Sitting of 6 August 1896

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  DR. FARQUHARSON DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.) moved:—
  "That, in the case of the Dublin Corporation (re-committed) Bill [H.L], Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 he suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been previously de-posited."
  Motion agreed to.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford) moved the following Clause:—

  SAVING RIGHTS OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT.
  "Notwithstanding anything in this Act, or in any of the Scheduled Acts, or in any agreement, the Secretary of State for War shall he entitled to require that water from the River Vartry he supplied by the Corporation to any barrack or other establishment under his control in the county of Dublin, and the Corporation
  1652
  shall he hound to afford such supply at such price, not exceeding fivepence per thousand gallons, as shall be mutually agreed on between the Corporation and the Secretary of State for War: Provided that nothing in this Act shall he deemed to prevent the Secretary of State for War from obtaining a supply of water from any Township Commissioners within whose district any such barrack or other establishment under his control may be situate."
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the War Office would give an undertaking not to go to any townships which were already supplied by the Dublin Corporation with water, so as to make a contract with them over the heads of the Corporation? He believed that this clause somewhat contravened the Standing Orders; and he hoped the Government would use their good offices to secure the suspension of the Standing Orders in the House of Lords.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that the Government would consider any steps which might be necessary to secure the Bill passing the House of Lords. He thought it obvious that the other condition mentioned by the hon. Gentleman would be acceptable to the War Office.
  Clause read a First and Second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: The next new clause, standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Belfast, is out of order. The clause runs:—
  Part III., after Clause 15, insert the following clause:—

  WOMEN NOT TO BE DISQUALIFIED ON ACCOUNT OF SEX.
  Any person who, but for her sex, would be entitled to be placed on the Parliamentary Register of Electors shall be entitled to be placed on the Burgess Roll in respect of any qualification which enables male persons to vote for an alderman or councillor of the city; and the Irish Registration Acts shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to include women.
  It is not competent for the hon. Member to move any clause on Report which would have required an Instruction if it were to be considered in Committee. This clause would certainly have required an Instruction. For the same reason the following clause, in the name

  1653
  of the hon. Member for the College Green Division (Mr. Carew), is out of order:—

  EXTENSION OF LOCAL OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT.
  The provisions of the Local Officers' Superannuation (Ireland) Act, 1869, are hereby, in their application to the Corporation, extended so as to authorise the Corporation to grant (subject to the provisions of that Act) superannuation allowances to artisans, labourers and others in the service of the Corporation: Provided that no such artisan, labourer or servant shall be eligible on any ground for the grant of an allowance under this section unless he shall have been in the uninterrupted service of the Corporation for at least twenty years, and shall have become incapable of further serving the Corporation by reason of permanent infirmity of mind or body or of old age, or shall have been disabled by accident occasioned without his own default while actually engaged in work for the Corporation. And no artisan, labourer or servant shall be entitled to such allowance on the ground of age unless he shall have attained the age of sixty years.
  That clause is quite outside the Instruction which was moved, as well as outside the Bill.
  MR. J. J. CLANCY MR. J. J. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.) moved, after Clause 25, to insert the following clause:—

  APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENT OF COURT OF CONSCIENCE.
  The acting President of the Court of Conscience of the City of Dublin shall continue to hold office without appointment, and such office of President of the Court of Conscience shall be deemed to be held during good behaviour from the Corporation, and future presidents of the said court shall be elected and appointed by the Corporation.
  MR. T. HARRINGTONsaid he believed it was a perverse use of private legislation that a question touching in no way the purpose or object with which the Bill was originally introduced should be allowed to be imported into the Bill. Such a course was calculated to deter corporations from coming to this House in redress of grievances. The gentleman on whom it was proposed to confer a permanent appointment was a member of his election committee, and an influential supporter of his, but all the same he deemed it to be his duty to the citizens of Dublin, as well as to the honour of the House, to oppose the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  MR. HARRINGTONwas appointed a Teller for the Noes, but no Member being willing to act as the second Teller, Mr. Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.
  Clause read a Second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 8,—

  PRICE OF EXCESS OR SURPLUS WATER.
  The price for excess or surplus water supplied to the Commissioners of any of the townships shall be threepence-halfpenny per thousand gallons, and in and for the purposes of this Act the expression "excess or surplus water" means and includes in the case of each township all water supplied in excess of a quantity of water equal to twenty gallons per head per day for the population of the townships ascertained as in this Act provided.
  MR. CLANCY MR. CLANCY moved, at the end of the clause, after the word "provided," to insert:—
  "Provided always that nothing in this Act contained shall be deemed to interfere with the existing contracts between the Corporation and the Commissioners of the new Kilmainham township."
  His object was to exempt Kilmainham township from the provisions of Clause 8, and he made the Motion on very distinct grounds. In the first place, he understood there were contracts existing between the Corporation and Kilmainham township for the supply of water. He had never heard that the Corporation complained of the terms of those contracts, nor yet of the way in which the township fulfilled them. That being so, it was rather hard that all those contracts should be summarily terminated by the carrying of this Bill. He believed he was right in saying that Kilmainham township was almost the only township, if not the only one, to which the Corporation supplied water, which had always paid for its excess of supply without a murmur, and without being compelled to do so by law. There was a stronger reason for omitting the Kilmainham township. He was told, on

  1655
  the authority of the solicitor to the Kilmainham township, that there was a distinct agreement between Kilmainham and the Corporation that the latter should be omitted from the provisions of the Bill. Kilmainham so far acted on the understanding that they were not represented on the Committee of the House of Lords, before whom the Bill was thrashed out. That alone furnished a conclusive case why Kilmainham should be excluded from the provisions of this clause.
  MR. T. M. HEALYhoped the Chairman of Committees would advise the House against the acceptance of this Amendment. It raised exactly the same question in principle that had been thrashed out in Committee upstairs with regard to Kingstown and other townships. The case of Kingstown indeed rested not on mere contract, but upon statute; yet the Committee upstairs found it necessary to agree with the views of the Corporation that all these matters should be revised. It would be most unfair, seeing the Corporation had not an opportunity of considering the matter, to insert the Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,)said that the Motion of the hon. Member for North Dublin had come upon him by surprise, but he had made himself acquainted with the question as far as he was able. The Committee had gone fully into the subject, and they had given their decision. The hon. Member was now seeking to upset a decision come to after full inquiry, and, in accordance with the principles which he had always followed, he thought it would be inadvisable to disturb the arrangement made. He should therefore vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member, and would advise the House to follow the same course.
  MR. HARRINGTONhoped that the House would not go back upon the decision of the Committee, which had been arrived at after full discussion.
  MR. T. SKEWES-COXhoped that the House would support the Committee. The proposed clause had been before the Committee and was seriously considered in all its bearings. The Committee, after due deliberation, came to the conclusion to allow the Dublin Corporation to enter
  1656
  into the new arrangements as proposed by the Bill.
  MR. W. FIELDappealed to his hon. Friend to withdraw the clause.
  Clause negatived.
  Clause 15,—

  FUTURE QUALIFICATION OF BURGESSES.
  From and after the twenty-fifth day of November one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six the persons entitled to be enrolled as burgesses of the city shall, in addition to all other persons at present otherwise qualified, include all persons entitled to have their names included in the Parliamentary register of electors, omitting freeholders, leaseholders, freemen, lodgers, and persons qualified to appear on such register in respect of premises not situate within the municipal boundary.
  Clause 16,—

  PRESERVATION OF EXISTING QUALIFICATIONS.
  (1) All persons not entitled to have their names included in the said Parliamentary Register but who if this Act had not passed would have been entitled to be enrolled as burgesses shall notwithstanding anything in this Act contained be also entitled to be enrolled as burgesses of the city.
  (2) The Town Clerk shall in every year after the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six prepare, print, and publish a list of persons so entitled in the same manner and at the same time as in the case of the list of Parliamentary voters.
  (3) Any person so entitled and whose name is omitted from such list of burgesses may within the same time as in the ease of claims of Parliamentary voters lodge with the Town Clerk a claim to be enrolled of a burgess of the city in like manner as claims to be enrolled as a burgess are now lodged and made, and the Town Clerk shall in every year print and publish such list of claimants along with the lists of Parliamentary claimants.
  (4) Such lists shall be revised with the lists of Parliamentary voters in like manner in all respects as if they formed portion thereof, and the Municipal Corporation (Ireland) Acts 1840 to 1888 shall not apply thereto, and instead thereof the Parliamentary Registration Acts shall apply thereto including the provision thereof as to appeals from the decision of the Revising Barrister.
  Clause 17,—

  REVISING BARRISTER TO SIGN LISTS.
  (1) At the conclusion of the revision of the list of Parliamentary voters in every year after the year one thousand eight hundred and

  1657
  ninety-six the Revising Barristers shall prepare and sign one copy of the revised lists omitting there from the names of all persons qualified as freeholders, leaseholders, freemen or lodgers or in respect of premises not within the municipal boundary: Provided that where a person qualified as a freeholder, leaseholder or freeman is also qualified as a rated occupier or inhabitant householder in respect of premises within the municipal boundary, and the name of such person is retained on the Parliamentary Register as a freeholder, leaseholder or freeman, the name of such person shall be retained as a rated occupier or inhabitant householder as the case may be in the said copy to be prepared and signed as aforesaid.
  (2) The Revising Barristers shall also sign the said list referred to in Clause 16 of this Act as revised by them.
  Clause 18,—

  LISTS TO BE DELIVERED TO TOWN CLERK.
  The said copy of the revised lists shall be delivered by the Revising Barristers to the Town Clerk, and shall be and be deemed to be the Burgess Roll of the burgesses of the city entitled to vote at elections of Aldermen and Councillors of the city, and the same shall be printed by the Town Clerk, and shall for all purposes whatsoever be deemed to be substituted for the list of burgesses referred to in the forty-seventh section of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act 1840.
  MR. HARRINGTON, in moving to leave out Clauses 15 to 18 inclusive, said that if he succeeded in his Motion nearly the whole of Part III. of the Bill would disappear. He maintained that the Committee had gone beyond the instructions given by the House. As introduced, the Bill was an extremely simple and short proposal, merely asking the right to carry out by law an agreement with the various townships of Dublin, to charge them for the excess of water taken. Originally, one of his colleagues in the representation of Dublin, wishing to give their constituencies a franchise in the widest sense, presented at the Table an Instruction for the extension of the franchise. That Instruction, he was informed, was ruled out of order, and he believed properly so. But the Instruction which was refused from the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division seemed to have been accepted afterwards when moved by the hon. Member for North Louth. Following on that Instruction was a second Instruction, wide in its scope and general in its terms, including almost every officer of the Corporation. The Instruc-
  1658
  tion gave power to make provision for an amendment of the law as to the election and tenure of office of aldermen, councillors, and assessors, and as to the appointment and tenure of office of any officers annually elected by the Corporation, or appointed by any persons nominated by the Corporation. This was so wide in character, so general in its terms, and far-reaching, that it would be perfectly possible for the Committee upstairs to consider whether the chaplain whom the Lord Mayor appointed, his secretary or coachman might not be made permanent officers of the Corporation. As a matter of fact, one of the officers who obtained a permanent appointment under that Instruction had no connection in an official capacity with the Corporation.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the hon. Member was speaking on the omission of Clause 15 or the question to omit Part III?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member would not be in order unless he was moving the omission of Part III. generally.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid all the objectionable clauses to which he referred were dependent on the franchise clause. If the House decided to strike out the franchise clause, it would be in a position to deal with the Bill as originally introduced, and it would secure a safe passage; elsewhere. No one who had read the observations elsewhere of the Earl of Morley could fail to see——
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the hon. Member in order in discussing the franchise clause?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order in referring to proceedings in another House.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid he was following the example of the Leader of the House the other day. If by his Motion he appeared to be restricting the franchise to his own constituents, and if he was supported by his colleagues in the representation of the city, it was not because they had any fear of the extension, but because he believed that this system of engrafting the franchise on private Bills was calculated to deter persons coming forward in the promotion of private Bills. He believed it to be a vicious principle, and, if persevered in with regard to this Bill, it would bring

  1659
  it to ruin elsewhere. The franchise provisions which had been drafted in connection with this Bill were rude and clumsy. They were absolutely unworkable. The promoters of this Bill had, in a series of rough-and-ready clauses, thrown together different franchises. There was a general provision that the registration law for Parliamentary purposes should apply also in respect of municipal purposes in Dublin. But rough-and-ready clauses like these could not effect the object for which they were intended. As to Sub-section 4 of Section 16, the whole registration law of 50 years had been crammed into it. The sub-section would take away from the Court of Queen's Bench the jurisdiction which it at present exercised in restoring to the Burgess Roll burgesses whose names had been wrongfully struck off. Under the schedules of the Parliamentary Registration Acts there were forms of objection to names proposed to be put on the Parliamentary Roll. These same forms were supposed to be capable of being used under the rough-and-ready clauses of this Bill in the case of claimants to the municipal vote. They would not, however, be really applicable, and it would be impossible to sustain objections in the Revision Courts. He was not opposed to a proper extension of the franchise, but he objected to these clauses because they were offensive to the municipality and burgesses of Dublin, who had not been given an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon them. He might be told that the general body of the citizens were in favour of this change, but he maintained that it was to those who were already in possession of the municipal franchise that the right belonged of pronouncing judgment upon a Bill of this kind. He appealed to the House to refuse to assent to proposals of this kind in a private Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that in the case of Derry, the House had already this year extended, by means of a private Bill, the municipal franchise to those who possessed the Parliamentary vote. The Derry Improvement Bill had now received the sanction of the House of Lords. What the Bill before the House provided was that all persons within the municipal area of Dublin who possessed the Parliamentary franchise should also
  1660
  enjoy the municipal franchise, certain freeholders and leaseholders in the county of the city of Dublin, but not in the city simplicites, being excluded. His hon. Friend said that there would be great difficulty in making up the Municipal and Parliamentary Roll, but at this hour the Parliamentary and municipal franchise lists were made up together in England, and there was no difficulty about the matter. Last year that practice was embodied in a Bill that passed through the House of Commons, and his hon. Friend who was on the Grand Committee who considered that Bill took no objection to the franchise, the only objection raised by him being that the Measure would extend the franchise to women. The hon. Member's argument that this Bill must cause complications and difficulties seemed, therefore, to be disposed of. His proposal was simply to extend the English law to the case of Dublin, so as to give the people of Dublin the same advantages as the people of England enjoyed. There were precedents for legislating in this way in a private Bill. In 1883 the same thing was done in the Rathmines Bill; and in 1893 in the Blackrock Drainage Bill, and this Session franchise clauses had been inserted in private Bills concerning Derry, Belfast, Drogheda, and Waterford. The real reason of his hon. and learned Friend's objection to the franchise clauses of the present Bill was that they provided for a minority representation. At present the Conservatives held 11 seats out of 60 on the Dublin Corporation, while under this Bill they would have 20 out of 60 seats. That was the sole objection which existed to his franchise clause. There was nothing better for preventing a Corporation from falling into mismanagement than the existence of a good stout party of opposition.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he had no wish to go into the merits of the Bill, but what he thought the House ought to consider was whether it was convenient to the House at large or calculated to contribute to the good conduct of the business of the House that these controversial matters affecting the political franchise should be introduced into private Bills. In days gone by all private Bills were dealt with on the floor of the House,

  1661
  but that was found to be an intolerable nuisance, and the practice was abolished, and the principle of referring private Bills to Committees upstairs was established. There was no principle more strongly insisted on in the composition of Private Bill Committees, than that, as far as possible, the subjects that came before them should be approached in a judicial spirit and apart from all political feeling. The House would at once see that if questions involving keen political contests were to be relegated to Committees upstairs, those Committees would not be allowed to decide such questions. They were sure to be reopened in the Whole House, and the House could not fail to see the grave inconvenience of such a practice. The result of bringing such matters on to the floor of the House was that they were no longer dealt with in a judicial spirit. The question involved in the provisions now under discussion had not been dealt with by Parliament in its strict sense, and therefore hon. Members brought these provisions forward in private Bills as a substitute for the consideration of the whole question by Parliament; and thus, by a retrogade step, the consideration of private Bills was being brought back to the floor of the House. To show there was no very great accord on this subject, they had Members representing the various sections of the Irish Party differing upon it. He hoped the House would put its foot down and reject these clauses, by way of emphasising its intention not to allow private Bill legislation to be mixed up with political matters of this kind.
  MR. JOHN DILLONsaid that when the right hon. Gentleman opposite complained of these clauses being introduced into a private Bill, he must have forgotten the history of this question in Parliament. The Irish Members regretted very much that it should be necessary to introduce proposals in a private Bill. But who was to blame? The blame rested with Parliament, which had shown itself incapable or unwilling to deal with the question. If the House of Lords had allowed the House of Commons to assimilate the law in this respect in Ireland to that in Great Britain, this inconvenient course need not have been adopted. But when the ordinary
  1662
  channels through which justice might be obtained were blocked, it was only natural that hon. Members should have recourse to any means which might offer themselves in order to obtain these privileges for the municipal electors in Ireland. He therefore thought there was no force whatever in the right hon. Gentleman's objection. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn attention to the difference of opinion in the ranks of the Irish Party. That was often the case on private Bills. He himself was opposed to the Motion to omit these franchise clauses. He objected to jerrymandering the city of Dublin, and he objected to an artificial system which was not applied to any other city being applied to the city of Dublin.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONrose to support the Motion of the hon. Member for the Louth Division. He had intended to vote for the clause if he had been fortunate enough to introduce his Amendment to give the franchise to women; but as he was not able to do that, he should vote against the clause.
  MR. W. FIELDdesired to know how it was that this notice of Motion was in order, seeing that a similar notice of Motion that he had put down upon another Bill had been ruled out of order.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is referring to a matter which has nothing to do with this question. The only question before the House is whether Clauses 15 to 18 shall stand part of the Bill.
  MR. FIELDrepeated that he had been told that a similar notice put down by him was out of order. He was himself in favour of the extension of the franchise, and Clause 15 had his entire approbation; but there were other clauses attached to it which undoubtedly took away the value of the franchise clause. He would appeal to Conservative Members on the opposite Benches, who were finding fault with the course now being taken, to ask the Government to bring in a Bill to equalise the franchise in Ireland with that of England.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid that as a Member of the Committee which considered the Bill in the first instance he desired to explain his position. The hon. Member for the Harbour Division objected to the inclusion of these clauses

  1663
  on the ground that he had not had sufficient notice.
  MR. HARRINGTON: No. Because they were not submitted according to the Standing Orders of this House to a meeting of the citizens of Dublin.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid he understood the hon. Member to say that the matter was sprung upon the citizens of Dublin. However, if he desired to recede from that position he (Mr. Farrell) did not object. They could discount pretty readily the professions of the hon. Member in favour of extending the franchise in the widest sense when the three clauses which would do so as widely and generally as any other Act could do, were the subjects of the Motion which he now made to the House. He (Mr. Farrell) thought it would be bad treatment on the part of the House towards the first Committee as well as towards the Committee which considered the Bill on the second occasion if the House was now to go back on a decision, which he might say was unanimously arrived at on the second occasion. The position of the hon. Member for the Harbour Division was one that nothing could satisfy. Alone he stood out in opposition to the other Members of the City of Dublin, because on the second occasion at all events it was quite clear that none of them thought fit to put in an appearance before the Committee. The position was quite clear. They had an opportunity of giving to the citizens of Dublin a franchise clause without any extra cost whatever. The hon. member for the Harbour Division spoke of the Bill to be introduced next year, but he had elicited from the Lord Mayor that that was to be an omnibus Bill. Why should objection not be taken to the inclusion of the franchise in that Bill on the same ground as it was taken in the present case. The decision of the Committee after careful consideration ought to be upheld by the House.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the contention of the hon. Member who had just sat down seemed intensely ridiculous—that because Members of a certain Committee took trouble with the consideration of a Bill therefore the House was to abrogate its function of deciding as to the merits of the Bill. But he had risen for the purpose of making an appeal for his hon. and
  1664
  learned Friend not to press the Motion to a division. The view he took was this—he was strongly in favour, as he believed all sections of Nationalists were, of the extension of the franchise to the bulk of the people, and he did not sympathise at all with the right hon. Member for Thanet in his complaint as to the inconvenience of the course of tacking on this clause to a private Bill. Of course that course was inconvenient. It was almost an improper one, but it had been rendered necessary by the persistent obstinacy of Parliament in refusing to redress a grievance which was admitted by all sections and all parties. Long ago, by universal consent, a Bill ought to have been passed into law assimilating the franchise for municipal purposes in Great Britain and Ireland. That had not been done, and the result had been that they had been forced to take advantage of these illegitimate opportunities, if they liked so to call them, of getting the franchise extended piece-meal to different parts of Ireland. He succeeded on a similar Bill for the city of Waterford in getting the franchise extended, and it would therefore be ridiculous for him to take up the position that an opportunity of this kind should not be seized upon to extend the franchise whenever they could. The position of his hon. and learned Friend was perfectly intelligible. He was in favour of the extension of the franchise, but what he objected to was that the extension of the franchise in this Bill had been coupled with an interference with the mode of election and other matters of that kind, such as there was no precedent for with regard to any of the private Bills in which the franchise had been extended up to the present. In taking up that position his hon. Friend had behind him the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Dublin and therefore he was perfectly justified in his action. On the question of minority representation it would be improper and out of order to say anything at that stage; so far as the principle was concerned and were it extended all over Ireland, he would be the last to say a word against it. His hon. Friend's position was, that he objected to the franchise proposed to be extended in Dublin, being hampered in the particular case of Dublin to the exclusion of the rest of the country by

  1665
  certain clauses providing for minority representation. That was a perfectly plain and intelligible position, but the particular Motion which his hon. Friend had moved was to strike out those clauses which dealt with the extension of the franchise alone. Therefore, he would suggest to his hon. Friend, as he was of the same view as himself with regard to the extension of the franchise, that he should allow these clauses to pass without a Division, and reserve his opposition for the subsequent clauses which dealt with the creation of this artificial mode of election.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 19,—

  ELECTION OF COUNCILLORS TO BE TRIENNIAL.
  The election of councillors for the city shall be triennial and at each triennial election each ward shall elect the number of councillors which such ward is entitled to elect at the date of the passing of this Act. The first triennial election shall be holden on the twenty-fifth November one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven and all the existing councillors shall then go out of office. Provided that at the election of the councillors for each ward every voter shall he entitled to vote for two candidates and no more. The councillors elected at each triennial election shall hold office for three years and no longer, but shall he eligible for re-election if then qualified.
  Clause 20,—

  ALDERMEN TO BE ELECTED BY GROUPS OF WARDS.
  From and after the twenty-fifth day of November one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven the election of aldermen by single wards shall cease and the election of aldermen shall be by five groups of three wards in each group. Each group shall elect three aldermen every six years and such group shall for all purposes connected with such election be deemed to be a ward, and the groups of wards shall be as follows:—
  On the north side of the Liffey—

  No. 1.

  North City Ward

  North Dock Ward

  Mountjoy Ward

  No. 2.

  Arran Quay Ward

  Inns Quay Ward

  Rotunda Ward

  On the south side of the Liffey—

  No. 3.

  Royal Exchange Ward

  South Dock Ward

  Trinity Ward

  No. 4.

  Fitzwilliam Ward

  South City Ward

  Wood Quay Ward

  No. 5.

  Mansion House Ward

  Merchants' Quay Ward

  Ushers' Quay Ward:

  Provided that at such election of aldermen every voter may vote for two candidates and no more. The aldermen elected at each such election shall hold office for six years and no longer but shall be eligible for re-election if then qualified:
  The first election of aldermen shall take place on the twenty-fifth November one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight and the existing aldermen shall remain in office until the said date. In the case of any casual vacancy in such office of aldermen prior to such date an election to fill such vacancy shall be held in the same manner as before the passing of this Act. On the said twenty-fifth day of November one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight all the then existing aldermen shall go out of office:
  Provided always that no person shall be eligible as a candidate for the office of councillor or alderman unless within the time limited for the lodgment of the nomination paper nominating him for election to such office as aforesaid such person shall deposit with the town clerk of the said borough of Dublin the sum of ten pounds towards the expenses of the said election. Provided also that the person or persons who shall be elected a councillor or alderman at any such election as aforesaid shall be entitled to a refund of the sum so lodged and deposited by him.
  MR. HARRINGTON MR. HARRINGTON moved to omit Clauses 19 and 20, which, he said, dealt with the question of minority representation. He asked Mr. Speaker in putting the question to preserve an Amendment in Clause 20 (after "alderman" to insert "representing the three groups on the southern side of the River Liffey."
  MR. SPEAKER: I will preserve that Amendment.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid it was not necessary for him, in asking the House to reject these clauses, to occupy its attention at any great length. These clauses raised for the first time in any municipality in Ireland the question of minority representation, and he repeated on behalf of the citizens of Dublin that if minority representation ought to be extended, the extension should include other parts of the country, and they would have no objection to minority representation. But here was a case in

  1667
  which one city was taken, and practically its charter was broken up. An arrangement in force since 1840, which safeguarded the rights of the minority was destroyed by this sub-division of wards, and an artificial system was introduced by grouping.
  MR. T. M. HEALYrose to order. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member did not include the question of grouping.
  MR. SPEAKER: Clause 20 has to do with grouping.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that was so, but the Amendment of the hon. Member came in on line 21.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the Motion of the hon. and learned Member was to omit Clauses 19 and 20. He should put the question that the clauses down to line 18 stand part of the Bill.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid the proposal of the hon. and learned Member's clause was that the whole of the corporation should go out of office every three years, and the effect was to limit the franchise preventing burgesses in wards where there were three vacancies from voting for more than two. It was the first time the experiment was to be tried in any Irish municipality, and in face of the facts that no opportunity had been given to the citizens of Dublin of considering the proposal, and that it was emphatically condemned by everybody who had spoken on the subject as representing Dublin, he appealed to the House not to force this upon the citizens of Dublin. The hon. and learned Member had no claim to speak in any representative capacity for Dublin, and of all shades of political opinion the hon. and learned Member would be the last the citizens of Dublin would select to speak for them in the House. Having represented the City of Dublin for eleven years, and having the support of two colleagues in the representation of the city, he felt he was not making an unreasonable demand when he asked that an indignity of this kind, which implied that the minority had not been treated fairly, and that the citizens of Dublin could not be intrusted with the franchise which obtained elsewhere, he thought he was not making an unreasonable demand to the House for the rejection of these clauses.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid as regards Dublin this would be an innovation on the present state of the law, but could anyone pretend to deny that it was desirable, when extending the franchise to make this reform? Of course, when new machinery was proposed in any Bill, it was met with the objection that it was novel and would prove unworkable. Such phrases he had himself used, no doubt many times, and naturally, when these hardy annuals sprang from the mouth of his hon. Friend, he was not in the least astonished. There were precedents for the proposal in the clause, and it was recognised in English School Board elections. A precedent existed in Belfast, and by arrangement between the Catholic Bishop and the Town Clerk, Catholic representation was secured in that Orange city. He repudiated the charge of "jerrymandering," there was nothing of the kind in the proposal. The principle of minority representation had existed since 1840, and the passing of the Corporations Act. The gentlemen who arranged the lists were called assessors, and in the appointment of these and the arrangement of the lists regard was had under the Corporations Act for minority representation. This had been in vogue for half a century, with the result that in the City of Derry, in spite of the narrow franchise, the Catholics of Derry were able to return a Nationalist assessor. In dealing with elections of councillors, it was as desirable to have as full a representation of the citizens as possible. True, the outlying townships were Conservative and did not allow Nationalists to sit on their boards, but he hoped to see the city extended, and these boards coalescing and consolidating with Dublin, and then minority representation would be needed for Nationalists, and they would have the benefit of these clauses. It was impossible to secure minority representation without adopting the principle of grouping. Long ago he advocated the principle of minority representation, and more than elsewhere was it desirable to have full representations of opinions in Ireland, and though now he was attacked for proposing an innovation, he felt sure that when it was embodied in the law, and its effects experienced, there would be a demand for its extension to the rest of the country.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid if the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken up the position that he desired to secure the representation of the minority as it was required in Belfast, his position would he tenable and his argument unanswerable. In Belfast there was a large Catholic population without representation on the Corporation, and if in Dublin there was a large and influential Protestant population without representation the position of the hon. Member would be impregnable. But the fact was, and it had been repeatedly pointed out in Debate on the Belfast Bill, the Protestant and Unionist minority were represented on the corporation to a larger extent than their numbers could properly demand. The demand for this proposal did not come from the Protestant and Unionist minority, and no reason existed for applying to Dublin a system which did not exist in any other municipality in the three kingdoms. His own views on minority representation were, he believed, in agreement with those of the hon. and learned Member. When the question arose in the Debates on the Home Rule Bill in 1893, he spoke strongly in favour of securing minority representation in the proposed Irish Parliament, and he would be delighted to see it established throughout Ireland, but there was no demand for this artificial system in Dublin, where the minority were properly represented at the present moment. If this system of minority representation, which in principle was a good one, was to be applied to Ireland at all, it ought to be applied impartially to all parts, and after careful consideration by Parliament, and not by the operation of a clause in a private Bill. There were precedents for extending the franchise by private Bills, but there was no precedent for a private Bill altering the mode of election. The grievance was intensified enormously by the fact that it was done without consultation with the citizens of Dublin, and without the approval of any section of opinion in the city or the corporation. All sections of the Corporation were unanimous in opposing these clauses, and the minority repudiated the protection which the hon. and learned Gentleman pretended to offer them. Not a single meeting had been held in favour of the clauses, and there
  1670
  had been many resolutions passed against them.
  MR. J. DILLONsaid that he objected to the clauses on two grounds. The Committee had already passed clauses extending the franchise; and these clauses were disfranchising in their character. Further, they conveyed a gross insult to the City of Dublin. The case of Belfast told strongly against these clauses. In Belfast, so great was the intolerance of the Protestants, that the Catholics never had any representation on the corporation. But in Dublin no complaint had been made of the intolerance of the Catholic majority. The cumulative vote was demanded for Belfast; but the Government declined to give to Belfast an artificial system of voting, which was not in existence in other cities of the United Kingdom. Now it was proposed to submit the City of Dublin to the humiliation and insult which the Government declined to inflict on Belfast. The hon. and learned Member for Louth, with great and unusual generosity to his opponents, said that he wished to give 10 seats in the corporation to the Unionist Party; but he could not share that generosity. In the past the Unionist Party had had a fair share of representation and of the emoluments of office. The system of voting proposed was entirely novel; it was not known to the English law at all; and on this occasion he felt bound to support the hon. Members for the City of Dublin. The application of so great a change as minority representation in municipal government ought to be the subject of consideration in a public Bill. He, personally, was distinctly opposed to minority representation in municipal government, but at any rate it ought not to be brought forward for the first time in a Water Bill.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)appealed to the House, in the interests of business, to come to a decision on the question under consideration.
  MR. EDWARD CARSON (Trinity College)said that if he thought that the Unionist minority would be benefited by the passing of these clauses, he would willingly support them. But he was informed that, taking the proposal as a whole—the extension of the franchise and the mode of voting—the Unionist

  1671
  minority would be a smaller minority in the future than it had been in the past, if the clauses were passed. This particular clause of the Bill would be useless, even if it did not in the long run leave the Unionists worse off than they were now. Therefore, speaking for himself, he should take on himself the responsibility of voting with the hon. Member for the Harbour Division. It was, he thought, a serious matter to reflect upon, that without one word from the Government Benches, the new system of voting should be introduced in a private Bill, and a revolution effected in the municipal government of the capital of Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. VESEY KNOXsaid the right hon. and learned Gentleman had compared the Unionist representation in the Corporation of Dublin now with what it was likely to be if this clause were added to the Bill. It must be remembered, however, that the House had already passed the clauses extending the franchise, and the question for the hon. Gentleman to consider was whether in this extension some provision for the representation of the minority was not essential. The right hon. Gentleman could hardly contend that the position of the Unionist Party without the extended franchise and without this clause would be so favourable as under the Bill as it stood. He could not agree with his hon. Friends near him that the Unionist Party would have no grievance if the franchise were simply extended without any means being taken to give them a voice in the affairs of the Corporation, He had made inquiries from gentlemen on both sides of politics in Dublin, and he was told that there was one ward in which it was possible that the Unionists could obtain representation with the extended franchise. That was not a position which the right hon. and learned Gentleman could regard with favour.
  MR. CARSON: What I said was that under the scheme of the Bill—the whole scheme—the minority in the Corporation would be smaller by a great many seats than it is now.
  MR. KNOXsaid the position of the right hon. Gentleman was clear—he wanted to wreck both the extension of the franchise and the minority representation, but that position was likely to confuse the House. It would be impossible,
  1672
  without this provision, for the Unionists to carry more than one seat if they did that.
  MR. HARRINGTON: My information is that if these clauses are not inserted elections will turn in the future not on politics, but on business capacity.
  MR. KNOX: The elections always have turned on politics.
  MR. HARRINGTON: May I be allowed to say that at the last election for Lord Mayor, the Nationalists were only successful over the other side by six votes.
  MR. KNOX: Those Nationalists who on that occasion voted with the Conservative Party were denounced. He perfectly understood the system. ["Hear, hear!" and a laugh.] The fact remained that if, under the extended franchise, the elections were fought on political grounds, the Unionists would not be able to get representation in more than one ward, if in that; and an influential section of the people of Dublin would be kept out of the council. In form he admitted that the plan of the clause was new, but in substance there were many precedents for it. There had been three extensions of the municipal franchise in Irish towns through a private hill, and in each case a maimed franchise had been adopted in order to carry out local agreements. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. J. Redmond) in the case of Waterford, and the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), in the case of Drogheda, had been instrumental in introducing these maimed franchises, which really gave protection and representation to minorities. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid that while he approved of minority representation, and had supported the principle by his votes in the House for the last 30 years, he was of opinion that so important a subject should be dealt with by the Government in a public Measure. He should, therefore, vote against the clause.
  MR. FIELDwas also in favour of minority representation, but considered that the principle should be applied equally all over Ireland, and not piecemeal to Dublin. The scheme of the Bill was revolutionary. Neither the citizens, nor the political associations, nor the working men's societies wanted

  1673
  it. He had received letters and resolutions from his constituents, protesting against the clause, and he intended, therefore, to vote against it. He maintained that this Bill, so far from increasing the number of minority members in the Corporation, would reduce the number, as he was informed, to five or six. A revolutionary Measure of this kind should not be introduced dealing with the city of Dublin alone. A public Bill dealing with the franchise question ought to be brought in extending such provisions to the whole of the country.
  Question put, "That the words of Clauses 19 and 20 down to the word 'shall,' in page 9, line 18, stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 106; Noes, 111.—(Division List, No. 384.)
  Remaining words of Clause 20, omitted.
  Clause 21,—

  PRESIDING OFFICERS AT ELECTIONS.
  The presiding officers at the elections of aldermen shall be nominated by the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor of Dublin from amongst, the members of the council.
  Clause 22,—

  AS TO CASUAL VACANCIES IN OFFICE OF COUNCILLOR OR ALDERMAN.
  Casual vacancies in the office of alderman or councillor shall be held in like manner as before the passing of this Act save that a casual vacancy in the office of alderman for any group of wards shall be filled by election to be held for such group of wards. A person elected alderman or councillor at a casual election shall hold office for the remainder of the period for which the person whose place he is elected to fill was elected to fill, and no longer, but shall be eligible for re-election if then qualified.
  Clause 23,—

  NO PERSON TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR ELECTION AS ALDERMAN OR COUNCILLOR UNLESS HE HAS PAID ALL RATES, ETC.
  No person shall be eligible for election as alderman or councillor who shall not have paid all rates, cesses and taxes due by him in respect of the premises out of which he is qualified as a burgess save and except such as shall not become payable for the six calendar months next before the date on which his name in the burgess list shall have been revised.
  MR. HARRINGTON MR. HARRINGTON moved to omit Clauses 21, 22 and 23 as being now unnecessary.
  Motion agreed to; Clauses 21 to 23 inclusive omitted.
  Clause 24,—

  OFFICE OF BOROUGH ASSESSOR TO BE ABOLISHED.
  The office of borough assessor shall on and after the twenty-fifth day of November one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six be deemed to be abolished and the election for such office shall cease to be held.
  MR. HARRINGTON MR. HARRINGTON moved to omit Clause 24. He said that up to the present the Lord Mayor with two assessors had revised the burgess roll, and he thought it was too soon to abolish the office of assessor in view of the approaching revision.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the clause would save the Corporation, £300 a year. As the revising barrister had to do the work he did not see why they should provide a sinecure at the expense of the ratepayers for assessors.
  Question proposed, "That Clause 24 stand part of the Bill."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 25,—

  OFFICERS TO CONTINUE TO HOLD OFFICE.
  Existing officers of the Corporation now elected annually or otherwise shall continue to hold office without election during good behaviour. No person shall be eligible to any office in the gift of the Corporation who has been an alderman or councillor of the city within twelve months preceding the election to such office.
  MR. HARRINGTON MR. HARRINGTON moved to leave out Clause 25 on the ground that it would prevent a member of the Corporation from been elected as Lord Mayor. A member of the Corporation who wished to become Lord Mayor would have to resign his position and remain outside the Corporation for 12 months before the election day.
  MR. T. M. HEALYthought that it was desirable that members of the Corporation should not be eligible as candidates for offices in the gift of the

  1675
  Corporation, such as the offices of Town Clerk and City Marshal. He therefore could not consent to the omission of the clause.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDhoped the clause would be omitted. The had been no abuse in the Corporation under the existing state of things. The clause provided that no one should be eligible as a candidate for a post under the Corporation who had been a member of the Corporation within 12 months of the election. There might be on the Corporation a gentleman specially qualified to act as City solicitor, but this clause would preclude him from being appointed.
  MR. CARSONtook objection to the first part of the clause because it would attach the condition of permanency to the position of Corporation officials who had hitherto been elected annually. A Corporation was not a permanent body quoad the members who composed it. Its members were liable to be turned out if the electors thought that the work of the Corporation had not been efficiently performed. That being the case, the Corporation ought to have full control over the officials charged with the duty of carrying out its wishes, and such control might be impaired if those officials held office permanently,
  MR. FIELDexpressed the same opinion. The clause would make the officials of the Corporation its masters when they ought to be its servants. It could not be said that under the existing system any official of the Corporation had ever been capriciously evicted.
  MR. KNOXsaid that there were precedents for the proposals of the clause with regard to the Corporation officials both in English law and in a Provisional Order Bill recently passed relating to Armagh. He was himself rather against the plan of giving a long tenure to officials, but, having regard to the precedents, he thought the clause ought to be accepted. The clause in other respects was most salutary. It was nothing short of a public scandal that members of the Corporation should be constantly canvassing for official posts, and the clause would prevent jobs.
  Question put: "That Clause 25 stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 88; Noes, 129.—(Division List, No. 385.)
  Clause 26,—

  SUB-SHERIFF OF COUNTY OF CITY OF DUBLIN TO CONTINUE TO HOLD OFFICE.
  The Sub-Sheriff of the county of the city of Dublin for the time being shall continue to hold office without further appointment by the High Sheriff, and such office of Sub-Sheriff shall be holden during good behaviour from the corporation, and future Sub-Sheriffs shall be elected and appointed by the corporation.

