Sitting of 1 August 1894

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ARBITRATION [GUARANTEE AND EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported;
  "That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to guarantee advances, not exceeding £250,000, charged on the Irish Church Temporalities Fund, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the restoration of Evicted Tenants in Ireland, and to charge the sums required to meet such guarantee on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom:
  And to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any salaries, remuneration, and expenses which may become payable under the said Act."
  Resolution agreed to.

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ARBITRATION BILL.—(No. 176.)
  Committee. [Progress, 27th July.]
  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ARBITRATION BILL.—(No. 176.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper is out of Order.
    CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND: On a point of Order, Mr. Mellor—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    MR. DARLINGsaid, he wished to move the Amendment standing in his name. He had not had the advantage of hearing the Debate yesterday, and he was anxious in the humblest possible manner to assist the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to make it as good a Bill as possible, and to see if there was any real intention on the part of the Government to accept reasonable Amendments.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think the question raised by this Amendment has been decided, and it is therefore out of Order.
    [Several hon. Members who had Amendments on the Paper having been called upon, and none of them having endeavoured to move their Amendments],—
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,)said, he wished to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Fermanagh (Mr. Dane).
    MR. BARTLEY: On a point of Order, Mr. Mellor, I beg leave to ask if this Amendment has not been passed over?
    THE CHAIRMAN: No, the right hon. Gentleman is quite in Order.
    MR. HANBURY: You called upon me, Sir, to move an Amendment which stands three Amendments after this.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Yes; but as no Amendment has actually been moved the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly in Order in moving this.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Then I beg to move the Amendment. Of course, this is a Bill intended for the relief of tenants, and not for the benefit and relief of creditors.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, after the word "representative," to insert the words—
    "Not being an administrator who has obtained letters of administration as a creditor."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, the fact that this Amendment which had come from the Unionist side had been accepted by the Government showed that some amendment of the Bill was really necessary in order to make it what it ought to be. He thought that was a fact which might be noted with some interest.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that in the temporary absence of the hon. Member for South Kerry (Mr. Kilbride), he wished to move the Amendment standing in his name—namely, in page 1, line 11, to leave out from "that" to "there" in line 12. He said that if the Amendment were adopted the clause would read as follows:—

    1499
    "If in the opinion of the arbitrators the petition shows that there is a primâ facie case for reinstatement owing to the circumstances of the district," &c. "they may make an order for such reinstatement."
    This Amendment raised a question which he regarded as one of principle and of vital importance in regard to the probable operation of the Bill—namely, whether there should be a different procedure and a different measure of power accorded to the arbitrators in the case of vacant farms from that given to them in the case of those farms which had been tenanted since the former tenancy was determined. Perhaps, in order to make clear the import of the Amendment, he ought to explain the difference between the powers proposed to be given to the arbitrators in cases where farms had continued vacant, and in cases where they had been tenanted. In what he believed was the more common case—namely, that where the landlord, owing to the harshness and in-equitableness of his own action and to the resolute state of public opinion in Ireland in reference to such action, had been unable to obtain a tenant for his farm either since the 1st of May, 1879, or since any later date when the farm had become vacant, the Bill proposed that the evicted tenant might petition the arbitrators. The arbitrators, if they thought there was a primâ facie case for reinstatement—that was to say, a case of inequitable conduct on the part of the landlord—might make a conditional order for reinstatement. The landlord, on being served with a conditional order, was entitled to show cause against it within the prescribed period; and as the Rules to be made by the arbitrators must be approved by the Irish Privy Council, which was not a body unfavourable to the interests of the landlord, he presumed that ample time would be allowed to the landlord for the purpose. If the landlord succeeded in showing that there was not a good case for reinstatement the petition would drop as unsuccessful. In view of the various oblique allusions—allusions falling far short of direct challenge—which had been made in reference to the arbitrators, he must again point out that the chief of those arbitrators had been described by the Leader of the Tory Party as the leader of the Equity Bar in
    1500
    Ireland. He had not heard from anyone on the landlords' side any objection to him. Perhaps if the Nationalist Members were disposed to be critical they might make some objection on their side. They did not propose to do so, however, because they thought the strength of the case of the evicted tenants was so great, and the public expediency of reinstating them was so strong, that no man whose mind was not closed to justice would refuse to reinstate them. This gentleman and the other arbitrator, who had both discharged important functions in connection with the Land Commission, had to determine whether the landlord had shown adequate cause against reinstatement. If he failed to do so the reinstatement was made. There was a power to have a fair rent fixed by the arbitrators, but the landlord could, at his option, have the question of fair rent determined by the Land Commission under the present law. If the landlord was unwilling that the tenant should be reinstated as tenant he might demand that the tenant should purchase. If he did this the arbitrators had to fix the purchase-money, and the order operated as if there were no agreement under the Purchase Acts. In view of the rancorous, sullen, and irrational opposition shown to this Bill by the landlord faction and by the Unionist Party, he did not think that public attention had been sufficiently drawn to the circumstance that where the landlord in the exercise of the right given to him by the Bill demanded that the tenant should purchase, the whole of the purchase-money was to be handed to him at once, and was not to be obliged to leave in the hands of the State the one-fifth of the purchase-money which had to be left in the hands of the State under the present law. This was a sketch of the provisions of the Bill in the case of a vacant farm. The Amendment he was now moving applied to the case of a farm which had been tenanted since the date of the eviction. He did not declare on his own opinion that even if the Bill were a purely optional Bill it would operate in many of the cases, even of the tenanted farms. He believed that the landlords and the new tenants in many cases were sick of the bargains they had made. The condition of affairs in regard to these farms

    1501
    was deplorable, both as regarded the vacant and the tenanted farms, and was injurious to the interests of the landlords themselves. As to the vacant farms, the landlords were losing their rent—for it could not be pretended that a farm in the occupation of the landlord was being tilled — the tenants were losing their means of living, the locality were losing the rates, the State was losing the Revenue, and the community was losing the product of the land. With regard to the tenanted farms, and especially farms on estates under the Plan of Campaign, what was the state of affairs? In the first place, they were not bonâ fide farmers; they were mere servants of the landlords, or the agents of political combinations, who had been put in for a political and not agricultural purpose, some paying a nominal rent, some paying no rent, and often sustained in their position as bogus tenants by grants of money from Political Associations. They were familiar with many cases in which the tenant or the land-grabber, and especially the political land-grabber, did not even go through the farce of carrying on any agricultural operation. He did not apply the farm to any agricultural use; he was merely there as a political agent, and the question this House had to consider upon its responsibility was whether it would assent to the continuance of a state of things incompatible with social order and the maintenance of peace? He invited the House to consider, first, how this state of things arose; what was the origin; what was the cause of these evictions? It arose in no inconsiderable part from the hardness of this Legislature in discharging its functions towards Ireland. Many were evicted between 1879 and 1881, before the Land Act of 1881 was passed, many of them were evicted because the Land Act of 1881 was about to be passed; and the landlords chose to put them out in order, at the same time, to rob them of their property and to deprive them of the rights that the Legislature by the Act of 1881 intended they should have. Many were evicted between the passing of the Act of 1881 and the Act of 1887, the leaseholders who were labouring under excessive rents. If the Land Act had proved one thing more clearly than
    1502
    another it was that the leaseholders of Ireland were struggling and staggering under heavier rents than tenants from year to year. In 1881, the Liberal Party, deterred by the opposition of the Tory Party, did not secure the leaseholders in their rights, though the Tory Party, driven by the Plan of Campaign, included them in the Act of 1887. After the Act of 1887 had passed, containing as it did the section known as "the eviction made easy clause," many hundreds of tenants were evicted, deprived of their tenancies, and ceased to have any interest in the soil. What happened to them? He had explained to the Committee, but might mention it again, and he hoped hon. Gentlemen would bear it in mind, that before the Act of 1887 was passed the tenant in Ireland, whatever might have been the tenancy, could not be deprived of his legal interest in the holding until the Sheriff came and expelled him from his holding, and after that expulsion he had six mouths within which to redeem his interest in the farm. But the Act of 1887 proposed for the first time, in the long series of cruel Acts this Legislature had passed, that the interest of the tenant might be determined, and he might cease to be a tenant by the receipt of a registered letter intimating that judgment had been given against him in the Court. Nay, more; it was not necessary the notice should be served on him, because on a motion in Court the notice might be posted at some public place, some police barrack in the district, and upon the posting of the notice, perhaps 10 miles from the farm, the tenancy, by the mere fact of the posting under Section 7 of the Act of 1887, became determined; from that moment the tenant was divested and despoiled of his rights and his property as tenant, and became on the instant a caretaker, and on the expiration of six months his right of redemption ceased. He was aware, from the best official testimony that was laid before them, that in the last year or two hundreds of tenants, especially in the West of Ireland—poor illiterate men, men in the humblest condition, men, many of them, unable to speak the English language, living in districts where English was not spoken, came into Court with originating notices, notices they had served before

    1503
    the tenancy was determined, but which, owing to the delays of the law, did not come to the point of trial, and when they came in he had heard the Land Commissioner declare that no more painful duty fell upon him than his endeavour to explain to these poor illiterate men that their tenancies had been determined, and that they had been made caretakers on the posting of a notice many of them were unacquainted with. That was the way in which these farms had been vacated, and they knew in the struggle of the last few years Associations had been formed of Irish landlords, aided by wealthy English landlords, and that these associations had been amply provided with funds for carrying on the struggle against the tenants; that by the use of these funds men had been brought from other parts of Ireland, even from places outside Ireland, and put in these farms as tenants. He dared say that the new tenant might be inclined in many cases under this Bill to surrender his tenancy, especially if compensation was paid; but in the case of the Plan of Campaign estates, where the struggle had been fierce and long, in the case of men like Lord Clanricarde and others who spurned their own countrymen, who were so wealthy as to scorn the loss they might sustain, who seemed to take a delight in tyranny for its own sake—in the case of such men be apprehended that unless some pressure was brought to bear by this Legislature, mindful of its responsibility in the case, both upon the landlord and the new tenant, that the Bill, so far as they were concerned, might prove to be inoperative. Let them picture to themselves the future prospect of peace—and that was a question for all Parties and a question for this Legislature to deal with. What was the prospect of peace in the district where the old tenants had been cast out in numbers, where men from other parts of the country had been placed in their stead, and where the old tenants and their families for years had been living in the vicinity of their holdings, hoping for the day of their return, trusting in the sense of justice of this Imperial Legislature? Let them picture to themselves, he said, the prospect of peace, if that hope was dashed to the ground. What did the eviction of those old tenants mean? Did
    1504
    it mean no more than what it would be in England or Scotland? That was one of the terrible difficulties in the way of dealing with the Irish question, and in what was practically a foreign House, unable to understand the conditions. Some of the Members of this House were willing to understand them; some would make no effort to understand them; others with the best intentions, with the most sincere desire to come to the assistance of the Irish tenants, were unable to appreciate the conditions of life, so absolutely different were they, though only a few miles of sea separated Ireland from England, to what prevailed in England. The tenant in England had no interest beyond that of an ordinary tenant, and if he was turned out or chose to go he took his capital with him to another country, where any man with energy and a little capital might not want for a living. To an Irish tenant to be turned out of his holding is a sense of banishment; he had no other means of living, and eviction took from him not only his means of living, but every penny he was worth was in his holding. The tenants in Ireland had brought the farms from a state of nature; the landlords, as a general rule, never spent a single sixpence upon them, and if they took the ordinary tenant they took the man in whose farm was sunk not only what capital he had, but the capital and labour of generations who went before him. Was it justice, under such circumstances, to evict a man for one or two years' rent? He had examined the Campaign Estates Return, and he found that, notwithstanding the declarations of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had run from the fight, the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Carson), that the annual rental of the Plan of Campaign estates was £28,000, and the tenants were evicted for £59,000. He had examined other Returns, and found very much the same result—that these tenants by the hundreds and the thousands had been turned out for an arrear of two or three years' rent. Was the Committee aware that the tenant in Ireland could go into the market, when he was allowed to go into the market—which he could not always do as in Ulster—and sell his interest in the holding for 15 or 20 years' purchase of the

