said, he was speaking on the previous night when the Sitting was suspended, and was then endeavouring to show why this limitation should not be inserted in the Bill. It was, perhaps, not generally known to Members of the Committee who had not carefully considered the form in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had put his original Amendment that it was not at all clear whether this limit was to be a limit upon the land or upon the valuation. The distinction between these two things was a very material and substantial one. As the Motion had now been put, it was, unfortunately, a Motion far more friendly to the bad landlord than to the good one, and that was one of the demerits of the Government proposition. It would not be disputed, as a matter of fact, that many landlords charged £50, and some even £100, above the Government valuation—the result being that if the limit fixed were a rental one, the good landlords who charged only according to the Government valuation would be bound by this limit of £30; while the rack-renting landlords, whose valuation was only £15, would, by the excessive amounts that they charged their tenants, escape the limit. The result was, as he had already observed, to place the good landlord in a most unfair position. If Notice had not been so suddenly given of the Amendment of the Government, he (Mr. Biggar) and his Friends might have been able to point out this particular difference, and to move an Amendment in the earlier part of the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary, so as to make the limit one of valuation and not of rent. As, however, they could not now do that, he would appeal to the Government to withdraw this Amendment and to strike out all limitations whatever. They already knew that, according to the gradations of compensation for disturbance inserted in the Land Act, largely-rented tenants got a smaller amount of compensation for disturbance, and that in the case of large holdings, even as the law at present stood, the compensation would not represent more than the arrears of rent. In point of fact, no holding above £50 would get an advantage from the provisions of the Bill now before the Committee. For that reason, he would press the Government not to insist on this limit of £30, but to leave the operation of the Bill to be governed by the provisions of the Act of 1870. For his part, he wanted to see the Bill passed as it was originally introduced. If, however, the Government kept on agreeing to all sorts of alterations, they would make it utterly worthless, and he and his hon. Friends would not feel justified in recommending the Irish people to be satisfied with it. In fact, the alterations which were proposed took away all the value of the Bill; and, consequently, no relief would be given which would be worth having. He might mention that he had had a number of applications from persons having holdings larger than £30, begging him to do something for them with the Land League, as they did not like to come into the category of paupers. He did not say it in a partizan spirit; but he really should like that the Government should get some sort of credit from the measure they were now proposing, and that they should be able to say they had done something for the people of Ireland. If, however, they made their measure worthless, in compliance with the unreasonable opposition of the Tories on that side of the House and the Whigs opposite, he was afraid the Bill would not ultimately pass into law.

It will be only necessary for me to say a few words in answer to the speech of the hon. Member. In the first place, I admit it will be worthy of consideration on the Report, and ought to be considered then, whether we should fix a limit by valuation or by rent. The advantage by rent is simplicity; the advantage by valuation is that which the hon. Member has pointed out. There may be particular cases, although I do not really believe, so far as the evidence in this case goes, that there are many, in which the effect might be such as he has suggested; but will the hon. Member allow me to make one observation on what he has said? In arguing against this Amendment, he has spoken of the Government introducing all sorts of Amendments; but this is really the first and only Amendment that we have been disposed to introduce, the other being, in our view, an explanation, and not an Amendment. This, undoubtedly, is a change; but let us consider what it is. The hon. Member says he has had various communications from occupiers above £30, representing that they are desirous of obtaining assistance from the Land League, because they do not feel it proper to appear before the Guardians in the form of paupers, and to be taking advantage of such provisions as the provisions of this Bill. [Mr. BIGGAR: No, no! They do not wish to apply for outdoor relief.] I understood the hon. Gentleman incorrectly, and, therefore, I will not press the point. But I think the limit of £30 rental is sufficiently clear for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of the Committee upon the general question; while, if the hon. Member desires to raise the point he has made, there will be no difficulty in doing so later on.

said, that in consequence of a statement made yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that tenants rented at over £30 should be exempted from the advantage of getting compensation for disturbance, on the ground that they would not be likely to be affected, he telegraphed to Tralee to see if he could get any information on those points. The Quarter Sessions for that county had recently been held at Tralee, Kilkenny, and Lismore; and in answer to his questions he had received a telegram that morning stating that out of 55 ejectment cases tried at Tralee Quarter Sessions just closed, in nine the yearly rent was over £30; and that, at Lismore, where there were 43 evictions, in 13 cases the rent was over £30. Those figures showed that at Tralee the evictions of tenants over £30 would amount to something over 16 per cent of the whole, and that at Lismore the percentage was something like 32. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would see by those figures that he and his hon. Friends had some grounds for resisting the hasty insertion of the word "thirty" in the Bill, and that they were not actuated by any desire merely to delay the progress of the measure, and that certainly they did not deserve the reprimand which he at one time seemed disposed to administer to them. They felt, in fact, that the value of this Bill would be seriously impaired by limiting the benefits of it to those rented at £30 and under, and they did hope that the Government would allow the Bill to pass as it was originally brought in, without exempting any tenants from its benefits in the scheduled districts. He was quite certain that tenants rented at over £30 required protection quite as much as those rented under £30; and it was quite impossible that any satisfactory reason could be shown for affording relief in the one case and not in the other.

