in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he did so simply for the reasons denoted by the title of the Bill, for the better administration of justice at Petty Sessions Courts in Ireland. He assured the House that never was there a Bill brought before it which would do more to give the working classes in Ireland confidence in the administration of the law in Petty Sessions Courts than the Bill which he was moving for second reading, and he could also assure the Government that the people had not confidence in those Courts as at present constituted, for very good reasons. There were, no doubt, many good and faithful magistrates in Ireland; but, at the same time, there were still a large number who did not bring credit to the Bench. The local magistrates represented the landlords throughout the country, with very few exceptions; the stipendiary magistrates represented the Government, and there was no one to represent the ratepayers and the people. Hon. Members, he was satisfied, would see that that was a state of things which required some improvement, particularly in a country like Ireland, where the majority of the landlords differed from the great mass of the people in class, in religion, and in politics; but that would be passed over, if the laws were administered on equal terms to all. He maintained, without fear of contradiction, that in one-half the Petty Session cases in Ireland the law was not administered as it should be. And the consequence was, there was more disaffection created in Petty Sessions Courts in Ireland than in all the other Courts in the country. He proposed to give the power to the ratepayers of electing one magistrate for each Union in Ireland. Among those ratepayers he had included every landlord who would register his claim to vote, as at present, in the election of Poor Law Guardians, but for one vote only. He was not going to interfere with, or deprive the Lord Chancellor of, the power he at present enjoyed in the case of the other magistrates, that of refusing to sanction any magistrate who, he thought, was unfit for the position, or to remove any magistrate whose acts were such as to unfit him for so responsible a position. He proposed that the person elected should retain office for five years, and be eligible for re-election, and that the Chairman of each Union should act as returning officer, to save expense; and that the votes should be taken by Ballot, the same as at Parliamentary and municipal elections. Those were the different clauses of the Bill, and hon. Members would see it was very short, and he hoped satisfactory. It might be said he was introducing a new law into the country in giving the nomination of magistrates into the hands of the people. He was not introducing a new law in the Bill; but he was asking the House to extend u. privilege to the county ratepayers which was at present enjoyed by many towns and by all the cities and boroughs in Ireland. The mayors of all the cities and towns in Ireland were invested with the commission of the peace. The commission of the peace was also given to the Chairman of the Commissioners of 22 or 24 towns in Ireland, and all he asked was to extend that privilege to the ratepayers of each Union. Some hon. Members might oppose the Bill on the ground that elected magistrates in America were not all that magistrates should be; but it might as well be argued that the system by which the Members of that House were elected should be abolished, because some of the Senators in America were supposed to have acted corruptly. He appealed to the House, in the interests of justice, to pass the Bill, and he promised them that the working of it would be so satisfactory that the House would feel pleased that they gave this liberty to the people. The Bill, as he had said, was simply to transfer the nomination of one magistrate in each Union in Ireland from the Lieutenant of the county to the ratepayers of the Union. It did not interfere with the present power of any person. It left the Lord Chancellor the power of rejecting the candidate elected by the people, if he considered him unsuitable. If it was opposed on the broad ground of election by the people, then he should regret the constitution of that House, which was composed of those sent by the people. Then, again, they had the coroners, a body who held a very responsible position, elected by the people, and many Boards in Ireland were also elected in the same way. The Irish were a justice-loving people, and the House might be confident they would elect none but men who would discharge their duty above board, and without fear, favour, or affection. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading.

in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, he did so, believing that it was quite unnecessary for the administration of justice in Ireland. In Armagh, there were already 85 magistrates to a population of 180,000. In Cavan, which he knew, perhaps, better than any other Member of that House, there were 85 persons in the commission of the peace to a population of 140,000. In Fermanagh, there were 71 magistrates to a population of 92,000; and in Monaghan there were 61 to a population of 114,000, and he could not see how it would promote the administration of justice to admit two or three persons chosen from amongst the Poor Law Guardians of each county. In Cavan there were certainly four Unions, and in Fermanagh and Leitrim there were three; but in most of the counties, there were only two. Already the number of magistrates was quite sufficient for the due administration of justice, and he had never heard any complaint as to their decisions, though he was certain, from his knowledge of the people, and moving among them as he did, to hear of any legal decision which was considered faulty. In fact, he believed that the people were entirely satisfied with the commission of the peace as it was at present constituted. In addition to the local magistrates there were a number of stipendiary magistrates appointed by and responsible to a great extent to the Government, and they attended the Petty Sessions regularly, and were gentlemen of all shades of opinion. In some parts of the country they belonged to one political side, and in an- other to another; and such being the case the people had as much confidence in them as they had in the local magistrates. There was certainly a recent very remarkable case, in which the proceedings of a magistrate in Ireland were questioned; but it was the only case of the kind that he knew of, and if the decisions of the local magistrates in Sessions Courts did not meet with the approval of the people, it would soon be brought to the knowledge of the House. The Bill would change the whole system of the appointment of magistrates in Ireland, and if it were to become law, as he was perfectly certain it would not, a demand would be made that the whole of the magistrates should be appointed by the people. The Poor Law Guardians of Ireland were entitled to the greatest respect; but they were not qualified for the magisterial bench, and he opposed the Bill, being of opinion that it would not confer the slightest benefit upon any portion of the community. The Irish magistracy would compare favourably with the magistracy of Scotland, or of England; but if the Bill were to pass there would be a number of men appointed from the Poor Law Guardians who would be supposed to teach law to those already in the commission of the peace. It would be casting a slur upon the whole bench of magistrates, both local and resident, and, therefore, upon the grounds he had stated, he would move its rejection.