    1505
    rent, so that they had it that in Ireland the interest of the tenant in his holding was usually as valuable and often more valuable than the freehold. Would hon. Gentlemen suffer these men to be robbed of that interest; would they suffer the landlords who ran before their Acts of Parliament, who took advantage of the delay of the law, to rob these tenants who possessed so valuable an interest, and to be evicted for two or three years' arrears of rent? The landlord on the one hand and the land-grabber on the other were the partners in an act of appropriation and plunder. He had said that in many cases these were not inhuman tenants, and they were willing to put words into the Bill, if this subject should be reasonably considered by the House, which should make it clear that the arbitrator should have power to consider whether these were bonâ fide tenants or not, or whether they had a substantial interest in the holding, but where they were mere agents and instruments of revenge he certainly pleaded they ought to be excluded by the Act. No harm was done to any equitable right, and he ventured to submit to the Committee that if it be true upon the one hand that pressure was placed by public opinion upon these men to surrender their tenancy of these farms, there was also pressure upon them from other quarters to remain. Those who did not think of equity, who had no respect for the peace of Ireland, who were working this question for sinister ends in a rancorous spirit of political faction, might ask these men to remain, and, therefore, he thought that for many of these men they would do a good personal act by directing them to go, because if they put in the Bill a direction to them to go, they put an end to pressure from one side or the other, and many of these men might be under such pressure that without such a direction they could not but insist on remaining, but who would be glad to go on receiving compensation. He ventured with confidence to submit this Amendment to the consideration of the Government. The Government had seen the spirit in which the Bill was opposed; they knew that almost at the moment of its introduction they were threatened with the House of Lords; they would recollect that in recent years they conducted their Debates in this House on all matters
    1506
    relating to Ireland under the shadow of a threat of the action of the House of Lords. In a country which they were told was free the Representatives of the people were constantly insulted by threats of the action of an Unrepresentative Chamber. He said let the House of Lords try it—let them do their worst. If they would, they knew the consequences that followed the Compensation for Disturbance Act. The consequences so far might be more serious now; the House of Lords might plunge Ireland into a worse convulsion than they had as yet had experience; she might have to pass perhaps through a time of cruelty; the government of Ireland might be made more difficult than it had ever been before; but of nothing was he more confident than of this: that through whatever suffering the Irish people might yet have to pass, the equity of their claims was so manifest that even though this Bill should fail to become law, no long period would have elapsed before the proposals they submitted would be placed upon the Statute Book.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the words "the landlord is in occupation of the holding and that."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'the landlord' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. J. MORLEY: My hon. Friend the Member for Kerry (Mr. Sexton) has moved this Amendment, and stated the case on which he bases it with his ordinary lucidity and power. The question, I entirely agree with him in thinking, is a most important question; it is one of those compartments of the Bill, one of those branches of the Bill, that has given those who had the framing of this Bill more anxiety and ground for consideration than almost, I may say, any other part of the Bill. This important question has been well stated by my hon. Friend, and I admit the strength of the case which my hon. Friend has made out. I am quite alive to the importance of this case; am quite alive to its being in the general policy of the Bill. The general policy of the Bill is to make possible the restoration of as many evicted tenants as can make out a reasonable case; to make that result of this piece of legislation sure. I quite admit that in many cases

    1507
    which ray hon. Friend referred to, and which he called the attention of the Committee to; I quite admit if in those cases the evicted tenants are not secured, to that extent the policy of the Bill will have failed. After all, my hon. Friend came, towards the end of his speech, to a proposition that shows the difference between him and his friends and the Government. The difference between the object he has in view and the machinery which we have provided in the clauses we have introduced is not so serious in its moral effect and working as might appear, and as the hon. Gentleman apparently appears to imagine. He admits he is willing to give power to the arbitrators to say whether one of these new tenants is a bonâ fide tenant or not, and whether he has or has not a substantial interest in the holding. My hon. Friend makes that an issue. Now, what do I say on the other side? I say that in my expectation where the new tenant is, in my hon. Friend's language, not a bonâ fide farmer, and where he has not a substantial interest in his holding, that in that case the new tenant will be found willing to go, and that we have made a provision for those cases in some clauses of the third clause. I do not know whether my hon. Friend realises how far this third clause goes to meet that view. His view admits that if the new tenant is a bonâ fide farmer—has a substantial interest—that in that case he admits he is willing to allow the arbitrators to decline to make an absolute order. I contend that such a change as my hon. Friend's Amendment would make in the Bill is not necessary, because—and I repeat it—these tenants who are not bonâ fide and have not a substantial interest would naturally be willing to go upon the terms provided in the Bill. I would remind the Committee of what the Mathew Commission says on this difficult subject. Their recommendation was this: The Commission—that is to say, either the Land Commission or a Special Commission—should have power upon the application of the evicted tenant to inquire whether the new tenant has a substantial interest in the holding, and when it shall appear there is no such interest to reinstate the former tenant on such terms as may seem just. That is a provision that will satisfy my
    1508
    hon. Friend. Then they went on to say the Commission should be able to ascertain the terms, if any, on which a new tenant or purchaser having a substantial interest may be willing to surrender it to a former tenant, and, if they think the terms reasonable, to assist the evicted tenant by making a grant of half the amount. We have considered, as carefully as we could, in the light of opinion and experience in both cases, and we were of opinion the first recommendation of the Commission, apart from its impolicy, was not required. I will give one or two illustrations of the class of cases with which, in connection with this matter, we might deal. I have had a Report made to me of the admission of new tenants on some of the estates—I will not mention them by name—into which the Mathew Commission inquired, and others in which it is likely the new tenant, as we think, would undoubtedly avail himself of the power to bring the matter to the notice of the arbitrator under the third clause. These are cases that have been carefully considered, and this is the kind of instance: In one instance the case is that of the son of a small farmer in an adjoining county. He has very bad land and cannot make it pay. The Committee may wonder why if the land cannot be made to pay the evicted tenant should be wanting to go back. To those who are acquainted with Irish agriculture such a difficulty would not present itself. Another case is that of a man who also could not make it pay. I have a considerable collection of cases of that kind. There are, on the other hand, a few men on these estates who have got a substantial interest in their holdings which they would be sorry to sacrifice. It will, of course, be the duty of the Government to use every means in their power to protect these men in the positions they have taken. Let there be no misunderstanding on this point. We are considering not a matter of police, of law and order in its narrow sense, and I do not believe the object of my hon. Friend itself would be better carried out or so well carried out by the Amendment he wishes to introduce into the Bill as it would be by the natural willingness of these men, who are not bonâ fide farmers, and who have no substantial interest, to leave on the terms that were open to

    1509
    them in the Bill. My hon. Friend opposite has given a very eloquent and very useful explanation of some of the peculiarities of the Irish system. I will point out to him and to gentlemen who sit around him that to have loaded a Bill which is already, at the best, an extremely difficult Bill to commend to the comprehension of this House, where the conditions of Ireland, either momentarily or permanently, are so ill understood, even in its present moderate form—to have loaded it with further clauses embodying such a view as I know is held not only by hon. Members in this House, but by a great body of Irish tenants, and going further in that direction than we have done, would have been to expose the Bill to defeat in this House, and would have given better grounds than exist for action against it elsewhere. What was the argument which was always received with cheers from those Benches which now present such an interesting appearance? That argument always was that this was not a reinstating but an evicting Bill. There is no doubt if we were to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, we should leave it open to gentlemen who oppose the Bill to say, "You are compulsorily evicting tenants who are there with a title which, though Irish opinion may not recognise it, is a legal title," and to ensure the destruction of the Bill. But I must go a little further. Let us suppose the Bill had been carried containing such a provision as this Amendment aims at. Suppose it was carried through both Houses and became an Act of Parliament? I, for one, should certainly not contemplate it with equanimity. In view of the sullen and jealous eye which England always keeps upon all doings in Ireland, I should not have looked forward with equanimity to the necessity, if I had remained in Office, of carrying out on behalf of the Government what would have been neither more nor less than an evicting campaign, because undoubtedly if this provision were inserted in the Bill it would have necessitated—not over a large area possibly, but certainly in a good many cases—the Government entering upon an evicting campaign. That is a matter for consideration from the administrative point of view. I have pointed out objections from the point of view of policy; I have pointed out that
    1510
    this Amendment would be superfluous, in view of subsequent provisions, for achieving the objects which my hon. Friend has in his mind, and therefore, though I find myself departing from the views of my hon. Friends, I feel bound to do so in the interests of the Bill and of the policy which is common to us and to them.
    MR. KILBRIDEsaid, he should be failing in his duty to the evicted tenants of Ireland if he did not avail himself of the very first opportunity of raising this question of the new tenants. He noticed that in the speeches which had been made upon this Bill they had been asked to have perfect trust in the Commission of Arbitration. He was not personally acquainted with any of the Arbitrators, but still he trusted them and wished to widen the scope of their Reference. He wanted to see this social and administrative difficulty in Ireland finally settled. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that every tenant was likely to get back who could make out a reasonable case. He knew cases on one of the estates inquired into by the Mathew Commission where some farms were occupied by new tenants and others were in the hands of the landlord. As he read the Bill, in the case of the farms in the hands of the landlord, the evicted tenants would have the right to be reinstated, while, in the case of farms which were occupied by new tenants, the evicted tenants would have no rights whatever under the Bill. But, were not the equitable rights of the evicted tenants the same in both cases? Why, then, did the Chief Secretary differentiate between two men with the same equitable rights, because one man's farm happened to be grabbed and the other man's happened to be worked by the landlord? His Amendment raised the whole question as to the equitable rights of a tenant whether the farm was in the hands of the landlord or the new tenant. The right hon. Gentleman had said that any evicted tenant who could make out a reasonable case was to be reinstated. Many of these farms were not in the hands of new tenants, and were not worked by the landlord, but were being worked by political organisations. How many were worked by the Land Corporation, and how many were worked for political purposes? How much