said, he thought it was important that hon. Members on his own side of the House, who were, he believed, anxious to do justice to Ireland, should vote upon this Amendment on its merits, after carefully weighing the arguments advanced against it by hon. Members from Ireland. For his part, he thought the hon. Member for Kilkenny County (Mr. P. Martin) conclusively showed yesterday that in the case of large as well as small tenancies the landlord was sufficiently protected against fraud on the part of the tenant by the provisions of the Bill; and if the Committee adopted the Amendment of which Notice had been given by the Prime Minister, he would be, if possible, still more effectually protected. He wished to remind the Committee that in case of tenancies of over £100 rental, the utmost amount of compensation that could be awarded under the Bill was an amount equal to one year's rent. Now, it was clear that the landlord would not bring in an action for ejectment unless one year's rent was owing, and in such a case he would not be called upon to pay anything. He would simply lose one year's rent, which the Court itself had declared the tenant unable to pay. In the case of tenancies between £50 and £100 the maximum amount of compensation would be an amount equal to two year's rent; and as the tenant was almost sure to be 18 months in arrear, in such a case the landlord would have to pay a half year's rent in case he evicted. Under these circumstances, he thought the number of cases of tenancies over £50 coming before the Courts would be extremely small. In the case of tenancies of from £30 to £50, they would, no doubt, be much more numerous; but he failed to see why such tenants should be excluded from the advantages conferred upon them by the Bill. He was glad to find several hon. Members speaking from his own side of the House, and in no friendly terms towards the Bill, who yet were of opinion that it was unfair to make distinctions between the different classes of tenants; and, that being so, he trusted they would follow up their speeches by voting against the Amendment, and that a goodly number of English Members, who, like himself, were ready to vote in every division in favour of the Bill, would be found in the same Lobby.

said, he felt himself placed in a dilemma, in consequence of the statement of the Prime Minister that this was a fitting occasion for ascertaining the judgment of the Committee upon the question whether there should be a limit or not. On that point, he was entirely disposed to support the Government; for, as he said yesterday, he thought there must be a limit somewhere. It would be an injustice to the large tenants of Scotland, who were also great sufferers by the agricultural depression, to give this advantage to the large tenants in Ireland, and not to extend it to them. The question, then, in his mind was not whether a line should be drawn somewhere, but where it should be drawn. As far as the principle was concerned, he was entirely ready, heartily and enthusiastically, to support the Go- vernment; but, on the other hand, it was very desirable to decide whether the limit should be £30 or £50; and he had received a large amount of support when he suggested £50 as the proper limit. But, as he did not think he would have any opportunity of submitting that proposal, he was in a dilemma; and that led him to express a strong hope that the Government would fairly consider his proposal, and allow a compromise to be made between their own views and that of many other hon. Members by accepting his suggestion. He was very sanguine, if that were done, that Irish. Members would accept the compromise. He made the suggestion, not to hinder the progress of the Bill, but to help it. He would rather have £30 as a limit than no Bill at all; but the Government might, by making a concession of the kind, largely help the progress of the Bill. If they did not give way on this point, it was quite possible that they would encounter, especially from Irish Members, a very serious amount of opposition; and, though that might be the case, he yet felt that the Government, having brought the Bill forward, were bound to go through with it. They had expressed very strong views about the justice of the measure; and, having placed those views as prominently as they had done before the people of Ireland, they were bound to enforce them. If they did not, there would, undoubtedly, be a very large increase of agitation. The people would be taught that the responsible Members of the Government had expressed a strong view that injustice was done by enforcing the law; and they would have, as a consequence, not merely something approaching civil war, but they might have an actual civil war. For that reason, he would appeal to the Irish Members whether they would not accept this moderate concession, and enable the Committee to proceed to discuss the other clauses of the Bill. He was utterly unable to understand the game which had been played by the hon. Member for Cork City and his associates. He had always believed that they were honestly anxious to further the rights of Ireland; but if they persisted in their present course they might produce a very opposite result. They must remember that, although they might hope by pressing this opposition to get better terms, yet that they might possibly overshoot the mark, and, by a combination of their own Party with the Whigs and Tories, might succeed in defeating the Government, and forcing them to say that they had done their best to pass the measure, that they had been prevented from doing so by a union of Whigs and Tories and the Home Rulers, and that the consequence must be upon their own heads. If the Bill were lost, then it would be lost through the conduct of some hon. Members from Ireland. He would advise them rather to imitate the conduct of the hon. Member for East Lothian, who had said that he would vote first for the £15 limit; that if he could not get that he would vote for £30, and if he could not get £30 he would vote for £50. Irish Members, in the endeavour to do the best for their constituents, should follow the converse course. He would advise them to get as much as they could; but, nevertheless, they had better come to some terms than have the Bill thrown, out altogether. Let them remember that the Bill was originally brought in as a measure of concession and justice which the Government thought due to the Irish people. Changes had been introduced since, which he entirely denied were changes in principle or complete changes of front; but which were merely reasonable changes of detail within the four corners of the Bill. Those changes, slight though they might be, and by no means disadvantageous to the people of Ireland, had all been made contrary to the views and opinions of hon. Members from Irish constituencies and favouring the views of the Opposition below the Gangway. As those changes had all been made in favour of the views of certain Conservative Gentlemen, the Government might consider whether they would not also make a little concession to hon. Members from Ireland, provided those hon. Gentlemen would meet the Government half-way. A moderate concession of this kind would not be a matter of principle, but a mere detail. Nor were the Government bound by the limit of £30. They had offered that compromise; but it was rejected by the Conservatives, and by hon. Gentlemen who throughout had, if he might not say obstructed, had persistently resisted, at every stage the Bill now before the Committee, and, therefore, the Government were clearly not bound to consider them. The change would also convey a useful lesson to hon. Gentlemen above and below the Gangway opposite, not to refuse a reasonable compromise when it was offered to them. He did hope the Government would accept the very reasonable suggestion he had made, remembering that the tenants between £30 and £50 were the very best of Irish tenants, and the men whom they were most anxious to keep in the country. He was further supported in his proposal by the fact that, a £30 rental was the point selected in the Land Act. All these grounds, he thought, were sufficient reasons for the concession that he asked for from the Government.