in supporting the Bill, could only say that the counties to which the previous speaker (Mr. De la Poer Beresford) had referred were very fortunate, if the decision of their magistrates had been free from complaint. He did not wish to make out that the magistrates of Ireland were very bad, or worse than English magistrates; but the whole circumstances of the case in Ireland were different from that of England, and he only abstained from giving instances of complaints because it would be getting into troubled waters, and departing from the line of argument adopted by the hon. Member for Lime- rick (Mr. O'Sullivan). In former times a number of the judicial officers in Greece and Home were chosen by the people; and, in the present day, in some parts of the United States, in parts of Canada, he believed, and in Russia the magistrates were elected. The same principle was also adopted in France up to the date of the Restoration, so that England was an exception to the general rule, which gave a certain amount of local power to the people in the appointment of judicial officers. As a general rule the property of Ireland was held by Protestants, while the great mass of the people were Catholics, and it was a source of dissatisfaction that the result of this state of things was to give a large numerical preponderance in the magistracy to Protestants. The present system gave a good deal of political influence to Lords Lieutenant, upon whom the Bill would act as a wholesome check. The power of reversing appointments to the commission of the peace was, no doubt, vested in the Lord Chancellor; but that power was very little exercised, and when the Lord Chancellor happened to be a Conservative, people were slow to ask him to interfere with appointments made by a Conservative Lord Lieutenant. The Bill would not do everything; but it would do a great deal of good. It was a very modest attempt to remedy existing evils; and, perhaps, when it got into Committee, he should feel it his duty to propose that the appointments should be rather more in number than the Bill provided for, and that they should be for a longer term than five years. The Poor Law Guardians were perhaps not all fit to be magistrates; but it was not asked to make them all magistrates; and in every Poor Law Union there would, no doubt, be found a man who from his education and practical knowledge of the state of the country, would be quite as fit to sit upon the Bench as some of those to whom the administration of justice was at present entrusted. The present system acted unfairly to the commercial classes by shutting out the enterprizing man, who had made a fortune by his industry and energy, from a position to which his son, though perhaps of very inferior ability and energy, would be eligible by inheriting the land purchased with his father's wealth. In some cases the popular nomination might fall upon a man of the commercial class, and much advantage would result from such an appointment; and at other times a landed proprietor might be elected whose qualifications were now overlooked by the Lord Lieutenant. There was ample control over the abuse of the power of election; for the Lord Chancellor, under the Bill, would have a right to refuse the appointment of any man without being required to assign any reason whatever. It had been urged as a reproach to the people of Ireland that they had no respect for the law; but if this were true, there was every reason for it. Until 80 or 90 years ago the people enjoyed no power of election whatever. It was the policy at one time for the English Government to attempt to crush out all popular organizations, and in the smaller towns people did not elect their town councils and corporations. Only within the last 10 or 12 years had these elections in the small towns been revived, and very good effects had followed the election of Town Commissioners. Local questions were now discussed in a reasonable manner. So also this Bill was a step towards bringing the people into association with law, and by that means there would be a gradual respect for the magistracy as a body not altogether selected from the aristocratic class. That the people, he argued, should have no power to have a voice in selecting those by whom the law was administered involved not only a hardship, but a great anomaly, seeing that they were entrusted with the election of Members of Parliament by whom the laws were made.

said, he would not attempt to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) throughout his elaborate speech. Before he came down to the House, he felt curious to know what arguments would be brought forward to support the Bill; for on looking through it, it seemed to him to consist of two or three propositions which the circumstances of the case did not at all warrant. Allusion had been made to the office of mayor as a precedent for the election of magistrates. It might be taken for granted, certainly, that the Lord Mayor acted as a magistrate while he held office; but when the case of Town Commissioners was cited, he (Mr. Verner) wished to point out that a Commissioner was not necessarily, by virtue of his position, a magistrate; and, in fact, it often happened that the Chairman of the Commissioners was not a magistrate, although in many cases the Lord Chancellor was recommended to, and did, make such appointments. He found very good reasons for not liking the Bill. They had had opportunities of seeing the effect of electing Judges and magistrates, and when the hon. and gallant Gentleman enlarged upon the special precedents of America and of Russia, he could not point to any beneficial results, and made out but a weak case. They did not in this country want that thorough democracy'' which existed in America, and just as little did they want the order of things found in Russia. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan), in supporting the principle of the Bill, urged that if it was objected to, they might as well object to popular election of Members of Parliament. He said the House might as well be abolished, because it was popularly elected. Well, hon. Members had had an instance lately of the effects of extreme popular election as regarded the House of Commons, and he believed they were not much enamoured of it. One argument brought forward by the promoters of the Bill was that there were not enough Roman Catholics in the magistracy. If that principle went for anything, it meant that the lower orders of the people had an idea that if a Roman Catholic magistrate were elected, he would have a bias towards them. He (Mr. Verner) could not see that that would conduce towards upholding the administration of justice in Ireland, that people should think that any magistrate on the bench should have an inclination towards any particular religion. Such an idea must tend to degrade justice in the eyes of the people. Other features of the Bill also would altogether disorganize the proper state of things in Ireland. The Lord Chancellor would no doubt have absolute power to put any election aside; but he would ask the House to imagine what a turmoil and discontent there would be if the Lord Chancellor exercised his authority, and disregarded the elected of the people. The appointment was to last for five years only, and anyone ordinarily cognizant with human nature would know that a man once elected to the Bench would like to continue there, so that during those five years he would court the favourable opinion of those who elected him; and, certainly, the canvassing in the Unions would be attended with every possible evil effect. Another proposition was, that the expenses of the elections should be paid out of the rates, and that the officials of the Poor Law Union should be employed in conducting elections. To that he objected, that there was a general outcry against the burdens thrown upon the rates in Ireland, and when occasion offered, no Gentlemen were more ready to join in that cry than the hon. Members supporting the Bill. It was a very just complaint also, that multifarious duties were thrust upon the Poor Law officials which it was never intended their shoulders should bear. Such a Bill as this would still further divert the attention of the officials from their proper duties, and divert the rates from the objects for which they were raised. He joined his hon. Friend (Mr. De la Poer Beresford) in his opposition, and he hoped the Bill would be scouted out of the House.

thought the Bill an unpretending one. It would only have the effect of making a very small addition to the existing number of magistrates, and the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Verner) had grounded his objection on false premises, for his (Mr. Downing's) hon. Friend (Mr. O'Sullivan) had founded the merits of the Bill, not on any desire to cast reflection on the magistrates of Ireland, or even on the necessity of adding to the number of justices, though he might fairly have done so, but he said—" We wish by this proposal to give the people a share, through their representatives, in the administration of justice." There were precedents in favour of such a course. The hon. Member for Armagh was in error in supposing that the power of appointing Town Commissioners as magistrates was vested in the Lord Lieutenant. The power of selection was in the Commissioners as a body, and the name being transmitted to the Lord Chancellor, he was then appointed by the Lord Chancellor's warrant. Those appointed to the town councils were exactly the same class as were appointed to the Boards of Guardians, and, in fact, were sometimes members of both bodies. When the disturbing element of election was referred to, it should be remem- bered that it occurred now every 25th of March, when the chairman, vice chairman, and deputy chairman were elected. These were often elected from the elected Board of Guardians, and if fit to preside over 20 or 30 ex officio educated gentlemen, intelligent farmers, and shopkeepers, surely they were quite fit to sit upon the Bench. No objection could be taken to the number of the magistracy, for, at present, they were in the proportion of one to every 20,000 of the population in some districts, and the addition of four to the 85 in Cavan would be but small. In the progress of election, however, the Bill might be amended. For his own part, he should prefer that the magistrate should be elected by the Board of Guardians. The ratepayers having, in that Board, elected their best men, they again would elect the best man among themselves. As to the introduction of religious bias, he thought that an hon. Member from the North of Ireland should be the last to say anything about that.