    1511
    money had the hon. Member for South Tyrone collected in this country to enable some of these so-called tenants to occupy the holdings they now occupied? These men were put into occupation for political purposes, and was he to be told by the Chief Secretary that in no case where the land was in the hands of some of these political organisations could this Board of Arbitration inquire into the case? There were innumerable cases where the bogus or so-called tenant was simply an agent for the Land Corporation or some other political body in Ireland, and under the Bill the Arbitrators would have no power or right to inquire into such cases every one of which he excluded from their purview. They were told that this Bill was an amnesty for those who had suffered in the land war; but was this amnesty to be confined to certain cases? He admitted that there might be one or two genuine new tenants. He knew very few of such new tenants, but he did know of the case of a man who was financed and enabled to become a new tenant by the organisation at the head of which was the hon. Member for South Tyrone. That man was financed by English money, subscribed by English landlords, who dreaded the onward march of land reform in Ireland, and were apprehensive lest it should spread to their own side of the water. One of these men financed by the hon. Member for South Tyrone was a purchaser. His annual instalment to the English taxpayer was £28, whereas the rent of the old tenant was £60, so that he occupied the farm for 50 per cent. less than the annual payment the old tenant had to make to his landlord. What did this new tenant do two years ago? He went into the office of a solicitor in the local town and had a letter written to the evicted tenant. He wanted to know what the evicted tenant would give to get his holding back. This was the case of one of those new tenants who, the Chief Secretary said, the moment the Bill became law would not continue in the farms. He doubted that statement very much, and he said that while he knew there were many of these bogus tenants anxious and willing to obtain something for getting out of the holdings it would depend largely upon the amount of political capital that
    1512
    could be made by the right hon. Gentleman's political foes in Ireland whether these men should be kept there in order that this social and administrative difficulty might be continued. None of the landlords' associations had ever made any money. These were instituted to fight the cause of the landlord versus the cause of the Irish tenant. What right had he to suppose that the moment this Bill became law these political organisations would disappear from the field. If the Conservative Party believed that political capital could be made out of these bogus tenants for the next General Election, they would not be averse to paying them to keep their occupation of the evicted farms, and so prevent them from coming under the operation of the Bill. The object of the Amendment was to widen the scope and enlarge the field of discretion which they had already given to the Arbitrators. They were told to have confidence in these three gentlemen, and he had confidence in them. But if everybody had confidence in them why hamper them in their inquiry? Was this going to be a settlement, or was it not? It was admitted that there was a social and administrative difficulty in Ireland; then why not permit the Arbitrators to deal with the whole question? The British House of Commons would never take the advice of the Irish Members. Because they would not take their advice they had to pass the Act of 1881. They refused to do so in 1886, and they had to pass the Land Act of 1887. The House of Commons never took the advice of the Members from Ireland. They would not take it now, but he warned them that within the next two years, if the House did not deal with this social and administrative difficulty by Bill, it would settle itself. As an Irish Member and a man who loved his country, he did not want to see the difficulty settled otherwise than by Act of Parliament. The House of Commons must cope with the reduction of prices and the restriction of produce, or early next year they would have to be engaged in another Land Bill for Ireland. He noticed that one subject the right hon. Member for West Birmingham talked about was the Protestant new tenants. He had himself some knowledge of the Protestant new

    1513
    tenants, and would proceed to tell the Committee one fact. He knew an estate in Ireland largely occupied by Catholic tenants, every one of whom was a member of the combination. After half of them were evicted they were offered terms, which were that they should buy their holdings at 18 years' purchase. But if hon. Members would look at the Schedule of the Mathew Commission they would find that the Protestant tenants bought at 13 years' purchase, whilst the Catholic tenants were required to pay 18, or a difference of five years. Was that a fair way of dealing with the matter? He knew that the Protestant tenants did not go on strike, and these were the rewards they got through the sacrifices and sufferings of the Catholic tenants who did go on strike. The Bill, as it stood, only provided that the Arbitrators could inquire into the cases where the land was in the hands of the landlords. He would like the Chief Secretary to tell them how many cases there were where the land was not in the occupation of either a new tenant or the landlord, but was in the occupation of the Land Corporation or some other political organization? He supposed if the Bill passed in its present form all these cases would be excluded from the purview of the Arbitrators, and he was desirous of bringing under the discrimination of the new tribunal every case in which a political organization, established for the purpose of making capital for a political Party, held the land. He hoped the Government would see their way to adopt the Amendment.
    MR. J. REDMONDthought it was well that this question had been raised at such an early stage, as it was probably the most important which would come up for consideration on the Bill. He would in two or three sentences make an earnest appeal to English Members to see whether they could not vote in favour of an Amendment the object of which had been explained with great clearness. The Bill provided that where the land was in the occupation of a landlord that then the arbitrators were to be empowered to investigate the question as to whether the tenant ought not to be restored; but where the land hap-
    1514
    pened to be in the occupation of a new tenant, then the arbitrators were to be estopped if the new tenant objected to the making of any order to restore the old tenant to the farm. The argument which had been used, that the discretion of the arbitrators should not be limited in this way, was one which he thought was very difficult to answer. He must say he regretted that the Chief Secretary had intervened at such an early stage of the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman had not made a very strong or vigorous speech in opposition to the Amendment; in fact, he did not think he should be doing any injustice to the right hon. Gentleman if he said that the objection he entertained was upon grounds of expediency rather than of principle. It was certainly a matter for regret that he had intervened before he had heard all that could be said by various Members in support of the Amendment. The object of the Bill, as had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, was to remove a social and administrative difficulty which existed in Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had proved by the speech which he had just delivered that if a number of the new tenants insisted upon clinging to their holdings which they had got after the former tenants had been evicted, so far, at any rate, the Bill must be a failure. It had been stated that there were some 1,500 of these new tenants, and there was no question that there was a very large number of them. The old tenants in most cases lived in the immediate neighbourhood of the grabbed farms, and it would be hard for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, or for any English Member, to answer the argument put forward by the hon. Member for North Kerry, who asked whether these old tenants, living in the immediate neighbourhood of the farms from which they had been evicted, could be expected to remain peaceful and quiet if they saw their neighbours restored, whilst reinstatement was refused to them. He remembered a famous speech—which had been so often quoted that it had almost become hackneyed, made by the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) in Ireland, in which he said—

    1515
    "Within three months of the present Government coming into power the land-grabber would, either by legislation in that House or in some other way, be resolved into his original elements."
    He thought that was the phrase of the right hon. Gentleman. What was the meaning of that statement? It meant that the land-grabber should be got rid of if the social peace of Ireland was to be preserved. In the Bill before the House the Government did not propose to remove the land-grabber by legislation. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary must be of opinion, and every honest man must be of opinion, that if the peace of Ireland was to be preserved the land-grabber must be got rid of in some other way; that was to say, that public opinion must be brought to bear to get rid of the land-grabbers if the peace of Ireland was to be preserved. The Chief Secretary said he shrank from entering upon an eviction campaign against these new tenants. Surely the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for the peace of Ireland would shrink still more from an uprising of public opinion directed against the new tenants which must be inevitable if the Bill was passed and the men to whom he had referred were excepted from its operation. As he had already said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman's objection to the Amendment was based rather upon grounds of expediency than of principle, because he did not say that it would be unjust to evict the new tenants and to restore the old tenants. He could not say that, because he and his supporters had voted in favour of Mr. O'Kelly's Bill, and whilst he admitted that a vote in favour of the Second Reading did not imply that everyone so voting approved of every detail in the Bill, he contended that they could not have voted for the Second Reading if they had objected, as being unjust, to the principle of a Bill one of the leading provisions of which was that no exception should be made in favour of new tenants, but that they should be treated on precisely the same principle as where farms from which the old tenants had been evicted were in the occupation of the landlord. Therefore, the Chief Secretary could not take the objection that this Amendment would be unjust, and he did not
    1516
    take the objection that it would be unjust. He had based his objection entirely upon the ground of expediency. He would appeal to fair-minded men who took an interest in the Bill whether the argument founded upon expediency was a wise or a sound argument. "If," said the Chief Secretary, "we had overloaded this Bill by putting into it this provision, the Bill would have been destroyed." So he had kept this provision out of the Bill in order to conciliate the Opposition! Had it had that result? He had kept this provision out in order that the Bill might become law. Did the Chief Secretary believe that he had in the slightest degree increased the chance of the Bill becoming law by the course which he had taken? Nothing of the kind. What he had done would disappoint the hopes of a large number of tenants in Ireland who believed that they had a just claim for restoration to their holdings, and would make the Bill so halting and ineffectual in its character, that if it were passed into law it could not possibly cure the social and administrative difficulty to which it was directed. If the right hon. Gentleman would not accept this proposal in the interests of peace in Ireland, he would urge most strongly upon hon. Members opposite to vote in favour of the Amendment, which they were discussing under the most peculiar circumstances. He was aware that it had been confidently stated that the Bill was certain to be rejected on the Second Reading in the House of Lords. Whether that were so or not, at any rate if the House of Commons passed the Bill containing a provision such as that which it was now sought to insert, making it apply, subject to the discretion of the arbitrators, to all classes of tenants, even that fact would go a long way to assist the Chief Secretary in preserving peace in Ireland. But if the Bill were passed by the House of Commons in such a defective condition as to exclude those cases which lay at the very centre of this Irish trouble, where the evicted farms had been taken by others, then he confessed that he thought the prospects of the right hon. Gentleman preserving peace in Ireland would be much less certain than if he had gone the length of evicting the new tenants. He would earnestly im-

    1517
    press on Members opposite to cast their votes in favour of an Amendment which the Chief Secretary did not affect to say was unjust, but his opposition to which was based, if he (Mr. Redmond) might say so without offence, upon the ridiculous ground that he would promote the chance of the Bill passing into law by conciliating the Opposition. By so doing the Liberal Members would prove their desire to do justice all round, and show their willingness to deal in a thorough manner with an admitted evil.
    MR. DILLON: I do not propose to address the House on the subject of this Bill without asking their permission to express on my own behalf, and on behalf of my colleagues who sit round me on these Benches, the gratitude which we feel to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney) for the speech he delivered in this House yesterday. It was a speech the effect of which, I venture to say, will not pass away for many a long day. As an Irish Nationalist, and as one who is deeply convinced of the necessity of setting up a Parliament to manage Irish affairs, I recognise in the Member for Bodmin one of the most dangerous enemies we have in this House, because, indeed, we might begin to entertain some fears for the future of the cause of Irish self - government if this House approached the consideration of Irish grievances and Irish difficulties in the spirit in which it was approached by the right hon. Member. But many a long day must elapse, judging from the reception which that speech met with from his colleagues and those who sympathise with his political views in this House, before he will succeed in impressing upon the Unionists the enlightened and sympathetic views which he expressed in that speech. There is just one other matter before I address myself to the subject now under discussion that I would ask leave to say a word about. There has been repeated for the twentieth or thirtieth time sneers, and what appeared to me to be unjust observations, in reference to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre). It has been insinuated, and it has been made a matter of charge against that right hon. Gentleman that he has run
    1518
    away from certain expressions of sympathy in speeches which he delivered in Ireland in support of the cause of the evicted tenants. He was asked the other day in the House why, if his wishes as expressed in those speeches were not carried out, and the cause of the evicted tenants taken up and properly dealt with within a few months after the Government with which he is connected came into Office, he did not retire from the Government. I say on behalf of the Irish evicted tenants and the Irish National Members that we recognise in the right hon. Gentleman a consistent, wise, and brave friend of the evicted tenants. He came over to Ireland at a time when it was not by any means a safe or agreeable task for a man in his position, and I say that so far as I am made acquainted with his connection with that movement in Ireland, and I am intimately acquainted with it from the day on which he came over to Ireland down to the present hour, his course has been consistent, has been honourable, and has been brave. He has most effectively pleaded the cause of the evicted tenants, both on the platform and in the publications he has from time to time given out, and he has stated their cause with admirable lucidity and in the most becoming manner; and, as the right hon. Gentleman is a Member of the present Government, we, the Irish Members, look upon his presence in the Government as one of the pledges that the cause of the evicted tenants will not be ignored. And if at any time—which God forbid!—this Government should turn its back upon the evicted tenants in Ireland, I confess we would look to the right hon. Gentleman with confidence to play the part of an honourable Englishman, and to stand by that cause even if his position in the Government were at stake, and I do not think we would be disappointed. If the right hon. Gentleman has remained in the Government, it is because he believes, as we believe, that the Government, considering all the difficulties they have had to face, have up to the present done what they could to bring this matter to an issue. Now I come to the subject of this Amendment. We have had in the course of the discussions which have taken place before the events of Tuesday night the question raised over and over again, whether it would

