landlords." Now, we desire that at the Petty Sessions the good landlords should be able to prevent these scenes, and, sitting as a jury on the bad landlords, be able to gay—"No; we insist that you shall not do this; and that, in the interests of humanity, you shall not injure our cause." That is a very reasonable thing to ask. We desire that the landlords should prevent these atrocities, and yet, Sir, the Government will not take the smallest steps to give, even to the landowning class themselves, the power to stay such proceedings.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I just wish to remind the Committee, in the first place, that if this proposal were agreed to, it would be extremely hard upon the
  480
  landlords, because it would enable the tenant, after his six months had expired, to stay on for three months more. And that is not a small matter, as it seems to me, because it might lead to this—that every landlord might, in self-defence, apply to the magistrate three months before the expiry of the six months' period of redemption, in order that the magistrates, whatever their discretion might be, should be unable to extend it beyond the six months. And the result of that would be that a largo number of caretakers, who otherwise would be kept in possession during the whole of the sis months, would be turned out shortly after the expiry of three months, because landlords would apply to the magistrates at the end of that period, and in the majority of cases the writs would be executed in the 14 days.
  MR. CHANCE: The complete answer to the right hon. Gentleman is this—that it is the landlords themselves who would do this. Good landlords and the magistrates are bound together in the one interest, and, although the writ might be given in three months, the good landlord would not execute it. But the main point now is this—the Government, in refusing this Amendment, decline to permit oven the landlords of Ireland to stop these atrocities.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: The law, as laid down in the existing Statute, does not say it shall be lawful to stay execution; but it distinctly says—
  "It shall be lawful to issue a warrant requiring and authorizing him within a period to be named therein, and not less than seven or more than fourteen days"
  from that date. There is the position. The writ is not to be executed in more than 14 or less than seven days, so that the law already provides for the execution not taking place at once. It is, therefore, in the discretionary power of the landlord; and I do not think any harm whatever can arise from giving this discretionary power to the landlords sitting together as magistrates, and I hope that the Committee will agree to it.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I am certainly disappointed at the position taken up by the Government; but for the present I will withdraw the entire Amendment, and bring up the second part at a more suitable moment. Perhaps the Government will further consider the matter,

  481
  and on the Report stage allow us to get a new clause dealing with, the question we have now been discussing.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PARNELL: I hope we will be allowed now to report Progress. We may have broken the back of the clause, from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, but not from our own point of view. I move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We shall certainly not refuse the Motion to report Progress. I think considerable progress has been made, although I had hoped it would be possible to finish this clause to-night. I trust, however, that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) will recognize the absolute importance of making speedier progress with the remaining clauses of the Bill. It is very desirable that this Bill should pass into law, when I hope we will secure from it a settlement of those differences which unhappily exist between landlord and tenant in Ireland.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

PARLIAMENT—ORDER IN DEBATE— SUSPENSION OF MR. T. M. HEALY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I ask your permission to refer to some observations which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), who I am sorry to see is not now in his place, when you were unfortunately called in to deal with a very painful incident which occurred this evening—an incident which I am sure the whole of the House deeply regrets. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby said he had noticed coming continually and habitually from hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House, words of studied insult and provocation to the Irish Members. Well Sir, I must protest against the use of language
  482
  of this character under circumstances which were totally and absolutely irregular. You, Sir, called the right hon. Gentleman to Order, and immediately left the Chair, and I was not therefore able to take notice of these words at the time; but I venture to say, Sir, that a course of conduct like that——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The remarks which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) made were irregular. I may perhaps mention at once to the House what took place. The right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary, after what had occurred, to make an appeal, and I could not, of course, refuse to listen to it. But in the course of the appeal, I am bound to say the right hon. Gentleman made an accusation against a certain section of the House, which I can quite understand gave offence. The right hon. Gentleman stated, as I learn now from the protest of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, that there was systematic insult—systematic provocation and studied insult—used towards a certain quarter of the House. I am bound to say that, during my tenure of the Chair, I have not noticed, from any quarter of the House any conduct of that nature. Of course, as to what has just passed in Committee I am not qualified to speak; but I have such complete confidence in the exercise of his authority by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Courtney) that I am sure he would not pass over anything, without noticing it at the time, savouring of systematic insult or studied provocation. I am bound to say that certain remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby were out of Order, and before he sat down he gave utterance to that which I should not have allowed had I known what he intended to say. I believed he was rising on a point of Order, and wished to make an appeal to me.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: After those observations, Sir, I do not wish to carry the incident any further. I certainly had no desire to be irregular in any remarks I have made. I am quite satisfied to have obtained from you a declaration on the point of Order.
  Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT(who had entered during the remarks of the First Lord of the Treasury) here rose——
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to know what Question, Sir, is before the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no Question before the House; and, in short, the appeal made to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby was in itself irregular. Of course, I could not but listen to him on a point of Order. But as, in the course of his remarks, the right hon. Gentleman made use of an expression which has given offence in certain quarters of this House, I have permitted these remarks to be made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury as a protest, although they were not pertinent to a matter actually before the House.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I should like to put myself in Order, and will therefore move the adjournment of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has any charge to make against me, I hope he will make it in my presence. I was absent from the House at the moment he spoke; but if he had given me any notice of his intention, I would have been here. All I can say is, that I do not know what charge he has made; but I am prepared to maintain all that I have said.
  MR. SPEAKER: I really do hope that, in the interests of the Order of this House, I may be allowed to say that no charge was made against the right hon. Gentleman; but a protest was made against certain expressions which he used in the course of remarks he made. I could not refuse to listen to the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman, it being an appeal to me on a point of Order; but before the right hon. Gentleman sat down he stated that there was systematic provocation and studied insult to some quarter of the House. I said that during my tenure of the Chair I had not noticed it in any quarter of the House—and I added that I had such confidence in the administration of his duties by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, that I did not believe for a moment he would pass over anything of the kind.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Will you allow me to make one word of explanation to you? I was not speaking of either when you or the hon. Gentle-
  484
  man the Chairman of Committees was in the Chair, and I was not suggesting that any improper conduct from any quarter of the House had passed without animadversion. I entirely admit that the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees has more than once found it necessary to state—and I say it in his presence, I know he will confirm me—that he has greatly regretted the course that has been taken in regard to interruptions of the Irish Members. On the painful occasion on which he invited you, Sir, to come into the Chair to deal with an incident which we all regret, I did allude to that fact, not finding any fault with the conduct of the Chair, but asking you to appeal to the House that these things, on which the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees has so frequently animadverted, should not occur again.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY): I think I may be allowed one word, though we all wish to see the scene closed. It is quite true that I have more than once lamented and reprobated what I thought was unseemly conduct in a certain quarter of the House—and not that quarter of the House alone—but I never thought of the existence of anything which could be described as systematic provocation and insult. It appeared to me rather to be wanton levity—a want of consideration, regard, and respect for other hon. Members of the House, who, as long as they are Members of the House, deserve to be treated in every respect as every other Member is.

