, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the object of the measure was to guard, as far as possible, against the occurrence of' those lamentable accidents which too frequently happened in the working of machines of this nature. It contained but one clause. Several men were required in the working of these machines. One was employed in managing the machine and four others in assisting; but as there was not, as the machines were at present constructed, any safeguard at the feeding mouth, and the men being inexperienced, they were constantly exposed to serious accidents—accidents resulting in some cases in loss of life, and in others in permanent injuries. The Bill proposed to provide a safeguard at the feeding mouth, which would be of simple construction, and would have the effect, with care, of preventing such accidents; and it proposed to enforce the use of the guard by inflicting a penalty of 40s. on any person who permitted any such machine, belonging to him to be worked, or on any person in charge of such machine, without using this guard. Threshing machines when at work went at a rapid rate, making several hundred revolutions in a minute, and it was impossible in the absence of such means as the Bill provided to prevent accidents. The provisions of the measure were simple, and he trusted the House, in reference to the objects, would allow it to be read a second time.

said, it would be an improvement if they could introduce a provision imposing penalties upon persons who employed inexperienced men to attend and work these machines. It was not always easy to find competent persons to tend the machines, and the consequence was that deplorable accidents frequently occurred—one had recently taken place in his own neighbourhood. He should be very much pleased if the hon. Member could introduce a clause in the Bill providing that persons who were not competent should not be employed in the working of the machinery.

said, he did not rise to oppose the second reading of the Bill; on the contrary, he believed it to be a useful measure, and desired to urge on the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, that it should be extended to Ireland. For in Ireland thrashing machines were in general use; the use of them was increasing, and accidents of a serious character unfortunately resulted too frequently from the use of the steam engine by which they were worked. And as this was a measure for the protection of the farm labourer, he hoped that the Irish farm servant would have the same measure of protection as his English brother. Considering that the object of the Bill was to enforce more care on the part of the proprietors of these engines, and more regard for the safety of the persons in their employment; he thought the maximum fine of 40s. too small a penalty for neglect which might, and often did, involve loss of life. The proprietors of these engines were in general men in comfortable, if not in wealthy, pecuniary circumstances, whilst the men injured were as a rule, poor men. It was true that as the law now stood if the owners of these engines were guilty of wilful and perverse negligence, they were liable either to a civil action or perhaps to a criminal prosecution; but neither proceeding was likely to result in much benefit to the poor farm servant or in the event of his death to his widow and children, he therefore suggested that it should be discretionary in the magistrates to increase the penalty to £5, which would more effectually carry out the object of the Bill.

said, that if the measure was to apply to Ireland as well as to England, it might also be suitable for Scotland, and he would therefore request that the further progress of the Bill might be deferred until he had received letters from Scotland as to the wishes of the parties interested about the measure being extended to Scotland. He thought it should be made general to the United Kingdom, if deemed necessary for the protection of life and limb.

said, he completely concurred, on the part of the Government, in the objects of the Bill. The Bill was simple; and, in his opinion, did not go quite so far as might be desired; but no one acquainted with the agricultural population would deny the necessity of some measure of this kind. The accidents in 1875–1876 were numerous, and in some cases very serious—it was only a few days ago that a man had had his leg and thigh most seriously crushed. He should have thought that the owners of machines would for their own sakes employ skilled men to go out with the machines and direct the working of them; but if the case could be made out that incompetent persons were employed, he was sure his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire would allow Amendments to be introduced for the purpose of strengthening the measure. With regard to Ireland and Scotland, he should like to see the Bill extended to those countries.

said, he thought there was great disadvantage in the extremely vague language in which the main clause of the Bill was couched. It set forth that the straps and wheels were to be kept securely fenced, so far as was reasonably practicable with the efficient working of the machine. Who, he asked, was to be the judge of what must be efficient and practicable working? The question would have to be left entirely to the discretion of magistrates. There were many agricultural machines which were extremely dangerous in their present condition. But he should like to ask whether the Law Officers of the Crown had really considered the scope and effect of the Bill; whether they thought a measure of this description should be further proceeded with, and whether it would not be better to introduce a much more comprehensive measure, such as that which affected manufacturing machines? This Bill seemed to him rather to limit than to extend the responsibility of those who were owners, or who were in charge of threshing machines. One magistrate, when a case was brought before him, might pooh-pooh the evidence, and say he considered the machine as well fenced as it could well be, while another magistrate might take a totally opposite view. To say that a machine should be fenced so far as was reasonable and practicable, "consistent with its efficient working," was not, in his opinion, language that would sufficiently accomplish the object of the hon. Member who had introduced the measure to the House.

acknowledged the motives which led his hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) to introduce the Bill; but as it appeared to him the measure would create a new offence, he could not on that ground approve of it. He did not see that there was any necessity for this special legislation than there was for legislation with respect to any other kind of machinery. The Common Law of the country would be sufficient to meet and deal with all accidents arising from neglect, whether from threshing machines or otherwise. The Bill would establish a precedent to which there might be no end.

said, he approved of the Bill generally, but he thought Amendments might be introduced in Committee. The Bill was extremely simple, and might prove the saving of many lives. As the machines were now used they proved the cause of many lamentable accidents and frequent loss of life; and he thought, therefore, the Bill would meet with the general acceptance of the House.