said, that if the precedent just cited were followed, the Bill now under consideration could not pass, because it provided for the election of magistrates by the popular vote of the ratepayers. He wished to show what would be the effect of the Bill. We had had some remarkable examples in popular elections within the last few years. Take, for example, the county of Tipperary. The qualifications for the election of Members of Parliament were not now so low as this Bill proposed to give; but some years ago, the constituency returned as their Member O'Donovan Rossa. He was elected by a large majority. If this Bill had then been law, and seeing that the franchise for elections to Boards of Guardians was lower than that for Parliamentary Elections, the result of an election in that county, with the then existing popular feeling, would have been that men defying the law would have been elected to sit on the Bench to carry out the law. To such a preposterous result would this Bill lead. Later very much the same thing took place in the election of John Mitchel. He believed the existing system was one of moderation between two extremes, and although the election of magistrates by popular vote was not part of our Constitution, yet the system by which they were appointed did not keep out of view popular interests and popular wishes He did not think we ought to go to' America for an example, or import into Ireland the despotic system of Russia. In the latter country, it should be remembered, popular elections were very different things from what they were here. It was new to him that the administration of justice in Ireland generally did not carry with it popular confidence, and that the number of magistrates appointed in Ireland did not bear a numerical proportion of Protestants to Roman Catholics. It was to him a most painful thing that the religious argument should have been imported into the question, for there was a general desire throughout the country that the difference of religion should be kept within as narrow limits as possible, and it was unfortunate that it had been brought forward. They should give credit to all for purity of purpose when sitting on the bench of justice. Too often these differences had been used for agitation, although he did not for a moment accuse the hon. and gallant Member for Galway of so using the argument. He (Mr. Bruen) deprecated the introduction of canvassing for a seat on the Bench, and for a candidate to have to pledge himself to follow a particular line of conduct. He opposed the Bill, and trusted the House would, by its decision, declare, first, that the accusation brought by it against the administration of justice in Ireland was unfounded; next, that the present mode of appointing magistrates was a fair one, and that the interests of all classes were sufficiently attended to, and that the change proposed would be a most dangerous one.

said, that he intended to support the second reading, and he did not wish to give a silent vote. He submitted that the people of Ireland did not feel the same confidence of justice in Petty Sessions as there was in County Courts and Supreme Courts. He did not mean to state that there were not some most excellent magistrates in that country, but what he desired was to see more confidence in those Courts. The principle of the Bill was not without precedents. Such a judicial office as that of coroner was filled by popular election, and the aldermen of the City of London were elected; so, also, in Scotland, he believed that many seats among the magistracy were filled by election. The Bill was a small one, and did not propose to do more than add one magistrate to each Union. The mode of election, he agreed with the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing), should be through the Board of Guardians, and not direct from the ratepayers; but that was a detail, and it was only the principle of the Bill they now had to deal with. With regard to the remarks of the last speaker (Mr. Bruen) it would be impossible that, had the Bill been law, either O'Donovan Rossa or Mr. John Mitchel could have been elected, for neither were qualified. Besides, the Lord Chancellor would have full power under the Bill to prevent any improper appointment.

said, that although he was of opinion that there might be some improvement made in reference to the appointment of magistrates in Ireland, yet he could not give his concurrence to this Bill. He believed it would be impossible to adopt a more vicious principle than that of making popular favour or disfavour a reason for the election or non-election of a magistrate. He should be sorry to see the magistrates and Judges in his country elected under the influences resorted to in the United States. In that respect, he should be very sorry to assist in Americanizing our institutions, as it would be a change for the worse. It was admittted by all, even by those most favourable to the Republican system in the United States, that the popular election of those discharging judicial duties, was the great blot on the system, and would prove fatal to the best interests of the country, if allowed to continue. The Bill contained another objectionable principle in regard to the term of office—five years and no longer—unless re-elected. This was more vicious even than the original popular vote for selection in the first instance; it would be a fatal revolution, destroying the great principle that those discharging judicial duties—which must in their nature be often unpopular—should hold office during good behaviour, and not be liable to removal either by public caprice or the displeasure either of the Government or the Crown. Such a system would be a scandal to the seat of justice. He should vote against the second reading, because the Bill, if carried, would materially lower the character and im- peril the independence of the magistrates of Ireland.

said, he could not, on behalf of the Government, assent to the second reading of the Bill, which was one proposing an entirely new system of appointing justices. What was the evil that the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) proposed to remedy by the Bill? He thought the hon. Gentleman was under some mistake as to the practice under which borough magistrates were now appointed, because there was no analogy between that practice and the method proposed under this Bill. Borough justices were appointed in England, as in Ireland, with the exception of the unreformed Corporation of the City of London, solely by the Crown. Mayors under statute exercised the functions of justices; but that was a very different thing indeed from the election of a person for magisterial duties only by the ratepayers. The appointment of justices in towns under the 17th & 18th Vict., called the Towns Improvement Act, had been referred to, but that again was not analogous to anything proposed in the Bill. Under that Act a list of the Commissioners elected was submitted to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for the time being, stating the ages, professions, &c, of the persons elected, and it was lawful for the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, if he saw fit, to select from that list persons as justices for towns. The persons so selected were only appointed magistrates during their term of office, and only had jurisdiction within the boundaries of the towns for which they were elected Town Commissioners, and then only so long as the Lord Chancellor thought fit. He wished to point out that that gave entire discretion as to the appointment of persons to be justices to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. But what was the principle of the Bill now before the House? The principle was that justices should be elected by the ratepayers of the Unions. The ratepayers of the Union were to elect the persons as justices, not for their Union alone, but for the whole county. The persons so elected were to hold their office for five years; there again differing from any magistrates now existing. This Bill had been recommended by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) and the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) as a simple and modest attempt to alter the law. He was bound to say that to his mind it was a proposal to initiate a most important change—perhaps, one of the most important changes that could be conceived—in the judicial constitution of the country. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had gone, as he had done on former occasions, to foreign countries for examples, and had drawn his arguments in support of the Bill from the system adopted under a pure democracy in America and under a complete despotism in Russia. He did not wish to dilate upon the merits or faults of the form of Government in either of these countries; but he ventured to say that there was nothing in the judicial administration of the law there which would justify us for a moment in going to either of them for an example. They heard sometimes a great deal said about the unfair action of the Government in the appointment of justices; but that opinion, at any rate, did not appear to be shared by the promoters of the Bill, because under the present measure they left to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland the same veto which he now had over the recommendations of Lords Lieutenant of counties. The magistrates to be appointed were to be recommended to the Lord Chancellor by the ratepayers; they were now recommended to the Lord Chancellor by the Lords Lieutenant. He might say, in passing, that he thought there was some ground for doubting how far this measure had been thoroughly considered by its promoters, when they found such important differences between those who supported it as, on the one hand, the strong opinion in favour of election by the ratepayers, and, on the other hand, the preference expressed for election by the Guardians themselves. These were two very different matters, and upon that he might say that if the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) had intended to follow any system now existing, he certainly never had any right to incorporate the election by the ratepayers in the Bill. One defect in the Bill was, that it contained no Proviso defining any qualification for persons to be appointed. In its present form a person might be resident in America, but, notwithstanding that, he might be elected a justice by the ratepayers of Limerick or Tipperary; therefore O'Donovan Rossa and John Mitchel would have been eligible if this measure had been the law of the land. So far as he could understand, it seemed to him that the measure was an attack upon the Lieutenants of counties, and in connection with the point he had listened with great pleasure to the disclaimer of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen) of any wish to treat this subject from a religious point of view. He believed that the Lieutenants of counties in Ireland, varying as they did in their religious and political opinions, exercised their privilege in the appointment of magistrates with fairness and discretion. But the magistrates must and ought to be selected from persons of education and leisure, irrespectively of their connection with any particular religious Body. If they simply took account of the persons in the community who were possessed of those qualifications, the necessary result would be, under present circumstances, a large preponderance of Protestant magistrates. ["No, no!"] He scarcely understood, indeed, how this Bill could be supported on religious grounds. He believed that under such a system it would too often be proved to be impossible for a Catholic to be elected as magistrate in a county where there was a large majority of Protestants, or a Protestant elected in a county where there was a Catholic majority. ["No, no!"] Well, they had an opportunity of seeing to what extent Party and religious feelings could influence persons in such matters, in the mode in which appointments by corporations and other public bodies were too often filled up; he feared that in every case in those parts of Ireland, if there was any truth in the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite, where the majority required protection, it would be just in those very places that the magistrate representing the opinions of the minority would have no chance whatever of election. He ventured to say that the present system, whatever its faults, was, at any rate, better than the system proposed to be substituted for it. Complaint had been made that the appointments of magistrates were too much confined to landowners. He thought that it was quite right and proper for the Lieutenants of counties to select men who had made their fortunes in commercial pursuits. But when he remembered questions which had been asked of him during the past Session, with regard to the bankruptcy of a certain magistrate, he felt that although the Lieutenants of counties might have to the best of their judgment recommended such persons to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, it was by no means unlikely that circumstances might subsequently arise, which would cause the Lieutenant to be much blamed for his recommendation. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway had appeared to think that the removal of Roman Catholic disabilities, which had been long ago effected, was an argument for this change. With that view he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) could not coincide; and he trusted the House would by their vote that day repudiate any desire to accept or make any such change as was proposed by the Bill; and that if any fault was found in any particular instance in the appointment of magistrates in Ireland, it would be brought before the House, when it would be his duty to make such a reply as might be required by the circumstances of that particular case.