  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [lords].
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned; Debate on Question [26th July], "That this House doth not insist on the Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That this House doth not insist on the Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)proposed an addition to clause empowering the

  485
  Crofters Commission to deal with, and, if necessary, reduce claims on bills and promissory notes given in respect of arrears of rent.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: This clause, as proposed, will substantially accomplish the object I had in view, and I do not, therefore, propose to press my objection any further.
  Consequential Amendment made to Bill.

  DISTRESSED UNIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
  (Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Colonel King-Harman.)

  COMMITTEE [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  MR. DILLON: What course do the Government propose to take in regard to this Bill? I propose that it be considered this day three months.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is put down for this day.
  MR. DILLON: Then if the Government give the House no further explanation, I will propose that the Order be discharged. Will such a Motion be in Order?
  MR. SPEAKER: It will not be in Order.
  MR. DILLON: Then I will propose that the Bill be considered this day month.
  MR. SPEAKER: That would be to virtually defeat the Bill, and it is not a Motion known to this House.
  Adjourned Debate further adjourned till To-morrow.

  ARMY AND NAVY ESTIMATES—SELECT COMMITTEE (REMUNERATION OF ACCOUNTANTS).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  1. Resolved, That the Committee apointed to examine into the Army and Navy Estimates be authorised and empowered to make, with the concurrence of the Treasury, such arrangements as they may deem necessary for the purposes of their inquiry to secure an independent and professional examination and audit of the expense accounts of the Army Manufacturing Departments and of the books on which those accounts are based.
  2. Resolved, That the expenses of such audit and examination be defrayed out of moneys to be provided by Parliament.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

  BANKRUPTCY COURTS (IRELAND) [SALARIES, &C]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the Salaries of any Judges and Officers of Local Bankruptcy Courts, that may be appointed under any Act of the present Session to establish certain Courts of Bankruptcy in Ireland, and of compensation to any Official Assignee of the Court of Bankruptcy, whose emoluments may be reduced by the OFeration of the said Act.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

MOTIONS.

  MINING ACCIDENTS INSURANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Baird, Bill to provide for a system of National Insurance against Accidents in Mines in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Baird, Mr. He zier, Mr. Vernon, Mr. Hugh Elliott, and Mr. Bruce.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 343.]

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS AND GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Raikes, Bill to amend the Acts relating to Post Office Savings Banks, and to the purchase of small Government Annuities, and to assure payments of money after death, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Raikes and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 344.]

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Jackson, Bill further to amend the Acts relating to the raising of money by the Metropolitan Board of Works; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson and Sir Herbert Maxwell.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 345.]
  House adjourned at Three o'clock

MINUTES.
SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT—The Viscount Leinster (Duke of Leinster), after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Statute Law Revision* (102); Escheat (Procedure)" (193); Secretary for Scotland Act (1885) Amendment* (194): Trinidad and Tobago * (195); Adulteration* (199).
Second Reading—Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation (155).
Committee—Legitimacy Declaration Act (1858) Amendment* (159–196).
Committee—Report—Public Libraries Acts Amendment (No. 2)* (185).
Report—First Offenders (182–197).
Third Reading—Metropolitan Open Spaces Acts Extension* (190) now Open Spaces; Water Companies (Regulation of Powers) * (172), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Tramways (No. 1) (181); Local Government (Ireland) (Ballyshannon, &c.) (163).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BALLYSHANNON, &c.) BILL.—(No. 163.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
Moved, "That the Order made on the 3rd day of March last, 'That no Provisional Order Con-