    1519
    be better to have compulsory clauses in this measure, or whether it ought to be a purely voluntary measure. A number of gentlemen have stood up in this House and said, "We admit, as you said, that this evil exists; we admit, as you admit, that in the interests of Ireland and of the Government in this country, it ought to be met and dealt with. The only point of difference between us is whether it would be best, and most justly, and most effectually dealt with by a voluntary or by a compulsory Bill." Nearly all the Members of this House, except a small number of irreconcilables, admit the grievance and admit that legislation is urgently needed to cure it. Yet we have the unparalleled spectacle presented to us, unparalleled for nearly 100 years in the English Parliament, of the whole Opposition leaving the House and refusing to engage in the discussion of a measure which they admit to be necessary for the good government of Ireland. If any lesson was wanted to bring home conviction to the mind of every Englishman that this House is utterly incapable of dealing with Irish questions, the spectacle of the Opposition Benches to-day would afford it. Let me direct attention for a moment to the relative merits of the compulsory principle of this Bill. I do not believe there is a Member sitting round me on these Benches who would not rather settle this matter by a voluntary method if it could be so settled. The whole question is, whether you can believe, in the light of past experience, of the facts laid before you, that a voluntary Bill is likely to produce such results? I cannot, for myself, imagine for a single moment that gentlemen who have advocated a voluntary Bill in settling this measure, if they were convinced that a voluntary Bill would not settle it, would still refuse to grant these compulsory powers. Let us see for a moment what are the facts before us on which we have to form a judgment. In 1891 the voluntary principle was put before the House by the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, who, as the present Chief Secretary does now, admitted the evil and the necessity for a remedy. True, he would not go so far as to give compulsory power against the landlords, but he did this—he offered to pledge the resources of the British Exchequer to re-
    1520
    instate these very men whom we have heard denounced so much. The British taxpayers were asked, in the interest of good government, to lend the credit of England in order to restore the evicted tenants. We have had the experience of three years, and we now know beyond all question of controversy that the voluntary system has been tried and has failed; and that the evil exists in as bad a form as ever, if not in an aggravated form. An attempt was made to charge us with having obstructed the operation of the voluntary principle. I am glad to take this opportunity of saying that there is not a shred or shadow of foundation in that charge—that we in any way exercised our influence to block or obstruct the working of Clause 13 of the Act of 1891. On the contrary, what are the facts? In the few instances where the clause did come into operation we were appealed to, and I myself, and others of those around me, exercised all influence when appealed to by the tenants to aid them to get the benefits of the clause. We voted money out of our exchequer, although it could be ill spared at the time, to assist the tenants; but in spite of the fact that the Nationalist leaders used all their influence to aid the working of that clause, we found that it was a failure. I do not want to enter into any recriminatory matters to show on whose head the blame must really fall of the failure of the voluntary principle in Clause 13, but I say the reason was because it was impossible to come to terms with the landlords, and because, as was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, the very landlords who have it in their power to say "nay" to the operation of any voluntary system are the unreasonable and irreconcilable landlords. They are the men represented by the irreconcilable body in this House who have done everything in their power, and I am afraid have gone a long way, towards wrecking this scheme for the settlement of this question in Ireland—these are the men whose consent would have to be obtained to the working of any voluntary system whatever. Therefore, I wish to point out that if we desire compulsory powers to be given in this Bill it is simply and solely because we fear that the voluntary system would not work, and that we

    1521
    should be obliged to raise the question again. The present Amendment seeks to extend, to some degree at least, compulsory powers to the arbitrators to deal with the new tenants in Ireland. In dealing with this Amendment I want to say this—I think this far too grave a matter, involving terrible interests in Ireland, which may be the starting-points of such serious events in that country, that I would appeal to all my friends and to all Members of this House to approach it without using strong language or language calculated to excite the House. We have now been freed for good or evil from the presence of gentlemen who set themselves deliberately to rouse in every form bitter recollection and passion in the discussion of this matter. I wish to approach it as calmly and as moderately as I can, and I do recognise that in dealing with this Bill and in discussing this Amendment we have to consider what is within the power of the Government as well as what we desire. We have been frequently charged with being extremists and irreconcilables. Well, the way to make men irreconcilable is to show them that they will get no consideration whatever. If their arguments are addressed to deaf ears, if the people subject to oppressive laws see there is no sympathy for their sufferings, you cannot expect them to be reasonable; but when we are met in a reasonable spirit, and when a responsible Minister, such as the Chief Secretary for Ireland, says he is desirous of dealing with this great social difficulty, we, for our part, I think, ought to be willing, and we are willing, to make the most ample consideration for his difficulty. And, therefore, I say we ought to approach the consideration of the Amendment with a full sense, in the first place, of the great responsibilities which are placed upon all of us in dealing with a measure touching so deeply the interests of Ireland and the peace of that country, and, secondly, with a full feeling that Ave owe to the Chief Secretary a frank and liberal consideration for the difficulties which he is placed under, as he has also shown, I think, a desire to consider the difficulties of our position. On this Amendment I wish to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary to some of the classes of tenants whom we wish to have brought within the scope of the operation of the
    1522
    arbitrators. So far as I go myself, I am chiefly concerned not so much for the action of the new tenants, if they were left free and uninfluenced by sinister counsellors behind them or by their employers, as for the action of those tenants influenced and directed by the men who placed them where they are. We believe that very many of them are simply employés of the Landlord Corporation or the Emergency Association, and of Members of this House who, from political motives, desire to frustrate this Bill and create political difficulties round the Secretary for Ireland, and who may, therefore, offer inducements to these so-called new tenants to stick on and refuse to give up their holdings. Let us look for a moment on what the character of some of these tenants is. The contention that we make is that there are on some of these estates a vast number of men who are in no true sense of the word tenants, but who are political agents of one kind or another put there for the purposes of the land war. I will take a most remarkable article dealing with this very point which is published by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone in the New Review of this month, and I would ask hon. Members to keep in mind, in connection with the extract which I am about to read, the description of the planters on the Massereene and and Coolgreany estates. When these estates were planted it was asserted that these men were bonâ fide farmers possessing large interests in their farms. Now let us see what is the opinion of that man who in all Ireland is able to give us authentic information as to the origin and nature of this thing. He says—
    "The planters are wholly confined to the Massereene and Coolgreany estates. They were placed there as an act of war; they were deliberately helped with money and material to fight the Plan of Campaign, and they constitute a distinct but small class."
    There is the class who were described as bonâ fide tenants, who were described as men who had large interests in their holdings, who were paying their rents regularly, and they are now described by the man who gave them assistance as men placed in these farms as an act of war to fight the Plan of Campaign. I ask you, would it not be a deplorable thing if it would be in the power of any

    1523
    Organisation or Association in Ireland who have these men in their employment, and who gave them large bribes, if they by any inducement could persuade them to remain on for the purpose of keeping up disturbance and trouble in the country? Here is a very instructive case that came into my hands a few days ago, and which has reference to a farmer who had been planted on the Clanricarde estate in Galway two years ago. This farmer obtained on the Clanricarde estate no less than five farms belonging to five evicted tenants, and retained these farms for, I think, two years, and yet within the last three months that man was unable to pay a year and a half's rent, and he came into Portumna and offered to sell the whole five farms to one of the old evicted tenants for £125. That is a case that cannot be denied. If anybody attempts to deny it I will substantiate it beyond all question. And yet that tenant is in occupation still, the bargain not being concluded owing to the fact that there was some trouble amongst the old tenants.
    MR. ROCHE: And a new house was built on these farms within the last two years.
    MR. DILLON: Would it not be intolerable that a great scheme like this should be at the mercy of a man like Lord Clanricarde by enabling him to keep this bogus tenant in occupation if he had the malicious intention of keeping up trouble and disorder in the Woodford district, simply for the purpose of spiting the Government? Is there any man in the House who has studied the history of Lord Clanricarde's operations who does not know that there is not only a possibility but even a likelihood of that? I would hope, therefore, that some plan might be devised between ourselves and the Government by which some words could be introduced in the Bill which would give the arbitrators the power of investigating whether the alleged new tenant is a bonâ fide tenant or not. I see the Chief Secretary's difficulty, and for my part I would be most unwilling to do anything which would endanger the passing of this Bill or add to the difficulties of the Government in passing it, but I trust some plan may be discovered by which the power of the arbitrators may be extended to enable them to make
    1524
    some inquiry as to whether the new tenant is a real bonâ fide tenant of the holding.
    MR. WEBBsaid, that he desired to join the previous speaker in his commendation of the speech of the hon. Member for Bodmin. It was because he (Mr. Webb) believed such counsels would here never be listened to that he deemed this Parliament would ever prove inefficient to minister to the wants of Ireland. He did not desire to hold the President of the Local Government Board to the exact words he had used in Ireland regarding evicted tenants. They were spoken at a period of extraordinary storm and stress. He recognised in the right hon. Gentleman one of the best and most consistent friends of his evicted countrymen. He wished to refer to an article by the Member for South Tyrone in this month's National Review as affording evidence of the necessity of the agitation and the measures which led to so many tenants now being homeless. What they had to consider now was whether tenants evicted under the old principles that were maintained up to the passing of the Land Acts of 1881 and 1887 should be reinstated now. He thought they should, leaving as little sore feeling behind as possible. Under the circumstances, he thought the Government should consider whether it would not be wise to accept the Amendment.
    MR. W. REDMONDsaid, the Bill had been already so well considered, and everybody was so anxious to see it disposed of as soon as possible, that he would add but little. He must express his disappointment at the action taken by the Government in regard to the evicted and grabbed farms. On the introduction of the Bill he had pointed out that its unsatisfactory feature was the total failure to grant relief to these unfortunate people, who had had their farms taken by grabbers. The number of farms now occupied by new tenants was estimated at 1,500. Those farms would not be dealt with at all by the Bill. As an hon. Member for Kerry, himself an evicted tenant, he pointed out it would be impossible to make those poor people understand why their interests should be entirely put aside, and that, as he would not like to enter upon