said, he was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland give as his experience, that it would be impossible for a Protestant to be elected in a Catholic district, and vice versâ. Did the right hon. Baronet know that in the Catholic city of Dublin, save under very exceptional circumstances, a Protestant was elected Lord Mayor in regular rotation to a Catholic; and that whilst in Cork, Limerick, and Waterford, Protestants were selected in due rotation, in the vaunted, enlightened town of Belfast a Catholic had never been been elected mayor? The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen) had stated that the charge that the local administration of justice did not command the confidence of the people was quite new to him, and had felt pained that such an element as the religious one should have been imported into the case—not for the purpose of justice, but, as he charged, for the purposes of agitation. Well, he (Mr. Callan) would not rest on his own private opinion against that of the hon. Member, but would refer the House to a letter of one who, though a Catholic, would not be accused of any partiality towards the Catholics of Ireland. He referred to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor under the late Government (the Lord O'Hagan), who, under date of January, 1872, wrote as follows:—

"Unfortunately there are other places, especially in the North of Ireland, in which there is no representation, or a very inadequate representation, of Catholics, and in some cases of Presbyterians, amongst the local magistracy, and the result not unnaturally is the creation more or less of that distrust which the Commissioners describe as affecting the trial of Party questions, even by persons in whose honour, impartiality, and justice on all other occasions the people implicitly rely. Wherever it is fairly possible to prevent that unhappy result and take from the local tribunals the appearance of sectarian exclusiveness by the appointment to the commission of fit and competent magistrates in whom all the members of the community can place reliance, the Lord Chancllor thinks the appointment should undoubtedly take place."

He (Mr. Callan) felt confident that such a judicial expression of opinion would have much more weight than the private opinion of any hon. Member, however personally estimable. He was surprised to find the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Catholic county of Carlow so bitter an opponent of a Bill which afforded some chance of a Catholic being elected a magistrate for that county. Carlow, with a Catholic population of 45,000 out of a total of 51,000, with some 50 magistrates, had only two Catholic magistrates, and yet the Member for that county cried out—" Oh! the religious element should not be imported into the case; the Catholics don't complain." Well, he (Mr. Callan) hoped that when next the hon. Member appeared before his constituents, the Catholic people of Carlow would remember the attitude taken by the hon. Member. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary, too, had repudiated the idea that there was any partiality or partizanship shown in the appointments to the magistracy, and had taken upon himself to affirm on their behalf that the Lords Lieutenants of counties had "exercised their power of appointment with fairness and discretion." Whatever courage might be displayed in making such an assertion, there was a great lack of discretion, as the following statistics would show. Take the county of Donegal, for example, with a population of 218,000, of whom upwards of 165,000 were Catholics. There were only two Catholic magistrates out of 119. In Tyrone, with a Catholic population of 130,000, out of a total of 215,000, or more than half, there was not one single Catholic magistrate among the 120 justices of the peace. And it was from that county that the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary drew the instance to point an unworthy sneer at the merchant-traders of the country districts in Ireland. The 77,000 Catholics of Londonderry County, out of an entire population of 173,000, had but a solitary member of their community among the magistracy of that county, numbering over 106. He next came to his (Mr. Callan's) native county of Louth, of which Lord Rathdonnell was the Lieutenant. There were in that eminently Catholic county, with a population of upwards of 70,000, 64,000 Catholics, wealthy men of honour and education, equal in every respect to their Protestant neighbours. There were only eight resident Catholic magistrates out of some 47 or 48, or less than one-fifth of the whole, and this disparity arose not from any want of fully-qualified Catholics, but from the intense bigotry of the Lord Lieutenant of the county, who had persistently and determinedly refused to appoint a Catholic to the commission of the peace. In fact, the only 10 Catholics who had been appointed were not appointed until he (Mr. Callan) had brought the matter before the House in 1872. He would instance one case, and that only because the Gentleman in question was well known to many hon. Members, and esteemed by all who had the pleasure of his acquaintance—his hon. Friend the junior Member for Louth (Mr. Kirk), who enjoyed the confidence of the people of his district, in which, Catholic to the core, there was not a single Catholic magistrate; and though his name had been prominently brought before Lord Rathdonnell, the Lord Lieutenant of the county, he would not appoint him to the commission of the peace. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary had made reference to borough magistrates. In the town which he (Mr. Callan) had the honour to represent (Dundalk), the Bench for years had been equally divided—three Catholics to three Protestants. Just before the General Election of 1868 one of the Catholic magistrates had died, and immediately after an application was made to have the borough magistrate appointed to the commission for the county, but that application was contemptuously rejected. And yet Mr. M'Ardle, the senior partner in the well-known firm of M'Ardle, Moore, and Co., in whose favour the application was made, had been then eleven times sucessively unanimously elected Chairman of the Dundalk Town Commissioners. He had during all that time acted as borough magistrate, with satisfaction to the authorities and to the public; had been recommended for the vacancy by the late venerated Primate of Ireland, by the borough Member, by the two Catholic magistrates on the Dundalk Bench, Messrs. Kelly and Coleman, by Lord Claremont, the brother of the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he (Mr. Callan) was authorized to state strongly by the resident magistrate, Captain Coate, a Tory of Tories, and by the chairman of the county, Mr. Neligan. He had also within the last two or three years been recommended by the Town Board; but the public recommendation had been treated with the same scant courtesy as had been the private one—namely, acurt refusal. He thanked the House for its courtesy and attention, and would go more fully into the subject on the Motion of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Fay) when it was discussed. The right hon. Baronet's objections were entirely directed to the details of the Bill. He (Mr. Callan) supported the Bill, though he was not much in favour of it, for he believed that if it passed in its present shape, the result would be that while the ratepayers in the Southern counties would elect Protestants almost sooner than Roman Catholics, there would not be the slightest chance of a Catholic being elected in the North.