, as a Scotch Member not unacquainted with the principles of threshing machines, said, he should give his support to the Bill. He heartily approved of its principle. They had legislation for the protection of manufacturing machinery in Scotland, such as in the linen and jute works, and that kind of machinery was far less dangerous than threshing machines. When they thought of the many careless people who were engaged to work these machines, it was surely their duty to legislate for their protection. He hoped the Bill would be made to apply to Scotland and Ireland. The expense of protecting the machines in the way proposed would be very small. He agreed that the penalty for not obeying the Act ought to be raised to £5.

said, he quite appreciated the motives which had actuated the hon. Member (Mr. Chaplin) in introducing the Bill, and he approved of any attempt to prevent these melancholy accidents; but he must say that, as the Bill had only been delivered that morning, he had scarcely had time to consider its principle. He should like to ask whether, in the opinion of the Government, the existing law was not sufficient to deal with these cases? For his own part, if it was, he should strongly object to multiplying offences and Acts of Parliament. If they began to legislate separately for one particular agricultural machine, there was no saying where they would stop. Why not legislate for turnip - crushing machines or steam ploughs? If they did that, they might soon have as many Acts referring to agricultural machines as they had agricultural machines themselves. He did not, however, intend to oppose the Bill.

congratulated the hon. Member on having brought in the Bill, and hoped he would consent to introduce a provision in it to extend it to Ireland. He hoped, however, that the penalty would be confined to 40s.

, in reply to the question put to him by his hon. Friend (Mr. M'Lagan), said, no doubt the present law was sufficient to deal with these accidents; but the remedy was by civil action, and the process was expensive and dilatory, and poor persons interested were generally too poor to seek redress in that way. The law was therefore, in relation to such injuries, defective, and required amendment.

, in reply, said, that if any hon. Member liked to move in Com- mittee that the Bill should extend to Scotland and Ireland he should not object.

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its object was to facilitate the purchase by the occupying tenants of the lands which formerly belonged to the Irish Church, and which were now vested in the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners. In the first place, he would call the attention of the House to those sections of the Irish Church Act of 1869 which his Bill proposed to amend. That Act, as the House was no doubt aware, vested the landed and other property of the former Established Church of Ireland in the hands of the Church Temporalities Commissioners. One of the sections—the 34th—empowered the Commissioners to sell the fee-simple of lands held of them, a right of pre-emption being given to the occupying tenant—thus clearly indicating that the tenants should be encouraged to purchase their holdings in order that a class of peasant proprietors might be created. Section 52 empowered the Commissioners to credit the purchaser with three-fourths of the purchase money on the payment of 25 per cent in cash, the payment of the remaining three-fourths being spread over a term of 32 years, in half-yearly instalments, with interest at the rate of 4 per cent on the unpaid portion. The Commissioners were also empowered by Section 32 to sell any rent-charge in lieu of tithes to the owners of the land charged therewith for a sum equal to 22½ times the amount of such rent-charge, and they could declare the purchase money so payable by the owner or any part thereof to be payable by instalments, extending over 52 years, of £4 9s. per cent on the purchase money. Now, he proposed by this Bill to place the tenant, purchasing the fee-simple of the land, upon the same footing with the purchaser of the tithe rent-charge—that was to say, that the purchase money payable by the tenants of the land when purchasing the fee-simple of their holdings from the Commissioners might be payable by instalments extending over 52 years of £4 9s. per cent per annum on the purchase money, thus placing the tenant of Church lands desirous of purchasing the fee-simple of his holding in the same position as the owners of land charged with rent-charge desirous of purchasing the charge on their land; with this exception, that whereas the Act of 1869 fixed the purchase price of the tithe rent-charge at 22 years' purchase, this Bill provided that the purchase price of the fee-simple might vary from 20 to 25 years' purchase of the general tenement valuation. The reason for this was obvious. The tithe rent-charge was a first charge on the land, and as it had a very large margin of security, it bore a higher market value than the fee-simple of the land, which came after it, and therefore it had been thought proper by the framers of the Bill that the price of the holding to the tenant should be somewhat less than the price paid by the landlord for purchasing the tithe rent-charge; though in some cases it might be more. He wished to draw attention to the difference under the present law between the position of a tenant who was desirous of purchasing his holding and that of the owner of the land subject to the tithe rent-charge. The tenant was only permitted to purchase his holding by paying one-fourth of the purchase money in cash and the remainder by instalments bearing interest at 4 per cent per annum; whereas the owner of land charged with rent-charge, who was usually a wealthy landlord, could purchase the rent-charge without paying any cash, and both interest and sinking fund were provided for by an annual payment of less than 4½ per cent per annum. What, then, he proposed was that the tenants should be allowed to purchase their holdings on the same footing as the purchasers of tithe rent-charge — namely, that they should not be required to pay one-fourth, but that the whole should be payable by instalments distributed over a period of 52 years. It appeared from the last Report of the Commissioners of the Irish Church Temporalities that the great bulk of the land held by them had been offered for sale to the tenants, and that some comparatively small sales of these lands had been effected in the Landed Estates Court. During the past year 2,770 offers of sales had been made: of these, 1,470 had been accepted, 400 had been declined, and 900 cases were still pending, and in the case of 500 holdings no offers had been made. There were therefore some 1,800 holdings to which this Bill, if carried, would be applicable. The Commissioners further stated that when they first commenced to offer the Church lands for sale the tenants were not generally prepared to take advantage of the offer, few of them being aware of the privileges conferred on them by the Act, while, as a class, they were poor and ignorant, and misunderstood the offers made to them; but they said there was no doubt that the agricultural tenants were almost universally anxious to purchase their farms, and would do so if they had the means, and that many of the tenants who had been unable to buy, or who had misunderstood the offer of sale when it was first made, would now be glad to purchase. It was, therefore, not without confidence that he asked the House to read a second time a Bill which would promote the prosperity, contentment, and independence of some 1,800 industrious heads of families in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