    1525
    an eviction campaign, the best thing to do in the interests of peace in Ireland was for the Government to adopt the course that was plainly just in the matter. It would be impossible to make people whose farms had been grabbed understand why their interests in their former holdings should be disregarded, and why they were to receive no compensation, when those of their neighbours who had been evicted, but whose farms had not been grabbed, were to be reinstated. Much had been said about the difficulties of the situation, but enlarging upon them was not the way to get Amendments accepted by the Government. It was necessary that the Irish Members should speak out very plainly upon this question of the restoration of the evicted tenants, and tell the Government that unless those tenants were restored to their holdings there would be a recommencement of outbreaks and disturbances—crime and violence—in Ireland. He had continually expressed publicly his detestation of outrages, but experience showed that in cases where the Irish people believed that they had grievances which Parliament refused to redress, disturbances invariably ensued throughout the country. The Chief Secretary was as well aware of that fact as himself. That result had always followed, and would again be inevitable. He ventured to say that not a single Irish Member would get up in that House and assure the Government that, if the land-grabbers were allowed to remain on the farms which they had robbed the former tenants of, if these grievances were allowed to remain un-redressed, an outbreak of violence and disturbances would not take place. He would say that most unreservedly with regard to his own constituency in Clare, and he must tell the right hon. Gentleman as plainly in that House as he would outside, that if the people who had been in possession of grabbed farms in Clare were to be told by the Government that there was absolutely no hope of their being reinstated, serious consequences would follow. The result would be that, if this Bill were thrown out either next year or the year after, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary or his successor would assuredly have to introduce a measure that would carry out the prin-
    1526
    ciple of this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had entered into an elaborate defence of the President of the Local Government Board; but nothing could get over the fact that the latter right hon. Gentleman had, during his visit to Ireland, distinctly declared that this question of land-grabbing would be dealt with within a few months of the Liberal Party coming into Office. It was no part of his duty to attack that right hon. Gentleman, nor did he suppose anybody wished to do so; but surely it was perfectly legitimate for an Irish Member to point out that when a man in that position made such a statement, it could not be regarded otherwise than as a promise. In distinct terms he had stated that the Government would deal with land-grabbing. Perhaps the Chief Secretary would be kind enough to tell him and his fellow Irish Members what they were to say to their constituents and the Irish people when they went back to them? Were they to tell those who had been evicted, and who had been waiting patiently so long for legislation to put them back again, that their hope of being restored to their farms could never be fulfilled, and that they must either emigrate or sit in idleness for the rest of their lives at the gates of the farms from which they had been evicted? The man who had been evicted from his farm was just as much deserving of sympathy as the man whose farm had not been grabbed. It was monstrous that the Government, while recognising the justice of the tenants' claims in the one case, should refuse to accede to them in the other. It was monstrous that some proposal for compensation should not be made. If the Government were not prepared to deal compulsorily with the men who had taken these farms in the course of a legitimate warfare, they would be telling the large number of men whose farms had been taken that they were altogether unworthy of any relief. Did the Government really propose to do nothing for these unfortunate men? It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he shrank from going through another eviction campaign during the coming winter; but what was he going to do during the winter with the thousands of men, women, and children

    1527
    who were now living on the roadsides in sight of their farms which had been stolen from them? Did he propose to tell them there was no hope for them? He did not suppose for a moment that merely finding land for these people or making them grants of money would entirely settle the question, but it was surprising that the Government who had so far never been prepared to rob them of their farms should decline now to do anything for them. By this Bill the Government gave their sanction to land-grabbing, which was regarded in Ireland as pure robbery. Was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to tell the Committee that if this Amendment were defeated the question would settle itself, and that there would be no trouble in consequence in Ireland? The Irish Members could not do better than impress upon the Government that in Ireland land-grabbing was regarded by the peasantry as robbery pure and simple. The farms had been held by these men throughout their lives and by their fathers and ancestors before them. That was the case with thousands of tenants who had always paid the rent asked of them by the landlords, and it could not be expected that they would stand quietly by and allow new tenants from another part of the country altogether to come in, plant themselves on the farms, and take possession of the soil which had been enriched by years and years of the labour of those tenants and their ancestors. No wonder that land-grabbing was regarded as robbery by the Irish peasantry. In Clare a man who had grabbed a farm was looked upon as the commonest robber. The people in his constituency, as well as in other parts of Ireland, had restrained themselves ever since this Government came into power in the belief that something would be done to protect them, and to restore those who had been evicted from their farms. But from the moment this Amendment was defeated those people would have no further reason for hope. How, then, could the Government expect them to remain patient in the future as in the past? They would not do so. Such a failure on the part of the Government roust lead to grave troubles in Ireland. Far from wishing to make any attack on the Chief Secretary, he would only say
    1528
    that the right hon. Gentleman ought to know sufficient of the Irish question to be convinced that in these matters it was better to deal at once with the difficulty confronting him. If the evicted farms were left in the hands of the planters, the question would by no means settle itself. The House would undoubtedly have to deal with this matter. If this Amendment were not passed he should advise the boycotting of these land-grabbers as strongly as possible, and if the House did not offer some relief to those whose farms had been taken, the people would take the matter into their own hands. In spite of the policy of the Government public opinion would compel the land-grabbers to give up these farms. He was as sick and as tired of agitation as any person in that House. The Chief Secretary might know that the position of the Irish Members was by no means easy, and that the task of combining the performance of their duties in the House with that of working in the constituencies during the Recess was a very difficult and by no means pleasing one. But he did say confidently that unless they dealt with land-grabbing now the people would deal with it themselves in the coming winter, and next year Parliament might be face to face with a state of disturbance in Ireland, the result of its own failure to apply a remedy to an admitted grievance. Surely the Chief Secretary ought to have strength of character sufficient to enable him to deal with this matter now. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he had used heated language it was simply because of his earnest desire that the people should not be told to abandon all hope in this matter. It was a fact that in nearly every portion of Ireland there were to be found tenants who had been evicted for a number of years, and who were waiting in hopes of restoration under this Bill. From the very moment of its introduction he had supported it, because he felt it would do a great deal of good, but there was no reason why they should ignore the fact that in many cases it would fail to remedy the grievance. He did appeal to hon. Members opposite to detach themselves from the official lead of the Government on this matter, and to vote with the Irish Members. On this point they at any rate

    1529
    were absolutely united; they were all in favour of the Amendment, they all agreed as to the necessity for action in this direction, and seeing that this was a matter which affected the purely rural life of the Irish people, the conditions of which were best understood by the Irish Representatives in Parliament, he did earnestly appeal for support. By adopting the Amendment they would, he believed, secure the peace of Ireland for the winter, while by rejecting it they would once more open the floodgates of agitation. The right hon. Gentleman might think that, after what he had done for it, the country would be quiet. Bat he was mistaken. There was a point beyond which the Irish Representatives would be unable to make their influence bear with their constituents, and unless they could carry home with them some encouraging message to the effect that it was the intention of the Government to restore these evicted tenants to their holdings, a strong feeling of opposition to the Government would be created. They were no doubt told that the House of Lords would throw out this Bill; but even if they did, the fact of its adoption by the House of Commons would go far towards preserving the peace of Ireland. The very first question he would be asked when he met his constituents would be, "What about the land-grabbers? Is it true or not the Government have refused to give assistance to the men whose farms have been taken from them?" And if he had to reply that such was the case, he would be asked by the evicted tenant, "Why am I to go on waiting? Did I not put as much labour in the land as so-and-so, who has gone back to his farm? Because my farm happens to have been grabbed, am I to take my children and myself off to America? Am I to have no hope of getting back? Will the Government absolutely do nothing to restore me to the holding from which I was unjustly evicted?" He did appeal to the Government not to put him in the position of having to go to the people of Clare and to admit that their fears were only too well founded. Let him rather be able to urge them to be patient, because the Government were determined as soon as possible to return all the tenants to their holdings whether their farms had
    1530
    been taken or not. As surely as that Amendment was defeated, so surely would this question crop up again and again until it had been settled.
    MR. LOUGHsaid, the hon. Member had made a strong appeal to Liberal Home Rulers to support the Amendment, and no one would be more ready than himself to lend a willing ear to it. But it was necessary to consider the position in which the Bill stood and that in which the Amendment would land them. The Bill embodied two principles: one of compulsion, and the other of voluntary arrangement. The principle of compulsion was to be applied to a certain group of landlords who it had been found could not otherwise be dealt with, while the voluntary principle was confined to the new tenants described in the third clause. The great difficulty experienced in the proceedings on the Bill up to the present time had been the introduction of the compulsory principle, and they had been told that if some other principle could be substituted the course of the measure would have been made easy. But the present Amendment meant the extension of the principle of compulsion to the new tenants, and therein was the great difficulty. No one could have listened to the very sympathetic speech of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill without feeling that, however inclined one might be to lend favourable consideration to this proposal, there were most serious difficulties in the way. He had told them on his responsibility that its acceptance would probably be fatal to the measure. Apart from that strong statement, he was bound to confess that, to his mind, the necessity for it had not been proved by the arguments of hon. Members who supported it—the dignified arguments of the hon. Member for East Mayo, who commenced by saying that if the voluntary principle would operate, he, for one, would be only too pleased. Well, the difficulty in which they found themselves was this: that as yet the voluntary principle had not been tried under the conditions put in operation by the Bill. Power was given to compensate the tenants going out—a power which did not exist under the 13th clause of the Land Act of 1891. The hon. Member had expressed a fear that the new tenants would listen

    1531
    to sinister advice and refuse to go out; but he preferred to hope that wiser counsels would prevail, and that there would be a tendency on all sides to make arrangements under the Bill. The hon. Member had referred to five cases in which the evicted tenants might have been restored had there been £125 available with which to compensate the tenant in possession. The money was not then forthcoming, but under the Bill if would be found that these men would be able to go back to their homes. The hon. Member for East Clare had complained that the Bill did nothing towards displacing the land-grabber and restoring the new tenant. Was that a fair description of the measure?
    MR. W. REDMOND: So far from saying that the Bill did nothing, I said, and I repeat, that I think it will do a good deal if passed into law, but I ask for a message to a set of tenants for whom absolutely nothing is proposed to be done.
    MR. LOUGH, continuing, said, that was the very point on which he joined issue with the hon. Member. A good deal was done for the tenants whose farms had been taken because money was provided for the compensation of the tenant in possession, and there was no country in the world in which so much could be done with money as in Ireland. The hon. Member said it would not answer, and that land-grabbing had become an established institution. But that was not so. A first blow was aimed by the Bill at land-grabbing, and the proposal was that they should first try what could be done by voluntary arrangement assisted by money set free for the purpose. Surely the Bill under these circumstances should have been treated more sympathetically by the hon. Member. He said he feared the landlords would advise the new tenants not to go out. Let him wait and see, and he would probably find that other influences would be at work. Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not pay sufficient attention to the provision in the third clause in relation to tenants whose farms had been taken. The Bill went a long way, and it by no means excluded the possibility of compulsion being introduced afterwards. It was, however, wise to try mild methods first. Looking at the whole situation
    1532
    created by the Amendment and notwithstanding his great sympathy with the arguments of hon. Members for Ireland, he felt that he could not refuse to support the Government in this matter.
    MR. DODDsaid, he wished to state his views upon this matter, because he had accepted the responsibility of putting down an Amendment with regard to the new tenants. It was impossible for them not to feel great sympathy for the evicted tenants, but at the same time they must see there was a great difference between the case of farms held by a bonâ fide new tenant and farms held either by a grabber or by the landlord. Many of them had been struck by the argument that this Bill would place the bonâ fide new tenant in a position of great difficulty, and recognising that he would suggest a compromise. At present, under the Bill, the new tenant might prevent reinstatement by his objection. This would enable him to extort a large sum for his consent, or his consent might be extorted from him by "a moral blunderbuss" being held at his head. He would suggest that power should be given to the arbitrators to decide whether the objection of the new tenant was reasonable and whether sufficient compensation was afforded by the Bill; and in that case to reinstate in spite of the objection. That would do away with the hard-and-fast line which at present existed. There ought to be no difficulty in leaving the decision of such a matter to the tribunal created by the Bill, for it would be composed of gentlemen in whom the House might place great reliance. He apprehended that they would conduct their sittings under the rules usually governing arbitrations, and that they would adopt the wise course of holding their sittings in public. He thought that the Amendment he had suggested would enable them to deal effectually with the grosser cases of hardship.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 128; Noes 57.—(Division List, No. 205.)
    MR. J. MORLEYmoved, in page 1, line 12, after "is," insert "or was on the 19th day of April, 1894." He said the