in supporting the Bill, said, the hon. Members for Armagh (Mr. Verner) and Carlow (Mr. Bruen) deprecated the introduction of religious differences into this question, and the remedy they proposed was to entirely exclude Catholics. Of course this would be a fine way of excluding religious differences. It was said that the Bill introduced the American system; but he denied that, and the promoters of the Bill were prepared to accept Amendments even to the length of allowing the elections to be made by Boards of Guardians. The Bill was meant to apply a remedy to a prejudicial state of affairs existing now in the Irish judicial system which was not regarded with satisfaction. Everywhere the appointments to the office of justices of the peace were found to correspond to territorial and caste distinctions. This fact would, in itself, if they had not abundant proofs of the magisterial misuse of functions, form a practical objection of the strongest kind to the continued maintenance of the present system. The objections that had been brought forward were mainly objections on matters of detail. With regard to the limitation of the duration of the power of the Union justices, the supporters of the Bill were not tied to a duration of 5 to 10 years. If hon. Gentlemen holding Conservative views preferred to make Union justices tenants of their offices for life, he did not think there would be any objection on the part of the supporters of the Bill. They were prepared to go any reasonable length to meet the objections of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. All they asked was, that the present system of arbitrary and caste domination in Ireland might be amended to the very limited extent of allowing ratepayers or Boards of Guardians to choose a small number of magistrates as representatives of the most substantial and respectable portion of the community, in order to temper and correct the present system. They did not go any further than that, although he personally was inclined to go very much further, believing, as he did, that the only real objection to the Bill was, that it was a great deal too moderate.

said, he had heard nothing from the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary or the other opponents of the Bill to convince him that the measure was not just and necessary. They had been told in the course of the debate that there were sufficient magistrates on the Bench in Ireland already. He did not say that they were not sufficiently numerous. It had also been said he had not shown that justice was badly administered at Petty Sessions in Ireland; but he could have mentioned many instances of unjust and extraordinary decisions had he not desired to avoid trespassing on the time of the House. He would now mention one case which had occurred in his own county. Two men were summoned on the same day before the magistrates for not having taken out licences for their dogs. One was fined 5s. and the other only 1d. Now, the man who was fined 5s. had a very large business to attend to, and forgot all about the matter; while the person who got off with a fine of 1d. was the very person who ought to have registered the dogs, being the clerk to the magistrate. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Verner) objected to popular election. Well, there might be a good many who entertained that objection who would not have the chance of sitting in this House again. Then the hon. Member objected to the provision he (Mr. O'Sullivan) made for the amendment by the Lord Chancellor of the election when it was an improper one. He was surprised that a substantial Conservative like the hon. Gentleman should have taken such an objection. The expenses of the election were also objected to, although they would not be more than £5, and in the poorest Unions in Ireland this would not amount to the hundredth part of a penny. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) thought the Bill ought to give the power to the Guardians instead of the ratepayers. He would not object to the power being given to the Guardians, if they could vote by Ballot and if they were elected by Ballot; but he objected to giving that power to them while they were nominees of the landlords and their agents. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen) had spoken of the introduction of the religious element into the Bill. He had avoided that altogether, and he had never said one word about religion. He might say that there were Protestant magistrates in Ireland in whom he had more confidence than he had in many Catholic magistrates. As to the objections of the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he thought they might be considered in Committee. It was said that a Protestant magistrate would have no chance of being elected in a Catholic district. Now, as to the validity of that objection, he would appeal to many Protestants on his side who had been elected entirely by Catholics. He would also refer to the case of the county of Tipperary, an exclusively Catholic constituency, which at a former election returned a Protestant—namely, Colonel White. Need he refer to the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), and a dozen other hon. Members whom he saw around him? No. He thanked God the South of Ireland was free from bigotry, which he knew existed to a very large extent in the North. The alleged difference of opinion had been referred to as existing amongst the supporters of the Bill. There was really no difference of opinion between himself and the hon. Member for Cork, only that he did not wish the Poor Law Guardians to have the power of election unless they were elected by Ballot. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kildare (Mr. Cogan) objected to giving the people any more power. He did not wonder at that, for the last Election showed that the power of the people was very strong, and unless he was greatly mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman would find that unless he went in for Home Rule he would stand very little chance. He could not see that a single reasonable objection had been brought against the Bill. He did not want to introduce the election of magistrates all over the country, he only wanted to introduce a sprinkling of representatives of the people—namely, one magistrate from each Union, so that the people might have more confidence in the administration of justice. He said that the people were not represented on the magisterial Bench. The landlords were represented by an overwhelming majority, the Government were represented by the stipendiary magistrates, but there was not a single representative of the people.