said, he should oppose the Bill and move its rejection, on the ground that it was not retrospective, and would therefore give to those who now purchased under it a great advantage over those tenants who had already purchased their holdings under the existing terms of the Act and had paid down 25 per cent of their purchase money. Many of these holdings had been purchased at prices varying from 30 to 15 or 12 years' purchase, according to the circumstances of the holding; and that price was sometimes 30 or 40 per cent more than the purchasers under the present Bill would be required to pay, without the obligation of paying any part of price down. This would operate very unjustly on those who had already purchased under the provisions of the existing laws; and would they not be entitled to demand from the country a reduction of the terms on which they had themselves purchased, to a proportion similar to that which was to be extended towards purchasers under the provisions of the Bill now before the House? The measure would revolutionize and disturb all the money arrangements of Ireland with regard to land purchased from the Commissioners. He should therefore oppose the second reading.

said, he contested the statement of the hon. Member for Tyrone that any disturbance would arise in the arrangements with past purchasers out of the present Bill. The Government had, through the Church Temporalities Commissioners, given the tenants the opportunity of acquiring the lands they held; but the conditions required by the Commissioners were so stringent that the poorer class of tenants were unable to meet them. He thought the spirit of the intention should be carried out, and those who were unable to pay the fourth down should be assisted, so that they should be enabled to seize the opportunity. He could state, as a matter of fact, that within a few days he had seen conveyances from the Church Commissioners to tenants; but the latter being unable to raise the money to be paid down had gone to gentlemen of their neigbourhood and asked them to purchase the property and become their landlords. In this way the poorer tenants were unable to take the benefits the Act intended for them, and many of the small holdings had been lost to the occupiers. He could not help expressing his regret that the Irish Church Commissioners when they found the tenants were so poor did not report to the House upon the circumstances, so that something could have been done. But there remained some tenants who had not been transferred to other owners, and for these he hoped the opportunity afforded in the Bill would not be lost by a hard-and-fast line of 20 or 25 years in the price of land on the terms as to the occupier as to those others who had purchased the tithe rent-charge. He thought that if the Bill were allowed to go into Committee hon. Members who supported it might be inclined to make such concessions as would meet all fair objections on the other side.

said, the Bill consisted mainly of two parts; in the first place it compelled the Commissioners to accept occupiers of holdings of 25 years' purchase; and, secondly, it gave facilities for purchase by spreading the payment of the purchase money over a considerable time instead of laying a large sum down. The provisions of the Bill in these respects were in keeping with the spirit of the Land Act. The object of that measure as of this was to enable tenants to acquire the fee-simple of the land. It was not necessary to dwell on the advantages the measure would confer on the country—long experience and the history of agriculture sufficiently demonstrated that. The present proposal raised no "burning question" of landlord and tenant right—it proposed not to trench upon the landlord's rights, or to "confiscate" his property—it was the opportunity for the Government to confer a sound benefit upon the tenant class without touching the landlord interest. He regretted, and he could not understand, the determined opposition which had been offered to the Bill on the part of the landlord interest, because no fraction of the privileges of the latter was interfered with.

said, he should be happy to give the Bill his support, believing it to be a fair and a just one.

desired to call the attention of the House to the fact that the property which Parliament was thus asked to deal with was public property, and that the concession asked was in favour of the poor Irish tenant—concessions the House had made for many years to the Irish tenant, and he hoped would continue to make. For 25 years their claims, if not always granted, had been frequently recognized, and this was a case where the property to be dealt with was not private but public property.

pointed out that although its supporters had argued that the Bill would carry out the principle of the Land Act he differed from them emphatically, and cited the words used by Mr. Gladstone in support of his views that before the State should lend money to the tenants for the purchase of their holdings, 25 per cent of the purchase money should be paid down. It was not to be supposed that (owing to bad seasons and from other causes) the payments extending over 52 years would not often fall into arrears, and it was now proposed that the occupier should become a nominal owner without having paid a shilling. It was, in his opinion, a most unsafe investment of the Irish Church surplus, and it was entirely against the spirit of the Irish Church Act. Quoting from a speech made by Mr. Gladstone on the occasion of bringing in that Act, the hon. Member proceeded to show that on national grounds, and for national interests, the Church Act fixed the terms of purchase of the tithe rent-charge, and not with any view of favouring particular tenants. There were urgent reasons why the House should not pass the Bill without very strictly investigating the consequences which it involved. The Bill was dangerous in every way—it would endanger the surplus accruing to the State from the Church funds; it would place the State in a very anomalous position in regard to those who had already purchased under the Irish Church Act; and, moreover, it would establish a very bad precedent. He should be very glad to see tenants obtain possession of their holdings—nothing could be more conservative and more beneficial to Ireland—but this should be done on reasonable terms and by earring out reasonable arrangements, and it was not a reasonable arrangement that the tenant should be free from all responsibility—he ought to be made to pay down some portion of the purchase money as a guarantee of his good faith and to afford security for the State, which lent him the capital. If this Bill were passed, he did not see how they could refuse to re-model the Bright Clauses of the Land Act in the same direction as this Bill. But Mr. Bright had expressly declared his satisfaction with those clauses, and as that opinion did not emanate from a Conservative Member or an Irish landlord, he thought hon. Members opposite would receive his testimony with some respect. Five thousand tenants had already purchased their holdings from the Church Temporalities Commissioners, and a section of this Bill provided that if any of those tenants thought he had paid too much for his tenement, he might apply for an arbitration on the question whether he had paid too much. If the arbitrator should decide in the affirmative, the excess must be returned; and it would have to be returned out of a surplus which Parliament devoted to a national trust. He hoped the House would reject a Bill which raised very important issues in so hasty and inconsiderate a manner.