    1533
    Amendment would exclude any new tenant who was put in possession of his holding after the 19th of April in the present year.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, after the word "is," to insert the words "or was on the nineteenth day of April one thousand eight hundred and ninety-four."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he acknowledged the consideration of the Chief Secretary in proposing this Amendment, because as the Bill was drawn it would have been open to any landlord, after the introduction of the Bill and before it became an Act, to introduce new tenants to holdings, and thus defeat the Act in so far as such holdings were concerned. The Amendment would effect a great improvement in the Bill, and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. J. MORLEYproposed to substitute the words "determination of the tenancy" for the word "eviction." This Amendment, he said, would get over any difficulty that might possibly arise as to whether tenants dispossessed under the "eviction made easy" clause or by sale of the tenant's interest, or otherwise, were entitled to the benefits of the Act.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, to leave out the words "the eviction," and insert the words "the determination of the tenancy."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR R. T. REIDproposed an Amendment providing that the arbitrators should be empowered to take into consideration not only whether an eviction was reasonable or not, but also all the other circumstances of the case as well as the condition of the district.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. J. MORLEYproposed an Amendment which, he said, provided that a tenant, on being restored to his holding, should hold his tenancy subject to the same conditions and on the same terms as existed before the tenancy was determined.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he was not quite sure that the Amendment was required, because the Act gave power to have a judicial rent fixed, whether the tenancy was a present tenancy or not. If a judicial rent were fixed, all the conditions of a present tenancy would attach.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, that the Amendment would make the Bill worse than it was. He thought that whether a tenant was a present tenant or not at the date of his eviction he should be placed in the position of a present tenant on reinstatement.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he did not think the present was the proper occasion for making such an alteration in the general law. The point, he thought, was not worth discussion, as the number of future tenants in Ireland was small.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he agreed that this was not a large matter. He did not believe that any evicted tenant restored to the same conditions he was in before eviction would find himself unable to get a fair rent fixed by Statute.
    DR. KENNYsaid, he thought that extra consideration ought to be accorded to these tenants, and that a beginning ought to be made in this Bill towards laying the ground for future consideration of the question. Moreover, the landlord might, he suggested, take vengeance on the tenant again. He thought that the Bill ought not thus to be amended for the worse.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, it did not follow upon the words of the Bill that the evicted tenants would have fair rents fixed; and, after the evicted tenant was back on his holding, he might have to go to the Land Commission Court if he wanted to have a fair rent fixed, and that question would be determinable as a point of law under Section 58 of the Land Act, 1881, which provided that certain tenants should not have the right to have fair rents fixed. The present measure was not a Bill to alter the general law, and, if they attempted to make it so, they would be giving further ground for comment to the opponents of the Bill, there and elsewhere.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he had intended to accept one of the Amendments standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh (Mr. Barton). In the absence of the hon. and learned Gentleman he would move the Amendment, which provided that the orders mentioned in the clause should be executed by the Sheriff in like manner as a writ for the delivery of possession.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR R. T. REIDmoved to omit from Sub-section (5) the words—
    "Subject to a fair rent being fixed in pursuance of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, and the holder shall have the like right as other holders of present tenancies to have a fair rent fixed,"
    and to substitute therefor—
    "Until a new rent is fixed, and where the tenancy was determined before the passing of The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, or before the determination thereof was a present tenancy, whether subject or not to a statutory term, the landlord or tenant may apply to the Land Commission to have a fair rent fixed, in pursuance of The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, and the Acts incorporating or amending the same, in so far as the said Acts admit of a fair rent being fixed in respect of such a tenancy, and the holding shall, upon the fair rent being fixed, be subject to the provisions of the said Acts applicable to a present tenancy."
    Suppose, he said, that after the eviction and before this Bill should come into operation the land had become greatly deteriorated, it would not be fair to the tenant that he should be called upon to pay the same rent as he was liable to pay before eviction.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought that, except upon one point, the Amendment would meet the practical necessities of the case. It would meet the case of men who were evicted between 1879 and the passing of the Land Act of 1881, and who, therefore, never obtained the right to the security of tenure that was consequent upon the fixing of the fair rent. He thought, however, that the leaseholder who was evicted before the passing of the Act of 1887 was in the same position as the tenant from year to year who was evicted before the passing of the Act of 1881, because it was only by the passing of the Act of 1887 that the
    1536
    leaseholder obtained the right to go into Court, and have a fair rent fixed. He thought, therefore, that the Government ought to insert in the Amendment the words
    "or where, the tenant being a leaseholder, the tenancy was determined before the Act of 1887."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,)said, that the point raised by the hon. Gentleman would be carefully considered, and, if necessary, the Amendment would be rectified upon the Report.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he was much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He did not know whether English lawyers were as subtle as Irish lawyers, but he knew that words which were apparently plain had sometimes been made to assume quite a different meaning by the Irish Courts. The case had just been stated of a landlord who had made improvements since the time of the eviction, and had thus increased the value of the farm. The cases were extremely rare in Ireland where a landlord made any improvements, and still rarer where he made valuable improvements. If such cases had arisen, however, the Irish Members were not disposed to object to an equitable arrangement, and they therefore, would not oppose the Government proposal. On the other hand, if the farm had deteriorated in value, it would be obviously unjust that the rent should be fixed in accordance with the old condition of things. He thought, therefore, that the Amendment, with the explanation given by the Attorney General, could be accepted.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 2.
    MR. SEXTONmoved to insert after "money," in page 2, line 19, the words—
    "And may include in such amount any sum directed by them to be paid by the petitioner to the new tenant in consideration of reinstatement, or to the landlord on account of arrears of rent, or of costs in excess of the sum granted for such purposes by the arbitrator to the petitioner."
    He said that if the landlord required the restored tenant to purchase, the arbitrators must fix the amount of the purchase-

    1537
    money, and then proceed to act as if they were purchase commissioners. The Committee must bear in mind that the tenants who were to be restored to their holdings were men who had been out of them and deprived of the pursuit of any independent mode of living for years, and he thought the Committee would do well to ease the conditions under which the new tenants entered again into the responsibilities of tenancy. The Bill as it stood provided for two payments to be made by the old tenant on returning to his farm. The first was the payment to be made in case the new tenant did not object to leave the farm. He did not precisely know what would be the measure of that sum. It was left absolutely to the discretion of the arbitrator, and the Bill authorised the arbitrator to advance only half the amount of the funds placed at their disposal. The other half of any sum which they might direct to be paid to the new tenant would have to be provided by the former tenant out of his own resources. The burden that would thus be placed upon him might be seriously embarrassing to a man who was resuming the cultivation of his holding. The other payment which the tenant might be called upon to make was that of the moiety of the rent to be paid to the landlord. A penniless tenant, re-entering upon the occupation of his holding, and being entitled to get a sum of only £50 for rebuilding his house if it had been thrown down or injured, might find himself in a very difficult position. The funds which would be at the disposal of the Nationalist Members for assisting restored tenants might not be of very great amount, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Morley) would do well to consider whether he could not go one step further than he at present proposed to go in the effort to assist the restored tenant to put himself into a solvent position. His Amendment was to the effect that where a restored tenant was called upon to purchase, the arbitrators should not be obliged to call upon him to provide one-half the amount, but should be empowered—he still left it to their discretion—to add the half of the sum payable to the landlord and the half of the sum payable to the planter or landgrabber to the amount of the pur-
    1538
    chase-money advanced under the Land Purchase Acts, and to charge the sum repayable annually with the amount. The amount could not be very large. The average arrears for the 17 campaign estates were less than two and a-half years, and in many cases they would be less than One year. The amount of less than half a year's rent, especially in a case where the tenant was not a very substantial farmer, would not be considerable. The average amount might be £20. The addition of this sum to the amount advanced could not imperil the security nor materially increase the amount of the annuity payable to the State. He strongly urged the Amendment on the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary; but before the Report stage he would be willing to consider the question of security, but it was requisite to free the incoming tenant from the immediate demands for the payment of money.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 19, after the word "money," to insert the words—
    "and may include in such amount any sum directed by them to be paid by the petitioner to the new tenant in consideration of reinstatement, or to the landlord on account of arrears of rent, or of costs in excess of the sum granted for such purposes by the arbitrator to the petitioner."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member in thinking that any practicable step ought to be taken to ease the conditions under which the old tenant could re-enter his holding; but the landlord, after all, was not the only consideration they had to bear in mind. The hon. Member had somewhat lowered the proposal he had made, because he could not fail to see that it would impair the security to the State of the repayment of the advances made on the holding. The Government assumed that the arbitrators would attach a fair value to the holding and advance up to the limit of its value. But the Amendment was going to include as the foundation of the advance what was not purchase-money at all. The hon. Member contemplated some security in the farm which was not really in the farm, and which must be found in some extraneous source.
    MR. SEXTONpointed out that what was sold was not the holding, but the landlord's interest in it. If a fair price were fixed on the landlord's interest there would remain the tenants' interest in the holdings as a margin of security for the State.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, the hon. Member's point did not affect the validity of the security, whatever it might be worth. The arbitrators were pretty sure to advance up to the full value of the holding the whole of the landlord's interest and the whole value of the holding as a holding; but he would go a little further than that, and say that the effect of the Amendment would be to impair the security. One of the most serious charges brought against the Bill by the Member for South Tyrone and other hon. Members was, that it would be mischievous to in any way weaken the framework of the purchase system. He thought that in all parts of the House they looked to that portion of the Bill as affording some solution of Irish difficulties; therefore, on that ground alone he was averse to accepting the Amendment. The Government had considered all along whether any of these advances should remain as charges on the land, and whether the policy should be adopted not only to make no free grant of this moiety, but to make no free grant whatever, charging the moiety contributed on the land. A great deal could be said for that policy; but, on the whole, he had determined that it would be wiser to treat these tenants in the most generous way possible; and the Government made the advances a completely free grant. The Government had a right to expect, in consideration of the great effort they were making to pass this Bill, that some extra steps would be taken to assist the evicted tenants in the circumstances in which they found themselves. He, for one, had no doubt those efforts would be made, but at all events he would rather face that risk than impair the strength of the framework of the purchase system.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that after the statement the right hon. Gentleman had made he would not trouble the Committee to divide.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    DR. KENNYsaid, he proposed to omit Sub-section (a), providing that the arbitrators, if of opinion that the holding would be sufficient security for the advance, but owing to its having become temporarily deteriorated in value, might make the advance upon the purchaser providing such security as they might deem sufficient to meet any risk arising from such temporary determination. It would be a great hardship upon the evicted tenant to ask him to provide this security, which was quite unnecessary. The question of security was a formidable obstacle in the path of the tenant. The interest of the tenant in the holding was his security, and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had scarcely considered the amount of labour which would be caused to the arbitrators in the investigation of collateral security. He confessed he would not envy the arbitrators the task before them. The Bill as it stood would mortgage the security of the tenants' interest, and he maintained that this was sufficient. Consider the position of the tenants. They had been out for many years, and had become stripped of everything. Not only were they stripped, but their friends who had been supporting them for years past were also stripped, and now they were asked to provide security which would be really personal security. If such security were likely to be effective there might be something it it, but it was not. What did the Government offer? They offered the arbitrators a lawsuit to recover their money on collateral security from men just as poor and ill able to bear it as themselves. The sub-section, if allowed to stand, would cause great hardship. The tenant would be made responsible for deterioration, and in 19–20ths of these cases there would have been waste and deterioration which it would take years to get over. The deterioration would have been the landlord's fault and the tenant's misfortune; therefore, the tenant should not be expected to find collateral security in respect of it. He imagined that without this sub-section there would be ample security for the repayment of the purchase money. This sub-section would not add to the value of the security, whilst it would be a formidable obstacle to the putting in force of the Act.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section (a).—(Dr. Kenny.)
    Question proposed, "That Sub-section (a) stand part of the Clause."
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, this subsection was in ease of the tenant, and not against him in any way. If the hon. Member would read the sub-section twice he would understand it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, after "money," to insert
    "but the payment of all sums which otherwise would have been payable out of the guarantee deposit shall be guaranteed by the Irish Church Temporalities Fund, and shall be payable out of any surplus of that fund not heretofore appropriated, and be applied as if they were payments out of the guarantee deposit."
    This is an Amendment in substance, though not in words, put down by the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), and the object is that no excuse shall be given to impair the sanctity of the purchase system.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 4, after the word "money," to insert the words—
    "but the payment of all sums which otherwise would have been payable out of the guarantee deposit, shall be guaranteed by the Irish Church Temporalities Fund, and shall be payable out of any surplus of that fund not heretofore appropriated, and be applied as if they were payments out of the guarantee deposit."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) was not slow to intervene in the Debate, but he appeared to-day to be debarred from some unusual circumstances. He only rose to say he thought the proposal was very reasonable, and would put an end to any objection that the payment of the whole of the purchase money to the landlord in any way damaged the security of the State.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 3.
    SIR R. T. REIDmoved, in page 3, line 8, after "is," insert "in the opinion of the arbitrators." What was desired
    1542
    by this Amendment was that the arbitrators should deal with the matter without going to the Court.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 8, after the word "is," to insert the words "in the opinion of the arbitrators."—(Sir R. T. Reid.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, to leave out "created before the passing of this Act," and insert "bonâ fide created before the 19th day of April, 1894." This is consequential upon the Amendment I moved upon the other clause.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 10, to leave out the words "created before the passing of this Act," and insert the words "bonâ fide created before the 19th day of April, 1894."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he doubted whether the Amendment met the difficulty. What would be the position of a tenant whose farm had been let since that date? It seemed to him that the clause in no way provided for such a case, but perhaps the Government would consider it before Report.
    MR. CLANCYmoved to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting, after the word "created," the words "at least two years." His own opinion was that very few tenancies had been created since the present Government came into Office, except for the express object of defeating any Bill of this kind brought in. He thought that these tenancies created since the present Government came into Office should be regarded as bogus. He fixed the date for the reason that when the Government came into Office it was well known to be part of their programme to bring in a Bill for the restoration of these tenants, and those who came in after that date had ample notice that a Bill of this kind would be presented, and