279
firmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Friday, the 1st day of July next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read a second time."—(The Lord President.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Duke of BUCKINGHAM and CHANDOS)called attention to the late period of the Session, and declared that it was important that such a measure as this should be dealt with at an earlier date. The Bill was brought up on the 11th July, but no effort had been made to pass it until now. He would impress upon the noble Viscount the necessity of dealing with these Bills as soon as possible.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, that he was not responsible for the delay which had occurred. He had only moved the second reading on behalf of his noble Friend (Earl Cadogan)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ALLOTMENTS AND COTTAGE GARDENS COMPENSATION BILL.—(No. 155.)
(The End of Winchilsea.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that an apology was due to their Lordships for his thus early intervening in their Lordships' debates. He hoped, however, that an excuse for him would be found in the fact that, in common with his hon. Friend Sir Edward Birkbeck, he was responsible for the Bill in the House of Commons; and as the Bill and himself reached their Lordships' House on the same date, he could not refuse the request of his hon. Friend to take charge of it. The Bill was a very simple one; but he would like, with their Lordships' permission, to say a few words with, regard to its scope, its necessity, and the machinery by which they hoped to carry its objects into effect. Their Lordships would observe that the provision of allotments was not within the scope of the present Bill. He desired to express the satisfaction with which he remembered that their Lordships had lately agreed to the second reading of a Bill brought in by the noble Earl (the Earl of Dunraven),
280
and that the Government had lately in "another place" introduced a Bill almost exactly upon the lines of one which he had the honour to introduce last Session. As he had said, he remembered that with satisfaction, because it manifested the interest which their Lordships took in the subject. When this question was first mooted, he called together the delegates of the Spalding Division of Lincolnshire, who were elected by the labourers, to confer with him as their Member, and from their experience they pointed out cases in which very great hardship had occurred. In some of these cases weekly tenants had been turned out of their allotments at seven days' notice, just before the harvest, thereby losing crops varying in value from £4 to £4 10 s. Exactly the same experience was reported to Sir Edward Birkbeck in Norfolk. The artizans of Nottingham, to the number of 1,600, were also allotment holders, and were extremely interested in the success and the passing of this Bill. With regard to the machinery by which they proposed to carry out the provisions of the Bill, the first essential present to their minds was that it must be cheap. The sum in dispute being so small, it was absolutely necessary that any valuation which might be come to should cost so little that it would not make any appreciable reduction on the sum to be received by the outgoing tenant. The idea struck him at the time that it might be possible to get it done for nothing. He recollected—and he believed their Lordships would bear him out—that it was said there were only two classes in the community who worked for nothing—namely, magistrates and Members of Parliament. Members of Parliament had now so many onerous duties cast upon them that they could not be expected to give much time to such a matter as this. The analogy at once struck him of the public footpaths, which were ordered to be closed occasionally after being inspected by two magistrates. The framers of the Bill had often been asked why magistrates had been selected as the class from which arbitrators should be drawn. The simple answer was that they were the only people who were likely to give their services gratuitously. He, therefore, ventured to express a hope that their Lordships would not only give a second reading to the Bill, but

281
that, unless urged by very serious considerations, he might suggest to their Lordships that they might do so without any amendment. He fully admitted the right of their Lordships to amend either that or any other Bill at their discretion; but he desired to point out a circumstance which ought to be known to them. The self-styled champions of the rights of tenants in Ireland in the House of Commons persistently blocked that obviously simple measure of tenant right as often as he introduced it, and it was only by a ruse that they obtained a second reading on a Wednesday afternoon, he commended that consideration especially to two noble Lords opposite, who were identified politically with that Party. But as he was sure that their Lordships did not wish to play into their hands and give them another opportunity of wrecking the Bill, he trusted that no Amendment would be introduced in Committee, which would have the effect of returning the Bill again to the House of Commons. He had, he hoped, shown at not too much length what was the scope of the Bill. He had shown how simple, and yet how adequate, was the machinery by which they hoped to carry it into effect, and the necessity which had been proved to exist for its provisions. He had been told that the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Bramwell) intended to move the rejection of the Bill; but he confessed that he was at a loss to know upon what grounds. If it was upon the ground that it was an interferences with the freedom of contract, he would remind their Lordships that, especially in modern times, many contracts had been considered to be contrary to public policy, and as such had not been enforced by the Legislature, and that that had been especially the case where Parliament had had reason to suppose that one of the two parties to a contract was not precisely in the position of a free agent. If, on the other hand, the noble and learned Lord intended to oppose the Bill as an interference with the rights of property, he owned that he should be still more astonished. He contended that the Bill was, in the highest sense, a Bill to prevent the confiscation of property. It was a matter of how they denned the word "property." Surely they should not be told that that alone was property which descended to them
282
from their ancestors, whilst that was not property at all which they created by their own manual labour and exertions. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll), in the eloquent speech which he addressed to their Lordships on the occasion of the second reading of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill, claimed the right of the labourers of this country to combine in order to protect, and, if necessary, to raise the price of their labour. Nay, their Lordships had gone further, and had admitted, by passing the Allotments Bill of his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Dunraven), the right of labourers to be provided with a field for the employment of their spare capital—namely, their spare labour. Surely, therefore, it followed that it was still more the duty of the Legislature to protect from confiscation what was actually labour in its concrete form. He therefore asked them to read the Bill a second time, in the firm conviction that it was a simple, a just, a necessary, and an adequate measure. He felt sure that by doing so they would express their sympathy for, and their determination to protect, the form of property—for he adhered to the word "property"—which resulted from an industrious desire on the part of the labouring classes of this country to attain to an honest independence.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a,"—(The Earl of Winchilsea.)
LORD BRAMWELL, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, that he spoke with considerable reserve in the presence of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Onslow), who knew so much more about the question than he did. But he had a justification in the opinion of a noble Lord (Lord Tollemaehe), whose authority on the subject would be recognized, and who had written to him a letter in which he expressed his opinion that the Bill would deter many landowners from granting allotments, and his hype that the Bill might at least be postponed until the provisions of the Government measure were before their Lordships. It was not with any ill-feeling towards allotments that he moved the rejection of the Bill; he was in favour of granting allotments—they were both profitable and agreeable to those who had them,