  SUB-SHERIFF TO ENTER INTO BOND.
  The Sub-Sheriff shall enter into a bond to the High Sheriff as if this Act had not passed with sufficient securities for the duo performance of his duties.
  MR. HARRINGTON, rising to Order, said that under the Instruction moved in the House the Committee were entitled to inquire into the appointment of any officer elected by the corporation or by anybody appointed by the corporation. The Sub-Sheriff was appointed by the High Sheriff, and by the Act which regulated the appointment of the High Sheriff it was provided that the corporation should nominate three persons qualified to fill the office, and that the Lord Lieutenant should appoint one of the three persons so nominated to the office. He contended that the High Sheriff', therefore, did not come within the instruction under which Clause 26 was inserted. The instruction to the Committee was that they have power to make provision for the amendment of the law as to the election of the aldermen, councillors, etc., and also of any officers annually elected by the corporation. He submitted that that did not include the Sub-Sheriff, as he was not appointed by a person appointed by the corporation. The Committee, in giving the Sub-Sheriff a permanent appointment, bad exceeded their powers, as he was appointed by the High Sheriff, who, in turn, was appointed by the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Council, as I understand it, nominates three persons, and out of those three persons the Lord Lieutenant appoints one to fill the office of High Sheriff. The High Sheriff appoints the Sub-Sheriff, and the question is whether the Sub-Sheriff is a person appointed by the Corporation. It seems to me that the Sheriff is not a person appointed by the corporation within the

  1677
  meaning of the Instruction, and therefore the Committee in dealing with the office of Sub-Sheriff have exceeded their powers under the Instruction.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Then I beg to move that Clause 26 be struck out.
  Clause 26 omitted.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Rill be now read the Third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

QUESTION'S.

  VACCINATION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that the Royal Commission on Vaccination has been sitting over six years, he can hold out any hopes that they will be able to publish the result of their investigations in time for the Report to be laid before the House by the end of the present Session?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): The Commissioners hope to be able to submit their Report to Her Majesty in time for its presentation to Parliament before the close of the Session. If, however, they are unable to do so, the Report will be, by Her Majesty's permission, presented in dummy with a view to its being circulated to Members during the Recess. In either case, it will be, I hope, in the hands of Members within the next four or five weeks.

  EVICTION NOTICES (COUNTY CAVAN)
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, can he state the number of eviction notices, under the Seventh section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, which have been served in Cavan County since the passage of that Act; in how many cases were
  1678
  tenants whose tenancies were so deter" mined readmitted as caretakers, future tenants, and present tenants; and in how many cases were the holdings left derelict, and the tenants wholly dispossessed after service of these notices; and, can he state the number of County Cavan estates now pending sale in the Land Judges or Land Commission Courts?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The number of eviction notices under Section 7 of the Act of 1887 served in County Cavan between the date of the passing of the Act and the 30th June, 1896, was 2,842. But in 452 cases only were the notices followed by actual eviction proceedings. I have already more than once explained that Government has no effective means at its disposal of obtaining reliable, or even approximately reliable, information as to the numbers of tenants restored as either "present" or "future" "tenants, but I am told that out of the 452 cases of actual eviction proceedings to which I have referred, the tenants were readmitted in 257 cases, either as caretakers or tenants, leaving only 195 cases in which the holdings were left derelict and the tenants wholly dispossessed in the period mentioned. The police have no records to show what has been done in the 2,390 cases in which eviction proceedings did not follow the service of notices, but it may be assumed that in the great majority of these cases settlements were arrived at between landlord and tenant. The statistics of the Land Judge's Court do not enable the Registrar to state the number of estates for sale in that Court according to counties. There are six estates from the county, in which sale proceedings are now pending in the Land Commission Court.

IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS (WORK-MISTRESSES).
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) can he state what were the propositions submitted by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to the Government on the subject of providing increased remuneration by way of salary and results for work mistresses in Irish National schools; (2) Whether anything will be done in

1679
the coming year to encourage the greater employment and better training of these work mistresses in technical education on improved principles; and (3) whether the Board of Education can provide for an increased number of such qualified teachers in exclusively rural districts?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As regards the first paragraph, I have already informed the hon. Member in reply to a previous question which he addressed to me on the same subject, that I am not prepared to state what is the nature of the proposals referred to. The other inquiries have been referred to the Commissioners, who will consider them at their next meeting on the 11th inst.

IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS (WORK-MISTRESSES).

  BELTURBET MILITARY BARRACKS.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, can he state in whose hands the old Military Barracks at Belturbet now is; whether it is proposed to use it for Military purposes again; and, if not, what the War Department intend to do with it.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS): The Barracks at Belturbet are in the charge of the Military authorities. They are liable to be used when there is not room in other barracks in the districts.

  MANCHESTER AND SALFORD BARRACKS.
  MR. W. J. GALLOWAY (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he can state why the Hulme Cavalry Barracks, Manchester, and the Regent's Road Barracks, Salford, are being dismantled of all the Military fixtures if the War Office have not as yet decided what is to be done with regard to the garrison in Manchester and Salford in the future; and whether he can say how soon the decision of the Military authorities with regard to Manchester and Salford will be made public?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): There is no present question of demolishing or dismantling the Hulme Barracks which are now
  1680
  occupied by troops. The barracks at Salford have such unsatisfactory drainage that they cannot be occupied without very considerable re-construction. The question is before the Military authorities, and all the circumstances will be carefully weighed, some little delay will therefore occur before a decision is come to.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will the question be considered on military apart from political grounds?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir, certainly on military grounds.
  In answer to a further question from Mr. GALLOWAY,
  MR. BRODRICK: If any decision is arrived at I will communicate to the hon. Member. The question must be decided before any money is expended on barracks.

  ARMY FOOD AND FORAGE SUPPLIES.
  COLONEL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether the Government after the careful consideration which they promised at the commencement of the Session to give to this subject, have come to any decision regarding the supply of food and forage to the Army; and, whether they see their way to giving our own in place of foreign agriculturists the benefit of the money paid by the taxpayers in this country for the support of the defensive forces of the Empire?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: It has not yet been possible to arrive at any decision regarding the supply of meat and forage to the Army. The question is one involving many serious points—not the least of which are those relating to expense, and to change in the present military system. The inquiries are being pursued in the hope that some solution of the question may be found which, either wholly or in part, may meet the object which the hon. Member has in view.

MERCANTILE MARINE (EXAMINATION OF MASTERS AND MATES).
SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he will be good enough to inform the House how and in

1681
what respect the existing regulations for the examination of masters and mates in the mercantile marine are to be modified after the 1st January 1898; will he state what is meant by the words "by the addition, largely of new matter," contained in the circular of the Marine Department, No. 539, and dated February 1896; and, will he say what percentage of applicants fail annually under the current system in the United Kingdom?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OE TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I fear it is not possible for me within the limits of an answer in this House to explain every point in which the new regulations for the examination of masters and mates will differ from the old, but the general effect of the alterations (which, I may say, have met with wide approval) will be to somewhat raise the standard of the examinations and to improve the method of conducting them The words on the cover of the Circular to which the hon. Member refers mean that the main changes made are embodied in paragraphs 1 to 18, and that those made in the other paragraphs are indicated by italics. The average percentage of failures yearly under the current system during the last three years has been 50.

TRANSMISSION OF SEAMEN'S WAGES.
SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, seeing that the transmission system for the payment of seamen's wages, originated by Captain Pitman, has proved a success at Dunkirk, will he arrange with him to establish the system at the other Home Foreign Ports between Havre and Hamburg; whether, seeing that the shipowners alone benefit by the discharge of their crews abroad, he will arrange with the Foreign Office that the Consuls shall be instructed to levy the charges for transmission upon the ships rather than upon the seamen; and whether he is aware that seamen arriving at Antwerp in British ships are discharged there, because owners can reengage their crews at a cheaper rate than in the United Kingdom?
COLONEL DENNYasked whether the discharge of seamen at Antwerp was not in accordance with agreements as approved by the Board of Trade, concerning the procedure to be adopted with seamen at the final arrival port of the voyage; whether, when, discharged abroad the expenses of sending the seamen to their homes are not defrayed by the master of the vessel on account of the owners?
MR. RITCHIE: I am in communication with the Treasury and Foreign Office with regard to the extension of the transmission system originated by the Board of Trade at Dunkirk to other foreign ports, but no definite decision has yet been arrived at. I am not prepared to express an opinion why shipowners discharge their crews at Antwerp; and, with regard to the charges for transmission, I can only say that I have appointed a Committee to consider the whole subject of the conditions under which seamen are engaged and discharged at home trade ports abroad. My hon. Friend, I think, has correctly stated the conditions under which the discharge takes place, but the whole question will be taken into consideration by the Committee I have appointed.
MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that the 186th Section of the Merchant Shipping Act provides that the owner shall defray the expenses of a seaman discharged in a foreign port to his home in the United Kingdom, or to the port of engagement; and whether the Board of Trade are insisting upon that section of the Act being carried out.
MR. RITCHIE: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that it is to the port of engagement. To a home port certainly, and there is a question as to what the actual meaning of that word is. But I am always very glad indeed to take means for insisting upon carrying out the clause of the Merchant Shipping Act to which the hon. Gentleman refers, when a breach of it is brought to my notice.
MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON: Is it not a fact that the attention of the Board of Trade has frequently been drawn to breaches of the section?

TRANSMISSION OF SEAMEN'S WAGES.

  FEMALE TELEGRAPHISTS (BELFAST).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General—(1) with reference to the late promotions to the first class of female telegraphists in Belfast, how many were so promoted, and what is the average length of service of each; how many were on that occasion superseded, and what is the length of their respective services; and also what were the grounds upon which these supersessions took place; (2) whether he is aware that those superseded have performed and continue to discharge similar duties as those performed by those by whom they have been superseded, and that similar duties in other large offices are participated in by members of the service holding the rank of first class telegraphist; (3) whether it is alleged that the supersessions in this instance are due to those superseded not being efficient in the manipulation of telegraph instruments; and (4), whether, seeing that the alleged disqualification is due to local administration which debarred them from attaining a high standard of proficiency, and that at least two of those superseded are equally as efficient as some of the present members of the first class, he will reconsider his decision in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The number of women telegraphists recently promoted was seven. Their length of service ranged from 13 to 7½ years, the average being about 9½ years. Five women telegraphists were passed over, and their length of service was about 25 years in each case. These five were passed over because they were not qualified to perform the duties of first class telegraphists. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative; but such work forms only a portion of that for which the promoted telegraphists may be made responsible. The answer to the third paragraph is, Yes. The Postmaster General has no reason to suppose that the disqualification of those who were passed over is due to any default in the local administration. The promoted telegraphists worked under the same conditions as the others. I have
  1684
  answered the hon. Member's Question, though I hope that the House will allow me to add that injury will be done to the Public Service, and pain may be caused to individuals, if questions are frequently asked as to the grounds on which promotions are made or refused.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is it not a fact that the superseded telegraphists are now engaged on duties—public and departmental—as important as those of the telegraphists who superseded them?
  MR. HANBURY: For a portion of the time they are—at the beginning of their new service. But the promoted telegraphists are liable at any time to be called upon to take much more responsible work, and it is for that work that those not promoted are not fitted.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Did any of them fail? Is it not fair that they should have an opportunity of trying that work?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member's Question has been fully answered.

SKIBBEREEN MAGISTRACY.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the conduct of Dr. William Jennings, J.P., of Skibbereen, in occupying a seat on the Bench at the last weekly petty sessions of Skibbereen, and endeavouring to prevent by unseemly behaviour the issue of a summons applied for by Mr. Sheehy, solicitor, on behalf of Mr. Charles M'Carthy, a local trader, against the said Dr. Jennings, J.P., for alleged assault; and, whether the matter has been brought to the notice of the Lord Chancellor; and, if so, what action does he propose to take in the matter?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The hon. Member has forwarded to me a newspaper report of the occurrence in question. I have called for a report in reference to the matter, though if, as appears to be the case, a summons has been issued against Dr. Jennings, the Lord Chancellor could obviously not investigate the matter until the summons has been heard and the facts are fully known.

SKIBBEREEN MAGISTRACY.

  ELECTION OF POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND).
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he can state how many sworn inquiries were held during the year 1893, 1894, and 1895, arising out of the election of poor law guardians in Ireland; (2) and, whether he will take steps to have elections for the position of poor law guardian in future carried out under the Ballot Act.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The number of sworn inquiries held during the years mentioned in connection with the election of Poor Law Guardians in Ireland were 13 in 1893; 8 in 1894; and 12 in 1895. Legislation would be necessary to give effect to the proposal in the second paragraph, and I cannot give any pledge in the matter at the present.

  POTATO DISEASE (COUNTY CAVAN).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that potato disease has already extensively appeared in the Western portion of the County Cavan; and can he state whether potato spraying has been recommended in this district by the local authorities, or have steps been taken by the Government to make the application of strawsonite to prevent disease easy of access to the poorer class of the inhabitants, to whom the potato crop is so essentially necessary?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand that the potato disease has made its appearance in some parts of the County Cavan, but that the potato crop, generally, looks green and healthy and no substantial damage has yet been done to the tubers. There appears indeed to be every reason to believe that the yield of the crop will be equal to, if not above the average. I am not aware that the spraying of the potato plant with strawsonite or other solutions has been recommended by the local authorities in West Cavan. Copies of the leaflets prepared by the Agricultural Department of the Land Commission with directions for the use of spraying machines and various mixtures used,
  1686
  were largely circulated amongst Boards of Guardians in Cavan and elsewhere, together with the recent special Report of experiments conducted by the Department in the season of 1895. Everything has been done by Government which experience suggested, to give publicity to these documents, and otherwise to bring home to the minds of the farming classes in Ireland the beneficial results following upon a timely application of, the solutions referred to, and the Government believe that the efficacy of these applications is now very well known throughout the country. Notwithstanding this, however, I am informed that only a small proportion of the farmers: in West Cavan have made use of these; appliances and solutions during the past season.

BAILIEBOROUGH UNION (COUNTY CAVAN).
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether his attention has been called to the statement that, in a recent audit of the accounts of Bailieborough Union, and in a report to the Local Government Board, Mr. Sheehan, auditor, has recommended the stoppage of payment of collectors of poor rates fees until the collections are fully closed; (2) whether this recommendation amounts to a mandamus to the collectors to levy their rates the moment the warrants are signed, which will press very severely upon the poor ratepayers in the county Cavan; and (3) will he take steps to see that no undue pressure is exercised, particularly at this season of the year, when money is scarce with the poorer class of farmers all over Ireland?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Auditor's report is not open to the construction put upon it in the second paragraph. A collector is only entitled to be paid his poundage fees when his collection is fully closed, and the Auditor has called attention to this rule, a strict compliance with which, he states, is the only way to make the collectors carry out their duties properly. In this Union the current rate has been in course of collection now nearly 8 months, whereas the time allowed to the collectors to complete their collections is only four

1687
months. The Local Government Board have no authority to interfere with the collectors in any legal proceeding they may take to recover outstanding rates.

BAILIEBOROUGH UNION (COUNTY CAVAN).

  DEATH OF A BOY AT COOKSTOWN (IRELAND.)
  MR. P. C. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, has he read a minute of the evidence taken at an inquest in Cookstown touching the death of a boy of 14 years of age, named Patrick Coleman, from which it appears that the verdict of the jury at their adjourned meeting of the 10th June was that, in their opinion, the deceased Pat Coleman came to his death from strangulation, but by what means they were unable to find; and, what steps the Government propose to take to clear up the mystery of this boy's death.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am asked by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General to say in answer to this Question that he has carefully read the report of the evidence given at the inquest. Since the inquest, the Police have been investigating the case, but no evidence has as yet been obtained to implicate any person, or even to show that the death was not accidental.

  ST. JOHN'S SCHOOL, HEYWOOD.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Education Department has obtained the report of the sanitary officers of the Town Council of Heywood as to the sanitary condition of St. John's School; whether the Department has ordered an examination by its own inspector in respect to the sanitary condition and the structural fitness of such school, and also of the other public elementary schools in the town; and, if so, with what result; and whether the question of additional school accommodation will now be reconsidered?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,University: (1.) Not yet. (2.) Yes; and the inspector has reported that the school is in a good sanitary condition
  1688
  and that the premises are generally satisfactory. (3.) Inquiries are being made as to the question of additional school accommodation.

  BURIAL AT SHIRLAND, NEAR ALFRETON.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received from the parties concerned declarations concerning the statement that, on the burial of Robert Tomlinson in the churchyard at Shirland, near Alfreton, the rector objected to a Nonconformist burial at five o'clock in the afternoon, and required that it should be at three o'clock; and, whether such requirement was contrary to the provisions of the Burial Act of 1880?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Yes, Sir, I have received statements to this effect from those in charge of the funeral and have been tunable to obtain any satisfactory explanation from the rector who simply denies their accuracy. It seems clear that under Section 3 of the Act objection cannot be made to a funeral taking place at five o'clock in the month of July except on some one of the grounds mentioned in the section; the section does not exclude a mutual arrangement between the parties, but in default of any such arrangement, or of a written intimation from the incumbent that the hour fixed is inconvenient, it is provided (by Section 4) that the burial shall take place at the time specified.

BOILER EXPLOSION (H.M.S. "BLAKE.")
MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERY): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the verdict of the coroner's jury in the case of the accident to one of the boilers of H.M.S., "Blake," and to the committal of the fleet engineer in charge of her machinery for manslaughter; whether in the case of a large ship with a large number of subordinates, the engineers in charge are held by the Admiralty responsible to the extent of personal criminalty for the negligence of any of those working under

1689
them as to the condition of the parts of the machinery; and, whether the Admiralty will take steps to provide proper legal assistance to the fleet engineer concerned when taking his trial upon the coroner's committal.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): My attention has naturally been called to the verdict of the coroner's jury in the case of the accident on the Blake. The questions raised by it are too grave for me to be able to deal with them in a reply to a question across the Table of the House, but I need not assure the hon. Member that I am studying them with anxious attention. It will certainly be the duty of the Admiralty to see that steps are taken for the protection of the interests of all concerned.

BOILER EXPLOSION (H.M.S. "BLAKE.")

  COUNTY SURVEYORSHIP (IRELAND).
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, under the regulations for examination for County Surveyorships in Ireland, service as County Surveyor's Assistant would count as giving qualifying experience for an appointment as County Surveyor, if the examination was successfully passed?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Candidates for County Surveyorships in Ireland are required to show that they have been engaged in the practice of their profession in a responsible position, in charge of important works, for not less than four years, one of which at least shall have been spent in Ireland. A County Surveyor's Assistant would be eligible to compete provided he fulfilled the requirements of the regulations, but the mere fact of his being an assistant would not necessarily qualify him.

  STREET PREACHING (SLIGO).
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the reports of the action for assault brought by the Mayor of Sligo, in the Borough Court of Sligo, against District Inspector Carden, from which it appears that in his evidence the Mayor stated that he did not
  1690
  consider it any part of his duty to protect the street preachers, that under no circumstances would he protect them, and that this evidence was followed by applause in the gallery; and whether the conduct of the Mayor of Sligo and the management of the Borough Court will be brought under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received from my hon. Friend a newspaper report of the proceedings referred to, which, however, hardly seems to warrant the construction placed upon it in the Question.

GOVERNMENT PRINTING CONTRACTS (IRELAND).
MR. MICHAEL DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to complaints made on behalf of the Typographical Societies of Dublin and Belfast about the evasion of the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution in connection with Government printing contracts in Ireland; whether the printing required for Departments under the control of the Local Government Board of Ireland falls within the purview of the said Resolution; what steps, if any, have been taken to secure that the execution of such contracts as fall under the category of Local Government Board printing shall be carried out in accordance with such Resolution; and whether, in view of the fact that large Government printing and stationery contracts are about to be entered into for the Irish Public Departments, the Treasury will take note of the complaints in question and endeavour to have such contracts carried out in strict accord with the meaning and intention of the House of Commons Resolution of February, 1891?
MR. HANBURY: The Fair Wages Resolution is expressly limited to Government contracts, and does not include those of local public bodies. If the Irish Local Government Board have any printing contracts of their own, the Resolution would presumably apply. The evidence given before the Committee on Stationery Contracts shows that some printing done for the National Education Commissioners was not considered by the contractors to be subject

1691
to the Resolution, but that view, of course, is not a correct one. I have reason to believe that an impression prevails that the Resolution applies to the printing done for certain local authorities in Ireland, such as Boards of Guardians; but they, of course, are not Government Departments, and the Resolution cannot affect them.
MR. WILLIAM CORBET: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain why the Pair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons is not enforced in contracts in subordinate departments under the supervision of the Irish Local Government Board: is he aware that a great portion of the printing done for the Poor Law Department, such as jurors' lists, etc., is done by employers who persistently ignore the Fair Wages Resolution; and that a great portion of the public advertisements are given to newspapers produced under conditions antagonistic to the Resolution, and are transformed into different papers by the simple plan of changing name and heading of pages; and whether he will take measures to see that the Resolution is enforced in; Ireland in all printing contracts under the Irish Local Government Board?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I believe that the Fair Wages Resolution is in force in all Government contracts in Ireland. Boards of Guardians are, of course, not Government Departments, and the Local Government Board have no power to compel Boards of Guardians to comply with the terms of the Resolution.

GOVERNMENT PRINTING CONTRACTS (IRELAND).

  LEE-METFORD AMMUNITION AT BISLEY.
  MR. JAMES BAILLIE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Colonel RUSSELL), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the very general complaints made of the ammunition supplied for the Lee-Metford rifle at Bisley; whether the Militia have also made similar complaints: and whether he has any reason to believe these complaints are well founded; and, if so, what steps the Government propose to take to remedy this most serious danger to our military efficiency?
  MR. BRODRICK: Complaints have been received from Bisley of a certain number of hang-fires, but no such complaint has come from the Militia. No pains will be spared to discover the origin of these hang-fires and to prevent a recurrence of the defect; but it is satisfactory that except in respect of the ammunition supplied at Bisley, no complaints whatever have been received, although 303 ammunition has been fired by the Regulars throughout the year.
  MAJOR RASCH: Will the hon. Member inform the House from what firm or Government factory these useless cartridges were obtained?
  MR. BRODRICK: That subject is under investigation; we are endeavouring to see whether we can trace them.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked whether the hon. Gentleman had received a report from the secretary to the National Rifle Association with regard to the defective cartridges alluded to in the Question, and also with regard to the Martini-Henry cartridges, which had likewise proved defective?
  MR. BRODRICK: Such a report has been received. The investigation will deal with both points.
  MR J. H. DALZIEL: What was the age of the ammunition?
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say; we are looking into the whole subject.

QUEEN'S HARBOUR MASTER FOR HAMOAZE.
MR. R. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any person has been appointed as Queen's Harbour Master for Hamoaze to superintend the execution of the provisions of the Dockyard Port Regulations Act, 1865; whether such person is solely responsible for seeing that the provisions of the said Act and Orders in Council relating thereto are carried out; and whether the Metropolitan Police are also empowered to act independent of the Queen's Harbour Master, and to bring actions against persons contravening the Act and Orders in Council arising therefrom; and, if so, under which Acts such power is vested in the hands of the Metropolitan Police?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The Staff Captain of Devon-port Dockyard is Queen's Harbour Master for Hamoaze. This officer is responsible for seeing that the provisions of any Order in Council issued under the Dockyard Ports Regulations Act, 1865, are carried out. The Metropolitan Police do not, so far as I know, institute prosecutions under the Act or Orders in Council; but, if they observe any infraction of the regulations, they report the matter, and if any legal action is necessary, the Queen's Harbour Master takes proceedings.

QUEEN'S HARBOUR MASTER FOR HAMOAZE.

  BOYCE (THE LATE DR.).
  MR. M. M. BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a petition has been received by the Foreign Office from the widow of Dr. S. R. Boyce, a Parsee medical officer lately employed under Her Majesty's Commissioner and Consul General in British Central Africa, who lost his life in a slave expedition, near Lake Nyassa, for a maintenance allowance for herself and her two infant children; and whether, in view of the fact that in attacking the slave dhows, the commander of the expedition having been killed and the second officer severely wounded, Dr. Boyce led the men, and fell a victim to treachery on the part of the Native Chief Makinjira, the Foreign Office will take such petition into favourable consideration, and grant a maintenance allowance to Dr. Boyce's widow and children, who have been left utterly destitute by his death?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): Yes, Sir; I am happy to inform the hon. Member that, in reply to representations from the Foreign Office, the Treasury have recognised the meritorious character of the case to which he alludes, and have granted a pension of £33 6s. 8d. per annum to the widow of Dr. Boyce, together with a gratuity of £23 for her two children.

  LOCAL LOANS (WALES).
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid-Glamorgan (Mr. SAMUEL EVANS), I beg
  1694
  to ask the President of the Local Government Board what is the total amount the Public Works Loan Commissioners are authorised to lend to local authorities; what is the total amount such Commissioners are authorised to lend to local authorities in the county of Glamorgan; what is the total amount such Commissioners are authorised to lend to the County Council of the county of Glamorgan; and what is the total amount which the Commissioners have already advanced or lent to local authorities in the county of Glamorgan?
  MR. HANBURY: The sum named in this year's Public Works Loans Bill to be issued to the Public Works Loan Board for the purpose of making local loans is £1,500,000. The persons to whom loans may be made are not always local authorities in the sense of the hon. Member's question. The present Bill, for instance, takes power to lend for the construction or improvement of canals. There is no apportioned limit to the Public Works Loan Board's power of lending to any particular local authority. The amount depends, amongst other things, on the local authorities' powers of borrowing. The Board keep no record of the amounts advanced to each individual county. To select the amounts advanced to local authorities in the county of Glamorgan would entail considerable labour, and perhaps, in view of what I have said above, the hon. Member will not press his request.

COUNTY COURT FEES.
MR. HENRY BEMROSE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been directed to the fact that the fees now charged in the county courts are proportionately far in excess of those charged in the High Court; and that they press very heavily on the poor suitor, as for instance in the case of a man claiming, say £5, for damages, or for wages, etc.; if he is not prepared with 10s. hearing fee, the case is struck out, with the loss to him of 6s. entrance fee already paid; and if, seeing that the county courts are not only self-supporting, but produce a surplus, he will consider whether the fees can be reduced, especially the hearing and execution fees?
MR. HANBURY: I am not in a position to compare the fees in county courts with those charged for corresponding services in the High Court, and I am not sure what my hon. Friend may mean by the phrase "proportionately far in excess." The figures given are correct in the case selected. The fees must, of course, have some relation to the cost of the Courts themselves, and my hon. Friend is mistaken in supposing that the county courts are self-supporting and even produce a surplus. On the contrary, they cost the taxpayer over £30,000 yearly, besides £90,000 for the salaries and pensions of Judges. As more than 1,100,000 plaints are entered yearly for amounts not exceeding £20, the fees do not appear to deter suitors. I will have inquiry made as to the allegation that those fees fall with undue weight upon poor suitors; but the whole question of the amount of these fees is, of course, subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor.

COUNTY COURT FEES.

  ILLEGAL TRAWLING (SCOTCH WATERS).
  MR. J. McLEOD: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Admiralty has yet made any reply to the representations received from the Scottish Office and the Fishery Board for Scotland as to the necessity for further assistance in policeing the Scottish inshore waters against the depredations of trawlers acting in defiance of the law?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): A reply from the Admiralty has been received, and the matter is still under consideration of the Departments concerned. As the hon. Member is aware, many considerations must be taken into account before a definite decision can be arrived at.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS AT PRESTON.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if it will be possible for him to arrange that the reports of the Inquiries into the four railway accidents which have recently occurred in and near
  1696
  Preston can be issued before the end of the Session?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am afraid that the short time available before the close of the Session will make it impossible to comply with this request, but I shall be happy to present the reports if I receive them in time. The Inquiry into the 3rd accident has not yet been held.

  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Lords' Amendments to the Coal Mines Regulation Bill will be considered?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I cannot say at present, as the Bill has not been returned yet from the Lords.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give such notice as will enable missing Members, who are greatly interested, to return to town—as, for instance, the hon. Member for Rhondda, who is detained elsewhere on mining business?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I will do so as far as I can, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is very difficult at this period of the Session to give much notice.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Even a notice of two days would be useful.

LIMERICK POST OFFICE.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the privilege of educational examination under the old scheme, which has been granted recently to an acting telegraphist at Limerick, will be extended to the numerous auxiliary sorting clerks employed in the postal department of that office?
MR. HANBURY: The privilege of examination under the old scheme will be given to such of the temporary sorting clerks and telegraph learners at Limerick as have been continuously employed on post office clerical duties from a date prior to December 1892.

LIMERICK POST OFFICE.

  EAST LONDON WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. PICKERSGILLhad given notice of the following Question:—
  "To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to the report of an inquest on a child held at Poplar on Monday last, when Dr. Cooper Harrison, the medical witness, attributed the existing prevalence of fatal cases of diarrhoea among children in the East End of London to the scanty supply of water, and also stated that in his own house the water was not turned on more than one hour a day, and that there was a filthy deposit in the water supplied; and, whether, in these circumstances, he will make further representations to the East London Company of the urgent necessity for improving both the quantity and the quality of the water which they are supplying to their customers?"
  The hon. Member said that, at the request of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin), he begged to postpone the Question, but he desired to take the opportunity of urging the extreme necessity of improving the quality and quantity of the water supply in East London.

  SLAVERY AT ZANZIBAR.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as stated in the Zanzibar Gazette of 1st July, Mr. Commissioner A. H. Hardinge has left Zanzibar for a six months' holiday, and what steps in that event Her Majesty's Government propose to take to carry out the pledge given to Parliament on 27th March last, that Mr. Hardinge would go back to Zanzibar in the autumn with instructions to carry out immediately the abolition of the legal status of slavery?
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action the Government intend to take in fulfilment of their promise to consider the abolition of the status of slavery in Zanzibar, in view of the fact that Consul General Hardinge has arrived in this country?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government are already engaged in considering, in consultation with Mr. Hardinge, the best method of carrying out the pledges which they gave to the House earlier in the year.
  MR. DALZIEL: I understood the pledge to be that this would be carried out during the autumn?
  MR. CURZON: No, that it would be carried out on the return of Mr. Hardinge to Zanzibar. I do not exactly know the date of his return.

  SLAVE TRADE IN MOROCCO.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that large numbers of slaves are from time to time being openly sold in Mogador and other seaport towns in Morocco contrary to prohibition, Her Majesty's Government will communicate with the British Minister at Tangier with a view to representations being made to the Government of Morocco against the continuance of this traffic?
  MR. CURZON: Instructions have from time to time been sent to successive British Ministers at Tangier to take every favourable opportunity for urging on the Sultan the suppression of the traffic in slaves. As recently as March last Sir Arthur Nicolson was reminded of these instructions, which there is no doubt that he has borne in mind. He will however, be asked to report upon the matter.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether any substantial progress has been made since the discussion on 24th April in the efforts instituted by the Secretary for Scotland to bring about an agreement for an extension of the territorial limit for fishery purposes on the North Sea?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Communications on the subject are still in progress between the Department: concerned, but an agreement in the direction suggested in the questions of the hon. Member has not yet been arrived at.

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT (DUNDALK).
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the. Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aw" that the surveyor of taxes, Dundalk, has

1699
charged a man named Boyd Income Tax on houses he holds from Mr. Leslie, Ballybay, and that the landlord, Mr. Leslie, has also paid Income Tax on property mentioned; and, whether it is usual for landlord and tenant to pay Income Tax on the same property?
MR. HANBURY: I requested the hon. Member on Tuesday to postpone this Question till to-morrow, but the Inland Revenue Board inform me that they have had to send an inspector to examine into the case on the spot, and that they do not expect to receive his report till Monday, so perhaps the hon. Member will kindly postpone his Question till that day.

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT (DUNDALK).

  ALDERSHOT (TENT FLOOR-BOARDS).
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, as regulars have been, and in all probability will be, for some months encamped at Aldershot in what is practically a standing camp, he will consider the advisability of drawing the attention of the medical authority to the necessity of recommending the general officer commanding to make requisition for these troops being supplied with tent floor-boards, in place of their providing themselves at their own expense with these boards, as in many instances they are doing at present?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Secretary of State has every confidence in the discretion of the general officer commanding, who has power to move in this matter if he thinks right.
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the men provide these from their own funds?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, I am not aware of that. I think the hon. and gallant Member, as a military man, must be aware that it is not desirable for the Department to interfere except at the desire of the commanding officer.
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: Quite so, but I will take an opportunity of pointing out that payments are now made from the canteen fund.

  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the
  1700
  evidence given by Mr. Conacher, Manager of the North British Railway, before the Select Committee on the Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Bill, in which he stated that the earnings of the west Highland Railway were most disappointing, and had only amounted to about five guineas per mile per week, or less than half what was estimated; and whether, in view of these facts, he still intends to push forward a Bill by which £260,000 of public money is to be advanced to this company for their Mallaig Extension?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): I have seen the evidence referred to. Mr. Conacher put the traffic on the West Highland Railway for the year 1895 at five guineas per mile per week, and for the year just closed at £5 11s. per mile per week. It was only opened in August, 1894. He added that, having regard to the through traffic which the Mallaig line will command, he put the two lines very much on the same footing. On this basis the Bill would involve at the outside a charge on the Treasury of £2,000 a year for 30 years, not an advance of £260,000; but, as the receipts will certainly increase, the real cost will be much less. I certainly intend to proceed with the Bill.

NATIONAL GALLERY OF SCOTLAND.
MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government will renew the grant of £1,000 a-year for the purchase of pictures for the National Gallery of Scotland, or on what grounds they propose not to give to the Scottish Gallery a grant similar to that enjoyed by the other two National Galleries of England and Ireland?
MR. HANBURY: NO such proposal has been submitted to the Treasury, and there has therefore been no refusal on their part. Had it been brought forward when the Estimates were in preparation, it would of course have been considered on its merits.
MR. BUCHANAN: Are we to understand that an application, if made, will be favourably considered?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It will be considered on its merit.

NATIONAL GALLERY OF SCOTLAND.

  GAME LICENCES (SCOTLAND).
  MR. R. PIERPOINT: beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that in Scotland it is unlawful to shoot game on a Sunday, 14-day game licences are available for 14 days exclusive of Sundays?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The licences in question are granted under the Act 46 Vict. cap. 10, Section 5, which provides that they are to be granted for a continuous period of 14 days. They cannot, therefore, be made available for a period of 14 days exclusive of Sunday?

  QUEEN'S REIGN.
  MR. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government, in the distribution of honours in celebration of Her Majesty's long reign, will take into consideration the claims of officers of the police force, who by long and meritorious service are deserving of distinction at the hands of Her Majesty?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): There is a general rule, the propriety of which I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise, which forbids discussion in this House of the question of distribution of honours by Her Majesty; but the Prime Minister will, of course, give due consideration to any representation that may be made to him.

  INDIAN BUDGET.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state on what day the Indian Budget will be taken.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the House would probably be asked to consider the Indian Budget on Friday next week.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
  MR. CHARLES WILSONI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will have an Inquiry held into the result of the working of the Merchandise Marks Acts as affecting British trade and shipping, and the ad-
  1702
  vertisement it gives to foreign goods, resulting to some extent in the shipping trade of Hamburg already taking precedence over Liverpool?
  MR. RITCHIE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I think the matter is one calling for inquiry, and I will consider during the Recess whether it should be by a Committee of the House or otherwise. I must not, however, be understood as expressing any opinion on the cause of the increase of the shipping trade at Hamburg.

AGRICULTURAL LAND RATING BILL.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question in relation to business. When the Agricultural Rating Bill passed there was a direction that the Local Government Board, by Order, should make regulations; that those regulations should be laid before both Houses of Parliament; and that if neither House within ten days passed a resolution adverse to the regulations they should be binding in law. It seems that those regulations, which are very complicated and require very close attention, were laid on the Table of the House on July 28. That is nine days ago, and they were only delivered to Members yesterday. Therefore, unless they are discussed to-morrow, they cannot be discussed at all; and, apart from that, they cannot be discussed without the co-operation of the Government, because under the Standing Orders none but Government business can be taken now. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will do all that he can; and I ask what arrangement he will be prepared to make to give us an opportunity of discussing these very important matters? [Cheers.]
DR. CLARKsaid that the President of the Local Government Board in Committee suggested that the regulations should lie on the Table only ten days instead of 30, in order that they might come into force in the present year: and the suggestion was adopted on the understanding that an opportunity would be given for discussing them.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the President of Local Government Board is not able to be here to-day,

1703
that I might have the benefit of his advice. It is a surprise to me that of I the ten days only one day remains, but that depends on the procedure of the House, over which I have no control, and we must make the best of the situation. In the ordinary course to-morrow would be sacred to Supply; but I feel the strength of the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall be willing to put down, as a Government Order, second to Supply, a Motion on which these Rules can be discussed to-morrow.
SIR W. HARCOURT: That would be a most reasonable concession, subject to the condition that Supply is not driven so late that there would be no time to discuss the regulations at reasonable length. It is a very important question.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As far as I am concerned I shall be willing to meet that view. It is not a Government interest that Supply should be discussed, except that there should not be too many Votes left over on the last day. If the Committee will co-operate with me in getting through Supply with reasonable rapidity, I will arrange to bring on the other question at a time convenient to the right hon. Gentleman.