    1543
    therefore they were not entitled to the same consideration as tenants who were in before that date. He fully believed that every so-called new tenant who had been put in since the Government came into Office had been put there for the express purpose of defeating any such measure as this.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to insert, after the word "created," the words "at least two years."—(Mr. Clancy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, the effect of the section as it at present stood was that there should be a power of refusal on the part of any new tenant before the passing of the Act, and the hon. Member proposed the power of refusal should not apply to cases where the tenancy was created less than two years before the passing of the Act; that was to say, that all the tenants who had been created tenants within the last two years should not have the power of refusing. That was a very large extension, and was what they did not agree upon earlier in the afternoon—namely, whether compulsion should be applied to the new tenant. That being rejected by the Committee, if they now allowed that compulsion should be employed in cases of tenancies created in the last two years, it would be based on an arbitrary assumption that all the tenants that had been created in the last two years were, in fact, bogus tenants. As the clause stood they must be bonâ fide tenants created before any right was conferred on any new tenant. He might, at the same time, be allowed to answer the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Louth.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he had looked into the matter and was satisfied.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, that no doubt it was an arbitrary date, but so was every other date in the Bill. He gave his reason for choosing that date, because it was well known that immediately the present Government came into Office an Evicted Tenants Bill would be brought in to effect the restoration of the former tenants, and after that he did not believe that a single new tenant was put in
    1544
    except for the purpose of defeating a Bill of this kind.
    MR. DILLONsaid, it was only fair in connection with this matter to say that the Government had already substantially recognised the demands put forward on behalf of the evicted tenants, and, while admitting that there was a great deal in the claim of the hon. Member for North Dublin, yet there should be some spirit of compromise.
    MR. T. M. HEALYasked if the words of the right hon. Gentleman had not been inserted, because if so that would dispose of the matter.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The words have been struck out, but the new words have not been inserted.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to point out there was a clear distinction in principle between introducing the date of the introduction of the Bill and any previous date, even though it marked the accession of the present Government to Office. The Irish landlords who had evicted tenants from their farms were in no position to forecast or to anticipate that the Legislature in the future would make any distinction between the tenants in dealing with these farms, and, therefore, the Act of putting in a tenant at a date anterior to the introduction of this Bill could not mean to be an intention to evade or defeat the law. As soon as this Bill was introduced, the Irish landlords were notified that certain powers would be taken in the case of vacant land that was not taken in the case of tenanted farms, and, therefore, to put in a tenant might be taken as an intention to evade the law. In this matter the Government had taken their stand on a clear ground of principle that could not be made the cause of a formal attack on the Bill. He thought if the earlier date of his hon. Friend were accepted, the prospects of the Bill might be injured or jeopardised, and, therefore, on the whole he hoped his hon. Friend would not feel disposed to urge the Amendment any further, and if a Division were taken he should vote against it.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Sexton) had said there was a difference between the two dates, and that the landlords had no indication of what would take place until the Bill was introduced. He (Mr. Clancy) would

    1545
    remind the House that for the last two or three years Bills had been introduced and supported by the Liberal Party, which had for their object the restoration of these evicted tenants—certainly Mr. O'Kelly's Bill did. According to his view of the case, the landlords got formal notice from the year Mr. O'Kelly's Bill was brought in and supported by Members of the Liberal Party; the landlords had ample notice that not a new tenant would be restored on the holding after that, but would be regarded as a bogus tenant. For that reason he thought the Amendment was one that ought to be pressed and supported by the Irish Members.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the hon. Member did not appreciate his point; in the Bill to which the hon. Member referred no difference was made, and therefore the act of the landlord was not to be taken as an intention to evade the law, as the law was going to make no distinction.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 181.—(Division List, No. 206.)
    Words inserted.
    On Motion of Mr. J. MORLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
    Page 3, line 12, leave out from "tenancy" to "the foregoing," and insert "all."
    Verbal Amendment agreed to.
    MR. HAYDENsaid, that in moving the Amendment standing in his name, he had some confidence that it would be accepted by the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman earlier in the Debate referred to two classes of tenants who now occupied evicted tenants farms. One of these classes had no interest in the farm, and were not bonâ fide farmers, and the other class consisted, not of a large number, but still of a considerable section of men who had an interest in the farm, and would not wish to give them up, even for compensation. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider in what way they derived that interest. They simply took over the improve-
    1546
    ments and tenant-rights of the former tenant. He did not believe this was the best means of dealing with this question, but for want of a better means it might be a further inducement to get them to give up the holdings they occupied, and the property, which was really the property of the former tenant. It was only reasonable that the former tenant should be paid the value he would have got if he had been permitted to sell in the open market.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 18, after the word "reinstatement," to insert the words—
    "and if the new tenant pays or duly secures to the petitioner in such manner as the Arbitrators may direct such sum as the Arbitrators may determine, having regard to the petitioner's tenant-right in his holding before the eviction, and to the improvements effected by the petitioner in said holding."—(Mr. Hayden.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that as he understood the Amendment, its object was to provide that where a new tenant refused to assent to an order restoring the old tenant, the arbitrators should have the power to propose a payment to the petitioner, who was the evicted tenant, as compensation for the rights of which he had been dispossessed on the commencement of the new tenant's tenancy. That was a question which was present to his mind at the time of the framing of the Bill, because it was pointed out to him by agents and other gentlemen that there were a great number of cases in which the tenant who had been evicted and had been a source of some of those troubles and disorders in the neighbourhood, on being allowed to sell his interest in open market would be perfectly content and would disappear. He supposed the contention of the hon. Member was similar. Yes; but there was a very strong objection which might be taken from the very quarter in which the hon. Member himself sat, which was this: that the acceptance of the Amendment would involve the recognition of a certain locus standi in the planter. That, he thought, would be regarded as an insuperable objection, though it was not, of course, the point of view from which he approached the subject at all. What he was prepared to say now was that the Govern-

    1547
    ment would consider between then and the Report stage whether words could be framed to carry out the suggestion, or proposal, made by the hon. Member. The point was an important one, and there were various things to be considered in relation to it, but the Government would give the whole question careful attention. At the same time, it must be clearly understood that the pledge he gave was only conditional upon further consideration.
    MR. HAYDENsaid, that under the circumstances, and trusting that the right hon. Gentleman would act in the spirit of his speech, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. SEXTONwould like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a new clause dealing with compensation to a former tenant and which stood on page 31, in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. The right hon. Gentleman would do well to bear in mind that the interest of the evicted tenant might be confiscated not only in the case where the new tenant refused to go out but also where the farm was vacant and where the landlord had shown cause against an absolute order; therefore the subject would not be fully dealt with if the right hon. Gentleman considered only the case where there was a new tenant and left out the case where the landlord showed cause against an absolute order for reinstatement being made. The property of the evicted tenant was confiscated in the one case as well as the other and the clause of his hon. Friend addressed itself to the whole subject. It was as follows:—
    "In any case arising under this Act in which an absolute order for reinstatement is not made, the Arbitrators may determine what sum is equitably due by the landlord to the petitioner in compensation for the value of his interest in the holding immediately prior to the determination of his tenancy, and this sum, after deducting the amount due for rent to the landlord at the time of the eviction, shall be a debt recoverable from the landlord by the petitioner, and a certificate under the seal of the Arbitrators shall be accepted as proof of the debt and the amount thereof in any action taken to recover the same."
    He trusted, in considering the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary would take account of the fact that it did not cover the whole subject, and that any proposal he himself made would
    1548
    be such as should deal completely with the matter in the direction of the clause he had quoted.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that in considering the subject the whole circumstances which had been mentioned should be taken into account.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE CHAIRMANcalled upon Mr. SEXTON, who had the following Amendment on the Paper:—
    Page 3, line 19, after "Arbitrators," insert "unless after due inquiry they are of opinion that the new tenant is not a bonâa fide farmer, or that his interest in the holding is not substantial, or that for some other cause sufficient in their judgment it is expedient to make an order for reinstatement."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, this Amendment raised substantially the same question as that determined by the first Amendment moved that day, where they endeavoured to apply the principle of compulsory treatment to tenanted as well as to vacant farms. The right hon. Gentleman in his reply delivered his judgment unequivocally on the subject of that Amendment, declaring that its acceptance would render impossible the success of the Bill. It was conceivable that the Bill, as it stood, might deal practically with the whole question at issue. No one could say whether it did or did not until the Bill had come into operation. He was willing to accept the decision of the Committee on the former as being a decision on this Amendment, but the Irish Members reserved their right, if the Bill passed into law, to observe the extent of its operation, and whether or not it completely dealt with the question, and on the first opportunity after the practical working of the Act had become a matter which they could determine by practice, they should reserve their right to bring the subject under notice.
    MR. DODDwas called upon by the Chairman to move the following Amendment, but he stated that after what had just been stated by the hon. Member for North Kerry he should not do so:—
    Page 3, line 19, leave out "not make an order," and insert "hear and determine the reasonableness of such objection, and if they shall be of opinion that such objection is reasonable and cannot be fairly met by such payment or compensation as they are enabled by this Act in cases where the new tenant does