283
and made them feel that property in land was for their benefit as well as for that of others. But this Bill, he believed, would operate against the object of the promoters of it. At present nobody was under any obligation to give an allotment. The effect of the 5th clause of the Bill was that no one should grant an allotment at all unless he granted it on the terms specified in the clause. Were their Lordships prepared to pass a Bill which said that no allotments should be granted except on particular terms, when it was absolutely certain that many persons would object to those terms? Another mischief about this provision was that it was a direct invitation to dishonesty. A man who had entered into a bargain that he would observe certain terms and conditions and would exact no others was by a provision, of this sort invited, after he had had the benefit of his bargain, to depart from it, and to get out of the person with whom: he had contracted more than had been stipulated for. The argument brought forward by the noble Earl was that tins was only an extension of the principle which was put in operation by the Agricultural Holdings Act. He strenuously I opposed that Act when it was before their Lordships' House. Moreover, it was a fallacy to say what was continually being stated—namely, that one exception from a general rule was a warrant for another. That was not so, for every exception from a general rule must be justified by the circumstances of that particular case. He maintained that there was no valid reason for making this particular case an exception to the general rule. He submitted to their Lordships that the clauses of the Bill were very objectionable; but the fundamental error of the measure was in providing that unless allotments were granted on certain terms they should not be granted at all. The second error of the Bill was that it offered a direct inducement to fraud; and, further, the clauses were unreasonable in themselves, and held out to anyone who was unwise enough to grant allotments such a possibility of litigation that any prudent man would be disposed to say—" I will have nothing to do with granting allotments on these terms." With no desire to oppose the granting of allotments, which he hoped would be granted more numerously, he begged to move that
284
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").—(The Lord Bramwell.)
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, he hoped their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell), on the ground he had given that a Government Billon the subject had been introduced into the other House of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord, he was sure, would not make any apology for moving his Amendment, seeing that he always proposed Amendments to almost every Bill of any kind in that House. He said, in justification of the course he took, that he had received a letter from some noble Lord in that House saying that it would he possible for his noble Friend who had introduced the Bill to postpone the second reading until the Government had announced their intention, which he said they were going to do next Monday. But, as a matter of fact, Her Majesty's Government had already fully explained their Bill, and he regretted that the noble and learned Lord had not been acquainted with the fact. Had the noble and learned Lord not read the explanation given by the President of the Local Government Board? If he had, he would have seen that Mr. Ritchie, in explaining the provisions of the Bill, explained why provisions with reference to compensation were not included. The reason why there was no provision for compensation was that such provision was contained in the very Bill which was now before the House for second reading, and Mr. Ritchie then said he hoped this Bill would pass. Mr. Ritchie said that compensation for outgoing tenants was to be left to the promoters of this Bill, which he hoped might become law. He (the Earl of Dunraven) submitted to their Lordships that if they rejected this Bill they would be rejecting what was practically a portion of the Government Bill which would have been included if it had not been already contained in this Bill. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) went more largely into matters of detail than was usual on the question of second reading, and he did

