in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: As the House is aware, this Bill, though it is only a short one, and is also a temporary one, yet excites much interest, not to say opposition—in fact, I do not know that I ever had anything to do with a Bill to which I found so much opposition — arising, I believe, from very great misapprehension. I find, for the first time in my life, that I am looked upon as a very extravagant and revolutionary person. The Bill also has been termed revolutionary—it has been described as a measure to encourage the non-payment of rent, to confiscate the property of landlords, and to destroy all rights of property. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen cheer the statement— but, possibly, they will cheer still more the description of the Bill given by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), who, doubtless, considered that he combined almost every epithet of opprobrium, when he said that it "embodied all the worst and most noxious features of the Land Act of 1870."I am sure, however, the House will give me a fair hearing while I explain what I understand to be the object, meaning, and probable effect of this Bill. And, in doing so, I must trouble the House with some explanation of what I believe to be the intention of some of the clauses of the Land Act of 1870—because there is great misapprehension with regard to them as well as with regard to this Bill. Before I sit down I hope to show that this Bill is expedient and just—that it is brought in to carry out the spirit of the Land Act, and that it is required as a temporary modification of that Act, under the special circumstances of the case. Now, let me explain its principles. There is in it a limitation of time, and there is also a limitation of area—it is limited to the end of next year and to the area of those districts which are scheduled as dis- tressed. We introduce these limitations, first, because we do not think the House is ready—and, in fact, we ourselves are not ready—for the introduction of any permanent Bill with regard to the Land Question; and next, because in the special circumstances of this year, and in the special circumstances of these districts, we think that a Bill with regard to evictions—why, I shall explain hereafter —is especially urgent, and, in fact, to our minds, necessary. Now, what are these districts? They have not been defined by me, or by the present Government, or by the present Parliament —they are those districts which were declared to be specially distressed by the late Government and by the late Parliament. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) asked me a Question yesterday with regard to these districts, and I think he was rather surprised to find that none had been scheduled since the 29th February. None could legally have been scheduled since, and there has, of course, been no intention to break the law. They were scheduled by the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (the Duke of Marlborough), in consequence of the belief that the Government had—a belief that has been confirmed by the unanimous vote of this House—that exceptional temporary legislation was required for the exceptional circumstances of these districts. There has been exceptional legislation. Loans of very large sums have been granted in order to meet the distress of these districts on terms, I believe, never offered before. It was because we wanted to fasten this Bill on the attention of the House and the Country, that when we thought it necessary to propose this measure, we first tried to introduce it as an amendment to the Relief of Distress Bill. I mention this in order to explain to the House why we took that course. There was no intention whatever to take the House by surprise—if we had been allowed to keep this clause in the Relief of Distress Bill, we should have had to move an Instruction, and hon. Gentlemen would have had the same opportunity of discussing it, and of rejecting it if they choose, as they will now have on the second reading of this Bill. I should be very sorry if any Member of the House thought I had wanted under any circumstances to take an un- fair advantage. The proposal is limited, as I have said, to the scheduled Unions, generally speaking, to the Western half of Ireland; but there is, practically, another limitation—that is, it is limited to those Unions outside Ulster and outside of the districts where Ulster Tenant-right exists. And for this reason—that I cannot conceive that any tenant in Ulster would seek to make use of this Bill when he has a much stronger and more speedy remedy, and one which gives him a much larger compensation. Now, what is this temporary proposal? Simply this—that if in the distressed districts, and during this year of distress, it shall appear to the Court—meaning the County Court Judge, the official to whom these questions are referred by the Land Act, who has under that Act much more important cases of compensation to decide than will come under this Bill — if it shall appear to this Court, first, that one of the tenants is unable to pay his rent; secondly, that he is unable to do so on account of the distress arising from the bad harvest of this and the two previous years; thirdly, that he is willing to continue in his tenancy on just and reasonable terms as to rent, and arrears of rent, and otherwise; and, fourthly, if those terms are unreasonably refused by the landlord— then, and then only, can he obtain such compensation as the Court may think just under the 3rd section of the Land Act, 1870. Now, observe that all these conditions must be fulfilled. No compensation will be given unless the tenant cannot pay his rent; unless he is too poor to pay; and unless his poverty arises, not from sickness, unthriftiness, or from his own action, but from the special grounds of these three bad harvests. Then, again, he must be willing to try his utmost to pay a reasonable rent—that is, to submit to pay a rent either reasonably reduced under the circumstances of this year, or with reasonable time given in which to pay, and the landlord must be unwilling to make that reasonable reduction, or to give him that reasonable time. If all these conditions are fulfilled, then the landlord and tenant come under the scope of Section 3 of the Land Act. I hope the House will not think I am wearying them if I remind them what that section is. The reason why I go back to the Land Act is, because, although it was passed only some 10 years ago, it seems to me that its provisions are most wonderfully forgotten—there seems to be a most curious forgetfulness with regard to them. I hear hon. Gentlemen speaking of the Land Act as if it merely enacted two provisions—one, to legalize the Ulster Tenant right, and, secondly, to give compensation to tenants all over Ireland for improvements. But Section 3 of the Land Act did a great deal more. It went so far as to establish the principle that not only in Ulster, but out of Ulster, the tenant had some right to his holding. I will not now enter into a discussion as how that right should be termed—whether property or goodwill, but some interest of the tenant in his holding is very clearly acknowledged by that section; and there was so much interference with the right of the landlord to do what he will with his own, or there was so far a declaration that his land was not absolutely his own, that he was not allowed to do what he could do in England or Scotland—namely, turn out his tenant when the tenancy expired, simply because he wished to do so. Remember that is what the Land Act enacted by Section 3. It clearly enacted that there was to be compensation for what was called "disturbance," by the landlord making the tenant leave his holding. Well, what does "compensation for disturbance," mean? It means that the tenant is to receive a sum of money which was regulated by the number of years' rent—the maximum of compensation being limited to £250—because he was dispossessed of his holding. I suppose that is what the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) calls "the worst and most noxious feature of the Land Act." But, after all, the Land Act was passed almost unanimously in this House, and unanimously in the other House. It is quite true that when this clause was brought forward, many hon. Members thought it a startling one. It was, no doubt, a clause new to the British Statute Book. The objections to it were most powerfully put, for the Motion against it was moved by the present Lord Beaconsfield; but the House declared by a large majority in its favour. I do not know, however, that it is my business, at this time, to defend what was done by Parliament in regard to the Irish Land Question in 1870. I believe this House is not less likely to consider the claims of tenants or more likely to consider the claims of landlords than was the House of 1870; but I will add that, looking back to the history of the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland, we must regard this clause as a "just and wise one. And I will go further, and say that my belief is that without some such clause as that Ireland would have had at this time to be governed by martial law. I remember being present in Ireland, not very long ago, at a meeting of gentlemen who were not, generally speaking, of my own side of politics. A very pleasant evening I spent with them; but though they complained a great deal of the Land Act, they admitted that, at all events, it had had the effect of putting an end to capricious evictions—and we know that, though Irish landlords will, as I believe, compare favourably with any others as regards justice and kindness, yet still capricious evictions did occur. But, in taking away this power from Irish landlords of capricious eviction—that is, of getting rid of his tenant simply because he did not wish to keep him as his tenant—we acknowledged and declared this principle to the tenants of Ireland— especially to the smaller tenants of Ireland—that they have by the very fact of their tenancy some right and some interest in their holdings different to what is possessed by the tenant either in England or Scotland. I am perfectly well aware that there is an exception to this clause, and it is one which I hope may give the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire some comfort, and may lead him to acknowledge that the Land Act was, after all, not altogether so bad as he supposes. Section 9 of the Act declares that except on some specific limitation—which I will allude to afterwards—the power of discretion given to the Court to compensate evicted tenants shall not be exercised in the case of tenants who are evicted for non-payment of rent. Therefore, the question we have now before us is this—whether or not I am right in saying that, under the special circumstances of this year, and for the relief of these distressed districts, this exception ought not itself to be modified? Remember, Section 3 was not only framed with the intention of putting a stop to capricious evictions, inasmuch as it made the landlord pay heavily for them, but it also gave the Court power to give the tenant such compensation as it might think just, where the rent was raised without the consent of the tenant. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen are aware of the fact that by the law as it now stands, throughout the whole of Ireland, with the exception of Ulster— that is, even where there is no Ulster Tenant-right—if the landlord chooses to raise the rent of the holding, he can only do it at the expiration of the tenancy; and if the tenant does not consent to pay the increased rent, he has to give notice to quit, and that notice will bring the tenant within the operation of this 3rd section, and he will then get the compensation for disturbance which the Court may award him. Bearing this in mind, I ask hon. Gentlemen whether I am not right in saying there is very good ground to suppose that in a good many cases the keeping up in 1880 of the same rent, or anything near the same rent, as was paid in the good years before 1877, is really very much the same thing as if in good or average years the rent had been raised; and whether this temporary Bill is not merely carrying out the spirit of the Land Act, when it proposes that in these cases a tenant may be treated as though his rent had been raised? I have described Section 9 as a limitation of Section 3; but Section 9 has its limitation within itself—and that, again, I suppose, is another "noxious feature." Section 9 declared, as it finally passed, that certain tenants, if the rent be "exorbitant," could apply to the Court for compensation. This part of the clause has, however, been, in fact, rendered a nullity by the use of the word "exorbitant," which has a special legal meaning. The word "exorbitant" was inserted in the clause in place of the word "excessive" by the House of Lords, and thereby the operation of the section was defeated; but the principle of this Bill is there—for the principle was affirmed that where the rent is "exorbitant," a tenant may be entitled to compensation even when he is evicted for non-payment of rent. This is what the clause affirmed, as it finally passed; but how was it passed in this House? It left the House of Commons with words in it which provided that ejectment for non-payment of rent should not be deemed disturbance of the tenant by the act of the landlord, unless the Court so decided, on "special grounds," in the case of persons claiming for compensation at the termination of the tenancy existing at the time of the passing of the Act. That is how the Act left the House of Commons, and if it had been passed in that, it would have been a greater interference with landlords and a greater protection to tenants than the Bill which I am now submitting to the House. But "special grounds" is a very wide and grave description. Who can doubt that if the Court have power to take into consideration "special grounds," it would deem the harvests of the last two or three years such "special grounds" as would authorize it to afford greater protection to the tenant? I may be told, what has that to do with the question— what does it matter what passed in the House of Commons? We must take the Act as it passed both Houses of Parliament. But I am dealing with the House of Commons, and I repeat, I do not think the House of Commons of 1880 will be less disposed to consider the claims of the tenant than the House of Commons of 1870 was; more especially, seeing that the change in the Bill was only effected after two or three conferences between the two Houses, and was only reluctantly assented to on the part of this House for the purpose of saving the Bill. I shall be told that this limitation only referred to tenancies then existing. True; but who doubts that the circumstances which demanded special protection for some tenants then, are similar to the circumstances which demand it for some tenants now? And who can suppose that, if it had been thus passed, its operation could have been limited by date of tenancy among tenants similarly circumstanced? Very probably words will be quoted from speeches of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), separating the fact from the fiction. It is not for me to defend him; but it may be that he and most of us in the Government of that day had more hope and faith in the absolute settlement of the Land Question by the Land Act than has been justified. I believe it has done great good, and I believe without it we should have had incalculable evil. Nevertheless, it may be true that, at the time it was passed, the tremendous strain of the last three years was not foreseen. Well, I have tried to tell the House what the Bill is, and how it amends the Land Act. Perhaps the House will allow me to refer to a statement I saw to-day, because it really shows how, even among gentlemen connected with Ireland, there are great misapprehensions. There is a letter in the papers to-day from a noble Lord who, I believe, is a gentleman of great Irish experience (Lord Annesley), in which he says—