said, it would be very desirable, indeed, if they could come to some understanding that would promote progress. They had had a sufficient opportunity of discussing the Bill; and he was afraid, in fact, that next year they would have nothing whatever to say on this subject, having gone so fully at the present time into it in all its ramifications. He was sure Irish Members did not lose sight of the fact that it was not their duty in any way to obstruct the general Business of the House. It must be remembered that there were questions of very great importance, not only to the English and Scotch people, but to the Irish people, still waiting for discussion. There was the Budget Bill and the Employers' Liability Bill still awaiting debate, and there were Bills that affected not only English and Scotch interests, but affected most materially Irish interests also; in fact, those Bills affected Ireland more nearly than they did any other part of the United Kingdom, for the poorer the country the greater the need that such measures should be carefully discussed. He was entirely opposed to any limitation in this Bill. In his opinion, it was a great pity that the Government had introduced it at all; and, so far as he could understand, the only reason why they had proposed it was that it would disarm the opposition of some of the opponents of the Bill. Now, in his opinion, there was no use in trying to disarm those Gentlemen. They would oppose the Bill in every shape, there and "elsewhere." That being the case, the Government should have stuck to their Bill, and thrown on those persons the responsibility of rejecting it. He questioned whether, in any case, reasoning men, looking at the state of things in Ireland, would assume the responsibility of throwing this Bill out, or of so emasculating it that it would be looked upon as good for nothing. If those in "another place," who found themselves strong in their inherited strength on such a question as this, which really did not touch the interests of property at all, wished to assume that distinction and to throw out the Bill, let them do it by all means; but his desire was to press upon the Government that they should accept the suggestion which had now been thrown out, and he very heartily recommended the same course to his Friends from Ireland. In politics they must not always look for the thing that was best; they must take what they could get. Now, he could not shut his eyes to the fact that between the limits of £30 and £50 a very large number of tenants would come under the operation of this Act, especially in the counties chiefly affected; therefore, he hoped the Government would yield to this suggestion. If they did, he thought they would find that the Bill would speedily get through Committee, because, although there were other important Amendments, there were none which could not be discussed within the limits of that night, and then the Ministry would be able to go on with the other Business. At all events, if that change were made, he could assure the Government he would do everything he possibly could, and he was sure his hon. Friends round him would do the same, to facilitate the passing of the Bill. He would appeal most earnestly to the Government to accept this suggestion as a fair compromise.

said, that he wished to join in the appeal which had been put forward by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) in favour of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). They did not oppose the principle of the Bill; all their opposition was against the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law). He was delighted to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Thomasson), because he thought that the more the question was examined, the more it would be seen that a basis of justice lay under the Bill as originally introduced. Looking at the coloured map of Ireland, one fact was clear—namely, that half of the country was under circumstances of great distress. To relieve that distress a temporary measure was brought in, concurrent with the original intention of the Land Act of 1870. In the map of Ireland, or in the scheduled districts, every tenant would have time given him to pay what he owed. Those to whom he owed would be bound to wait; and he believed that the landlords, as a rule, were inclined to wait. From the discussion that had taken place on the Conservative side, it would be supposed that the landlords and tenants were antagonistic. That was not the case. That Bill was intended to relieve what, in his opinion, was a positive necessity—namely, the inability on the part of the tenants to pay their rents at the present moment. This Bill would be of benefit to the landlord, for if a landlord had a good tenant who was brought into a state of great distress, and could not pay his rent, and he was satisfied that that was not due to his own fault, he might take the tenant before a Court and have a statement of his inability to pay made, and then the rent would, in all probability, be merely deferred to another time. That was a better position than turning the tenant out, and by that means doing injury to his own property. He did think that there was a principle of real justice in the Bill as at first introduced; and he was only sorry that the Government, having brought in the Bill, did not strictly adhere to it in its original form. He was quite sure that if Conservatives would rub the prejudice from their eyes with which they regarded the Bill, and look at it in a calm and fair spirit, they would see that there was nothing confiscatory or Communistic in it.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would accept the Amendment or compromise of £50. He was himself decidedly in favour of that figure being adopted. He considered that he was justified in putting it strongly before the Committee, inasmuch as he had no income whatever, or scarcely any income, except that which was derived from the payment of rent. The principle underlying the Bill was, undoubtedly, a good one; but he saw no reason why the terms of the Bill should not apply to tenants at high rent quite as well as to those at a low rent. He did not say a hard-and-fast line should be drawn at £50; but he thought that a reasonable figure. He hoped that that Amendment might be accepted, and that the Members on both sides might assist in getting the Bill through.

said, he ought not to occupy the time of the Committee, as he explained his views to them the day before; but he could not help making some reference to what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). He did not think that the Irish opposition to that Bill could be called obnoxious. The proof of that, he thought, lay in the fact that they had not taken any part in the debates until they saw, or until they seemed to see, that the Government were about to deviate from the original principle of the Bill. They then opposed the Bill to prevent that deviation taking place. He should not go fully into the matter; but he might say that his principal objection to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in fixing a limitation to the operation of the Bill was that he feared it would be an inducement to landlords to effect clearances, and they would naturally think that the exception made in that Bill would also extend, more or less, to the future legislation of the right hon. Gentleman. The causes which, in the Land Act of 1870, already tended, more or less, to produce clearances would be aggravated under the circumstances of the present Bill, more especially since the principle of compulsory sale was intended to be introduced into it. That was the fear he had, and still had, with reference to the operation of that limitation, in consequence of the Amendment then proposed tending to defeat the object of the Prime Minister—namely, to protect the smaller tenants. At the same time, he felt that the larger tenants were also entitled to protection, inasmuch as their interests were the same as the smaller, only on a larger scale. He thought that if a line were to be drawn it should be drawn against the grazing class, for in many parts the tenants were almost entirely large graziers. The difference between such and potato tenants had already been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). He did not think that any such limitation should have been introduced; but, for the sake of peace and order, he should have some feeling of relief in his own heart in supporting the Bill in its future stages, for he should feel that he was supporting something which would not be mischievous to the small tenantry. The hon. Member for County Cork (Mr. Shaw) had thrown it in their faces that they were opposing the introduction of limitation, and that, if it were not accepted, they would have to yield to the principle of compulsory sale, which would be used by the tenants to their own destruction. Under all these circumstances, he asked the Prime Minister whether he could not postpone the consideration of that Amendment until Report, with a view of having further information before them as to the number of tenants likely to be evicted by it, and also as to the feeling of the classes affected, as also to the number of ejectments which had been made, such as those referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue), and also as to the number of ejectments in the case of the class paying more than £30? It should be recollected that that Amendment was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister very suddenly, without much consideration, so far as they could see. Bearing that in mind, and also the fact that a number of matters were at present on the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, he thought he might fairly ask that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister might postpone the question of that very important matter until Report, so that Returns might be laid before them in order to judge of the merits of the case.