285
not propose to follow him into these matters of detail; but he would refer to his objection that the consent of the landlord should be made in writing. He asked what was to happen in cases where the consent of the landlord had been made, but not in writing. That seemed to be a somewhat frivolous objection, and he almost expected him to ask what was to happen in cases where landlords did not know how to write. The noble and learned Lord said the provisions in Clause 5 were a distinct incentive to dishonesty and fraud. He could not see how the contention was to be made out. The noble, and learned Lord did not show any proof of his proposition. All that Clause 5 did was to prevent what was scarcely too harsh a word to describe as dishonesty on the part of some landlords. The object of the Bill was to prevent landlords doing what 99 out of 100 landlords never dreamt of doing, and that was to refuse reasonable compensation for certain improvements, such as drainage, &c. The noble and learned Lord said there was a good deal of difference between the present case and the case of tenant farmers affected by the Agricultural Holdings Act. But if it was necessary to protect tenants under the Agricultural Holdings Act, he thought there was à fortiori very strong need for protection of the class of men who cultivated those small allotments, and whoso ease this Bill provided for. The objection of the noble and learned Lord seemed to be scarcely worthy of the attention of the House. He hoped their Lordships would agree to the second reading of the Bill, not only on account of the value of the measure itself, but because it practically formed part of the Bill in the other House of Parliament in the hands of the Government.
THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, he was greatly in favour of allotments, but he was not sure that both in the Bill now before their Lordships, and also in the Government Bill, a little too much was not done by compulsion as regarded both landlord and tenant. In his opinion they legislated a little too much in making everything compulsory, and leaving nothing to be done by agreement. He objected also to the proposals for setting aside contracts, as they seemed to be now a prominent feature of all land legislation. Another point was that there were two Bills on the
286
same subject. It was sometimes difficult enough to interpret one Act, and it was unreasonable that there should be two on the same subject. He did not wish to oppose the Bill; but for the reasons he had stated he could not give it hearty support.
LORD MONK BRETTONsaid, that, as he had charge of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, in its passage through the other House, he was glad to hear the noble Duke who had just sat down say that, notwithstanding his objection to this Bill, he was not going to vote against it. The Bill was supplementary to the Agricutural Holdings Act, 18S3, and extended the right to compensation to a class of persons who were not included in that Act—namely, persons who occupied small plots of land for a shorter period than one whole year. The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875, excluded persons who held less than two acres from the benefits of compensation; but the Act of 1883, which repealed that of 1875, extended to persons holding not more than two acres, provided they held for a terra of not less than one year. This Bill extended the benefits of the Act to persons who hold for less than that period. This extension was consistent with justice and common sense, if it We re assumed that the Act of 1883 was consistent with justice and common sense. This Bill gave compensation not only to a new class of persons, but gave it for certain things not included in the Act of 1883, such as labour and unbought manures. He would remind their Lordships that under the Act of 3883 no person was allowed to contract himself out of the provisions of that measure; and, therefore, they ought to give the humbler class of tenants similar protection by means of this Bill.
EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he hoped that their Lordships would not consent to pass a measure containing a clause intended to facilitate the violation of contract. No subject had been so prolific of delusion as that of allotments. The question had at one time even led to a change of Government, and the unhappy author of the Amendment in the House of Commons which, restored Mr. Gladstone to Office was after wards ungratefully referred to by him as "a certain Mr. Jesse Collings." It had been shown that nearly three-fourths of

287
the agricultural labourers in the country were in occupation of allotments or of cottage gardens of about a quarter of an acre. He had had personal experience on the subject, inasmuch as more than 40 years ago he had been consulted by his father, about arrangements to supply allotments as close as possible to the different hamlets near his residence, and at the end 10 years it was found that nearly all of a special set of 15 allotments particularly close to the cottages for which they had been provided had passed into the hands of one man; while at the end of 20 years all the plots had been voluntarily surrendered by the holders on the ground that they were rather an incumbrance than an advantage to them. If there was a subject upon which more cant was preached about the country than another it was upon this question of allotments. When the multiplicity of Statutes had been so fully recognized as an evil that we were constantly having Bills passed, and more brought in for their consolidation and codification on, different subjects, the introduction of two separate measures this Session on the small question of allotments, instead of one dealing with the whole of it, rendered it, quite apart from the merits or demerits of the particular Bill, a distinctly retrogade piece of legislation, especially as Parliament had already been considering more than one measure dealing with the subject this Session.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that if anything in the world would tend to increase the misrepresentations and delusions existing with reference to the subject of allotments, which had been denounced by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell), it would be the hasty rejection of this measure on such grounds as those put foward by him. Their Lordships had, rightly or wrongly, passed the Agricultural Tenants' Compensation Bill, which concerned the tenant farmers, and which contained a clause which prohibited them from contracting themselves out of the provisions of the measure, and it was now proposed to reject a provision which was intended to protect in the same way the poorer classes of agricultural tenants. The other Bill was not before their Lordships, and they ought to consider the present measure on its own merits, without reference to
288
the other Bill. The suggestions of the noble and learned Lord who moved the Amendment were worthy of consideration in Committee; but they gave no ground for rejecting the Bill on the second reading. On the whole, it appeared to him that their Lordships would do well, when a Bill was presented to them with a good and a just object, to give it a second loading, oven if its provisions were imperfect.
EARL BROWNLOWsaid, he was willing to admit that since the time of the Agricultural Holdings Act there had been no great agitation on the part of allotment holders for a measure of this sort; but it was the function of their Lordships to mete out just and even handed legislation to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. After the Agricultural Holdings Act, which dealt with the tenant farmer, Her Majesty's Government thought they were faking a perfectly consistent course in legislating for the labourer. The noble and learned Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill was, no doubt, perfectly consistent in the course he had taken; but he thought their Lordships would incur a grave charge of inconsistency if they refused to allotment holders an advantage which a few years ago they conferred on tenant farmers. The noble and learned Lord had raised an objection as to the power proposed to be given to the magistrates in Petty Sessions to appoint an arbitrator. He admitted there might be certain objections to that; but when he came to look round he really did not see any other body which would fulfil the duty better. The Land Commission and the Boards of Guardians had both been suggested; but the former body could not have the necessary local knowledge, and there were many objections which might be urged against Boards of Guardians. He wished to support the second reading of this Bill, not only as representing Her Majesty's Government, but also as the landlord of a very large number of allotments. He firmly believed the Bill would be a boon both to landlords and tenants, and he trusted that their Lordships would give it a second reading, and, if the noble and learned Lord should press his Amendment to a Division, that they would express their opinion by a majority sufficient to show their sympathy with, a hard working and deserving class. The two Bills now be-