AGRICULTURAL LAND RATING BILL.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. DALZIELasked whether it would be impossible for hon. Members to Divide against any of the Votes remaining over after the discussion of Supply had been brought to a close by the new Standing Order?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It will certainly be possible for hon. Members to Divide against any Vote, though I hope it is a privilege of which they will avail themselves sparingly. [Laughter.] I shall endeavour to bring on the Report stage at a convenient hour next day, of those Votes which cannot be discussed in Committee. If the Committee stage is passed soon after 10 on Friday there will be time to deal that night with the Report stage.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the London University Bill, which had just come down from the Lords, would be proceeded with?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir; there is no idea of
  1704
  taking it. It cannot be proceeded with if there is serious opposition.
  COLONEL HUGHESasked whether the Ordnance Vote would be taken first on Friday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, Sir; and the Local, Government Board Vote will be taken first on Monday.

LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND) ESTATE DUTY BILL.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill for paying to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account a share of the Estate Duty, said that the Measure was merely suspensory in character. It did not appropriate money to any specific purpose, but merely provided that nine-eightieths of the sums payable under the Agricultural Rating (England) Act should be carried to the Local Taxation Account of Ireland. He hoped that any questions would be deferred until the time came for distributing the money by another Bill next Session.
Bill for paying to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account a share of the Estate Duty, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed.—[Bill 334.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AGRICULTURAL RATES, CONGESTED DISTRICTS' AND BURGH LAND TAX RELIEF (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  Clause 1,—

  AGRICULTURAL RATES, CONGESTED DISTRICTS' AND BURGH LAND TAX RELIEF (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    CLASSIFICATION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND HERITAGES FOR PURPOSES OF OCCUPIERS' RATES.
    As from the fifteenth day of May next after the passing of this Act and during the continuance thereof the annual value of all agricultural lands and heritages in Scotland—

    (1) shall for the purpose of the occupiers' consolidated rate leviable by county

    1705
    councils, including the portion thereof leviable under the Public Health (Scotland) Acts, be held to be the nearest aggregate sum of pounds sterling to three-eighths of the annual value thereof as appearing on the valuation roll; and

    (2) shall for the purpose of the occupiers' share of the poor rate, the school rate, and other rates leviable by parish councils, be held to be the nearest aggregate sum of pounds sterling to three-eighths of the annual value thereof as appearing on the valuation roll, subject to the deductions in pursuance of Section thirty-seven of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845.

    Provided that where lands and heritages are classified in terms of Section thirty-six of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, if it shall be certified by the Secretary for Scotland that the rates leviable on the occupiers of agricultural lands and heritages in pursuance of the classification are less than, or as nearly as may be the same as, the rates which would without classification be leviable on such occupiers in terms of this Act, such classification (hereinafter termed a certified classification) shall have effect, and this sub-section shall not apply.
    Provided always that, in the case of any holding in a crofting parish, the Crofters' Commission in fixing a fair rent for such holding shall not be entitled to take into account the relief effected by this Act from a proportion of the consolidated rate, poor rate, and other rates before mentioned.
    The expression "agricultural lands and heritages" means any lands and heritages used for agricultural or pastoral purposes only, or as market gardens, orchards, or allotments, but does not include woodlands or land occupied together with a house as a park, garden, or pleasure ground, or any land kept or preserved mainly or exclusively for sporting purposes. Provided that if any question shall arise as to the lands and heritages falling within the foregoing definition it shall be determined summarily by the sheriff, whose decision shall be final, except that where the decision is given by a sheriff substitute it shall be subject to appeal to the sheriff.
    The expression "parish council" includes school board where a school rate is levied directly by a board school.
    MR. CALDWELL MR. CALDWELL moved to leave out Clause 1. He said, that Sub-section (1) dealt with two rates collected by County Councils in Scotland. The first was the occupiers' consolidated rate, and the second was the public health rate. The combined effect of Clause 1 and Clause 5 was that for the future classification under Section 36 and deductions under Section 37 of the Poor
    1706
    Law Acts were abolished The practical effect of that would be to place the public health rate on all-fours with the consolidated rate; and as regards both rates, the valuation roll would be taken as the basis of assessment. There would only be two classes of ratepayers—the agricultural and the non-agricultural. The non-agricultural would be rated at full value and the agricultural at three-eighths of the full value. The consequence was that, as regards Sub-section 1, every occupier of agricultural and non-agricultural land in Scotland would, as far as the consolidated rate was concerned, reap the full benefit of the reductions under the Bill, while, as regards the public health rate, the occupiers of agricultural land would reap more or less benefit according as the parish was classified or unclassified. What were the purposes for which the occupiers' consolidated rates were levied? In the county of Stirling the total consolidated rate was 4¼d., and of that no less than 3¼d. was levied under the Roads and Bridges Act. Hence, as regards Sub-section 1, they were dealing mainly with the roads and bridges rate. Prior to the Roads and Bridges Act the farmer who paid £300 of rent and had about 150 acres, paid as much as £40 a year in tolls; now he paid no tolls whatever, but by the present road rate in Stirlingshire he paid a rate of 3¼d. on his rental, and the amount he paid now was only £4. The large householders who used the roads very little felt aggrieved also, because they were rated at the same rate per pound as the farmer who got the main benefit of the roads. If there was to be a classification it should be to reduce the householders' contribution as regarded the road rate to 3–8ths. Another class who suffered greatly were the mill tenants and manufacturers who sent goods solely by rail, but who were assessed equally with the farmers. If they were to go on the principle of classification on a just basis, the classification should be the reverse of that in the Bill—that was to say, instead of 3–8ths to the agricultural tenant, it should be only 3–8ths to the non-agricultural tenant. In the counties they had the exact converse of the case which existed in burghs. They had the road rate which was levied mainly in the interest of those who used the roads, and

    1707
    if householders in counties were treated as agricultural tenants were treated in burghs, then householders in counties should be rated only on l–4th of their valuation as regarded the road rate, which was the main rate under Sub-section 1. He felt, therefore, bound to oppose the injustice of this Bill, which not only charged the householder the full rate, but which actually let the wrong man off with paying only on 3–8ths of his valuation. And this was done out of moneys which were allocated to Scotland as Scotch moneys, belonging to every community in Scotland. It was an application of Scotch money for the purpose of relieving the wrong man in the county, the man who gets the full benefit of the rate and more than the full benefit as regards the heaviest consolidated rate of the county, the road rate. The result therefore was this, that the agricultural tenant who, before 1878 paid £40 a year for the use of the roads, by that Act his payment was reduced to £4 a year, and this Bill would reduce him to 3–8ths or 30s. a year for a farm which yielded £300 of rental for the purpose of maintaining the roads. Then on to Sub-section 2. Here also the Government had refused to reduce the amount to be given in relief to the agricultural tenant. There were Highland parishes in which the poor rate and school rate were far above the normal poor and school rates of Scotland, and this not from bad administration or any fault of the people who lived there, but simply from the circumstances of the Highlands. The result was that whilst in the more prosperous districts they might have a rate of 6d., they had a rate of about 7s. in the congested districts in the Highlands. If the Government had been going to relieve the inhabitants of those districts, they might have applied their money a little better. They might first of all have considered the case of the most neccessitous agricultural occupiers; they might have taken into consideration the case of those who were now overburdened through no fault of their own with heavy road rate, a heavy poor rate, and a heavy school rate, and yet the Government had refused any attempt made from the Opposition side of the House to show some little consideration so far as this particular section of Scotland was concerned. There could be
    1708
    no question that when leases fell in the benefit of the relief given would, under a system of competition rents, go to the landlords, because as they reduced the rates as a necessary consequence they would simply keep the competition at the same ratio, and the landlord would get more rent as the rates were made lower. Dealing with the argument that this Unionist Government had treated the agricultural tenant in Scotland exactly in the same way as it treated the agricultural tenant in England, he asked, what was the position of the tenant in England? The English Bill said that he should pay half the rates, but at the present time the Scottish agricultural tenant paid no more than half the rate; so that the English Bill simply brought the English tenant to the same level as the Scotch tenant. But now the Government were making the Scottish tenant pay three-fourths of the rate as against half in England. There was no Unionist principle in the matter. The present Government claimed to be a Unionist Government. But when they came to deal with the legislation of the United Kingdom, they always separated the counties into different nationalities, and always treated them as such. The only point on which they did not treat them as separate nationalities was when they went into the Division Lobby; and the author of that separatist policy was the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman began the principle in 1888 in the Local Government Act for England. That was the first time the Imperial finances of the country were separated into national finances. The only illustration before that time was the Union, when the Land Tax of Scotland was separated from the Land Tax in England. It was said that classification had the effect of assessing occupiers of property upon their means and substance. He was not an advocate of classification, and he did not think that the Lord Advocate had improved the Subsection by retaining classification, because they never could by classification bring about anything like an approach to means and substance. The Government classified all the shops together as one class, but in that class they had the most varied means and substance. The only correct principle was to take the rental of the community as a whole or to take it as a

    1709
    parish, and then they must make every man pay according to the rental of the parish or the county. The moment they departed from that principle, that moment they got into inextricable confusion, and injustice and great hardship were caused by dividing into different classes. Again, they had the statement of the Lord Advocate that realty in Scotland bore the whole brunt of local taxation. The Lord Advocate confounded two things—the man who paid with the amount determined by the amount of heritable property which he occupied. It was not realty that paid, it was industry that paid rent and taxes. Realty had only to determine the amount the tenant should pay out of personalty.
    MR. J. McLEODcalled attention to that part of the grant which would go to county occupiers. He agreed with the view expressed that the county occupier had undoubtedly received considerable ad vantages from the Imperial Exchequer within recent years, and that there were various classes, perhaps not directly depending on agriculture, who were in very much greater need of relief than the actual agricultural occupiers. The particular point to which he wished to call attention was the inequitable manner in which the classification with regard to county rates would operate. For this purpose the counties in Scotland were to be taken as a whole. They knew well that the rates varied in each county. In certain counties they were much higher than in other counties. It was also a peculiarity of the position that it was the counties least able to bear the burden that had to bear the charges—the counties of large area, sparse population, and very low valuation. It was proposed to adopt a plan under which exactly the same relief would be given to the rich counties as would be given to the poor counties. The average Lowland community would get exactly the same amount of relief as Highland counties whore the rates were higher and the people less able to pay them. In the Lowland counties, practically all the public works had been executed, many of them with money provided from the Imperial Exchequer. But in the Highland counties whole districts were with-
    1710
    out roads and they could only be provided with roads out of money from the pockets of the local ratepayers. If the House was going to subsidise local county rates they ought to give the money where it was wanted for the execution and completion of public works. Some method ought to be devised by means of which counties or districts of counties where there ought to be a large capital expenditure on public works would benefit to a greater degree under this Bill than Irish counties where public works already existed in a complete state. The small agricultural occupiers in the Highlands would not benefit at all under this Bill. The money would not go into his pockets, but into the pockets of the large capitalists. That would be the result of the particular form of classification adopted in the Bill. The clause might produce certain small advantages, but he nevertheless conceived it to be his duty to vote against it as a whole.
    DR. CLARKsaid that he had understood the Government to have three objects in view—namely, the relief of the occupier of agricultural land, the improvement of congested districts in the Highlands and the payment of Land Tax in certain burghs. It appeared, however, now, that the Government had a fourth object—namely, the Amendment of the law with regard to the classification of lands and heritages. In reforming the law of classification the Government were at the same time professing to relieve a class of men who were doing nothing for agriculture. The English Bill only relieved agricultural occupiers, and if this Bill were going in the same way only to relieve that class in Scotland, something might be said for it.
    MR. SPEAKER: It appears to me that the hon. Member is making a Second Reading speech.
    DR. CLARKsaid the first clause of the Bill contained in itself practically six clauses. The Bill had been so drafted that they had to discuss under this clause the proposed reform of the law of classification and the proposal to give relief to occupiers of agricultural land. Parishes where there were classifications under which agricultural ratepayers were only paying three-eighths of the rates were not to be affected by the

    1711
    clause. It was unfair not to treat agriculturists in Scotland exactly in the same way as they had treated agriculturists in England. He did not know that the Scotch agriculturist required assistance so much as the English; but the House was in this position, that the money which was given as an equivalent grant to Scotland in consequence of a certain grant having been made to a sdecial class in England, would not be limited to that class in Scotland. The fact was that in a great many parishes, had it not been for the Amendment of the Lord Advocate, unfortunate agricultural tenants, instead of having their burden reduced by this Bill, would actually have had it increased, for under the present classification, which was being abolished by the Bill, they would be paying less than they would when this Bill became law. They were farmers in certain parishes, who were only paying a quarter, and their burden would be increased by the Bill from a quarter to three-eighths. But, moreover, this money was not to be used exclusively for the agricultural tenants. In some parishes the money was to be used for the benefit of all ratepayers alike. And that was one of the reasons why some hon. Members objected to the clause. It was because under a Bill intended for the relief of agricultural tenants, a large portion of the relief in several districts where money was not wanted, was to be given to other ratepayers who had nothing at all to do with agriculture. He could not see any reason why these people should get this money, and nothing had been said by the Government in defence of it. This was a grant made to Scotland as an equivalent to that made to England, and it ought to be confined to the benefit of the same class of ratepayers.
    Question put, "That the words of the clause to the word 'Scotland,' in line 7, inclusive, stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 137; Noes, 58.—(Division List, No. 386.)
    MR. CROMBIE MR. CROMBIE moved, after the word "Scotland," to insert the words "in which the rent has not been raised since the passing of this Act." The
    1712
    Lord Advocate, in his exceedingly clear and succinct speech, stated that whatever was the purpose of the Bill it was certainly not to put money into the pockets of the landlords. He did not, of course, doubt the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity in committing himself to that statement. But he must be endowed with an extraordinary amount of guilelessness, and he proposed the Amendment, not so much to test the sincerity of the Government, as to remove the guilelessness of the Lord Advocate. It was perfectly evident that if rents were increased after the passing of the Act one of two things must have happened—either the man who could pay the increased rent had ceased to be a distressed agriculturist, and, therefore, did not deserve relief, or the landlord had pocketed the relief. No answer had yet been given to the argument adduced over and over again that the relief must go into the landlord's pocket. So long as the present leases remained, it was perfectly true that the tenant would get the relief meant for him, but as soon as these leases fell in that relief must certainly go to the landlord. In the days of 19 years' leases this would not have mattered so much, but these leases had fallen into disfavour, and leases were now only for five years. Many of these leases would fall in during the next five years, and in all these cases the relief would go into the landlords' pockets. It had been brought out that the sort of land which would most invariably fall in first was precisely the land with which none of them had much sympathy—namely, accommodation land. In this case the landlord would receive the relief almost at once, for these lands fell in generally in a year, and often within six months. The Government had expressed sympathy with the idea of excluding accommodation land, but their difficulty was to find a definition. By accepting the Amendment they would, to a great extent, cut out accommodation land. They would also prove the sincerity of their statement that they did not want the money to go into the pocket of the landlord, and he was hopeful and expectant that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to adopt the Amendment.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid the hon. Member could scarcely expect him

    1713
    to accept an Amendment moved with the object of corrupting his present state of innocence. [Laughter.] The question whether the relief would go to the landlord had been discussed both on this Bill and on the English Bill. In England leases were from year to year, and yet, notwithstanding that fact, there were many on the Benches opposite who confessed that they did not believe that even under that system the relief would go to the landlord. If everything could be brought to a mathematical nicety in the way of competition, there would be a great deal to be said for the position taken up by the hon. Gentleman. But that was not so, and he did not know whether he could do better than take hon. Gentlemen opposite who were landlords and ask them whether they supposed that when their leases fell out they would really take into account this not very large relief given to the tenant. What hon. Members opposite seemed never to have realised was that in the real and true sense there was a partnership in the land between the landlord and the tenant. They always looked upon these two as enemies with daggers drawn, and taking advantage of the situation whatever it might be. ["Hear, hear!"] That might possibly be the case in Ireland, but he was happy to say it was not so in England or in Scotland. He would give one reason which, without any other, would be sufficient to prevent his accepting the Amendment. By accepting it, an absolute deterrent would be put to the making of improvements by the landlord, because if he made improvements upon which extra rent was to be charged, then at once the relief given under the Bill would be withdrawn.
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid this was a very important question. The circumstances of England differed from those of Scotland in this matter. There was no doubt that on a well-managed English estate the sitting tenant went on from year to year at the rent he was paying before. But in Scotland rents became more commercial as the date of the lease was longer, and in the case of five, 10, and 19 years' leases the revision was a very genuine revision. Scotch farmers felt deeply on the subject. A considerable number of
    1714
    five years' leases would expire in the course of the next five years, and they regretted that the Government had not recognised the fact that the benefits derived from the reduction of rates would be secured to the landlords in the form of increased rents. It would be an argument of considerable force if this could be shown to have the effect of checking landlords in making improvements, but he submitted this was not likely to be the case. There were two classes of landlords' improvements, and those which consisted in making a tenant comfortable in his holding, providing proper buildings, giving him a sound roof and giving him a comfortable habitation, these were improvements for which no good landlord expected to get a special rent. But it was another matter when the improvement was a distinctly agricultural improvement, carried out by expenditure upon which a certain amount of interest had to be paid. It was well known that landlords had borrowed money to carry out such improvements and had charged the tenant an amount that went towards a sinking fund for the payment of capital and interest. This was a simple transaction between landlord and tenant, as, for instance, the charging of five per cent. on the outlay for drainage works. If the Government would accept the principle of the Amendment it would be easy to find words excepting an arrangement of this kind. He did not think the argument of the First Lord of the Treasury was a sound one against a proposal to meet what practical farmers would recognise as a grievance with regard to the Bill.
    MR. CROMBIEexpressed his willingness to amend his proposal.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONappreciated the argument against the Amendment on the Paper, but if the Bill was to carry out its ostensible object, the relief of the occupiers of agricultural land, some Amendment of the kind was necessary. In Scotland rents were far more competition rents than in England, and under a system of competition rents, at any lapse or breakage of lease, or re-arrangement of reductions for the bad times, the benefit must undoubtedly go to the owner and not to the occupier. This

    1715
    point had been brought into stronger relief by the Amendment with regard to the crofters.
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR MR. J. B. BALFOUR (Clackmannan and Kinross) moved to add to the proposed Amendment the words:—
    "unless in so far as increased rent is stipulated to be paid in respect of improvements made by the landlord."
    Words added to proposed Amendment.
    Question proposed, after "Scotland" to insert:—
    "in which the rent has not been raised since the passing of this Act, unless in so far as increased rent is stipulated to be paid in respect of improvements made by the landlord."
    DR. CLARKsaid he had had an Amendment of the same character, which he lost the opportunity of discussing in Committee, his object being to see that the Bill carried out the statement first made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—namely, that so far as the Scotch Rating Bill was concerned, every precaution was taken that only occupiers should get relief and the statement of the Lord Advocate that it was in no sense a dole to landlords. There were two or three forms in which landlords might get the benefit where they were occupiers, in cases where the land was held from year to year, and then, of course, the rents would very soon be modified; and thirdly, there was the case of expiring leases, where the new rents would undoubtedly give the landlords the benefit. Certain improvements were made by the landlord and paid for by the tenant, not as rent. Under the Crofters Act he had heard of a landlord who agreed to make certain improvements on a croft, on condition that, it being a commercial transaction, he should get interest for it. The argument that it would prevent improvements by landlords did not weigh, the addition would be interest and sinking fund, and not rent, for which he supposed the landlord could sue under commercial law. If the Government refused to take any precautions to carry out the Chancellor of the Exchequer's declaration, then Members were justified in saying this was a dole to landlords just as much as the English Bill was a dole to landlords.
    Question put,
    "That the words 'in which the rent has not been raised since the passing' of this Act, unless in so far as the increased rent is stipulated to be paid in respect of improvements made by the landlord' be there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 49; Noes, 119.—(Division List, No. 387.)
    On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
    MR. ALEXANDER CROMBIE MR. ALEXANDER CROMBIE (Kincardineshire) moved, in sub-section (1), after the word "Acts," to insert the words,—
    "in so far as the amount per pound of that rate does not exceed the amount per pound at which it was levied during the financial year ending the fifteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six."
    This Amendment had been moved on a previous occasion, and in the division the votes of the Scottish Members were in the proportion of two to one in favour of it. The practice of the Scottish people, moreover, showed that the majority were rather in favour of the Amendment and its principle. The Bill of the Government, as far as it was understood in Scotland, was something like this. They believed the assessment of Agricultural lands was to be reduced to three-eighths, and that the hole created would be filled up by money taken from Government sources, and no one would therefore be a penny the worse. He hoped that the Bill was disapproved of in principle by the Scottish people, but the majority felt that their pockets were not touched, and accordingly they had no particular objection to the Bill. But if the rate should be raised and the Government relief was stereotyped, any excess in the rate, instead of being met by a Government giant, would have to be borne by the rest of the community, and the average man in Scotland would not approve of that. A large minority of Scottish parishes had enjoyed for 50 years power to do that which by the First clause of the Bill was provided as far as the poor rate and public health rate were concerned, but few of them had used it. Therefore they would object to the principle whereby agricultural tenants should pay three-eighths and the rest of the community should have to make up the deficiency.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that this question had already been discussed in Committee and a Division taken on it. He was not moved by the considerations which had now been advanced by the hon. Member, though he believed that the Scottish people would be disposed to give effect to a policy which was consonant with the principles of justice. He feared he had nothing to add to what he had said in Committee.
    MR. ROBINSON SOUTTARsaid that a certain amount of dread was felt as to the results of this legislation. It was only in accordance with human nature that people should spend money more freely than they otherwise would when the money could be spent at other people's expense. Scotchmen were no freer from that fault than other people. It should be remembered that the landowners and farmers generally exercised a preponderating power in County Councils and other rural bodies, and it was hardly to be expected that they would forego spending money when they would know that they would themselves have to provide only a fractional part of it. This was a temporary Bill, and he feared that there would be a tendency during the next five years to make hay while the sun shone. He was, therefore, sorry that the Government had not entertained favourably the request that the poor rate should be excepted. Experience showed that farmers were not to be trusted in the matter of the relief of the poor, and it was well-known that some years ago in England the farmers gave out-door relief promiscuously in the counties. When the farmers of Scotland realised that they would have to pay only three-eighths of the poor rate, they would be tempted to be free in granting out-door relief instead of paying adequate wages to the labourers.
    DR. CLARKargued that, under the system of classification contemplated in the clause, the agricultural community would not pay their fair share of an increased rate.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that the state of things would be the same as under the old classification.
    Amendment negatived.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that the next proviso, that which had been
    1718
    moved by the hon. Member for the Hawick Burghs, was really not in its proper place. He wanted to give it a place to itself. He therefore proposed to omit it, undertaking to insert it as a new clause later on. He begged to move to omit the following proviso:—
    "Provided always that, in the ease of any holding in a crofting parish, the Crofters' Com-mission in fixing a fair rent for such holding shall not he entitled to take into account the relief affected by this Act from a proportion of the consolidated rate, poor rate, and other rates before mentioned."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MCLEOD MR. MCLEOD moved to omit from the next paragraph of the clause the words "or pastoral," so that lands used for pastoral purposes only should be excluded from the scope of the Bill. The Bill, he understood, was intended for the relief of agricultural occupiers, but the effect of the clause as it stood would be that large pastoral tenants who did not carry on any agricultural pursuits in the proper sense of the term, would get the benefit of the grant. He might observe, in reply to some criticisms passed on this Amendment when it was moved in Committee, that there were no small occupiers in Scotland whose holdings were purely pastoral. They all more or less had agricultural land which would bring them within the provisions of the Bill. This Measure being for the encouragement and relief of agriculture, that House ought not to do anything to aid men who were buying up large areas of land upon which no cultivation of any kind was being carried on. But if those who had holdings of this description chose to cultivate a certain portion of them, he should not object to their getting relief. There were pastoral farmers and owners having land, not a single acre of which was cultivated. Thousands of these acres might be under crop, and by the policy which these owners and pastoral farmers were pursuing, they were shutting out a considerable proportion of the population from occupation on the land.
    MR. J. M. WHITEsupported the Amendment, because a large amount of agricultural land, as distinguished from pastoral, had gone out of cultivation in Scotland. It was, he thought, universally held that they ought to do

    1719
    everything in their power to encourage the highest development of the land. The more land was turned into pasture, the more labourers would be turned off the land, and on that ground he objected to this relief being given to pastoral land. Pastoral land was rated higher than agricultural land, for this reason, that supposing land was worth £2 an acre for agricultural purposes, when laid down in permanent pasture it was probably worth £3 an acre. In this way pastoral land had an undoubted advantage in the relief given. If this Amendment were carried, not only would it take relief off pastoral land, but it would leave more to be given in relief of agricultural land.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that the Amendment now proposed was somewhat different to that proposed in Committee. It was now proposed to omit the words "or pastoral," so that the clause would read "lands and heritages used for agricultural purposes only." This would not only exclude the big pastoral farmers, It would also exclude the man who cultivated a small quantity of land along with his pastoral holding. He was, therefore, afraid he could not accept the Amendment. It was impossible in a general Measure of this sort to make these distinctions, and he hoped hon. Gentlemen would forgive him if he said that this Amendment seemed to be rather an attempt to get at those gentlemen in the northern counties who had more than one holding.
    DR. CLARKcould not see why pastoral land should get the benefit of the Bill. What they wanted to do was to encourage agriculture and to include pastoral land would rather tend to encourage more and more the laying down of land in permanent pasture. The result of that would be to lessen the production of the land, and so to lessen its value to the community and restrict the field of labour. Two classes of land would be affected by the Amendment, namely, the permanent pastures already in existence in the south, the landlords of which were now getting an increased value, though their creation brought loss to the community at large and to those who looked to agriculture for labour. The other class of land was the large grazing tracts in the north, which were used partly for raising sheep and
    1720
    partly for sporting purposes. It was true that the Bill excepted land kept or preserved mainly or exclusively for sporting purposes; but it was difficult to see how the rating authority was to determine the question of whether land was mainly used for that purpose. Probably, if the sporting rent was greater than the agricultural rent, the land would be treated as mainly used for sporting purposes. At any rate, he did not want to see the value of that class of land increased. It ought to be decreased, and this Amendment might have that effect. If the Government really wanted to encourage and aid agriculture they would do all they could to give relief where it would have the effect of keeping more men on the soil. Anyone who knew anything of agriculture in England and other parts of the world would admit that the best results had been got from the old Scotch system. It secured the maximum use to the community and employed the maximum of labour. Where the English system of having permanent pastures had been developed in Scotland, it had always been bad for that country. There was nothing at all to be said in favour of the pastoral system, and he wished the Government would accept the Amendment, and so strike a blow at a system which was lessening the power of production of the Scotch soil.
    MR. ROBINSON SOUTTARsaid he sympathised entirely with the economic view that had been taken of this matter. It was no doubt economically sound to say that the agricultural farm employed more men. But how would the country stand without pastoral farms now that cattle had been shut out? We must have cattle, and we must have sheep, and therefore it was beside the question to argue against pastoral land. The reason that weighed with him was that pastoral farmers had been suffering as much in the main as agricultural farmers. Hon. Gentlemen who had spoken had been judging from the pastoral farmers in the north of Scotland. No doubt many of them were very well off; but men who had been engaged in raising sheep had suffered especially. The price of sheep had not been at all good. Many sheep farmers lost money last year. In his county, certainly, there were a great

    1721
    many men who were accustomed to raise a few sheep, and who ought to have the benefits of the Bill if there were any to be got from it. He would not for a single moment say that his constituents ought to have doles if doles were going; he had not said that. What he said was that if farmers were to receive doles there was no more reason why the agricultural farmer should receive them than there was that the pastoral holder should receive them.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. MCLEOD MR. MCLEOD moved, after the words "pastoral purposes," to insert the words "and upon which the occupier resides." This Amendment, he said, was also discussed to some extent in the Committee stage, but it was admitted that the form of the Amendment then was defective, with the result that there was a considerable difference of opinion. Had the form of the Amendment been as he moved it now, he believed there would have been practical unanimity. The object of the Amendment was to insure that one of the objects of the Bill should be carried out, namely, that the actual bona fide agricultural occupier should get the benefit. There were a very considerable number of cases where the landlord was the occupier, and as the Bill at present stood he would get the benefit. As he understood, the object of the Government was that this relief should go into the pocket of the agricultural occupier. It was a notorious fact that since the rents of sheep farms had shown a tendency to go down, a large number of owners, instead of re-letting their farms at a reduced rent to the occupier or to a new tenant, had taken the lands into their own hands, and were endeavouring to keep up rents in that way. To give these owners relief under this Bill would be to defeat one of the objects of the Bill, namely, to encourage agricultural occupiers. The Amendment moved in Committee was in such form that it would have shut out small owners who bonâ fide occupied their holding. This Amendment would not have that effect. The words were very nearly the same as those in the Crofters Act. In that Act Parliament
    1722
    decided that no tenant should get the benefit of the Act unless he resided upon his holding. His Amendment did not affect owners of agricultural holdings who were bonâ fide occupiers, but it would be reducing the whole proceedings under the Bill to an absurdity to propose that men in the position of His Grace the Duke of Argyll and others he could mention should participate in this relief. He did not think it could have been the intention of the Government that that should be the case, and they could therefore have no difficulty in accepting his Amendment.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid he could not accept the Amendment. He would remind the hon. Member that the Act from which he had borrowed the expression, the Crofters Act, dealt with a very different matter. There the point was what persons were to have the right of being recognised by the Act, and the idea was that although they were not the owners of the soil, they represented persons who had been on an unwritten tenure from time immemorial. When that tenure was to be recognised it could be only in respect of persons who had been in bonâ fide occupancy of their crofts. In this case they were not dealing with personal relief, but with the question of how agricultural land was to be placed in the matter of rating, and he was afraid men like the Duke of Argyll would be just in the same position as anyone else. He did not think it was legitimate in this matter to look at the person who happened to be the occupier in his personal capacity. That was a principle which no taxing system could possibly follow. He recognised the temperate spirit in which the hon. Member had moved the Amendment, but he must refuse on behalf of the Government to accept it.
    DR. CLARKregretted that the Government were not prepared to make one or two of these desirable changes. If the Amendment of his hon. Friend was adopted, no poor man could suffer. The only persons that would suffer from it were a class of pluralist farmers in the north, who had big farms, and many of them, and who by virtue of their capital had cut out the people from the soil and caused those congested districts on which the Government proposed to spend money.
    DR. TANNER: Mr. Speaker, I beg to call your attention that there are not 40 Members present.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have recently satisfied myself that there are 40 Members present.
    DR. TANNER: "Hear, hear! Hear, hear! Hear, hear!"
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member does not behave himself in a respectful manner, I shall have to call the attention of the House to his conduct.
    DR. TANNER: Certainly.
    DR. CLARKsaid the House was not going to legislate directly, as in the Crofters Act, for cutting down these farms, but there was the opportunity of doing something to lesson the evils resulting from that system of pluralism. These men were large capitalists; a man who spent £3,000 or £4,000 yearly in rental was probably employing capital of 10 times that amount, and these men were not the men who required any relief under the Bill. Using their capital in any other way, they would take the chances of the market, and why on earth should this class be relieved when their very existence had a baneful effect on the community. The operations of a large manufacturer had a beneficial and a healthy effect, but in farming the reverse was the result, and those landlords who had displaced the working bees for these big drones would admit that the results had been bad for the community, and often attended by financial failure.
    MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member of the Amendment, which did not admit of the discussion at large of the merits of large and small farms.
    DR. CLARKsaid the Amendment was a proposal not to pay the rates in cases where a man held more than one farm, and he was about to argue in support of this proposal that this pluralism had a baneful effect on the community. Going back to Tudor times, when there was a similar condition of things in England, the fact was recognised by legislation putting extra taxation on occupiers of more than one farm. In discouraging the system the House would be proceeding on good constitutional lines.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid if the Bill were founded on any strict and definite principle, he thought he could
    1724
    understand the argument addressed against the Amendment by the Lord Advocate, but he did not think there was so much principle in the Bill as to prevent the Amendment being considered from an empirical point of view. If landlords were ostracised under the Bill, as theoretically they were, he saw no reason why plural holders of farms should not be put in a similar position. It was a bad system of culture and not confined to the Highlands.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, in reply to the remarks just made, it was to be remembered that landlords were not theoretically ostracised by the Bill, and if a landlord was in occupation and paid an occupier's rates he would get the same relief as other occupiers would get. If it was a bad system in the interest of the land itself to have the same man tenant of several farms, why did landlords let their land in that way? He was not affected by the argument that they ought to do certain things in contradiction with the principle of the Bill in order to do good in other directions, and he could not accept the principle of the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 52; Noes, 132.—(Division List, No. 388.)
    MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL, moved to leave out the words "together with a house," and to insert instead thereof the words "or used." He wished all land which was occupied as a park, whether with a house or not, to pay rates to the full extent. The Bill was mainly to relieve the occupier of agricultural land, and people who owned parks ought not to have the rates reduced. As it was, the man who cultivated his land had to pay far more in rates than the man who kept his land idle for the maintenance of deer and rabbits. By implication, a park without a house was to obtain the benefit of the Bill; and that would be an encouragement to owners to keep the land idle. He supposed that the word "park" meant a park in the English sense, and it was quite possible to have a park without a house. The house might have been burnt down.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEcould not accept the Amendment, because in the opinion of the Government the definition was very much better as it stood. The answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman was this—that "park" was a term which had no legal signification; it was merely a word of ordinary parlance which had to be interpreted according to the context. Moreover, if the Amendment were accepted, and the words "together with a house" left out, then "park" might mean a grass field, and that would not meet the object the hon. Gentleman had in view. Of course, there were infinite possibilities as to houses tumbling down and all the rest of it, but he was not aware of any deer-parks in Soctland not occupied together with a house. The object the hon. Gentleman had in view was fairly struck at by the clause as it stood.
    MR. MCLEODthought there were certain places where they would find deer parks without a house upon them, and he instanced on the spur of the moment a case in Skye and another in Sutherland. He thought, therefore, there was something in what the hon. Gentleman had urged; at the same time he was perfectly willing to accept the assurance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was certainly the intention of the Government not to allow parks of the kind described to come within the purview of the Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. DALZIEL MR. DALZIEL moved, after the words "pleasure ground," to insert:—
    "or any land which, owing to its being situate within or to its proximity to any Burgh, as defined by the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, boars an increased value over and above its ordinary value as agricultural or pastoral land."
    He said the question had been before the House on several occasions, but it was regarded by Scottish constituencies as so important, that it was the duty of Scotch Members to bring it before the House on every possible occasion. The Lord Advocate, in the previous Debate, had practically admitted the justice of the principle, but his difficulty seemed to be that it was impossible to frame a definition which would carry out the object in view. He thought it was not too much
    1726
    to expect that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with his great legal experience, would be able to give them some definition which would be satisfactory to all parties. He proposed the Amendment to test the principle so far as the House was concerned, and to see whether the Lord Advocate had now made up his mind on the subject. If the House carried the Bill as it stood, he maintained that it would be taking a backward step, so far as the question of taxation of land was concerned. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in 1871, pointed out that land like that referred to in the Amendment, instead of escaping taxation, ought properly to bear increased taxation. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
    "The result of the present, state of things has been that many great improvements in the Metropolis, in Liverpool, Manchester, and other large towns, has been in the last ten years at the cost of the occupiers without the landlords contributing a single shilling."
    If that was true, then it was much more true at the present time, and the effect of the Bill without this Amendment would be to allow this class to escape taxation. The Royal Commission of 1884 and the Select Committee on Town Holdings in 1892 also passed recommendations that this land ought to bear more taxation, while the late Parliament unanimously passed a resolution that—
    "No system of taxation can be equitable unless it includes the direct assessment of the enhanced value of land due to the increase of population, wealth and growth of towns."
    He submitted that in face of these authorities it was reasonable to ask the right hon. Gentleman to exclude this land from the advantages of the Bill. In Glasgow, for example, there were 11,861 acres, 3,500 of which consisted of building land. That land was practically paying no taxation at present to the ordinary expenses of Glasgow, and yet it was going to obtain relief under the Bill.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid he was not prepared to accept the Amendment. The subject was fully discussed in Committee in the Debates on the English Bill. He was not much moved by the excerpts which the hon. Member had read. He did not remember the exact passage quoted from the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, but he

    1727
    apprehended that the right hon. Gentleman was there dealing with capital value and the escape from taxation of land within burghs. In the same way the Resolution quoted must be taken as one entirely dealing with capital value. The hon. Member spoke about the increment value of Glasgow due to the industry of the community. He would not enter into the problem, but he believed that the increment value was nothing more than this—that a particular person who happened to hold a particular article secured an increased value through competition. He had never been able to see a distinction in principle between the right of a man who happened to own land near a town and found its value go up, and the right of a man who held cotton or any other commodity and found the market price rise. He thought that the value of the land rose, not because of the industry of the community, but because there were persons who wanted the land. According to that principle they ought just as much to tax increment in every commodity—cotton, wheat, and other articles held for the rise. But this argument dealt with capital value, which obviously had nothing to do with the Bill; the Bill had only to deal with the occupier's claim to be assessed at the agricultural value, which was being brought in at the moment. Nobody knew what agricultural value was, because it must obviously be different in different places. Agricultural value was enhanced or diminished by the advantages or disadvantages of every particular situation. It varied from year to year according to the means of transport, the water supply, and other circumstances. Accordingly, the difficulty before the Committee was not a difficulty of definition, but the difficulty that, in the nature of things, there was no standard which they could apply. To set up an arbitrary and artificial standard of agricultural value, and to say that land exceeded that standard because it was near a town or because it was supposed to have certain other advantages, would be a very inexpedient course, because it would involve complications and difficulties. He could not accept this Amendment because in his opinion it invited them to do something which was impossible.
    MR. MCLEODthought the Lord Advocate hardly showed his usual acumen when he said that he had never been able to draw any distinction between land and other commodities. The distinction was that, whilst land could not be increased or decreased by one single inch, other commodities—cotton, for example—could be increased or decreased according to the wishes of the community. The Amendment was intended to effect the release of land which was unhappily beng held back from the community for speculative purposes, The object of the Amendment was to discourage the system of holding land back with a view to obtaining an enhanced price for it subsequently. If the Government were serious in their avowed desire to benefit agriculture and to reform rating, they ought to accept this Amendment. In connection with the matter to which the Amendment related, there was no question of agricultural distress at all. The question of rating reform was alone involved. Instead of reducing local burdens upon land in the vicinity of large towns, and even villages, it would be even juster to put an extra tax upon such land, which had an enhanced value because there happened to be an industrial and industrious community in the vicinity.
    MR. J. B. BALFOURthought the difficulties of the question could be got over by their agreeing to exclude from the scope of the Bill land in or near to any town or village, which bore exceptional value as accommodation land over and above the ordinary letting value for such land occupied as an ordinary farm. It was a moot point in some quarters whether it was better as a matter of policy to rate an object upon some estimate of its capital value, or to rate it upon its letting value as estimated by the rent if it was let; or, if it was not let, upon an estimate of what it would realise, taking one year with another. Scotland had adopted the second of these methods. He did not understand that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy meant to limit his case to capital value, but undoubtedly the words of the Amendment would cover capital value. They might, therefore, be viewed as words intended to introduce an entirely novel basis for rating. It was to meet

    1729
    that criticism that he supported the alteration which he had mentioned. One of the objections of the Lord Advocate to his hon. Friend's proposal would be met if they were to agree to consider lettable value as implying annual value. A standard of comparison might be arrived at by comparing the letting value of accommodation land with the ordinary lettable value of land occupied as an ordinary farm. This problem ought not to be given up as insoluble, and he submitted that what he had proposed came, at all events, pretty near to a solution. The words he had put on the Paper had been framed with considerable regard to what men called town parks. Those who had to judge whether a particular piece of land fell within a definition or not, would, he imagined, go to look at the land; and if they came to the conclusion that it had urban uses, and so got a differential rate, they would then classify it as land falling within the exception, and he submitted that that should be so.
    MR. HALDANEthought that the Amendment provided a definition of accommodation land which was sufficient for practical purposes. The problem was not insoluble, as was clear from an admission made by important supporters of the Government on the English Rating Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Stroud laughed at the notion that it was not possible to frame a definition of this kind of land. His right hon. Friend had, he thought, suggested a definition which would be interpretable by any ordinary tribunal. Where he was not sure that he was in agreement with his right hon. Friend was in the notion that, because this land could be defined, the lands referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy ought to be excluded from the scope of the Amendment. This was a Bill for the relief of agricultural distress. It proposed to afford that relief by giving to the land which was subject to agricultural distress exemption from a portion of the rates. It was said by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy that at all events land which was near a town, and which, though not let at a high rent, had an excess capital value over the market value, owing to its proximity to a centre of population, ought to be excluded from the Bill. It was true, as his right hon. Friend said,
    1730
    that land of an increased letting value was clearly on a different footing to agricultural land. He wanted to know why land, the capital value of which had increased by the movement of population in its vicinity, was not also in the same position? It was land which did not come within the class of land the Bill sought to relieve. He was assuming that the principle of the Bill was right, but why should it be applied to land in the neighbourhood of towns, which had a capital value much in excess of the ordinary agricultural value? Why did the owner leave it in the category of agricultural land? Because he believed that as time went on he would get more and more for it, and would get a capital value far in excess of the number of years' purchase of ordinary agricultural and. For these reasons, it seemed to him that in such land they had got something, not only the subject of definition, but something which it would be a wrong to the taxpayers of the country to bring within the category of lands to be the subject of a special tribute; and he would be glad to see the House accept the Amendment, because they would only be doing an ordinary act of justice to the community.
    MR. ALEXANDER UREsaid the Lord Advocate did not oppose the Amendment as being against the principle of the Bill, which was to rectify the inequalities in rating. The right hon. Gentleman would be quite willing to admit the Amendment if he could realise a standard by which land which did acquire an adventitious value could be distinguishd from land with an ordinary agricultural value. The right hon. Gentleman went further and said that, if he could only get this standard, he did not despair of the draftsman being able to frame a clause which would meet the desire of Members on the Opposition side of the House. What was wanted was to ascertain whether a particular piece of land really was of the average value of agricultural land in the district, or had some adventitious value. It did not appear to him that there was any serious difficulty in ascertaining the difference, because they did find in a district that the average value of purely agricultural land was easily ascertained and well known to experts; and, on the other hand, that land which

    1731
    had acquired an adventitious value was equally easily ascertainable. Indeed, the Lord Advocate, in the latter part of this very clause, provided a means for ascertaining within what category a particular land should be placed. The Amendment would in no way interfere with the principle of the Bill, and he hoped it would be accepted.
    DR. CLARK, while supporting the Amendment, thought that not only should they refuse to give this aid where there was an increased annual value, but also where there was an increased capital value. Surely the Lord Advocate ought to be moved by the consensus of opinion which existed among the leaders of both Parties. The Commission which sat 12 years ago, and which contained many representative men, was unanimous in making this recommendation, and nothing had yet been done to carry it out. There had also been a unanimous expression of opinion on the part of the House in the same direction. He read the speeches of a great many Unionist candidates last year, and they were all very strong on this question, though, perhaps, these gentlemen had now changed their minds. He did not know whether the Lord Advocate pledged himself to it.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: I pledged myself to nothing.
    DR. CLARKsaid he was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman was about the only candidate in the north and west of Scotland who did not pledge himself to this principle. This land had an annual value apart altogether from the ordinary agricultural value, and the class of men who held this land were not, in the ordinary sense of the term, farmers or agriculturists. A large portion of the land was in the hands of cow feeders and dairymen. The value of land was determined by two elements. The first was the value of the soil, and that the Amendment would not touch; then there was the value given by the site, and it was that value that they wanted to exempt from the operation of the clause. They wanted to exempt that class of land, both in respect of annual value and capital value, from having any benefit under this Bill, because Parliament and all the Select Committees and Royal Commissions that had been ap-
    1732
    pointed had recommended them to take that course.
    MR. JAMES BAILLIEdesired to point out to the right hon. Member for Clackmannan, that the Amendment might cause a considerable amount of hardship in some cases. For instance, on his own property he had a considerable number of crofters close to the town of Inverness, and he had no doubt that the capital value of that land, if he were to sell it for building purposes, would be very much enhanced owing to its proximity to Inverness. But he thought it would be very hard on those crofters that they should be deprived of the benefits of this Bill.
    MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid the hon. Member's point was that there might be capital value in certain lands which would not show itself in the rental. It was for that precise reason that he framed his Amendment so as not to touch capital value.
    MR. JOHN DILLONsaid this was a repetition of the struggle they had had in reference to Irish land, and it was hard to realise that, while Members of the Government in another place were arguing in favour of the principle of accommodation land having distinct treatment, Members of the same Government, and at the same time, in the House of Commons, adopted the opposite attitude, declaring they could not provide a definition.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid the hon. Member was probably absent during the discussion, or he would know that he (the Lord Advocate) never said it was impossible to supply a definition.
    MR. DILLONsaid as he understood, the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman in the way of consenting to the Amendment was that it was impossible to fix a standard for accommodation land. In relation to accommodation land or town parks in Ireland the difficulty, apparently, did not exist at all. The princple had full operation in the Irish Act. The term as applied to land that bore additional value from the fact of its proximity to a town was well known in legislation, and had led to exemption from the Irish Land Act. It was monstrous that a Bill intended for the relief of agricultural distress should apply to accommodation land, as to which

    1733
    there had been no fall in rent or value, and there was no ground upon which such land could claim any share in the relief granted by the Bill.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid his right hon. Friend had described himself as being in the happy, and, it might be said, the unique position of having pledged himself to nothing. He was the only Member of the Government in the House who could honestly make this avowal, and he was to be congratulated on his position. Ever since he (Mr. Robertson) had been in the House—eleven Sessions—he had been pledged to protest against a system whereby land in or near a great town was rated and valued as available for agricultural purposes only, while, in fact, it was held for building purposes, and withheld from the market for the sake of obtaining a higher price. One obvious consequence of this was to produce congestion in the town, and so it was in Dundee, where thousands of people were huddled together in one particular part of the town paying high rents for very meagre accommodation. The question before the House was whether this kind of land, treated with such monstrous partiality by the present system, should have the special relief provided by the Bill. Why should it have this special privilege? His right hon. Friend, whose ingenuity was only equalled by his courtesy, had, night after night, thrown out one principle after another in defence of the Bill. With all his ingenuity, the Lord Advocate had not mentioned one reason which justified opposition to the Amendment. He should vote for the Amendment in defence of a principle which no single Liberal or Liberal Unionist in Scotland would be prepared to deny.
    COLONEL DENNYthought that in all the arguments used by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had spoken, they had erred in treating the question as one solely connected with landlords. They
    1734
    were endeavouring to put into the Bill provisions for dealing with a certain class of landlords. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had been pouring water on a drowned mouse. No one on this side had any sympathy with landlords who prevented towns from ex tending, or otherwise used their power, detrimentally to the public interest in connection with their lands. One of his election pledges was to deal with that state of things as soon as possible. It was right, however, that the House should clear its mind thoroughly on the subject, and recognise that the special provisions had nothing to do with the landlords. The hon. Member for East Mayo erred in thinking there was any similarity between the Government Measures affecting town parks in Ireland and those affecting accommodation lands in Scotland. In Ireland it was a question between tenant and landlord, while in Scotland it was simply between tenant and taxpayer.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that land round towns was invariably held for a period not longer than a year, and generally not longer than six months. Whereas most Scotch Members on the Ministerial side of the House were pledged to increase the taxation on land of this character, the Government proposals would lighten that taxation.
    MR. J. G. HOLBORNsaid that this land was not held in any sense as agricultural land, nor was it held on lease. The bulk of it, moreover, was in the hands of the proprietors themselves, and not in the hands of tenants. There was a strong feeling in Scotland that this land should not be rated at its annual value, but at the landlord's estimate of its rateable value. There was a fair claim for some concession from the Government. It was not that the Lord Advocate could not fix a standard; it was that the Government were unwilling. However, it was not too late yet for the Lord Advocate to make some concession on this point,

    1735
    even if it was more limited in character than the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted.'
    The House divided:—Ayes, 61; Noes, 143.—(Division List, No. 389.)
    MR. URE*MR. URE moved, after the word "final," ("whose decision shall be final") to leave out the words "except where the decision is given by a Sheriff-substitute it shall be subject to appeal to the Sheriff." He said that he entertained a very strong preference in favour of the machinery as provided in the Bill when originally drafted. He had a strong preference, also, for the decision on this simple question being pronounced by the Sheriff substitute and his judgment being accepted as final. It was providing far too elaborate, expensive, and tedious a procedure to give appeal against the decision of the Judge of first instance on the question whether lands were agricultural lands or not, when the question was susceptible of ready and easy ascertainment by the Sheriff-substitute, who was resident on the spot. He had simply to go to the lands, see them, and give his judgment. In 99 cases out of 100 it would be unnecessary for the Sheriff-substitute to take any evidence at all. It would be sufficient for him to see the lands and decide the question there and then, and it would be desirable that his decision should be made final. This was not a question of principle, but a question of fact and circumstances; and there was no risk whatever of diverse principles being settled in the various Sheriff Courts of Scotland. He did not propose to move the Amendment on the Paper, but to move his Amendment in the above form, the effect of which would be to restore the clause to the shape in which it was originally presented to the House.
    MR. J. B. BALFOURsupported the Amendment on the ground that it was highly important that disputed questions should be determined speedily.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that, as hon. Members wished apparently to revert to the original form of the Bill, he was quite ready to accept the Amendment.
    MR. CALDWELLobserved that, though he was responsible for the change made in the clause in Committee, he should not oppose the Amendment.
    DR. CLARKbelieved that the people generally would be better satisfied with the decisions of the Sheriff-substitute than with those of the principal sheriff.
    Amendment agreed to. Clause 4,—

    APPLICATION OF PAYMENT TO LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND) ACCOUNT.
    The sums paid to the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account under this Act in respect of any financial year shall be applied by or under the direction of the Secretary for Scotland in manner following (that is to say):—

    (1.) In paying to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue the sums payable during that year for land tax by Royal burghs and burghs of barony or regality in Scotland; and in paying to any burgh a sum equal to the annual amount of the land tax redeemed by such burgh; and

    (2.) In transferring to an authority to be hereafter determined by Act of Parliament the sum of fifteen thousand pounds for the Improvement of Congested Districts in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, such sum to be applied as may he provided in the said Act, and until so applied to remain to the credit of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account; and

    (3.) In distributing the balance among county councils and parish councils in Scotland in proportion to the amounts ascertained and certified as hereinbefore provided, for the purpose of regulating such distribution.

    (4.) Every sum paid or payable under this Act out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account to any authority in respect of any rate shall for all purposes be deemed to have been raised or to be raisable from occupiers by the said rate.

    MR. MCLEOD MR. MCLEOD moved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "Congested Districts." He said that people in the Highlands had no knowledge of the term "congested district," which had been imported from the sister isle. He thought that the inclusion of that expression might hamper the authority charged with the application of the money. If the words were left out the object of the Government would not be interfered with, and a large body of public opinion would be satisfied.
    Question put, "That the words 'congested districts in' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 135; Noes, 54.—(Division List, No. 390.)
    MR. URE*MR. URE moved to omit Clause 5. His object, he said, was to insure to parish councils in Scotland the powers which they at present possessed of apportioning the rate amongst the various classes of ratepayers according as they thought just and equitable. This was the clause which provided that classification from the date when the Act came into operation should cease, and accordingly it was the proper point at which to raise the question whether they were going to deprive the parish councils of Scotland of this important function. It was a power which had been possessed by the predecessors in title of the present parish councils, the old parochial boards, fur a, period of upwards of half a century. It was a power which they had exercised without any complaint of harshness or injustice. He did not for a moment doubt that opinions would differ as to the propriety, expediency, and perhaps even the justice of the various classifications which had been adopted in the 158 classified parishes in Scotland. But he did not think it could be fairly alleged that the parochial boards, much less the parish councils, had been guilty of any gross injustice in their exercise of this power, or of any act which would war-
    1738
    rant their deprivation of this power, at all events at this stage. Indeed, it could hardly be alleged that injustice had been committed, because the powers could only be exercised with the assent and approval of the Board of Supervision, now the Local Government Board of Scotland, a body which had exercised this function in a way which elicited yesterday from the Lord Advocate the very highest encomiums. Therefore they inquired with some surprise why it was that in this Bill, with its long and complicated title, which disclosed no such design as was here sought to be put in force, they should deprive parish councils of their power of classification. The sole objection to the Amendment which had been urged by the Government in committee, was the preservation of the status quo ante. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would not be surprised to know that the preservation of the status quo ante, abstractly considered, did not exercise a singularly magnetic effect on that side of the House. They were not subscribers to the theory that it was preferable to do a stupid thing which you had done before rather than a wise thing which you had never done before, and, whilst they condemned change for the mere sake of change, they were equally strong in their objection to being stationary for the mere sake of standing still. At the same time they recognised that the Bill emanated from a Conservative Government, and had been supported throughout by Conservative majorities, with whom, very naturally, the principle of status quo ante had a much more alluring and seductive effect than it could possibly have upon members on his side of the House. Accordingly, if, upon fair examination, the Bill had disclosed the principle of a desire to maintain the status quo, they should have accepted that probably in the present condition of affairs as quite a sufficient answer to their objections. He thought the Solicitor General understood what Members on that side meant by the status quo, as they understood

    1739
    what he meant, and it would serve no good purpose to go on deliberately misunderstanding each other. Each side claimed to champion the status quo, the one side claiming it to mean the maintenance of the existing law, the other, the maintenance of the system of classification now existing. But even understanding the status quo as expressed by the Solicitor General, the existing classification, the Bill did not contain that principle. For description of the true aim and objects of the Bill the prosaic language of every-day English had been abandoned and metaphor resorted to. The region of biological classification had been entered upon, and even then they had failed to find a species or class adequate to describe this nondescript, kaleidoscopical Measure. But of all principles which at one time or another had been claimed as underlying the Bill, the maintenance of the status quo was the most ridiculously wide of the mark. What was the status quo? This and only this. In more than three-fourths of the parishes in Scotland all classes of land were rated alike, and in the remaining parishes this property was separated into distinct categories, diverse no doubt but alike in this, that agricultural land was rated lower than its rent as appearing on the valuation roll. What did the Bill propose to do? As originally presented, the Bill made a very serious inroad on the present state of affairs. It proposed in the first place to knock on the head all classification, and to substitute in every parish in Scotland a compulsory statutory classification uniform throughout all rating districts. He would not argue whether that was right or wrong, but no one could dispute that it was a very serious innovation on the status quo. Between the Second Reading and the Committee Stage, the Lord Advocate in deference to the views of the Opposition perhaps, but certainly not with the hearty approval of hon. Members behind him, introduced a radical change in the Measure as originally pre-
    1740
    sented to the House and retained all classification where he found agricultural land rated as low as the magical three-eighths. He agreed that the relief given under the Bill had nothing to do with classification; but it was just for that reason that he could not comprehend why the Lord Advocate was so rigidly hostile to the preservation of the present powers of the Parish Councils. If there were no objection to preserving existing classifications, what was the objection to adding new classifications? He contended that they had heard no justification whatever for depriving Parish Councils of the powers in question. It might be said that Parish Councils had not yet exercised the powers and that parochial boards had only exercised them to a comparatively limited extent. His answer to that was that the Parish Councils had scarcely yet had time to realise their powers, but after this discussion they would wake up to the very important powers which they at present possessed of apportioning parochial burdens, equitably as they thought, among the various classes of ratepayers. But, if they were not going to exercise the powers, what in the world were the Government afraid of?
    MR. MCLEODcited, by way of illustration, the case of a parish in Inverness-shire. In that case, under the operation of the Bill as originally brought in, the position of the agricultural occupiers would not have been altered to any material extent, but the classification operated against the small householders; and unless an Amendment had been moved this result would have remained. But during the next five years, in all probability the Parish Councils might desire to vary the inter-classification. They would have no desire to interfere with the valuation of the agricultural occupiers, but possibly they might wish to make some slight alteration as between the other classifications. He was not clear whether Parish Councils in the position he had

    1741
    indicated would have the power during the next five years to vary the inter-classification so long as they did not interfere with the three-eighths dealt with in the Bill.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, they would not have that power. The Government looked upon the Bill as the precursor of a general financial reform, and they proposed to suspend classifications during the five years of the continuance of the Measure. There was no thought of distrusting Parish Councils. As there was no pressing necessity for further classifications, it was reasonable to suspend the power of making them until the whole question could be dealt with in a uniform manner. Any uniform system would probadly arouse local prejudice where it clashed with local systems. Therefore it was desirable that to the different classifications existing already there should not be added others, based perhaps on no very consistent principles and due to the possibly transient views of persons who happened to be the majority for the time being.
    Question put, "That the words of the clause to the word 'any,' in page 4, line 9, stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 131; Noes, 52.—(Division List, No. 391.)
    THE LORD ADVOCATE*THE LORD ADVOCATE moved, "That the Bill be read the Third time."
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYANremarked that no one who had general sympathy with his colleagues in the House would put any hindrance in the way of this Bill being read a Third time to-night if the House of Commons wished it. They had now come to the end of proceedings, which had been good humoured, but thoroughly in earnest on both sides, and he hoped they would continue to be good humoured to the end. He and Members on his side of the House thought that Scotland had not been well treated in this matter. The three countries had had three Bills
    1742
    this year. England had had a rating Bill which, whatever they on that side of the House might think of it, was accepted and supported by an enormous majority of English Members. Ireland had had a Land Bill which was supported, he believed, by only about one-eighth of the representatives of Ireland. On the other hand Scotland was put off with this Bill which, on the Second Reading, received only about two-fifths of the support of the Scottish Members, being opposed by the remainder. The point was what the feeling of Scotland was, as given through her representatives, on the very important questions of detail in this Bill. When his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee moved that the provisions of the Bill should apply only for two years instead of five, 31 Scotch Members voted for him and 16 against. When the Member for Kincardineshire moved that future rates should be levied as they were levied now, instead of being levied the whole on occupiers of house property and three-eighths on the occupiers of land, he was supported by 31 Scotch Members to 17. The hon. Member for Sutherland-shire moved that agricultural land should pay one-half instead of three-fifths, and he was supported by 28 Scotch Members to 14; and on the extremely important Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock for excepting accommodation land, he was supported by 32 Scotch Members to 16. He thought those were rather serious figures, as showing that Scotch opinion on the most important details of this Bill had not been consulted. This Bill established classification everywhere. In Scotland there were two classes of modification of rating. One was deduction which might be said to be universally popular. It was obligatory, but it was carried out con amore by all the parochial boards. Deduction gave an advantage to houses as against the land. But classification, so far from being popular in Scotland, was adopted only by 166

    1743
    parishes out of 900. There was no demand for this Bill in Scotland. It was a mere afterthought. At the end of five years they would revert to the old conditions, with all sorts of new interests and new combinations, new habits and new proceedings, all of which would have to be abandoned the moment this Bill came to an end. They objected to what they could not but consider the scant honesty of the clause, in which it was said that the rate-in-aid came out of the Estate Duty on real property. It came not from the Estate Duty, but from the entire body of the taxes. They had contended, and they would contend until the Bill was out of the House of Commons, that there was no special agricultural distress in Scotland. Since the Debate began, a Blue-book had been issued by the Commission on Agricultural Depression. That Blue-book proved that Scotch estates were in an entirely different position to English estates. On the immense Scotch estates the fall in rent had been very small indeed. The Blue-book also proved that the net income of the Scotch landlords was very much larger generally than the net income of English landlords. But there was one class of landlords in Scotland for whose benefit he and his friends especially objected to the taxpayers being called upon to pay, and that was the class who had not proceeded on the principle of reducing the gross rental. It was for such purposes that the people of the great burgh constituencies were to be taxed. They were to be taxed, and they would get nothing back but a mere pittance. It was not these constituencies only; in every county there were large numbers of men considerably exceeding in number the agriculturists—weavers, coal miners, shopkeepers—who would get nothing of this relief, which would go altogether in a partial and privileged manner. In so doing, it established an injustice against which they felt bound to protest. But there was a wider idea in their minds than
    1744
    this. They regretted the unfortunate system of doles from the Exchequer which had already gone to such an extent, which had already demoralised the ratepayers, and which had already excited hopes which he trusted would never be gratified. They regretted deeply that this ill-omened system had been carried further. They saw in Scotland that this system would result in extravagance, and they looked with dissatisfaction on the moral character of the Scotch ratepayer being somewhat impaired and the old method of thrift relaxed. He begged to move that the Bill be read a Third time that day three months.
    MR. HALDANEdenied that the Bill was one for the effectual removal of agricultural distress. So far as any real benefit to the class they professed to relieve was concerned, they might as well throw the money into the Forth or Clyde. What the farmer wanted was not his rates helped, but his rents reduced. He did not say that the House could give the farmer what he desired, but this Bill constituted no substantial measure of relief. It altered materially the existing system of rating in Scotland; it abolished the freedom of classification—that freedom to rate people according to their ability to bear the rates, which had been recognised as a just principle, and which till now had been the salient feature of the rating system of Scotland. Surely, they should have consulted Scotland first as to this sum of money, but they did not do so, because there was an ulterior purpose. He believed that the real motive of the Bill was to mangle the new Parish Councils. The Parish Councils had taken the place of the old Parochial Boards, on which those who had rights or privileges which they did not wished interfered with were represented. But the new system of Parish Councils had been established, and hon. Members opposite professed to be as strongly in favour of it as they were, and yet they now intro-

    1745
    duced a Bill to take away from these bodies the most important power they had of rating people according to their ability to bear the rates. He feared that they were taking away these powers in mistrust of the men who exercised them, but, as anybody who was acquainted with the Parish Councils of Scotland knew, a greater mistake could not be made. As one of the majority of Scotch Members opposed to this Bill, he begged to Second the Motion.
    MR. WYLTEsaid that he desired to remove some misapprehension in respect of his position with regard to this Bill which appeared to exist in the mind of the hon. Member for Leith, and other hon. Members opposite, who had said that he was one of the supporters of the Government who did not support the proposal that the Bill should be immediately proceeded with.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that his words were that the hon. Member had stated that he would have preferred a full to a half measure upon the subject.
    MR. WYLTEsaid he had stated that under normal conditions he would have preferred to have waited for the Report of the Commission on Rating, but, as he had strongly expressed during the different stages of the Bill, he cordially supported the present Measure on account of the entirely exceptional depression of agriculture in Scotland as compared with the other leading industries. In order to arrive at an accurate conclusion as to the progress or decadence of any industry, and its position relative to other industries, we must note the facts throughout their whole areas and over a considerable period of years. Hon. Members opposite had taken only the small areas and short periods coming within the narrow scope of their own recent personal observations, but, if they took the wider view, he was sure they would come to the same conclusion as he had. He entirely concurred with the observation of the right
    1746
    hon. Member for Bridgeton that agricultural distress in the Lowlands of Scotland was not so severe as it was in the English counties. He believed that the greatest mistake that had been made in regard to this Bill was the adding to Clause 1 the Amendments which had been made by the Lord Advocate. Many hon. Members opposite had professed a great admiration for the system of classification. They had spoken of it as being both scientific and just; but his experience of it had been that it was the very reverse of scientific and most unjust. With all its errors and omissions, he believed this to be an admirable Bill, and one which would be a standing monument to the ability, skill, and tact of the Lord Advocate. He gave it his hearty assent.
    MR. HEDDERWICKwished to acknowledge the skill, ingenuity, and unfailing courtesy exhibited by the Lord Advocate in conducting this Measure; but when he had said that, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not misunderstand him if he added that a drearier or more unnecessary Measure had never been introduced. The only particular in which it touched on common humanity was that portion which dealt with the crofters of the Western Highlands. The idea contained in Clause 4 was, no doubt, an admirable one, as setting forth apparently the wish of the Lord Advocate and the Government to do something for those congested districts; but the means which had been adopted were of the most feeble description. It was proposed to devote the sum of £15,000 to cure the congestion, but that sum was utterly inadequate, and he could not help wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies was ever consulted on that part of the Bill during its incubation. If he was, he must have changed very much within recent years, for he recollected the time when the right hon. Gentleman took a deep interest, or

    1747
    what appeared to be a deep interest, in the forlorn and penurious lot of the Highland crofter. It seemed but the other day that the right hon. Gentleman undertook a pilgrimage to what he called the misty islands of the north, either to paint in his masterly way the sorrows of the inhabitants or to acquaint himself with the nature of their social problems—he didn't know which, and it was, perhaps, now of little consequence. But, at all events, the right hon. Gentleman left behind him hopes, inflated by sympathetic words and by suggested Measures of relief never destined, he feared, to be realised through the instrumentality of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman was now a Member of the Government that offered these suffering people the munificent sum of £15,000. To what purpose was that fund to be applied? The Lord Advocate did not know. His mind, he said, was open on the subject. He (Mr. Hedderwick) could admire an open mind so long as it was not a mere vacuity. The money, the Lord Advocate declared, had been well considered. Surely then he must have in his mind the purpose that exercised his consideration and enabled him to arrive at so nicely calculated a sum. The country was entitled to know something of the purpose for which this sum of money, apparently so inadequate for any real efficacious relief, was destined. The Lord Advocate only enlightened them to this extent—that he admitted its inadequacy, and said it was to be a nucleus. A nucleus for what? Would a nucleus fill an empty stomach or give an acre to a landless man? The whole idea of curing the congested districts of Scotland by a gift of £15,000 was an absurdity, and he should like to throw out a friendly challenge on the subject to the Lord Advocate. Would he leave the pleasant shores of Bute and go up to the Highlands of Scotland; would he visit the constituencies that were addressed with so much alluring eloquence by the
    1748
    Secretary to the Colonies, and seek the suffrages of the people upon his nucleus of £15,000? He could imagine the scene—the Lord Advocate with his loaves and fishes and the multitude waiting for the miracle. Why should the Government invite starving men to so Barmecidal a feast? It was a cruel farce, to which he would be no silently acquiescing party. If the Government were bent upon devoting the money at their disposal to the relief of agricultural distress, they had enough to make their relief in this direction real. The opportunity was a golden one. Why should they have persistently declined it? There was another ground of objection against the Bill; the people of Scotland had never been consulted upon it, and what would happen would be this: The grant would be received without gratitude; the money would be expended without satisfaction, and the people of Scotland would feel justified in supposing that the Government did not really understand the wants of those for whom they were legislating.
    MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid he proposed to call attention to one or two points that had not been adverted to in previous discussions. The Bill had the longest description of any Measure that had passed through the House, and yet this portentous title was absolutely ineffective in its description of the Bill. The House had been directly and definitely forbidden to extend the relief of rates to subjects other than agricultural land, but that which they were not allowed to do the Government itself had done in the Bill, and this Bill which professed to give relief to agricultural land gave relief to subjects other than agricultural land, and did so in a partial and utterly unprincipled way. The Government had done on a small scale that which he and his friends proposed to do as a matter of principle in the first instance. In its language the title did not give a correct description of the Bill,

    1749
    and he thought it was a result of the Rules of the House, of which they had a right to complain, that that which the House could not do as matter of principle, the proposers of the Bill could do as matter of convenience. Another point he wished to advert to was the connection of the Measure with the mighty programme with which the Government approached the House at the beginning of the Session. This was one of a trilogy of Measures which the Government were going to carry away as the result of their Parliamentary Session, the English Rating Bill, this Bill, and the corresponding Measure for Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Irish Land Bill!"] Of the Irish Land Bill he would say nothing. The three Measures for England, Scotland and Ireland were parts of a whole. In the title of the Bill would be seen what the Government chose to regard as its substance and effect; but what was the pretence with which the whole scheme was laid before the House at the beginning of the Session? Once again he read a sentence of the Queen's Speech to contrast the Bill with the pretence of the Government. The President of the Local Government Board changed sides more than once in the conduct of his Measure—he could instance it; and the Lord Advocate had changed horses at every stage of his Bill, so that now it was difficult to say upon which animal he was riding home. What did the Government undertake to introduce? Mark the difference between the programme and the performance. Her Majesty was made to say "I regret to say that the position of agriculture is disastrous "—disastrous let the hon. Member for Dumbarton note that—beyond any recent experience." It was the hon. Member for Dumbarton who stood up for agricultural distress at this stage, but would he contend that this language of exaggeration truly described the position of agriculture in Scotland? But this was not the sen-
    1750
    tence in the Queen's Speech to which he wished to call special attention.
    "Measures will be laid before you of which the object will be to mitigate the distress under which the classes labour that are engaged in that industry."
    ["Hear, hear!"] Did hon. Members cheer that as a description of this Measure? What classes were engaged in the industry in Scotland? There were three. The landlords were a small class who were bound to get some, and in the end would get all, the benefit from the Act. There was a larger, but still small, class of tenant-farmers, who would get some benefit for a time; but the largest class of all were the agricultural labourers, and he appealed to Members who had sat through these Debates to say if the agricultural labourers of Scotland had been so much as once mentioned. The agricultural labourer had no concern in the Bill. He had just as little interest in it as the artisan of the towns. He did not get a farthing of the £200,000 a year of which as an individual he had as much right to a share as any farmer or landlord in the land. The Bill was past praying for now so far as the House of Commons was concerned. Normally there was no hope that the decision of the House would be reversed in another place. But recent events had shown that, even in the time of a Unionist Government, they could find in the House of Lords a Court of Appeal. [Opposition cheers.] He hoped that same spirit of independence with which he sympathised would induce the Lords to reform this Bill.
    MR. MCLEODsaid the intention of the Bill was, as far as possible, to render nugatory the Finance Bill of 1894. Besides, Scotland did not get under the Bill her fair share of the money. Scotland was not getting her fair share, and the Bill proposed to divide the money in a particular way, and to give a certain sum to relieve the borough land tax, which should be charged on the Imperial Treasury, and not on any special Scotch

    1751
    equivalent grant. There was an important new departure in the Bill. Hitherto, when special grants had been given to the Highlands for the relief of distress, the Imperial Exchequer had been called upon to find the money inasmuch as the Imperial Parliament was responsible for the laws that produced the distress; but now, England was taking good care the Imperial Exchequer was no longer to be called upon to make up any money that might be required. This now departure would not commend itself to the majority of the Scotch people, and if it was any criterion of the kind of legislation which Scotland was to get during the continuance of the present Parliament, it was not in accordance with the election pledges of hon. Members from Scotland. He had gone through the whole of their election addresses. [Laughter.] They were simply endeavouring to render nugatory the legislation passed in the last Parliament.
    Question put, "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 124; Noes, 45.—(Division List, No. 392.)
    The announcement of the figures was received with Ministerial cheers.

WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY GUARANTEE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
On the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill,"
MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL (Devon, Tavistock) moved to report progress. The Bill before them was full of contentions, and there were a large number of Amendments to it, and he thought that to ask the Committee to commence the consideration of such a Measure at
1752
that hour of the morning was somewhat unreasonable.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he quite sympathised with the desire of the hon. Gentleman to go to bed—a desire which he shared—but he thought the hon. Member would feel that the Committee might make a little exertion to get through the Bill. It was put down in accordance with the understanding that they would be allowed to take the Third Reading of the Scotch Rating Bill and this stage of this Bill. He was not suggesting for a moment that it was a breach of faith, but there was a discussion last night across the floor of the House as to the general course of business to-night, and he certainly was given to understand that they should be allowed to get tonight the Third Reading of the Scotch Bill and the West Highland Bill. There was certainly an informal view expressed which justified the Government in hoping they would get the Bill to-night.
MR. DALZIELsaid there were Amendments on the Paper in the names of three or four hon. Members, and not one of those Members were consulted with regard to the suggested understanding. He put it seriously to the right hon. Gentleman whether at this time of the morning it would not be wise to adjourn. There were many points of contention, and if they divided on all the Amendments they would be sitting at five o'clock. He should not think it fair for the Government to overload their programme so that they had to keep Members at the House all day and all night. He would much rather extend the Session another fortnight than be called to sit up so late night after night. He was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman met them now they would not be unreasonable when the Bill was put down on another occasion.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid his impression was that it was arranged there

1753
should be no opposition to the Third Reading. There was considerable opposition to the Railway Bill, but he understood the opposition to the Scotch Votes would not be very prolonged.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he hoped they would make some little progress, otherwise he was afraid they must have a Saturday sitting.
DR. CLARKsaid it would be better to have a Saturday sitting than to rush the Bill through at that hour of the morning.
MR. T. P. WHITTAKERalso objected to the Bill being discussed at that hour.
MR. MCLEODsaid the Scotch Members had been kept there for the convenience of the Government. They had dealt with one Bill, and now they were asked to go on with another.
MR. WARNERwho was heard with difficulty amid ironical cheers and cries of "Divide," objected to the Bill being taken as it affected English as well as Scotch Members, and a considerable number of the English Members had had to go away from sheer exhaustion. He did not think it was fair to ask them to take these Amendments, which would take a considerable time to discuss.
MR. MCLEODsaid the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which had been referred to would practically abolish the whole Bill. It was a most contentious point, and he did not think it was fair to ask them to enter upon a prolonged discussion at that hour.
MR. DALZIELhoped they would be able to make a satisfactory arrangement. He suggested that they should take the non-contentious Scotch Votes instead of proceeding with this Bill. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment to the Bill were reached, they would have gone a good way towards getting the Bill.
MR. HERBERT LEWIShoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept the suggestion of his hon. Friend. The Amendment which had been referred to was an extremely important one.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that he should prefer to take certain Scotch Votes rather than the West Highland Railway Guarantee Bill, and, therefore, on the understanding
1754
that those Votes would be passed, he would consent to the Motion to report Progress. ["Hear, hear!"]
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Saturday.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1896–7.

    CLASS II.
    1. £3,573, to complete the sum for Lunacy Commission, Scotland—Agreed to.
    2. £3,175, to complete the sum for Registrar General's Office, Scotland—Agreed to.
    3. £7,591, to complete the sum for Local Government Board for Scotland—Agreed to.

    CLASS II.
    4. £26,295, to complete the sum for Register House, Edinburgh—Agreed to.
    5. £55,356, to complete the sum for Prisons, Scotland—Agreed to.

    CLASS IV.
    6. £1,960, to complete the sum for National Gallery, etc., Scotland—Agreed to.

    CLASS VII.
    7. £24,200, to complete the sum for Highlands and Islands of Scotland (Public Works and Communications),—
    MR. MCLEODsaid that, according to the Estimates, there had been a considerable reduction in the amount of grants for this purpose, and there seemed to be an inclination on the part of the Treasury to dry itself up as to matters affecting both Scotland and

    1755
    Ireland. He asked for an assurance from the Government that this was a temporary defect, and that there was no intention on the part of the Scottish O the purpose of bettering the condition of the Highlands of Scotland, particularly in regard to harbour accommodation.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that, as far as he knew, the works being carried on were of a very diverse character, and the amount to be spent year by year simply varied according to the work which had to be done. He was unaware of any policy or intention to reduce the sum which had been allocated.
    Vote agreed to; reported to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

SUPPLY [31ST JULY] REPORT.
Postponed Resolution further considered.
SUPPLY [31ST JULY] REPORT.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1896–7.

    CLASS II.
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding £26,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission."
    Resolution agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY COSTS BILL [H.L.]
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
  OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [26th June] further adjourned till To-morrow.
  VEXATIOUS ACTIONS BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  BURGLARY BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
LARCENY BILL [H.L.]
Read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow.
LARCENY BILL [H.L.]
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  STANNARIES BILL [H.L.]
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.
PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
As amended, considered; Bill read the Third time, and passed.

LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION BILL [H.L.]
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 20th day of July last, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
House adjourned at a Quarter after Two o'clock

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  On the Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill,
  LORD DORCHESTERsaid it had been deputed to him, in the absence of someone worthier, to say a few words on this Bill. It appeared that the Bill had been mutilated in Committee, and that a protective clause, Clause 7, had been struck out and afresh clause substituted. The old clause would not have saved the structure and sacred nature of the edifice, but he was told the new clause would facilitate the sale of the Church of St. Mary Woolnoth, a church immediately adjoining the Mansion House at the corner of Lombard Street. It was in a most conspicuous situation, and an edifice of architectural merit, built by a pupil of Sir Christopher Wren on the site of an old Roman or heathen temple. The church was attended by the Lord Mayors of London, and most of those who had occupied that exalted position in recent years were desirous of saving it. He was informed that some of the bishops did not much desire its preservation; but they should consider that the chancel was to be turned into a railway ticket office and a shaft was to be sunk through the centre of the church. Eminent members of the Court of Common Council and many past Lord Mayors felt strongly on the subject. He begged leave to move that Clause 7 be reinstated in the Bill as it came from the House of Commons, in the place of the new clause introduced by the Lords' Committee.
  THE EARL OF MEATHsaid he heartily agreed with the words that had fallen from his noble Friend. It would be a great pity if St. Mary Woolnoth's
  1558
  Church was destroyed. Sometimes it was absolutely necessary that old churches should be destroyed. Then they had to yield to necessity; but in this particular case, there was no reason why that church should be destroyed. The promoters of the Bill did not desire it. The clause authorising it had been inserted simply and solely at the request of the rector of the parish. It was an extraordinary thing. Why the Rector of the parish should desire his church to be destroyed and turned into a railway station it was not for him to say. It was, however, well the House should remember that if the church were destroyed a large sum of money would be paid for it. He did not wish to presuppose that anything wrong would be done; but the money would be there, and a pension would be given to the Rector. That, of course, would be right; but he was afraid that if such terms were offered to many clergymen throughout the land, a certain number of our churches would meet with destruction. The clause inserted was inserted at the request of the Rector, and the clause inserted in the House of Commons protecting the church was struck out. He hoped their Lordships would re-insert the clause as it came up from the other House, by which the church would remain. The promoters of the Bill could make the railway without destroying the church, and he was sure their Lordships would feel that if this could be done this church, which was an old and important one, and the church of the Lord Mayor of the City, ought to be preserved. There was much feeling on the subject in the City, and amongst all interested in old churches, and a large meeting was held on the 22nd January at the Mansion House to protest against the destruction of the Church, with the result that, in the House of Commons a clause was inserted protecting the Church. The House of Commons went the length of instructing the Committee to insert a clause to protect the Church, and that clause the Committee inserted. It was an extraordinary thing that, at the last moment, without warning to anyone, the Rector should come and ask for his own church to be destroyed. It was with great pleasure that he (Lord Meath) supported the Motion.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The EARL of MORLEY)said he trusted the House would not assent to the Motion. This Bill was merely an extension of time Bill. The railway company had ample power, under an Act of 1892, to take away the church and sell it, and this Bill gave no new powers in that respect. The clause introduced in the House of Commons enabled a shaft 90 feet deep to be run through the bottom of the church, a hole to be made in the church wall to cart out rubbish, and there was to be a booking office in the crypt. The Committee of their Lordships' House to whom the subject was referred introduced another clause to enable the church and site to be sold, not at the request of the Rector, but, because the Committee thought it right. If the noble Lord had any ground for suspicion, he thought it would be met by the seventh clause (which he himself had introduced since the Bill passed through Committee), which provided that the purchase money was to be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to be dealt with as Parliament might hereafter resolve. The amount was only to be determined with the approval of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He sincerely hoped the Bill would be allowed to go through in its present shape. If the Bill were lost, all the railway company would have to do would be to have recourse to the power under the Act of 1892, under which the supporters of the Motion would get less comfort, than they got now.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HALSBURY)asked Lord Dorchester what was the meaning of Clause 7?
  [Clause 7,—

  (PROVISIONS AS TO CHURCH OF SAINT MARY WOOLNOTH.)
  The following provisions shall be observed and have effect with reference to the Church of Saint Mary Woolnoth in the City of London (that is to say):—

  (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act of 1893 or shown on the deposited plans referred to in that Act the Company shall not, except as hereinafter provided, purchase or take any part of the Church forming part of the property numbered on the said plan 39 in the parish of Saint Mary Woolnoth, but the
  1560
  Company may purchase, take and use, and the owners and other persons interested in the said property shall sell, the surface of such other part of the said property as the Company may require for the purposes for which but for this section they might have purchased, taken or used the said Church, and an easement or right of using the sub-soil under any part of the property of which the surface shall not be purchased, including such part of the crypt and foundations of the said Church as the Company may require for the purposes as aforesaid.

  (b) The Company may during the construction of the Railway and Works take possession of, use, and temporarily interfere with the structure of the said Church or any part thereof for the purposes of such construction, provided that the Company shall on the completion of the said Railway and Works and subject to the last preceding Subsection, deliver up the said Church and the furniture and fittings thereof in as good condition and state of repair as they were in when the Company took possession thereof.

  (c) The amount of compensation to be paid by the Company for the portion of so much of the surface as is not occupied by the Church as shall be required by them and for the sub-soil and crypt, and for the temporary occupation of the Church and all other matters of difference shall, unless otherwise agreed, be determined by an arbitrator to be agreed on between the parties or in default of agreement to be appointed on the application of either of them by the Board of Trade, provided that the arbitrator to be so appointed shall in assessing the amount to be paid by the Company as compensation as aforesaid, take into consideration the additional liabilities and expenses entailed upon the Company in constructing the Railway and Works thereof without removing the said Church, and the costs of any arbitration shall be in the discretion of the arbitrator.

  (d) The Company shall at their own cost make good any damage or injury which may during the construction of the Railway and Works be caused to the structure of the said church or any part thereof, or at any time after the completion of the said railway and works in consequence of the construction, use, or want of repair thereof.

  (e) If the Company desire to obtain possession of the church for the purpose of constructing their Railway and Works before the amount to be paid to the owner as compensation shall have been determined by agreement or arbitration as herein provided, it shall be lawful for them to do so under the provisions of Section 85 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845.]

  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The EARL of MORLEY)explained that the object of the clause—which he admitted might have been more definitely expressed, was to give the Ecclesiastical Commissioners some control over the amount of the purchase money.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; a further Amendment moved, and negatived; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee (according to Order): the Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendment considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
  LORD HARRIShad the following Motion on the Paper with reference to the Local Government Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill, to move:—
  "That the Order made on the 16th day of March last, 'That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a Second time after Tuesday the 23rd day of June next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a."
  The noble Lord said he had to ask leave to withdraw the Motion which stood in his name. He was in hopes up to the last moment that the opposition manifested to this Bill would have been withdrawn. It was a very important Bill relating to sanitary improvement in Esher, a neighbourhood that was rapidly
  1562
  becoming very thickly populated. A House of Commons Committee considered the Bill, and notwithstanding the opposition brought to bear against it, passed it. The opposition had been renewed in their Lordships' House, and though not numerically important it brought the Bill within the category of an opposed Bill, and he understood the Chairman of Committees would object to the suspension of the Standing Order being approved by their Lordships at this period of the Session in the case of an opposed Bill. He was, therefore, under the circumstances, obliged to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
(Considered in Committee.)
[The EARL of MORLEY, CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES, in the Chair.]

LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  PART I.—LAND LAW.
  Clause 1,—
  PART I.—LAND LAW.

    FAIR RENTS.—AMENDMENT AS TO IMPROVEMENTS.
    (1.) Where the court fix a fair rent for a holding, the court shall ascertain and record in the form of a schedule, unless both landlord and tenant shall otherwise request—

    (a) the annual sum which should be the fair rent of the holding on the assumption that all improvements thereon were made or acquired by the landlord;

    (b) the condition of the holding and the buildings thereon;

    (c) the improvements made by the tenant wholly or partly by or at his cost, and with respect to each such improvement—

    (i) the nature, character, and present capital value thereof, and the increased letting value due thereto;

    (ii) the date (so near as can be ascertained) at which the same was made; and

    (iii) the deduction from the rent made on account thereof;

    (d) the extent (if any) to which the landlord has paid or compensated the tenant in respect of each such improvement;

    (e) the improvements made wholly or partly by or at the cost of, or acquired by, the landlord;

    1563

    (f) such other matters in relation to the holding as may be prescribed; and

    (g) the fair rent of the holding;

    and a certified copy of the record shall he sent by post to each party, and the record shall be admissible in evidence on its more production from the proper custody.
    (2.) No rent shall be allowed or made payable in respect of an improvement made by the tenant on a holding by reason only of the work constituting such improvement not being suitable to the holding.
    (3.) For the purpose of the Land Law Acts, a tenant shall be deemed to have been fully paid or compensated for every improvement made by him in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration.
    (4.) For the purpose of the Land Law Acts, a tenant shall not be deemed to have been paid or compensated for any improvement not made in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration, except to the extent to which the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, are of opinion that valuable consideration has been given by the landlord in respect of the improvement.
    (5.) A contract by a tenant not to claim, on quitting his holding, compensation for any improvement made by him, shall not authorise the allowance of any rent in respect of any improvement except to the extent to which the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, are of opinion that valuable consideration has been given by the landlord in respect of the entering into that contract.
    (6.) Section four of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, shall not authorise the allowance of any rent in respect of any improvement, provided that rent may be allowed in respect of an improvement made by the tenant, if made twenty years before the passing of the said Act, and not being a permanent building or reclamation of waste land.
    (7.) For the purpose of this section valuable consideration shall not be held to have been given by reason of the mere letting of the land on lease or otherwise or the mere enjoyment by the tenant of any improvement where the rent of the holding was not fixed, reduced, abated, or, after the improvement was made, allowed to remain unaltered with the object of recouping the tenant for his expenditure of capital and labour in making the improvement; and in the case of an improvement made in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration, such object shall be implied where not expressed.
    (8.) Sub-sections one, two, and four of section five of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, shall not have effect in the case of applications to fix a fair rent.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE)said, before his noble Friends Lord Mont-eagle and the Ear) of Winchilsea moved
    1564
    the Amendments standing in their names, he would venture to make a suggestion to them, and that was that their Amendments should stand over for consideration at a subsequent stage of the Bill. The Amendments were both of them of extreme importance—[cheers]—and dealt with vital points in this part of the Measure. Both proposals had only been in the hands of the Government since that morning, and he thought they might fairly ask for a few hours, at all events, in which to consider them upon their merits, and also with reference to their consistency with the other provisions of the Bill. Both Amendments contained an entirely new feature—namely, that in the second and subsequent applications to the Court for the determination of a fair rent, the Court was to take as its point of departure the fair rent fixed at the time of the first hearing, and that basis was only to be altered with reference to the fluctuation of prices in the meanwhile, and with reference to the landlord's improvements and certain other matters. Neither Amendment could possibly be accepted without material alteration, and he did not think it would be possible for the Government to accept as a basis for the second and subsequent determination of a fair rent the fair rent fixed upon the first application to the Court. They were assured by the highest authorities that the fair rents fixed during the first two or three years after the passing of the Land Act, when there was an immense pressure of work upon the Court, were fixed under circumstances which would render it virtually impossible that those rents should be regarded as a proper basis for the fixing of subsequent fair rents. He made that reservation in fairness to the two noble Lords, and he trusted they would agree to the Amendments being considered at a subsequent stage. ["Hear, hear!"]
    LORD MONTEAGLEconfessed there was some ground for the appeal of the noble Marquess, but he might perhaps be allowed to say that he thought that noble Lords from Ireland had some ground of complaint that they had been driven somewhat into a corner. [Cheers.] He was quite prepared to accede to the suggestion on condition that the Government would approach the consideration of these Amendments with a perfectly

    1565
    open mind, and no advantage be taken of him and his noble Friend to the detriment of their proposals.
    THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAobserved that, as his Amendment came at the end of the clause, he would ask to be allowed to reserve his decision until he had an opportunity of communicating with his noble Friends.
    VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN*VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN moved an Amendment providing that when the Court fixed a fair rent for a holding they should ascertain and record, in the form of a schedule,
    "The several classes of land found upon the holding, marking each class on a map, and showing in respect of each class the estimated area thereof, and the sum which should he the fair rent thereof (per acre or per class), on the assumption that all improvements thereon were made or acquired by the landlord."
    The noble Lord explained that the whole of his Amendments to Clause 1 were based on the assumption that if a man's property was to be taken from him he was at least entitled to an account. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Marquess, in introducing the Bill to the House, explained that what it proposed to do was to clear up the law where it was believed to be possible to do so, to deal with some hard cases which the experience of the last few years had brought to light, and, lastly, to remove some obstacles which had hitherto impeded the progress of land purchase legislation. He hoped, from the speech of the noble Marquess and that of Lord Ashbourne, he might conclude that there was a willingness on the part of the Government to give due weight to all reasonable Amendments. ["Hear, hear!"] The Amendments he had put down were designed to improve the Bill, to safeguard property, and to make the Bill a workable Bill. His proposals had been carefully checked by the best Irish expert opinion on the question of land valuation and the practical working of the fixing of judicial rents under the Act of 1881. Surely, in protecting the rights of property of the present landlords, they were equally protecting those of the future owners of land in Ireland—namely, the tenants who wish to buy that which, if Parliament destroyed the rights of property, would be perfectly useless to them or anyone else. ["Hear, hear!"] Lord Ashbourne said the present Bill did not harm the land-
    1566
    lord, and that its object was to amend, as far as possible, the mistakes of the Act of 1881. That being so, he proposed to show that the Bill could be amended in such a manner as to do away with some injustices that generally fell on the landlord. The great blot in the Act of 1881 was that it did not define a fair rent or the manner in which the Commissioners were to arrive at a fair rent. In 1864 no less an authority than Dr. Longfield pointed out, in his notes on valuation as edited by Lord Dufferin in his Book of Irish Emigration and the Tenure of Land in Ireland, the great difficulty in fixing a rent. This was what he said:—
    "What is most generally proposed is, that every tenant should be entitled to a valuation of his farm, and to hold his land forever at a rent to be determined by such valuation. Nothing can be more unjust than to substitute a valuation for a contract, but the injustice is not manifest at first sight, for the words appear fair. Why, it is said, should any tenant he required to pay more than the fair value for his farm? But every one who has any experience knows that nothing can be more uncertain and undetermined than the valuation of land. It is not uncommon to see two valuators differing enormously in their estimates, and yet neither suffering in reputation as if he had made a discreditable mistake. In this case all the mistakes would be made in favour of the tenant. If any mistake were made against him the remedy would be in his own hands, as he would not take the land; but indeed no such mistake would be made, for there would be a constant leaning in favour of the tenant. It is certain that the value as fixed under any tenant-right measure would be loss than half the fair rent which a solvent tenant would willingly pay for the land. It is obvious that as soon as the possession of land ceased to be a subject of contract by mutual agreement, the valuators would have no average market value to refer to, and would form their estimates on the wildest principles."
    Was not this exactly what had taken place under the fixing of the rent under the Act of 1881? The Report of Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committee of the House of Lords, Paragraph 17 up to and including Paragraph 23, dealt very fully with the views arrived at by the Committee. At that period and at that time they were most anxious that fixed principles and rules should be laid down. In Paragraph 17 they say:—
    "There is much reason to conclude that in some of the Sub-commissions, where reductions have been largest, a simple arithmetical process

    1567
    has been adopted for reducing the rents, by adding two, three or four varying estimates of the value together, and dividing by the number of such estimates. Examples of this will be found in the evidence of Smith, Baldwin, and Gray."
    In paragraph 18 it was said:—
    "The judicial settlement of rents under the Land Act was recommended to Parliament mainly to meet the cases, said to be comparatively rare and exceptional, in which land was over-rented or rack-rented in Ireland; but it would seem that in the arbitrary process of reduction which has been adopted, a landlord who has unduly raised the rent of his land, fares the best, for the reductions do not, as a rule, appear to be sensibly greater on estates high rented than on estates low rented.—(Atkinson, Bird, Belmore, Thompson, and Johnson.)"
    Paragraph 20 stated:—
    "Much dissatisfaction appears to be felt as to the manner in which these valuations take place.—(Gray and Smith.) The lands have frequently been visited at a time when, by reason of weather or floods, no proper inspection could be made.—(Bird and Sankey.) Formal evidence is given in Court, but much is or may be, afterwards said upon the ground in the way of statement and assertion."
    In paragraph 21 they said:—
    "Complaint is also made that there is no sufficient record showing what improvements have been proved to have been made by the tenant, and have been allowed for as affecting the rent. The Committee, in their first Report, expressed an opinion that some record should he made of such tenant's improvements as was proved in evidence; and they stated that they had hoard with satisfaction that the Commissioners had, since the commencement of the Inquiry, adopted a rule for the purpose of meeting this complaint, and that the Sub-Commissioners would, henceforward, be required to specify the improvements made by the tenant. The Committee regret to find from the evidence of Mr. Baldwin that the form adopted by the Commissioners in order to meet this complaint has proved useless; and they must express again their strong opinion that the respective interests of landlord and tenant cannot he properly dealt with, and the settlement of judicial rents cannot he placed upon a satisfactory basis, unless there was a Report to that effect."
    It was reported that Lord Salisbury, in 1883, said:—
    "There is not a word about the gross barbarism of reducing existing rents and tearing up existing contracts."
    "The noble and learned Lord Fitzgerald said that if it were any defects in the Irish Land Act and if there was a want of definition with respect to fair rent, and if the Sub-Commissioners had been led into error in consequence, this House ought to take the share of the blame because it did not attempt to guide them."
    1568
    The noble Marquess of Salisbury further said:—
    "I think the noble and learned Lord forgets the circumstances under which the House accepted the Land Act. I remember them well. Personally I was anxious to make an effort to introduce a definition of fair rent into the Bill, but I was always strongly discouraged by the unanimous voice of those Irish landlords whom I consulted; they said the Government have promised us, they have assured us that this Bill will make no change in the great mass of rents in Ireland, that it will only interfere with those rack renters whom we do not desire to protect, and therefore we think that it would be very unfortunate if any words were introduced which would have the effect of distorting a measure which they assure us will leave us harmless."
    And, his Lordship added, this is what the Cabinet, speaking through Mr. Bright's mouth said:—
    "My view of the operations of that particular clause is that the rents of Ireland will in nine cases out of ten be fixed as they are now."
    "What I wish to point out is that you cannot affix to the House of Lords any moral responsibility for having accepted this disastrous Act when they were led into a false and a deluded idea as to the effects of that Act by the assurance of the Government itself."
    Since this speech was made by Lord Salisbury 12 years had passed, and he was now in the position of being able to carry out what he was then anxious to do. It had been found that the forecast of the then Liberal Government had been totally erroneous. Again, Mr. Morley, in 1894, in the Land Acts Committee, stated that he considered the Lords Committee was quite right in asking for definite and full information as regarded fixing rent. Going back over the last 30 years they saw the predictions of the best authorities as to what would happen verified, and in the experience of the past and present lay the best indications of how to amend the Land Act of 1881. He did not know that he could do better, having shown the general consensus of opinion since 1864 that full reasons should be supplied by Sub-Commissioners on fixing judicial rents, and in view of the fact that the Act was to amend the evils of the Act of 1881, and to deal with hard cases than to show them at least one evil under the Act, and give them one hard case that had occurred under the existing procedure. He would not trouble their Lordships with full details again of the three cases he gave them on the 17th ult., but only

    1569
    give one case shortly. It was the case of Brown, landlord, Hughes, tenant. The rent in 1861 was £13 4s. 6d. for a term of 12 years. It was raised to £14 4s. 6d. at the expiration of that term, with the tenant's consent. The rent fixed under the Act of 1881 was £11. It was revised this year and reduced to £6. This was for 9 acres of mixed land, on which there were no buildings and practically no improvements. This was the present position of the landlord, who was a poor man and whose father purchased 11 acres, of which this holding formed part, in 1858 for £216, subject to a yearly rent to Trinity College of £5 8s. 2d. For this outlay he had at present the two acres of land he described as boggy, and 11s. 2d. per annum, while the tenant, who paid nothing at all, had got 9 acres of land at a rent of £6, being £3 10s. under the Government valuation, and he could sell the same in the open market before the second fixing at say £10 an acre, equal to £90; and after this last fixing, say at £15 an acre, or say £135, and he was told that land in that neighbourhood had fetched as much as £23 an acre for tenant-right. Therefore, they saw that the landlord, who in this ease sunk his savings, had lost by the process of the Act of 1881 practically all his capital, though his liability to pay the rent to Trinity College remains the same, while the tenant, who paid nothing, had acquired a sum which represented about 66 per cent. of the landlord's property, and this for no improvement or money outlay on his part. Was this what it was intended the Act of 1881 should do? If not, surely the Government would admit that such a state of things should be amended, and he failed to see that the Bill before them dealt with this. A question arose at this point: "Is it the Act or the Administration of the Act of 1881 that is accountable, and has it arisen from no defined principle being laid down, and that the Commissioners had no standard of value to go by and formed their estimates on the wildest principles?" On that occasion he would only deal with the procedure under the Act, while saying that if Parliament was a party to the transfer from one man to another, in this case of 66 per cent. of his property, it seemed to him that a clear case for compensa-
    1570
    tion was made out, because "agricultural depression" could not be relied upon to account for the loss, seeing that the rent of the incoming tenant would, at 5 per cent. on outlay for purchase money, not for any improvements, or money outlay of the original tenant, bring the rent up to £13 10s—the original rent as mutually agreed upon in 1861, and proving thereby that "fair rent" and "free sale" were impossible concurrently, and proving also that under the Land Acts "fair rents," except for the sitting tenant, could not be fixed so long as free sale existed. It might be well to mention here that rents generally were not raised in Ireland during the years of high prices from 1865 to 1878, as shown by the schedules published by the Irish Commission, when increases of rent could only be proved in about seven per cent. of the cases adjudicated upon. How did the Bill rectify this glaring injustice? In every other arrangement where the Government have considered it necessary to take from one man for the benefit of the community, compensation had always been awarded, and Dr. Longfield, on page 308 of "Irish Emigration and the Tenure of Land in Ireland," in dealing with this question, following up the quotation as regarded valuation already alluded to, put the case in this way:—
    "While no class of persons would derive any advantage from the proposed change, it may be fairly asked why should the landlords be robbed of their clear rights for the benefit, not of any class, but of the individuals merely who happen at present to be the occupying tenants? If the landlords are to be robbed it should be done for the benefit of the community at large, and not of any individuals; least of all the individuals who alone would benefit by the proceeding."
    And it might be asked, why should the landlord be robbed for a special individual? The noble and learned Lord asked the other night, where was the landlord affected by this Bill? He would ask, where were the existing injustices removed in this Bill? There was one point which took this question out of being merely a landlords' question. The reductions of rent in Ireland affected the taxpayers of this country in this way. If rents were to be reduced 30 per cent. for the next 15 years in Ireland, that meant, at £3,000,000 a year, that £45,000,000 of taxable property was to be wiped out. Had not the taxpayers

    1571
    of the United Kingdom a right to an account of where it was gone? The value of the Amendments which he had the honour to propose depended absolutely upon the schedule being so framed and abided by in all fixing of rents that the rent should not either be reduced or increased in respect of anything which did not appear in the schedule. He asked if, under the Land Act of 1881, their property was liable to be taken from them, and who could dispute that that was the case, had they not even the right left to them to ask for an account? He felt so strongly on this point as a matter of bare justice that he hoped Her Majesty's Government might see their way to grant the Amendments, so that any appeal to their Lordships' sense in the matter might be unnecessary.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid he had considerable sympathy with the object the noble Lord had in putting down his Amendments. The noble Lord desired to obtain from the Court of the Land Commission a fuller and more detailed record of the method by which it arrived at its conclusions. In the Bill the Government had attempted to achieve something in this direction. For instance, the first clause contained directions to the Court entirely different from any which it had yet received, directions which compelled the Court to disclose a large number of the particulars by which it was guided in arriving at its decisions. But the noble Lord desired to go a great deal further. He wished the Court to be directed to mark the different classes of land upon a map, and to assign to the different areas, according to their class, the rent which the Court desired to put upon them. In another Amendment the noble Lord desired that what was known as the pink paper, which was now issued by a rule of the Commissioners' Court, should be embodied in the Act of Parliament, and made part of the record. The Government had anxiously considered these proposals, and the conclusion at which they were constrained to arrive was that, if they asked for all of these things, they would absolutely overburden the Court of the Land Commission with minute work of a kind which it would not be able to undertake, unless at a
    1572
    very great cost of time and trouble, and by means of a very large and expensive addition to the staff of the Commission. They were strongly dissuaded from imposing on the Court such minute duties as those proposed. If in other ways they were able to meet the wishes of the noble Lord, and to supply the parties engaged in the proceedings with even fuller information than that which would be given to them under the Bill, they would gladly consider proposals to that effect. It seemed to him perfectly reasonable that the schedule to which the noble Lord referred, and the maps which the Sub-Commissioners already filled up on the occasions when they inspected the holdings should be made a part of the record and should be accessible to the parties. It might even be arranged that anyone desiring a copy of those documents should be allowed to obtain it on payment of a moderate fee; but he confessed he did not see his way on behalf of the Government to accept the proposal of the noble Lord as it stood on the Paper.
    LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid there was a fault at the root of the whole valuation. On the great majority of estates with small holdings, say, of 10 acres, there were 10 fields. It was impossible to expect anyone to go through all the valuations.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he heard with regret the reply of the noble Marquess. The request of his noble Friend was one of a very simple and ordinary character.["Hear, hear!"] On the Second Reading of the Bill he stated, and he repeated now, that it was not just to the landowning classes that there should be some elaborate statement made by the Sub-Commissioners giving their reasons for the extraordinary reductions which had recently taken place. [Cheers.] It, perhaps, might be said by the Sub-Commissioners that those great reductions had been granted because there had been a great decrease in certain products on which the existence of the farms depended. If that be the case let them know it. The Irish landlords had not the slightest objection to granting reductions as large as English landlords had granted where those reductions were necessary—["Hear, hear!"]—but what

    1573
    they did complain of was that reductions were forced upon them which they maintained were unnecessary, and for which no reason whatever was given. [Cheers.] They asked for no concession at the hands of the Government, but simply for such information as could not be honestly and fairly denied. The noble Marquess could not, he told them, accede to the request, because he considered he would overburden the Sub-Commissioners with work. They could not accept that as an explanation. ["Hear, hear!"] Were the landowning classes of Ireland to be ruined in order that the Sub-Commissoners might not be overworked? [Cheers.] The reductions had been enormous in certain parts of Ireland. The other day he ventured to prove that agriculture was not depressed in Ireland as it was in England. He proved that, although there was a slight decrease in certain products on certain farms in certain parts of Ireland there was an increase in other products. He maintained that the decrease of the products to which he alluded was nothing like the decrease that had taken place in the products in certain parts of England, and yet the compulsory reductions, for which no reason whatever was given by the Sub-Commissioners in Ireland were as large as the reductions in England. The average rent per acre on his property was not more that 16s. The farms were all worked on the five-course system, and therefore on a 50-acre farm the white crops would be 20 acres, green crops 10 acres, hay crop 10 acres, and the grass crop 10 acres. For a 50-acre farm the tenant paid a rent of £40, and the gross earnings would be £430, therefore the ratio of the rent was less than one-tenth of the whole earnings of the farm. Why should the whole of the reduction be placed on the one-tenth? He maintained that there was not that depression in Ireland which there had been in England, and no one would say that in a case of this kind the tenant was over-rented. If a farm did become vacant there was enormous competition to get it, and the tenant-right paid was higher than it had been for years past. ["Hear, hear!"] Why did he weary them with these details? If a tenant of his took him into Court—and he was
    1574
    happy to say that had not occurred—he maintained that he had a right to ask the Sub-Commissioners to tell him why he reduced the rent. [Cheers.] What would anyone say if a tradesman sent in an account without giving the items? Of course payment would be refused absolutely. Why should a landlord's rent be reduced without giving him the items? This condition of prosperity was not confined to Ulster. Recently a farm in Tipperary, of 30 acres, at £26 per annum, was sold for the enormous sum of £620. Did that look like deterioration? Would the landlord in Essex or Lincolnshire not gladly accept 23 years' purchase? They were told that these particulars could not be supplied because the Sub-Commissioners were overburdened, but this was an excuse they could not accept. He regarded this clause, next to purchase, as the keystone of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] They had a right to know why these reductions were made, because they maintained that the condition of Ireland did not require them. If the condition of Ireland was agriculturally as serious as some parts of England they would not say a word, for Irish landlords, who had been always generous in the past, would be generous in the future. He hoped his noble Friend would divide the Committee, and that their Lordships would almost unanimously follow him into the Lobby. ["Hear, hear!"]
    LORD MACNAGHTENquoted the evidence of Mr. Greer, Sub-Commissioner, who was appointed in 1881, and who at Mr. Morley's Committee, in reply to Mr. T. W. Russell, said he could not see why particulars should not be given in the pink paper of the amount allowed for improvements. Mr. Greer saw no objection to the giving of every information to both landlord and tenant. ["Hear, hear!"]
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (LORD ASHBOURNE)said that as time progressed after the Act of 1881 it was found just and reasonable to give particulars, and now the pink paper gave an enormous amount of information. His noble Friend had quoted Mr. Greer, who had said that there was no objection to the giving of information, he thought, as to the particular item of improvements.
    LORD MACNAGHTEN: No, no; every information for the use of the landlord and tenant. The special question related only to improvements. [Cheers.]
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid that the particular information referred to by Mr. Greer related to improvements; but, in addition to that, there was a great mass of information given in the pink paper. No Bill, however, could suggest an exhaustive statement, and the Amendment would render necessary a great enlargement of the staff and cause, it might be, great delay. It was not desirable to increase the number of Sub-Commissioners more than was absolutely necessary. With every sympathy with giving information, and with every desire to make the evidence accessible, he could not but say that if the Amendment were pressed it would lead, not only to expense, but to serious delay in investigation and in giving decisions, and would result, not in a breakdown of the machinery, but in great and serious complications in its working.
    THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid that as an English Peer he was not dependent on Irish rents, but he thought the proposal of the noble Viscount a most reasonable one. It was quite indefensible, when they were depriving people of any right of appeal on questions of value in regard to their property, to enter into the question of whether this would add a little more expense or cause a little more delay. That might be called a pettifogging objection. It was not contended that it was impossible to form a fair and strict schedule, nor had they to consider whether a few more Sub-Commissioners might be created or not. The real difficulty was that they had no security that Sub-Commissioners might not be appointed in the future by a Government which might take a very extreme view of these questions, and that they might practically, by a silent revolution, deprive the landlords of the whole of their property. [Cheers.] There could be no objection to both parties knowing distinctly what the Sub-Commissioners took into account in fixing a fair rent. He had heard that some of the Sub-Commissioners were actually allowing, as a set-off against the rent, the value of the tenant-right. They had
    1576
    a strong case in asking for fair and complete details.
    THE EARL OF MAYOsaid it had been objected that this proposal would increase the number of Sub-Commissioners and cause delay, but there was not the least difficulty in getting any amount of Sub-Commissioners in Ireland. The pink schedule gave the classes of land only, and they wanted the value put opposite.
    THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid the reasons given by the noble Lords below were unsatisfactory and inadequate. They could only conclude that the real ground on which they refused this request was because they had no reasons to give. The landlords of Ireland, until they were furnished with the reasons they asked for, would remain, he thought, under the impression that the way in which the Commissioners arrived at their decisions was simply by a process of the wildest guesses.
    LORD MONTEAGLEsaid he was a supporter of this Bill, but he did not think the Government had made out a sufficiently strong case on this particular point. He could understand that there was a great deal to be said for the old system of the Act of 1881, but if they once departed from that, and asked the Sub-Commissioners to give reasons, surely those reasons should be as full and accurate as possible. The arguments as regarded expense and delay did not seem to him to be a sufficient answer.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEdid not think it was fair to charge them with having met the suggestion of noble Lords behind with anything like a blank non possumus. They had done nothing of the kind. In the first place, in the Bill itself they had provided that the Court should give a great deal of that information which noble Lords were so anxious to obtain. Besides this there was the pink paper, which was a very full document, and he was informed that the parties in cases of this kind could already obtain access to the map used by the Sub-Commissioners and to the pink paper on payment of a shilling. They had objected to imposing as an obligation on the Sub-Commissioners the duty of giving to both parties this mass of minute information, not because they

    1577
    were afraid of overworking them, but because it would be necessary in that ease to largely increase the number of these officials. The noble Lords said they could get any number of Sub-Commissioners, but was he sure that they would all be men whom he would like to employ to fix fair rents on his property? He was assured that the changes which they were now making in the Bill would already involve a very considerable increase in the number of the Sub-Commissioners, and, beyond all question, if the proposal were adopted in its entirety, they would have to make a further increase. That was the reason why they regarded the proposal with suspicion.
    VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTsaid they knew what the Sub-Commissioners were under the former Act, and that was why they were so anxious in regard to this question.
    THE DUKE OF ABERCORNsaid the Government were willing to give the House a great deal of the information they sought; why, then, should they not give them the whole of that information? He thought their demand was a very reasonable one. Apparently this was a question of £ s. d., but the Government did not consider the question of £ s. d. with regard to the reductions of the landlords' rents. They only asked for absolute and full particulars with regard to the fixing and reduction of rents, and they thought they ought to have them at the hands of the present Government.
    THE EARL OF MAYOsaid these particulars were in the books of the Sub-Commissioners.
    The House divided:—

    CONTENTS

    …

    125

    NOT-CONTENTS

    …

    67

    DIVISION LIST:—CONTENTS.

    Grafton, D.

    Bristol, M.

    Newcastle, D.

    Northampton, M.

    Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

    Annesley, E.

    Bandon, E.

    1578

    Belmore, E.

    Ebury, L.

    Caledon, E.

    Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne)

    Carnwath, E.

    Dartrey, E.

    Fingall, E. (E. Fingall.)

    De La Warr, E.

    Grinstead, E. (E. Enniskillen.)

    de Montalt, E.

    Effingham, E.

    Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

    Essex, E.

    Harlech, L.

    Ferrers, E.

    Headley, L.

    Fortescue, E.

    Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

    Haddington, E.

    Inchiquin, L.

    Hardwicke, E.

    Iveagh, L.

    Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

    Kenmare, E. (E. Kenmare.)

    Huntingdon, E.

    Kenry, E (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

    Ilcheater, E.

    Kilmorey, E.

    Kenyon, L.

    Lanesborough, E.

    Kesteven, L.

    Lucan, E.

    Kilmaine, E.

    Mayo, E. [TELLER.]

    Leconfield, L.

    Portarlington, E.

    Macnaghten, E.

    Portsmouth, E.

    Massy, L.

    Romney, E.

    Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

    Rosse, E.

    Methuen, L.

    Rosslyn, E.

    Middleton, L.

    Sandwich, E.

    Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

    Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

    Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

    Temple, E.

    Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

    Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

    Monteagle of Brandon, L

    Verulam, E.

    Muskerry, E.

    Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

    O'Neill, L.

    Bangor, V.

    Oranmore and Browne, L.

    Falmouth, V.

    Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

    Portman, V.

    Powerscourt, V.

    Penrhyn, L.

    Templetown, V.

    Plunket, L.

    Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

    Aldenham, L.

    Ampthill, L.

    Rathdonnell, L.

    Annaly, L.

    Rathmore, L

    Ardilaun, L.

    Rossmore, L.

    Bolton, L.

    Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

    Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

    Seaton, L.

    Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

    Sherborne, L.

    Calthorpo, L.

    Shute, E. (V. Barrington.)

    Carew, L.

    Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

    Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

    Sinclair, L.

    Castletown, L [TELLER.]

    Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

    Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

    Stalbridge, L.

    Stanley of Alderley, L.

    Clarina, L.

    Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

    Clifton, E. (E. Darnley.)

    Clonbrock, L.

    Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

    Cloncurry, E.

    Suffield, E.

    Colchester, L.

    Swansea, L.

    Connemara, L.

    Talbot de Malabide, L.

    Crofton, L.

    Templemore, L.

    De Freyne, L.

    Tollemache, L.

    de Ros, L.

    Tyrone, E. (M. Waterford)

    de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci)

    Deramore, L.

    Ventry L.

    Digby, L.

    Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

    Dorchester, L.

    Dunalley, L.

    Wenlock, L.

    Dunleath, L.

    Wynford, E.

    1579

    NOT CONTENTS.

    Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

    Burghclere, L.

    Burton, L.

    Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

    Churchill, L. [TELLER.]

    Crawshaw, L.

    Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

    Emly, L.

    Glenesk, L.

    Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

    Harris, L.

    Hawkesbury, L.

    Bedford, D.

    Hersehell, L.

    Ailesbury, M.

    Hylton, L.

    Exeter, M.

    James, L.

    Lansdowne, M.

    Kensington, L.

    Salisbury, M.

    Kinnaird, L.

    Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

    Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

    Lawrence, L.

    Lathom, L. (L. Chamberlain.)

    Manners, L.

    Monk Bretton, L.

    Camperdown, E.

    Monkswell, L.

    Clarendon, E.

    Pirbright, L.

    Coventry, E.

    Playfair, L.

    Cowper, E.

    Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

    Cranbrook, E.

    Dartmouth, E.

    Rayleigh, L.

    Dudley, E.

    Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

    Howe, E.

    Jersey, E.

    Rothschild, L.

    Morley, E.

    Rowton, L.

    Saint Germans, E.

    Sackville, L.

    Selborne, E.

    Save and Sele, L.

    Spencer, E.

    Stanmore, L.

    Stamford, E.

    Thring, L.

    Waldegrave, E. [TELLER.]

    Tredegar, L.

    Tweedmouth, L.

    Llandaff, V.

    Wandsworth, L.

    Oxenbridge, V.

    Wantage, L.

    Ashbourne, L.

    Welby, E.

    Balfour, L.

    Windsor, L.

    Belper, L.

    Wolverton, L.

    Amendment agreed to.
    VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN*VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN moved, in paragraph (a), Sub-section (1), after the word "all," to insert the words "buildings and."
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid that he would like to ask the noble Lord whether he thought it worth while to press the Amendment, which the Government certainly could not accept. The word "improvements" in the Bill already included "buildings." If the word "buildings" were used in the way proposed by the Amendment it might lead to confusion as to what was included in the word "improvements."
    VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNsaid that after the explanation of the noble Marquess he did not wish to press his Amendment any further.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    LORD MONTEAGLE, in whose name Amendments stood upon the
    1580
    Paper, after the word "improvements," in the same paragraph, to insert the word "made," and after the word "thereon," to insert the words "before the passing of this Act," said that these Amendments were merely consequential on his first Amendment, and therefore he would not move them.
    VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN*VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN moved, in paragraph (a), Sub-section (1), to insert, after the word "landlord," the words—
    "the fair rent so declared shall be the sum which in the opinion of the Court a solvent tenant would pay, one year with another, during a statutory term, for the same holding if the holding were in the landlord's hands, and in proper condition."
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid he was afraid that this was an Amendment that he could not possibly accept. He believed that it was almost universally admitted by Irish landlords and their friends that a fair rent was something less than the value of the farm would be if it were in the hands of the landlord. It was the difference between the fair rent and the competition rent which left room for the occupation interest of the tenant. If the Amendment were accepted, it would vitally alter the whole foundation upon which the fixing of a fair rent was to proceed.
    VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNasked whether the noble Marquess could consent to omit altogether the word "fair" in application to rent?
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid that he could not adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord, which would render it necessary to make many alterations in the Bill.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    LORD CASTLETOWN LORD CASTLETOWN moved, in paragraph (b), Sub-section (1), after the word "condition," to insert the words "as to cultivation, deterioration, or otherwise." His object in moving the Amendment was to make clear and define the meaning of the word "condition," and of helping good husbandry. It would be a great advantage if the Sub-Commissioners, when they came upon a farm, were empowered to determine whether it had been well cultivated or had purposely been allowed to

    1581
    deteriorate in order that a low rent might be fixed. He was sorry to say that in some cases that had come to his knowledge the land had been carefully prepared for the visit of the Sub-Commissioner. In one case on his own estate a tenant had had the audacity to inform his agent, in reply to his remonstrance as to the condition of the farm, that the Sub-Commissioner was coming to fix a fair rent, and that he was preparing the land for his visit. In another case a farm had been meadowed for nine years on the understanding that a fair rent would be fixed. The unfortunate landlord purchased the tenant-right from the tenant at a high figure, because it was contiguous to his demesne, and had to lay out a lot of money in improving the place. In another case a curious system of deterioration was carried out. A tenant allowed a grass farm of 100 acres to become overrun with rabbits, and it became valueless. He then went into Court, and when the Sub-Commissioners saw the farm they brought down the rent considerably; but the moment the fair rent was fixed the tenant killed off all the rabbits. [Laughter.] He thought his Amendment, if accepted, would tend to stimulate good husbandry.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid chat the intention of the sub-section was that the Court should report on the condition of the holding in regard to its treatment by the tenant. But if the noble Lord thought the sub-section would be improved by his Amendment, the Government had no objection to its acceptance.
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE moved, in Paragraph (c), Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "by the tenant," and after the words "or partly by" to insert the words "the tenant."
    Amendment agreed to.
    VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN*VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN moved, in Paragraph (i), Sub-section (1), after the word "character" to insert the word "cost." The paragraph moved would then read:—
    "(i) the nature, character, cost and present capital value thereof, and the increased letting value due thereto."
    1582
    The object of the Amendment was to obtain a little further information.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEthought the Amendment would be unworkable. It might be impossible to ascertain by any means, or from anybody, what the original cost of improvements was in many cases.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN*VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN moved in Paragraph (f) Sub-section (1), after the word "may" to insert the words "have been taken into account in fixing the fair rent thereof, or as may."
    Amendment agreed to.
    VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN*VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN moved, in Paragraph (f), Sub-section (1), to insert after the word "prescribed"—
    "from time to time, including all such particulars as are set forth in the form in the Second schedule to this Act (so far as such particulars are not inconsistent with the other provisions of this section), such form being a copy of the form (commonly known as the 'Pink Schedule ') which the Assistant Commissioners have for some time previous to the passing of this Act been required by the Land Commission to fill up when fixing the fair rent of a holding."
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the point involved in this Amendment had already been discussed at considerable length on the previous Amendment of the noble Lord. The Government remained of the same opinion, but, if the noble Lord persisted with the Amendment, they would not go to a Division.
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE moved, in Sub-section (3), after the words "Land Law Acts," to insert the words, "as amended by this Act."
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE moved, in Sub-section (4), after the words "Land Law Acts," to insert the words, "as amended by this Act."
    Amendment agreed to.
    LORD INCHIQUIN*LORD INCHIQUIN moved, after Subsection (7), to insert the following new sub-section:—
    "(8) No deduction shall be made from the fair rent named in this section by reason of the mere right of occupation vested in the tenant."

    1583
    The object of the Amendment was to prevent Sub-Commissioners taking into account the goodwill that might be created on the farm. The reductions which had been made in the rent by the Sub-Commissioners, especially in cases which had recently come into Court, could only be accounted for by supposing that the goodwill was taken into account by the Sub-Commissioners. This difficulty was foreseen during the discussions on the Act of 1881, but Mr. Gladstone declared in the House of Commons:—
    "this was an idea which the Government had always emphatically denied—namely, that the value of the tenant-right in the holding was to be deducted from the rent otherwise due to the landlord."
    In spite of that declaration, the tenant's interest was taken into account in the fixing of the fair rent. A Sub-Commissioner was asked before the Morley Committee whether, in fixing a fair rent, there was any deduction made for the tenant's interest? "Oh, yes," he replied, "it affects the amount of the fair rent materially;" and he went on to say:—
    "by most Sub-Commissioners in fixing rent, whether inside or outside Ulster, that right is recognised generally."
    Words should be inserted in the Bill to make it clear that the tenant's interest was not to be taken into account. Otherwise, suppose a fair rent fixed on a holding was £100 a year and a tenant came in having paid £500, and the reduction on account of the tenant's right was £25, that would bring his rent down to £75. It was clear that if, during the judicial term, or at the end of it, some other tenant were to buy from him and give another £500, the Commissioners would have to take into account the question of £1,000 having been paid; and no less than £50 would be deducted from the landlord's rent. Thereby he would only receive £50 instead of the fair rent of £100. This appeared to be simply a question of bringing about, by degrees—sometimes slow, sometimes rapid—the "prairie value "of which they heard so much. It could not possibly go on without it. So he thought he had just reason for asking the House to insert words which would make it clear that the occupation interest or tenant-right should not be
    1584
    taken into consideration in fixing the fair rent.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid he believed the point the noble Lord wished to guard against was really guarded against already. The fair rent, as he had before observed, was notoriously something less than the full competitive or market rent, and it was the difference between these two rents which left room for the occupation interest of the tenant. The matter rested not only upon the practice of the Courts and the obiter dicta of legal authorities, but upon more solid ground still, because Section 8 of the Land Act of 1881—a section which was inserted in that House—seemed to him to meet the point raised by the noble Lord. "The amount of money or money's worth that may have been paid or given for the tenancy of any holding by the tenant or his predecessors in title shall not of itself, apart from other considerations, be deemed to be ground for reducing or increasing the rent of the holding." With those words in the Statute-book it was superfluous to amend the Bill by introducing what was, after all, a very controversial and puzzling point in the terms the noble Lord had proposed.
    LORD MACNAGHTENasked how the point could be controversial and puzzling, when Lord Lansdowne said the purpose of the Amendment was safeguarded in other Acts. He agreed that it was so safeguarded, but that was no objection to inserting in this Act plain words which everyone could understand. They had it on evidence that some of the Sub-Commissioners had done the very thing the noble Lord said they ought not to do. Unless it were provided against in the Bill, they would fall into the same lamentable error again. ["Hear!"]
    LORD INCHIQUINsaid he could not see the force of the argument that the tenant-right was made up of the difference between the letting value of land in the landlord's and tenant's hands. All through the south of Ireland there was no such thing as tenant-right before the Act of 1881, which gave the right. On his own estate the claim of tenant-right was guarded against. To say that the landlord should not get fair rent because there was some other right intervening was quite wrong. The landlord claimed fair rent irrespective of what was given by

    1585
    the tenant. The other day on his estate as much as 20 years' purchase was given for tenant-right. Enormous sums had been given for it, and if it was to be considered by the Sub-Commissioners it was clear how the large reductions of rent came about. The other day on his estate a large farm came up for revision. A judicial rent had already been fixed. The farm was originally valued at £500 a year. This was reduced to £445 in 1881. Although no improvement had been made by the tenant the rent had recently been reduced another £100, or 23 or 24 per cent. In both cases there would be an appeal.
    VISCOUNT MIDLETONagreed with the noble Lord who had just spoken. He himself knew cases in which tenant-right had not been allowed in any circumstances. The Sub-Commissioners fixed £300 as the value of the tenant-right of a man who had only been in occupation four years, who paid nothing to enter on that portion of his holding, had done nothing beyond the ordinary husbandry, who had not drained or who fenced the land, but had simply the right of occupancy which accrued to him three years before the Act of 1881 was passed, and for the fact that he was actually on the land the Sub-Commissioners fixed £300—six years' rent at £50—as the value of the tenant-right, although they were well aware that on that particular estate tenant-right had never before been allowed or asked for.
    Amendment agreed to.
    LORD ARDILAUN*LORD ARDILAUN moved, in Subsection (8), to insert the word "one" after "Sub-sections." He explained that Sub-section 5 of the Land Act of 1870 changed the presumption with regard to improvements in favour of the tenant, excepting six cases, the first of which, alone he proposed to retain—when such an improvement had been made previous to the time at which the holding in reference to which the claim was made was conveyed on actual sale to the landlord or those through whom he derived his title.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the Amendment was a sound one, but it would require further amendment. In line 6, after "1870," he would propose to insert the words "and Sub
    1586
    section (1) of the same section in the case of sales after the passing of the Landlord and Tenant Act," 1870.
    Amendment agreed to—
    And words "and Sub-section (1) of the same section in the case of sales after the passing of the Act" of 1870, inserted.
    Both Amendments agreed to; Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand.
    THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN moved the insertion of the following clause after Clause 1:—
    2.—(1.) At any time, on an application by the tenant to hare a fair rent fixed, after the required particulars have been ascertained and recorded in accordance with Section one, the landlord and tenant may agree together for the purchase by the landlord of the improvements made wholly or partly by or at the cost of the tenant, and the Land Commission shall, immediately on proof that the agreed price has been paid to the tenant, make a vesting order vesting the said improvements in the landlord, and from the date of such vesting order the fair rent of the holding shall be the rent recorded in the schedule under Section one, Sub-section one, clause(a).
    (2.) The Land Commission shall, on the application of the landlord for the purpose of carrying out such purchase as aforesaid, advance and pay to the tenant such agreed price, not exceeding in amount the capital value of the said improvements, after deducting the extent (if any) to which the landlord has paid or compensated the tenant in respect of such improvements, as recorded in accordance with Section one, and the amount so advanced shall be a debt due from the landlord and shall be a first charge on the holding.
    (3.) Such advance shall be repaid to the Land Commission by an annuity calculated in the same way as a purchase annuity under the Land Purchase Acts as amended by this Act, and the provisions of the said Acts as amended by this Act shall so far as they are applicable apply as if a purchase under this section were a purchase under the said Acts.
    (4.) The amount of such annuity shall be paid to the Land Commission half-yearly by the tenant and shall be deducted by him from the amount of his rent due to the landlord.
    (5) All advances made by the Land Commission under this section shall be made from the surplus of the Irish Church Fund.
    The noble Lord said the object of the clause was to endeavour to hasten that happy time when Ireland would be

    1587
    relieved from the system of no ownership or dual ownership which now oppressed her. In his opinion that system had entirely paralysed the industry and effort of both landlord and tenant and discouraged them from improvements of the soil, and he thought their Lordships would agree with him that the sooner they returned to a sounder system of tenure the better for Ireland. The natural and the best way by which that could be accomplished was by encouraging occupiers to buy holdings, but up to the present, occupying tenants had not shown any very vehement desire to acquire the freehold of their holdings. Purchase had been, comparatively speaking, a failure, and he could see no reason in logic or common sense why the assistance of the State in the matter of purchase should be confined to only one of the parties. It was, in his opinion, best that the tenant should buy. But they must have regard to the condition the country might be in when the present occupiers bad become owners, and when, of course, as must inevitably happen, the land would begin to accumulate in the hands of the comparatively few again, and another landlord class must arise. Whether it would be for the benefit of the country or not, he did not intend to prophecy. Judging by past experience, he thought it must be admitted that the class of landlords who were likely to arise from occupiers would not be more beneficial to the country than the class of men who had hitherto been owners of the soil. In a matter of this kind they must look to the distant future. He believed that in the interest of the country it was desirable, and it was the duty of any Government to take every legitimate and proper means to retain as many as possible of the present landlord class of Ireland in that country. He believed it would be absolutely essential for the welfare of the country whenever self-government—in the sense they understood it in England—was applied to Ireland, and as purchase extended and the land accumulated, that, at any rate, a considerable number of the present landlords and their descendants should remain in the country. Why, under these circumstances, should the Bill not give equal facility to the landlords to buy the tenant's improvements that it gave to the tenant to buy the
    1588
    landlord's interest? Surely it would be to the advantage of the tenant. At present, if the tenants required capital they could only obtain it by borrowing at a high rate of interest on their security, or by selling their interest and leaving the country. He did not want them to be obliged to sell and leave the country, and he did not want them to embarrass themselves by borrowing money at a ruinous rate of interest. If this clause were accepted, if a tenant did not want to buy the landlord's interest and did not want to sell his own interest and go, it was possible he might agree with the landlord that the latter might buy up his (the tenant's) improvements, by which the tenant would obtain ready money, which would be useful to him in stocking his land and in the ordinary business of husbandry. It would in that way benefit the tenant. It would also benefit the landlord to the extent that it would relieve him from the incubus of the present system of no-ownership that obtained in Ireland. Practically, the whole interest would be his; it would be entirely so after the instalments were paid, and that would be greatly to his advantage and benefit. He did not pretend to believe that if the clause were accepted it would be largely operative; it would be adopted, perhaps, only in the case of estates that were managed and administered after the English fashion and custom. But, at any rate, it would deprive the tenant of nothing, it would leave all his present privileges and advantages intact; it would finance him if he required capital for the management of his holding, and, what was more important, it would do something definite towards extricating the country from the intolerable mess into which it had been plunged by attempting to institute a system of tenure not founded on logic, common sense, or sound views of political economy. He had stated that the advances to be made by the Land Commission should be made from the surplus of the Irish Church Fund. He had not the slightest idea whether there was any surplus. But obviously this was a mere prous fraud, and he had simply followed the precedent set in the Act of 1887. Of course, the proper words, as regarded the money, would be inserted by the other House. His object was that, whatever money

    1589
    was available for the purpose of purchase should be available for enabling the landlord to acquire the tenant's improvements in the same way as it was available to the tenant to buy up the landlord's interest. He begged to move the clause.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the noble Lord had presented his scheme in a very attractive mode, and no doubt many of their Lordships would agree with him in wishing they could accelerate the time when the present confusion of ownership of Irish land should have ceased to exist. He was not quite sure whether this proposal would affect that object, because the tenant would still be left with a saleable interest in his holding, or, in other words, there would still be a dual ownership of land. He did not, however, desire to argue the clause upon its merits, but would merely put it to the noble Lord whether it was desirable to introduce this proposal, which was an entirely novel one, into the Bill at this stage of the Session? It was a proposal to advance money, not as it was now advanced, for the purchase of the land out and out, but for the purchase of a comparatively limited interest in the land—namely, the interest represented by the improvements made by the tenant. For that purpose the noble Lord depended upon the Irish Church Fund, but he had himself told them, with great candour, that the financial basis of his scheme was something like a "pious fraud." He was afraid there would be little chance of carrying so intricate a proposal to a successful issue, and he hoped the noble Lord would be content with having raised the matter in Parliament.
    THE EARL OF DUNRAVENwould not press his Amendment after what the noble Marquess had said. At the same time he ventured to express the hope that when this question had to be considered by Parliament again—as it infallibly would have to be before very long—whatever Government might then be in power would very seriously consider whether it was not advisable to assist the landlord to buy up the tenants' improvements in the same way that they assisted the tenants to buy the landlords' interest, in order that they might approach as near as possible to real
    1590
    ownership at the earliest possible moment.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    LORD INCHIQUIN*LORD INCHIQUIN moved to insert the following clause after Clause 1:—
    "Any enactment prohibiting the resumption of a holding or part of a holding until the expiration of the first statutory term in a tenancy shall apply only where the term began before the commencement of this Act."
    This clause, he said, was in the Bill in the House of Commons, but for some reason was withdrawn by the Government. He considered the clause was an important one and ought not to be allowed to drop. Under the Land Act of 1881, a special provision was made that, under certain circumstances and for certain purposes, the landlord should, by applying to the Land Commission, be allowed to resume possession of a holding. That gave the landlord the right to apply in certain circumstances. He might point out the importance of this right, as for instance the resumption of the land for the purposes of planting, or for the purpose of a water scheme required for some town or for any purposes of that kind, where it might be of the greatest importance that the land should be able to be resumed. When the Act of 1881 was in the House, a special clause was put in afterwards, he believed in the House of Commons, under which it was provided that for the first term of 15 years the landlord should not have the right which was given to him under the Act of 1881, and that therefore he could not resume during the first 15 years under any circumstances for any purpose, the land in the way the Act proposed to give him, but at the end of 15 years he could do so. It would be quite clear that in many cases where the tenant had not taken out a judicial lease, he might bar the landlord completely from making any improvements at once by asking the Court to grant him a judicial lease. The object of his Amendment was simply to prevent that and to make it clear that what Parliament really meant was that during the first term of 15 years this power should not be exercised for certain reasons which

    1591
    were given at the time. His proposition was simply that the land could be resumed for those special purposes and no more, and he thought their Lordships would agree, on looking over the special purposes for which this power was given, that they were not unreasonable and that it was a power which should still be given.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the noble Lord was correct in saying that this clause, or one virtually identical with it, was in the Bill when it was first introduced in the House of Commons. It was struck out because the Government held that it was mainly justified in connection with certain proposals which they had made in reference to town parks, and that this machinery for the resumption of land was particularly useful in the case of lands of that description. But he was bound to say that he thought there was a good deal to be said in favour of the clause on its merits, and they accepted the Amendment of the noble Lord. [Cheers.]
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    THE EARL OF WINCHTLSEA*THE EARL OF WINCHTLSEA moved to insert the following clause:—
    "2. 'Whore the Court have once fixed a fair rent for a holding, no further revision of rent shall take place at the end of the first or any subsequent judicial term except in relation to—

    "(a) A rise or fall, if any, in the price of produce proper to be grown on the holding (duo allowance being made for a rise or fall, if any, in the cost of production); and

    "(b) Any improvement which the tenant proves—

    "(1) He has executed without compensation before the commencement of the first statutory term; and
    "(2) Has not already been taken into account in fixing a fair rent.
    "And in the event of a revision being made, the Court shall send by post to each party a certified statement showing how the fair rent has been arrived at."
    He would address himself first to the appeal of the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill as to whether it would be possible to defer the consideration of this Clause to another stage of the Bill. He need not say that he had considered that appeal very carefully and in consultation with his noble Friends behind him.
    1592
    He was very glad to hear that the Government considered the Amendment one of great importance, and that they were not disposed to oppose a non possumus to it. But many of his noble Friends, who also, attached very great importance to the clause, and who were anxious to see it at the earliest possible moment, take its place in the Bill, were of opinion that it would be a very unfortunate thing to defer the consideration of an important Amendment like that to the Report Stage, especially at the time of the Session at which they had arrived. Of course, if the Government could give him any pledge that they would accept the principle of the clause, he should not be inclined to press the matter now, but he did not understand that the Government was in a position at the present moment to give any such definite pledge, In that case he thought it would be better to take the discussion now. The Government said, and it was quite true, that they had had very little time to consider this clause, but he thought the Debate which would probably follow could not fail to be of service to the Government in making up their minds as to whether they would accept it. He should not have ventured to propose an Amendment of so much gravity as this had it not been at the request of a considerable body of his noble Friends behind him, and from the knowledge that it was supported by many of those who had the best reasons for being well-acquainted with all matters concerning land valuation in Ireland. On the Second Beading of the Bill he ventured to point out what was, in his opinion, an extremely grave omission, and that was that the Bill contained nothing to correct a defect in the Act of 1881, which was that no principle whatever was laid down to guide the Sub-Commissioners in arriving at their decisions in reducing rents. Although it was perfectly true, as was said by the noble and learned Lord below him, that it was the duty of the Government loyally to administer the existing law, surely it was equally the duty of the Administration to propose Amendments to that law when it was found to work unjustly, more especially in a Bill which was introduced to Parliament with the very object, as he understood, of amending defects in preceding legislation on this

    1593
    very point. He thought the question was whether the Act of 1881 really did require amending in this one particular. In the first place he thought it was scarcely likely that a body of men such as the Sub-Commissioners, even if they were of very much higher knowledge and standing than they were, could safely be entrusted with these enormous powers for any length of time without any principles being laid down whatever to guide them. He might point out that in the case of Griffiths' Valuation the most careful principles were laid down for the guidance of the valuations, and the principles laid down were always with a view to price. But they were not left to theory in this matter, because the actual reductions of rent which had taken place at the beginning of the second statutory term, had been from 30 to 40 and even more per cent., and there had been no attempt whatever that he had seen, either in the public press or in the House, to justify those reductions on any principle whatever. When his noble Friend near him raised the point, as he did, he thought on the 19th of July, by a question addressed to the Government as to whether they could inform him on what principle those reductions were made, the answer of the Government was that those persons held judicial positions and that the Executive could not interfere with them. That, he thought, was the view taken by the noble and learned Lord immediately below him (the Lord Chancellor), but he also invited his noble Friend, if he did not like the law, to amend it. It was precisely that invitation of which they were now taking advantage. He thought that, in the existing state of the law, it was no wonder that the landlords felt that, unless some control could be imposed upon the Sub Commissioners, they would be able, under their existing powers, to take away the greater part, if not the whole, of the residue of their property. The noble Marquess (Lansdowne) was reduced to saying, when he introduced the Bill, that he understood there was a rule of thumb by which the Sub-Commissioners decided the cases. The fate of unsuccessful combatants in the Colisseum was also decided by rule of thumb, but in this case the landlords were
    1594
    placed in this position;—that the thumb was always turned down. They were never treated to a rise in rents. It was always assumed that a revision of rents necessarily meant a reduction of rents. The Act of 1881 was introduced to meet a special and exceptional set of cases. A special and exceptional tribunal was set up, armed with special and exceptional powers, and really what they were authorised and instituted for amounted to something like a revolution in the tenure of land in Ireland. A revolution might be a necessity—now and then it was—but it did not follow that it was either expedient, or right, or possible to have a revolution every fifteen years. But that was precisely the position in which they were placed if the powers of the Sub Commissioners were not checked, but were suffered to go on as they were left under the Act of 1881 He thought the Legislature did not contemplate that the powers conferred upon the Sub-Commissioners originally under the Act of 1881 should be exercised to the full every fifteen years, or that they should be empowered every fifteen years to go into the whole set of circumstances which was brought before them in 1881. He admitted that in 1881 it would have been extremely difficult to lay down any principles for the guidance of the Commissioners. The circumstances were exceptional, and they gave the Commissioners powers and trusted to them to exercise them honestly. But that was a very different thing to prolonging and making permanent powers of that kind without any principle to guide the people who exercised them. He was surprised to hear the noble Marquess say it would be impossible to take the rents, as fixed by the Land Court in 1881, as constituting a fair rent for the first statutory term. They were fairly entitled to assume that the Sub-Commissioners of that day did their duty as they were commanded to do by the Legislature—that they took into account all the exceptional circumstances referred to them, and that the rent at which they arrived was a fair rent. It was perfectly impossible to suppose that questions such as climate, aspect, soil, proximity to markets, roads, water supply, could be reconsidered every 15

    1595
    years. The rent was reduced once for all in consideration of those circumstances, and he thought that on future occasions they must take it those circumstances remained very much as they were. Therefore, they could and ought now to narrow very considerably the issue which was originally entrusted to the Commissioners. It was evident to him that there was only one circumstance which ought to be regarded in subsequent revisions—if they took the first revision as having been fairly made—and that was an altered ability of the tenant to pay the rent, owing to circumstances out of his own control. On what must that altered ability depend? It must depend on the rise or fall, if any, in the price of produce grown on the holding, and on the rise or fall, if any, in the cost of production. Now, what would be the advantages which would follow from the application of the simple principle recommended in his Amendment? In the first place, they would get rid once and for all of all those complications they had been discussing under Clause 1, because they would not arise under any second or subsequent alteration of rent; and, in the second place, they would get a solid basis on which the Commissioners could arrive at their decisions, and on which the landowners and tenants, if agreed, could appeal against them. In addition, they would get a self-acting principle, in virtue of which he believed the landlord and tenant would be able to settle their own rents between themselves without allowing the Sub-Commissioners to go on to the land again, and without the expense of again appealing to the Court. The advantages to the landlord were obvious, because he would be secure against any arbitrary alteration of the rent, and he would even have the chance, which at present he was practically debarred from, of an increase in the rent, supposing a rise in prices occurred which would justify such an increase. But it was when they came to regard the advantages which would accrue to the tenant that he thought the case was more remarkable still. ["Hear, hear!"] A fair reduction of rent in Ireland benefited both the sitting and the incoming tenant. By a fair reduction he meant a reduction really made on the decreased ability of the tenant to pay the rent. Such a reduc-
    1596
    tion as that did not add to the value of the tenant-right, but an unfair or arbitrary reduction of rent was really given at the expense of every succeeding tenant. Suppose a man who paid a rent of, £10, and was able to sell his tenant-right for £200, had a visit from the Sub-Commissioner who reduced his rent from £10 to £5. That would immediately add £100 to the value of the tenant-right, and the incoming tenant, who had to pay the extra £100, would, he was assured, in nine cases out of ten, have to borrow the £100 at a very exorbitant interest. He would obtain, it was true, a reduction of £5, but he would have to pay at least £10 a year for the loan. Furthermore, this principle, if adopted, would absolutely secure to the tenant the whole value of any improvement he might make on the holding. If a holding grew five quarters of oats to the acre, but the tenant, by his own husbandry, intelligence, and capital, increased the yield to eight quarters an acre, the three extra quarters would be absolutely and entirely his own. One further advantage would ensue upon the adoption of the principle he advocated, namely, the saving of litigation and irritation throughout the country, and the promotion of the purchase of holdings by the tenants. There was one other point which would recommend itself to the noble Marquess, and that was that it would very considerably lighten the labours of the Sub-Commissioners, because they would be able to abstain altogether from going on the land. The method of working the clause would be a fairly simple one. Of course the average of the years preceding the statutory term would be taken in the same way as was done in the case of the tithe rent-charge, in order to determine the rise or fall, if any. It would be easy in practice, although no doubt there would be a good deal of work to be got through first in scheduling and classifying the farms; but he understood the Land Commissioners were now compiling very valuable and interesting statistics with regard to prices, which would be available as a means of reference if the clause should pass. Bach farm would be scheduled according to the produce grown upon it, and the reduction could then be determined almost automatically. It would, no doubt, be interesting

    1597
    to their Lordships if he gave one or two authorities in support of his proposals. Griffiths' valuation, which was so often appealed to, and laid down careful principles, was based entirely on prices. In the next place, their own Act of 1887 was based on this principle, and if he was not mistaken the Chief Secretary proposed, in the very Bill now before the House, and subsequently dropped, a clause which contemplated a periodical division of rents based on prices. But, if the Government told him they were not able to take any steps without consulting with the Nationalist members for Ireland, he should be able to satisfy them that Archbishop Walsh and the great Irish leader—for he was a great leader—Mr. Parnell were in favour of this principle, which was asserted years ago in the dispute which arose between Captain Nolan and some of his Irish tenants. He thought, therefore, that if the Government saw their way to accept the Amendment, they need not fear anything but support from the Nationalist Members. He thought he had succeeded in showing that the Act of 1881 laid down no principle for the guidance of the Sub-Commissioners; in the second place, that such a principle was urgently needed at the present time; and, further, that the adoption of such a principle would be followed by great advantages. He trusted, therefore, that it might commend itself to the judgment of the Government. If he might say one word personally, he would mention that he had no personal interest in the matter, because he did not own an acre of land in Ireland. Nor could the Government regard such an Amendment, coming from himself, as a hostile Amendment, for when he was in the other House he gave proofs of his devotion to the Unionist cause, as perhaps the noble Marquess (Salisbury) might remember. He hoped the responsibility of rejecting this proposal would be left with the House of Commons—a proposal which appeared to him a just, fair and reasonable settlement of this very difficult problem.
    LORD MONTEAGLEconfessed that the case for the Amendment was so strong that he ventured to believe that the Government would accept it. He considered that the noble Earl had even understated his own case. The noble Earl had pointed out the advantages which would accrue to
    1598
    the landlords, and he spoke of the reductions which had recently taken place, and that under the Act of 1881 the reductions were of an arbitrary character. The advantage of the system proposed would be as great, if not greater, for the tenant than for the landlord; for the sitting tenant as well as for the incoming tenant. If he were a tenant, while he hoped he should not deteriorate the farm, he should hesitate before improving it, for they all knew that in the vast majority of cases the valuers were influenced by the land as they saw it. The rent fixed would be higher in proportion as the land was better farmed. Therefore, he said without hesitation that this clause was, if possible, of more interest to the tenant than to the farmer. Then, another matter referred to by the noble Lord, in which he heartily concurred, was the effect which it would have in promoting settlements out of Court. In the interest of landlords and tenants, therefore, he cordially and earnestly recommended the clause to the attention of the House.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEregretted that the noble Lord had not acceded to his suggestion that time should be given to the Government to consider this matter, but in common prudence, if the Amendment was pressed to a Division, they should have to say not-content. The clause involved a serious and far-reaching disturbance of the present law. As to the reference to the proposal originally in the Bill on this subject, he reminded the Committte that it was a proposal for a voluntary arrangement which landlord and tenant might adopt if they pleased. This clause proposed a compulsory arrangement which would bind everyone. He was not sure that the noble Lord was consistent: he told them that the fair rents fixed by the Land Courts were unjust rents, but it was those very rents he had asked them to take as a basis. That was not a logical position to take.
    THE DUKE OF ABERCORNhoped the noble Lord would listen to the appeal of the noble Marquess. They had listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, but it appeared to him that the scheme had not sufficiently developed itself, and required more consideration. Moreover, he did not think the principles contained in the clause would coincide with those of the Bill.
    LORD MACNAGHTENthought the admirable and lucid speech of the noble Lord amply justified the course he had taken in bringing the matter before their Lordships. He did not, however, think they should be asked to make up their minds on the subject on the spur of the moment, but they felt at the same time now deeply they were indebted to him for the assistance he had given them.
    THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid that after the appeals which had been addressed to him he did not think it would be fair to press the matter to a Division. He would, therefore, content himself with the assurance that this matter would be very carefully considered. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2,—

  STATUTORY TERM AND BEGINNING OF JUDICIAL RENT.
  (1.) On the expiration of a statutory term in a present tenancy the tenancy shall continue a present tenancy subject to the same rent and conditions (including the statutory conditions) as during the statutory term, until the tenancy is determined, or a, new statutory term for the holding begins, and an application to fix a fair rent may be made at any time during such continuance of the tenancy; and no objection to such application shall be allowed which could have been but was not taken upon the application for a previous judicial rent, or being then taken was overruled.
  (2.) Where the Court on application fix a judicial rent for a holding, the judicial rent and statutory term shall begin from the gale day next after the date of the application, or if a preceding statutory term is then current, from any later gale day on which that statutory term expires.
  (3.) The judicial rent fixed by order of the Court for a holding shall, as from the gale day from which it begins, be the rent payable by the tenant of the holding; and where it differs from the previous rent, whether or not a judicial rent, then in respect of the period which may have elapsed since the gale day from which it began, the difference, if the judicial rent so fixed is higher than the previous rent, shall be paid by the tenant, and if the judicial rent so fixed is lower, may, if it has been actually paid by the tenant, be deducted from any rent subsequently payable by him, unless the judicial rent exceeds fifty pounds a year, in which case the difference may be deducted from any rent subsequently payable by him to the landlord to whom such difference has been paid, or to his personal representatives, or where the estate of such landlord has determined may be recovered from such landlord or his personal representatives.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH moved, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words—
  "be deducted from any rent subsequently payable by him, unless the judicial rent exceeds fifty pounds a year, in which case the difference may be deducted."
  He had put down the Amendment in order to get an explanation of these words.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the point was a little difficult to explain. The case was that of a tenant whose fair rent ran from a date earlier than the date upon which it was fixed by the Court. In a case of that kind, if the fair rent was lower than the old rent, it was clear that the tenant had, during the interval, been making an overpayment. The object of the clause was to provide for an adjustment of that over-payment. Where the tenant was a small tenant, under £50, they thought it rather hard that he should be put to the trouble and expense of instituting proceedings against the landlord for the recovery of the amount which he had overpaid.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid it would relieve the smaller tenant no doubt, but, at the expense of a man who had not received any part of the money. It was a very small matter, but it was a most extraordinary principle to put in a Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid this was a provision, made—roughly, he admitted—with regard to the exigencies of the smaller class of tenants. The line had to be drawn at some figure—a more or less arbitrary line—above which it was thought those who wished to recover should be left to pursue the ordinary remedies against whoever was bound to repay them.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHthought it was a very Irish way of dealing with the matter. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 3,—

  JUDICIAL TERM IN CASES OF AGREEMENTS.
  In the case of a tenant who applied to the Court under Section sixty of the Land Law

  1601
  (Ireland) Act, 1881, on the first occasion on which it sat, to have a fair rent fixed, and who, since making that application, has signed an agreement under Sub-section six of Section eight of the said Act, the statutory term so created shall, whore the judicial rent has been received as having accrued due from the gale day succeeding the date of the application, for the purpose of an application to fix a fair rent, be field to date from the day on which the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, came into force.
  Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 4,—

  EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN HOLDINGS.
  (1.) The Land Law Acts, except Section seven of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881 (which amends the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, in respect of compensation' for improvements), shall not apply to the following tenancies:—

  (a.) To a tenancy in any holding which is not substantially either agricultural or pastoral in its character, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral, or the main object of the letting of which was for a residence:

  (b.) To a tenancy in any holding which substantially consists of—

  (i) land being or forming part of a home farm; or

  (ii) land which when first demised was demesne, and which the provisions of the contract of tenancy, or the circumstances of the case, show was intended to be preserved as demesne or resumed as demesne by the landlord; or

  (iii) land incorporated in a demesne by the tenant, and forming part of a demesne at the time the application to fix a fair rent is made:

  (c.) To a tenancy in a holding (other than a holding let to be used wholly or mainly for a dairy farm) which is let to be used wholly or mainly for the purpose of pasture—

  (i) if it is of the rateable value of upwards of one hundred pounds; or

  (ii) if the tenant does not actually reside on the holding, or where the holding adjoins or is ordinarily used with another holding, then on the latter holding;

  (2) Where a distinct and substantive part of the property hold under one demise is demesne land, or is not agricultural or pastoral in its character, or is an incorporeal hereditament, and the Court consider that that part is not the substantial part of such property, the Court may, if they are of opinion that, apart from the fixing of a fair rent, the separation of the property into two parts will not diminish the value of the landlord's interest therein, direct that that part shall thenceforth be, or, if it is an incorporeal hereditament, be treated as, a separate holding, and shall unless the tenancy has expired, be held at such rent during the con-
  1602
  tinuance of the tenancy as the Court may determine to be the proper proportion of the rent reserved by the demise, and the Court may fix a fair rent for the remainder of the property held under the demise, and the said Acts shall apply to that remainder as if it were a separate holding.
  (3.) Where a holding is held by joint tenants or tenants in common, and such tenants have worked and occupied separate portions thereof, and the division of the holding was made prior to the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, the Court may if it think just, on the application of any joint tenant or tenant in common, fix a fair rent upon the portion of the holding so separately occupied.
  (4.) Nothing in this section shall extend to any holding in respect of which a judicial rent has been fixed before the commencement of this Act.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN LORD MACNAGHTEN moved to leave out Paragraph (a) Sub-section (1)—
  "To a tenancy in any holding which is not substantially either agricultural or pastoral in its character, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral, or the main object of the letting of which was for a residence."
  He wished to know what was the difference between land which was agricultural and land which was "substantially" agricultural" in its character. Speaking as a lawyer, he could not see the slightest difference between the two. Lord Justice Fitzgibbon had held that if a holding was homogeneous there was no difference between its being agricultural or substantially agricultural, but if it was not homogeneous—as, for instance, where some tithes were included in the letting—there was some difference. He confessed he had some difficulty in following that argument, but that point was provided for in the Bill by the next section. He thought it was extremely dangerous to make this difference.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the Land Acts at present applied, speaking generally, only to what might be described as ordinary farms, but he believed there had been holdings of which an insignificant part was not of the description of an ordinary farm, and the tenant of such a holding had found himself excluded from the advantages of the Land Act. The object of the word "substantial" was to provide that where there was a farm of which all but an insignificant portion was an ordinary farm, the tenant should not be denied the advantage of a fair rent.

  1603
  That seemed to him to be a reasonable proposal, and one which was in accordance with the practice of the Courts. The noble and learned Lord then asked what difference there was between that case and the case dealt with in another sub-section.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid that what he meant was that Lord Justice Fitzgibbon had certain views in cases where the holding was not what he called homogeneous, and that the case which he thought should be provided for was provided for in the next sub-section. He did not think it wise to enact the word "substantial."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDthought the word "substantial" was a useful and convenient word. They had acted very harshly in several cases, the names of which he did not recollect for the moment, but which were very familiar, and it was, therefore, most important that the word "substantial" should be retained in the clause. On the whole, he thought that it would be very much wiser in the circumstances to retain the word in the clause, it having been inserted for the purpose of meeting what was generally admitted to be a real grievance.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid that after what had fallen from the noble Marquess, he would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN LORD MACNAGHTEN moved, after Paragraph (ii), Sub-section (1), to insert the following new paragraph—
  "(iii) land which when first demised was demesne and which was originally let by a limited owner or."
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid that no doubt both the noble Lord and Her Majesty's Government desired the same thing, namely, to protect the demesne lands, although the language they used was different. The only difference between their proposals was this. The Government said that the. Act should not apply to demesne land when the circumstances showed that the landlord in letting the land did not intend to deprive it for all time of its character as demesne land. The noble and learned Lord wished to put the onus the
  1604
  other way, and to say that where land was proved to have been once demesne land, it could not be undemesned unless the contract or the circumstances showed that it was intended to deprive the land for all time of its demesne character. He was advised that the clause as it stood did nothing more than declare what was the existing law.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid that in principle there was no difference between himself and the noble Marquess—the only question between them was upon whom the onus of proof was to fall. As the law now stood he should have thought that it was only fair that the onus should have fallen upon the tenant. If, however, the noble Marquess declined to accept his Amendment, he was willing to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid that there was another point on which he should be glad to have the noble Marquess's opinion, and that was in the case of demesne land having been let by a limited owner. He did not think that a limited owner ought to be allowed to let the demesne land to the detriment of the remainderman.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid that the point could be more conveniently raised on Sub-section (2) of Clause 9.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CLONCURRY LORD CLONCURRY moved, in Subparagraph (i), Paragraph (c), Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "one hundred" and to insert instead thereof the word "fifty." The Bill, as it stood, proposed that fair rents should be fixed in the case of pasture farms of the annual value of £100 instead of £50, as the law now stood. The Government had stated that the change in agricultural values had rendered it necessary to make the proposed change in the existing law. They had heard a great deal about the reduction of rents, but they had not yet heard of rents being raised from £50 to £100 a year. The Government proposed, by a side wind, to revolutionise all the contracts relating to farms of the annual value of between £50 and £100. The Bill, as it stood, proposed to repeal

  1605
  the provisions of the Act of 1881, which expressly declared that only farms of an annual value below £50 should be affected by this kind of legislation. The lower limit was fixed upon by Mr. Gladstone and his Government when the Act of 1881 was being passed. Mr. Gladstone, on the occasion to which he referred, had distinctly declared that he had no desire to make a holocaust of freedom of contract in Ireland, and drew the limit at £50 annual value. This question was not exclusively an Irish one, and neither was it an agricultural one, because it concerned cattle dealers in both countries equally. There was no reason why officials in Dublin should have obliged the Chief Secretary to trample out this last remnant of free contract. He asked the noble Marquess not to make this unnecessary change in the law. If the noble Marquess found himself unable to support the Amendment, he appealed to noble Lords from all parts of the United Kingdom to support it.
  THE EARL OF ERNEsaid the action of the Government in raising the limit in the ease of pasture farms from £50 to £100 was indefensible. The Act of 1881 was based upon the assumption that the majority of tenants in Ireland were so poor and ignorant, and incapable of taking care of themselves, that they had to be protected from the rapacity of some of the landlords. There was no use in inquiring at that time of day how far that assumption was correct. But the greater part of his property was held by those tenants, and they were quite as shrewd and as capable of taking care of themselves as any he knew of. It was an extraordinary thing that a Conservative Government should upset the settlement of 1881, and take away another slice of the landlords' property. The noble Marquess who moved the Second Reading of the Bill stated, as a reason for the inclusion within the scope of the Land Act of pasture tenants between £50 and £100, that the difference between them and the tenants already under the Act was not sufficiently marked to justify their exclusion. But in the House of Commons, Mr. Gerald Balfour, speaking on a similar Amendment to this, stated as the reason that, in consequence of the change in the condition of agriculture, a large number of farms had
  1606
  reverted from tillage to pasture. That was quite true; but that process had been going on for a period long anterior to 1881. It began in 1848, when, owing to the decrease in the population, the decline in the price of corn, and the increase in the value of stock, hundreds of acres of tillage had been turned into grass. But the same condition of things that existed in 1881 existed now, and there was no justification for departing from the settlement of 1881.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsupported the Amendment on the ground that it was not desirable to make any alterations in the Act of 1881 unless there was reason for it. He thought the alteration which the Government had made was based on a misapprehension. The Morley Committee said that "tillage being now less profitable under the changed conditions of agriculture it was natural "—he could not comprehend what "natural" meant there—"and conformable with the policy of that Act"—he also failed to grasp the meaning of that phrase—"that the limit of exclusion of pasture holdings should be raised." It was said by one Member of the Committee that the limit existing in the case of pasture farms had operated with harshness, and would operate with increasing harshness in the future. But it should be remembered that a farm, in order to be within the exclusion of the Land Act, must be let to be used for pasture. If a farmer took a thousand acres and turned it into pasture, the power of fixing a fair rent on it would be unaltered. In fact, it was utterly impossible now to bring any fresh land within the excluding section. Nor could it be said that there was any grasping desire on the part of the landlords to exact large rents from pasture farmers. One of the official witnesses before the Morley Committee said he did not find that pasture land was more highly rented in proportion to value than tillage land; and also that the fall in the value of agricultural produce since 1879 did not affect pasture land so much as tillage land, if, indeed, it affected pasture land at all. Only one witness spoke in favour of raising the limit in the case of pasture farms. He was a very eminent person, but he did not seem to be confident of his own opinion. When asked whether he had any suggestion to make on the

  1607
  subject, he said "he should be disposed" to make the limit £100 instead of £50. An opinion expressed so modestly was not worth anything.
  LORD CLONBROCKsaid he was well acquainted with the class of tenants affected by the Amendment. They had but little in common with agricultural tenants, they belonged, as a rule more to the class of cattle dealers, and there was no reason why the principle of free contracts should be departed from in their case. They were expressly excluded from the Act of 1881 as being perfectly able to make their own bargains, and they were not likely to have since deteriorated in that respect. The inclusion of a farm within the Land Act not only resulted in a reduction of rent in most cases, but it deprived the landlord of a considerable amount of property in other ways. The landlord's right of re-entry was taken away by giving the tenant fixity of tenure, and the fixing of the tenant-right materially curtailed the value of a farm. The only reason which he had heard for the transfer of this property from the landlord to this class of tenant was that they were dissatisfied, and wanted to be placed in the same position as those under £50, but really the principle that a man was only to hold property until someone else wanted it, was a somewhat novel one, even as applied to Ireland, and he thought would hardly meet with approval in their Lordships' House. But with regard to the inclusion of this or any other class of tenant in the provisions of the Land Act, and the consequent loss to the landlords, he would like to say to this House what he knew the landowners in the west of Ireland, and he believed in all parts of Ireland, would wish to say to both Houses of Parliament. You did us a grievous wrong in 1881. We are far from saying that you did it intentionally. It was the belief of the framers of the Act of that year, and no doubt adopted by you, that for any loss the landlord would sustain he would be fully indemnified by the enhanced security of his income, and that the value of his property would rise to over 20 years' purchase. The result has been widely different. It has fallen from over 20 years' purchase of the former rent to between 15 and 18 of the reduced rent. You did us a further injustice in
  1608
  1887, and with less excuse, as you had some experience to guide you, but you then believed in finality. Now you know that there is no finality in this Measure. You did not know what you were doing in 1881, you could not know, it was an experiment. You do know what you are doing in 1896, therefore whatever you do, you are doing with your eyes open. He hoped the Committee would fully consider this, and would accept the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid it was with regret he found himself resisting the earnest and temperate appeal of the noble Lord. He would state in the fewest possible words why it was the Government thought it necessary to adhere to their proposal as it stood in the Bill. They were well aware of the inconvenience of money limits. A division of one class from another by a money limit must obviously by an arbitrary division, and must lead to a sense of grievance amongst those persons who found themselves excluded. The Government believed that the limit, as it now existed, was drawn in the wrong place, and that if they maintained it they would leave a sense of disappointment and discontent amongst the farmers of a particular class who were at present denied the advantages of a fair rent, and who were really not distinguishable from their neighbours to whom these advantages were not denied. Much had been said of the intention of the framers of the Act of 1881. Undoubtedly the intention was to exclude grazing farmers, not of the kind that they proposed to admit under the clause, but men such as those who were referred to by the noble Earl who moved the Amendment—sales masters, butchers, and people of that kind. Now they believed there were grazing farmers between the £50 and £100 limit who were farmers pure and simple, and between whom and the sales masters and graziers there was really little or nothing in common. One noble Lord indicated that in his opinion the test they ought to apply was the ability of the tenant to take care of himself, and that as the graziers between £50 and £100 were able to take care of themselves there was no cause for admitting them to the benefit of the Act. But that test was not the test which was adopted under the existing law. In the

  1609
  case of dairy farms the limit was £250. In the case of tillage farms there was no limit at all. A man might be paying £1,000 a year rent and surely capable of taking care of himself, but he was admitted to the benefit of the Act. One word with regard to the suggestion that the Amendment would have the effect of admitting persons of the cattle dealing class, who as the noble Lord said, hired a few fields, but were not farmers of the ordinary type at all. Surely men of that class would be excluded by the wording of the clause, because the Government expressly stipulated that if the tenant did not reside on his holding he was to be, whatever his valuation, excluded from the benefits of the Act. Therefore that particular apprehension was not entitled to much weight. The Government had considered the matter carefully, and they had come to the conclusion that it was their duty to admit farmers of the particular class to which this clause applied.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTwished to say a word on this important question of grazing holdings. There were not only grazing holdings of fine grass, but large mountain grazings to include which in the Act would be injurious. He had taken legal opinion upon this subject and if their Lordships would allow him he would read one or two passages from it.
  "There is no reason for extending the limit imposed upon the tenants of grazing farms with regard to the fixing of fair rents. The existing limit of farms having an annual value of £50 was fixed with the object of enabling all the poorer class of tenants, no matter what the nature of their holdings might he, to have a fair rent fixed. It was supposed that small tenants might he unable to protect themselves in making contracts with their landlords; but that this vas not the case with tenants holding larger farms, and who were possessed of more capital."
  The tenant of a large grazing farm is not in the ordinary sense an agriculturist; he is rather a dealer in cattle, and a large number of men who require grazing farms take them only by the season. This is not the case with tillage farms. He supposed it was not intended to include tenants who took the grass for six months in the summer. He was sure that was not the intention of the Act of 1881. And Mr. Gladstone
  1610
  specially excepted those tenants. Besides, all these grazing farms were taken by agreement; there was no question of fair rent about them, the rent was agreed upon.
  "The clause in the present Bill would admit tenants of holding of the annual value of £100 who are perfectly able to protect themselves with regard to the rents they pay, and can always get land by the season for the market value if too high a rent were demanded for a permanent letting. Once the limit of £50 is overstepped there is no reason to stop at that limit, and no argument will be good against a limit of £150 that would not have been equally good against the limit of £100. No reason has been given in the Debates on the present Bill in the House of Commons for widening the limit, and none has ever been given elsewhere. No evidence was given in support of the change before Mr. Morley's Committee except that of Mr. Justice Bewley, who gave no reason for his opinion. Under the second part of the clause a tenant might hold under the same or different landlords three different grazing holdings, each of them under £100 a year (say £90 a year), and he could come into Court with each of them although he only resided upon one, because the adjoining holding's upon which he resided would be holding's to which the Acts apply; or if the holding in question was under one landlord and the tenant resided upon an adjoining grazing farm of a value of £300 or £400 a year held under another landlord, he could have a fair rent fixed on the smaller holding, thus defeating altogether the object of the original limit, which was to protect tenants who required protection. Where landlords, upon the faith of the Act of 1881, let grazing lands valued at upwards of £50 subsequent to that Act, believing that they were letting under a system of free contract, this Bill will confer on the tenants all the rights enjoyed by present tenants under that Act."
  He appealed to the Government to give way under this clause. The Irish landlords had been fighting for them and spending money and everything else in supporting the Government, and now they were treated in this way. The only thing they had in free contracts were these grazing holdings and now it was proposed to take them away.
  LORD INCHIQUINwished to endorse what had been said about these grazing holdings. There were a great many in the county of Clare which he owned himself. There could be no grievance (as far as his knowledge went, which extended over the county and adjoining counties), on the part of any individual who occupied one of these holdings. It was clear that they were let for pasturage only and these were the terms on which they were let. As Lord

  1611
  Macnaghten pointed out, the reasons attempted to be raised before the Morley Commission were perfectly wrong. No holding capable of being tilled and let for tillage as well as pasture would come under the Act. It was old pasture lettings their Lordships were talking of, and he protested against what was proposed to be done by the Government unless they did it with their eyes open. In his opinion it was simply taking so much out of the landlord's hands and putting it in the hands of someone else. If the Government were prepared to hold to this let them understand what they were doing. They were giving to the tenants of these holdings power to sub-let them, which they had no difficulty in doing to any grazier or any one else, and get the extreme rent the holding would fetch and put it in their pockets. At present the landlord had that power and there was no reason why he should be prevented from continuing to exercise it. Lord Lansdowne had reminded them that large agricultural tenants under the Act of 1881 could go into Court and get these rents fixed. In the year 1881 he moved a clause to exclude tenants over £50, and much to his regret, Lord Lansdowne who was a large owner of land in Ireland opposed it, also the late Lord Waterford on the ground that it would be much better not to have a perpetual interference with property. He was sorry to say he withdrew his Amendment on that occasion, although he was afterwards told that if he had pressed it to a Division many noble Lords would have supported him, and thus a provision which had done gross injury would never have become law. It seemed to him, if this proposal of the Government were allowed to pass, a certain amount of property would be taken from the landlords, who were the owners of it.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYintended to support the Amendment, because he had heard no reason given by the Government as to why a new class of tenants should be admitted to the advantages of the Land Act of 1881. He understood the Bill was to elucidate and make intelligible the Act of 1881, and not to confer benefits on people who were excluded from that Act by taking away property from those who could ill
  1612
  afford to lose it. ["Hear, hear!"] The clause to which the Amendment was directed proposed to admit to the advantages of the fair-rent Courts a number of men who were declared by the Act of 1881 to have no right to enter these Courts, because there was no necessity that they should do so. The only excuse the noble Marquess had put forward for this clause was that there was a money limit, which caused annoyance to those who were excluded. Rut whom should they be annoyed with? With Mr. Gladstone and his Government, that passed the Act of 1881. Mr. Gladstone declared that he purposely excluded from the advantages of the Act of 1881 the tenants who were rated at over £50 and under £100, because they were well able to take care of themselves, and perfectly independent of anything like coercion on the part of their landlords. ["Hear, hear!"] Again, the late Mr. Parnell stated in the House of Commons that, in his opinion, tenants of all kinds whose holdings were rated at this amount of £50 had got all that they were fairly entitled to, and that the land question only survived in the case of the smaller tenants. No answer had been given to the question, why it was proposed to admit to the benefits of the Act of 1896 the people who were deprived of the benefits of the Act of 1881? There were many graziers in the rich parts of Ireland who did not make their living merely in this way. They had other interests and callings, and he would ask their Lordships to remember that the competition rents of the graziers it was now proposed to admit to the benefits of this Bill far exceeded the judicial rents of their holdings. ["Hear, hear!"] He considered this was a question of vital importance, which his noble Friend was justified in asking their Lordships to divide upon, because the Government were going away from what they had been given to understand was their programme and policy with regard to this Measure. [Cheers.] That programme was to elucidate and make intelligent the Act of 1881, and not add to it any further confiscation of the rights of the landlords. [Cheers.] He maintained that by admitting to the benefits of this Bill a fresh body of people, on whom, moreover, there was no need to confer

  1613
  those benefits, the Government were infringing the rights of the Act of 1881. ["Hear, hear!"]
  LORD MACNAGHTENcontended that the argument he had presented to their Lordships had not been answered. He had pointed out that the recommendation of Mr. Morley's Committee was founded on a blunder, and it was perfectly clear that, if the whole tillage land in Ireland was turned into pasture, the number of persons included in the exemption clause would not be in the slightest degree increased. The noble Marquess based his argument simply on the belief of himself and those associated with him in the Cabinet. But why should they act on their belief? Nobody could have a higher respect for their belief than he; but there were plenty of people who believed exactly the opposite. ["Hear, hear!"] Why was the House asked to act on the belief of the noble Marquess? Surely, when they were going to make a serious inroad on the Act of 1881, there would not have been the slightest difficulty in obtaining a return, showing who the people were who lay between the limits of £50 and £100. Let them know how many there were and in what counties. But they were now asked—and he had never heard of such a thing before—to act in the dark on the belief of the noble Marquess and his colleagues. [Cheers.]
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENwas very glad the Government were not going to accept the Amendment. He did not think the clause would have the consequences which some noble Lords seemed to anticipate; or that under it grazing tenants, having a fair rent fixed, would be empowered and entitled to sub-let their holdings. Neither did he think that the clause would apply to the cases which had been mentioned, of men taking pasturage, say for six months. It might be perfectly true that the intention of the framers of the Act of 1881 was to protect tenants who were incapable of protecting themselves, but that Act, taken with subsequent Acts, had long ago departed from any idea of that kind. But if that was the real intention he should have thought the Act of 1881 would have contained a clause to the effect that it was only to apply to imbeciles or persons in such abject poverty that they
  1614
  were absolutely incapable of taking care of themselves. But whatever the intention was it was perfectly certain that a class of men were admitted to the benefits of the Act who were perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. His point was that there was a class of men in Ireland who he did not think had been rightly described as mere cattle dealers. There was a class of men, large graziers, and he could not see any sense, logic, rhyme or reason for allowing them to be excluded from an Act which applied without limit to agricultural farms and which also applied to cases of leaseholders and so on. He thought it would be very unwise from the point of view of the landlords' interest to keep out of the benefits of the Bill a class of men who were well to do, who were disposed for order and good government, and he sincerely hoped that Amendment would not be carried.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEobserved that there was one great hardship which would be inflicted by extending this limit to cases of £100 a year to graziers. After the famine landlords came into possession of land not very often by ejectment, but by desertion. He knew many instances where they had spent large sums of money in cultivating, draining and improving the land. They had made bad land into excellent land, and if now, the tenant might come in and break it up, or do whatever he liked with it, it was the grossest injustice that ever was perpetrated. At this moment he knew friends of his who were still improving and laying out money, but they had ceased, naturally, altogether to lay out money, and to stop improvement altogether in view of this Bill. There was another matter. In old times long leases were given. He knew from his experience, that when these leases fell in the lands were in a ruinous state. Then there was another thing, and that was, that pasture was more desirable than tillage in their country, because, when the climate was so wet, they never could tell what time they could put in their crops or what time they could get them out. He knew that meadow lying out as late as November was very little injured, while the cultivation of arable land ruined those who had it.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE ofsaid the noble Marquess who spoke just before upon this subject seemed to be under the impression that he and his Friends had been taken by surprise in finding that the present Bill contained any such provision as this. He was quite sure that his noble Friend was not one of those whose political conduct would have been influenced by any such consideration, but they had heard in the course of that Debate some observations from some noble Lords, chiefly from Ireland, complaining of the conduct of the Government towards them, considering all that had been done for the Government by them and their friends in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought it was well to remember that, although the particular provisions of the Bill could not be known before it was introduced, ample notice was given, even before the General Election took place, of the general lines upon which the Government intended to legislate in regard to Irish land, and that no noble Lord or any of their friends could have acted throughout the Election in ignorance of the fact that it was the intention of the Government to propose to legislate again upon Irish land, and substantially upon the lines of this Bill. [Cries of "No!"] The pledges which were given on the subject were chiefly contained in a speech made by the Chief Secretary, he thought at Leeds, which was frequently quoted in Ireland, and amongst those pledges which his right hon. Friend gave was one that the Government would carefully reconsider the exclusions from the Land Act, with the view of securing greater uniformity in dealing with agricultural and pastoral holdings, which were substantially identical in character. After a speech of that kind he did not think anybody could have been taken by surprise at the proposals contained in this Bill. He quite agreed it was a subject which it was extremely difficult to argue about, because all questions about the exact position of a hard-and-fast line must be rather matters of opinion than matters which were capable of absolute demonstration. It was always very easy, as had been pointed out, to show the absurdity or unreasonableness of including a holding which was rated at £49
  1616
  within a set of provisions, while a holding rated at £51 was excluded from them. But the object of the Act of 1881 in drawing this line was perfectly clear, although there might be great differences of opinion as to how far it was sufficient or insufficient in accomplishing that object. The object of that Act was undoubtedly to include within the limits of the Act holdings which, though they might be pasture holdings, were substantially farming holdings, upon which the tenant made his living by the occupation of farming. At the same time the object of the Act was to exclude the great grazing farms upon which the tenant did not live, but which were held by graziers and dealers, and were not dependent in any sense upon agricultural industry. It was only experience which could show whether the limit fixed by the Act of 1881 was sufficient or insufficient to accomplish the objects which were perfectly understood to have been the objects of the Act. Lord Inchiquin said he was very well acquainted with a great many holdings of this character; but was the noble Lord prepared to say that he was not acquainted with the cases of tenant-farmers who held grazing tenancies, and who made their living by farming as completely as the man who owned an agricultural tenancy? Was he prepared to say, intimately acquainted as he was with these tenancies, that the whole of the men between £50 and £100 rating who occupied these tenancies belonged to the class of graziers or dealers, and not to the class of tenant-farmers? The noble Lord also anticipated that this legislation would be followed by the sub-letting of these holdings—["Hear, hear!"]—that the present holder would sub-let his tenancy and would obtain a rack-rent from it while he put the difference in his pocket. The noble Lord must be perfectly aware that every tenant who came under the Act, if he availed himself of the Act, precluded himself from sub-letting, and that, if he sub-let, he immediately lost all the benefits of the Act. His own opinion, or the opinion of any one of them perhaps, was of very little value as to whether the line was rightly drawn at the limit of £50 or would be rightly extended to £100, or whether either of those lines most faithfully carried out what

  1617
  was the undoubted intention of the Act of 1881. That was a subject upon which each of them, he imagined, must be guided by the individual opinion he could form, and by the authority on which they placed reliance. But, although neither his opinion, nor, perhaps, the opinions of his colleagues on such a point as that could be conclusive, or, perhaps, could not be weighed in authority, in comparison with those of the noble Lords who had already spoken, he thought he could indicate one or two reasons, founded upon policy, why it would be unwise to reject, as he was afraid their Lordships were prepared to reject, this proposal. Most of those who were opposed to some of the provisions of the Bill desired—at least so they were informed on the Second Beading, though sometimes during the course of these discussions he had begun a little to doubt it—that the Bill should, with certain alterations, pass. If they desired that this Bill should pass, they also desired, he imagined, that it should give some satisfaction in Ireland, and that it should be, if not a final settlement—which was perhaps too much to hope—at any rate a settlement of the question for some short period of time. It appeared to him that if they rejected this proposal they did a great deal to put an end to any prospect of the Bill giving either satisfaction in Ireland or being a settlement of the question for any length of time at all. This was an alteration of the law, their Lordships must remember, which had not been forced upon the Government in the other House. It was the proposal of the Government itself. From the moment that this Bill was introduced every tenant of a grazing holding between the limits of £50 and £100 had known that it was proposed to extend to him the advantages which were already enjoyed by his neighbours. Many of them had been looking forward with feelings of hope to the relief which they expected to obtain under this provision. To these men, whether they were many or few, the rejection of this clause would come as a deep and bitter disappointment, and would be considered—he would not say justly considered—by them as a denial of that measure of justice which had been offered to them and which had been
  1618
  contended for on their behalf, not only by their own representatives, but by the Unionist Government, who, as their Lordships must remember, had been supported by a very large majority in the Unionist House of Commons. The withdrawal of this concession, which the Government, under no compulsion, offered to these tenants, could not but produce a feeling of very keen and bitter disappointment on the part of a considerable number of men scattered over many counties and districts in Ireland—men who naturally possessed some considerable influence among their fellow-tenants, and who would be naturally disposed either to continue or to revive an agitation in favour of another amendment of the Land Laws. In his opinion they might far more safely deprive the tenants who were already under the Land Acts of some additional advantages which the Bill proposed to confer upon them than leave outside the operation of the Bill altogether the class which, whether they might be large or small, had not unreasonably felt something amounting to security that they would now be included within its benefits. He did not imagine there was very much probability of the Government being able to maintain this provision in the Bill. Personally, he was disposed to take the sense of the Committee, although he was afraid that, in the present state of the Committee, the division would hardly give a correct representation of the opinion of the House.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERBYsaid the noble Duke seemed to imply that they who owned property in Ireland were fully aware of the class of Bill which was to be submitted to their Lordships' House. With all due deference to the noble Duke, he emphatically denied that statement. ["Hear hear!"] The one sentence in the speech of the Chief Secretary at Leeds which made the most impression on his mind was that in which he declared that it was the intention of the Government to kill Home Rule by kindnes. With that sentiment he entirely concurred, and he believed there was a way of billing Home Rule by kindness, and that was by developing the interests of the country. He considered that killing

  1619
  Home Rule by kindness would be giving the agricultural classes technical education in those branches of education which they required. He considered that killing Home Rule by kindness would be by enabling the occupiers to become the owners of their holdings on terms agreeable to themselves and their landlords, and with no appreciable risk to the State. He never for one moment understood that killing Home Rule by kindness was to introduce a Measure adding to the discomforts imposed on landlords by the Bill of 1881. The noble Duke trusted the Amendment would be passed because he believed it would be the means of giving satisfaction to everybody in Ireland. The Bill gave satisfaction to no one in Ireland. On the Second Reading he told the noble Marquess that his own followers in the House of Commons disliked the Bill, he quoted the remark of Mr. William O'Brien that it was the worst Land Bill ever introduced, and he also pointed out that both Mr. Dillon and Mr. Davitt renounced the Bill. This was the first time he and his Friends from Ireland had as a body voted against their Party, and strong indeed must be their feelings when they did so. If the Government had killed Home Rule by kindness by bringing forward a Land Bill which was necessary—a Bill of a fair and moderate character—they would have received his and his friends' unanimous support—[cheers]—and they would have received the support of a larger body than themselves, namely, the landowners in Ireland, who were regarding the Bill as a question of life and death. What had the last Division shown the Government? It had shown them that many of their own followers had deserted them, and that others who had not deserted them were abstaining from voting. Could there be a greater condemnation of a Conservative Government than to be condemned by the Conservative Party in the House of Lords? He was sure the Prime Minister would believe they had not deserted him in the Lobby for, in their opinion, any frivolous or slight reason, but because they honestly and truly believed that the Bill would not only give satisfaction to no one, but would bring absolute ruin to a vast number of landowners of Ireland. He did not know anyone
  1620
  who ought to more sympathise with the Irish landlords on the present occasion than the noble Duke. The noble Duke and his followers had felt the pangs of leaving their Party. They left their Party on the grounds of personal honour and the good of their country, and they were applauded and ever would be. He, therefore, asked the noble Duke to give him and his friends the credit that in voting against; the noble Marquess they did so for the sake of conviction and not of Party. The Conservative principle had ever been to conserve, and he regretted to find that now "conserve" was altered to "confiscation." He said he and his noble Friends had been born and bred Members of the Conservative Party, and it was because of that that they found themselves in the Lobby opposed to the noble Marquess. He had an ancestor of whom he was proud, not only on account of the manner in which he discharged his duty as Foreign Minister, but also because he was responsible, more or less, for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland. He asked the noble Marquess what would be the action of that man now if he were alive? Would he support the noble Marquess in a policy that the noble Marquess himself had denounced, that his own Party in the House of Commons denounced when a Measure of a similar character was introduced, a Measure which they regarded as absolutely revolutionary? The noble Marquess knew that that ancestor would never have supported such principles, and neither could he.
  LORD EMLY, who addressed the House for the first time, claimed to represent, to a certain extent, the views of the Irish Catholic Liberal Unionists. He also claimed to represent, to a certain extent, the views of that other and larger body of men who might be Unionists to-morrow if only the Government would be true to their pledge that they would ever regard the maintenance of the Union between England and Ireland as their first consideration. What body of men had a better right to express their views on an Irish Land Bill introduced by a Unionist Government than the Catholic Unionists of Ireland? ["Hear, hear!"] They were a small body of men—he was afraid that Liberals and Tories were alike responsible

  1621
  for that—but, even were he the solitary representative in their Lordships' House of that body, he would not hesitate to tell them that if the Irish question, which was mainly the Irish land question, was to be solved on Unionist lines that solution must finally be achieved by Unionists. The Unionist Government proclaimed from the housetops that they were neither a Conservative Party nor yet a landlord party. Were they keeping their pledges? The noble Marquess who had just spoken imagined, and a certain section of the Irish landlords imagined, that this was a Conservative Government. It was nothing of the sort. They, Liberals, left the Leadership of a very cherished Leader because they would not consent to sacrifice the Union between England and Ireland. Certain Irish Catholics made even still greater sacrifices. Severing themselves from their co-religionists, they stood shoulder to shoulder with that party of ascendency in Ireland with whom they had not one political idea in common. As a result of their sacrifices were they to be told that every Land Bill or other Bill introduced by a Unionist Government would only be looked at through Conservative spectacles? If so, they must give up the hope of ever making Ireland a Unionist country. It rested with the Unionist Government. The people of Ireland had up to the present given them more or less a free hand. The noble Lord said that no Party in Ireland was satisfied with the Bill. The Times, which was signally misinformed always on Irish topics, said that the representatives of the Irish tenant farmers were not satisfied with the Bill. The Irish farmers were the shrewdest of men and they were looking most eagerly for the passing of the Bill through the House. Of course the representatives of the Irish tenant farmers knew very well that should the Bill pass that House as it was introduced in another place, it would cut the ground from under their feet as it was never cut before. They had been told to expect no good from a Unionist Government, and on these grounds he entreated them not to throw away that opportunity. He should oppose the Amendment.
  LORD CASTLETOWNsaid it was with diffidence he rose to answer the few remarks made by the noble Duke. He
  1622
  said that the object of the Act of 1881 was to include pasture holdings where the farmer lived, and only excluded big farmers where the tenants could not live. He had the honour of being a Member of the House of Commons in 1881, and he had a very distinct remembrance of all that occurred, and he had refreshed his memory by reading up the Debates, and he found there was very little reference made to the clause they were now dealing with. The Bill of 1881 distinctly excluded farmers with £50, and speaking with a clear recollection of the speeches made from the Ministerial Bench the object was to protect an ignorant and needy farmer who was unable to make a contract; but the man who was now to be admitted was quite able to make a contract. Everyone in Ireland who had over £100 would feel very much hurt. If they agreed to this they would go on to £150 to £200, to £250 to £400, and the result would be that every single tenant would be admitted to the benefit of the Land Act of 1881. Were they going to stand on the basis of the Act of 1881, or remedy the difficulties which had crept in since. Were they going further? If they were going further let them say so. If they were merely remedying the defects of the Act of 1881, he held that the contention of the noble Duke was not logical. Mr. Gladstone had said at the time, "I am very much opposed to the consideration of holdings," but since then holdings had been consolidated and had become pasture holdings, and those were the holdings they were going to admit. They were, going to put into the Act of 1896 the very holdings which they said in 1881 ought not to be admitted. He appealed to his noble and loyal Friend who had opposed this in 1881 to support the Amendment.
  The Committee divided on the Question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause:—

  CONTENTS

  …

  …

  60

  NOT-CONTENTS

  …

  …

  107

  DIVISION LIST:—CONTENTS.

  Halsbury L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Devonshire, D (L. President.)

  Marlborough, D.

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Bristol, M.

  1623

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Exeter, M.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Burton, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Churchill, L. [TELLER.]

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

  Crawshaw, L.

  Digby, L.

  Emly, L.

  Lathom, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Glenesk, L.

  Harris, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Harschell, L.

  Coventry, E.

  James, L.

  Dudley, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount Earl.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Jersey, E.

  Morley, E.

  Kensington, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Romney, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Manners, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Monkswell, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Pirbright, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [TELLER.]

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Rayleigh, L.

  Landaff, V.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Oxenbridge, V.

  Sinclair, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Windsor, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Zoncho of Haryng-worth, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Belper L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Verulam, E.

  Newcastle, D.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Bangor, V.

  Northampton, M.

  Falmouth, V.

  Portman, V.

  Annesley, E.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Bandon, E.

  Templetown, V.

  Belmore, E.

  Caledon, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Cowper, E.

  Cranbrook, E.

  Carew, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  de Iontalt, E.

  Effingham, E.

  Castletown, L. [TELLER]

  Ferrers, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Clarina, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Lucan, F.

  Connemara, L.

  Mayo, E. [TELLER.]

  Crofton, L.

  Portarlington, E.

  De Freyne, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  de Ros, L.

  Rosse, E.

  de Vesci, E. (V. de Vesci.)

  Sandwich, E.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Delamore, L.

  Dunalley, L.

  1624

  Dunleath, L.

  Plunket, E.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-borough.)

  Fingall, E. (E. Fingall.)

  Rathdonnell, L.

  Grinstead, E. (E. Enniskillen.)

  Rathmore L.

  Rossmore, L.

  Hare, E. (E. Listowel.)

  Rowton, L.

  Harlech, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Inchiquin, L.

  Iveagh, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Sherborne, L.

  Shute, E. (V. Barrington.)

  Kilmaine, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Silehester, E. (E. Longford.)

  Leconfield, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Massy, L.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Stalbridge, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, E.

  Middleton, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Suffield, L.

  Swansea, L.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Monekton, E. (V. Galway)

  Templemore, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Muskerry, L.

  Wantage, L.

  North, L.

  Wemyss, L (E. Wemyss.)

  O'Neill, L.

  Oranmore and Browne,

  Wenlock, L.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.

  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CASTLETOWN LORD CASTLETOWN moved to leave out Subsection (2). He asked the Government to explain exactly what the clause meant. It appeared to him to be very ambiguous, and he was advised that it was very doubtful if the Law Officers knew what the effect of this clause would be in the event of the Bill becoming law. He would cite an actual case in which the clause might have effect. There was a property at the present moment let for shooting purposes, and also with a demesne attached to it, and other outlying land also which was not demesne land. What would be the result if the incorporeal hereditament was segregated in this case from the demesne and other land? Supposing the tenant came into Court to have a fair rent fixed for outlying land, would not that have a very serious effect on the shooting right? On the other hand, would it not have a serious effect on the fair rent, because the landlord might hold that the incorporeal hereditament was so valuable that the fair rent was really of small value. As far as he could make out the clause was not of very great value, it only dealt with a

  1625
  few cases which had cropped up since I 1881—he believed five or six cases. He; ventured to suggest to the Government that this clause should be left out for the present, and that they should allow those litigants who chose to come before ordinary tribunals to decide these cases. He was afraid the clause as it stood would lead to further litigation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDthought that grievances had arisen oftener than his noble Friend thought in reference to this matter. Unquestionably it had been found in some cases that a man who was an honest farmer might have a portion of his land that would be demesne land, or otherwise not within the purview of the Land Acts, and he would from that circumstance lose the right to have his case considered under any section of the Land Act. That was considered to be a hardship. It was found that demesne land was capable of being treated separately from the rest of the holding without doing any injustice, and the tenant might be allowed to have a fair rent fixed in respect of the balance of the land which would clearly be within the purview of the Land Acts. He was not answerable for the tribunal under the Land Act of 1881, but they must assume that it would try to administer an Act fairly when their attention was directed to it; they were told here that they were not to consider it separately unless they made up their minds that it would not diminish the landlord's interest therein. It was only fair and reasonable to leave the tribunal that power of making the separation if it could be done justly.
  LORD CASTLETOWNput the case of land which bad been let to a shooting tenant, where the grazing of a demesne had been let with it, but at the same time the grazing of fields which were not demesne. Could not the tenant go into Court to have a fair rent fixed for those particular fields?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid he was much obliged to the noble Lord for putting another conundrum to him.
  LORD CASTLETOWNsaid the Bill was full of them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDpointed out that the cases were all governed by certain words. It
  1626
  rested with the tribunal to say whether they would make any division or whether they would insist on treating it as a whole, and they would only allow it to be broken up into different parts if they thought it could be done without diminishing the landlord's interest therein.
  LORD CASTLETOWN: Then I understand we are practically at the mercy of the Court in this matter.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYasked if it would not be possible to define to the Court what their real position should be. They acknowledged that they were at the mercy of the Court.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid that his words were not that they would be at the mercy of the Court. It was a matter that was left to judicial discretion to determine, and he was not aware that there was any different method. It was open to the landlord, when the division was made, to come to the Court and say, "Do not make the division because it will diminish the value of my interest therein." The landlord would submit evidence to show that the division of the holding would diminish the landlord's interest and the tenant would deny that such would be the case, with the result that the matter would have to be decided by the discretion of the Sub-Commissioner.
  LORD CASTLETOWNsuggested that the difficulty might be overcome by the omission of the words "or is an incorporeal hereditament."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid that might strike a most serious blow at the whole principle of the clause.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEhoped that the noble Lord would press his Amendment to a Division, because he had already elicited from the Government that the Irish landlords were entirely at the mercy of the Land Commissioners, and he did not think that their experience of that mercy led them to think that it was worth much.
  LORD CASTLETOWNsaid that as he had succeeded in extracting so much information on the subject from the noble and learned Lord, he would not press his Amendment to a Division.
  Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
  LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON moved, in Hub-section (3), to leave out the words "may if it think just," and to insert after the word "common" the words—
  "may, if it think that it is just, and that no portion of the holding when divided will be of less value than ten pounds valuation."
  His object in moving the Amendment was to prevent an undue sub-division of the holdings.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid that he would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF ARRAN THE EARL OF ARRAN moved to omit Sub-section (3). It appeared to him that the sub-section opened the door to the undue sub-division of holdings. The sub-section would affect a large number of holdings, and in the interest of the tenants themselves as well as of the community, he moved his Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid that he thought the danger of undue subdivision was obviated by the Amendment which had just been accepted. The limitation of the value of the holding to be separated to £10 would operate as a sufficient safeguard against undue sub-division.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid he thought that the sub-section would permit of the sub-division of large farms of 100 acres which would be most undesirable. In one case he knew of, a man died leaving his farm between his two brothers, one of whom had since died and had been succeeded by his widow, the farm being divided between her and the surviving brother. This was a most dangerous practice.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid the subsection was vicious in principle and would certainly lead to a good deal of litigation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 5,—

  TOWN PARKS.
  In the construction of the ninth section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, the word "agricultural" shall he construed to mean agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN*LORD MACNAGHTEN moved to omit Clause 5. Of all those interested in the matter in the county from which he came, no one wanted the clause so far as he could ascertain; of the witnesses examined before the Morley Committee, one, and only one, expressed a desire for it. Of course, that might not be a sufficient reason for standing in the way of the Government, if they desired to "tinker harmlessly with the Act of 1881; but he was bound to say—and he said it with all the responsibility of a person occupying a judicial position—that if the clause were carried the whole of the town parks in Ireland would be destroyed. ["Hear, hear!"] He found his Amendment described in the Press that morning as utterly bad, and himself as a ringleader of people. He was not a leader of anybody. He did not know that he had any influence even with his friends. Indeed, it was with the greatest reluctance he intervened in the Debate. He thought a person in his position ought not to interfere in political Debates. But he did not think any man ought to desert his friends when he found them hardly treated. [Cheers.] Three conditions had to be regarded, as the Act of 1881 stated, in deciding whether a holding was a town park. It must be a holding, ordinarily termed town parks, adjoining or near to any city or town: it must bear an increased value as accommodation land, over and above the ordinary letting value of land occupied as a farm; and it must be in the occupation of a person living in the city or town or a suburb thereof, at the date of the passing of the Act. No doubt there was a good deal of dissatisfaction with the Land Act of 1881 for its provisions in regard to town parks. He did not think that anybody knew more about it than he did, for he was at the time Member for the county of Antrim, where the subject was a burning question. Of course, every shopkeeper in a town who had a little piece of land would have been very glad if the fee simple value of that land had been presented to him. But he pointed out at meeting after meeting during the elections of 1885 and 1886, when he stood successfully for the Northern Division of Antrim, that they must

  1629
  really consider the accommodation of their fellow-townsmen. It was then said that there were thousands and thousands of people who were ordinary farmers and who were kept out of the Land Court because their holdings were town parks. That seemed to him a very reasonable point to take, and he said at the time that if he ever got the opportunity he would do his best to amend the law. He thought it very unreasonable indeed that any bonâ fide farmer should be kept out of the Land Court because his holding was a town park. Well, in 1887, a Land Act came up from the House of Commons with a provision as to town parks, fixing a population limit. Everybody now admitted that that was a mistake. Their Lordships rejected it, and he moved the provision which now stood part of the Land Act of 1887 that a fair rent might be fixed, for a piece of land although a town park, if it were let and used as an ordinary agricultural farm. Next came the Morley Committee. The bulk of the evidence taken before that Committee was undoubtedly in favour of retaining town parks as they were now under the Act of 1887. The only gentleman who gave evidence before that Committee in favour of the action which the Government had taken was Mr. Justice Bewley, an excellent Judge, indeed, but not sound on the subject of town parks. At any rate, he was very unfortunate, He first adopted a population limit. He was overruled in that lie then expressed the singular opinion that the words their Lordships inserted in the Bill of 1887 had no particular meaning, and he was overruled in that. It was the case of "Macnamara v. Macnamara," which related to a town park at Ennis, which was a considerable town in County Clare. A Mr. Macnamara was the landlord. The tenant was a Mr. Talbot, who managed the town park in a peculiar way. He inaugurated a rotation of crops, simple, economical and remunerative. His holding was 10 acres in extent, and for that he paid £30 a year. Every alternate year, regularly, he let the town park in conacre or muck ground, as it is called in Clare. For every acre he got £6, so, for letting the land in alternate years he got double the rent. In alternate years he grew wheat on it. He had no manure to
  1630
  pay for, and was only at the expense of seed and labour. No doubt the system was profitable, for he continued it for a good many years. In process of lime he died, and his wife carried on the town park exactly according to the system of rotation he had followed. Then a country attorney named Macnamara picked it up—country attorneys generally picked up the best things going. [Laughter.] He did not carry on the same system. Apparently he had sheep farms in several places, and he used the town park to feed his sheep. The Act of 1887 was then passed, which was intended for bonâ fide, farmers, and he took his landlord into the Court, and the Sub-Commissioners promptly reduced his rent to £20 a year. They thought it was an ordinary agricultural holding, and had been used as such. The landlord appealed to the Chief Commissioner, and Mr. Justice Bewley also thought that was the ordinary way to treat an agricultural farm. Then the landlord appealed to the Court of Appeal, and he would read an extract or two from the Judgment of the Court, because it presented his argument more clearly and in better words than he could present it. Chief Baron Pallas, who was as sound a lawyer as could be found in Ireland or in England said:—
  "Neither is the user by Macnamara within the section unless we read the words 'ordinary agricultural farm' as capable of including holdings pastoral in their character. It is not possible to do that. In Section 58 of the Act of 1881 agricultural and pastoral holdings are distinguished from each other. That section is amended by Section 9 of the Act of 1887, and the two sections must be read as dovetailed into one another. It would unsettle foundations"
  That was an argument the Government did not pay much attention to nowadays. [Laughter.]
  "if we were to hold 'ordinary agricultural farm' in the amending section to include pastoral holdings when the amending section treats pastoral as distinguished from agricultural holdings. Reading the two sections together, it seems to me that the legislature has purposely omitted pastoral holdings from the later section. There may be good reasons for this. I can quite understand that land that afforded grass for a cow in the neighbourhood of a town and a tillage farm in the same locality should be subject to different incidents. However, we have nothing to do with the motive that actuated the legislature."
  About the same time there was another case in which Lord Chancellor Walker

  1631
  and Lord Justices Fitzgibbon and Barry agreed. Lord Chancellor Walker expressed his opinion as follows:—
  "It will be observed that 'town park' in Section 58 is excluded, although it is agricultural or pastoral, or partly both, because if not such it would be excluded by other provisions of the Act, and further it was difficult to imagine any town park which does not, in the course of management, receive use similar to what a farm received. The growth of oats, feed of cattle, are the ordinary uses of a town park or farm, and when, therefore, the legislation in 1887 superadded to, found an exclusion from an exclusion, it must be assumed that they intended to describe a character of holding which would not only have the incidents already common to town parks, but be facts of its tenure and use, something different from the subject matter which was tenure and use with townsman accommodation which even the Act of 1887 carefully preserved. It may not be easy to give a definition of what is an 'ordinary agricultural farm.' The onus in each case is on the tenant to show his holding comes within the words, and I think it is impossible to leave out of sight all the circumstances, including the personalty of the tenant when you have to ascertain the character of the letting and use."
  It would he impossible to find the intention which the House had in view when they passed the Act of 1887 Letter expressed than it was in these Judgments. Then came Mr. Morley's Committee. Two gentlemen on the Committee were not friendly to town parks. They persecuted them from beginning to end, and never began a series of questions about them without talking of the "vexed question," the "money question," the "very difficult question" of town parks. These gentlemen expressed themselves as unfavourable, as might have been expected, to the Act of 1887. He was not surprised that Mr. T. W. Russell did, because he was very angry when the House of Commons in 1887 adopted the section which their Lordships had sent down. Mr. Russell was a great advocate of temperance—in everything except the use of language. [Laughter.] For his own part he was rather fond of strong language, especially when it meant nothing. Mr. Russell declared in the House of Commons that if this section and another which they sent down with it were adopted, there would be a blaze in Ulster which would not be put out for a long time. The result was that there was not blaze enough to light a farthing candle. Let him tell their Lordships how the remnants of Mr. Morley's Committee went on after
  1632
  the most sensible members had left it, because they thought the proceedings of that Committee were not exactly in accordance with their opinions of fairness. The Committee in their Report made some very disparaging remarks on the Land Act of 1887. They said that it had given rise to further litigation, and then they came to this passage, which, he must say, was delightful reading to him. They said they had "spent some time in trying to reconcile the various decisions." It was rather the practice when he was a young man for Judges to employ themselves on that very futile operation, but for half-a-dozen intelligent laymen to spend much time in trying to reconcile the decisions of the Courts of Law seemed to be absolutely absurd. He did not forget there were some lawyers among the remnants of that Committee. There was his learned Friend Sir Robert Reid, but he was a wise man, and, so far as he could see, took very little interest in the proceedings of the Committee. He was not there half the time or anything like it, and was not there when this wonderful paragraph got inserted in the Report. He also did not forget that there was Mr. Healy, who was an extremely acute and able lawyer, but a deal too wise, he thought, to spend his days in a pastime of that sort. Besides, he was not by any means sure that Mr. Healy would consider it his mission to reconcile differences of any sort, either in decisions of law or in the section of the party to which he belonged. That being so he wanted to know what it all meant? It was rather hard to find words to protect bonâ fide farmers and exclude other people, but their Lordships in 1887 were successful. The Government now proposed to add words to the effect that in the construction of the 9th section of the Act of 1887 the word "agricultural" should be construed to mean agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral. There were some people in that House, and he believed the noble Marquis was one, who objected to one word, which had a definite and known meaning in English, being declared by Parliament to mean something quite different. Why the Government should declare that agricultural meant pastoral he could not conceive. If the Government had any meaning at all in view, surely they could

  1633
  put it in ordinary English. The words partly agricultural and partly pastoral had no meaning, because every agricultural farm had grassland or pastoral land within it. It did not lose the character of an agricultural farm because part of it was in grass. They had had discussions that night about pastoral holdings, and he hoped he might be fortunate enough to learn what an ordinary pastoral farm of one or two acres was. He did not believe there was such a thing in Ireland. Fortunately or unfortunately for Ireland, agricultural farms were of all sizes. They had large farms, and farms not much above one acre or two acres. They had agricultural farms down to the smallest parcel of ground that a bonâ fide, farmer could cultivate, but they never heard in Ireland of an ordinary pastoral farm of two acres. The thing was absurd. It was for a person occupying a piece of ground of that sort, and for such a person only, that this clause was inserted. The framers of the clause had done what they had sometimes to do in rating cases, they had constructed what might be called a hypothetical tenant who lived in a a town, who had all the pleasures of a town, without anything else to do but occupy an acre or two of land outside where he kept a cow. Was there such a person? In nature or reason was it possible to find a man who lived without any occupation at all, except looking over a gate and watching a cow feeding on the grass? He did not think such a person was to be found, or that, if found, he would be a very desirable person. He thought he would be a man who would spend most of his time, when not looking at the cow, in the public-house, and he was quite certain, if their Lordships gave him the fee-simple of that farm, or more than the fee-simple of it, by admitting him to the Land Courts, the greater part of the purchase money would find its way into the pockets of the publican. He had looked at the evidence given before Mr. Morley's Committee in order to see whether there was any such person, and in the whole course of the evidence he had not been able to find one. It seemed to him the Act of 1887 provided for everybody who ought to be provided for. They would no doubt learn from the
  1634
  Lord Chancellor of Ireland where the particular cases were that this clause in the Bill was intended to provide for. He had searched everywhere to find such an instance, and he was bound to say he could not find a trace of it. This was, it seemed to him, a policy of attempting to tinker with a thing that had been settled to the satisfaction of everybody but those persons, of course, who desired agitation, and he implored their Lordships to strike out this clause.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid he would merely state as clearly as he could what were the reasons which had led the Government to include this clause in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord told the House that a town park within the meaning of the Act had to fulfil three conditions—(1) that of proximity to a town or village; (2) that it must have increased value as accommodation land; and (3) that the occupier should be resident in the town or village or in the suburbs in 1881. Then came the Land Act in 1887, which extended the definition given by the earlier Act, and Clause 9 of that Act admitted to the benefits of a fair rent any holding which, although complying with the above conditions, was used as an ordinary agricultural farm, and with the other condition if it could be so admitted without injury to the development of the town. The question that arose was, what was the intention of the word "agricultural" in that Clause 9. He believed it was the case that it was interpreted by the Land Commission as meaning an ordinary farm—that was equivalent to what, in the language of the Land Acts, was described as a farm agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral. The Court of Appeal held that the word "agricultural" was to be interpreted in the much more restricted sense, that an agricultural farm was to be held to be not an ordinary agricultural farm in the sense of the Land Acts, but a tillage farm. What had the result of that been? It was that a holding which, in other respects, fulfilled the conditions of a town park—a holding that was within what might for the sake of convenience be described as the town park zone—and was held by a bonâ fide farmer living in the town and used principally as a dairy farm or for

  1635
  grazing, was excluded from a fair rent. That distinction seemed to them an unreasonable one. Such tenants, if residing elsewhere, could go into Court and get a fair rent fixed, and the Government were unable to see why they should be, because they were within the town park zone, excluded from the benefits of a fair rent. There was one very important point to which he should like to call their Lordships' special attention. That was that, under the amended clause they proposed to introduce, the tenant could not be admitted to Court on an application for a fair rent if it could be shown that the land was necessary for the development of the town or for the accommodation of its inhabitants. That was a very important safeguard, which would be maintained in their clause, and with that safeguard he confessed he failed to see why there should be any serious objection to the clause which they had proposed. ["Hear, hear!"]
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid it was very desirable that Parliament should lay down that that was the principal object in preserving town parks, but in an individual case the noble Marquess would readily believe that it was little or no protection whatever. He was sorry to see that the noble Marquess, in his attempt to construe an Act of Parliament, followed exactly the line which the Chief Commissioner and the Sub-Commissioner followed. In construing that Act, the noble Marquess struck out the most important word of the compound expression by which their Lordships pointed that these were to be reserved for bonâ fide farmers. If he treated language in that way when he proposed to construe it, he could not wonder that the noble Marquess arrived at the same conclusion as Mr. Justice Bewley—a conclusion reprobated by the Court of Appeal in very clear and distinct language. The noble Marquess pointed out that this definition excluded bonâ fide farmers from going into Court and getting their rents settled. Was there the slightest trace of any such exclusion? He had hoped the noble Marquess would have told him exactly the sort of person he wanted to bring in, but here again they were called upon to act in the dark and to tinker with settled Acts of Parliament on the belief of the noble Marquess and the other Members of the Cabinet.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid his noble and learned Friend's argument assumed that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was right and that Mr. Justice Bewley was wrong in saying that land held as an ordinary agricultural farm under the Act of 1877 was necessarily confined to a farm held for tillage purposes only, and that the words could not apply properly to a farm that was held for tillage and pasturage purposes.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: I did not say anything of the kind. The noble Lord was not present when my argument was addressed to the House, and I do not wonder that he has not got an accurate notion of it.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid he heard his noble and learned Friend's speech just now, and he understood from him distinctly that that was the distinction that was drawn in the Court of Appeal, and that that was the ground upon which they reversed Mr. Justice Bewley.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid they let Mr. Justice Bewley down very easily because they said he had not heard the argument.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid that might be so, but their letting down Mr. Justice Bewley easily did not touch what was the point they were now discussing. He understood the question that arose was the proper construction of the words "an ordinary agricultural farm." The clause that was now objected to was one which said "agricultural shall be construed to mean agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral." His noble and learned Friend proposed to leave out that clause, and the effect of that omission would be to assert that a farm which was partly agricultural and partly pastoral was not an ordinary agricultural farm.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid he endeavoured to explain that that was not so.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid that if he was wrong as to the effect, he did not understand why his noble and learned Friend was so eager to omit the clause.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid his noble and learned Friend would have heard him give the reason had he been present.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid that no doubt he was deprived of the advantage

  1637
  of hearing his noble Friend's speech, but he had got Clause 5 and he had got the Amendment, and he could see what the effect of the Amendment would be.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid his noble Friend had not followed his argument.
  LORD HERSCHELLwas not dealing with the argument, but with the clause, and the Amendment.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid he stated that the clause was very innocent to look at, but it required some knowledge of the Act, which he did not think his noble Friend possessed, to see the hidden meaning of it.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid it was difficult to deal with the hidden meaning, and he was only dealing with the obvious and natural and ordinary meaning of the clause. As regarded knowledge of the Act, he doubted whether any noble Lord had more knowledge of the Act of 1881 than he had. He could not see that the clause would do more than provide that an ordinary agricultural farm should include a farm which was not of tillage but was partly agricultural and partly pastoral. If that be the effect, was there anything wrong?
  LORD MACNAGHTENexplained that, before a thing was a town park at all, it must be either agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural or partly pastoral. That being the general definition, and the whole of the town parks coming under that definition, they must be agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural or partly pastoral, and then came the town parks section and took the words out. His noble Friend proposed at the end of the clause to put the words back again. The only person the Amendment could bring in was a person who was not a bonâ-fide farmer, and the intention of the House was that a bonâ-fide farmer, though holding a town park, should be admitted.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDasked if it would surprise their Lordships to hear that this clause passed the House of Commons nemine contradicente. Nay, more, when a wider clause dealing with town parks was under the notice of the House of Commons his friend, Mr. Carson, picked out this particular part of it as being the part of the clause that he hoped would pass unanimously, because it was to cure what
  1638
  was regarded as a casus omissus by some people in Ireland. He trusted their Lordships would not assent to the proposition of his noble and learned Friend. To accept the Amendment would be an unwise and retrograde step in legislation.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid he had a letter from Mr. Carson in which that gentleman said:—
  "When I said in the House of Commons I had no objection to the word agricultural in the town parks section of the Act of 1887 being held to include pastoral, I was quite under the impression that the word pastoral had been omitted from the Act of 1887 by an oversight. The matter arose in the House without any notice. I have, however, now looked into the matter, and I think it is quite clear that in 1887, when the Legislature were admitting ordinary agricultural holdings, it was purposely intended to exclude grazing fields near the towns, and for this reason pastoral was omitted. I fear, if the Bill now before the House of Lords was not altered, it will in effect destroy the last remnant of town parks, and cause great inconvenience to those in the towns who require the pasture fields most frequently in connection with their business."
  He (Lord Macnaghten) read that letter in answer to what he would not call the sneer of his noble and learned Friend, but something approaching to a sneer.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I repudiate that, I used it as a perfectly legitimate argument. It was said in my presence that this was a part of the Bill that was non-contentious.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: It was in the early hours of the morning. [Laughter.]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I heard it at seven o'clock, before dinner. [Laughter.]
  The Committee divided on the Question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill:—

  CONTENTS

  …

  …

  77

  NOT-CONTENTS

  …

  …

  96

  DIVISION LIST:—CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Norfolk, D. E. Marshal.)

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Bedford, D.

  Grafton, D.

  Cross, v. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Marlborough, D.

  1639

  Ailesbury, M.

  Burton, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Churchill, L. [TELLER]

  Exeter, M.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Northampton, M.

  Emly, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Glenesk, L.

  Harris, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward)

  Herschell, L.

  Iveagh, L.

  James, L.

  Lathom, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Chesterfield, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Kensington, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Kenyon, L.

  Cranbrook, E.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Dudley, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Jersey, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Morley, E.

  Manners, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Monkswell, L.

  Romney, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Selborne, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Ranfurly L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Stamford, E.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [TELLER.]

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Rothschild, L.

  Llandaff, V.

  Rowton, L.

  Oxenbridge, V.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Portman, V.

  Sinclair, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L.(E. Galloway.)

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Teynham, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Wantage, L.

  Belper, L.

  Welby, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Wenlock, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Burghclere, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Verulam, E.

  Annesley, E.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Bandon, E.

  Belmore, E.

  Caledon, E.

  Bangor, V.

  Carnwath, E.

  Templetown, V.

  De La Warr, E.

  de Montalt, E.

  Annaly, L.

  Essex, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Ilchester, E.

  Carew, L.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Lanesborough, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Castletown, L. [TELLER.]

  Mayo, E. [TELLLER]

  Portarlington, E.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Portsmouth, E.

  Rosse, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Clarina, L.

  1640

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

  Muskerry, L.

  Clonbrock, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Connemara, L.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

  Crofton, L.

  De Freyne, L.

  Plunket, L.

  de Ros, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  de Vesci, L. (V. deVesci.)

  Rathdonnell, L.

  Deramore, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Digby, L

  Rossmore, L.

  Dorchester, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Dunalley, L.

  Dunleath, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Ebury, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Shute, L (V. Barrington.)

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Harlech, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Stanmore, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Kesteven, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Kilmaine, L.

  Swansea, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Massy, L.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford)

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Middleton, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss)

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Zouche of Haryng-Worth, L.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Clause 5 accordingly struck Out.
  Clause 6,—

  EXCLUSION BY SUB-LETTING OF HOLDING.
  (1.) For the purpose of the Land Law Acts the tenant of a holding shall be deemed to be in bona fide occupation thereof not withstanding—

  (a) that any dwelling-house on the holding, not being the dwelling in which the tenant for the time being resides, and not having been erected by the tenant in breach of his contract condition, is sub-let to or in the occupation of another person; or

  (b) that any other part of the holding is otherwise than in breach of the contract of tenancy, or of a statutory condition, sub-let to or in the occupation of another person—if in the estimation of the Court a part not less than seven-eights or there abouts in value of the holding, excluding from such value the value of any buildings erected by the tenant, remains in the bona fide occupation of the tenant; and if the sub-letting was made before the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, or was substantially in substitution for a letting existing at that date;

  Provided that—

  (i) for the purpose of the foregoing provisions of this section, a breach of the contract of tenancy shall not be deemed to have taken place if the landlord waived such breach;

  (ii) the foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply unless the Court think it reasonable to entertain the application having regard to the acreage of the holding and to any other matter which they think should be taken into consideration, and the Court may entertain the application notwithstanding that any such house or part of a holding is occupied by a person to whom it has been sub-let in contravention of Section two of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.

  (2.) Where a part of the property held under one demise is sub-let, and the property was let to the tenant subject to the tenancy of some other person in the part sub-let, the Court may, in any case to which Sub-section one of this section docs not apply, direct that the part so sub-let shall thenceforth be, or if it is an incorporeal hereditament, be treated as, a separate holding, and (unless the application to the Court is made on the expiration of a lease) that same shall be hold during the continuance of the tenancy at such rent as the Court determine to be the proper proportion of the rent reserved by the demise, and the Court may fix a fair rent for the remainder of the property held under the demise, and the Land Law Acts as amended by this Act shall apply to that remainder, as if it were a separate holding;
  Provided that, if the landlord so elect, the Court shall, in any case to which this subsection applies, order that the tenant of the part so sub-let shall be the tenant of such landlord as his immediate landlord.
  (3.) The sub-letting of any such dwelling-house as is referred to in Sub-section one (a) of this section during the continuance of a statutory term or after its expiration shall not be deemed to be a breach of any statutory condition, nor shall the Second section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, apply to any such subletting, whether made before or after the passing of this Act.
  THE EARL OF ARRANsaid that he would withdraw the Amendments to Clause 6 standing in his name, as a point had arisen in reference to town parks, which he confessed he did not understand. He would bring the matter up on the Report Stage.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCI VISCOUNT DE VESCI moved in Paragraph (b) Sub-section (1) to leave out the words—
  "if in the estimation of the Court a part not less than seven-eighths or thereabouts in value of the holding, excluding from such value the value of any buildings erected by the tenant, remains in the bonâ fide occupation of the tenant; and if "
  1642
  The noble Lord said that his object was to secure, if possible, that there should be no contravention of the object of the Act of 1881, which provided that there should be no sub-letting without the permission of the landlord in writing. That Act provided also that sub-letting might be permitted in so far as it was for the use of labourers bonâ fide employed or required for the cultivation of a holding, and there was a further provision that there should be no trivial sub-letting. He should be very glad if the noble Marquess would explain how they arrived at the rather arbitrary distinction of value. He thought they would agree with him that one acre plots were amply sufficient for the purposes of sub-letting. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would accept his Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid that there was an objection to laying down a hard and fast rule as to sub-letting, and he should prefer to leave the matter, as it was dealt with in the second proviso at the foot of the page, under which the Court was not to permit sub-letting unless it thinks that it was reasonable, having regard to the acreage of the holding. That appeared to be an intimation to the Court that the extent of the sub-letting was to be regulated by the particular circumstances of the case.
  LORD DE VESCIsaid that he wished to remind the noble Marquess that under the Act of 1887, sub-letting was only to be permitted for the accommodation of the labourers on the holding. That Act did not contemplate the sub-letting of 10 acres out of a farm of 80 acres. At all events no single sub-letting ought to exceed an acre in extent.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DE VESCI LORD DE VESCI moved in Paragraph (b) Sub-section (1), after "1887, or," to insert the words "if it."
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DE VESCI LORD DE VESCI moved in the end of Paragraph (b) Sub-section (1), after the word "date" to insert the words
  "provided that the amount of land so sub-let shall not exceed one-eighth of the holding, nor one statute acre for each house or allotment, nor five acres in the aggregate."
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN THE DUKE OF ABERCORN moved to insert an Amendment providing that the receipt of rent by a landlord after a sub-letting should not be deemed consent to the sub-letting.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 7,—

  JUDICIAL RENT MAY BE FIXED WHERE CONTRACT PROVIDES FOR RESUMPTION OF HOLDING BY THE LANDLORD.
  Where any holding is held under a contract of tenancy, empowering the landlord to resume the whole or any part thereof for the purpose of building or planting, a judicial rent may be fixed in respect thereof, without prejudice to the right of the landlord to resume possession at any time for the bona fide purposes aforesaid, upon the terms contained in the said contract of tenancy, or, if no terms are contained therein, upon the terms that the rent of the holding he proportionately abated.
  Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 8,—

  TURBARY AND OTHER PROFITS, EASEMENTS AND PRIVILEGES.
  Where, on an application to fix the fair rent for a holding, it is proved to the Court that the tenant of the holding, by virtue of his tenancy, has, by the permission of the landlord, whether with or without payment, been accustomed to exercise any profit a prendre, easement, privilege of turbary, or other privilege over land belonging to the landlord, and it appears to be necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the holding that he should not be deprived of what he has so exercised, and that the interests of the landlord in portions of his estate other than that in which the said profit a prendre, easement or privilege is to be exercised, will not be thereby injuriously affected, the Court may, after giving the landlord and tenant of the holding and any tenant of the land an opportunity of being heard, make an order for securing the profit a prendre, easement or privilege to the tenant of the holding, upon such terms, as to rent or otherwise, and in such manner as the Court think just, and such order shall be binding on all estates and interests in the said land.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE*THE EARL OF BELMORE moved to leave out Clause 8. There were parts of Ireland where there were no turf bogs; but, on the other hand, there were large districts of the country where turf bogs
  1644
  were numerous, and where tenants and landlords alike had to depend in a large measure upon them for their fuel. Therefore the question of turbary was very important. The effects of the clause would be to turn the cutting of turf, which was now a matter of privilege enjoyed by the tenant without any payment at all, or with some moderate payment, into an absolute right, and to deprive the owners of the bogs of the control of the bogs. The question of turbary was one of the most difficult and troublesome that landlords or agents had to deal with, and was often the cause of very expensive litigation between tenants. With regard to what Lord Lansdowne had said, he had never personally known of a case in which a landlord whose rent had been reduced indemnifying himself by raising the price of turf to his tenants. As to the effect of the clause on the purchase and sale of land to tenants, he had generally arranged that when a tenant had been buying his estate he should have a certain quantity of bog thrown in in proportion to the amount of rent, and if he wanted more he must buy it. There was nothing about which tenants were more inclined to quarrel than turf bogs. On his estate two adjoining farmers wanted to buy their farms, but each claimed the same piece of bog, and as they could not settle the difference, the agreement to purchase their farms had never been signed, although the matter arose a good while ago. He believed he had said enough as regarded turf bogs to show that it would not be desirable to deprive the landlord of the right to manage his own turf bogs. County Court Judge Waters, who had not much sympathy with landlords, in an action at Manor Hamilton regarding the cutting of turf bogs, gave a poor man a decree for £5 compensation when he Had lost his turf by a neighbour claming an exclusive right over the landlord's bog; and he said he hoped the time would never come when the landlords would be unable to manage their own bogs. He believed that what he had said justified him in moving the omission of the clause, because he did no see that they were in a position to amend it in a satisfactory way. In a different state of circumstances another proposal might be made. If they had a Board of Agriculture in Ireland a scheme might be arranged by

  1645
  which the board might acquire turf bogs and manage them by means of a local committee. Possibly that power might be extended to purchasing turf bogs on voluntary lines from the landlords, who often had much more of it than the required, and which might be worked for the benefit of the neighbourhood. He thought it would be much wiser to wait until the Board of Agriculture—which they were told was to be established—was in operation, when the matter could be considered carefully and not in a hurry as would be the case by passing this clause, which might also tie their hands from possibly doing something in the near future, which might otherwise be done. He begged to move the omission of the clause.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEobserved that many of the provisions of this Bill had been severely criticised, but he did not think any one of its clauses had found greater disfavour than the one they were now discussing. He had observed that that disfavour had been manifested in the most conspicuous manner by gentlemen connected with the management of Irish estates and familiar with the practical aspects of that management. He was bound to admit that any representations made by them, and backed by their knowledge and experience were entitled to most respectful consideration. He hoped he was not wrong in saying that up to a certain point there was no material difference between them. He thought it would be generally conceded that in many cases the value of these privileges and easements to the tenants was very-great, and none of their Lordships would have any wish to see the tenants arbitrarily deprived of the privilege of what they had long enjoyed. (Cheers.) He thought they would also be agreed that, when the tenant's rent had been fixed upon the assumption that he was in the enjoyment of a customary privilege of this kind, it would be an act of the grossest injustice to deprive him of that privilege while he remained liable for the rent. ["Hear, hear!"] He dwelt upon that because there was reason to suppose that in a great many cases these privileges had been secured to the tenants by the action of the Courts without, perhaps, a very minute inquiry as to whether, in the strictest sense of the word, the
  1646
  Courts were dealing with a legal right, or a mere customary privilege. He had had a paper put into his hand from a gentleman who had given much attention to these matters, Mr. H. Montgomery, who stated that in fixing the rent of a holding, in connection with which the tenant had hitherto had the privilege of cutting turf on the landlord's bog, the Court had always, at least since 1882, asked the landlord whether he wished to have the rent fixed with or without this privilege. The landlord very often said that he would prefer the rent to be put on the holding without the turf, leaving himself at liberty to deal with the turf by free contract. The tenant was then invited to give evidence of the value he set on the turbary privilege, and on this evidence the Court fixed the rent. It was within his own knowledge that this was not at all an unusual method of proceeding when the Court was dealing with the privilege of cutting turf. Turning to the clause in the Bill he thought their Lordships would admit that, whatever its faults might be, the Government had sought, at all events to the best of their ability, to afford to the landlord in cases of this kind an adequate measure of protection. They proposed to enact that the privilege should not be granted to the tenant as a right unless it could be shown that the exercise of the privilege was essential for the reasonable enjoyment of the holding. They proposed that it should be a condition sine quâ non that the exercise of the privilege should not injure the landlord's estate, and finally that the privilege was to be exercised upon terms to be laid down by the Court, which were intended for the protection of the landlord. It was not a new thing that the Court should be called upon to insist upon terms of this kind. There was in the Act of 1881 a clause with reference to the manner in which pastoral and turbary rights were to be exercised by the tenant. That clause laid down that the right might only be exercised, according to the ordinary usages which had prevailed with the expressed or implied consent, amongst the commoners reasonably entitled to exercise the same, and it was beyond doubt that the Courts had been in the habit of insisting upon very strict regulations in the case of tenants having privileges of turf-cutting, or having rights

  1647
  of turf-cutting, or rights of mountain-grazing, and so forth, exercised under the protection of the Act of 1881. The question was whether the protection which they proposed to give to the landlord was sufficient or not. He knew that in the opinion of the noble Lords from Ireland the clause as it stood did not sufficiently safeguard the landlords' rights. Some of the arguments against the clause as it stood seemed to be entitled to very considerable weight. One was that the effect of the clause would be to place a liberal and good landlord, who had been in the habit of granting these customary privileges to his tenants, in a worse position than the narrower and less generous landlord, who had been in the habit of denying those privileges to his tenants. Another was that the clause as it stood might open very wide opportunities for litigation between landlord and tenant, and he was sure every Member of the House felt that the fewer doors that were opened for litigation in Ireland the better. ["Hear, hear!"] Taking these matters into consideration, they had attempted to recast their clause, and the proposal which they would make to their Lordships would be of the following nature. It was a proposal the object of which was to guard the tenant in whose case a rent had been fixed upon the assumption that a customary privilege had been secured to him, from having that customary privilege withdrawn while he was paying rent for it. That, he thought, was an eminently just and reasonable arrangement to make, and he could not believe that any noble Lord was likely to object to it. The words which they would suggest were somewhat to the following effect—that wherever it should appear that a tenant had been accustomed to exercise any profit a prendre, easement, or privilege of this kind, and it appeared to be necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the holding that the tenant should continue to exercise those privileges, the landlord should be required to elect whether he would or would not allow the tenant to exercise as of right during the statutory term, and subject to the same restrictions and conditions as heretofore, that which he had previously exercised by permission. If the landlord consented to allow the tenant to exercise the
  1648
  customary privilege as of right, then that privilege would be secured to the tenant by the order fixing the fair rent during the currency of the statutory term. If, on the other hand, the landlord, on the whole, deemed it inadvisable to secure to the tenant that privilege under those conditions, then he would signify to the effect that the privilege was to be regarded as withdrawn, and the rent would be fixed upon the holding upon the assumption that the tenant was no longer in the enjoyment of that privilege That, of course, left it open to the landlord and tenant to make their own bargain with regard to turf or seaweed, or whatever other privileges might be under discussion. That would, he hoped, commend itself to their Lordships as not an unreasonable attempt to solve the difficulty, and they would bring up a clause to carry out the arrangement he had indicated.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTsaid that no landlord wished to prevent his tenant cutting turf, but it was a well-known fact that, unless there was some controlling influence to confine the tenants to certain places and to regulate the cutting of bog, there would be endless disputes between the tenants, and a whole mountain would be skinned and rendered absolutely valueless, not only to the landlord but to the tenants. As to other privileges which tenants were to be given, were they to understand that if a landlord allowed a tenant to drive through his place that would give a right of way? He did not know whether the Amendment to the clause would commend itself to the House, but he would certainly vote against the clause.
  THE EARL OF MAYOunderstood that the new clause was intended to take the sting out of the present clause. He spoke for himself, and, he believed, for his friends, when he said it must be clearly laid down that the privileges which the landlord was granting to the tenant were not to be sold or got rid of by the tenant. He had not got an acre of turf bog, but he knew that if the management of such bogs were taken out of the hands of the landlords the most terrible confusion would ensue. There would be a sort of Donnybrook Fair, for the tenants would fight who was to cut this bit and who was to cut that bit. He trusted the

  1649
  noble Marquess would be able to arrange everything satisfactorily. Until, however, they had the new clause before them they could not arrive at any compromise with the Government. In the House of Commons the Chief Secretary had said he did not know what "other privileges" were, but Mr. Atkinson had said they might include the cutting of heather on a turf bog or a grouse moor. When they were in the middle of a grouse drive, would noble Lords like to see a tenant come and cut heather?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid he did not wish to intervene in the domestic arrangements of the Government and their supporters, but he was able so far to follow the discussion as to ascertain that the clause was withdrawn and there was a promise of a new clause on report. Surely the time to discuss the clause would be when it was presented. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid what he understood was that it was proposed that there should be a modification of the clause or a new clause, the effect of which would be this—when a tenant went to the Court to have his rent fixed, if he had been in the customary privilege of cutting turf, gathering seaweed, or taking gravel, the landlord would be called upon to say whether he would allow the customary privilege to become a right during the statutory period of 15 years. If he agreed, then the fact would be taken into consideration by the Court in fixing what the fair rent was to be. On the other hand, it was quite optional to the landlord to say that he would not allow this privilege to be converted into a right. He thought the noble Lord opposite did not clearly understand that there was this option.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid he must stand to his point. ["Hear, hear!"] No doubt the explanation of the noble Earl was satisfactory to himself, but what they wanted was a statement from the Government. ["Hear, hear!"] Were they going to bring up a new clause on Report? Really, in the interests of the expedition of business, he protested against funeral orations over clauses that were dead, or anticipatory discussions on clauses that were to be brought forward. [Cheers.]
  LORD MACNAGHTENdid not think that the clause which was foreshadowed would be satisfactory. There was not the slightest evidence that any landlord had attempted to put an extravagant rent on bog. The whole thing was a bogus objection.
  THE PRIME MINISTER (The MARQUESS of: Might I reinforce the protest of the noble Earl opposite? It is really a very great waste of time to argue a clause which you have not seen.
  LORD MACNAGHTENsuggested that the best way of meeting the difficulty would be that any tenant who alleged that he had been unfairly treated in this manner should be at liberty, although his rent had been fixed, to go back to the Sub-Commissioners and have his rent revised with regard to that allegation.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid he felt sure the most convenient course was to hand in a new clause that night, which would be circulated, and in the meantime the clause, as it now stood, would be withdrawn. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Clause negatived.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: Now, I think, the time has come when we may reasonably adjourn till to-morrow.
  Debate adjourned.
  House resumed; and to be again in Committee To-morrow.

COAL MINES REGULATION ACT (1887) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

TRUCK BILL.
Considered in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment.
Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

TRUCK BILL.

  NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
  Considered in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment.
  Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments to be considered on Monday next.
House adjourned at Twenty Minutes past Twelve o'clock till To-morrow, Three o'clock.