said, that he was sorry that the Government could not agree with the proposal that had been made by several Irish Members. The ground upon which that Amendment was based had been stated in the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy. He said also, with a good deal of truth, that it was important that that Bill should be passed, especially upon the ground that it was necessary, in order to be able, with due regard to equity, to enforce the law when necessary. The very strong impression in the minds of the Government that they ought, if possible, to pass the Bill had made them consider at what point a limit could be placed to its operations, so as in some measure to take away the opposition that existed to it. He, of course, did not consider that the opposition to it was very reasonable. It arose from a mistaken fear, which he did not deny existed outside the House as well as in it. They were anxious to meet that opposition, as far as possible, not merely for Parliamentary reasons, but also for the reason of peace and quiet. Looking round, they found that they were unable to take the limitation of £15, because that would throw out many of the cases which certainly ought to be met; but they did think they could take a limit of £30. He did not deny that there might, in the present state of things, be some notices of ejectment for tenancies over £30; but they did not suppose that the Bill was brought in to meet all cases. It was brought in to meet the cases of unreasonable ejectments, ejectments dangerous to the public peace, and cases where the tenant was unable to pay, but willing to make reasonable terms, and the landlord refused such terms. They doubted whether any such cases existed above £30. He should very much doubt if the cases were sufficient for legislation, at any rate. In such cases, if the tenant was unable to pay, no doubt, in nearly all cases, some arrangement would be come to. He thought they would all agree that there were 110 landlords in Ireland who would wish to serve ejectments in order to consolidate together tenancies over £30, and so clear their estates. Certainly, if they could agree with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that there would be a temptation to landlords to do that, they should be the last persons to propose any such measure. He did not quite follow the argument of the hon. Member; but it appeared to him that ho attached too much weight to a mere temporary Act, proposed to meet a temporary emergency and to prevent any danger arising to law and order. All the cases would, no doubt arise among the small tenants. Every one of those cases in the West Riding of Galway was considerably under £30—he believed they were all under £10. Therefore they must really, after having made that limitation, adhere to it, as they were assured that by it they were not in any way limiting the practical operation of the Bill, nor preventing what they conceived to be unjust to the tenants taking place.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had stated that the Government had brought in that Bill in order to prevent unreasonable ejectments and injustice to the tenant; but they might be compelled to back that up by a force of the military power of the State. Now, that being the motive of the Government, they deliberately abstained from putting any limitation in the Bill. The reason why the Government abstained from inserting a limitation previously was, that injustice might fall upon a man whose holding was valued at £31, and it would not be less keen to him than an injustice to the man whose holding was at £29. He wished to tell the Government they could not stand upon that doctrine of expediency then set up, for it would hamper and cramp the doctrine of justice. He hoped the Government would stand to the doctrine upon which the Bill had been framed, otherwise what answer could they give to their constituents, if they were questioned as to their action, and if there were harsh inequitable evictions over £30? The right hon. Gentleman said, they would be but few; but why should not the Bill be applicable to those few cases? They seemed to forbid the County Chairman having the option or discretion to judge as to the application of the Bill. Why mistrust the Chairman's judgment in the case of one tenant, and trust it in another? There was no justification for the change the Government had made from their original intention of standing by justice and equity wheresoever needed. He could tell them why the Government had done that thing—to appease those Irreconcileables, whose action on his side of the House he had himself seen with indignation. Let no one say that he was one of their allies, for he repudiated their action and abhorred their motives. Their motives, clearly demonstrated, were these—so to delay the operation of the Bill, that the relief would never reach his poor countrymen. He could not be supposed to be a party to conduct like that, nor was his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) a consenting party to it. But the Government, in order to improve their position, and being anxious to get the Bill through, had thrown that child over to the wolves, hoping thereby to appease their appetite. That was not a bit of use; it would only give them fresh courage to make new inroads into the Bill, until they had succeeded in emasculating it still further. Therefore, he protested against that concession; and he would declare that tenants with holdings under £30 would prefer to take their lot of sacrifice and suffering, which the rejection of the Bill might impose, rather than betray the rights and interests of their brethren, kindred, and friends, whom it was proposed to exclude by that concession. He would say, moreover, that if the opposition to that Bill should succeed a great wrong would be done; and from, his own experience he knew that the coming winter would be looked forward to with woeful misgivings, if those tactics should be successful. And, further, he would say that a share of the moral accountability would fall on the heads of the Government, if that indefensible line were drawn. He challenged the Government to say why their Bill was drawn without restriction, and why, that night, a restriction was placed upon it? He could show that the class of farmers with holdings valued at a figure under £30 were the very class to be encouraged. He knew that, in England, there was a strong public opinion as to the inadvisability of having small farmers of £10 or £12 value. Again and again the public writers had told them that the class to be encouraged in Ireland were those valued at from £30 to £50. That class was to be visited with penal consequences, if that Amendment of a Bill framed with a view to justice and equity being done were carried. Let them not talk thereafter about encouraging the farmers. He knew instances personally where people were to be visited with ejectments from their peaceful homes, men who were valued at from £35 to £40. What answer could he make to the wife of one of those men, who had written to him, a mother of seven children, whose husband's holding was valued at £36, and who was now under threat of eviction? No relief, no shield of justice was to be extended to them. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to tell him what answer he was to make to that poor woman.