289
fore Parliament We re entirely separate, and dealt with quite different subjects.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that the I Bills were not entirely separate, because Mr. Ritchie had stated that the reason why the question of compensation was not included in the Government Bill was because of the measure now under consideration. He, however, rose for the purpose of asking his noble and learned Friend to rest satisfied with the debate that had taken place, and not to press his Motion to a Division. There was one argument used by the noble and learned Earl (the Earl of Selborne) against which he wished to protest—namely, that because in some former Bill—the Agricultural Holdings Act—they had legislated in this direction for a superior class of tenants, they should for the sake of consistency road this Bill a second time. Did the noble and learned Earl mean that those who had opposed this principle in the Agricultural Holdings Act in every way in their power were now to withhold their opposition? In opposing measures of this sort they were righting for the principle of freedom and liberty of contract. In the circumstances, however, he advised the withdrawal of the Amendment, with the view of renewing the opposition on the third reading, if the Bill had not been amended satisfactorily in Committee.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he thought that a good deal of loose language was used when legislation which was said to interfere with the freedom of contract was spoken of as introducing some principle unknown to the law of the land in former times. Any two persons were perfectly at liberty to come to terms and make any agreement they pleased; but the question was, what was the agreement the community would enforce? The Legislature determined that there were certain agreements which were opposed to public policy and expediency, and that the force and power of the community should not be used for the purpose of compelling obedience to them. That was a matter as old as the Common Law itself. He was afraid there was too much of a disposition in some quarters to raise this kind of interference with freedom of contract into a sort of fetish, as if it were a modern principle, unknown to the law in former times. It had always been the law, so far as he
290
knew, that contracts which were contrary to what was called public policy could not he enforced by the State. In the case of the Agricultural Holdings Act there was a question of public policy or expediency, and in the present instance also it seemed to him that a question of expediency arose; and it was just as competent for Parliament as for the Courts of Justice to say whether, in their view, certain contracts were contrary to public policy.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ONSLOW)said, that the Bill had his warmest and most hearty support. It was a perfect farce to increase the number of allotments in England if it were not insured to the labourers who rented the allotments that the fruits of their labour should not be arbitrarily taken away. As to the expediency of dealing with the question in more than one measure, the exigency of the case required it. The Bill before their Lordships had passed through the other House of Parliament before the Government Bill was introduced, and it would have been both, improper and inconvenient to incorporate its provisions in the Bill of the Government.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, that the Bill before the House should be taken on its merits, and not because it was connected with any other Bill. He entirely agreed with the main objects of the measure before the House; but he doubted whether its provisions were well adapted to carry out those objects. The measure ought to harmonize as much as possible with the customs of the country. He agreed with very much which had fallen from the noble and learned Lord and the noble Duke.
LORD TOLLEMACHEsaid, he wished to associate himself with other landlords, I and, like many of them, he had taken a great interest for many years in the allotment question. He had also, like other landlords, had a good deal of experience in allotments. With regard to the Bill now before the House, upon the the face of it he thought it was perfectly right and just; but he feared that practically it would have the effect of deterring many landlords from granting allotments. If allotments were granted, he had remarked that the voluntary principle answered a great deal the best.

291
But he had also felt, and avowed his opinion frequently, that there were certain cases in which compulsion was required, he also believed that if compulsory powers which could be easily carried out were contained in Acts of Parliament they would very seldom have to be exercised, because if landlords knew that if they did not give allotments they could be compelled to do so, there would be very few estates without abundance of allotments. Although he very much feared that this Bill would have the effect of deterring people from giving allotments, still, as the House was evidently in favour of the measure, and as probably his noble and learned Friend, if he divided, would be left in a very small minority, he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Original Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

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

REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
Amendments reported (according to order).
Clause 6 (Act not to apply to Ireland).
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in moving to omit Clause 6, said, this was a humane measure which ought to apply to Ireland no less than to England. It had been said that Ireland had been excluded because certain Representatives of that country opposed its inclusion. As far as he could ascertain, however, the leading Followers of the hon. Member for the City of Cork viewed the measure with approval. The only reason which was given for the opposition of certain Members to the proposal to extend the Bill to Ireland was that they objected to any legislation for Ireland by the Imperial Parliament. As one who was ardently attached to the Union, and who looked upon it as the hope and salvation of Ireland, he urged their Lordships to disregard this reason. He held that it could not be countenanced for a moment.
Moved, "To leave out Clause 6."—(The Earl of Milltown.)
LORD FITZGERALDsaid, that as to the subject-matter of the Bill the position of the countries was identical, and he also saw no reason why the provisions of the Bill should not be applied to Ireland.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that in regard to this Bill he represented an absent Peer who had charge of it. He could not appreciate the reasons which induced the House of Commons to exclude Ireland from the Bill; but he could not take the responsibility of any change, in the present stage, which might possibly endanger its success.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that there did not exist in Ireland the same confidence in those who administered the law which happily existed in England, and it was thought that the power of nominating a person to whom the offender was from time to time to report himself would lead to hardships. He could not help thinking that that was what had led to the desire that Ireland should be excluded from the Bill. He did not put forward that argument himself, nor did he think it was well-founded, and the Bill in its earlier form was quite different from that which was now before the House.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL(Viscount CRANBROOK)said, that at this late period of the Session the Amendments already introduced would endanger the Bill, and he saw no reason why the Amendment should not be added.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that if the Bill had retained its original form he should not have moved the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 197.)