"Were it to become law, a creditor who asked his debtor to pay him what he owed him would in some parts of Ireland he fined seven times the amount of the debt; in other parts, where Tenant right prevails, from 20 to 40 times that amount. If a tenant refuses to pay his rent, the only means of enforcing payment is by an ejectment."

"It is extremely difficult to an Englishman to realize the intensity of feeling which exists on the Land Question in Ireland; and, in looking for some of the causes which have led to this, we shall find that it is due to a large extent to the overwhelming proportion of the population which is engaged in agriculture. To nine-tenths of the population of Connaught the possession of a bit of land is the sole means of existence. Of manufacture there is none, and, the majority of the farms being too small to need hired labour, of agricultural labour there is scarcely any. Take away from the tenant his little holding, and nothing is left to him but the workhouse. Except in some of the towns, there is not even an unoccupied house which a man could hire if he obtained work apart from his holding. Hence the tenacity with which the holding is retained and defended. They are like shipwrecked sailors on a plank in the ocean; deprive them of the few inches by which they 'hold on,' and you deprive them of life. Deprive an Irishman of the few feet of land by which he 'holds on,' and you deprive him of all that makes life possible. For the workhouse, distasteful enough to an English labourer, is simply unendurable to an Irish peasant. That this is no mere sentiment is often impressed upon the visitor who enters the cabins of the people, where it is so common to find some infirm or aged person dependent on the kindness of the family for the miserable subsistence he obtains, and who in England would without doubt have been sent to the workhouse long before. Who would wish to lessen this kindly feeling, or break down the almost insurmountable repugnance to the workhouse;"

How many of these evictions were for non-payment of rent?

I cannot say exactly, but I know that a very large portion of them have been for non-payment of rent. Well, with this exceptional increase of evictions has come the necessity of using an exceptional amount of force to carry out the law. Now, I take merely the West Riding of Galway. Since the 1st of January in this year, the number employed in protecting process-servers has been 107 officers of Constabulary and 3,300 men, and 16 officers and 626 men in carrying out actual evictions; there have been from 40 to 50 cases of process-serving, and 12 of actual evictions. I have read these figures, because I want the House to sympathize with the Government in this matter. I want them to see how we find it to be serious. Three or four Sundays ago I was informed that 87 processes would have to be served upon a village in the wildest part of Galway, where there was a very poor tenantry and very few roads, and in which village there had been an effectual resistance in the spring of this year. I was told that 150 men were told off for the duty, and that the probability was that they would be resisted and would have to fire their way through the mob. Of course, I did what any man in my position would do. I gave directions at once that the process-server must be protected in the discharge of his duties, but that every possible care must be taken to avoid collision between the people and the Constabulary, and that, therefore, a force must be sent out which would make resistance hopeless; and if the Constabulary was considered insufficient, the aid of the military must be called in. The result was that a large force of Constabulary—a force of 200 men well led— were sent down, and proceedings were conducted with the greatest success. If there had not been enough of men there might have been something approaching a battle. What happened, however, on that same day in another village in Galway not far off? A force of 50 men went with another process-server—I was not previously informed—but the force was not strong enough to prevent resistance, and the consequence was that the Constabulary had to charge through the mob with their swords drawn. I am glad to hear that no one was killed, though several were wounded; but I trust none of the wounds were serious. Two days before that, 100 men were engaged at no great distance in seeing an ejectment carried out. I am not going to condemn the landlords upon any one of these occasions, and I am perfectly aware that the law must be enforced; but what I want the House to consider is, whether, with facts such as these before them, they will not make such modification in the present law as will carry out the spirit of the Land Act, so that we may be enabled to carry out the law with a clear conscience? I cannot sit down without saying a word or two with reference to the objections that either have been or may be raised to this Bill. It has been said that, in introducing this measure, we are making a concession to what is called the Anti-Rent agitation. I must here remark that there are very few agitations for which there is absolutely no ground. There are very few cases of great smoke where there is absolutely no fire. My belief is that by passing this measure we shall be putting out the fire, and doing very much to destroy the agitation. Do not let hon. Members suppose for a moment that I approve of this agitation—I deeply lament it—I deeply condemn it. If any Gentlemen here have been promoters of that agitation—I beg them to recollect that if they have ever been at meetings, and have used any expressions which would give these poor people, who have got the distress of centuries rankling in their minds, the notion for a moment that they could resist the law, or that they would have the slightest success in such an attempt, they could not by any possibility be doing them a greater harm or be incurring a greater responsibility. I do not know that I can better express my opinion on this subject than by reading the following extract from the Flag of Ireland, which certainly is not written in the interest of the landlords of Ireland.