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its provisions had been considerably modified in deference to the opinions which were expressed last year. It was then urged that the Bill would be a great interference with the parochial system, and that its effect would be to set up a rival clergyman in every parish. The Bill, therefore, had been modified so as to maintain intact the great principle of the parochial system, for no one was more attached than he was to that system. The Bill proposed that no clergyman should be appointed under it without a definite territorial limit being assigned within which his ministrations should be confined. The Bill did not affect the quality of the services so much as the quantity, or, in other words, the deficiency of spiritual ministrations throughout the country. The parochial system professed to provide religious ministrations for the whole community; but, at the present time, it could not be said that it covered the whole spiritual field of the country. New districts were being formed, parishes were becoming so largely populated that it became necessary to subdivide them; but, notwithstanding, there was an immense population which the parochial system did not reach, and it was to provide such population with the means of religious instruction that the Bill had been introduced. The main object of the Bill was to amend the Church Building Acts. These Acts, although of a complicated nature, had greatly increased the number of churches, but there were blots which required to be removed, and defects which remained to be supplied. The Bill would enable a patron to build a church, if he obtained the consent of the Bishop, the consent of the incumbent not being necessary. It was also proposed to give the inhabitants of a poor district that which the inhabitants of a rich district at present possessed under the Patronage Act, of providing for their own spiritual wants—

I rise to Order. Is it competent to the hon. Gentleman to read every word of his speech?

The hon. Member is not entitled to read his speech; but he can refer to his notes to refresh his memory.

proceeded to explain the provisions of the Bill, and said, that at present, whenever an additional chapel was needed, the opposition of the incumbent could stop the whole proceeding. The Bill, therefore, proposed that the Bishop, either of his own motion or on the application of the inhabitants, should have the right of calling on the incumbent of a parish to provide sufficiently for the spiritual necessities of the district. If that were not done within three months the Bishop might appoint a Commission to inquire into the subject, and if their recommendation were favourable to the providing of further facilities for Divine worship, he would act upon it. The first duty was to see that a satisfactory stipend was provided for the clergyman, and the Bishop would then assign to him a conventional district. The patronage was to be vested in those who should provide the funds. A great deal of evidence had been taken by the Committee which had been appointed to inquire into the spiritual wants of the country, and since that Committee reported, a Committee had been also appointed by Convocation to examine the same subject. It appeared from the evidence of Canon Gregory that, notwithstanding all the work done during the last 30 years, within which no fewer than 2,000 churches had been built, the church accommodation had only kept pace with the growth of the population. In 1841 there was one incumbent to 1,095 of the population; in 1871 there was one incumbent to 1,097. In his opinion, it was decidedly necessary that these deficiencies should be supplied, if the Church of England was to deserve the name of the National Church. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners might object to this Bill on the ground that it interfered with their province; but, as a matter of fact, those Commissioners had no means of knowing the requirements of particular districts in regard to spiritual administration, and he did not think that the Bill in any way interfered with their legitimate functions. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

in moving the Previous Question, said, he had carefully compared this Bill with the Bill of last year, and he could not find in it one substantial alteration. In fact, what few alterations had been made did not make any serious difference between this Bill and the Bill of last year. He was astonished to hear the hon. Member say the Bill did not interfere with the parochial system, and that he himself was anxious to maintain it. Why, the principle of that system was the spiritual independence of the incumbent in his parish; and there could not be a more unquestionable interference with that system than that contained in the 2nd clause, whereby it was provided that the Bishop of a diocese, if he had reason to believe it would be expedient to provide in any parish additional facilities for the performance of Divine worship, might licence a clergyman to officiate in that parish without the sanction of the incumbent. That he regarded as utterly and entirely contrary to the parochial system. There was not time that Session to discuss properly a Bill proposing such a great innovation. Appointment by popular election might be good or bad; but it was not the method of the Church of England. The Bill did not provide that the clergyman appointed should undertake any duty. It amounted to this—that if a small knot of people got the permission of the Bishop, they might appoint a sort of privateer parson to prey on a parish, getting as much as he could from the rich, but not bound to do anything for the poor, and leaving the real work of the parish to the incumbent. The Bill did not sufficiently define habitual neglect; and if an incumbent were guilty of it, why should he not be removed, instead of a fresh clergyman being appointed? Nor were the provisions as to the stipend and other matters at all satisfactory. There were many other considerations and difficulties which suggested themselves in connection with the subject; and, upon the whole, he did not think that a Bill referring to matters of such importance ought to be taken up at so late a period of the Session. There was not sufficient time to think out all the details, and to put the measure into a workable shape. As, however, he did not altogether disapprove the objects the promoters of the Bill had in view, he did not move its rejection, but he would move the Previous Question instead.

seconded the Amendment. He entirely agreed with the last speaker in thinking the Bill an invasion of the rights of the incumbent. He considered the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Egerton) had not adopted the right mode for remedying the evils which existed by attempting to interfere with the parochial system. If the duties of a parish were not properly performed, it would be reasonable to give the Bishop power to call on the incumbent to appoint a curate; but in such case he should be appointed merely as an additional curate, and should have no right to interfere with the incumbent. The real object of the measure was not far to seek. What was intended by it was simply this—that whenever a certain number of parishioners held either very high Church views or very low Church views, and wished to have a particular ritual, they should be allowed to go to the Bishop and say—" Give us a clergyman who shall perform the service as we desire." He hoped that Parliament would not sanction a Bill of this description.

in supporting the Bill, said, he must, at once, emphatically repudiate the explanation just given by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) of the object aimed at by the Bill. In his (Mr. Birley's) opinion the Bishops would prefer to meet eases of neglect in the way provided by the Bill, instead of taking steps against incumbents. He desired to impress upon the House the urgent necessity of passing some measure of the kind. He, therefore, hoped the second reading would be passed, because, although it might be impossible to get the Bill through that Session, its progress next year would be facilitated. He was a Member of the Committee that sat on the Bill, when the whole circumstances were discussed. Until recently, before a church was built, an Act of Parliament was often necessary; but, by the 29th of Geo. III., facilities were given to build churches in populous districts. He submitted that the Church of England, as a national Church, ought to provide accommodation for its people in their attendance at Divine worship. It was notorious there were many instances of populous parishes the incumbents of which, for various reasons, would not assent to arrangements that were obviously necessary; and this Bill would meet such cases without necessitating the building of new churches, and by allowing licensed rooms to be used. The Bill bristled with safeguards, and would not make any appointment permanent. At all events, it would interfere far less with the parochial system, and would be less detrimental to the Church of England than the custom of allowing the ground to be occupied by Dissenting chapels, to the disadvantage of the national Church.