said, he had listened with great regret to the last speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Forster), in which he stated that Bill was brought in, not as a matter of justice, but as a matter of police regulation in Ireland. What was the substance of the speech then delivered? It amounted to this—that in the cases where tenants would be likely to take the law into their own hands and resist, then the law was to be applied for their benefit. But those men were fully entitled to a share of justice; and, therefore, he thought it unfair to confine this measure to one of the police. As he understood, it had been stated that there was nothing new in the Bill, but that it was merely an explanation of the principle of the Land Act of 1870 introduced by the present Prime Minister in that year. The principle of that Act was not to exclude any class of tenants from relief, but to accord to them different rates of compensation. But what was the meaning of the proposed Amendment? It was to put beyond the pale of just legislation the larger classes of tenants who had hitherto been law-abiding and yielding to the force of any illegal agitation in Ireland where resistance to the law had taken place. He would ask, was that a fair, right, or proper principle upon which to legislate? In his opinion, no system could be more dangerous to the peace of Ireland. It was said that it had been introduced with a view to conciliate some portion of that number who were opposed to the Bill; but there were other persons to be considered besides the opponents of the Bill. He had listened in vain for any general expression of opinion from his side that the Amendment was in accordance with the view of those present. He thought that they were as much entitled as Members above the Gangway on the opposite side to have their views met in that matter. He sincerely trusted that the Government would do what was just and fair, and not take those means only which were calculated to give a speedy passage to that Bill through the House. Combined with the Irish Members, in a strong phalanx, they could carry that Bill through without difficulty; and he, therefore, hoped that the Amendment of the Government would be withdrawn.

said, he could not allow the misconstruction which the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down had put upon his words to remain unnoticed. He never stated that they had brought in that Bill in order to meet that illegal resistance. He said that they had brought it in to meet cases where advantage would or might be taken of the strict letter of the law. He had stated, over and over again, that those cases were where the landlords would strain the letter of the law. He was surprised at his hon. and learned Friend, who understood the law, not perceiving that.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated that they declined to go above £30 because, in the case of tenants above that figure, they could be got out without disturbance. He wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the case of the eviction of a man named Macnamara, who resided in County Kerry. He was evicted because he refused to pay the rent of a holding over £30. He was evicted in the first instance by the Sheriff, and then put in again by a number of friends. Now, he found, he had been put out again by the landlord and a number of his friends. Should he not be in custody for that? He would remind the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that, in the case of the celebrated Ballicohey evictions, the tenants were all above £30.

said, he would not have troubled the Committee with any remarks had it not been for the fact that it seemed to him that no progress would be made with the Bill, unless some compromise were arrived at by which the majority of Members from Ireland would be satisfied; otherwise, he believed that the chances of the Bill passing that Session would be very small indeed. He believed that if the Government adhered to the £30 they would not secure the vote of the Irish Party. The way for them to be united was to accept the compromise of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). He would suggest that the Government should take time to consider the matter, and let it stand over for Report, with the view of accepting that figure. He wished to say that he believed a great many were in considerable difficulty, with regard to a limit being fixed, who would otherwise have sup- ported the Bill in all its stages, because there had been no answer to the objection with regard to the question of the protection of property. If it did protect property, it should apparently protect all the property created by the Land Act of 1870. It was said that the Bill was intended to meet the cases of the smaller tenants. In the case of uncontrollable misfortune, where a tenant of £5 or £10 was unable to pay, the Bill allowed the County Court Judge to do what he thought best under the circumstances. That principle clearly applied to the case of the large tenant just as well as to the small. For that reason he should hardly be able to support the Government, although he had every confidence in them, especially in the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who, he thought, had given the country so many proofs of wisdom and moderation. He did not say that he should vote against the Government in consequence of the Amendment; but, still, if his faith in them was to continue with regard to that measure, he should like the principle to remain intact. At the same time, however, inasmuch as a compromise of £50 had been held out, he thought it might be accepted. It seemed to him that by it all parties would be reconciled to the Bill, and it would give great satisfaction to a number of Members. The opposition thereafter would, in all probability, be a fair stand-up fight between the Conservatives and Liberals; but it would put an end to the obstruction which was then being carried on. He had only one other remark to make with reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs, and that was that he could not agree with him that discredit would attach to the Government, and that they would forfeit the confidence of their Party, if they failed to satisfy the Irish Members. If the measure passed through the House of Lords and became law, he, for one, should not lose confidence in the Government, and he was quite sure that the country at large would continue to repose confidence in the present Administration. He, for one, should feel that the great principles for which their Party had fought at the General Election, and the great triumph they had achieved, were in no way impaired. He did not think the Bill would pass unless a compromise of the kind suggested were adopted—a compromise which would give them the support of the great bulk of the Representatives from Ireland. There was much to be said in favour of a compromise, and he thought the Government were taking a wise course in adopting one, especially as one could gather from the cheers one heard that that proposal had the support of many of the Friends of the Government who sat below the Gangway.

said, the hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing) had made a very friendly speech, and he thanked him for it. The hon. Gentleman was aware that no one could be so desirous as he (Mr. W. E. Forster) was himself to pass the Bill. He was anxious that it should pass, mainly upon the ground, which he had repeated over and over again, that he considered it necessary for the good government of Ireland. He was not without anxiety with regard to the government of Ireland. The country was very much distressed, and there was some discontent in it, although these were matters he did not wish to go into at present. He looked forward, perhaps, more anxiously than anyone else to the possibilities of the autumn and winter, and what he might have to do with regard to them. He only hoped that he was more anxious than he had any need to be; at any rate, he should not be blamed for the course he was taking, realizing, as he did, the true condition of the country. Every hon. Member, whether from England, Scotland, or Ireland, who realized the position of the country and the difficulties—not alone of the present Government, but of any Government—would see the necessity of setting to work in earnest to meet those difficulties. As far as this particular question of limitation was concerned, he would be misleading the Committee if he said he attached any particular importance to it so far as the landlords were concerned. He did not believe it was necessary on behalf of the landlords, because the conduct of the majority of landlords was such as to lead him to believe that they would accept the consequences which, in justice and equity, they could not avoid. They had had, in the course of the debate, two or three facts brought before them. The hon. Member for Tralee, for instance, had mentioned cases, which he considered cases of hardship, where the rental was above £30. These would come under the present clause; and if the hon. Member was right as to his interpretation of hardship, it would be felt that there must be danger of inflicting injustice and danger to the public peace unless the provision were modified. Then, also, they had not got—and he had been willing to admit it—such statistics as he could have wished to have been able to lay before the House. [ Laughter. ] He knew why hon. Members laughed; but they were obliged to govern Ireland, and legislate for the country according to the necessities of the moment, and they could not always wait for statistics. And hon. Members seemed to think it was a laughing matter that they found themselves in this position. It was possible that between now and the Report they might be able to get more statistics—actual statistics as to the number of tenants in the different holdings—and, therefore, he was very much inclined, if his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would assent to it, to say that it appeared to him that the suggestion of his hon. Friend behind him—to put the matter off till Report—might very well be acceded to.