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would also state that that newspaper did not represent the Irish Land League.

When the hon. Member hears the extract read, he will see that it is unnecessary to point out that fact. The extract, which appeared on the 19th of this month, is as follows:—

"A representative of the Land League, at a meeting held last Sunday, said that the League 'had in view a set of objects, and if they enabled them to carry out those objects they would make the property of Irish landlords so worthless that they would leave it with them.' These objects were that they should endeavour to 'keep a grip' of their holdings, and that no one should be allowed to take a farm from which a tenant had been ejected. Their American friends, he said, were going to work in the right way. 'They could not send them arms, but they could send that which created arms—money, and he trusted they would band together and agitate and organize for the total extinction of landlords '—by' constitutional agitation,' of course. We say deliberately that talk such as this is iniquitous. To goad an unharmed and helpless people, by thinly-veiled incitements like this, to deeds for the attainment of objects which are unattainable—which must bring ruin, swift and sudden, upon themselves and their families—is entirely unjustifiable, and the men who do this incur very grave responsibility."

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman, in the closing sentences of his speech, appealed to the House for sympathy in the position in which he finds the Government is placed. I think the Government indeed require, if they do not deserve, that sympathy; and on every personal ground I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he has mine with great sincerity. But, politically speaking, and with regard to the course which the Government has pursued, there is, I regret to tell him, absolutely none. I think that the course pursued from first to last by the Government, with regard to this measure, is, perhaps, the chief and the greatest blunder of a Session which consists, I am afraid, of little else than blunders. The right hon. Gentleman tells us of the distress in Ireland. I will not yield to him for one moment in my sympathy for the distressed people in that country. There is something, I always think, in the qualities, the history, and the race of the people of that country which appeals to the imagination and which touches the hearts of their fellow-countrymen in England. But the duty of the Government is clear. It is no kindness that you do them, but the most cruel injury, when, by propositions of this kind, you fire their quick and sensitive imaginations, and excite in their minds feelings, hopes, and delusive expectations which the Government know, as well as I know, it is impossible can ever be fulfilled. The duty of the Government at this time is clear. They have to relieve distress in Ireland. Let them do it with a liberal and, if necessary, with a lavish hand. Let them come, if necessary, to Parliament again and again, and Parliament, I know, will give ungrudgingly whatever is needed for the wants of the people of that country. Let them also do that which is the first duty of every Government in the world—let them enforce law and order in a manner which cannot be mistaken, and let them give security for life, for peace, and for property in Ireland. Is there that security to-day? It is for the Government to make answer to that question; and if there is not, then I tell them that great is the responsibility which rests upon them at this moment. Both sides of the House will acknowledge the importance of the statement which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman. It is a statement in reference to a measure of which I shall say this—and my views are not shaken in the least by the sanguine anticipations or assurances of the right hon. Gentleman—that it touches, and, indeed, assails, the rights of property in Ireland directly, and indirectly the rights of property throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. It is one which departs entirely from every principle of legislation which has hitherto been sanctioned and admitted in civilized society in the country and in the age in which we live.[Murmurs.] If hon. Members opposite do not agree with my opinion they will have an oportunity of answering me afterwards; but I hope I may be allowed to conclude my observations. Under these circumstances, I confess it would have been more satisfactory to the House, and certainly to myself, if, following the more usual and ordinary practice in regard to questions of this great and vital importance, this statement had been made on the first introduction of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman has given us no reason for departing from that course, and, con- sequently, there is no other course open to us to-day except to bow to that decision with the protest which I make. The House will recollect that the introduction of this measure is a new and a complete departure from the views announced by the Government earlier in the Session. The right hon. Gentleman not only told us he did not intend to introduce an Irish Land Bill or to deal with the Irish Land Question during the present Session; but he gave us most admirable and convincing reasons in support of that wise decision on the part of the Government. He told us that the Land Question was one with which it is exceedingly difficult to deal in a comprehensive manner, and that, therefore, it would be impossible to deal with it in the remainder of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman said that to introduce a Ten Minutes' Bill would be, in his opinion, an unwise course to adopt, though it seems to be that that is almost exactly what he has now done. He said that if such a Bill as the ad interim Bill proposed by an hon. Member from Ireland had been introduced by the Government, that every branch of the questions connected with Irish Land would have to be thoroughly discussed. The right hon. Gentleman further said that the Irish Land Question was just one of those questions with which it was impossible to deal without a general knowledge of principles and a full knowledge of details, and that if any mistake were made as to the actual condition of the country, the whole matter might be thrown into a state of confusion that would probably do infinitely more harm than good; and he showed conclusively to the House that the Government did not possess this information, for almost immediately afterwards he intimated to the House the intention of the Government to appoint a Royal Commission for the express purpose of obtaining that information in which he acknowledged that the Government were deficient. Under these circumstances, I have listened with the utmost interest to the right hon. Gentleman to-day, in order to learn what are the reasons which have brought about this change of policy on the part of the Government, and which have induced them, almost at a moment's notice, to submit to Parliament a measure of this most extreme and most alarming character. First, the right hon. Gentleman tells us that the Government were mainly induced to introduce the Bill on account of the evictions. I asked at once, across the House, how far have the number of evictions increased since the commencement of the Session? That question the right hon. Gentleman was unable to answer. So it is established to the House that the increasing number of evictions form no reason whatever for this change of policy on their part. They knew at the commencement of the Session, when they decided not to introduce the measure as well as they know now, that exictions were increasing; and they are unable to say now if there has been any further increase since their first intention was announced. With regard, also, to evictions increasing in Ireland, that is one of my chief causes of complaint against this Bill. Why, it is the anticipation of these revolutionary proposals on your part that is driving the landlords of Ireland, in self-defence, to make these evictions, and to rescue their property from what they believe will be complete annihilation. If the evictions have influenced you at all, they are, in considerable measure, owing to yourselves. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say he had no intention of surprising us, and of springing upon us anything in the nature of a surprise. I entirely acquit the right hon. Gentleman of that intention. Then, he said, unless I misunderstood him, that this measure was necessary, because, otherwise, he was convinced that Ireland must be governed by martial law. Why, what a commentary this is on the policy which was pursued 10 years ago. Next, the right hon. Gentleman went on to speak of Clause 9, and he endeavoured to show to the House that the principle contained in this Bill was contained in Clause 9 of the Land Act of 1870. It is all very well to say that; but, unless I am entirely mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman himself is very considerably in error. Clause 9 of the Land Act referred exclusively to tenancies in the past. When that clause was being discussed, the present Prime Minister said —"Nothing would induce them to apply anything of the kind to the future." And Lord Carlingford (then Mr. Chichester Fortescue) remarked—

"The clause had no reference whatever to tenancies created after the passing of the Act, It was entirely confined to the past."

"The landlord under the Bill may be called upon to pay seven years' purchase for taking hack from the tenant a possession -which he had delivered to the same tenant without receiving anything."

"He is liable to he called on to pay £70, the whole rent that he had received; and the tenant, who need not have laid out a penny on the land, will have had the enjoyment of it for seven years rent free."

"The main result of the Bill, if passed into an Act, will he to foster the notion so sedulously promulgated by agitators in Ireland, that every man who, by any undertaking or promise, has induced another to put him into possession of lands becomes thereupon endowed with a right to retain that possession, though he may violate the promises by which it was procured. It gives public recognition to the principle that there is nothing dishonest, nothing of which a Member of Parliament need be ashamed, in taking from one party to a contract a substantial portion of his property, unles3 he will allow the other to violate his side of it with impunity. During the period named for the operation of the Act, it is plain that in those parts of Ireland to which the Bill refers no ejectment can be brought for nonpayment of rent, or any other cause, unless at the risk of a heavy loss on the part of the landlord. In Ireland, ejectment is the only remedy in the vast majority of cases for the recovery of land, the rent of which is now deliberately and in concert withheld by many tenants perfectly able to pay. To this combination, notorious and boasted of, it is proposed to give a triumph by Act of Parliament. Nearly all landowners have charges on their property which can only be met out of rents as they are received. Jointures, younger children, mortgagees, must all, under the proposed legislation, be left without their incomes until they shall have succeeded in forcing the depreciated estate of the involuntary defaulting landowner to judicial sale at a sacrifice ruinous to him and perhaps to themselves."

"There will be an ewgrievance—the payment of rent; and the non-payment of rent will be- come a principle, asserted by the same rural logic, the startling consequences of which have filled the mind of the country with apprehension and horror almost every day. The argument of the Irish tenant—belonging to the very class that you think you are now setting up by this violation of the fundamental law of the country—will be to this effect:—' I have lost my holding because I did not pay my rent; can anything be more flagrantly unjust than that a man should be deprived of his contingent right to a third of the freehold because he does not pay his rent? That is a natural view which may lead to a much more successful agitation than any we have yet heard of. The question is unanswerable; we may think it is abstractedly unreasonable, but it is the necessary result of our legislation. And what will be the consequence? Why, that payment of rent will become a grievance, and you will find yourselves in exactly the same position in which you are now placed. There will be great complaints of the consolidation of farms, great complaints of vexatious and tyrannical evictions, and, on the other, side the most violent means by which the supposed rights of the occupiers to property in the soil may be vindicated will be resorted to. And so far from the improvement of the country, so far from terminating all these misunderstandings and heart burnings, which we seem now so anxious upon both sides of the House to bring to a close,"—

—"you will have the same controversies still raging, only with increased acerbity, and under circumstances and conditions which inevitably must lead to increased bitterness and increased perils to society."—[3 Hansard, cc. 1184–5.]

in supporting the Bill, said, he hoped when the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had made himself more completely master of the circumstances in Ireland which called for that legislation — which had justified that legislation — he would find the Bill more acceptable than he had done that day. He was very glad, however, to find English Members entertained themselves with the consideration of Irish questions, because the more they were entertained the more they would see the justice of the views of the people of Ireland. He had no doubt that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken would be prepared in a spirit of sincere generosity to deal with the funds of the Imperial Exchequer for the relief of Irish distress; but there he seemed to stop. This Bill, however, proposed to do something—although by a temporary measure—to redress the state of things which had led to the present condition of Ireland. The hon. Member had told an interesting story of a mortgage for £15,000, which was very near completion, but which, owing to the introduction of this Bill, fell through, the landlord being unable to effect a loan. If the views of the parties to that commercial transaction were based on the opinions entertained by the hon. Gentleman as to the extravagant character of the present Bill, he could well understand that the transaction should have fallen through. But it would probably be found that the result of this debate, and especially of the speech of the Chief Secretary, would be that the transaction would be carried out. He recognized the perfect consistency of the hon. Gentleman in his opposition to this Bill, seeing that he was an opponent of the legislation of 1870. Those who like the hon. Gentleman, had set themselves against the legislation of 1870, were justified in taking the course which he had taken. But hon. Gentlemen on both sides who were willing to accept the legislation of 1870 would not be led away by the arguments of the hon. Member. This was a Bill which was not only limited in time, but limited in area; it was in harmony with the Bill of 1870, and was justified by the exceptional circumstances of the present time. Its object was to restrain ejectments for non-payment of rent in Ireland in a limited area and for a limited time under certain stringent conditions. And here he would mention what was not gene- rally known, that no such thing as ejectment for non-payment of rent merely was known to the Common Law or to the Statute Law of England. He wished to accentuate that point. But if by the terms of the compact between landlord and tenant there was a clause of re-entry, then upon failure by the tenant to observe the covenants, among others payment of rent, the landlord had the right of ejectment. It followed, therefore, that in every case of letting which did not comprise this clause of re-entry, the landlord's remedy was to terminate the tenancy by notice. Now he wished to point out the peculiar hardship which this power of ejectment entailed in Ireland, and how injuriously it operated. Even on the best managed estates in Ireland it was usual to leave a half-year's rent in arrear, which was called "a running gale." On well-managed estates, where the tenants paid their rents with some punctuality, it was not considered unreasonable that the rent which was due in May should be paid the following Christmas. Now let them mark the operation of the exceptional law in Ireland as to ejectments. Let them suppose that by the 1st of May following the tenant was unable to pay his rent. He would then be a year's rent in arrear, and by the law of Ireland—which was not the law of England—the tenant could be turned out of his holding by the landlord without any notice to quit whatever, and the only means by which he could live could be taken from him without any compensation. In similar cases in England the landlord must give a year's notice to quit ending with the year of tenancy. Was it surprising that a man who was turned out of his farm in Ireland under such circumstances should leave it with a sense of oppression and wrong rankling in his breast? He had lived there, it might be for years; he had spent such means as he had upon it; he had spent the power of his body upon it, and his children had laboured, sweated upon it to improve it, and yet, according to the law, he might be turned out, as he had said, without any notice to quit, and under the law, as it now stood, without one penny of compensation except in one case, to which he should presently refer. He knew it would be said—"Oh, but landlords of honour and character would not do such things." He believed not; but laws were and ought to be made to restrain the doing of that which honourable men would voluntarily abstain from doing. For his part, he desired not to say one word which would seem to savour of an attack upon the landlords of Ireland. He attacked the land system. He had said frequently, looking at the enormous power which the law gave to the owners of the land in Ireland, the wonder was not that that power had been used so much, but that it had been abused so little. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had said that he did not understand what the 3rd section of the Act of 1870 meant; what it was intended to recognize and give compensation for. He would endeavour to give an answer to that question. First of all he must remind the House that they were dealing, as a general rule, with a relation very unlike the common relation between landlord and tenant in England; but they were dealing in Ireland with a relation in which the landlords supplied nothing but the staple commodity of the industry—namely, the land; and the tenants supplied all else that was necessary to work the land. He did not stop to notice the rather curious language of the hon. Member when he spoke of the origin of this relation as the conferring of the privilege by the landlord upon the tenant. Where was his rent to come from unless it be out of the bone and sinew of the tenant? The landlord also conferred upon the tenant the privilege of paying a full rent! To his mind such language as that which had been used by the hon. Member smacked much too strongly of the old feudal days, when the landlord was the lord of all, and treated the men who dwelt upon the land very little better, in his estimation of property at least, than the cattle which grazed upon the farm. But these days were happily gone, and the result of the state of things to which he had referred was to bring about an exceptional and a complex relation between landlord and tenant in Ireland, which might not be inaptly described as a partnership. From that relation had grown up to be recognized by the moral sense of mankind a right of the tenant in its intrinsic nature —in the first foundation upon which it rested as truly property as the fee simple of the landlord itself. He need not point out that that was an interest which the law had recognized, though tardily. Nor need he detain the House by pointing out a somewhat analogous case in this country, where rights beginning on such slender foundations as these had grown to be the real acquisition of property in land. What was the history of the law of copyhold in England originally? The lord of the manor allowed his men, who were the copyholders and servants, to dwell on the land; they were strictly what the law called tenants at the will of the landlord, whatever their early status had been; but owing to the fact of the moral claim which, in consequence of their occupancy and their labour, these tenants acquired in process of time, and under the healthy and fostering influence of a strong public opinion, which, he regretted to say, was wanting, to a great extent, in Ireland, they came to be recognized until the copyhold right was now little inferior to the fee simple right. Nay, that copyhold tenure supplied another feature which threw some light on the present discussion. The lords of those days said —"Oh, although we must recognize this customary continuance of occupation, we have one means of asserting our rights. When you, the tenants, who are now in possession of my land, die, the person who has to succeed you must come to me for admission, and I will bar the door against him, and assert my right by imposing a fine for admission." And the lords of the manor imposed those fines. How were they restrained? By the intelligent action of the Courts of the country, backed up by public opinion, which imposed upon the landlords in that case the stipulation that the fine should be a reasonable one. In the case of Ireland the right of the tenant was tardily recognized by the Act of 1870, which he recognized as the great act of a great statesman; because although he was not going to say that that Act was not defective, yet when he recalled the powers which were arrayed against it, and the high assertion of feudal rights which even that day had found utterance in the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, he said that too much credit could not be given, not merely to the wisdom, but to the resolution of the statesman who successfully carried that legislation. The Act of 1870 recognized the right on the part of the tenant to compensation for im- provements and also for disturbance, that disturbance being the deprivation by the landlord of the tenant right, or goodwill which the man acquired in his holding. But it had two defects. First of all, it did not in any degree meet the case of land which held to-day at its fair value fell in value, and next it suffered no claim for compensation to be considered by the Court, except where rent was exorbitant. Under the operation of the Act as it stood at present the landlord could push up his rent shilling by shilling until it had reached the point just short of this exorbitant limit; and the tenant failing then to pay could be turned out without one penny of compensation. He said that was not just; but he had a still greater objection to make. Section 3 unquestionably recognized the property of the tenant in respect of something for which he was to be compensated if he was disturbed in it, but measured the extent of compensation which he was to get in an extreme case by seven years' rent where the rent did not exceed £10. What he wanted to point out was this—If that right, which lie called the goodwill of the tenant, was legalized and recognized as a right of property in the tenant, why, for one year's non-payment of rent, was he to have confiscated what might be the six or seven years' value of his interest? Under the Ulster tenant right, a tenant in arrear of his rent for one or two years had a right to sell his tenant right interest; and if he sold it for many years' purchase, all that the landlord got was his arrears of his rent, the tenant receiving the balance. Now, one other reason in favour of this Bill, which he thought was a small one, although he gratefully recognized the spirit which had prompted its introduction, was that it would undoubtedly bring the law, to some extent, into harmony as affecting land over the whole of Ireland. The difference between Section 9 of the Act of 1870 and this Bill was the smallest in the world. The former Act provided that the tenant might get compensation if the Court held that he was ejected for non-payment of a rent that was exorbitant; the present Bill allowed compensation if the Court found that he was unable to pay the rent in consequence of the prevailing distress, and that he was willing to remain on just terms, but that those terms were unreason- ably refused. The difference between exorbitant rent and unreasonable terms was not such as to justify the extravagant language which had been used of this Bill. It was designed to meet a state of things which could hardly be realized in England. It was said that the effect of the measure would be to give an additional inducement to tenants in Ireland not to pay their rent. He wholly disbelieved that statement; and, speaking from a somewhat extensive experience, he could say that the cases were few in which tenants really able to pay their rent did not do so. The reason was obvious. They dared not run the risk of subjecting themselves to ejectment, not having any other avenue of industry open to the them. Deprived of their land, they were thrown upon the world. There were not in Ireland, as in this country, those large industries which made the land for agricultural purposes almost a secondary want. He desired to say nothing which would offend any hon. Member, or rake up any bygone memories needlessly, but retrospect was sometimes necessary; and it was not unimportant for the House of Commons to bear in mind that the past legislation of the Imperial Parliament, in stifling and putting down all such industries as were growing up in Ireland, had thrown the people upon the land as their sole means of subsistence, and for the exercise of their industry. Though that legislation no longer existed its effects did. After all, centuries in the life of a nation were but as years in the life of man. If exceptional circumstances were needed, they surely existed to justify this Bill. Famine almost stalking the country, and people still flying in their hundreds and thousands—a fact of great import addressed to a people so peculiarly attached to the place of their birth—or receiving, as they had been told, something like a pauper's dole at the hand of charity. So strong, too, is the feeling of the country as to this Land Question, that the posse comitatus of the Sheriff, a small army, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly termed it, were necessary to execute an ejectment process. Surely this was a state of things which called for the best efforts that Parliament could make for redressing existing grievances. Let the House recollect the responsibility that rested upon this coun- try. The Imperial Parliament had now for many centuries charged itself with the destinies of Ireland. It was its duty to legislate for the just needs of that country; and if it now failed to do so it supplied the motive and reason for "the Third Party" in that House which many hon. Members deplored. Was not the state of things in Ireland a reproach to hon. Members representing English and Scotch constituencies—a state of things which, at one time, was said to be accounted for upon theories, forsooth, of race and of religion. But, happily, these theories had been exploded; and finally they came back to the question that the state of things in Ireland, the result of past legislation and of misrule, called for, in this day, generous and exceptional treatment on this question of the land in Ireland. The philanthropic men alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, who assisted to relieve the distress of 1846, tried to look beneath the surface, and to ascertain the cause of it; and they put it on record, as their deliberate opinion, that the state of the Land Law in Ireland was, in a great measure, accountable. That being recorded in 1846 and 1847, was it not a reproach to Parliament that until the present Prime Minister took the matter in hand in 1870 nothing really effective was done? The state of things which existed cramped industry, because it gave no motive for industry; it prevented that full development of the land which it ought to be the object of all just land legislation to promote; and it prevented improvements in the social life of the lower classes of the country. He knew cases in which men able to pay their rent pretended that it was by the greatest effort they were able to pay it, though they did pay it, that they were in great poverty, wore bad clothes, and had untidy houses. And why? Because they knew that the thrifty and industrious tenant who exhibited the appearance of prosperity and comfort, and improved his house and land, was at the mercy of the unscrupulous landlord. Whilst recognizing the importance of this measure of the Government as indicating an honest desire on their part to do what they could for the Irish tenant, he did not think it touched more than the extremest fringe of the question. He could not believe that in any state of society in our time, certainly not in the condition of things existing in Ireland, it could be right, or just, or conducive to the good of the State, that the landlord should have the power, if he chose to exert it, of depopulating a whole country side. The only restraints upon him were self-interest and public opinion—restraints not always effectual. It was the existence of such a power that shackled the hands and arms of the industrious man, who would otherwise receive the fruits of his industry; and he failed to understand how there could be any injustice in allowing a man to be secure in the possession of the land on which he laboured so long as he did nothing to injure the property of his landlord, did not sub-let it, and so long as he paid a fair and just rent. Until some such state of things as that was brought about, he did not believe there would be any real or permanent settlement of this question. It was not alone the social evils of the system. Let the House consider the moral evils of it. Whilst Ireland was freer than England from other classes of crime, agrarian crime abounded, and a largo part of the population sympathized with it. Surely that was the loudest and most eloquent denunciation of the present state of the law, coming, as it did, from a people not wanting in other matters in high moral qualities. He desired to be understood as speaking as one seriously anxious that there should be real union between England and Ireland, and that Ireland should share the career, the destiny, and the prosperity of the people of this country; and he hoped to see the time when the people of Ireland, prosperous and contended, would lend a willing obedience to laws which fostered their industry and secured its fruits.

said, he felt sure the House would agree with him when he congratulated the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down on the speech which he had addressed to the House. He would not follow the hon. and learned Member in his large argument and the general treatment of the question, which, it seemed to him, would have been better adapted to some debates in the year 1870, before the Land Act was passed, or which might be raised at a future time when another Land Act was before the House; but which, he thought, went a little wide of the particular subject of discussion. There was very much in what he said as to the existing distress in Ireland in which he concurred and sympathized. Everything spoken on this point by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in introducing the debate he freely adopted. He had never denied that there was severe distress in certain districts; and though this distress was happily diminished in extent and intensity, some still existed. But, as the Chief Secretary said last night, the greater portion of the danger from famine—the extreme pinch—had been successfully grappled with. With the efforts of those who effectually cheeked the increase of distress he entirely sympathized; and he could bear testimony, from what he had seen in the West of Ireland, to the extraordinary patience and endurance with which many of the tenantry bore their great privations. He would be proud to join in any effort to relieve this distress, and on this account he was glad that the measure before the House did not form part of the Relief of Distress Bill; because, while willing to support the Government in any Bill having that object, he must say at once he looked upon the Bill before them in a wholly different light. It was not a Relief Bill, it was a political proposal; and he should resist it, because he believed that as between landlord and tenant it would do the greatest amount of injury and the least amount of good. It was a direct confiscation of the income of one class in favour of another—of the landlord in favour of the tenant. He was certain, also, that the mere introduction of the measure—for he could never believe that it would pass—had done much, and would do more, to strengthen and confirm that disastrous agitation which for 18 months had raged in Ireland. He was bound to give the Bill, which strengthened the most violent proposals of agitators, his strongest opposition. He had felt somewhat at a loss to know how the Chief Secretary would justify the introduction of such a Bill. What hidden statistics, carefully sifted, while entirely undreamt of by the public, he was going to spring upon the House in asking for this exceptional and extraordinary measure? But what were the facts? Not one figure that could be vouched for as ap- proaching correctness—and he said it with no disrespect—the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to understand his own proposals. He produced a number of ejectments; but he was unable to say what proportion applied to the country and what to the towns; how many for non-payments, and how many for other causes. He adopted an average of five years previous to 1877, and then made the addition from year to year. Was it possible to ask the House to take action on such a statement? So far as he understood the contention of the right hon. Gentleman, it was that some ejectments were for non-payment of rent, and that this number had considerably increased lately. Well, of course, in a time of the prevalence of extraordinary distress, ejectments for non-payment would increase, as in England the same cause threw a large number of farms on the hands of the landlords. They could not expect a normal state of things under such exceptional circumstances. But he did note one thing, and that was that the increase in the number of ejectments for the last 18 months kept pace with and accompanied the unhappy and disastrous land agitation of that time. Was this remarkable when by orators, who had the ears of the people, the latter were told not to pay rent except as the last payment to be made? Every other claim was first to be settled. Could it be surprising, then, that landlords were obliged to take action now to a greater degree than at other times? It would have been more surprising had there not been this increase in the number of ejectments for non-payment. He knew also that simultaneously with this agitation agrarian outrage had blazed out with fearful intensity. He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman speaking with some degree of decision, in condemnation of the anti-rent agitation; but the conclusion he drew was rather a strange one. He spoke with warmth and justice of the agitation which had misled the people, and which was likely to mislead them further; but here in the Bill was practically the same principle and the same view put forth in the House as had been pressed in Ireland by the Land League. ["No, no !"] Certainly he understood the Bill lately introduced by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) was put forward by eminent members of the League. There- fore, he said that the Bill practically gave a Government sanction to some, at least, of their strongest demands, for he was right in saying that the principle of the Government Bill and that of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) were the same. The Government sanctioned the strongest immediate demands of the League. He said the immediate demands, for what the ulterior effects might be he could not say. But as to the propriety of intrusting to some third person to settle what was or was not a reasonable rent, as to the propriety of interfering between landlord and tenant, simply on account of the prevailing distress, it did sanction and adopt the principles which had been put forward for months by the Land League. He would undertake now to prove that in principle the proposal was almost identical with that of the hon. Member for Mayo. If the Government had pleased they could have introduced, by way of amendment to the hon. Member's Bill, all the limitations which they had put into their own Bill. Without any departure from principle this might be done; and, as he understood, the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) had intimated his intention of proposing Amendments to this Bill to make the two Bills similar. What was the principle of these two Bills? He quite admitted that in one sense they were framed on a principle the germ of which was found in the Land Act of 1870. As the House was well aware, in that Act very large provisions were made for the protection of the tenants at the expense of the landlords of Ireland. By the 3rd clause protection was given against eviction; by the 4th clause the value of improvements was secured; and by the 7th clause compensation was secured for goodwill paid by the incoming to the outgoing tenant. Not to go through all the clauses, it was alleged by the Prime Minister, on the second reading, that it did confer on the tenantry of Ireland such benefits and protection as were not enjoyed by the occupiers of the soil in England or Scotland, who were amongst the most favoured nations in this respect; but, though large concessions were made at the expense of the landlords, two principles were insisted upon as a kind of setoff against these concessions, and great credit was taken by the Prime Minister for the maintenance of those principles. The first was that, though protection was necessary for the tenant as regards the existing contracts, and, as regards the future, freedom of contract should be complete; and the second principle laid down was that the enjoyment of these concessions to the tenant must be correlative with the strict performance of their duty by the tenant and the landlord. It was in this very 9th section of the Land Act that one of these principles was most carefully set forth, for by that section it was declared that ejectment for non-payment of rent or breach of agreement should not be an act of disturbance—that was to say, for this the tenant should have no claim against the landlord. He quite admitted that in a subsequent part of the clause there was another provision enabling the Chairman or the County Court Judge, in certain cases clearly stated and strictly defined, to treat as disturbances ejectments for non-payment of rent, and there was the vicious admission; but it was admitted not so much as a principle as an exception to these. In fact, he should rather call it the vicious exception, and it was this same exception they were now asked to concede, under certain limitations of time and circumstances, it was true, but to allow as a principle. This only showed how difficult it was to retrace false steps, and how easy it was to get an error of this kind expanded. If such a provision as was contained in the present measure had been in the Land Act of 1870, that Act would never have become law. In fact, it would be impossible, if such provisions were insisted upon, that it could be carried out in the country in the manner in which it should be. The Chief Secretary had pointed out with some good humour, and without being apparently much disturbed by the admission, that several of the most important provisions of the Irish Land Act had proved to be unsuccessful in their effect. He would now ask the House to recollect how solemnly the whole matter was considered at the time; and he would, therefore, quote a few extracts from those proceedings to show how the present Prime Minister expressed himself on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman then said that the Bill ought not to include anything which would interfere with the good faith and fulfilment of contracts. In the present Bill, however, those very principles had been evaded, and the necessary restrictions which were then included had been entirely left out. The Bill now stood before the House untrammelled by any such restrictions as those which were advocated so strongly by the Prime Minister in 1870. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, however, that that Bill was quite a different measure before it was passed, as compared with its condition when it was introduced into the House of Commons. But the fact was that the Act of 1870 was in the nature of an award by Parliament sitting in a great arbitration, and the second reading was carried through the House almost without a division, and passed in "another place" without any division at all. The excuse as to how the Bill of 1870 had emerged from the House of Commons was not, therefore, fairly open to the right hon. Gentleman; and, indeed, it seemed to be a very strong argument when he appealed to the House against the restrictions which, in 1870, had been insisted upon by the House of Lords in the face of the very solemn arrangement which was then arrived at, and owing to which arrangement alone the Bill was carried through both Houses of Parliament. He was bound to remind the right hon. Gentleman of all limitations which were contained in that measure, and that the principle of it was to keep the contract free. This measure before the House, however, was cutting off another great slice from the principle of freedom of contract. It must not be forgotten either that the House only consented to the former measure after due reason had been given and accepted. The House insisted on the Amendment in the 9th clause of the Land Act of 1870, because it would have been an unjust measure without it; and he now submitted to the judgment of the House that it should observe the same wholesome principles which were advocated by the Prime Minister and then adopted. He would refer to the restrictions which had been introduced into the present measure, and which had been represented as depriving the Bill of its most dangerous consequences. Firstly, he contended from that point of view that the Bill was unjust in applying to ejectments which had taken place under certain specified conditions only. The exact principle of the restriction had not been clearly stated; and he would like to know whether there were any restrictions so described as to cause reliance to be placed upon the course of action which should be taken. They certainly affected a considerable part of Ireland, inasmuch as the Bill applied to 13 counties, and to more than one-half of the whole country. Why should that distinction be drawn? The Schedule in which those districts were specified was drawn up for the purposes of the distress, and, no doubt, much distress had existed in some parts; but there were some parts mentioned in the Schedule which had been entirely free from distress, although surrounded by distressed districts; while, on the other hand, there were some parts not included in the Schedule which were as much in distress as those within the bounds of the Schedule. Now, he wished to know why a Schedule of that kind ought to be taken as a guide for a measure of the nature before the House, and should at all interfere with the bargain which had been made between two men by saying that the landlord's rent should not be obtained from a tenant? There was no ground upon which they would be able permanently to base such a capricious restriction. The measure provided that if an owner of land came within the Schedule, he came within the benefit of the Act; whereas those who owned land outside the Schedule did not come within the purposes of the measure. What justice was there in refusing the right to men outside, while they granted it to those inside? [Mr. PARNELL: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member for Cork thought there was injustice in such a result, and he could well understand such a conviction in his mind. Now, there was another restriction to which he wished to refer. The Bill was confined to two years, or to one year and a-half. But why should any such time be fixed upon? He had heard from some authorities on the other side of the House that the distress had already almost passed away. ["No, no!"] The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had certainly stated the other night that in some parts the distress had been successfully grappled with, and that in other districts, though there was still suffering, there was hope of an abundant harvest, which it was believed would entirely remove it. ["No, no!"] But supposing they had one good year or two good years, followed by another wet autumn and a bad spring, were they going to continue this Bill? And if they were not, how could they rest firmly on such insecure restrictions as these? He had no faith in any limitation of time when once the right principle which should pervade the measure had been departed from. But the most extraordinary part of the Bill was probably that relating to the tenant's ability or inability to pay. If they wished to evade the payment of rent they should do it straightaway by a Bill like the one introduced by the hon. Member for County Mayo; but to throw upon the County Court Judge the onus of deciding in such a matter was an utterly impracticable and absurd proposal. He would have to ask the' tenant—"Are you able to pay?" Well, the answer they would easily guess, for there were very few tenants in Ireland, or even in England at the present time, who did not experience more or less difficulty in meeting their payments. Then, how could the Chairman cross-examine the tenant as to his means, or the landlord contradict the statements which might be made by the tenant? It was important to remember that the Bill only referred to the landlord's debt, while there was nothing about the tradesman and the money-lender. The tenant might simply come forward and say that there had been a very bad year for the crops, that he was in the scheduled district, and that he had found it very difficult to get on; that he had had to take goods on credit and to get money from the money-lender. The law the Government wished to establish would then in principle lay down that the tenant must pay the tradesman and the moneylender, but not the landlord. Such distinctions introduced into the measure some of the worst principles put forward by the anti-rent agitators. The result would be exactly the same, and the discretion given to the Chairman and the County Court Judge would be perfectly useless. The Bill would keep an open door for the dishonest tenant; it would be a terrible temptation to the honest one; it provided that the duties to the landlords would be in quite a different category to the other creditors; it would prove bad teaching to the people of Ireland, and no need would exist for anyone to urge a tenant not to pay his rent. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed a hope that the Bill would be a great advantage to landlords in recovering their debts. In point of fact, however, a landlord would be deprived of the only effectual remedy he had to recover his rent. The honest tenants who hitherto had paid their rents would be tempted to exclaim—"What fools we were!" Even if this Bill should not become law, the mere initiation of it would have done a fearful amount of mischief. For some time past great courage was required on the part of those who opposed the unprincipled agitation in Ireland. ["No!"] He maintained that it was an unprincipled agitation. Ministers of religion and ecclesiastics high in the Church to which the majority of the Irish people belonged had stood forward and warned the people against the agitation. ["No !"] The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, in his Pastoral of November 17, said—

"Very rev. fathers, while standing forward to support our flocks in this their dark hour of distress, we must not fear to raise our voices to warn them against the results of their faults or mistakes. Our principle must he to give to Caesar what Caesar justly claims, else we cannot give to God what God commands. If just debts, fairly demanded, he not honestly discharged, a principle fatal to the prosperity of our country will he established, and sooner or later it will recoil on the heads of those who to-day may seem to he gainers by its adoption. But let us pray, rev. fathers, that the day may he yet far distant when Irishmen, who in olden times were renowned for their love of impartial justice, should set to the world an example of faith disregarded."

"Within the last few days the general situation has entirely changed, so far as the attitude of the Government upon the Land Question is concerned. Having announced at the beginning of the Session that they would not touch the subject this Session they now introduce a Bill very similar to that of Mr. O'Connor Power, and to effect an object which the draughtsmanship of Dr. Commins in Mr. Power's Bill has taught them how to accomplish. We shall now have an opportunity of introducing a clause for the suspension of ejectments, and also any other amendment of the Land Laws which it may he thought desirable this Session to press for."

said, he thought hon. and right hon. Members of that House, on whichever side they sat, and however they voted, must regret that on all occasions whenever the words "landlord" and "tenant" were introduced in debate in that House they invariably acted as Shibboleths which resolved the House into two hostile camps, instead of being an inducement to the House to do all they could to promote the union, most intimate as it should be, of those who were so closely connected together in interest and relation. Whatever injured the landlord would re-act on the tenant, and whatever was injurious to the tenant would re-act on the landlord. He could not understand why the principle of the Bill had been denounced as inequitable, for it appeared to him to give perfectly equal justice both to landlords and to tenants. The principle of this Bill was the principle which was endeavoured to be introduced into the Land Act of 1870 in the interest of the landlord class. The principle of this Bill was that if a tenant in a limited area, for a limited time, and in exceptional circumstances, was willing to continue in occupation of his holding on just and reasonable terms, and if those terms were unreasonably refused by the landlord, then, and then only, did the scope of the Act come into operation for the protection of the tenant. Now, the 18th section of the Land Act of 1870 gave the Court power to deal with the equities both on the one side and the other, both of the landlord and tenant—

"If," said the Act of 1870,"it shall appear to the Court in any case in which compensation shall be claimed under Section 3 of this Act, that the landlord has been and is willing to permit the tenant to continue in the occupation of his holding upon just and reasonable terms, and that such terms have been and are unreasonably refused by the tenant, the claim of the tenant to such compensation shall be disallowed."

moved the adjournment of the debate.

said, that, considering the importance of the question, and the limited number of hon. Members who had had an opportunity of addressing the House upon it, he would consent to the adjournment of the debate until Tuesday at 2 o'clock.

thought it was much more likely to be brought to a close at an Evening Sitting than at a Morning Sitting.

said, the Government had already lost two Mondays, and he must ask them to go into Supply on Monday. It was absolutely necessary.

remarked that Tuesday had been mentioned for the Bradlaugh affair, and it was a matter of Privilege.

replied, that they would see what happened; but they were in hopes that that would not be taken.

hoped that before the debate was resumed the Papers which had been quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would be laid upon the Table, in such a form as to distinguish evictions for non-payment of rent from other causes. He also hoped Returns would be given of ejectments in cities and towns. He trusted that the Chief Secretary would hurry on the printing of the Poor Law Returns which he mentioned the other day.

was afraid it would be impossible to produce all these Returns within the time mentioned.

expressed a hope that the Prime Minister would not press the Bill, since many hon. Gentlemen who were interested in it had gone away under the impression that it would not come on.

said, the objections were only in regard to matters of detail, which could be perfectly well discussed in Committee. The debate was only adjourned on the last occasion in consequence of the interposition of one hon. Gentleman.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not insist on reading the Bill a second time at present. He knew several Gentlemen who wished to speak on the subject.

interposing, said, he had given Notice that he would take the second reading of the Bill the first opportunity he had.

said, that in that case he should talk it out. He did not think it was fair of the right hon. Gentleman to push the Bill so, and take advantage of the absence of hon. Gentlemen who took an interest in it.

hoped the hon. Baronet would not use language of that kind. He was not taking advantage of anyone in their absence.

said, he begged pardon if he had said anything amiss, and would withdraw the expression.

in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he did not propose by the measure which he now had the honour to submit to the House to disturb any present arrangements with respect to the funds by which highways were now maintained. His Bill was simply based upon the principle that those who used the roads should pay for their maintenance; whereas, under the present system, many people by reason of not being rated at all, or not being sufficiently rated, were able to use the highways far more frequently than they were entitled to do. It was proposed by this Bill, which he hoped the House would approve, that Highway Boards should be able to levy a rate of 10s. on every horse within their district, and the amount so raised was to be expended by them on the highways of the district. This rate was not at all intended as an interference with the present system, but merely as a rate in aid of it. He believed it would be very much preferable to any Imperial tax, because, if subventions were given by the Government to the rates, that necessitated Government control and inspection; and, for his part, he believed that it was very much to the public advantage that that sort of control should be as limited as possible. There had been, however, large additions to the rates of late years, and he might mention particularly three as weighing very considerably on the local taxpayers—namely, sanitary matters, education, and roads. Of all these, he believed the highway rate was that which was most particularly felt by all classes of the unfortunate ratepayers. His Bill would not, of course, be necessary if turnpikes had not been done away with; but as those modes of raising funds had now been nearly abolished, this Bill was proposed in order to some extent to take their places. The system of turnpikes had many drawbacks, because a large sum was always wasted in establishment charges; but it also had this merit, that it did carry out the fair and equal principle that those who used roads should pay for them in proportion as they used them. When that system disappeared, extra rates and burdens were thrown upon the agricultural interest; while many, who for trade or for pleasure used the roads, escaped money payment at all through not being rated, or, at any rate, did not pay anything like a fair amount. The late Government in 1874 abolished the horse tax, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in explaining his statement on the subject, gave the House the figures of the duty at that time. It appeared that the horse tax brought in £410,000 a-year, and the horse dealers' duty and the race-horse duty £70,000 in addition, or, in all, £480,000. The hon. Baronet who had been his (Mr. Estcourt's) Colleague in the last Parliament, commenting at the time on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, said—

"With regard to the remission of the horse duty, he thought some of those who benefited most would he among the richer classes. Local taxation was very heavy, and in danger of being-increased, and this was one item which might have helped in its reduction by providing for the expenses of turnpike roads after the trusts had expired."

said, he could entirely sympathize with the hon. Member who had moved the second reading of this Bill, because it was, he thought, generally admitted not only in that House, but throughout the country, that the highway system was in a most unsatisfactory condition. Everybody knew and acknowledged that the increase of charge upon those who had to pay the cost of the highways had become intolerable. He could cordially support any measure which might be brought in for dealing with that matter, and had himself endeavoured to get a Committee appointed for the purpose, because he believed it would be impossible to deal with it satisfactorily without a full knowledge of facts. The hon. Member had said that the principle of the Bill was that those who used the roads should pay for them; and if the Bill were likely to obtain that object he should certainly have approved it. But, practically, that would not be the case. The 12th section of the Bill provided that the highway authority were to have power to apply the tax or charge which it was contemplated they should levy to their own purposes. But, in many cases, for instance, where a large number of horses or packs of hounds were kept, the district rates would not obtain any advantage from the tax which the highway authorities imposed. The whole levy might be collected for the sole advantage of one parish. The object was that the tax should take the place of the old turnpike tolls; but there was no reason why they should again recur to the old system of obstructing communications. The country had made a great sacrifice for the purpose of facilitating communications throughout the country; and, having freed the roads, they were now about to charge a tax upon their means of locomotion upon the roads. That, he thought, was not a system which the House would approve. It was impossible to deal with the question except by a much more general system than was proposed in the Bill. The subject was one which, he thought, could not be discussed at that hour of the morning (5 minutes past 1 o'clock), unless in a very perfunctory manner; and he, therefore, begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

in moving—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the matter contained in the last paragraph of the Judges' Report on the Gloucester Election Petition, and the circumstances under which the abandonment of the Petition against the return of Mr. Monk took place,"

"Under these circumstances, we are not satisfied that the abandonment of the charge against Mr. Monk was not the result of an arrangement made with the view of withholding from us the evidence of the extensive corrupt practices which there is reason to believe have taken place at the Election."

"And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we especially report the following matters which arose in the course of the trial, an account of which, in our judgment, ought to be submitted to the House of Commons. The Petition was presented against the said Thomas Robinson and Charles James Monk jointly, and charged them, jointly and severally, with bribery, treating, and intimidation, and undue influence, before, during, and after the said Election."

"On the day before the trial"—[And here he would observe that the Report had evidently been drawn up with the greatest possible care.]—"the Respondent, Thomas Robinson, by a notice under his hand, signified his intention not to oppose the Petition. At the trial, the Respondent, Thomas Robinson, did not appear either in person or by counsel, or otherwise, to oppose the Petition. The Respondent, Charles James Monk, did appear by counsel. The evidence of Joseph Stoddart and John Clement Morris— shorthand notes of which accompany our Report— was abundantly sufficient to satisfy us that bribery had been committed by John Clement Morris, an agent of the said Thomas Robinson; and that he bribed Joseph Stoddart, Thomas Meadows, and a third man whose name was unknown, to vote."

"This witness was allowed to leave the box unquestioned by Mr. Monk's counsel. It is due to Mr. Monk to say that Morris, who was afterwards called, denied that he had mentioned Mr. Monk's name; but this was after Stoddart had left the box."

"No other evidence was offered with respect to any one of the other cases mentioned in the particulars, and there was no attempt made to establish any one of the charges made against Mr. Monk or his agents. We have no reason to suppose that in delivering the particulars the petitioners acted otherwise than under a belief that they would be in a condition to affect both seats."

"Before the trial, we believe that the charges of present bribery against Mr. Monk were abandoned, but no application was made to withdraw the charges of corrupt practices through his alleged agents, and his counsel appeared in Court as if those charges were to be persisted in."

"No explanation was offered to us as to the reasons why no attempt even to prove those charges was made, notwithstanding they had never been withdrawn, and no observation was addressed to us by Mr. Monk's counsel which indicated to our minds that he was surprised at the course adopted, and at the sudden abandonment of the Petition so far as it affected Mr. Monk. Moreover, after our judgment was given declaring Mr. Monk to have been duly elected, Mr. Monk's counsel made no application for his costs, which we were prepared to award him had he asked for them, as we intimated to him; hut he declined to make any application upon the subject."

said, he had no objection to the noble Lord, or to any other Member of the House, calling attention to what he fully admitted with the noble Lord to be the very remarkable, not to say extraordinary, Report submitted to the House by the learned Judges whose names were appended to it. But the noble Lord, who must have seen him in his place last Thursday week, had given him no Notice that it was his intention, to call the attention of the House on a future day to the Report of the Judges. Had the noble Lord done so, he might have deemed it right at the time to offer some explanation to the House, or, at all events, he would have been prepared to state what course it was his intention to adopt. The noble Lord had now stated that he had called attention to the Report in the interests of Members of the House of Commons. He accepted the explanation of the noble Lord. He had before him the Report of which the noble Lord had read certain portions. The learned Judges stated that they made a special Report in this case, and said that the Petition was a joint Petition presented against his Colleague, Mr. Thomas Robinson, and himself, charging them jointly and severally with bribery, treating, intimidation, and undue influence before, during, and after the election. It was necessary for him to say that he thought the learned Judges must, through inadvertency, have stated—

"Before the trial we believe that the charges of personal bribery against Mr. Monk were abandoned"—

"On the 28th May in the present year, upon hearing counsel for the petitioners and for the respondent, Charles James Monk."

"And it being stated to the said Sir Henry Hawkins by counsel on behalf of the petitioners that there was no intention to offer any evidence of personal bribery, treating, intimidation, or undue influence against the respondent, Charles James Monk, it is ordered that the Petition be amended accordingly on or before the 1st of June. And it is further ordered that the particulars be given in 24 hours; the said Sir Henry Hawkins having expressed his opinion that the particulars delivered by the petitioners are not in accordance with his Order dated 18th May, 1880."

"It being stated to me by counsel, on behalf of the petitioners, that there is no intention to offer any evidence of personal bribery, treating, intimidation, or undue influence against respondent Monk, I order that the Petition be amended accordingly."

"We believe that the charges of personal bribery against Mr. Monk were abandoned."

"I hereby give you Notice that the Petition was this day amended by striking out the allegations of personal bribery, treating, intimidation, and undue influence."

"No application was made to withdraw the charges of corrupt practices through his alleged agents, and his counsel appeared in Court as though the charges were to be persisted in."

said, he should like to learn from the Solicitor General whether the two Inquiries, the one before the Royal Commission and the other before the Select Committee, were not rather antagonistic? In the case of witnesses coming before the Royal Commission, an indemnity was given to those who came forward to give evidence. But with regard to the tribunal now proposed to be constituted, there would be no such privilege. There would, therefore, be the anomaly of witnesses coming one day to give evidence before a Committee of the House of Commons and having to give evidence without being indemnified, and a little later on having to repeat that evidence before the Royal Commission which had power to guarantee them against the consequences of what they said. It did appear to him that it was a very exceptional course to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into matters which would be investigated a little later on by another tribunal.

said, that the matter into which the Committee would inquire would be different from that into which the Royal Commission would inquire. The object of the Commission was to inquire into the question of corrupt practices at the recent election, as well as at prior elections. The Committee was proposed to be appointed simply to inquire whether any imputation rested upon a Member of this House with regard to the settlement or compromise of an Election Petition.

said, that it appeared to him that, according to the terms of the Reference, the province of the Royal Commission and of the Select Committee would not be distinct.

said, it would be in the province of the Royal Commission to inquire into all matters connected with the election, but the sole question which the Select Committee would deal with was the reflection upon the conduct of a Member of that House. He had no doubt that the same question might to some extent be raised before the Royal Commission and the Committee; but, practically, the Committee would confine itself to inquire into the facts concerning the hon. Member now sitting for the City of Gloucester.