supported the Previous Question, which he considered to be the proper way of treating with contempt all discussions in regard to the clergy of the Church of England until some better understanding had been arrived at as to the position which the public held in regard to that body, and until some kind of remedy had been discovered for practices of a most objectionable character which were being now carried on. At the present time, the clergy of the Church of England appeared to be a class of men who were not to be reasoned with. There were men amongst them who degraded their profession, who practised that which they had sworn not to practise, and who opposed and endeavoured to counteract all those principles which they were paid to support. Such men ought to be put down, if not dispensed with altogether. Look, for example, at that abominable book, The Priest in Absolution, which had so startled the country, and the position of the authorities of the Church in regard to it. Why, great ecclesiastical dignitaries who were not inadequately remunerated, and who were supposed to be occupied specially with the discipline of the Church, had only yesterday asserted that the volume in question had been for the first time brought to their knowledge. Those reverend gentlemen pretended to have been in ignorance up to that period of a book which had so ingrained itself into the practice of a large section of the clergy, that a man of the name of Mackonochie had said that the volume was no longer necessary, that he did not want it, that he had practised for five-and-twenty years what it contained. He considered that was a great scandal. He apprehended that public opinion would demand that some remedy should be applied to the evil which existed in the Church through the practices inculcated in the book referred to. In the meantime, he thanked the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Assheton) for moving the Previous Question, which amounted to this—that the House would not condescend to discuss any question relating to the Church and the clergy until the matters to which he referred had been satisfactorily dealt with.

said, he felt certain that he represented the feeling of the House in taking up the question at the point which it had reached previously to the last speaker. It was always either too early or too late to discuss a measure they did not like; but the condition of the Order Book was probably fatal to the chance of the Bill this Session. He should, nevertheless, support the second reading, and regretted that his hon. Friend had fallen on such evil days in bringing it forward at a time when those who guided the ark of the State were not present, and when those who guided it a short time ago were absent also. The question was one that called for the most serious consideration. The Bill was excellently intended, and dealt with a deficiency which all acknowledged, yet he should be sorry to see it become law in its present state, more especially if it contained the provision which would remorselessly saddle the clergyman with a conventional district. This compulsion confounded the ideas of worship with which the measure dealt, and of pastoral charge. The Bill to some extent provided a safety-valve for tolerated differences of opinion in the Church, whether affecting doctrine or ceremonial, which was a point to which he attached much importance, as a provision for temporary places of worship would prevent parishes from being rashly cut up into permanent districts, which was too often the lavish and clumsy method of settling such disputes. He hoped that the Motion for the Previous Question would not be pressed. He put it to the majority of the Members of the House who were members of the Church of England whether they did or did not, when in town, attend their parish church as a matter of principle, because it was their parish church; and if, as he believed, the an- swer would be "no," then this fact illustrated the raison d'étre for this Bill in other places than London. It provided that, in cases where there were differences of opinion about the parson or the services of the church, the dissentients might have a temporary chapel so long as they could pay for it, or so long as it was necessary. When it ceased to be so, they could return to the mother church, which would have sustained no permanent injury. It would be well if the aggrieved parishioners had ample opportunity of stating to the Bishop what their grievances were—whether the character of the services, or their insufficiency, or the lack of clerical strength—and that a machinery should be provided for devising, if possible, a temporary remedy short of the introduction of a fresh clergyman and the making of a new district. In particular, he would be glad if the Bill had contained a provision giving to the parson himself a period of grace wherein to find the desired services, and at his own parish church. The Bill to which this was a successor, as introduced by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt), did make such provision, and he looked upon the omission of it in the present measure as a serious defect. He had himself been a Member of the Member for Stafford's Committee, and the prevalent opinion among them, after a very wide and searching inquiry, was that the principle advocated was a sound one, though it would require liberal development, and therefore he should vote against the Previous Question.

as a Member of the Select Committee from whom the Bill had sprung, desired to say a few words in correction of the misapprehension which existed as to its objects. The object of the parochial system was to provide for the spiritual wants of the parishioners, and it was the purpose of the Bill to further that object. One would think on hearing the opponents of the Bill that the parishes had been made for the clergy, and not the clergy for the parishes. The parochial system was a matter of theory, and were they going to sacrifice the interests of the country to a theory? Abundant evidence was given before the Select Committee that there were many cases of inadequate provision and neglect which the Bishops were powerless to meet, and in one instance it was stated a clergyman refused to attend a sick person, and yet the Bishop had no power to compel him to do so. The Bill provided a simple, cheap, temporary remedy that would not in the least interfere with any rights which an incumbent was morally justified in asserting. If he could show that increased facilities were not required, the Bishop could not interfere. On the advent of a new incumbent, the additional clergyman would retire, unless the new incumbent desired him to remain. Ritualism had nothing whatever to do with the history of the Bill, which was originally introduced by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt), now Secretary to the Local Government Board. It would be possible to insert in the Bill any necessary safeguards; and, although it might be impossible to pass the Bill this year, it would be well to read it a second time by way of facilitating future legislation.

who had hitherto opposed Bills of this character, would vote for the second reading of this Bill, because it embodied safeguards against abuse. It ought to be watched jealously in Committee to see that the parochial system was not weakened. Though it could not be carried now, it would be well to affirm its principle. As to the practices alluded to he did not believe the Bill would give them any facilities, and believing they were generally repudiated by the common sense of the people, he should support the Bill.

could not support the Bill. The expense of enrolling legal districts might be great, but the proper remedy was to amend the law in that respect, and not to map out conventional districts. The introduction of a clergyman against the will of the incumbent, who had to pay him, must occasion strife and divisions, for collisions would be inevitable in the management of schools, and of charities, and in visiting, and these collisions would probably result in the two preaching against each other.

supported the Bill in the interest of the Church of England. In his own district in Yorkshire they had very extensive church parishes so large and. so inadequately supplied with the necessary means of church accommodation that, as a consequence, Dissenting chapels were springing up rapidly in all directions. Although the clergymen of those parishes had endeavoured, under great difficulties, to perform their duty, it could not be expected they could induce the parishioners to walk a distance of eight or nine miles in order to reach a chapel-of-ease. All this would be knocked in the head if churches and clergymen were provided.

as a Member of the Select Committee, would support the Bill. He did not look to it so much for any great advantages in the increase of accommodation, for he thought the existing Acts of Parliament went far to meet any difficulty which existed in that direction; but he did look to it to provide remedies in those cases where there was a clergyman who could not be dislodged or disturbed, who did not bring himself under the law, who did not break the Commandments so as to enable the Ecclesiastical Law to meet him, and who was, nevertheless, a man for whom the parishioners could not feel any respect. It being difficult to dislodge the clergyman, there ought to be some remedy for the parishioners who wished to go to church to get good. There were few Members of the House who could not put their hands on a parish where such a grievance existed. Although he would not pledge himself to particular details of the Bill, he held that this was a grievance that required a remedy. There were cases in which it had existed many years, in which the clergyman had, so to speak, sat upon the people for 20, 30, or 40 years, and the people had no redress. The result was that Dissent had flourished, and meeting-houses multiplied. He wanted to be relieved of that difficulty; and as he believed the Bill would provide a remedy, he would support the principle without committing himself to the details.

joined in supporting the Bill, remarking that something of its character was the only way in which they could meet the constant necessities of the case. Anyone who was old enough—as he was—to remember the million of money which was granted after the war must see that in these matters the remedy had always come behind, and had not succeeded in reaching the mischief it was intended to guard against—namely, that owing to the great increase in the population the church accommodation was found not to be sufficient. The Bill now under consideration was intended to remedy the defect, and it was upon those grounds that he considered it his duty to support the second reading.