questioned whether the House of Commons, in its long and honoured history, had ever heard a Minister of the Crown in charge of an important Bill change his mind so materially in the course of 20 minutes as the right hon. Gentleman had done. It had been reserved for the Chief Secretary of Ireland, sitting beside his own chief, the Prime Minister, to whom he had the opportunity of applying for counsel, and by whose counsel, no doubt, he was influenced—first, to say that he would make no change, then to emphasize that statement by saying that he would not postpone the question at issue until the Report; and, within five minutes of making the statement, to say that he saw no great objection to the withdrawal of the Amendment which had been deliberately placed upon the Paper through the joint counsels of the Government, or to allowing the matter to stand over to that very convenient season, the Report. Had the Government, he would ask, any settled policy whatever in relation to this Bill? It was introduced without consideration; it was changed without deliberation; and it was changed back again under circumstances which were fresh in the recollection of the House. Last evening, the Prime Minister—under circumstances which made it excusable—emphasized the necessity of bringing forward this measure to-night in place of the Budget Bill. No one then could have anticipated that the Government Amendment then under discussion, and which was now on the Paper of the House, would at first be adhered to by the responsible Minister of the Crown, and then, five minutes after, be given up in a full House of Commons. There was one Member of the House of Commons, at all events—and he was not sure that there were many more—who had reason to be proud of this Bill—of its introduction and of its changes—and that was the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). That was now perfectly apparent, which he charged against the Government long ago, and which he still believed, that the Bill was brought in to conciliate the Party of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. That was obvious—["Oh, oh!"]—yes, that was obvious, and every single stage and step of the measure showed the justice of that view. In the debate on the second reading, which lasted over three nights, not a single Member of the Party which was led by the hon. Member for the City of Cork took part in the discussion, because they were satisfied with the action of the Government. What was the next step? The Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) appeared on the Paper. That suddenly changed the aspect of affairs; and they were apprised, through all the organs of public opinion in the Metropolis, that the Irish Members were dissatisfied, and that if the Amendment were not withdrawn they would oppose the Bill. They gave an earnest of that by declining to go on with the Committee. Then came another change. The Prime Minister, in reply to his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), stated on Friday night that he did not contemplate changing the Amendment put down by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland; but the first thing done on Monday morning was a departure from that statement, and Notice of an Amendment which the Prime Minister stated would probably supersede that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. What was the meaning of the Prime Minister's Amend- ment, he would now ask? It would be premature to discuss it at the present moment; but any Member of the Committee—Members on both sides of the House—might put what construction they pleased on that remarkable Amendment. It was very elastic, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman hoped it would be wide enough to satisfy the wishes of the moderate supporters of the Government. It became known through the published Resolution of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, which he was about to read. [ Cries of "Order!"]

I rise to a point of Order. I am very unwilling to interrupt the brilliant eloquence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin; but I must ask you, Sir, whether he is entitled to go over the whole history of the Bill, and to discuss another Amendment, and the reasons for its being put on the Paper, on the Motion "That the word 'thirty' be here inserted?"

I do not yet know what the words are the right hon. and learned Gentleman intends to read, and, until I do, I cannot say whether or not he is out of Order.

said, he would venture to read the words to which he referred, and which he supposed had been read by every hon. Member in the Committee. They had been circulated through the public Press of the country, and appeared in The Times of the 13th instant. They were as follows:—

The Irish Members and the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. —"The Irish Members, after Mr. Gladstone's statement in the House of Commons last night, had a brief consultation, and a nearly unanimous feeling was expressed that the Amendment removes to a great extent the objection entertained to the clause proposed by the Attorney General for Ireland."

That was all he (Mr. Gibson) was going to say as to the Amendment of the Prime Minister. It effected its object, and again restored satisfaction to the minds of the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends. What was the next stage? The Prime Minister proposed an Amendment, or gave Notice that he would move an Amendment, that a £30 tenancy should be the limit, and immediately they were informed in the public Press that this quite neutralized the effect of the previous conciliatory step. This also appeared in The Times —

"On Tuesday night, after the Sitting of the louse of Commons had been suspended, a large meeting of the Irish Home Rule Members was held in the Conference Room, Mr. Parnell in the Chair. After an hour's discussion, in the course of which strong complaint was made as to the constant changes of front made by the Ministry, the following Resolution was carried:—Resolved, that we consider Mr. Gladstone's proposed Amendment limiting the operation of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill to tenants laying £30 and under destroys nearly all the usefulness of the measure, and renders it dangerous to the existence of small tenants, by affording further inducements for the landlord to consolidate holdings."

[ Cries of "Question!"] He was on the Question that was before the Committee.

"And that we request the Chairman of the Party (Mr. Parnell) to move to report Progress to-morrow at the commencement of the Sitting of the Committee, in order that time may be afforded to the tenants of Ireland to consider whether they will sanction the acceptance of the measure."