    1549
    not object to an order to award, then they I shall make no order, but otherwise they may if they think fit deal with the whole matter as though the new tenant had not objected."
    MR. W. REDMONDhad the following Amendment on the Paper:—
    Page 3, line 19, after "order," insert "but in such case the new tenant shall pay to the petitioner such sum as the petitioner would be entitled, on evidence by the landlord, to recover under the provisions of The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, in respect of the disturbance of his occupation as tenant, and of the improvements effected on the holding by himself or his predecessors in title."
    He said, he believed the Amendment was much, the same as that which had already been moved by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. Hayden), and as he understood the Chief Secretary had given an undertaking to consider the whole question he did not propose to move this Amendment.
    MR. SEXTON (for Mr. PINKERTON)moved, in page 3, line 27, at end, add—
    "and may advance the other half out of such moneys, charging the interest of the tenant in the holding with an annuity payable to the Land Commission in repayment of such advance for such term of years as they may fix, such annuity to be recoverable by the Land Commission as if it were payable under the Land Purchase Acts by a tenant for the purchase of his holding."
    He said, the Amendment raised the question whether the incoming tenant should be assisted in respect to the moiety of the payment to be made to the landlord and the old tenant. The Amendment he moved before was that the moiety to be paid by the incoming tenant in the case where the new tenant became a purchaser should be added to the purchase money. The right hon. Gentleman objected that in such a case they would be adding to the purchase money something which was not really part of the price of the holding. He doubted if that was true in respect of the money paid to the tenant in respect of his interest. He was now dealing with the case where the tenant did not become a purchaser, where the landlord did not insist on the power given to him in this respect, and where the tenant was reinstated as a tenant. In such cases he thought it might fairly be considered whether this further advance might not be made to the tenant, especially as the advance could be charged by way of annuity on the holding, so that the
    1550
    security of the State would not be affected. If the Chief Secretary could not at once accept the Amendment he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not reject it, but would consent to give it consideration.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 27, at end, add—
    "and may advance the other half out of such moneys, charging the interest of the tenant in the holding with an annuity payable to the Land Commission in repayment of such advance for such term of years as they may fix, such annuity to be recoverable by the Land Commission as if it were payable under the Land Purchase Acts by a tenant for the purchase of his holding."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR R. T. REIDsaid, that the Chief Secretary would look into this matter between now and the Report stage, and without giving any definite decision would see if anything could be done.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he desired to make an observation or two with respect to an Amendment to this clause which the hon. Member for South Tyrone had placed upon the Paper, but had not moved. The Amendment of the hon. Member provided that the Arbitrators
    "may in the case of any former tenant (whose holding has been taken) and whom they may find to have been the subject of unjust or harsh eviction give special aid to the migration or emigration of any such former tenant and may recommend the Land Commissioners to facilitate the migration of such tenants by acquiring land upon which they can be settled as tenants, and the tenants when their tenancies have been so created shall be entitled to and shall be required to avail themselves of all the provisions of the Land Purchase Acts for the purpose of purchasing the holdings of which they are so created tenants. Any sum that may be required for the purpose of emigrating families under this section shall be charged on the residue of the Emigration Fund provided by the Land Act of 1881."
    When the proposal contained in this Amendment was originally made by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin he (Mr. J. Morley) stated that he feared that the experience of the Congested Districts Board had not

    1551
    been such as to encourage the idea that migration was a very easy thing to accomplish, and the Leader of the Opposition indicated by a gesture that he shared his scepticism. He explained then that he was doubtful whether machinery could be devised for carrying out this object and whether the circumstances in Ireland lent themselves to the process of migration, but that he would be willing to consider any proposal for the purpose that might be laid before the Committee. The Amendment now on the Paper would not, in his opinion, meet the case exactly, but in the interval before the Report stage he would consider whether a practicable provision could be framed for placing powers in regard to migration in the hands of the arbitrators.
    MR. SEXTONremarked that there was no doubt the subject which the right hon. Gentleman had voluntarily raised was one of extreme importance. He had discussed it with the hon. Member for South Tyrone and others, and whilst he recognised to the full the object of the Amendment he thought it must be conceded, by anyone who examined its terms from a critical point of view, that it would not suffice in any practical way to deal efficiently with the case. He could not give unqualified approval to the Amendment, because it contained the word "emigration." Plans for emigration never led to any good, and what they wanted to do was to keep their people at home. But migration was a different matter altogether, and he had no doubt that there were unoccupied lands to be had in Ireland which were suitable for occupation and cultivation. The Land Commission, if authorised to do so, would be able to obtain these lands so that they might be let to evicted tenants who failed to obtain reinstatements in their old holdings. He trusted that the Chief Secretary, who could command the services of experts and obtain legal help, would be successful in framing a satisfactory Amendment dealing with the matter under consideration.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 4.
    On Motion of Sir R. T. REID, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 3, line 37, after "Act," insert—
    "Except as respects any sum so to be paid, the landlord shall not, after an absolute order for a reinstatement is made, have any claim on account of arrears of rent or of costs in connection with the holding."
    MR. CLANCYmoved, in page 3, line 38, after "house," insert "or offices." The object of the Amendment, he explained, was to provide that the arbitrators might make a grant to assist the tenant in rebuilding or repairing not only the house on the holding, but the offices and other buildings also. He should move a further Amendment that the arbitrators should also take into consideration the circumstances of the tenant; that was to say, his poverty and his inability to stock his farm. and so on. It would be absurd to place a tenant back on his holding and give him £50 to rebuild the house and offices. In the first place, it would be ridiculous to confine the grant to so narrow a thing as the dilapidation of a dwelling-house, and, in the second place, to limit the grant to the sum of £50; and his proposal was that the whole question should be left to the discretion of the arbitrators, who might fairly be trusted to discharge this duty. He begged to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 38, after the word "house," to insert the words "or offices."—(Mr. Clancy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR E. T. REIDsaid, that it would not be advisable to sanction larger grants than sums of £50, having regard to the limited sum which was to be placed at the disposal of the arbitrators. He understood that in Ireland £50 was no inconsiderable sum, and he thought that if expended with proper and judicious economy it ought to be sufficient for the purposes which they had in view.
    MR. T. M. HEALYthought that the word "buildings" ought to be substituted for the word "house" which appeared in the clause, and which was too narrow. He would just like to say

    1553
    that it cost £100 to build a labourer's cottage in Ireland.
    MR. FLYNNstated that in some cases outhouses might have been destroyed by emergency men. Surely facilities ought to be given for rebuilding them.
    MR. SEXTONsuggested that they should retain the maximum of £50 and give at the same time powers of a more general character to the arbitrators as to buildings.
    MR. J. MORLEYobserved that the suggested substitution of the word "buildings" for "house" was worthy of consideration, but he could not assent to it on that occasion, because he knew from experience that apparently harmless words used in connection with Irish agrarian matters were often traps for the unwary. The suggestion, however, would not be lost sight of.
    It being after half-past Five of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 294.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    DR. MACGREGORasked if the Government would take into consideration his suggestion to bring in this Bill before 12 o'clock, so that the responsibility of its rejection might be placed on the right shoulders?
    An hon. MEMBER: Move the Second Reading.
    DR. MACGREGORmoved that the Bill be read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Dr. Macgregor.)
    THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN: Is it in Order for a private Member to move a Government Bill?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was competent for an hon. Member to do so.
    THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHENsaid, he should move the adjournment of the Debate.
    MR. SPEAKERasking for a date to be fixed,
    DR. MACGREGORsaid, he could not be responsible for the Government in this matter. He simply wanted to know whether the Government proposed to adopt the course he had suggested, and he hoped some one was present who would be able to answer?
    Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) (BIRMINGHAM CANAL) BILL.—(No. 252.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords].—(No. 306.)
  Read the third time, and passed without Amendment.
  COPYHOLD CONSOLIDATION BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 344.]
  CHARITABLE TRUSTS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].—(No. 296.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Bill read the third time, and passed.

  SETTLED LAND ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 320.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BILL—(No 59.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  CROWN LANDS BILL.—(No. 4.)
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 252.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 252.]
  Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 343.]

  FOOD PRODUCTS ADULTERATION.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed].
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 253.]

  VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 345.]
  VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].

    TRUSTS ADMINISTRATION.
    The Select Committee on Trusts Administration was nominated of,—Mr. Butcher, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Heneage, Mr. Kimber, Sir George Osborne Morgan, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Sir Charles Pearson, Sir Henry Roscoe, Mr. Solicitor General, Colonel Howard Vincent, and Mr. Warmington:
    Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
    Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. T. H. Ellis)

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) (BUILDING GRANTS).
  Return [presented 31st July] to be printed. (No. 250.)
  EAST INDIA REVENUE (OPIUM).
  Return [presented 31st July] to be printed. (No. 251).
  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  ADJOURNMENT.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLASasked when the Equalisation of Rates Bill would be taken.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. T. E. ELLIS,)said, that if the Evicted Tenants Bill was finished to-morrow (Thursday) the Equalisation of Rates Bill would be the first Order on Friday.
    MR. BARTLEY: Will that stage of the Equalisation of Rates Bill be completed before the next stage of the Evicted Tenants Bill is taken?
    MR. T. E. ELLIS: I cannot promise that we shall go on with the Bill beyond Friday, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a further statement to-morrow.
    SIR H. MAXWELL: What are the intentions of the Government with regard to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill? Are the Government aware of the exceeding inconvenience to Scotch Members of being detained in London at this season of the year, and of being uncertain as to when Scotch business will be disposed of?
    MR. T. E. ELLIS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement on that point to-morrow, but I do not think he will depart from his original intention of not proceeding with the Scotch Bill until the Committee stage of the Equalisation of Rates Bill is disposed of.
    In reply to further questions,
    MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, that if the Evicted Tenants Bill took up a portion of Friday the Equalisation of Rates Bill would be taken on the same evening.
    MR. CHANNING: What will be the second Order to-morrow?
    MR. T. E. ELLIS: The Building Societies Bill.
    SIR A. ROLLIT: What business will be taken after that?
    MR. T. E. ELLIS: The other Bills in their order.
    MR. TOMLINSON: Does the Government intend to set apart any time for the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill?
    MR. T. E. ELLIS: The hon. Member had better give notice of that question to-morrow.
    House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock.