said, in reference to the circumstance that the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General having in debate on the case of the "Tornado" cited and relied on documents not communicated to the House—namely, a written statement by a person professing to have been captain of the ship, and also a photograph of alleged instructions given by the owners to the same person; he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the clear obligation of Her Majesty's Government to produce all Papers relevant to the Question at issue, he will, without delay, lay these documents on the Table, together with the legal evidence of their authenticity, and of the employment of the said person to command the ship?

said, the hon. Gentleman was justified in his general proposition that it was the duty of the Minister to produce official documents which he quoted; but he thought he had rather misapprehended the nature of the information given by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. His hon. Friend stated that one of the Papers in his possession was a statement by Captain Holmes, and that he had seen a photograph of the private letter of instructions. The photograph of the private letter of instructions was not in the hands of his hon. Friend; but Captain Holmes made a verbal statement, and all that his hon. Friend professed, to do was to convey faithfully to the House the effect of that verbal statement. This the hon. Gentleman would see was hardly a document for production. In order that his hon. Friend might be perfectly accurate he himself took down the statement of Captain Holmes and read it over to him, and Captain Holmes said he did not wish to make any correction in it. There was no secresy about it, and his hon. Friend would have the utmost pleasure in showing it to the hon. Member, or any other Member who wished to see it.

said, he would not move the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name, because it depended on his former Amendment, which the Committee had rejected last Thursday.

said, he could not conceal from himself, nor would he attempt to conceal from the Committee, that the proposal he was about to make would be regarded as extravagant; but, notwithstanding this, he put it forward, as a most conclusive remedy for the present state of things in Ireland. Without wishing to be disrespectful, he assured the Committee that the land question of Ireland must not be decided on the narrow principles of the law of tenancy in this country. And he was not singular in this. Mr. Campbell, who had written ably on the subject, declared that the whole difficulty could be settled very speedily by one side of the House or the other, provided only it were left to Irishmen. The principle of the Bill, as regards its social aspect, was that, in order to apply a final remedy to the social grievance arising out of the present state of Irish land tenure, the occupier must be secured in his possession. If the Bill had the effect intended by its proposers the security of the possession of land in Ireland was as certain to the occupier as it was to the proprietor; because, unless the latter was prepared to outrage public opinion or to make a sacrifice of a great pecuniary character, he could not in the majority of cases disturb the occupation of the tenant. Under those circumstances, he would ask whether the Amendment he was about to propose was irreconcilable with the principle of the Bill. By his proposal the tenant had every inducement to enter into a contract, because his security would be as permanent as would be his right of occupation under other portions of the Bill. He knew that on the part of many English Members it would be objected that the effect of long leases had hitherto been injurious in Ireland to proprietor and occupier alike, and that they had had the effect of retarding the social and agricultural progress of that country. He might, however, answer that objection on the authority to which he had just now referred, for hon. Members would find it stated in that, work that the supposed fact was no fact at all, but was utterly untrue. The long leases which had provoked such censure and condemnation were leases granted a century and a-half ago by absentee landlords to middlemen. It was impossible that the same evil effects could result in the case of leases granted to men who were bound to occupy the land themselves, and who would forfeit the lease in case they sublet. The leases to which the occupiers of land objected were leases in which the tenant was also the gamekeeper of the landlord; in which, on pain of forfeiture, he was bound to keep trespassers and dogs off the land, and do all in his power to to preserve the game. He confessed he should have been astonished if such leases were viewed by the occupier with favour. Burke, treating of long and short leases, said—

"A furnished and unfurnished house may be taken for any term, however short; but no one would take a house not only unfurnished, but half built, except for a term which, on calculation, will answer with profit all his charges."

Even now, where a lease was granted at all, and where the landlord undertook such improvements as fencing, ditching, and draining, the lease was more commonly for 31 than oven for 21 years. In his county, at all events, landlords, as a rule, never attempted to offer a tenant less than a 31 years' lease. The general leasing powers under settlements in Ireland were for three lives, or 31 years, and many of them for three lives and 31 years. For his part, he would prefer a lease for one life and 31 years after, than for the 61 years proposed by his Amendment. It had been objected that 19 or 21 years' leases were regarded as sufficient security for the tenant in Scotland; but those leases were granted at a nominal rent for the pur- poses of improvement. [Lord ELCHO: £5 an acre.] In that case Scotland must be a happy country. He ventured to say that in no part of Ireland was any such rent obtained. The tenant in Scotland undertook to effect the necessary improvements; but it was stated that in these cases the tenant usually—at all events in the Highlands—drove a hard bargain, and would not be content to pay even the small consideration he did were it not that he expected at the end of the term to receive some further compensation for his labours. M. Laveleye, who was a high authority on the question of land tenure in Belgium, and the system of peasant proprietorship, said—

"The farmer in short leases becomes convinced that in adopting a more perfect method of culture he risks a larger capital without corresponding advantages, and that in the end he will be only labouring to enrich another."

He proposed the present Amendment in perfect good faith, supported by the authorities which he had quoted. Master Fitzgibbon recommended a 31 years' lease; and Mr. Campbell said that such a lease should be given to every tenant in Ireland, with rights of improvement and rights of renewal. He hoped, then, the Amendment would be received by I the Committee in the same spirit in which it was proposed, and that it would not be employed by any party or section of the House for the purpose of defeating the Government measure. If he thought such a use would be made of it, he would be the last man to propose the Amendment. He begged to move in Clause 3, line 15, sub-section 3, to leave out "thirty-one," and insert "sixty-one."

said, he would put it to his hon. Friend (Mr. Synan) whether he would be consulting the interests of the Bill, even from his own point of view, by pressing his Amendment. The term of 61 years which his hon. Friend proposed was of very great length; and although the Government were ready to contend for a thirty-one year's lease, which was a valuable lease in Ireland, whore it seemed well adapted to the feelings of the people and the circumstances of the country, they were not prepared to go beyond that point. There was an issue which would presently be before the House, and which would be quite different from that raised by his hon. Friend.

said, that leases of 61 years were by no means uncommon in Ireland. To his own knowledge the Rev. Mr. Townsend had executed 200 leases for 61 years within the last 12 months, and had raised his rental £400, besides refusing a fine. He had previously granted 100 leases of the same description. Of these leases The Times' Commissioner, in one of his letters, had spoken in the highest terms. He (Mr. Downing) could say, of his own knowledge, that while before the leases were granted the land was occupied by a most miserable tenantry, they were now among the most prosperous, contented, and happy in the West Riding of Cork. Only a short time ago the tenantry of Mr. Townsend presented him with an address and a service of plate, and among the subscribers were the Catholic clergy. Again, the second Earl of Kingston, who was also a clergyman—and he could state from what he knew that some of the Protestant clergy were among the best landlords in Ireland—had granted 800 leases upon his property in the county of Cork, each for their lives and 31 years; and that part of the county which was once the most lawless, was now perfectly peaceable and prosperous.

said, that the question involved was not whether 31 or 61 years' leases should be granted, but what length of term was to be put into this section which would be most likely to serve as an inducement for the granting of leases. The proposal of his hon. Friend was that a landlord should grant a 61 years' lease, if he desired to relieve himself from the liability to compensation; but scarcely anyone would hold that landlords would grant 61 years' leases in order to get rid of that liability. But there was another point which his hon. Friend would do well to consider. The question before the Committee was, that "31" be expunged; but it did not follow that 61 would be substituted; and if his hon. Friend were successful in his Motion, the result would probably be the insertion of the words about to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball). He, therefore, could not support the Amendment of his hon. Friend.

said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Downing) was mistaken in stating that any of the Earls of Kingston had been clergymen.

Sir, if we are going to a Division on the proposition of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Synan), I wish the Committee really to understand the issue before them. The question really is, whether the proposition of the Government for a 31 years' lease should be accepted. I am opposed to that. I am not in favour of the proposition of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Synan); I am opposed to the proposition for a 31 years' lease. As I find, from several Gentlemen who have spoken to me on the subject, that some perplexity exists as to the issue before us, it is well to state that the issue is whether we accept the 31 years' lease of the Government or not. We have nothing whatever to do with the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite. The hon. Gentleman opposite seems to be annoyed at the prospect of finding himself in the same Lobby with Gentlemen on this side of the House. Well, the annoyance may be mutual. I would, however, make a suggestion to the hon. Gentleman. It does not appear, as far as I have watched the course of the debate, that he has obtained any considerable sympathy from his own side, and, therefore, should he insist on going to a Division, if he will go into the same Lobby as the Government, he will deprive the Division of the disagreeable circumstances he deprecates.

said, he thought he might spare the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) the necessity of going into the same Lobby with him on that occasion. As he found the sense of the Committee was against him, and he had not received the support he had expected, he begged to withdraw his Amendment.

, in rising to move in page 4, line 15, to leave out "thirty-one" and insert "twenty-one," said: Sir, it is extremely satisfactory that the question now to be presented will come before the Committee disembarrassed of any matter of form, and raising a direct and plain issue between the two propositions. It is exceedingly desirable that the Committee should understand what is the nature of the proposition to be submitted to it, and to what it relates. The Amend- ment I have to move does not affect the question of the lease to be given where improvements are to be made; it does not interfere with the compensation to be allowed under the Bill where improvements are made or shall be made. The only question that is before the Committee is this—What is to be the term of lease to exonerate landlord from what is called compensation for disturbance of the tenant or from damages for eviction? The Government propose in the 3rd clause that if the landlord grants a lease of 31 years the grant of that lease shall exonerate him from the operation of that clause—that is to say, in any case where a lease is given by a landlord and accepted by a tenant, and where the tenure is under an instrument defining it to have 31 years' duration, at the termination of that lease the landlord will be relieved from any obligation to compensate the tenant for the loss of possession. But the right of the tenant will remain under the 4th clause to permanent improvements, such as buildings or the reclamation of land. Here we are dealing only with the 3rd clause and not with the 4th. The Government have the same provision in regard to 31 years in the 4th clause; and I object to your laying down the same measure of duration to exonerate the landlord from the 3rd clause as you lay down in the 4th clause. I say the duration ought to be different, as the principles here applicable are different. We are now, however, only on the 3rd clause, and this ought to be distinctly understood, because the hon. Gentleman opposite who made the last proposition (Mr. Synan) seemed to confuse the two sections together, introducing into his speech topics applicable only to the lease to be given as bearing on compensation for improvements, but not applicable to the lease to be given to relieve the landlord from his obligation in respect of the loss, or termination of the tenant's occupation. I hold that it has been affirmed by the judgment of the House that there is to be compensation given in the abstract for disturbance of possession; but the Government themselves, by asserting that proposition and obtaining a majority in its favour, conceded the principle that there is a given tenure or duration of possession, which, if a man obtains, it is just that the landlord should be relieved from the obligation to compensate him at the end of that term. The Government fix it at 31 years, and the proposition I submit is to change the 31 into 21. I assert, in the first place, that a term of 21 years is in itself a very considerable tenure. I have endeavoured to ascertain from the Tables what is the value of a 21 years' lease, taken relatively to the value of the fee I take the value of a fee simple in Ireland to be 20 years' purchase. That is computed on the supposition that money is of the value of 5 percent, and it is quite plain that 20 years' purchase does assume the value of the money to be 5 percent. On this basis, then, taking the value of the fee at 20 years' purchase, a lease of 21 years, such as I propose, would be equivalent to 12.82 years, or nearly 13 years out of the whole 20 years' purchase, while a term of 31 years would be equivalent to 15.59 years, or nearly 16 years out of the 20 years' purchase. Therefore, the demand of the Government is, that the landlord shall give the tenant close upon 16 years of the 20 years' value of the fee. That, on the face of it, shows that 31 years is too long a term. On the other hand, in proposing a 21 years' lease, instead of a 31 years' lease, the value of which, as I have said, bears the proportion of 12.82, or close upon 13 to 20 the entire value of the fee, I think I am not offering an inconsiderable or limited term. Therefore I hold that a 21 years' lease is a liberal and advantageous lease for the tenant, and, assuming it to be a liberal and advantageous lease, there are some considerations of policy in its favour. I think it was an error on the part of the Government, whatever term they adopted, to adopt the same term in Clause 3 and. in Clause 4. Your object in the exception in both clauses is this—you want to encourage a lease. I object to your laying down one standard and encouraging one single lease for this reason, that if you do all leases will fall in simultaneously, and when they so fall in you will enable combinations to be established to carry out the same organized system as we have at the present moment. If you by compulsion, or by devices equivalent to compulsion, say you will have one have one fixed and stereotyped form and duration of lease to be applicable to tenants in all parts of the country, there is great danger that when their leases are all at one time. coming to an end they will resist any alteration of the relations of landlord and tenant, and demand the renewal of precisely the same tenure again. In the 4th clause, which deals with improvements, a pressure is put on the landlord to give the tenant a 31 years' lease, otherwise he would not be exonerated on the termination of the tenant's occupancy from paying for drains in the case of wet and marshy land; but in the 3rd clause the exoneration is applicable to land on which no improvements are required, or only such improvements as are of trifling value. By retaining the term of 31 years in the 4th clause, and by amending the 3rd clause by the insertion of the term of 21 years, the result would be not that leases would be granted either for 21 years or 31 years merely, but you would find leases granted for 22 years, 23 years, and so on, and consequently they would be falling in at different periods. That I consider an advantage in a political point of view, because I do not deem it desirable that the whole of the tenures in Ireland should be placed on such a basis as that they would all simultaneously require re-adjustment in one particular year. There is another reason which makes the term of 21 years for a lease desirable. If a man gives a 31 years' lease there is no prospect, in the ordinary course of things, that he and the tenant would ever make an arrangement together again. Now I say it is not desirable that the tenant should feel that when his lease terminates he will have to face a different landlord. Such a course would encourage ideas utterly at variance with all those feelings and obligations existing in the relation of landlord and tenant, and which, with all your legislation, you never will eradicate—the sentiment of a moral obligation on the one hand, and on the other a feeling of gratitude for favours and benefits received. I believe that a term of 21 years in reference to leases would have a tendency to keep up the idea that there is a relation between landlord and tenant, because that is a term which might afford to any landlord the hope of again seeing his tenant, and exhibiting towards him the same kindness as he had previously shown. Having made these few observations bearing on the policy of the proposition I am about to make, I will now state what has been the practice in reference to leases in Ireland. I find, by a Paper taken from a Return made by the Poor Law Commissioners, that the number of leases for 21 years or less is 25,000, and the number exceeding 21 years, and not exceeding 31 years, is about 22,000. There is a greater number of leases for lives—namely, about 28,000; and for three lives, or 31 years concurrently, the number is 30,000. Hence it appears that there is a considerable number of leases for 31 years, and I will also add that a much greater number of leases for 21 years has been made of late than formerly. Those who manage their estates best in Ireland, and among them some of the greatest English proprietors, have selected the period of 21 years in preference to the more extended term of 31 years, holding the latter to be too long a period, inasmuch as it puts the matter out of the hands of the existing generation. Moreover, it was found that when the Irish tenants had leases of 31 years, or three lives, they covered the land by subletting and subdividing. A lease for 31 years was always considered of the same value as a lease for three lives, and that is the reason why leases were granted for three lives, or for 31 years concurrently. Now, I say, encourage under the 3rd clause the grant of leases for 21 years when the land is taken for ordinary occupancy, and encourage leases for 31 years under the 4th clause in cases where improvements are to be made. I now come to some authority which appears very much to bear on this question, and I have been greatly influenced in thinking that the term of 31 years is too long by the fact that a Committee of the House of Lords, composed of men of great ability, did not recommend a 31 years' lease. The Chairman of that Committee was a large Irish proprietor, with a vast knowledge of the circumstances of Ireland, and of great sagacity—the Marquess of Clanricarde. I find on that Committee the names of the Duke of Devonshire, the Earl of Clarendon, and the Earl of Kimberley—the two latter being ex-Lord Lieutenants of Ireland—and also the names of two ex - Lord Chancellors, Lord Westbury and Lord Cairns. I want to know to what better source you could go for authoritative statements on this subject? But those noble Lords did not act on their own judgment in the matter. They took evidence not merely I on the point of land tenure, but also on that of improvements. The longest tenure suggested by that Committee was 25 years. The Committee never dreamed of any compensation for occupation. They were dealing with the large question of improvements. But I will refer you to some of the evidence. Among the witnesses examined was Mr. William Steuart Trench, who manages estates in Ireland for the Marquess of Lansdowne and the Marquess of Bath, and who, probably, is known to most Members of this House by his book, which gives a picture of Ireland in respect of the relations of landlord and tenant. I rely not so much on the book as on his experience as a land agent. The Marquess of Clanricarde asks him this question—

"What length of lease do you recommend generally for a farmer, properly so called?"

He replies—

"Twenty-one years is what I always advised and recommended."

He is then asked this question by the Earl of Kimberley—

"If a tenant was about to erect a house upon land let to him for agricultural purposes, would a lease for 21 years in your opinion be sufficient?"

He replies—

"Certainly not, if he was about to do so at his own cost."

He is then asked by the same noble Lord—

"How long a lease do you think would be a fair term for a man who was about to erect a house and suitable premises at his own expense?"

He answers—

"Thirty years, in my judgment, provided that the house was suitable in nature and extent to the farm he occupied, and that the farm was of sufficient size, so that consequently the house would be of sufficient size."

The answers to those questions bear out the view that I ask the Committee to take—namely, that under ordinary circumstances a 21 years' lease would be sufficient, and that 31 years' lease would amply compensate for improvements. I find that before the same Committee Mr. U. R. Mackay was examined. He holds 600 acres of land in the county of Cork as a tenant-farmer. In answer to a question put to him by the Chairman of the Committee, he says—

"I think that 21 years would be sufficiently long on the generality of farms to develop the farms to their full maximum fertility, and under proper encouragement I think that would be done."

I am not now referring to improvement, I am speaking of farming leases; but in this Bill no distinction is drawn between the two eases. The landlord is equally punished in both cases. Mr. Brooke, one of the Masters in the Irish Court of Chancery, says he believes the tenants would be quite satisfied with leases of 21 years, and would not look for more. Mr. Kincaid, another witness, says that in the case of building a 31 years' lease ought to be granted; but that is in accordance with what I want to lay down. I contend that there ought to be a difference between leases for improvements and buildings and mere farm leases. I admit, however, that there was evidence before the Committee which went rather further than that to which I have been referring. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) was examined. The hon. Member had previously obtained a Committee of this House on the land question, and much valuable evidence was elicited before his Committee. Before the Lords' Committee he intimated that he would not be content with a 21 years' lease; but when you come to examine the reasoning of the hon. Member—unless I altogether misunderstand his evidence—I think you will find that he is referring to improvements, and that he thinks nothing loss than a 31 years' lease would do in the case of improvements. In his answer to one of the questions put to the hon. Member there is this passage—

"My idea is that a lease of 31 years, which is about the popular lease in Ireland, would be the best for encouraging agricultural improvements, and the best to induce the tenant to improve the land and to expend whatever capital he may have upon the land; and I know that there is much more capital in the country than people generally imagine. But that 31 years' lease, in my opinion, would not cover all legitimate claim for compensation. If a man built a house, at the termination of the 31 years I would give him a claim for compensation for its value,"

But what is the meaning of all that reasoning? It shows that the hon. Member is not speaking of the compensation with which we are now dealing, but of compensation for improvements. The compensation with which I am dealing is that which it is proposed the landlord must pay as damages for eviction, and an Amendment of which the Chief Secretary for Ireland has given Notice powerfully supports my proposition. The 3rd clause has been ob- jected to on this side of the House, not so much by Irish as by English Members. It has been objected to on the other side also. But the Government preserve it with the qualification of which the right hon. Gentleman has given Notice—namely, that the clause shall be law for only 20 years, unless Parliament shall otherwise direct.

Certainly not. My Amendment does not apply to the whole clause, but only to that part of it which prohibits the parties from contracting out of it. That is quite a different thing.

I thought it applied to the whole clause; but even if it does not, yet my argument remains of the same force, for the existence of the clause depends on the coercive portion of it. The coercion is what keeps it alive. Is it not as plain as light that if the Government give us the power of contracting out of it we shall not contract into it? I shall not detain the Committee at any greater length. The question is one between 21 years and 31 years. I say that statistics, the opinion of competent authorities, and good policy are in favour of 21 years. It will be sufficient to protect the tenants from capricious eviction, and they would not have asked for more if dangerous and extravagant expectations had not been suggested to them.

Sir, I am not one of those who ever thought this Bill erred, or erred greatly, in the direction of too much concession to the tenant. In my opinion, when Parliament made up its mind to deal with this question—when once it had resolved to go beyond the mere consideration of improvements, and to legislate on the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland—it ought to have decided on doing so in a comprehensive manner, and in a manner which would afford us hope of effective results. It is therefore I have seen with regret some Amendments which have been, I will not say forced on the Government, but pressed on the Government by the evident feeling of the House. I saw with regret, I admit, that the limit at which the landlord and tenant might contract to be removed out of the scope of the Bill was brought so low as £50. I also regretted to see the Amendment placed on the Paper by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, by which the tenant-at-will of a farm valued at more than £100 will not be entitled to the benefit of this clause. I regret these two concessions, though I am quite willing to admit that they have been—not forced, but pressed upon the Government by the evident feeling of the House, because I believe that in Ireland there are many tenants of farms not only over £50, but over £100 per annum, who are not in that independent position which is occupied by similar tenants in England; and who are in need, though not in such great need as others, of protection under this Bill. But I can perfectly understand the reasons which have induced the House to press upon the Government these concessions. I can understand that the House is willing to legislate for the very poorest and most dependent class of tenants, though they would be extremely jealous of interfering with the relations between landlords and those tenants who are in a position to look after their own interests. This Amendment, however, if carried, will be unlike those Amendments to which the Government have agreed; it will not restrict the number of persons to whom the Bill will apply, but will restrict the protection which will be given by the Bill to the very poorest and most dependent class of tenants. If a landlord can force a tenant to take a 21 years' lease—as is proposed by this Amendment—the tenant will have forfeited the protection which this clause could otherwise have given him. I say "if a landlord can force a tenant to take" such a lease, because I believe it will require something amounting almost to force to induce an Irish tenant to take a 21 years' lease. Every Gentleman connected with Ireland will bear me out in the assertion that leases for so short a term as 21 years have ever been, as they are now, extremely unpopular with Irish tenants, and that under a reasonably good landlord they would prefer to remain tenants-at-will rather than take such leases. Then, I ask, what will be the effect of this Amendment? By that part of the clause which has already been passed the House has done that which will make it more than over the interest of a landlord to force his tenants to take 21 years' leases; and inasmuch as a more secure character has been given to the ordinary tenure from year to year, the House has made it still more to the interest of the tenant than it has hitherto been to refuse to take these leases. Now, I want to know whether it will be wise or expedient, by passing this Amendment, to make landlords force upon their tenants those very leases which they have hitherto disliked, and will in future dislike still more? When we are trying to introduce into Ireland a better state of things than has hitherto prevailed, it would be a most suicidal policy on the part of the House to introduce such a provision as this, the very first operation of which will be to introduce a new element of discord into that country. A 31 years' lease, however, is very well understood, and in many cases is perfectly satisfactory to Irish tenants. It is what they have been accustomed to; it is what they have often asked for; it is what they are willing to accept; besides which, there is another reason why the term should be 31 years rather than 21. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Ball) was extremely anxious that there should, be a proper relation between the various clauses of this Bill; but in his anxiety to secure such a relation between the 3rd and the 4th clauses he entirely omitted to consider that his Amendment would wholly destroy the symmetry of the 3rd clause itself. What have we already done by the 3rd clause? We have certainly given a very considerable amount of security to tenants from year to year against capricious, causeless, and unnecessary eviction; for in case of such eviction a tenant from year to year will be entitled, under certain circumstances, to no smaller a compensation than seven times the amount of his rent. Then, I ask whether the protection given by a 21 years' lease would be at all commensurate with the protection which is given by the third part of this clause to tenants from year to year? The Bill says that in future a landlord may do one of two things—he may either let his tenants remain tenants-at-will; or if he prefers to retain his present power of making such changes on his estate as he thinks necessary, he must run the risk of having to pay damages in cases of evictions which it may be decided are capricious; or, if he likes to forfeit some of the power which he has hitherto enjoyed, he may make himself quite independent of any legal penalties, but he must divest himself for 31 years of the power of eviction. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went into some very abstruse calculations; but it is a question upon which anyone can easily make up his mind. Would anyone in this House prefer a tenancy-at-will, protected as he will be in his tenure by the previous part of this clause, or would he prefer a tenancy for 21 years, at the termination of which there may be a re-valuation of his farm? The Government have made inquiries, and have obtained such information as they could about this matter, though the time which has elapsed since this Bill was introduced has not been sufficient to enable any very great amount of information to be obtained; but I believe the opinion of all competent witnesses upon this subject to be that tenants-at-will almost invariably prefer a protected tenancy—as it will be under the clauses of this Bill—to the security of a lease for only 21 years. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he thought it extremely wrong that the term should be the same in both the 3rd and the 4th clauses; but I am quite unable to follow him in that argument. It appears to me that the proviso in the 4th clause is the necessary complement of the proviso in the clause which we are now discussing, as the two cases are almost parallel. We wish to give the tenants in future one of two kinds of security—either by means of damages or by means of leases. We wish also that a clause should be imposed on landlords binding them to compensate a tenant for unexhausted improvements on his quitting his farm; but here also we say that a landlord may relieve himself from that necessity by granting a lease which shall be an adequate security to the tenant. In spite of all that we have heard from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I still think that the security ought to be the same in both cases; and I therefore cannot see the reason why the term agreed to by him in the 4th clause should not also be the term in the 3rd clause. His argument about all the leases falling out simultaneously was very ingenious, but I think rather far-fetched. I ask him—as he is well acquainted with the land tenure of Ireland—whether he really believes that, after the passing of this Act, there will be a great and simultaneous rush by the landlords to give their tenants 31 years' leases? I cannot boast of any very intimate knowledge of Ireland; but I know enough to say that that will not be the ease. I do not think that the landlords will view this 3rd clause with that terror and trepidation which it appears to cause in the minds of some English and Scotch Members; but I believe that, in the great majority of eases, affairs between landlords and tenants in Ireland will go on precisely as they have hitherto done. [Laughter. ] That statement appears to cause some amusement on the other side of the House, and it may be regarded as a damaging admission, though I do not think it any admission whatever, for I have never supposed that the great majority of Irish landlords are bad ones. On the contrary, I believe that Irish landlords have, as a body, done their duty to their tenants, while they have, perhaps, put up with more, and sacrificed more, than any body of landlords in either England or Scotland have done. But probably there are among them some who are inclined to use the power the law gives them with somewhat more than strict justice, and even with severity; and they have produced discord and have brought unpopularity and distrust upon all. I think the landlords of Ireland would, of all people, be the most grateful to Parliament for passing this Bill, in which there is not a provision that will force them to do more than the majority of good landlords willingly do now. I cannot see why the landlords of Ireland, good as I believe them in general to be, should object to a measure which will give to the tenants that sense of security which, in fact, they now possess, but which the acts of a few have hitherto prevented them from feeling. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, having exhausted his political and moral objections to this proposal, quoted several authorities; and, considering what Peers composed the Committee of the House of Lords, I have the greatest possible respect for the opinion of that Committee; but I do not think that, upon such a subject, the opinions of any body of men could be absolutely conclusive, when so large a proportion of them were by feeling, habit, and association, closely connected with the landlord rather than with the tenant side of the question; and I do not think it at all certain that the opinions they expressed in 1867 would necessarily be those which they hold now. That Committee, probably, was not prepared to recommend what has already been passed by this House—namely, the adoption of the principle of compensation for eviction; and I do not feel it is at all certain that, if the Lords' Committee had compared the practice of tenancy-at-will, as it will be in the future, with leases, they would have recommended a shorter term of lease than that which is proposed by the Government. Therefore, I should not hold the opinion of the Lords' Committee, whatever it might have been, at all conclusive upon this matter. I suppose that, on such a point, authorities might be quoted in tolerable number upon either side, and I might cite an opinion, already sufficiently quoted, of Judge Longfield, who does not think 31 years too long, but, on the contrary, recommends 41 years. On all sides it is admitted that great attention has been paid to this subject by Mr. Campbell, who says that 31 years should be the term of the shortest lease; and the Government, seeking the best advice they could get, have received the unanimous opinions of others which I cannot quote, to the effect that nothing short of a 31 years' lease would be acceptable. To my surprise the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted a Return of the number of agricultural holdings in Ireland, and I might quote it to prove my case. It is quite true there are in Ireland 25,000 leases for 21 years or a less term; but these include all the leases which are given by the Court of Chancery, and every description of lease varying from one year to 21 years. And if there are 25,000 leases for 21 years and less, how many are there for longer periods? Why, of leases exceeding 21 years and not exceeding 31 years, leases for more than 31 and less than 60 years, leases for more than 60 and less than 99 years, leases for terms exceeding 99 years, leases for lives, leases for lives or years alternative, leases for lives renewable for ever, and leases in perpetuity, there are very nearly 100,000, all being for a longer term than 21 years. Therefore, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman quotes the Return to show that there are 25,000 leases for 21 years and under, I can cite it to show that there are in Ireland four times that number of leases for longer terms; and that, I think, shows conclusively that leases for a longer term than 21 years are not only desired by the tenants but adopted by the landlords. Twenty-one years may be a good term for England and Scotland, if landlords and tenants think so; and it may be adopted in Ireland, if landlords choose to pay compensation at the end of the tenancy; and further, landlord and tenant may make exactly what agreement they please in respect of any tenancy of over £50 a year, which would surely represent a farm quite small enough, to try the Scotch system upon. I most heartily hope the Committee will not agree to the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but that they will assent to that term which, after full and mature consideration, has been adopted by the Government.

Sir, the Committee are aware that on a former occasion I expressed a strong opinion that any bonâ fide lease ought to be excepted from the operation of this clause; and the Committee are also aware that I have been to some extent obliged from time to time to vary the ground which I originally took with regard to what was to be deemed a bonâ fide lease. In the first place, applying my judgment as an English Member acquainted with things in England, it appeared to me that a term of seven years was sufficient. Afterwards, under the advice of some of those about me, I put upon the Paper a Notice in favour of 14 years, and now the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Dr. Ball) thinks 21 years is the minimum which should be introduced. Having upon a former occasion assured the Committee that I would not be a party to taking any step which the Government might regard as imperilling the Bill upon any question or difference of opinion as to a point of policy, not to my mind involving an issue of principle or an issue of justice, I feel bound to act upon that assurance now, when I see the very narrow limits within which the question is confined, and when I consider that the 3rd clause does not touch existing leases, however short in duration, the retrospective part of it being applicable only to tenancies from year to year. As the noble Lord below me (the Postmaster General) has justly said, the concession made by the Government reduces the question we are now considering to future contracts for leases of holdings under £50 in value. No one, probably, would think of giving leases for holdings of less value than £20; and the question is, whether we shall take issue with the Government upon the number of years for tenancies between £20 and £50? Further, the prospective part of the clause does not prohibit the granting of leases for 21 years and under; it only says that, if they are granted, there shall be engrafted upon them the condition that if the landlord does not allow the tenant to remain at the end of the term the tenant may claim compensation for the loss sustained in quitting his holding. In making their bargains the landlord and tenant may in all other respects deal together as they please, and if they should deal so as to indemnify the landlord there is nothing to prevent their doing so. Under all the circumstances, I should not be acting consistently with the engagements into which I have entered with the House if I voted against the Government upon this question. With respect to the concessions of the Government, I regard them only as concessions to views very largely entertained in this House—not in the interest of landlords a bit more than in the interest of tenants, but in the interest of society generally. The Government have divided the scale of compensation, so as to reduce the claim of a tenant under this clause when made separately for improvements and for loss of holding; as to future tenancies they propose to give unlimited power of contract in respect of holdings above £50 in value; and they propose to fix the limit of value within which existing yearly tenants may claim compensation for disturbance at £100. I frankly confess I should have preferred a lower limit, so as not to give any bonus at the expense of the landlords to independent tenants, such as I believe all above £50 value to be, who are well able to take care of themselves. But the principle of the limitation is of much more moment than the precise figure at which it is fixed. On another point also, that relating to the onus pro-bandi as to improvements, the Government have made a proposal which goes far to meet the object of an Amendment of which I had given Notice on the 5th clause; they propose to take four large and well-considered classes of cases out of that clause as it originally stood. I recognize in these proposals of the Government, and in the way in which they have met the suggestions I have made, a disposition fairly to consider what has been recommended on this side of the House, on points of principle and on points involving considerations of justice. Taking that view of what the Government has done, I shall not be able to go against them upon so abstract a point of policy as that one particular lease of 21 years is to be preferred to another lease of 31 years, the Government saying that they think it important to maintain the line they have drawn.

said, he hoped the hon. Baronet would, not press his Amendment, inasmuch as it would tend to create uncertainty in the dealings between landlord and tenant.

said, he was in favour of the Amendment, and he thought that the arguments used that evening by the noble Marquess the Postmaster General tended in that direction. The tenure for lives appeared to be the most popular form of tenure in Ireland; for, while the number of leases for 21 years and less was about 25,000, for 21 years, and not exceeding 31, about 22,000, the number for lives and years concurrent was 30,000, and the number for lives alone 28,000. He could not understand the policy of the Government in encouraging leases for years in preference to leases for lives. It appeared to him that a lease to a tenant for his own life was as good a lease as he could have, because the landlord knew him and was sure of his being a fit tenant; but he could not tell who was to come after him. He was possessed of some land on the north side of Dublin, and he knew that the tenure of land in that neighbourhood was the Prince of Wales' life. He believed most Irish Members would agree with him that a lease for two lives was considered as good a tenure as a lease for a certain term of years.

said, he could not agree with his right hon. and learned Friend (Dr. Ball) that leases for lives were the most popular kind of leases in Ireland at the present day, although they were formerly necessary for electioneering purposes. A lease for a life or lives might be a good or a bad lease; but he did not think Parliament ought to regard it as an equivalent to the other privileges conferred by this clause. The proviso that the lease should have existed for 31 years before the making of the claim did not mend the matter, because that was an accident which could only be proved at the termination of the arrangement; whereas the Government desired that the landlord and tenant should, at the time of making the contract, be aware of the terms which were to have the effect intended by the clause.

said, that a lease for lives was, in substance, as good as a lease for years, and, indeed, it was preferred in Ireland. As the Amendment was framed, however, the lease for lives might be made either with or without a concurrent term, but if it were made without a concurrent term, who could insure that the life or lives would continue for 31 years? He did not see how the Amendment could be accepted unless its form underwent a change.

said, he hoped the Government would not in any way encourage the granting of leases for lives. Formerly they were often granted for electioneering purposes; but on all the best managed estates in the West of Ireland the system had been wholly abandoned.

said, he was of opinion that a lease for lives would introduce an ingredient of uncertainty which would prove absolutely injurious to both landlord and tenant. It was often a matter of difficulty in Ireland to ascertain whether the lives for which a lease was given were in existence or not, from the system of emigration and travelling that prevailed.

said, he would not press the Amendment to a Division; but he should raise the question again on a subsequent clause.

said, he rose to move, after the word "years" to insert—

"Or for any shorter term which shall be sanctioned by, the Court in manner hereinafter provided."

To explain this Amendment, he would read the following new clause, the introduction of which he intended afterwards to propose (Leases or contracts approved by Court):—

"Not with standing anything in this Act contained, it shall be lawful for a tenant to enter into any lease or contract provided that the Court, upon examination of the same and consideration of the circumstances, shall be satisfied that such lease or contract is for the benefit of the tenant, and shall signify its approval of such lease or contract on behalf of such tenant accordingly.

He admitted that that clause embodied to a great extent the idea comprised in the Amendment proposed, but eventually withdrawn by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir Frederick W. Heygate). He himself suggested the withdrawal of that Amendment, because it was open to the objection that under it the landlord and tenant would make a contract which might be forced on the latter, and would simply apply to the Court to sanction it. Such an objection was not, however, applicable to the present Amendment, which he sincerely proposed in the interests of the tenant. What he contemplated was, that the tenant, after entering into an agreement with the landlord, should ask the Court, as his natural protector and guardian, to decide whether the agreement was one which, under all the circumstances, would be for his benefit. The proprietor of a holding might, for example, contemplate attaching it to another holding, making it a part of his demesne, or using it for building purposes. He might, consequently, wish to let it on very easy terms, on condition that he should have the power of regaining possession when he required it. If, in such a case, the landlord were liable to the penalties imposed by this Bill, he would most probably refuse to let the land go out of his possession at all. Again, when a landlord was willing to let a farm on easy terms to an old servant who was past active work he ought not to incur the penalties imposed by the Bill. The Amendment he now begged to move would extend protection to Irish tenants, and he trusted the Government would accept it.

said, the point involved in the Amendment had been already raised by the proposal made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry (Sir Frederick W. Heygate), which was withdrawn in deference to the feeling manifested by the Committee. He would repeat what he said on the former occasion, that the Government did not think it desirable to leave a matter of this kind to the discretion of the landlord. It would be going a great deal too far to ask the Court to decide what manner of lease should be sufficient to bar the privileges which the House had already conferred.

said, he wished to point out that his proposal had been distinct from that of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. B. Gregory), inasmuch as he (Sir Frederick W. Heygate) proposed that landlord and tenant together should go to the Court. Substantially, no doubt, the question had been already decided; but as they proceeded with the clauses, it would be found more and more difficult to leave its provisions upon the point as they stood at present. The effect of leaving landlords in a state of uncertainty as to the position in which they would ultimately find themselves would be to induce them to keep the land in their own hands, which certainly was not the object aimed at by the Bill.

said, he would beg to move, in Page 4, line 17, to leave out from "in" to end of line 21. These four lines added nothing to the value of the clause, while three or four Notices of Amendment to them had been given.

said, that as the omission of these words made no real change in the meaning of the Bill, he was prepared to assent to the proposal.

said, he would beg to propose an Amendment which he thought important to the maintenance of law and order in Ireland—Clause 3, page 4, after sub-section 3, insert—

"Any tenant who shall after the passing of this Act be convicted of any indictable offence shall not be entitled to any compensation under this Act."

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press this Amendment, which was of a very sweeping character. A tenant who assaulted a man at a fair committed an indictable offence. Again, a man who libelled another might be indicted, and under these words he would forfeit all claim to compensation. What the hon. Member no doubt meant was a class of offences connected with the holding of land; but the Government had considered this class of cases, and felt that it would be very difficult to deal with them.

said, he also felt that the terms of the Amendment, as put upon the Paper, were too wide. His hon. Friend (Mr. Kavanagh), no doubt, intended to deal with a class of very aggravated crimes—such as shooting with intent.

said, he thought that some limit of occupation ought to be fixed, before the tenant acquired such a beneficial interest as would entitle him to compensation for disturbance. The limit of three years seemed to him a fair one; on the one hand, sufficiently long to enable a landlord to discover the character of his tenant, and, on the other, sufficiently short to prevent capricious evictions. One year's residence was required to enable a man to obtain the suffrage; and only the other night the Solicitor General, in speaking on the Naturalization Bill, contended that a five years' residence should be required before a person not a natural-born British subject should be entitled to hold land in this country. Provided the Government would accept the principle of his Amendment, he should not insist upon the adoption of the particular term of years he had proposed in it. By the adoption of his Amendment the tenant would not be placed in a worse position as regarded the compensation he was to receive for his improvements. There might be many reasons why a landlord might desire to change his tenantry, which the Court might not accept as satisfactory. Thus, for instance, they might have quarrelled among themselves, or a person possessing the peculiar characteristics of Mr. Murphy might have settled in a Roman Catholic village and endangered the peace of the neighbourhood. Surely the landlord ought to have power to remove him without subjecting himself to the burdens of this clause. He might be told that a landlord could choose his tenant at the beginning of the tenancy, and that the Bill would not oblige him to accept any particular tenant, and that where a tenant claimed compensation for ejectment the Court would have power to take cognizance of all the surrounding circumstances. But it was for Parliament clearly to declare what they intended to enact, and not merely to draw an outline, leaving it to the Court to fill up the details. He had not any very great hopes of the success of this Bill, otherwise he should have supported it with greater pleasure. He feared that the state of Ireland was such that no measure that was likely to be passed by that House would be of much avail. The only chance there remained of restoring a proper tone to society in that country was by inducing a more kindly feeling to spring up between landlords and tenants, by giving security to the tenants without forcing upon the landlords tenants with whom they might disagree upon every point. He trusted that the Government would grant the landlord some little time to enable him to ascertain what sort of a person the tenant was before the latter obtained a right to compensation for disturbance. He begged to move in Clause 3, page 4, after line 21, to insert—

"4.) No tenant shall be entitled to damages for disturbance in his holding under this Clause who shall not have been in occupation for at least three years."

said, he must point out that the Amendment of the hon. Member attacked the vital principle of the Bill to which the House had already agreed—namely, that the tenant was to receive that amount of compensation to which the Court should find he was entitled for disturbance in his holding. If the Court should be of opinion that, owing to the tenant's misconduct, he was not entitled to any compensation, then the clause would be superfluous; whereas if the Court should be of opinion that he was entitled to compensation the clause, coming in to deprive him of it, would be unjust, and would be calculated, to arouse the angry feelings that the Bill was intended to allay. He did not think there would be the slightest difficulty in getting rid of a tenant resembling Mr. Murphy; because, if the landlord were not rich enough to buy him out, the neighbours would cheerfully subscribe in order to get rid of him. That would be a charming thing for the landlord. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.

moved to insert, after line 21, the following:—

"Where the claim of the tenant of any holding (being less than twenty pounds valuation), shall have been redeemed by the landlord, either by mutual agreement or subject to the award of any Court constituted by this Act, no further claim shall accrue against him for disturbance or loss of occupancy in virtue of any tenancy created subsequently, either from year to year or leasehold, in any sum exceeding two years' rent in the case of holdings valued as aforesaid at ten pounds and under, and in any sum exceeding one year's rent in the case of holdings above ten pounds and under twenty pounds, as aforesaid."

In the consideration of this clause we have now made some progress; and this, no doubt, is a matter of very legitimate subject of congratulation to the Committee. Now, this clause is said to be the Bill; of all other provisions it forms the basis, and before I move the Amendment I offer, I shall beg leave very briefly to review it. Now, I must ask the Committee to remember this—that I have given my consent to this clause upon a very important section. I consent to the recognition of a distinct loss to the tenant caused by the act of disturbance; but to this, in my own mind, has occurred a most important series of limitations. In this clause these are most imperfectly recognized. Let me enumerate the principal objections. In the first place, it takes place upon too wide an area, and thrusts itself into places where it is not required; secondly, it is irredeemable and permanent; thirdly, it places too narrow a limit upon free contracts; fourthly, it most imperfectly defines the act of disturbance. And to these imperfections it adds another, which brings me to the subject of my Amendment. This clause, in establishing this rude and general manner, takes no distinction between tenants of the present and tenants of the future, or tenancies of the heretofore previous to compensation, and those created after such an act of justice. Is there no such distinction? Are we to assume that those who framed this Bill acted upon such an assumption? We have certainly heard a remarkable statement to-night from that Bench, which would favour such a conclusion; but it was one I heard from Ministerial lips with astonishment, nay, I may say, with consternation. Why, the noble Lord the Postmaster General told us that after this Bill things would go on much the same as usual. I ask, is that the opinion we are to accept and act on? I shall assume the contrary. I must assume that when the existing tenant shall have been recouped for his present interest and improvements, that with the next tenant will also come a very different state of relation. Why, it must be so, from the natural operation of the clause, and I think that this will be seen from the previous arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland upon them. Why, when we considered the scale, and some objection was taken to the proportionate amount given to the smaller tenants—and it is the smaller tenant alone I refer to—his reply was this—"That this amount must be held to include, not only disturbance or loss of occupation, but also a considerable amount of undefinable improvement." Now, let the Committee remark this, that such uncertainty will cease from the first period of legal compensation; and more than this, that it will not again recur. Under various parts of this Act, and as contemplated under several Amendments, a record of the Court will exist removing all uncertainty, and enabling even the smallest tenant to define and recover his improvements. These will be recoverable under the 4th clause, and all he shall then lose will be the loss of occupation. Now, if this be so, then the one question which remains must be the value of the loss so considered. One consideration should alone determine this. What is the interest of the tenant? Now, I have held, and must hold, that it is absolutely opposed to his interest that this amount should be excessive. First, it will not be paid by the landlord, but by the tenant. It will constitute a tenant-right, and become transferable. Can an excessive amount be a benefit to the tenant? In this respect every authority is against you. Look all through the Devon Commission; see the evidence of every land agent, farmer, or priest, and you will find this plainly stated. I need not quote from this, but refer to the names of John Forsyth, Hancock Kennedy, the Rev. J. O. Sullivan, O'Hara, and French; but if I am told these are antedated, let me see what is said by modern authorities. Ask the hon. Member for Linlith-gow, ask my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, refer to the able pamphlets of Mr. Thompson, Mr. Campbell, and others, and you will find similar conclusions. The whole tenant interest is against you—at all events, in England and Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Can he produce his witnesses? Who are they? Well, then, if against such testimony the Government are prepared to carry out this imperfect scheme unamended, I must draw this inference—that it will be a measure condemned upon all adequate authority, and that, falling below the standard of intelligent opinion in this House, it is framed to meet the unenlightened requirements of the Irish peasant.

said, the Amendment was substantially the same as one moved by the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdonshire (Lord Robert Montagu), and which had been disposed of on Thursday evening. The proposal was, that where the landlord had paid the claims of former tenants he should either be freed altogether, as previously proposed, or partly, as now proposed by the hon. Gentleman, from future claims under this Bill. He did not think that view would hold water; because all the circumstances would be taken into consideration by the Court when it came to make an award. He saw no reason why they should provide for the particular cases pointed out by the hon. Gentleman. The Courts would be quite able to deal with them when they arose.

said, he had given Notice of an Amendment to move in Clause 3, page 4, line 21, after "holding," to leave out to end of line 25. His object was to place yearly tenants and tenants under leases upon the same footing. He did not think this clause founded either in justice or expediency, and for that reason he had voted against the Government on several important Amendments. They were not, he thought, acting towards the landlord with due regard to justice. At the time of the second reading he had no opportunity of stating his views upon the measure itself, which was retrospective. If it was considered for the advantage of the country at large that part of the land should be taken from the landowners, the proper course was to grant compensation. There could be no doubt the effect of this measure would be greatly to reduce the value of property in Ireland. The operation of the clause as it stood would be retrospective as regarded tenants of holdings from year to year, and prospective in the case of tenants holding under lease. It was extraordinary to make any difference between the two classes of tenants. He would place them on a perfect equality. He could not see why tenants who held land on an expiring lease should be obliged to give up their holdings without compensation, whereas the yearly tenant would receive five or seven years' compensation. He would leave the former in the same position as the latter. He, therefore, begged to move his Amendment.

said, the hon. Member (Mr. Sinclair Aytoun) had moved an Amendment which he probably deemed harmless and satisfactory; but he felt sure the Committee would not coincide with him in that opinion. He had revived, in a very formidable shape, the dogma of "levelling down," and applied it to this subject with a vengeance; for, in order that existing leaseholders in Ireland might not be in a worse position under the Bill, as compared with yearly tenants, than they were at present, he proposed to exclude all yearly tenants from the Bill. His argument seemed to be that because one small class of tenants was not affected by the Bill, therefore no existing tenants should be. Further, he urged that by imposing restrictions on the power of eviction value would be transferred from the pockets of the landlord to the tenant. This, however, could not be substantiated; because, as the tendency of the Bill was to give greater security, which, as had been tested in Ulster, brought about almost magical effects upon the productiveness of the land, both landlord and tenant would be benefited. Under these circumstances, it became his duty to resist the Amendment.

said, that the principle established by this section had not been fairly treated by many Members, especially on the other side of the House. It was described as a violent and monstrous attack upon the rights of property. Now, he wished to point out that the rights of property were divided into fundamental and incidental or separable rights. The confusion of these had led to much of the misapprehension of the nature of this section of the Bill. No legislation ought to disturb fundamental rights, and any attempt in that direction pointed to a state of anarchy and confusion; such a disturbance of fixed rights would sap the very basis of modern civilization. Separable rights were those which incidentally attached to property, through the legislation of a particular time, and such rights were continually being interfered with by Parliament. Among other instances of such interference might he mention the extension of the county franchise, which depreciated the value formerly attaching to small plots of freehold property, which, when offered for sale, were usually recommended on the ground that they conferred a county vote. The right of alienation, and therefore unrestricted right to evict was an incidental right of property. The section imposed a fine on alienation. It provided that the landlord should not capriciously evict without paying a fine. With regard to the question whether a fine on alienation was a proper subject of legislation, he might refer to Continental law to show how universal such fines were. Then as to ancient English law on this subject. The state of things after the Conquest—["Oh, oh!"]—Hon. Gentlemen said "Oh, oh!" but they must recollect that this was a question of principle. He asserted, without fear of contradiction from any lawyer, that the right of alienation was a donation of the Legislature. It did not exist in the ancient law of England. It had been gradually conferred, and that by legislative interference. But property in land did exist without the existence of this right. In early times there was no such right at all. No man could then alienate his land, with some trifling exceptions, without the consent of the superior lord and paying a fine. ["Question!"] It was quite the question; because the proposition was to agree to a clause which contained a restriction on alienation. In the time of Charles II. these fines on alienation were abolished at the expense of the nation. He denied, however, that the operation of the clause was retrospective. If they put on the landlord a fine because he gave a notice to evict, this was future, and not past. If a landlord would capriciously, and without just cause, evict a tenant from his holding, this was a future, not a past act. The Bill had been called retrospective, but it was not really so. It simply proposed the payment by the landlord of a fine to a tenant whom he had capriciously evicted. If it were said that the tenant had entered into a contract by which he was not to receive condensation, the answer was, that the Bill was founded on the theory that the present system was not fair towards the tenant who was not in a position to contract; and it was quite clear to him that the section in question, or this portion of it, was not really an attack on the fundamental rights of property, and did not necessarily impair the value of property. But even if it did, it was not a question of taking away the property of the landlord, but only of taking away from him the right to resort to capricious evictions. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Sinclair Aytoun) really struck at the whole principle of the Bill, and its acceptance would be tantamount to the rejection of the measure itself.

said, he was of opinion that a law which obliged him to pay a fine of one-third the value of his land must be calculated to diminish the value of that land. Believing that this clause was an unprecedented interference with the rights of property, he should have preferred to vote in favour of negativing the clause altogether. The argument of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that this clause was actually calculated to increase the value of property, was, to his mind, incomprehensible. The case of Ulster, in his opinion, showed that the value of land depended upon the wealth of the population and the extent of the manufactures.

said, that if the Bill was to have any good effect it must deal satisfactorily with the cases of 428,000 tenancies-at-will; but this would be impossible if the Amendment now proposed were acceded to. If the Go- vernment were to yield on this point they might as well burn the Bill at once

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

said, he rose to propose in Clause 3, page 4, line 21, after sub section 3, to insert the following sub section (4):—

"No tenant of a holding exclusively pastora shall be entitled to any compensation under this section; and the tenant of a holding partly agricultural and partly pastoral shall be entitled to be compensated under this section only in respect of the agricultural portion of his holding."

He had no particular anxiety that the object he had in view should be accomplished by means of these words. He had found the words in the Interpretation Clause of the Bill, where the term "pastoral," which was entirely new to the law, as, indeed, was the term "agricultural" also, occurred. But the Bill had made a distinction between "agricultural" and "pastoral" in the Interpretation Clause; and, as he was of opinion that the language of the Bill ought, if possible, to be adopted, otherwise it might be said the object in view was different, he had made use of the words. Every Irish Member understood what he meant by his Amendment, and the majority of them were in favour of it. His object was, that compensation for disturbance should not be given to those great holders of grass farms, whose business partook more of the nature of mercantile speculation than of farming. Some of these persons paid £1,000 a year or more, and were immeasurably richer than the landlords from whom they took the lands. His hon. Friend the Member for Ennis (Mr. Stacpoole) had an Amendment exactly similar, though expressed in different words, to be moved in line 25. There were in his hon. Friend's Amendment qualifications about residence; but what he (Dr. Ball) meant was large grazing farms. He should be quite content that the Government should undertake to word the Amendment; but he most earnestly pressed on the Committee the propriety of passing some provision of the kind. Nothing was more absurd than that large graziers, who made no improvement whatever in the land, should be entitled to compensation. It would really amount to an oppression of the landlord. He begged to move the Amendment.

said, he agreed in every word that had fallen from his right hon. Friend (Dr. Ball). It was a monstrous thing that landlords should be asked to give compensation for disturbance on great grazing farms which the tenants from year to year could not possibly improve. In his county there were what were called winter age farms. The soil was rocky; but the farms were most valuable for the pasturage of cattle in winter. He would be quite ready to leave the matter in the hands of the Government.

said, that the Government had already informed the Committee that they were ready to make the Amendment in question, and he would repeat the pledge now, only he would prefer to do it in another way, and to bring up carefully considered words, probably in the Exemption Clause.

said, he approved the object in view, but urged that there should be a limit with regard to the farms to which the Amendment was to apply.

said, the Government were not desirous of carrying the effect of this clause beyond the point they thought absolutely necessary; and they believed they were meeting the requirements of the case, and the opinions of many Gentlemen of great weight in the House, by proposing words, the effect of which would be to limit the application of the clause to tenants below the line of £100 value. Holdings above that value were occupied by farmers so independent that they were able to take care of themselves, so that it was not necessary to make the clause retrospective as far as those tenants were concerned. They would, however, enjoy the protection given under Clause 4. He begged to move in page 4, line 22, after "holding," to insert—

"Valued under the Acts relating to the valuation of rateable property in Ireland at an annual value of not more than £100, and."

said, he could not but admire the ingenuity with which the right hon. Gentleman had appropriated the Amendment that he (Mr. Charley) had placed on the Paper before Easter, and he only regretted that the Government had changed his figure of £50 to £100. As he could not move his Amendment as a substantive Motion, he would move it as an Amendment to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. An extraordinary right was conferred by this clause upon the Irish tenant—a right which no English or Scotch tenant enjoyed, or was ever likely to enjoy. The tenant, in effect, was to put nothing into the soil, and yet he was to take something out of it—a singular reversal of the old maxim—Ex nihilo nihil fit. Compensation for improvements stood upon an entirely different footing—the tenant put something into the land and took something out of it. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Jessel) had said that a landlord's right to the exclusive possession of his land was one of the fundamental rights of property; but could a landlord be said to have an exclusive right to the possession of his laud when a tenant could hold it rent free for seven years? The hon. Member had compared compensation for loss of occupancy to fines on alienation; but they were paid by the tenant to the landlord, while this was paid by the landlord to the tenant. He contended that there was no reason why the clause should not draw the line at £50 for existing tenancies. In future tenancies the landlords could protect themselves. There was the more reason for the adoption of the figures £50, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had given Notice on the 10th clause—which excepted tenants of a holding of not less than £100 annual value from the power to claim compensation if they had contracted with their landlord not to make any such claim—to leave out £100 and insert £50. If the limit was to be drawn at £50 in the one case he could see no reason why it should be fixed at £100 in the other; and he therefore moved, in the proposed Amendment, to leave out "£100," and insert "£50."

said, he regretted very much the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) had just moved. He failed to see the necessity for, or the justice of, an arrangement by which future tenants would be entitled to compensation for eviction, although their holdings were above £100 annual value, whereas present tenants of the same class were not to be entitled to it.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) had done his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland some injustice in supposing that he had been under any obligation to the hon. Gentleman for the words of his Amendment. The fact was, that so far had his right hon. Friend been from any servile copying of the hon. Member's Amendment, that he had gone to the 10th clause, from which the hon. Member had also copied the words of his Amendment. With regard to the substantial question involved in the Amendment, he trusted the Government would be supported in their proposal. As his right hon. Friend had explained, they were convinced that persons with holdings valued at £100—which was equivalent to a rent of £120 or £130—not only were well able to look after their own interests, but often were really more independent than the landlords themselves. Such persons would, therefore, be wisely excluded from the retrospective operation of the clause. It would be a different thing, however, to draw the limit at £50, because that would exclude a large number of tenants who had every right to enjoy the benefit of the clause. With regard to the proposed limitation, in the cases in which freedom of contract was involved, the Amendment of which his right hon. Friend had given Notice on the 10th clause, substituting £50 for £100, rested upon a wholly different basis.

said, that while objecting to both of the Amendments, he should feel obliged to support, as the lesser evil, that of the Government. Both were, in his opinion, unjust; but the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) would exclude from the operation of the clause about 80,000 of the Irish tenants, whereas that of the Government would not exclude more than 30,000. He entirely failed to understand why a tenant whose holding was of £100 annual value should be deprived of his right to compensation; nor could he admit that tenants of that description were always able sufficiently to protect themselves from the wrong and injustice consequent upon improper eviction. In some instances, indeed, the in- justice in such cases was even greater than in others.

said, he had to propose an Amendment of which he had given Notice—namely, in page 4, line 23, to leave out, "at the time of the passing of this Act," and insert "at any time between the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy and the passing of this Act." The object he had in view was to meet the case of those tenants who might be evicted from their holdings in anticipation of the passing of this Bill. There was a provision in the 15th section of the Irish Church Act of last Session, securing compensation to curates employed at any time after the 1st of January, 1869, and he wished to see that precedent followed in the present Bill as regarded agricultural tenants in Ireland. In the county of Mayo and in other parts of the country some landlords had provoked resentment and disturbance by serving their tenants with notices to quit and turning them out of their holdings, and this was done in order to deprive these tenants of the benefits of the present legislation. He thought it the duty of the House to see that those persons who had thus produced so much bad feeling should not be allowed to benefit by the wrongs they had inflicted. The hon. Member then moved the Amendment.

said, he should support the Amendment. He had listened with great pleasure to the speech made by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) that evening. It was a complete answer to the wild fears entertained by the landlords who had not what would amount to a tenth part of his territorial possessions. The noble Marquess had raised a laugh in some quarters by saying that after the passing of this Bill things would remain precisely as they were now. He understood the noble Lord's meaning, which was that the Bill would not interfere with the good landlord. There were many good landlords in Ireland, and landlords of that character could do more for their tenants than could be effected by any legislation. He rose to corroborate what had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim). He himself had seen a notice to quit which had been served on a solvent tenant who had paid his rent for the last half-year. Some short time ago it was stated that a certain landlord had served notices to quit on his tenants. That allegation was denied point-blank by the gentleman's law agent; but he had seen a letter in which the same landlord was reported to have said—"Thank God, we still have the power to evict!"

said, they had all seen a circular which had been issued by Mr. D'Arcy Irvine, a gentleman holding property in the North of Ireland. He had served notice on every one of his tenants, and lately all his tenants had been assembled together, with the view, he supposed, of an arrangement being made which would relieve the landlord from any liabilities which this Bill imposed. It was said that Mr. D'Arcy Irvine was an eccentric man; but a landlord in the county of Roscommon who was not eccentric, and who, though not in the House of Commons, stood high in the Liberal party, had served a notice which he thus explained in a letter accompanying it—"I am necessitated, by a clause introduced in the Land Bill, to send you the notice you will receive." He had seen two of those letters.

said, the apprehensions of his hon. Friend the Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) and his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) were not justified. It was clear that the notices to which they referred would not come into operation before the passing of this Bill.

said, it was perfectly true Mr. D'Arcy Irvine did not always act in the wisest manner; but he had spent as much as any man in that House in improving his estate. Certainly, when the Bill was brought in, he served notice on his tenants; but he felt quite satisfied that Mr. Irvine had not the least intention of disturbing any of them. The meeting referred to by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) was a voluntary one, got up by the tenants for the purpose of expressing their confidence in their landlord. [Laughter.] Some of the hon. Gentlemen who laughed had not as much land as would sod a lark; but Mr. Irvine's tenants had every confidence in him. It was not likely they would have met to enter into an agreement detrimental to themselves. As regarded the Amendment, he did not think it necessary to say anything about it, because he presumed the Government would not accede to it.

said, he hoped the Government would accede to the Amendment. Tenancies in respect to which notices had been served last September expired in March, and many others expired on the 1st of May, even though the tenants might still be in occupation. He ventured to say there were at least 100 of such cases, and if the Amendment were not adopted, not one of them would come within the provisions of the Bill. If the Amendment were not adopted the Bill would protect the bad landlord who was determined to get possession of his property, but not the good landlord who patiently awaited the consequences of legislation.

said, he would remind the House that all these statements were ex parte. He was opposed to the Amendment, though he had no interest in it one way or the other; for during the last three or four years he had only served notice to quit on one tenant, and the man said, Pay me my improvements, and I will give up the land to-morrow. He (Mr. Bruen) paid him his improvements, and the man gave up the land. An official Report stated that notices to quit had been served for seven reasons, one of which was the anticipation of legislation; and he said that the Government ought to reserve their decision until that assertion had been substantiated.

said, the Government were not able to agree to the Amendment; but they did not endorse the views of the hon. Member for Fermanagh (Captain Archdall). Recent occurrences in Ireland rendered it natural that an effort should be made to protect tenants from improper attempts which appeared to have been made on the part of a small number of landlords to deprive their tenants of the benefits of the legislation upon which Parliament was engaged; but, at present, the information upon the subject was very imperfect; and if such a provision as this were introduced it should be done with due deliberation and a perfect knowledge of the facts of the case, and only upon grounds which would be sufficient to justify it. For these reasons he would ask the hon. Member (Mr. Pim) to withdraw the Amendment, and leave it to the Government to consider whether it was necessary to introduce such a provision. He thought the danger apprehended was not so great as at first sight it appeared to be, because it did not arise from notices to quit given last September, with which the Committee could not attempt to deal, and which, if they existed at all, must be few in number; but the danger apprehended arose from notices given in March, with the view of escaping the provisions of this Bill; and as they could not expire before next September, when the Bill would be passed, if it passed at all, the notices would have no effect, and would make no difference whatever to the existing tenancies with which the Committee had to deal. That removed the greater part of the danger apprehended, and it reduced the question before the Committee to one of very narrow limits. If it should be necessary hereafter to consider the point that was raised, the Government would be prepared to consider it; but he did not think the danger was one of any magnitude.

said, the clause made no provision for the tenant who might have a middleman between himself and the superior landlord. He would therefore move, in page 4, line 24, after "landlord," to insert "or of any person claiming by superior title."

said, he did not at all deny that the Amendment raised a question of importance and difficulty, which had engaged the attention of the Government in framing the Bill. They had to consider whether it was possible to apply the provisions of the Bill to the cases of existing leaseholders, and they came to the conclusion that it was not. It was possible that cases of hardship such as tad occurred before now might occur again, in spite of the provisions of the Bill, although he hoped, they would not; but the Government came to the conclusion that it would not be wise to interfere with existing leases in this respect, by imposing upon the superior landlord an obligation as against the sub-tenant, with whom he had now no relation whatever, and who had been placed upon the land without his consent. The Government came to the conclusion that it would not be right to give the sub-tenant a claim in this ease as against the superior landlord. The Amendment might have been moved in another form by proposing to omit from the clause the word "immediate." The Government had come to the conclusion that, as a sub-tenant would have a claim against his immediate landlord, and as such sub-tenant was placed upon the land without the privity or consent of the superior landlord, it would be going too far to recognize a claim against the latter, the presence of the tenant upon the land being often, in the cases supposed, not for his interest, but contrary to his wishes and intentions. In such a measure it was impossible to guard against all cases of hardship that might possibly arise, and the Government had felt that they could not apply the provisions of this Bill to such cases as had been referred to by the hon. Member (Sir John Gray).

said, it amused him to hear the Chief Secretary for Ireland apologizing for the Government not having included in their Bill a clause giving compensation in cases in which a landlord had let his property to one tenant who, without his consent, handed it over to some one else, such subletting having been, according to the Chief Secretary's own admission, very injurious to the property.

said, he had consented to move an Amendment, at the instance of two or three landlords, who were of opinion that it was absolutely necessary for them to have the power of contracting themselves out of the operation of the Bill. The Bill enacted that—

"Any contract made by a tenant by virtue of which he is deprived of his right to make any claim, which he would otherwise be entitled to make under this section, shall, so far as relates to such claim, be void."

He proposed to add the words—

"Save where the contract for such tenancy shall be for the term of thirty-three years or upwards, in which case the tenant may enter into a contract under lease, and deprive himself of all his rights under the Bill."

That was the proposition of many landlords and agents, and he believed it would be accepted by the tenants. He did not wish to press this Amendment, but simply to put it before the House.

said, he had given Notice of an Amendment which would limit to contracts, made before the passing of the Act the enactment that any contract made by a tenant, by virtue of which he would be deprived of his rights to make any claim which he would otherwise be entitled to make under this section, should, so far as it related to such a claim, be void. But since then many modifications had been effected in the Bill, which had mitigated many of its features, though he must candidly say they did not remove his objections to the policy of the Government. It would be right and wise on the part of the Committee to express an opinion on the general question; but taking into consideration the Division which had been taken that night, and had indirectly dealt with the subject of his Amendment, he should not, on the present occasion, take the opinion of the Committee on the point, but would reserve to himself the right to do so at a more favourable opportunity.

said, he rose to move a proviso to the effect that land not subject to the Ulster, or to any other usage, might be registered, and thereby placed under the provisions of a permissive Parliamentary tenant - right. Where the landlord and tenant of such land could not agree as to the rent of the land, the Court might determine the proper rent at intervals of 14 years. The tenant of such land might assign his entire interest, but not sublet or subdivide his holding. Such tenant, if about to be evicted, might sell his interest in the holding. Any successor in title of the landlord might purchase it. His Amendment would, he held, give the landlords, under certain conditions, the right to make free contracts with their tenants. The Bill as it stood prevented landlords from so doing; but many landlords were anxious to enter into free contracts with their tenants on proper terms. The Government, however, in giving power to contract, thought there should be some provision to prevent hardship or oppression. The Amendment which stood in his name was in accordance with many of the provisions of the Bill which had already been passed, and which permitted alternative arrangements. He objected to the Bill as it was framed; but as a large majority of hon. Members had decided that the Bill must be adopted in its present form, he was anxious that any imposition which he brought forward should be in perfect conformity with the existing provisions of the Bill. The Government properly said that if the tenants were left free to contract themselves out of the Bill, all a landlord would have to do would be to make a frightful example of one of his tenants, and then the others would be obliged to accept any terms he liked to impose. As a body, Irish landlords were kind and generous; the fault lay not with them, but with the law which encouraged a bad and oppressive landlord to take advantage of it. The proposition he was now making did not emanate from an individual Member; it was the result of a joint consultation of landlords and tenants, and was attested by a document, now in the hands of the Government, and signed by 35 Irish Members, who, excluding Ulster, represented 17 of the other counties. They felt that under the Bill constant irritation, litigation, ill-will, and all uncharitableness might result; and they wished that landlords and tenants should be permitted to enter into private arrangements under the clauses he proposed, and so to bring the two classes into perfect harmony. They contended that the landlord had a right to expect from his tenant a fair rent for his land, and to require that the tenant should not be bound to divide, to sublet, or to waste the land; but so long as the tenant paid his rent and abstained from these things, they thought that he ought not to be evictable by law. They asked also that there should be some simple and inexpensive Court to act as arbitrator between them in case of any dispute arising, or their being unable to come to a mutual agreement as to terms. He knew it might be contended by right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench that his proposal, if carried, would amount to giving continuancy of occu- pancy; but his answer was that, practically, no less than 361,158 out of 652,000 and odd holdings in Ireland were to have security of tenure given them by the provisions of the Bill as it stood. The fact, too, that so many persons representing property had signed the Memorial to which he had called the attention of the Committee, asking the House to make the arrangement which he was advocating, was a sufficient answer to the argument that it would interfere with the rights of property. It was not sought in any way to interfere with those rights. All that was required was, that the tenant should be permitted to live on in peace, and providing he was an improving tenant, and did not allow his holding to fall into a state of dilapidation, that he should be allowed to sell his interest in his farm without taking anything out of the pocket of the landlord. What evidence was there that this Bill had been accepted by the people of Ireland. ["Divide!"] He hoped hon. Gentlemen would take time to consult those Reports, and would also consider how many Petitions had been presented to Parliament in favour of the Bill as it now stood. ["Divide!"] He did not think that the question could be properly discussed on that occasion, and would therefore move that the Chairman should report Progress.

said, that this proposition was of extreme importance, and had been approved by a large number of Irish Members. He had received many letters from Ireland asking him to support it; but it would be impossible to discuss it properly on the present occasion, as it was arranged that other business should be taken at a certain hour. Under these circumstances, he would recommend his hon. Friend (Sir John Gray) to embody his proposal in a separate clause, and bring it forward on some future day, when it might be discussed in all its details.

said, that the hon. Gentleman (Sir John Gray), after saying that the Bill had not been accepted in Ireland, had spoken of Reports and Petitions which had been presented to the House. Interruptions occurred at this part of the hon. Gentleman's speech; but he thought that a Member of such weight and authority in Ireland ought to be allowed,to go on and show why the Bill had not been accepted.

said, it had been arranged that this should be a short discussion; but he saw no reason why it should be still further shortened. He suggested that his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) should finish his argument. ["No, no!"]

said, he would call attention to the fact that 35 Irish Members were in favour of the proposal, which was of great importance. He thought that, in justice to the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray), to the subject, and to the Government, the discussion ought to be postponed.

said, he would adopt the suggestion which had been made to him, and finish that part of his argument which related to Petitions. There had been only one solitary Petition presented in favour of the Bill, and that Petition was signed by one individual. This discussion was so important, and so many hon. Gentlemen desired to take part in it, that he must press his Motion to report Progress.

said, he wished to hear on what grounds the hon. Member claimed the support of the landlords of Ireland, and he hoped that when the debate was continued great attention would be given to this question.

rose to address the House, but was met with cries of "Order" and "Chair," whereupon

said, that as the hon. Member had already spoken in the debate, he could not again address the House without its permission.

said, that he was perfectly aware that he had to ask for the indulgence of the House while he endeavoured to comply with the wish, expressed by the First Lord of the Treasury on Friday last, that he should state his view of the scope of the inquiry ordered by the House on the 29th of March. The Order was for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into certain matters connected with Conventual and Monastic Institutions. He felt sure the House would believe him when he said that he did not presume to explain what the House or even the majority understood to be the purport of their vote, but merely his own understanding of the Order of the House, as draftsman of that Order; and that except in compliance with a request of the kind he had described, he should not have intruded himself on the House. The Order adopted by the House was in the following terms:—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the existence, character, and increase of Conventual and Monastic Institutions or Societies in Great Britain, and into the terms, upon which income, property, and estates belonging to such Institutions or Societies, or to the members thereof, are respectively received, held, or possessed."

It was quite true that he made the Motion for the adoption of the Order, and then, to the best of his poor ability, he urged arguments in support of that Motion. He should not, however, now venture to adduce any argument. All he had to do was to explain, as the draftsman of this Instruction, what he understood to be its purport. He did not think he could better comply with the wish, which he understood the House to have expressed, than by reading part of a letter which he addressed to a right hon. Member on the 30th of March, immediately after the Motion of the 29th. First, however, he would remark that, although the Motion was only carried by a majority of 2 in a House of 260 Members, yet the question had been virtually tested subsequently by Divisions on the adjournments of the debate on the Motion to give effect to the Resolution—first, by a majority of 24, and next by a majority of 45. He concluded, therefore, that the Order of the 29th of March had, when considered calmly, commended itself to the approbation of the House. The letter he referred to contained the following paragraphs:—

"You requested me to state in writing my understanding of the purport of the Resolution yesterday adopted by the House of Commons, which I to-day endeavoured verbally to convey to you. I understand that the Resolution of yesterday directs an inquiry by a Select Committee, limited considerably within the sphere of the inquiry conducted by the Select Committee on the Law of Mortmain, appointed in 1851, so far as Roman Catholic charitable property is concerned; inasmuch as the inquiry, yesterday directed, will touch the property, whether real or personal, which is held in trust or otherwise, for the benefit or maintenance of monastic or conventual institutions only, excluding all the property which is held for the maintenance of Roman Catholic chapels, residences for individual or secular priests, and schools, not connected with the monastic or conventual orders of the Church of Rome; the tenure of all which property, as well as that for the maintenance of conventual, if not of monastic institutions, was considered by the Committee of 1851, and was intended to be regulated by the Roman Catholic Act of 1860. The information, the obtaining of which was, I understand, yesterday directed, would in other respects extend to subjects not contemplated by the appointment of the above-mentioned Committee, or by the passing of the above-mentioned statute, inasmuch as the inquiry necessary for obtaining this further information must extend to an investigation of the nature of the income, whether the produce of real or personal property, or derived from other sources, by which monastic and conventual institutions in Great Britain are maintained, and must further seek the practical identification of these institutions by inquiring into the discipline for their external and internal regulation, by which alone the particular character of such institutions can be ascertained; while the sites, general character, and the increase of these institutions must also form part of the subject-matter of the inquiry."

He went into some further matters in the letter, showing it was likely there would be a general feeling throughout the country in favour of an inquiry being made—a presumption which events had justified. There had been great misunderstanding, as to the scope of this inquiry, founded upon the necessity of ascertaining the discipline, in order to test the character of monastic institutions. The Roman Catholic Directory showed that conventual establishments had adopted a great variety of designations, and varied in their character in the most extraordinary degree. In some cases the nuns left the convent for purposes of charity, and to a certain extent mixed with the world; in this way they might derive means for their sustenance; but the case of the cloistered nuns was different, as had been exhibited by a recent case of escape from a convent in Warwickshire. ["Question!"] That unfortunate lady was now safe under the care of the magistrates for the county, and was under the control of the Lunacy Commissioners; her case showed that there were two classes of nuns in the convent at Baddesley Clinton, and that she was not one of those nuns that visited the poor, but one of that class termed the inner circle. Thus evidence had come to light, during the discussion of the subject, supporting the fact that while some nuns visited the world others were never permitted to do so, but, although in the same institution with the others, were cloistered. ["Order!"] He was mentioning this case to show that discipline formed an important part of the question, and he would take one other instance. ["Question!" and "Order!"] He desired to do so simply to show the necessity for ascertaining the true and real character of the monastic orders, and he would mention two instances which would also help to explain the scope of the inquiry resolved on. It was well known that at Mount St. Bernard, in Leicestershire, there was an Order of Trappist Monks, who, it is believed, were bound by regular vows, who formed part of a regular Order of the Church of Rome, and seldom left the precincts of their monastery. The fact of the existence of this Order must be known to the House, for these monks had been entrusted with the education of a reformatory school for boys, and payment had been made to them out of the public funds. The case of the Oratorians was of a different character. ["Question!"] They had appealed to the Courts of Law in the case of "Smee v. Knox and others," and succeeded in their suit on the ground that they were not bound by monastic vows, and had not community of goods. There was a distinct difference between these two cases: one had sought the protection of the law, the other had obtained money from the State; and he mentioned this to show it was necessary, if anything was to be known of these institutions and the manner in which property belonging to them was held and disposed of, inquiry must be made into the discipline which cha- racterized these institutions respectively. For that reason he had introduced the word "character," which of course to a certain extent included the discipline, which was distinctive of the character of such institutions. A notion had got abroad among the Roman Catholics—which was especially apparent in a Petition from Dublin, that the House had ordered an immediate personal inspection of each person in every convent and monastery in the kingdom. The Order did not authorize the Committee to make any such inspection at all. He was anxious to remove this misapprehension, in which he had reason to apprehend that the hon. Member for Kilkenny anticipated. At a meeting of the Corporation of Dublin, held on the 7th of April, at which the Petition, which had been laid before the House, had been adopted, that hon. Member had made a speech to which he wished to draw attention.

rose to Order. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had already made three speeches upon this subject, and it was only by the indulgence of the House that he was allowed again to address them, in order to give an explanation of his presumed views upon the subject. Instead of doing so, however, he was entering into a debate as to what had been said in another place. He put it to Mr. Speaker whether the hon. Member was in order in the course he was pursuing.

said, the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) had rightly stated that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was addressing the House merely by their indulgence. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire would doubtless see, under these circumstances, the propriety of confining himself to giving the necessary explanation to the House of the course he intended to pursue, if the House were willing to hear him upon the subject.

was very sorry to trespass upon the House for one moment longer than was absolutely necessary; but, since he had been asked to explain what he understood was the scope of the inquiry to be undertaken by the Committee—in order to explain what he understood to be within the scope of the inquiry, he must be permitted to state his understanding of what had been suggested as within the scope, but was not. Now, that which he did not understand to come within the scope of that inquiry was contained in the Petition which had lately been presented to the House from the Corporation of Dublin. He believed that the hon. Member for Kilkenny was in his place, and at the meeting to which he had already referred that hon. Member had used these words. ["Question!"]

again rose to Order. He would beg to move that the hon. Member should not be indulged.

I must repeat that the hon. Member is addressing the House by its indulgence, and it is for the House to decide whether or not he is exceeding the limits of the privilege that has been accorded him.

I move it. I put it to the House that the hon. Member be no longer indulged.

remarked that the hon. Member for Waterford had given him (Mr. Newdegate) an advantage he did not expect by making a new Motion, upon which he was now entitled to address the House. He should not, however, intrude one additional word upon the House in consequence of the advantage that the hon. Member had given him by making the Motion. The Friends of the hon. Member for Kilkenny did not appear to wish that the House should know what he had described their intended action to be. ["Question!"] The hon. Member, on the occasion to which he referred, said—

"I will have much pleasure in presenting the Petition, and I will also have much pleasure in bearing my part in the using of every form and any form of the House, no matter at what cost, at what labour, at what time, to defeat the most unjustifiable proceeding against which you have this day protested. I think I may say, too, that there are some other men who will co-operate in the work, and who will say with me this infamy shall not be,"

He believed that the expression of opinion on the part of the Corporation of Dublin, and of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, arose from a total misapprehension of the scope of the inquiry ordered by the House; but, at the same time, he must advert to the fact that the House, after deliberate and repeated Divisions upon this subject, was threatened that a use would be made of its own forms to defeat its object, and that this threat was made by an Irish Member in reference to an inquiry affecting the whole of Britain, but not extended to Ireland. In connection with this extraordinary misapprehension and proceeding, he might further remind the House that a breach of its privileges had been committed by the manner in which he had been libelled. Without further trespassing upon the House, he would express a hope that he had furnished the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had desired from him with reference to what he understood to be the scope of the proposed inquiry. The hon. Members forming the majority, with whom he had communicated on this subject, appeared to concur with him that the inquiry directed by the House would be limited to the objects which he had endeavoured to describe.

said, he trusted that the House would not grudge him a few moments while he made a few observatinos on the question before them, more especially as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had already spoken three times upon it. He felt assured that the House would enter upon and continue this debate with a sense of great responsibility, on the ground that it concerned deeply the feelings and interests of a large number of their fellow-subjects, the Catholics of England and Wales, who were absolutely without representation in that House. ["No, No!"] He believed he was right in saying that there was only one Catholic Member returned for England and Wales. ["No, no!"] He repeated, and he challenged contradiction upon the point, that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir John Simeon) was the only Catholic Member representing a constituency in England or Wales in that House. ["No, no!" and "Roman Catholic Member."] Well, he was not going to quarrel about a word—let it be Roman Catholic Member. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight being-absent from ill-health, he was right when he stated that the Roman Catholics of England and Wales were without representation in that House. Moreover the strong Protestant feeling which, he rejoiced to say, was so widely diffused throughout this country, was apt to lead the House into acting hastily, and doing that which they would afterwards in their calmer moments regret. Neither did he think that the hon. Member the Mover of this Motion had acted in a manner quite worthy of his own high character in complaining of the tone in which some Englishwomen had expressed their opinions of the conduct of that House in this matter; because it must be recollected that their feelings were strongly excited, and that pending the measure of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright), strong language was the only constitutional method which women possessed of expressing their opinions upon political questions in which they were interested. But, if they were to approach the inquiry in that spirit, he did not see that any solid good could come from it; and no one could deny that it would excite, as the Motion had already excited, much irritation, much unkindly, uncharitable, and un-Christian feeling. The proposed inquiry had two aspects, one referring to the property and the other to the character of these institutions. He admitted that property, whether public or private, was a legitimate subject for inquiry by Parliament, and especially property of a public or quasi public character. He had heard with pleasure that one of the motives of the hon. Gentleman in moving for an inquiry—though it seemed strange for such a reason to be assigned by a Warwickshire squiro—was, because the dedication of property to these institutions would withdraw it from the market. That would furnish an argument against the iniquities of the law of entail. If the hon. Member had directed his inquiry to corporate or quasi corporate property generally, that would have been a legitimate subject of inquiry, and he would have gone with the hon. Member in preventing absolutely the acquisition by corporate institutions of land not required for their own occupation; but when the hon. Member spoke of Roman Catholic charities, he seemed to intimate that there was something exceptional in the manner in which the law dealt with them. That was an entire delusion. There was no difference between thorn and other charities, for they were all subject to the Law Courts, and to the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners. ["No, no!"] He was glad to have elicited those expressions in the negative, because they showed the misapprehension on which the House had acted, and the misapprehension arose from the fact that when, in 1852, the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners was placed on a new basis, Roman Catholic charities were temporarily exempted from it. There were mixed up with Roman Catholic charities certain uses, which were considered by the law as superstitious, and there was at that time in contemplation an Act authorizing the Courts to divert the property from such superstitious uses and apply it to legitimate charitable purposes. Pending the introduction of that Act the Roman Catholic charities were exempted from the law of 1853 from year to year, but in 1860 such an Act was passed, and from that moment the Roman Catholic charities were placed in the same position as other charities, not only as regarded the Courts of Law, to which, of course, they were always subject, but as regarded the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners. He should not have adverted to this point had not the hon. Member in his opening speech dwelt on it; for, in fact, convents and monasteries were not charities, and did not come under the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners, and, therefore, the reference made by the hon. Member to Roman Catholic charities had nothing to do with the question. A convent or monastery was, with respect to its property, in precisely the same position as a Pall-mall club. It was a voluntary association of certain persons for certain definite purposes. It was not a corporation. The property was held by a few members as trustees, and the members could at any time sell it and divide the money. These rights of property were the creatures of the English law, recognized in the English Courts like other rights of property, and in no case were they subject, as the hon. Member said, not to the English Courts, but to what the hon. Member called the Court of Rome. There was nothing obscure or abnormal in the mode in which property was held by these institutions. He would not say how far property of the kind should be allowed to accumulate, because he looked with great jealousy on the accumulation of property by these artificial entities such as corporations or associations, and its withdrawal from its natural use, which was its enjoyment and disposition by individuals. The matter could be ascertained at any time; but if any inquiry were undertaken it should be with a view to a remedy. He supposed that the hon. Member had some idea of a remedy, and he should be glad to hear what it was. It might be disendowment, or what might be called confiscation; but if so, it was rather extraordinary that such a proposition should come from the Conservative Benches. He would now pass from that subject, because it could not be denied that the object in view was not inquiry into the property, but into the nature of the institutions themselves, and all the talk about the mode in which the property was held merely veiled the real character of the inquiry. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire, however, repudiated the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Matthews) that the purpose of his inquiry was speculative curiosity. In fact, they all knew what was the nature of these institutions. They were voluntary associations of men or women, who thought that by devoting themselves to works of charity and to religious exercises they might attain the perfect life. That might not be their—hon. Members'—idea, nor was it his; but was it so unreasonable, so inconsistent with the common interests of society that they were prepared to stop it by law? He supposed no Member would get up and say so. Apart from coercion, physical or moral, was the House prepared to say that it should be unlawful for men or for women thus to live together? They must remember that the men neither enjoyed nor claimed exemption from the ordinary duties of citizenship; and as to the women, what should he say? Why, they were not more frivolous or more unwise than those who lived outside a convent's walls. But then it was said that coercion was brought to bear upon the inmates, either on their entrance or during their continuance in those houses. If that was true, if there was physical coercion, if any man or woman could be restrained otherwise than by sentence of law either in a convent or anywhere else, then he would admit there was a necessity not for inquiry, but for immediate and stringent legislation, because the rights of personal liberty laid down in Magna Charta and protected by the Habeas Corpus Act would be a dead letter. But he would put it to any rea- sonable man—and he hoped they were all reasonable men—was it possible—did anyone believe, that such coercion did exist? [An hon. MEMBER: No doubt of it.] They had heard of dungeons deep and dark under the floors of convents—they had heard of 15 cwt. of iron railing1 at windows to prevent the escape of nuns. These charges, mingled with others intemperate and foul, might be disregarded when brought by irresponsible persons out-of-doors. But when they were brought up by men of responsible position and high character, like the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, the House had a right, and was bound to ask, were these things true, and could the hon. Gentleman prove them? Those charges had been made the basis of this Motion for an inquiry; they had a right to ask for some case proved before they entered upon it. The hon. Gentleman would say—Grant me a Committee, and I will prove my case; but if he had cases he could prove before the Committee he was bound now to put his finger on the name of some institution and tell them what cases demanded investigation. He did not think he would be suspected of any leaning towards Roman Catholicism. He had no love for priestly power. He would not yield to the hon. Member for Warwickshire in attachment to Protestantism, and Protestantism more extreme than he (Mr. Newdegate) professed. But he was not prepared, under the influence of such convictions, unless a clear case were shown, to charge all the Roman Catholics of England, our own countrymen and countrywomen, with that, the wickedness of which was only exceeded by its extreme folly—physical coercion, in violation of the first rights and liberties of their fellow-subjects. He felt persuaded that the majority of those who had voted for this Motion did not believe that cases of physical coercion existed. He Winterbotham) did not believe it. The hon. Member was challenged to prove his charges; and he had already used to the fullest extent—too fully—his right to protection under the privileges of the House in refusing to give any proof in answer to those who denied his charges. The nearest relations of the accused were as much entitled to credence as the hon. Member himself. He (Mr. Winterbotham) really believed the hon. Member could not give the proof demanded. Let him prove one case, and then they would have some reason to believe that he could prove the rest. So much for cases of physical coercion, of which he believed there were none; but then it was said, there was moral coercion. Roman Catholics told them, indeed, that great care and deliberation were used before anyone was admitted to these vows, and that persons might be released from them with greater facility than in former times if they chose to return to society. But he granted there was moral coercion. These people were told by persons they believed that if they broke those vows they would endure terrible consequences hereafter. Did he love such a system? He abhorred all priesthoods from the bottom of his soul. He could not put it more strongly; but the question was, how would they meet this moral coercion? He called to mind the wise words of the First Minister of the Crown—"they could not free people's consciences by Act of Parliament." If these men and women really believed in the power of the sanction invoked over them—if they believed such consequences would follow the breaking of their vows, what relief could Parliament offer? What would the Committee do upstairs? Would they call the abbesses before them, and ask—"Do you coerce the inmates of your houses? "Would they ask the nuns—"Do you wish to remain?" "Did you enter of your free will?" "Do you remain of your free will?" They were told that this inquiry would be conducted by English Gentlemen. He believed it. But the very deference and respect which they would pay to the feelings of the inmates would, if it did anything, make this inquiry impotent and useless. In the case of the monasteries the inquiry would be worse. Here was another pitfall for the hon. Member and his Committee. They would ask questions in the case of men in the monasteries relating to oaths the taking of which since the Emancipation Act was criminal, subjecting the persons who took the oath to banishment, and on their return to transportation. Any person summoned before the Committee would refuse to answer. Why should he subject himself to penalties by answering? Would he be bound so to subject himself? He would not; and nothing what- ever would be gained by the inquiry. What would result from the inquiry would be scenes in the Committee Room which the House and the country would not like to countenance, and would not readily repeat. Much irritation would be felt, much unkind feeling—and that was a weak phrase—excited, and no good whatever would come of it. He abhorred spiritual despotism as much as any man, but you could not fight spiritual power with carnal weapons. Would they free men's minds? Let them teach truth, not persecute error. He did not for a moment disparage the motives of the hon. Gentleman or of the large portion of the country that was supporting him in his Motion, though the very support the hon. Gentleman was receiving ought to show him the needlessness of the inquiry. For what were the motives and feelings at the bottom of that support? Alarm at the spread of Roman Catholicism in this country, and fear of its ultimately resuming its sway over the great mass of the people. He confessed he did not share that alarm in the least; but if he did he should be ashamed to meet it in this way. He hoped the Roman Catholic Members would forgive his speaking his mind upon the matter. He could not conceive how a sober-minded man, reading the signs of the times, could think that Roman Catholicism was making way in this country. The whole thought of the country was in far other directions; tradition and the history of the past were altogether out of harmony with it, and the whole outlook of the nation's future was in other quarters. How many doctors, lawyers, merchants, mechanics, or artizans were ever heard of as becoming Roman Catholics? The converts were women, parsons, and peers. Of these three classes the two latter were certainly not growing in power or in influence; there was nothing about the clergy or the peers of which the country need be afraid. As to the converts who were made among the women, the House had no right to complain on this head until they gave to women a higher, and, he would add, a more manly education—until they opened to them larger spheres of usefulness and activity. Till this was done, the House would have no right to be surprised that some women—and those not the least noble of their sex— preferred the devotions and even the austerities of a convent to the frivolities of outdoor daily life. He would not further discuss the motives of those who were supporting the Motion. Though it was said to be no party Motion, he was not surprised that it emanated from the other side of the House, for he could not help remembering that it came from those who had ever been the consistent foes of religious liberty. He appealed to those whose Protestantism, like his own, was extreme, and stood in no need of assertion or vindication by insult and injustice offered to those who differed from them. They had themselves a conflict to wage with Ultramontanism; let them enter upon that work with clean hands, and fight with weapons of which they need not be ashamed. Let them not be open still to the reproach cast on them by Sidney Smith, who charged the Dissenters with a "greedy, growling, guzzling monopoly of toleration." To this charge they would expose themselves if they suffered themselves to be led by feelings of sectarian animosity into an unnecessary, and, therefore, as he thought, most unjustifiable infringement of the great principle of religious liberty.