That was an evidence of the state of mind of the supporters of the hon. Member for Cork City; and, no doubt, it recommended itself to the Prime Minister that something should be done to conciliate the Party. Suddenly, the right hon. Gentleman, "saying he would ne'er consent, consented" to let the matter stand over until Report. And what was to happen to it then? Had any Member of the Committee a shadow of a doubt that, having eaten his words twice over in 10 minutes, that when they had got over the Budget debate, and the discussion of the Employers' Liability Bill, which they were told were to follow immediately after the Committee stage of the present Bill—had anyone a shadow of a doubt that when they reached Report the figure 30 would not be suggested by the Government. Originally, when the Government brought in the Bill, they said that their object was to meet the case of the small holders. This was affirmed several times over by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the Prime Minister, and the Attorney General for Ireland. When he had the honour of moving his Amendment yesterday, how was it met by the Prime Minister? With great courtesy. The right hon. Gentleman said he accepted the principle of the Amendment—that was the principle of the limit. It was one that he thought reasonable and just; but he contested the figure £15 on the ground that it was too low. That, although in the Land Act, it was the deliberate opinion of the House of Commons, when the Land Act was under discussion, that £15 was too low, and that £30 was the figure to put up. The right hon. Gentleman had said on one occasion primâ facie he admitted that the hon. Gentleman was entitled to refer to the Land Act; but he (Mr. Gladstone) would remind him that the provision about £15 was inserted in the Act at the last stage by way of compromise. The Government thought at the time that £30 rental would have been the proper figure.

What time was that?

I am reading from The Times.

Not what is the paper, but what was the time?

said, he had not lost sight of that. They all knew that the Land Act was passed in 1870. The right hon. Gentleman had made this statement, which was a perfectly reasonable one—that he yielded only under pressure to the £15, because at the time—in 1870, the year he was talking of—

Not at all; not at all.

said, he only put plain meanings on plain words. What they had got was the result of the deliberate opinion of the Government. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said he had thought out the question, and looked at it from several points of view, and spoke of the danger which ejectments caused to the public peace. The right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to rest his case for a sudden change of front upon one isolated case which had been brought to his knowledge and that of the House by the hon. Member for Tralee. Why, instead of doing that, had not the right hon. Gentleman taken the trouble to get accurate figures, instead of relying upon the unintelligible and undigested Returns which were at present before the House? If, however, the matter was to stand over until such Returns were obtained, the right hon. Gentleman would do best to promptly withdraw his Bill. The only other case referred to was that mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for the County of Meath, who said he had received a letter from a widow lady with seven children—

said, the right hon. and learned Member was mistaken as to what he said, which was that he had received a letter, not from a widow, but from the wife of a tenant threatened with eviction.

said, if that was so, she must have been a most industrious and intelligent woman to have made her communication so promptly. It must have been conducted by telegraph from the City of Cork, as the Amendment only appeared on the Paper yesterday.

said, he had never stated what was imputed to him, and that he should be happy to show to his right hon. and learned Friend the letter, which showed that his informant did not complain of this particular Amendment, and was written before she had any knowledge of this particular proposition, and was based upon the fact of an impending eviction.

was sorry that his hon. and learned Friend had mentioned the case at this time; because, by his own showing, it had no application to the Amendment before the Committee. The question, therefore, came back to this—that the only case really bearing upon the matter was that which had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue). Well, he (Mr. Gibson) was, providentially, in a position to deal with the case. He had there a short extract from the speech of the Judge of Assize, who referred to the case last Tuesday. That Judge was Mr. Justice Lawson, whose high ability and character were known to the Committee. He would read part of the Charge of the learned Judge, including the sentence, in which he referred to the case of hardship quoted by the hon. Member for Tralee. Mr. Justice Lawson said—

"I am sorry to see that the picture presented, especially in the North end of the county, is that of a determined and organized opposition to the payment of rents and to the carrying out of the process of the law, which state of things, if allowed to go on unchecked, must lead, I should say, to the breaking up of all the bonds of civilized society. At the very moment I am addressing you with respect to a case of which we have seen a great deal—a case at Moybella, in the North end of this county, which case is not, as I understand, ripe for hearing at the present Assizes—I am informed that hostilities are being actively carried on between the two parties engaged in the case, and, at the present moment, those who represent the landlord's interest, I understand, finding that they could get no assistance from the law, have taken the law into their own hands, and have taken forcible possession of their own property. This is a state of things of a very alarming character indeed, and I hope and trust it may not spread to other parts of this county, from which the reports are of a much more favourable character. Everyone must observe going through the county that it never was in a more prosperous condition than at present, so far as is indicated by the appearance of the crops, and of the country, and of the people. It appears that people's minds are very much unsettled; and it is very difficult, under such circumstances, for the officers of the law to carry out anything like a due administration of the law. I observe one case which will go before you, in which persons have thought proper to help themselves to a quantity of meal which was being carried along the high road. That is not to be wondered at, for, believe me, those Communistic doctrines are contagious, and, if once the belief goes abroad that any particular class of contracts may with safety he repudiated, that doctrine will be extended to every class of contract; and those who originally spread this doctrine may find that it will go home to their own doors in a way they will very little like. I am sorry to have to make those observations, and nothing but a sense of public duty could compel me to do so."

That dealt with the solitary case, the particulars of which had been brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the decision which had been announced, though, of course, he might not stand to it. He could not, of course, recede from his present position without obtaining the leave of the Committee to withdraw his Amendment, and his (Mr. Gibson's) desire rather was that such permission should not be too readily given, and that some protest should be made against the action of the Government in this matter.