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that its objects were to encourage and stimulate improved cultivation of the land, to give security to the tenant for the value of improvements which benefited his successor, and to secure to the landlord his fair right to the increased value of the soil. What with untoward seasons, higher wages, cattle diseases, and foreign competition, farming had been very unremunerative in recent years; and many hon. Members had doubtless experience of difficulty in letting farms, and larger arrears of rent than usual. Farmers did not complain of low prices or foreign competition; but they did complain that they had not a fair amount of control over their farms, and had not the same opportunities which manufacturers possessed of making the most of their business. The law by declaring that the money which a tenant might expend in improving his farm belonged to the landlord when it was incorporated in the soil, or even, as in the cases of houses, when placed upon the landlord's soil, and perhaps even more, the antiquated and often absurd conditions regarding cultivation and crops imposed by the landlord on the tenant prejudicially affected, not only the interests of the tenants and of the public at large, but that of the landlord himself. It was to endeavour to find a remedy for some of these evils he had introduced this Bill. It was true that the present Parliament had passed an Agricultural Holdings Act to remedy this state of things; but that Act was practically a dead letter. Landlords generally did not give their tenants security for the money they invested in improving the soil. Certainly the ordinary 19 years' lease which prevailed in Scotland was not sufficient to enable the tenant to recoup himself from his crops for the capital which it was now found necessary to invest in the soil. No doubt, the lease had done much to encourage the improvement of land in Scotland; but although a 19 years' lease might have at one time been sufficient, it was not now adequate to permit a farmer to recoup himself for the much larger amount of capital found necessary to meet the requirements of modern agriculture. The principles which he had endeavoured to embody in the present Bill were simple. Improvements were to be divided into two classes, called respectively permanent and temporary improvements. Under the name of permanent improvements the Bill included those improvements of land which should properly be executed by the landlord; but inasmuch as many landlords would not put themselves to the trouble, or encounter the risk of executing these improvements, the Bill provided that if a tenant carried out these improvements at his own expense, he should be entitled to a reasonable compensation for them at the end of his lease. The tenant, however, when he resolved on the improvement would first have to give notice to his landlord of what he intended to do; and if the landlord agreed to interest himself so far in the matter, he could ask the tenant to give him an estimate of the cost of the improvement, and if he offered to advance three-fourths of that cost himself, the remaining fourth would be expended by the tenant, who would also have to pay the landlord during the remainder of his lease 5 per cent per annum interest upon what the landlord expended. That was an arrangement which would be advantageous to the landlord, because he would have an improvement made upon his estate on advancing three-fourths of its cost, and during the remainder of the tenant's occupation he would receive 5 per cent interest on his outlay. Power would be reserved to the landlord to object to any improvement which the tenant desired to make on the ground, either that it was not suitable to the holding, or that it would prejudice the estate generally; and those seemed to Mm (Mr. Barclay) to be the only two grounds on which any reasonable landlord would object to improvement of his land. On either of these two grounds the landlord could object, and if he showed that his objection was well founded, he could prevent the tenant from carrying out improvements; or, at all events, would cease to be responsible for them himself. The other class—that of temporary improvements—set forth in the Schedule of the Bill, included only those which ought naturally to fall on the cultivator of land, and which the landlord ought not to be called upon to execute. They were improvements the successful carrying out of which very much depended on the individual, both with regard to the cost and to the quality of the work, and which ought to recoup themselves in a few years. If the tenant carried them out and had to leave the farm before he had had time to recoup himself for the outlay, he was to have compensation, but the compensation would come practically, not from the landlord, but from his successor in the farm. The first class of improvements—those of a permanent character—were those which the landlord should pay for, and for which he would recoup himself by an increased rent from succeeding tenants; and the second class—or temporary improvements—were those which the cultivator of the soil ought to execute, and for which, if he was not repaid during the continuance of his tenancy, he would be recouped under this Bill by the in-coming tenant. The in-coming tenant again would be indemnified by receiving the farm in much better condition than it otherwise would have been. These were the two main principles of the Bill. There was also a provision for compensation of the tenant for unexhausted manures or fertilizers; but, as that was merely an extension of the present system of compensation, he would not dwell upon it. The Bill would have the effect of enabling parties, who as matters stood at present could not have the opportunity of contracting together, to adjust claims upon equitable terms—he referred to the outgoing and in-coming tenants. This, he considered, would be very advantageous for both parties. The Bill sought to lay down the general equitable principles whereby the in-coming tenant should pay to the out-going tenant a fair and reasonable compensation for the money which the latter had left to benefit the former in the soil. In settling what should be the amount of compensation, he had endeavoured to embody in the Bill provisions, not to enact a custom, because that was impracticable, but to lay down general principles the application of which was not tied down by any hard-and-fast rules, but in regard to which there was a considerable amount of elasticity, so that those principles might be fairly and equitably adapted to the various districts of the country. In dealing with such a question as improvement upon land, hard-and-fast rules as to the amount of compensation could not be laid down, because what would be a fair amount of compensation in one district would probably be unfair in another. He had laid down in the Bill what were the matters in respect of which an outgoing tenant was to be compensated, and he hoped that under the provisions of arbitration a custom would by-and-by grow up in various districts throughout the country, under which it would be well known and clearly established what was a fair and proper compensation to allow to the out-going tenant under the peculiar circumstances of each case. The compensation both with regard to permanent and temporary improvements was to be fixed by arbitrators, who, after taking into consideration what was the increased value of the farm due to the improvements, what had been the cost of the improvements, and what benefit the out-going tenant had derived from them, would fix such a sum as they thought fair and equitable under the circumstances; but the compensation was limited by an over-ruling clause, which specified that no compensation for permanent improvements should exceed 15 years' purchase of the increased value of the holding due to the improvements, and in the case of temporary improvements, that the compensation should in no case exceed five years' purchase of the increased value of the land due to the improvements. Then it was provided, on the other hand, that the landlord should have power to obtain compensation for depreciation, or else to eject the tenant. Arbitrators were to have power to examine a farm in the interest of the landlord, and if they found the farm in bad order, the tenant was bound to conform to the instructions of the arbitrators, and if he failed to carry out an improved cultivation, the landlord should have power to eject him. It might seem hard to the tenant that the landlord should have that power, and representation of this point had been made to him by many farmers; but it seemed to him equitable and just that, while on the one hand the tenant had a right to claim from the landlord compensation for improvements, the landlord, on the other, should have a right to claim compensation for depreciation, and to ultimately eject a tenant who persisted, after the arbitrators had given their award, in exhausting or improperly cultivating the farm. The hon. Member was proceeding, when—