said, he felt it was the duty of Parliament on that occasion to weigh calmly and deliberately, and without party spirit or feeling, the right or wrong of the proposal of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Newdegate). He wished, in the first instance, to set himself free from any idea that, in giving his vote upon this question, he belonged to any prejudiced party. He felt quite free from the application of those adjectives—he might almost term them expletives—that were applied the other night to his hon. Colleague by the hon. Member for Dungarvon (Mr. Matthews). He did not believe there was one word of truth in those extraordinary and absurd stories which had been so frequently circulated by an extreme section of the Protestant party with reference to occurrences that had taken place in the monastic and conventual establishments throughout the country; but he was bound also to withhold his assent from many of the statements put forward in the declaration of the Roman Catholics of Great Britain, which described the monasteries and convents as the private homes of British subjects associated together to practise the counsels of Christian perfection, and stated that the superiors of these institutions did not exercise any authority over the inmates which was unknown to the law, and did not even possess such means of coercion as a teacher would have over children, a master over his apprentices, or an employer over his workmen. He differed especially from the statement that these establishments were in a similar position to private houses of English subjects. He had had frequent conversations upon this subject with many Roman Catholics, whom he had the pleasure of numbering amongst his friends and acquaintances, and they laid great stress upon that point. They had asked him how he would like his private house to be inspected? They said—"How would you Members of Parliament like inspectors to come and visit your private houses?" His answer to that had always been brief and simple—namely, that he had nobody shut up in his private house, and that if he or any other Gentleman had anybody shut up in his house—his wife, his daughter, his man-servant or his maidservant, or any human thing that was his, the law could and would interfere, and not only set the prisoner free, but visit his or her custodian with heavy punishment. The reply had always been that those who were shut up in these places were shut up voluntarily; but the question was, could they voluntarily leave? The advocates of these institutions said that it was moral and not physical force that retained the inmates of these establishments, and urged that against moral force they could not prevail with the help of all the inspectors and Royal Commissions in the world. That, no doubt, was a position which it was very difficult to dispute; but there was a widespread impression throughout the country that there was something more than that, and although he did not share in it he thought it was desirable it should be dispelled and got rid of. It might be urged that it was unnecessary to institute an inspection, which was felt to be painful and insulting, in deference to any absurd ideas which might be held on the subject; but, in his opinion, a man suspected of theft would do better, if he were innocent, to turn out his pockets than remain under so unpleasant a sus- picion. He hoped this Motion would not be regarded as a party Motion. His own impression was, that the first Division was not a mistake, although the majority in favour of the Motion of his hon. Friend was very narrow, and it would now be even more dangerous to retreat than to advance. If it were said that this was an inopportune moment, and that they ought, as it were, to wear list shoes in approaching a question of this character, while a certain portion of Her Majesty's dominions were in so inflammable a condition, the blame attaching to such a state of things should rest where it ought to rest, not with his hon. Friend, but with the occupants of the Treasury Bench. It was very natural that his hon. Friend and Colleague, who had entertained for many years strong opinions on this subject, should seize the first available opportunity that presented a chance of success. He hoped there might be mutual concession on this subject—that on both sides of the House there might be an inclination not to take extreme views, but to bring the matter to a peaceable issue. He was quite sure that if some arrangement could be come to, whereby all institutions, whether of men or women, whether religious or secular, which kept themselves, under any pretext whatever, within certain rules and discipline and within closed doors, should be subjected to regular inspection, it would be a healthy and satisfactory conclusion for the House to arrive at.

I do not wish, Sir, to follow the example of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in what I may simply call the prolongation of the discussion, which I think it is outgeneral desire should be, if possible, wound up. One sentiment, indeed, which fell from the hon. Gentleman commanded my sympathy—namely, that which occurred towards the close of his speech, when he expressed his hope that the question would be approached by both sides of the House in a spirit of conciliation and concession; but I was a little disappointed to find him going on to advocate what, after all, is the most extreme demand ever made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that the whole of these institutions should, under all circumstances, be open to regular inspection. I am sure that such a do- mand as that does not afford much hope of an immediately peaceable issue, and if we wish to arrive at that result we must look at the matter in some other aspect. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Winterbotham), in regretting the decision at which the House arrived on a former evening, and for this reason—Without raising at all the question of abstract right—and by no means concurring in the very high doctrines set up by the hon. Baronet (Sir John Simeon) of the sacredness of associations of all kinds with respect to their rules and property and to their right of immunity from Parliamentary inquiry, still endeavouring to take what I should call a practical view of the case—I own I think that the balance of inconvenience, and perhaps of serious evil, of ill-will and animosity, is likely to revolt from this proceeding rather than any solid and substantial good. I do not feel that the Government are primarily or mainly responsible for leading to a satisfactory issue these discussions. We are not responsible for this proceeding. We did not hesitate to record our vote against it, and our duty at the present moment is simply to interfere in a conciliatory spirit, and to suggest respectfully to the House for its consideration that which may appear, under all the circumstances, best to be done. In the first place, with regard to the question before us, the original Motion was that of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, "that the Select Committee on Conventual and Monastic Institutions be nominated by the Committee of Selection," to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kildare (Mr. Cogan) has moved as an Amendment, "that the Order for the appointment of the Select Committee be discharged." I will say one word upon each of these two issues to be submitted to-night. The Committee of Selection has often been appealed to by the House to help it out of a difficulty. In a case where charges have been brought against hon. Members whose conduct has been subjected to such imputations as entail the necessity of inquiry, and in other matters of delicacy that have come before the House not by any will of its own, but, as it were, without its own intervention or agency in any way whatever, it has been felt fair to appeal to the Committee of Selection to assist the House in sending the case to be tried before a tribunal of undoubted and unquestionable impartiality. To that extent I think it is quite fair that we should, from time to time, call upon the Committee of Selection to give us assistance. But I must observe that this is not a case of that kind. This is a ease which the House has taken up for reasons the majority thought sufficient; this is a case in which the House of its own accord has chosen to grapple with a subject of peculiar difficulty, delicacy, and responsibility; and, under these circumstances, it is proposed to ask the Committee of Selection to undertake the very invidious task of nominating the Committee. If the Committee of Selection had zealously volunteered for this duty, it would not be for me to interpose an objection; but I would have said that they had undertaken a task which there was no call upon them to undertake. But now I understand from the distinct declaration of one much respected Member of that Committee (Mr. Scourfield), not contradicted by any counter-declaration of any other Member of it, that the Committee of Selection deprecate and respectfully protest against the imposition of this function upon them; and therefore I am certainly prepared to vote against the proposition of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire for constraining the Committee of Selection to undertake a task totally different from the purpose of helping us out of a difficulty in which we find ourselves placed without any choice of our own. Therefore my duty would be in that view of the matter to vote against the Motion that will be put first from the Chair—namely, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." Then comes the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Cogan), who desires to discharge the Order for the Select Committee on Conventual and Monastic Institutions. And here I must look back to the nature of that Order, and I do so in this spirit. I think it is the duty of all Members of this House—not under all circumstances and without any qualification, but as a general rule—and especially the duty of the Government, after a decision has been arrived at by a majority of this House, to endeavour if they can to take a favourable view of that decision. When I look to what was the Motion I find it to be a declaration that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the existence, character, and increase of Conventual and Monastic Institutions or Societies in Great Britain, and into the terms, upon which income, property, and. estates belonging to such Institutions are respectively received, held, or possessed. Upon reading that Motion it appears to me capable of being considered with reference to two matters, not only separable in idea, but widely distinct in practice—one of them is the state of the law with respect to these institutions; and the other, the conditions on which property is accumulated and held by or for them. With regard to this latter, it requires but a slighter description of primâ facie case to make an argument for inquiry. I freely grant to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that when we have in the Emancipation Act of 1829 a distinct enactment affecting the existence of monastic institutions, that very fact is in the nature of a presumption in favour of Parliament considering the question. I should think—I own it is a presumption quite open to be treated in either way—that some of us would go into an inquiry upon that point, if it were the only point, with a desire to place these institutions under strict supervision. Upon that matter, however, I should be desirous to associate myself rather with those who doubted whether it was desirable to maintain the prohibition contained in the Emancipation Act. But I admit that there can be no objection in limine, in principle, taken to any inquiry of that kind. So also, Sir, with regard, to property. I feel that which was felt by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Winterbotham), and so well expressed by him, that whenever property is taken out of that which is its primâ facie course—namely, supplying the wants of the individual and the family, and is attached to institutions of any kind, no one can say that the House goes beyond its province—though they may, of course, judge wisely or unwisely in the particular case—but no one can say the House violates principle when it says there is a case for examining the conditions on which property is held by any one or more of those institutions. I do not argue that question at length, because I confess, especially at this time of the evening, it does not appear to me to require to be supported by reasoning in detail. But then I have taken the liberty of asking the hon. Gentleman to tell us whether he intended to limit himself to the examination of the state of the law and the conditions on which income, property, or estates are received, held, and possessed, or whether he intended to examine into the internal management of these institutions, and the relations in which their members are placed to one another. Of course, I do not presume to say that even the internal management of institutions where members of society choose to associate themselves is a thing wholly and absolutely to be shielded under all circumstances from the view of Parliament. But then I think we now arrive at a point on which we must regard the case with very great jealousy. I find that the Motion to which the House acceded does contain words that undoubtedly would appear to open the internal anatomy, so to call it, of these institutions to the examination and scrutiny of a Parliamentary Committee, because the Committee is to inquire into the existence and character as well as the increase of these institutions, and I am not aware of any particular connected with the condition of the persons who belong to them and their relations to one another, or to their ecclesiastical advisers who may frequent them, that would not really and fairly fall, if I understand the words aright, within the meaning of the words "character of" these institutions. For that reason I was very desirous to know from the hon. Gentleman, who must necessarily, if this Committee is appointed, have a large share in directing the of its inquiries, his view on that matter. And I own that I have not found the explanation he was good enough to give so lucid and so effectual as I was in hopes it might have been. One thing, indeed, he emphatically disclaimed, but then, unfortunately, it was a matter which it was wholly unnecessary for him to disclaim—namely, the idea that an immediate and systematic inspection of these institutions was to be the direct effect of his Motion. I certainly should not have felt it needful to have put any Question to him on that subject, because I know perfectly well that neither the Order of the House of Commons, nor the appointment of a Committee, nor any other decision of this House itself, can avail to direct a system of inspection to be applied over these institutions. Consequently, I find no benefit, or clearing of my doubts or difficulties, from that portion of the hon. Member's declaration. When he referred to the letter he was good enough to address to me, I own I felt that the line of distinction, which I earnestly hoped he would draw very clearly, became to the last degree obscure; or, rather, that the fair presumption was, that it was the intention of the hon. Gentleman to place within the purview of his Committee, to bring into the field of inquiry—as I admit he would be justified by the word "character" in doing—everything that refers to the internal relations of the members, because in that letter he says—

"The information, the obtaining of which was, I understand, yesterday directed, would, in other respects, extend to subjects not contemplated by the appointment of the above-mentioned Committee, or by the passing of the above-mentioned statute; inasmuch as the inquiry necessary for obtaining this further information must extend to an investigation of the nature of the income, whether the produce of real or personal property, or derived from other sources, by which monastic and conventual institutions in Great Britain are maintained; and must further seek the practical identification of these institutions by inquiry into the discipline for their external and internal regulation."

Looking to the breadth of these words—although they are not, perhaps, free from ambiguity as to their precise scope—I must conceive that, on the whole, he does contemplate, and in perfect consistency, to give to the inquiry of the Committee the scope which I have described—namely, that the whole of their internal and personal affairs might be brought into the inquiry before that Committee. Well, that is a very serious matter indeed; and, in the first place, I should say that if Parliament is to be justified in directing an inquiry of that nature, we are bound in the first instance to exact from those who propose it—and to exact with very considerable rigour—presumptive proof of the case. I do not mean to say that everything which can be shown, in a Committee-room ought in the first place to be shown in this House; but I do say that something ought to be shown. Beyond a doubt something should be shown preliminary to the appointment of a Committee, to satisfy the House that without an inquiry public interests and private rights cannot be protected. Now, I am bound to say the hon. Member for North Warwickshire has not yet provided us with that strong primâ facie case. But, suppose there were to be such an inquiry, does the hon. Member, or any other hon. Gentleman in this House, suppose it would be tolerable or endurable for a moment that ladies—I should rather adopt a wider phrase and say human beings—women devoting themselves to religion, should be summoned against their will to a Committee-room, by the order of the Chairman of the Committee, to have the feelings of their hearts, their principles, their motives, their conduct, their habits and rules of life made the subject of investigation by means of examinations and cross-examinations, repeated one after another by the members of the Committee? I cannot think for a moment it would be possible, even if a primâ facie case were established, that we could consent to permit women to be dragged before such a tribunal. As to the case of men, I will not say it bears the same aspect; but I think my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Winterbotham) has pointed out with sufficient force and clearness that it would be very unprofitable to ask those men to give evidence which would criminate them in a Court of Law. Then with regard to the vehicle of inquiry, I think we should all feel that if the time had come for an investigation of such solemnity, difficulty, and delicacy, there could be but one tolerably satisfactory way of conducting it, and that would be under the sanction of an oath. But the proposal of the hon. Member does not admit of an inquiry into the internal state of those institutions under the sanction of an oath, nor is it in the power of the Crown—if we thought of proceeding by a Royal Commission—to direct its own Commissioners to examine on oath the witnesses coming before them. Therefore, I do not see, even if we overlook the fatal flaw, that the hon. Gentleman has not so far shown those primâ facie circumstances which would make it our duty to institute an inquiry—I do not see that the instrument proposed by the hon. Gentleman is fit, considering its nature and character, and the want of power to proceed with the sanction of an oath, to undertake this inquiry. That being so, let us see what would be the case supposing it should be the pleasure of the House to reject the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate) to direct the Committee of Selection to nominate this Committee of Inquiry. In that case we should have to consider the original Order made by the House on the Motion of the hon. Member. If the hon. Gentleman would take an inquiry into all matters connected with the property of these bodies, and the state of the law concerning them, I and my Colleagues, though not thinking that I much good is likely to result from such an investigation, have so much respect for the decision come to by the House that we will not oppose the proposition. The simplest course under such circumstances would be to omit the words "existence, character, and increase of," for the purpose of inserting the words "state of the Law respecting." If, however, the hon. Gentleman should think it his duty to adhere to his present proposition, sensible of the serious difficulty of the question, we shall have to consider the best method of meeting it with a view to the interests of the country.

Sir, I should like to understand the position in which we are placed. The Motion now put is that the Order for the appointment of a Select Committee be discharged. I understand my right hon. Friend the First Minister intends to propose an Amendment to the original direction for the appointment of the Committee in the manner which he has pointed out. Under the circumstances, I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cogan) will assent to the Motion for the discharge of the Order, and then my right hon. Friend will make his own Motion. My right hon. Friend proposes a very reasonable Amendment; but I think it would be better if the Committee were appointed to inquire into the existence, state of the law affecting, and increase of these institutions, because the Motion distinctly points to the state of the law under the Emancipation Act, which of course will constitute the foundation of the inquiry. I think this form of words will effect the object intended better than the form suggested by the First Minister.

said, the Motion of the right hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Cogan) was proposed as an Amendment to his Motion, that the Committee should be nominated by the Committee of Selection. He had concluded that the usual course had been pursued, and that the Amendment, which was put first, having been withdrawn—["No, no !"]—He wished to know what was the Question before the House.

The House has agreed to negative the words which were proposed to be left out—"Select Committee on Conventual and Monastic Institutions be nominated by the Committee of Selection," and now it is proposed to take the vote upon the words of the Amendment which were substituted for the words of the original Motion, and these are the words—"Order for the appointment of a Select Committee on Conventual and Monastic Institutions be discharged."

The forms of the House indicate pretty plainly the course we ought to take. Those who think with us that it would be well to substitute an amended Order for the original Order must vote with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Cogan) who has moved the discharge of the Order. We cannot, I apprehend, amend an Order which is already discharged. The way to obtain the end in view is to discharge that Order and substitute for it an amended one. Those who disapprove of the alteration of the Order may take their own course. My right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) will, I believe, be informed by the highest authority that the only proper and regular course will be to vote for the discharge of the Order with my right hon. Friend behind me, and then to pass an amended Order.

What the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cogan) proposes is that the Order be discharged. What the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government wishes to do is to limit the inquiry; and I think that voting for the proposition of the right hon. Member for Kildare will not affect that proposition. I should have supposed that the right course was to have negatived the Amendment of the light hon. Member for Kildare, and then the right hon. Gentleman could have proposed that so much of the Order be discharged as had reference to that part of the inquiry which he thinks should not be made. If that course is adopted, we shall understand what the Government propose; but supposing that the House agrees to the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Kildare, the object of my hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate) will be entirely defeated.

said, that both he and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had challenged the decision on its being submitted to the House, that the words proposed to be left out should stand part of the Question. ["Order!"]

said, the hon. Member ought not to go back to that question.

said, there was a misunderstanding on this matter. It seemed that the forms of the House required that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kildare should be negatived.

Sir, I think it is very desirable that we should come to a conclusion upon this question on a thorough understanding of what we are doing. As I understand it, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) has not challenged the Division on the question of the appointment of a Select Committee upon the Order which he obtained from the House, and therefore the Amendment is now to be put. Before it is put the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, as I understand, has pledged himself to place before the House an Order of a certain character, and to refer that to a Committee appointed by the House in the ordinary way. I have made inquiry, and I find that that can only be done by discharging the present Order. The Order having been passed by the House cannot be amended afterwards, and that is our only way of arriving at that, which I understand the hon. Member for North Warwickshire requires, because he has given up his own Motion, and, therefore, I presume he has adopted that of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: No, no!] My hon. Friend has put himself in that position by accepting the decision of the House upon the first question, and the only way of arriving at that which has been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government is by discharging this Order. It is a matter which has been misunderstood, as my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge has already explained. It was only because there seemed some doubt in other minds that I have risen upon the question. I am anxious that the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has promised us should be before the House, and I therefore think that the Order in the present case should be discharged.

I rise simply for the purpose of confirming the accuracy of the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford with respect to this Motion. My right hon. Friend at the head of the Government intimated clearly enough that it was not the intention of the Government practically to support the Motion of the right hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Cogan). He stated, in terms, which I think could not be misapprehended, that the Government accepted the vote of the House upon the original Motion; but he entered into an argument which I think must have produced an impression upon the House, to show the extremely difficult and delicate nature of a large portion of the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, of which I think my hon. Friend is not altogether insensible. He proposed, as the only way of submitting to the House the Motion he intended to bring forward, that there should be the merely formal step, in the first place, of acceding to the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kildare, so that the original Order might be got rid of, and that the Motion which he intended to submit to the House might be regularly placed before it.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

said, he had been placed in a difficult position, in being called upon to give an explanation. He preferred that the Committee should be nominated by the Committee of Selection; but he did not challenge the decision, because right hon. Members on the front Bench—to whom he deferred in this matter—did not show any sign whatever; he therefore concluded that they wished him to proceed to nominate the Committee in the ordinary course. He had no intention of submitting to the Order of the House being rescinded, which would disappoint the expectations of the country, that Order having been supported by the vast majority of Petitions from England and Scotland. How could he be expected to assent to the rescinding of the Order? The proposal of the Government was, that an inquiry should be made only into the property of these institutions, and therefore into no institutions which had not property; and he did not see why an inquiry into the character and increase of these institutions should be avoided, or how, without an inquiry into the character of these institutions, they were to ascertain which of them had property. He had carefully read the Report of the Committee of 1851–2, with the evidence taken by them, and it was perfectly obvious that you could not trace those institutions; that you had no means of identifying them; that they would remain as completely unknown to the law as was their property, owing to the failure of the Act of 1860. No record of them existed. Perhaps the information desired might be obtained by means of a roving Commission; but the intention of the House would be defeated, and the expectation of the House would be set at naught if the proposal of the First Minister of the Crown were adopted. Such was his present impression. What he had hoped was that the right hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Cogan) would not press his Motion; and he did not believe that hon. Gentlemen, after repeatedly voting in favour of the inquiry as first proposed, would suddenly abandon their intentions, upon representations from the Prime Minister that no evidence could be obtained unless every nun in these institutions was called before the Committee. Why, it was manifest that there must be sources of information outside these communities. The Roman Catholic Bishops declared that they controlled the convents, and, of course, they would be the first persons examined, perhaps not before the House inquired whether in the Rolls Court there were any records of the trusts connected with these institutions, though the Home Secretary declared that such was the confusion in the Rolls Court at present, that at the end of last Session it would have taken eight months to give a list of the trusts enrolled during the last three years. Let not the House be deceived. If they consented to the discharge of the Order, they consented to the reversion of their former decision. The right hon. Gentleman promised to do something. Why, then, should he not, in the first instance, maintain the Order, and afterwards make a proposal for its amendment? Obviously, if the House meant to maintain its decision, it would maintain its Order, and then, if it thought fit, let the right hon. Gentleman amend the terms of it. He should decidedly vote for the maintenance of the Order. He wished to meet the desire of the country by obtaining information as to the character of these institutions. He wished to know which were the cloistered convents, and for this reason—nuns who went forth into the world might possibly obtain the means of support; but cloistered convents must be maintained by property of some kind. The whole feeling of the country, as shown by the Petitions, would be deeply disappointed if, because threatened in violent terms by a small section of the community and their representatives, the House submitted to the imputation of having intended to commit an outrage upon innocent ladies for the purpose of obtaining information, which could be otherwise furnished. He trusted the House would not be induced to stultify its former decisions with the prospect merely of a proposal from the right hon. Gentleman, which, so far as he could understand it, would limit the action of the Committee to ineffectual attempts to ascertain the property of these institutions, and direct the Committee to find means of legalizing wholesale some of these institutions, which had been found insufferable in other countries.

I think, Sir, the only practical question before us this evening is to decide the mode in which the inquiry which the House has already directed to be instituted should be conducted. If the House had been content to refer the matter to the Committee of Selection, I should have offered no opposition to the adoption of that course. If, however, I had a choice between a Committee appointed by the Committee of Selection and a Committee appointed by this House, I should have preferred a Committee appointed by this House. I think it is desirable that this question should be investigated by a Committee selected according to our usual Parliamentary practice, and that the hon. Gentleman who brought the subject under our notice (Mr. Newdegate) should be placed in a position on that Committee, with that responsibility which, I am sure, he must have well weighed before he invited us to consider this question. Therefore, as it now somewhat unexpectedly appears we are not to have a Committee appointed by the Committee of Selection, I will not support the Motion for the discharge of the Order, for the purpose of adopting the proposition of the Government, which I confess I have not had an opportunity of sufficiently considering. I will adhere to the original plan, for I prefer submitting this inquiry to a Committee appointed in the usual manner.

said, he wished, as it was desirable that the House should not separate without some definite action being taken, to know whether, in the event of the Order being discharged, another Order of the House could be made in lieu of it that evening.

A Motion may immediately be made in substitution of the existing Motion.

said, he was prepared to accept the compromise proposed by the Government rather than have no inquiry at all, which, judging from experience, would be the result, seeing the difficulties which lay in the way of the appointment of the Committee proposed by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Newdegate).

said, he would assent to the discharge of the Order, on the understanding that another Order of the House would be made in the sense indicated by the Government.

said, he concurred in the view expressed by the hon. Member for Sunderland, and would support the discharge of the Order.

said, he would withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

I now move, Sir, that a Select Committee be appointed—

"To inquire into the state of the Law respecting Conventual and Monastic Institutions or Societies in Great Britain, and into the terms upon which income, property, and estates belonging to such institutions or societies, or to members thereof, are respectively received, held, or

said, he was sorry to interpose between the House and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate); but he desired to take the earliest opportunity of stating, on his own behalf, and on behalf of many of his co-religionists whose sentiments he spoke, that they found themselves under the necessity of opposing the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown had just laid before the House in substitution for the Order which had been discharged. He was free to confess that the most odious part of the Order, as far as the feelings of the Roman Catholics were concerned, had been got rid of by the form in which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government had submitted this matter to the House, and he ventured to state that he should be able to show sufficient reasons against even the modified Order which was now before them. He would in the first place point out that, as far as he knew, the House had never ordered a Parliamentary inquiry without its being suggested with what view that inquiry was to be made. Let it be remembered, too, that the property of these institutions, if they had any ["Oh, oh!"]—and he believed that what they had was very little, was at the present moment liable to forfeiture, and the individuals taking vows in monasteries were by certain clauses in the Act to which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was so fond of referring, guilty of a misdemeanour. Any property held by a community of monks in this country was forfeitable, just as much as property left to a community of pickpockets; and the terms of the Motion proposed by the right hon. Gentleman were wide enough, to compel disclosures from the members of such a community which would render their property liable to forfeiture. If the inquiry were limited to the law affecting monastic institutions generally, and to the mode in which these institutions held their property, he should not have thought it necessary to say one word; but an inquiry into specific facts would involve matters not only painful, but which it was almost impossible for any Committee to obtain the knowledge of. These institutions had laboured under the disadvantage of voluntary association, having had up to the present moment no help from the law or the Government, and they dreaded that sort of intimacy with the State which began with inquiry and ended with confiscation. He should certainly divide the House against the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he felt himself in the same position as that occupied by the hon. Member, and if a Division took place would be obliged to go into the same Lobby with him. This mortifying-Motion mixed up two things which ought to be separated—an inquiry into the law, and an inquiry into the property of these establishments. He could understand an inquiry into the law, with a view to its amendment, and the preservation of the property of these communities from confiscation; but, in this case, the moment the property was exposed it was by law confiscated, and the members of the monastic institutions were liable to the penal consequences of transportation. He should certainly vote against the Motion.

could not say that he did not regret the decision at which the House had just arrived. He thought it was impossible for the Committee successfully to prosecute such an inquiry without entering into the subject in the manner specified in the Order which the House had been pleased to rescind. But he certainly should not oppose the Committee now suggested. A good deal had been gained by what had occurred, if only in showing the vast increase of these establishments of late years. He should, therefore, watch the progress of the Committee, fearing it might find itself incapacitated by the omission of the terms embodied in the Resolution which had been first adopted by the House, and reserving to himself the power of moving any Instruction which experience to be gained from the proceedings of the Committee might prove to be necessary.

said, he wished to know from the Prime Minister whether Anglican sisterhoods and institutions connected with the Ritualistic party would be included in this inquiry? His vote depended on the answer. He did not wish anybody to suppose that he was affected by any love of the Roman Catholic religion, but it was impossible to play fast and loose with religious principles.

said, he had given Notice of a Motion to the effect that inquiry should also be made into Anglican and all similar institutions throughout the United Kingdom; and he trusted to receive from the Government an intimation that this view would be acted upon, otherwise he should be compelled to press his proposal by way of Amendment to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he would support the proposal of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Eykyn). He had never given a vote affecting the Roman Catholic community especially, and he had no wish to do so in this instance. On the other hand, if there were any religious bodies in the country which refused to give information as to the terms on which their property was held, he thought that would be a matter deserving the attention of the House.

My hon. Friend will have the kindness to recollect that I am not the author of the words of this Motion, or of the Motion itself; and that it is simply owing to the necessity imposed by the forms of the House that I myself have now moved this Motion, my intention having been to amend the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) and nothing more. To the question put by my hon. Friend I can give no authoritative answer, nor can I undertake to give any. But I would suggest that the Committee itself will have to consider what are conventual and monastic institutions, and if they find any institutions answering that description within the limits of any other than the Roman Catholic body, undoubtedly these will also fall within the scope of their inquiry. If they found that they were, they would undoubtedly fall within the view of the Committee. Indeed, I am not aware of any reason why they should not fall within the terms of the Motion. At the same time the House will see that any declaration of this kind is not within my province, as the proposal was not ours, but has been accepted by the Government with such a modification as we believe to be necessary.

said, he was surprised to hear the declaration which had just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, because the House would, he believed, certainly understand that the Government had taken this matter out of the hands of his hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate), and having so taken it out of his hands it would be for the Government to appoint the Committee. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that he had only amended the Motion of his hon. Friend; but the Order was so entirely different from the Order which the House had passed the other evening, that he was surprised not only at his hon. Friend assenting to it, but to find that so many who supported his hon. Friend the other evening had now gone into an opposite Lobby. They had heard from the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee should examine into the requirements of the law which were opposed to conventual establishments, in the hope, as he had stated, that they would be found capable of amendment. That he certainly did not understand to be the object which his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire had in view.

gave Notice that he would move on a future day, that it be an Instruction to the Committee that, within the scope of their inquiries, they shall include Anglican and all other so-called religious institutions throughout Great Britain.

also gave Notice of his intention to move, that it be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire into any matter involving the forfeiture of any legal or equitable interest in property.

gave Notice that he should move on an early day, that it be an Instruction to the Committee also to inquire into the existence, character, and increase of Conventual and Monastic Institutions or Societies in Great Britain.

said, it would be for the convenience of the House and of the country to know that, after consideration, he had decided that there was no prospect of his being able to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the sale of exciseable liquors, having the large scope which such a Bill should have—for it would consolidate at least 40 Acts of Parliament—in addition to the other important measures to which the Government were pledged. The Government, however, would consider it their duty to introduce the Bill at the earliest possible moment next Session. Meanwhile, he proposed to introduce a short temporary Bill, to prevent the vesting of any interest which might otherwise be created by the granting of any new licences at the brewster sessions held between this and next Session. Such licences would be granted for a year only, and would be subject to any conditions upon which Parliament might determine in the temporary Bill he should submit.

said, he regretted the decision of the Government not to legislate on this question in the present Session.

said, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bruce) that licences for the sale of intoxicating drinks were never granted for more than a year.