said, he was unable to agree with the objections which had been raised. Generally he was averse to treating measures coming from any particular part of the United Kingdom in any other light than that of Imperial measures; but when on this subject he found an almost unanimous opinion amongst the Irish Members that the Bill would be for the advantage of their country, then that appeared to him to be a strong reason why he should vote for the second reading. The broad principle which guided him was whether the measure would effect good or evil for Ireland. He had read the Bill, and he found that it must increase the number of small freeholders in Ireland, and that to his belief would tend to add to the prosperity of the country. That opinion was confirmed by the almost unanimous support which was accorded to it by the Members for Ireland, and he should therefore cordially support the second reading.

said, he had every sympathy with the feeling of the House in favour of extending as far as possible the opportunities for tenants in Ireland becoming owners. But it was for the House to consider not only the natural desire in favour of that extension, but also the means by which it was proposed to carry it out. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had spoken of the Bill as a short and simple one for extending to tenants under the Church Temporalities Commissioners the facilities for purchasing lands in their occupation which were given to the owners of land liable to tithe rent-charges under the Act of 1869 for redeeming the tithe rent-charge. For himself, he could have wished that the Bill had not come on for consideration before the Report of the Commissioners for last year had been presented; because he thought that it would show a result different from the Report for 1875. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Fay) had quoted the Report of 1875 to show that the Commissioners had done very little in the way of carrying out the intention of the Land Act, which was that the tenants of Church lands should, as far as possible, become owners in fee-simple. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) thought from what he had learnt that there was good reason to suppose the Report for last year, which would be presented in a few days, would show very considerable improvement in that respect, and also considerable progress in the sale of Church lands. Under the provisions of the Irish Church Act of 1869, amended by that of 1872, landowners were permitted to purchase the tithe rent-charge on their lands at a capital sum calculated at 22½ years purchase, payable in 52 years by annual instalments of £4 9s. per cent. In making the calculation of the capital value of the tithe rent-charge they were to deduct any poor rate paid on it; and provision was made by which the owners of tithe rent-charge who had purchased the rent-charge without receiving any allowance for poor rates, were permitted to go so far back on their bargain as to deduct the poor rate from the sum they had paid. These were the provisions which the hon. Member proposed to extend to the tenants of Church lands. Now, speaking for himself, he could not say he approved the provisions of the Act of 1869 with regard to the purchase of tithe rent-charge. It seemed to him as it did to some other Members of the House—the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) spoke strongly on the subject at the time—that it might be considered as giving something like a bribe to the landlords. The hon. Member for Downpatrick had stated the reasons which induced Parliament to assent to that course; and he was bound to say that these reasons were so far justified by the event that the bribe had not proved sufficiently tempting to induce a large number of the payers of tithe rent-charge to redeem it. But who were the tenants of Church lands to whom it was now proposed to give the fee-simple of their farms in return for an annual payment for 52 years, which would, in any case, be but little greater than the rent which they now paid as tenants? The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell) did not define them in the Bill. Were they the tenants who held leases and sublet to others? or were they the occupying tenants? [Mr. PARNELL: The occupying tenants.] Then, were there any provisions in the Bill to prevent those who had perhaps only a few months ago become tenants for the first time under the Church Commissioners from receiving a been not conferred upon anyone outside the class, and which there was no reason why they should enjoy more than anyone else? If not, the omission was a great blot. But this scheme did not carry out the policy of the 37th section of the Church Act; that might have been satisfied by taking 22½ years purchase of the real annual value of the land, possibly even of the rental paid by the tenant; but it took as the test of value the tenement valuation which notoriously was not a test of value, and thus went much beyond the Church Act. Why should they? The hon. Member who proposed the Bill had himself stated the reason; because otherwise there could be no real security for the repayment of the purchase money. In the case of the tithe rent-charge there was an ample security, because that being a first charge on the property amounted to only 1s. in the pound on its annual value, and therefore there was a large margin to secure the annual payment over 52 years; but if that annual payment represented the real annual value of the property plus a small increase, you would have a charge on the land for 52 years which was greater than the rent now paid by the tenant. What security had they for the payment during that 52 years? To avoid this the hon. Member for Cavan proposed to keep down the annual repayments by under-estimating the real value of the land, and thus to sell the land to the tenants for an amount which, even with the almost nominal addition for the redemption of the capital would be less than the rent they were now paying. Why should a large portion of the "Church surplus" be thus handed over to these tenants? But if this were not done had not the Commissioners a worse security than they had for the payment of the present rental? In many cases these tenants were persons of small capital, having very small farms, liable in the event of one or two bad seasons to fall into arrears of rent, and then if they did so the Commissioners would be placed in this position—they would feel themselves the landlords of a considerable portion of the country—they would be the landlords of tenants falling into arrears practically irrecoverable by a body like the Church Commissioners, or if attempts were made to recover them, they would become the source of no end of bitterness and heart-burning. That was the difficulty. You would place the Commissioners in an invidious and improper position without giving them the security which any private seller of an estate would demand. What was the present law? A tenant might now buy his holding at its estimated value, paying one-fourth of the purchase money down and the rest by instalments extending over 32 years, with interest at 4 per cent; and for this purpose he could borrow from Government two-thirds of the purchase money, repaying it by an annuity of 5 per cent per annum for 35 years. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) could not see how more favourable terms could be given to the tenants than these. He now came to that part of the Bill not intended, according to the hon. Member for Cavan, to be pressed—he meant the retrospective clauses. The hon. Member had practically copied Clauses 3, 5, 6 and 7 of his Bill from the Act of 1872; but he had added to them Clause 4, providing for a reference to arbitration, which in the Act of 1872 referred not to sales of tithe rent-charge by the Commissioners, but to purchasers by them of tithe rent-charge from lessees. He was willing now to give up the retrospective part of the Bill; but he desired to point out to the hon. Member that it was impossible to adopt a scheme of this kind without doing the grossest injustice to the 5,000 or 6,000 persons who had purchased Church lands under the existing law. It seemed to him that this Bill, taken as a whole, was one which ought not to receive the sanction of the House. His objections to it were, putting aside the question of the introduction of tenement valuation, purely of a financial character. Last year the hon. Member for Cavan introduced a measure which he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) believed to be identical with this Bill. He referred it to the Church Temporalities Commissioners. He obtained from them at the time a Report which dealt very fully with the scheme. He had not had time to refer again to the Church Temporalities Com- missioners. He could not tell what progress had been made in the interval, and therefore it was difficult for him to judge what necessity there might be for any change of the present law. He thought that so far as it could be done consistently with obtaining upon proper security a fair price for the land, to which the State was entitled, facilities should be given to the tenants to purchase their farms. Whether the payment might be spread over a greater number of years than at present he could not say; but if the hon. Member would not press this measure, which he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) thought was open to great objection, he would at once consult the Church Temporalities Commissioners, and if necessary would prepare a measure for the improvement of the present law.