LICENSED PREMISES (EARLIER CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 183.)
(The Earl of Camperdown.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he would appeal to the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) to postpone the second reading of this Bill. The measure had passed through the House of Commons much more rapidly than wag

293
expected. There were many persons in Scotland who took a deep interest in the subject, and further time was desired for consideration of the measure. He, therefore, hoped his noble Friend would not press it to-day, but would consent to its postponement for a week.
LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he wished to join in the appeal, because there was a great deal of opposition to the Bill.
LORD BRAMWELL: Naturally!
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Brabourne) had just stated the strongest argument he could against his acceding to the request that had been made. He admitted, however, that there had not been much time since the Bill was introduced into this House, and, in the circumstances, he did not think he would be justified in refusing to postpone it. He was bound to take into consideration the fact that the Bill had been supported by a very large proportion of the Scottish Representatives in the other House, only seven of whom had opposed it. He did not hold extreme views on this subject; but, at the same time, he thought their Lordships were bound to keep abreast of public opinion in the matter. He was perfectly ready to hear anything that might be advanced against the Bill between this and next Thursday, and, on that understanding, he was quite prepared to postpone the second reading until that day.
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.

HIGH SHERIFFS.—RESOLUTION.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in rising to move—
" That, in the opinion of this House, it is unjust and also inexpedient to continue to compel individuals to discharge the duties and office of high sheriff at their own expense; and, further, that the reasons which formerly made it desirable that the high sheriff should he possessed of sufficient land within the county to answer to the Crown and to the people have now ceased to exist,"
said, the grievance was real and substantial; and he believed there was a general feeling in their Lordships' House in favour of his Motion. Considering the circumstances attending the possession of property in recent years it was high time that this subject was put before Parliament. Their Lord-
294
ships were so fully acquainted with the duties of High Sheriffs that it was needless for him to enumerate them. The office was one of high antiquity, and used, at one time, to be of considerable value. At the present day there was not a single High Sheriff who, on being appointed to the office, knew what his duties were, or who, if he know them, was competent to perform the greater part of them. Many of his duties were discharged, at the present time, by the Under Sheriff. The duties of a High Sheriff at the present day were practically limited to attending the Judges at the Assizes and presiding at elections of Members of Parliament. It might perhaps be considered by some persons that the duty of attending upon the Judges was a trivial matter, but he believed it was a duty which was especially burdensome. The cost to the Sheriff was seldom less than £400, and in one or two cases—as in the County of York—it had amounted to nearly £2,000. Again, if a Sheriff were so unlucky as to hold the office when a General Election took place, he had to incur considerable additional expense. Referring to the mode in which Sheriffs were selected, he expressed his belief that many of the excuses which were submitted were of the most sorrowful and mournful character. In his opinion, it was wrong that individuals should be called upon to make very unpleasant and minute statements with regard to their private affairs. In conclusion, the noble Earl formally moved his Resolution.
Moved to resolve—
" That, in the opinion of this House, it is unjust and also inexpedient to continue to compel individuals to discharge the duties and office of high sheriff at their own expense; and, further, that the reasons which formerly made it desirable that the high sheriff should be possessed of sufficient land within the county to answer to the Crown and to the people have now ceased to exist."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, it was very natural that the noble Earl should have brought this subject before their Lordships, who were disinterested spectators of those who served the office of High Sheriff in different parts of the country. No one could become cognizant of the excuses sent by gentlemen with respect to their property, their age, and the circumstances in which they were

295
placed without being shocked by the fact that men should be driven to reveal all those circumstances in order to excuse themselves from a gratuitous office, and an onerous office, undertaken for the benefit of the public at large. At the same time it was a great office, and an office of great antiquity, and in some cases it was a coveted honour, and when hereditary in Westmorland. The Shrievalty was regarded as one of the chief dignities of the county. The honour then was not burdensome, as the population was small, and the duties light. But it was a different thing in other and specially neighbouring ones. Why, for instance, should a man be appointed against his will to be High Sheriff of Lancashire? He would have to conduct 29 elections, and would, in consequence, be put to great expense. Then he would have to attend the Judges, and it should be remembered that Assizes were now held much move frequently than in days gone by. In Yorkshire, again, the High Sheriff had to make arrangements for the elections in all the three Ridings. He did, however, not think it would be convenient in the then condition of their Lordships' House, so few Members being present, that they should vote the condemnation of the Shrievalty system which had existed since the reign of Edward II., and probably much earlier. He would therefore suggest that his noble Friend should at the beginning of next Session move for a Committee to inquire into the question of the Shrievalty of counties and all matters connected with it. His own Predecessor in Office (Earl Spencer) sent a circular, in 1882, to all the Sheriffs in the country asking confidentially for a return of the expense to which they were put. A large number made a return, though many neglected to do so, and from that return he could state generally how extremely burdensome this office was to some people. He thought, however, that of late years the excuses offered by persons placed on the list were fewer; and the reason of that was that the High Sheriff had in recent years been more careful to select those persons who were best able to serve. On the whole, he did not think that any more adequate means of selecting gentlemen connected with counties could be devised than that at present in vogue.
296
The Sheriff sent his list to the Judges, and those lists were circulated when the three gentlemen were selected. Then the time came when the excuses were fairly considered, and, as far as he knew, in most instances where they were reasonable they were allowed. He ventured to suggest to his noble Friend that he should not now proceed to carry a Resolution so peremptory and decisive; but he felt so strongly that he had made out a case for investigation, that he thought it very desirable that there should be a Committee to take into consideration all the circumstances connected with the Shrievalty.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he was inclined to think that the expense was very much within the control of the Sheriffs themselves. They might perform the duties of the office expensively or not, as they thought fit. He thought it was extremely probable that the two most expensive counties were Lancashire and Yorkshire, and yet he was absolutely certain that the greatest regret would be felt in both those counties if this Resolution were carried into effect. For in those two counties there were numbers of wealthy persons desirous of the office; in fact, he doubted very much whether this Resolution, if carried, would not create greater displeasure than pleasure, He hoped their Lordships would remember that this was a most important office, in that the High Sheriff was responsible for carrying into effect the sentences of the Courts of Assize and had other most responsible duties to perform. More than that, he took precedence of the Lord Lieutenant and of everyone in the county, with the exception, of course, of Royalty and those who represented the Queen—the Judges—and that was very pleasing to the minds of many who filled the office. It was part of the Constitutional Law of this country that every man was bound to render service to the State according to his means and abilities—and gratuitously. Men must take upon themselves the office of constable, guardians of the poor, and jurors, and without payment; and why should gentlemen—men of property—not be called upon to render service to the Queen? He had, during his time on Circuit, met over 200 High Sheriffs, and he had always received the greatest kindness and courtesy from them. It perhaps might be thought