said, he thought that what the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary had said afforded a very good reason for reading the Bill a second time, and deferring its further consideration until he had obtained the information which he had promised to procure. From what they had heard he was prepared to vote for the second reading of the Bill; the view he took of it being this—he was not concerned with the policy of dealing with the Church or the Land Acts—as he understood the principle of the present Bill, it dealt exclusively with the occupying tenant of Church lands. Those tenants had in many cases come into their holdings under the Protestant clergymen, whose character was in general a guarantee that no tenant would be dealt with harshly; but now those tenants might be transferred with the land to a purchaser who might be a speculator in land, and who would deal with them as hardly as any secular proprietor. Could the House, under those circumstances, do anything for those tenants? It had been supposed by some that something might be done in the Landed Estates Court to protect those tenants against excessive rent. But that might be considered an interference with the rights of property. But there could be no interference with the rights of property in the propositions of the present Bill. There might be a diminution of the surplus Fund of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 under the Irish Church Act; but, if so, no one would be injured. Even if that surplus would be diminished the only consequence would be that there would be less to devote to the Irish purposes to which it was to be appropriated; and, for his own part, he did not know of any better Irish purpose to which it could be appropriated than the purpose to which it would be devoted by this Bill. This, he believed, was the principle of the Bill. They were not now asked to start any new principle, for the principle of the Bill was recognized by the Church Act, which admitted that something must be done for these persons. He thought it would be an enormous advantage to establish a small class of landed proprietors, for which this Bill gave an opportunity, without trenching upon right of property in any way, and that being so, the question arose whether they should take advantage of it. He must say, for his own part, that he thought they should not allow the chance to pass of effecting an object which he thought would be generally felt was one of great importance, and the attainment of which was likely to be of great public advantage, besides that which it would confer upon a class of persons deserving their sympathy. He quite admitted that the present valuation did not afford a fair test of the value of the land; but he thought the poor tenant should gain the same benefit as the rich landlord from the Church Temporalities Act. The hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) had expressed a fear that the passage of this Bill would endanger the security for the charge of the Irish Church; but the surplus was sufficiently large to leave an ample margin of security for the Irish Church charge after this Bill had been passed. He would ask them where there was anything unreasonable in the Bill? If, without trenching on the rights of property, they should embrace the only opportunity which might be afforded for a century in the way of establishing a peasant proprietary, he said then, in Heaven's name, let them embrace that opportunity by passing the second reading, even if they were to defer further progress with it until they had obtained such further information as might be requisite to settle its details. He trusted that by affirming the second reading of the Bill they would take a step which would do justice to a poor class of tenants by giving them every possible facility of purchasing their interests.

said, he thought there was so little difference between the views of the Chief Secretary for Ireland and those of the supporters of the Bill, that he did not see why they should go to a division. Both were agreed that the object of the Bill was a very desirable one—namely, to give to the occupying tenants the same facilities of purchasing their holdings which was given to the landlord for purchasing the tithe rent-charge. The promoters of the Bill were willing to give up the retrospective clause, and also to let the price be fixed on the basis of the rent instead of by the tenements' valuation, in order to meet the objections which had been taken, provided the principle was accepted of waiving the immediate payment of one-fourth of the purchase money—a stipulation which was too onerous for the poorer class of tenants who wished to acquire their holdings. The Chief Secretary asked what security the Commissioners would have for the punctual payment of the instalments by the occupier? But he believed that the tenant would make every effort to keep up his annual payments when he had a yearly increasing interest at stake, and knew that if he fell into arrears he would be liable to forfeit the part of the purchase money he had already paid. If such an understanding were come to there would probably be no doubt that under these circumstances the Irish tenants would keep up their payments. If they were not to press the second reading of the Bill the Government should at least give an engagement that the case of existing tenants should not suffer by any delay in dealing with the subject.

said, he would challenge anyone to say that this was a question between rival Churches, or that it involved any point of protecting the poorer tenant against the oppression of landlords—it was simply a dry commercial question as to how that which had become public property should best be converted into money, and what conditions should be annexed to that process. Only a few years ago the Irish Church was disestablished amid a burst of political enthusiasm, and why were they now asked so early to alter the provisions of that measure? Much had been said about the poor tenants. Some of the Church tenants might be poor, but he believed that they were frequently rich persons, who were well able to take care of themselves. He denied that because the holding might be small the tenant must be poor—he said that many of them could, if they chose, easily pay down the quarter of the purchase money required by the Act of Parliament. But whether rich or poor, he objected to allowing that consideration to affect the terms upon which public property should be converted by sale into private property. The sole consideration was how the public interests were to be protected in the question. Moreover, a difference could not be made between rich and poor in applying the provisions of the statute. This was essentially a Bill of details, and yet almost every clause in it had been surrendered by its supporters. There was no principle in the measure, though there was a sort of sentiment underlying it. It might be desirable that tenants should become owners of their holdings, but the existing terms under which they could do that now were fair and reasonable; and the present Bill sought to substitute terms that were improvident and unreasonable. It was urged that they had already done for the rich landlord what they were now asked to do for the poor tenant, but he denied that the two cases were analogous; for in the instance of the tithe-owner they had the security of the estate itself for the small payments; whereas by this Bill it was proposed to give the tenant credit for the whole purchase money of the fee-simple. He should certainly oppose the second reading of the Bill.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) could evidently speak as fluently on a subject that he did not understand as on one that he had studied, and certainly could apply general principles in a manner somewhat misleading. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had read the Report of the Church Temporalities Commissioners he would have seen that they desired that some measure of the kind should be initiated either through Parliament or through themselves. The facts were in the smallest possible compass. To about 9,000 holders under the Church, facilities were given for the purchase of their tithe rent-charge. Of these one-half who were chiefly landlords had already purchased under considerable facilities; but the smaller class of tenants, though the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry thought they could pay one-fourth of the purchase money, were not able to partake of the advantages offered to their richer neighbours, the landlords. The Commissioners said that if the intentions of Parliament were to be carried out additional facilities must be given to smaller holders. That being the case, the simple question was whether the Bill went too far in giving these facilities, or whether this desirable object should be carried out in some other way. The hon. and learned Member for Londonderry had introduced into this question an exciting topic when he put it as a matter between the Church of Ireland and the tenant, and by so doing he was introducing a very mischievous question, which certainly was never intended to be introduced by this Bill, and had not been raised on his side of the House. For his own part, he wished to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman who represented the Irish Government on this occasion that if he would consent to the second reading of the Bill it would be the duty of the House to refer it to a Select Committee, with the view of obtaining the views of the Commissioners of Church Temporalities on it.

said, it was desirable to clear away some misunderstandings that had arisen in the course of the debate. It had been said that this was no question of the Disestablishment of the Church, but that the Bill was introduced simply in the interest of the public generally—that it was intended to provide facilities for enabling the tenants to purchase their holdings. He (the Solicitor General) agreed that this was no question injurious to the interests of the Disestablished Church or affecting the policy of a new Land Act — nobody had said that it was—but he did say that it was a question of conferring on certain persons a very considerable advantage which could not be shared by the general public. He said further that while it was true that the Irish Church Commissioners had intimated in their Report that they thought something should be done to amend the law in relation to that subject, yet they having had a Bill like the present one under their consideration, they did not deem it either a wise or a desirable method of attaining their end. After further consultation with the Commissioners, however, the Government would be ready to consider whether some reasonable measure could not be introduced to facilitate the purchase of their holdings by the tenants. The aggregate annual rental derived from 6,000 tenants was £135,000, or an average of over £27 a-year from each. It was not true, therefore, that the tenants interested in this question were very poor. Moreover, this Bill dealt with the immediate lessees, and not with the occupying tenants. But there was one principle in the Bill which compelled him to decline voting for the second reading. It proposed that the Commissioners who held this property in trust for the public should sell the fee-simple of the land to the tenants who were not to lay down a single farthing of purchase money. It must be known to many hon. Members that that would be a total departure from the principle of any Bill or any Act that had yet become law. This was the cardinal principle of the Bill; and as the Government could not sanction it they could not support the second reading.