297
that he had got some liking for High Sheriffs on account of the dignity they were supposed to add to the state of the Judges of Assize. For his part he owned, though he was in a minority among his brethren, that he did not think the dignity of Her Majesty's Judges was augmented by the attendance of the High Sheriff at the Assizes. With regard to this Motion there were two things which he desired to impress upon the House—first, that the expense and trouble to which High Sheriffs were put were not so great as was ordinarily supposed; and, secondly that the office of High Sheriff was in itself an object of desire, and ambition to many persons, and that its gratuitous performance was in accordance with the ordinary law of the country, by which all individuals were bound to render certain services to the State without fee or reward.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)was only anxious to say that if the question raised by the noble Earl was to be decided that night upon his Motion there was a great deal against it in the arguments of the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down. But as the question was to be referred to a Committee everything the noble and learned Lord had said was in aid of such an inquiry. It could not be denied that exceptional responsibilities had been laid upon those who were selected to serve the office of High Sheriff. We had multiplied the number of circuits and had greatly added to the number of elections in each county. Further, every Judge who went down to the country to try Election Petitions was received by the Sheriff with the same state as if he were on Assize. But in the same proportion as both the trouble and expense of the office had been increased had its dignity been diminished. They had withdrawn from the office of Sheriff a great deal that formerly constituted its dignity. He did not deny that there were many persons who still coveted the office; but when the noble and learned Lord justified the continuance of the office in its present form as being one of those services which every individual was bound to render gratuitously to the State, and referred to the office of constable as another example, he was bound to say that the illustration was a little unfortunate. The existence of the Metropolitan Police and of the police throughout
298
the country was altogether inconsistent with adherence to the principle to which the noble and learned Lord had referred. If in these days they trusted the performance of the office of constable solely to those who were bound to perform it gratuitously he was afraid that the peace would not be well preserved. Modern times had caused changes to be made which went to affirm the proposition that an inquiry should be made into what were alleged to be serious grievances with regard to the performance of the office of Sheriff. He was of opinion that Sheriffs were not always the best informed as to what their expenses were; for instance, certain allowances were made from the Treasury, and it had been the custom for the Under Sheriffs to appropriate a certain amount of these emoluments as their perquisites. It would, he thought, be for the interest of High Sheriffs that they should inquire a little into these matters. In his opinion, the noble Earl had performed a good work by bringing this subject forward.
LORD HARLECHsaid, he fully concurred in what had been said as to the hardship of being compelled to serve this office. On one occasion he had the misfortune to be made High Sheriff in the year that a General Election took place. He was desirous of standing for his county, but through being returning officer and being unable to find anyone else to undertake the post he was unable to become a candidate.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that the proposal of the noble Viscount opposite was an exceedingly good one, and he thought would be extremely useful. Whatever view might be taken as to the expediency of retaining the office of Sheriff he could not think that there was any justification in principle for adding to its burdens. Owing to electoral changes the office of High Sheriff had become much more burdensome, and he did not see why the expense of changes which were thought desirable in the public interest should be thrown upon the High Sheriffs. Whatever view might be entertained as to the general question, great good would be done by an investigation into the present duties and burdens of the office.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that although no single fact or state-

299
ment in the Resolution had been questioned in the slightest degree, yet, as the noble Viscount had expressed his determination, he should not divide the House upon the Motion. He must be content with the inquiry which the noble Lord offered, and with the conviction that his Resolution, although not passed, had met with the almost unanimous assent of the House. He begged leave to withdraw his Motion.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary—Was presented by The Lord Chancellor; read 1a. (No. 192.)
ESCHEAT (PROCEDURE) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill for repealing certain enactments relating to escheators and the procedure in cases of escheat; and for regulating the procedure in such cases—Was presented, by The Lord Chancellor; read 1a. (No. 193.)
SECREATARY FOR SCOTLAND ACT (1885)
  AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Secretary for Scotland Act, 1885—Was presented by The Marquess of Lothian; read 1a. (No. 194.)
  TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to enable Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to unite the colonies of Trinidad and Tobago into one colony—Was presented by the Earl of Onslow; read 1a. (No. 195.)

  ADULTERATION BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to the sale of adulterated commodities—Was presented by The Earl of Wemyss; read 1a. (No. 199.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.