, according to Notice, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to prohibit the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday in England and Wales.

said, that he had no intention of offering any opposition to the introduction of this Bill. He certainly would not attempt to discuss a measure which was not in the hands of Members; but while it was still in a plastic state he wished to call the attention of the hon. Member who had introduced it (Mr. C. Wilson) to the inaccurate description which had been given of all Bills of this kind which he had ever seen. The object of this Bill, they were told, was to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday in England and Wales. Of course he could not tell what the provisions of this measure might be; but in all similar Bills which they had discussed in that House there were clauses which exempted travellers—bonâ fide travellers—and lodgers from the action of the Bill. These Bills closed the public-houses to those who lived to the immediate neighbourhood, but not to those who lived far off. He ventured to say that many Members of this House, and certainly nine out of ten who signed Petitions in favour of Sunday closing, thought that they were advocating a system of closing public-houses in such a way that liquor could not be bought on Sunday any more than they could buy a coat or a hat. That was a distinct and intelligible issue. There was much to be said for it and against it; but it would clear the ground very much if that issue were distinctly raised, and if the lion. Member would bring in a Bill in reality for preventing the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday, and not a Bill which really meant something very different. Up to the present time, in discussing these Bills, they had been talking of one thing and endeavouring to do another. He should not offer any opinion upon the merits of the Bill, but he should like to see that issue brought plainly before the House and the country.

said, the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Assheton) seemed to have forgotten altogether the experience of this country in dealing with the Sunday closing of public-houses. He wished not only to close the public-houses as the Bill proposed to close them, but he wished to go further and exclude even the bonâ fide traveller from obtaining refreshment. The hon. Member must have been singularly unobservant of the history of this question if he was not aware that legislation similar to that which he proposed had produced rioting throughout the length and breadth of this country, and had to be repealed within a year, and he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was confident that a similar result would ensue if the Bill of the hon. Member for Hull should become law, even in a modified form. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) did not believe that the Bill would receive the assent of the House for the reason he had given; and the proposal of the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Assheton) would be opposed to the good sense of that House and the wishes of the country, and would certainly lead to the consequences he had described. In 1854 it was proposed to close beerhouses and public-houses during more hours of the day than they had been closed up to that time; and when that proposal went before the country—a proposal for which the opinion of the country was not prepared—there was serious rioting in London and other towns in England, and that legislation was altered within a year from the time it was passed. Mr. Wilson-Patten brought in that Bill; it had the general assent of the House; and yet in 1855—only a year after it was passed—the change of hours had to be put back again almost as before, and Parliament presented the humiliating spectacle of having to undo in the greatest haste what it had done only a year before. He knew it had become a custom not to oppose the introduction of Bills, and he supposed that Members were not prepared to vote against their introduction; but certainly he believed there would be a very strong case for opposing the introduction of the present measure. It did not seem to him, when they knew what the measure was just as well as if it were actually in their hands, that there was any good reason why they should not discuss it and decide upon it at once, instead of allowing it to remain a long time upon the Order Book, and then to discuss it. But if that course were not taken upon the present occasion he thought it would be wise to adopt it in future years, not in regard to this Bill alone, but in regard to many of a similar character. The discussion might just as well take place on the first reading as months afterwards, when the Bill came up for second reading.

said, he quite agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), that it might be a wise course on the part of this House to adopt to oppose in future Sessions the first reading of Bills of this kind, which on their face enunciated principles which — even if the House were to pass them—it would be practically impossible or unwise to carry out. But that would not be in accordance with the custom which had recently, within the last few years, crept into the Business of that House, of always allowing a Bill to be introduced and read a first time as a matter of course. That was not, he believed, always the best course. At the same time, he did not feel disposed to oppose the first reading of a Bill of this kind after the Session had begun; because, to his mind, there were many other Bills equally open to the objections which might be taken to this which had already been allowed to be introduced to that House without opposition. For that reason ho should not offer any opposition to the introduction of the Bill, however much he was opposed to the principle upon which he imagined it to be based. But he thought the course suggested by the hon. Baronet would be a wise course for that House to adopt on a future occasion, and to come to some resolution that they would allow a Bill which was proposed, and the principle of which the House was not in favour of, being opposed on its first reading.

said, he was very sorry to hear what had fallen from the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry SelwinIbbetson), who gave strong reasons why this Bill should not be thought of for an instant, and yet said he was desirous of listening to another debate upon it. [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I did not say that.] Well, at any rate, that was the purport of his remarks. Although the hon. Baronet objected to it entirely—and not merely this Bill, but a great many others that had been brought forward—yet he thought they ought to be introduced, or, at any rate, not opposed on their first reading. Now, he (Mr. Locke) could not understand at all why this Bill should be allowed to be brought forward. It seemed to him the most ridiculous thing possible. He was sure that the hon. Gentleman—he did not exactly know who he was—who brought forward the Bill must be aware that on a former occasion a Bill was introduced to take away, he thought, only one hour from the time during which on Sundays people might drink some beer if they chose. Now, what was the consequence? That Bill was referred to a Committee, and he had the honour of being upon it. The subject was thoroughly inquired into, an immense deal of evidence was taken—he forgot how many weeks or months it extended over—but what was the result they arrived at? It was decided that the Bill should be entirely thrown out, and that not even five minutes' alteration should take place. That was with reference to England; and, therefore, why was it to be supposed that at the present time, when a question of this sort was raised, there should be any difference of opinion to that which previously prevailed? It was extremely inconvenient that these questions should be re-opened year after year. His hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) brought forward his Bill year after year as soon as the house met; but the principle involved in that measure was not half so absurd as that which was now proposed, inasmuch as if a certain majority of persons in a particular district chose to say they would have no drink, it would give them the option of carrying out their wishes. But the present Bill was to this effect—that this House was to come to the determination that no person whatever throughout this land should have the opportunity of having anything to drink on Sunday. He was quite satisfied, and he was sure the great majority of those he was addressing would be of the same opinion, that such a law as that could not be desired by any reasonable person in this country. He really could not understand why, when it was admitted that almost everybody was decidedly opposed to the Bill, it was considered that it ought not to be thrown out on the first reading. It was not necessary for him to do more than say he should oppose the Bill—at least, it was not a Bill yet—and he sincerely hoped everybody else would do the same.

desired to remind the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken that when a cognate measure, not now unpopular, was before the House with reference to the sister country the hon. Gentlemen who were opposed to that measure had taken every opportunity of voting against it, and he had not the slightest doubt that if they could have effected the object now sought to be enforced of a division on the first reading, it would never have reached its present stage. That Bill was carried on the second reading, because of the discussions which took place upon it in that House. He did not know much of the merits of the Bill now proposed to be introduced, but he thought it would be an extraordinary proceeding if they were prevented from discussing its merits. It might be that, although the second reading might not be carried this year or next, if discussions took place upon it, public opinion would be formed on the subject, and eventually the Bill might become law. The hon. and learned Member for Southwark had spoken of the Committee which sat on this question some years ago, but he seemed to forget that public opinion had made great advances during the intervening period, and it was not to be assumed that because certain antediluvian Committees threw out a similar measure a more modern Assembly would do the same. He trusted the House would extend the usual courtesy to his hon. Friend, and allow him to introduce the Bill.

said, it was always understood that, as a matter of courtesy, when a Member sought to bring in a Bill, he should be permitted to have it read a first time. At present he could not decide for or against the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Hull. He thought the intentions of the hon. Member were good; and as none of them at present knew what the Bill was to be like, it would be only kind, fair, and according to the rules and custom of that House, that he should be permitted to introduce it. The question whether the rule with regard to the introduction of Bills, which had been in existence a long time, should be altered was a fair subject for discussion, but he hoped it would not be put to the test on this occasion, as it would be a little hard on a private Member.

said, he believed that, though he was junior in years to the hon. Baronet who had just preceded him, he was his senior as a Member of the House, and ho must accordingly explain that in the earlier days of his Parliamentary experience the custom of the House of Commons in regard to the Bills of private Members had been directly contrary to what had been just stated. At the period to which he referred it was a usual and well-understood practice to take a debate on the introduction of a Bill. In those days the Member who brought in a measure made himself acquainted with his own brief. He did not bring in a dummy Bill, and wait to find out how other Members wanted to have it filled up, but in offering his measure he gave a statement as to what he intended it to effect. A discussion ensued, and a division might afterwards be taken. A contrary custom had, however, grown up since then to a considerable extent; but Estill it was a custom which had many exceptions. He remembered, for instance, of being himself instrumental in the House a few years ago in relieving Mr. Auberon Herbert from the trouble of taking further steps in connection with a Bill which he desired to bring in. It would, he was sure, tend very much to shorten the Session and to make their proceedings really beneficial if they were to revert to the old practice. There was only one fact which it was necessary to mention in order to show to what extent of complication the present system had led the House. That day was the 14th of February, and the Wednesday list was filled up to the 25th of July. That fact alone should surely be quite sufficient to induce the House not to be so kindhearted as the hon. Member opposite (Sir Andrew Lusk) desired, but to consider their own time and the relative value of the respective measures.

had always opposed these restrictions, and could hold out to his hon. Friend no hope of support upon the second reading. But he felt bound to say that he could not join in opposing the introduction of the Bill. He believed the question had not been discussed during the present Parliament; it was one upon which many persons felt strongly, and it would be an act of discourtesy to his hon. Friend, representing as he did a large constituency and desiring to ventilate this important question, if they should refuse him the opportunity of doing so. In the other House of Parliament Bills were introduced as a matter of right, and he did not see why Members of the House of Commons should not, within due bounds, be allowed a similar right.

said, the statement which had been made by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), that the practice of the House in former years in connection with the introduction of Bills had been different from what it was at present, was undoubtedly correct; and it might be a matter for discussion whether it might not be desirable for the House in another Session to revert to the old practice. His own opinion was that a great many Bills were brought in which had not the slightest chance of becoming law, but which, nevertheless, took up a great deal of time, and whether they ought not to revert to the old practice might be a very fair subject for discussion. This Session pretty nearly 100 Bills had been brought in by private Members, and that perhaps might show the necessity of exercising some discretion in bringing measures forward. But he thought it would be somewhat discourteous, without the slightest notice, to pick this particular Bill out from the 100, and say that it should not be read the first time. There was another reason why the House should object to the course proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He was quite sure that, under the existing circumstances of this being an isolated Bill, picked out for this purpose, a division would not give anything like a general expression of the opinion of the House on the merits of the case. It would probably give an expression of opinion quite the reverse of the feeling of the House as to the merits of the Bill, which would be misleading out of doors. He, for one, should certainly oppose the Bill on its second reading, for reasons which he hoped lie should be able to show to the satisfaction of the House. He hoped, therefore, that the Motion would not be pressed, and, at the same time, he hoped the House would take into consideration whether it would not be wise in future to revert to the old practice.

asked to be allowed to explain a misapprehension under which the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke), and other hon. Members seemed to be labouring. He had guarded himself expressly against giving any opinion for or against Sunday closing. He merely wished to see the question clearly and distinctly raised, and, in his opinion, that had never been done by any of the Bills before them.