I am bound to say that I think a large portion of our difficulties is occasioned by that heat and exaggeration of mind, and that inflammatory style of speech in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been indulging. I have no doubt it was not his intention, and that he was approaching the matter deliberately and in a judicial spirit; but I can read nothing in the tone of his speech—especially as far as the opening part of it is concerned—except monition and warning as to the tone and manner I ought to avoid and adopt. Therefore, if I myself deviate in any way into warmth of expression in discussing a matter of this kind, I shall be very greatly to blame. With regard to the general recitals made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the history of this Bill, I decline to fol- low him. I entirely demur to their accuracy, and I think it would be very much better, and very much more conformable to the spirit, if not to the letter, of the Rules of this House, that I should reserve any particular discussion of that matter until we come to the time when we are dealing with the principle of the Bill, and should, at the present moment, go directly to the case which is before us. I shall, therefore, consider the enormity of the iniquity of which my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. W. E. Forster) has been guilty to so move the indignation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. What happened? On the last occasion when we were engaged in Committee on the Bill, the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to limit its operation to tenants under £15 a-year; and I, following him, admitted the justice of the principle to which he alluded. The admission which I then made had no success whatever with reference to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It drew from him no concession whatever. It did not succeed in the slightest degree in mitigating the hostility with which he has prosecuted this Bill—I will not use the word prosecuted, lest I should go beyond the necessities of the case—at every stage, and in all conditions. But it was not entirely fruitless and barren, for it drew from the great mass of the Irish Members, and especially from the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork, who had originally objected to limitation, the disposition he has expressed to-day to recognize a limitation in this Bill. So far I think a very valuable object has been gained, and I will state by-and-bye what I mean by that expression. With respect to the limitation of £30, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must pardon me if I said when the Land Bill was passing through this House that I thought £30 of rent was a proper and sufficient limitation. If I had so done I should have grossly blundered in a matter where blunder would have been inexcusable. There was no limitation in that Land Act so far as the House of Commons or the Government was concerned. I insisted at, I am afraid, wearisome length in speaking on the second reading of this Bill that we sent to the House of Lords, with the assent of such men as Lord Clarendon, Lord Carlingford, and Lord Cardwell—none of them men of very revolutionary or Communistic tendencies—a clause which authorized the Judge to deal with questions of rent without any special limitations of any kind. What I said about the £30 was this which I have stated, and that was my reason for calling the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the words at the time; but he was not in the humour to treat in commonplace, homely prose any words that fell from us. At the time when there was a discussion between the House of Commons and the House of Lords on the subject of the particular amount of limitation, we gave in to the House of Lords, believing that any limitation was wrong. Were we censured for so doing, and in giving in to the House of Lords, or were we reproached with levity of mind on the ground that we had made a concession which we knew to be injurious to the Bill? In the Land Act and the Church Act for Ireland we again and again at one point or another made concessions to the House of Lords knowing them to be injurious. The doctrine now laid down is that it would be a sin and an offence to make any such concession to Gentlemen who come here as the Representatives of Ireland. If matters of detail, and of secondary consequence, are to be discussed in this spirit, and if the proposers of the Bill are to be treated as if they are betraying great principles on every occasion when, in deference to the sentiment around them, they think they can make a change that will conciliate support without violating or weakening principle—if these are to be the principles with which future discussions in this House are to be conducted, in my opinion, the House of Commons will fall far below its traditional and historical name and character. With respect to this matter, my right hon. Friend has made no concession as far as the figure is concerned; but he has agreed to take time for the examination of the facts of the case amidst the scornful jeers of some hon. Gentlemen opposite who cannot understand, in their omniscience, that anyone should want any more information. It is very difficult to sum up in a single sentence the groundwork of a Bill of this kind, which was proposed by my right hon. Friend in a speech of an hour and a-half, of which not one word was wasted; but, if I may presume to express my own opinion, it is a Bill whose object is to obviate a danger, that that danger is the danger of an ejectment which would be unreasonable, and which, being unreasonable, would be also a danger to the public peace. The Government have never upon any occasion varied in the slightest degree from the substance, as far as they could understand it, of what was the origin of the Bill. We were undoubtedly under the impression, and I am still to some extent under the impression, that evictions taking place in tenancies of a value over £30 are not generally or extensively, or in any appreciable number of cases, evictions which combine the two characteristics unreasonable or that they are likely to endanger the public peace. The hon. Member for Tralee has, however, in the exercise of his privilege as Member of this House, laid before us several cases which undoubtedly challenged our assertion and our belief in regard to evictions over £30. I would ask whether it was a monstrous offence for us to deem the allegations of the hon. Member worthy of some investigation. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman positively appears to think it a sin on the part of the Government to have any regard whatever, in the discussion of this Bill, to what is thought by an Irish Member. [Mr. GIBSON dissented.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) shakes his head; and I have, therefore, no doubt there is an exception to my question that the question of the hon. Member for Tralee was worthy of some investigation. The opinion that the Government holds is, that we are bound to give great weight to the opinions of all Irish Members, including the right hon. and learned Gentleman, however distant he may be from us in political association, and however wide may be the gap or chasm between the temper in which he approaches the consideration of this subject, and that in which it is our desire to approach it. Our fixed conviction is that to him and to those whose opinions, though not, perhaps, on every point their temper, he so admiringly and ably represents, we are bound to attend and to give every reasonable scope we can to their views. It was on that account that I had satisfaction yesterday in doing what I could to indicate that spirit, and to introduce into the Bill the principle of limitation. As far as he and his friends were concerned, that attempt was a total and absolute failure. We proposed a limitation of £30. The right hon. and learned Gentleman at once rose and, with a decision not to be mistaken, announced that our proposal was rejected. I must submit to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we are bound to look largely for the support of the Members for Irish constituencies on this subject, and not to the Representatives of Ireland merely in one section of the House, but, as far as possible—making the maintenance of the principle and purpose of the Bill our primary principle—to obtain support, and especially Irish support. We have gained nothing from the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite; and, speaking of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, just let us recollect what has happened to-day. The hon. Member has spoken, as has also the hon. and learned Member for the County of Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), and another hon. Gentleman of great weight in this House, by reason of his character and ability, who is still believed to possess in a large degree the confidence of the Irish Members. My hon. Friend the Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) rose in his place, joining with the two Members to whom I allude, and other hon. Members, and also, without doubt, representing, among them, the sense of the large majority of the Irish Members in this House. In these circumstances, when we are legislating for the peace of Ireland, and appealing to Irish Members, as we constantly do, to assist us in maintaining the authority of the law and the tranquillity of the country—when we, under these circumstances, endeavour to pay some degree of respect, and regard to conviction, expressed by the majority of the Members who come from Ireland, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, from whom we did not obtain one single jot or shred of encouragement, comes out and pours a flood of indignation upon the head of my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster), because, forsooth, Her Majesty's Government have thought that the sense of the majority of the Representatives of the people of Ireland was an element which it was their duty respectfully and in a friendly spirit to include in their consideration. In my opinion, the difference between the limit of £30 and any other limit that may be proposed is a very secondary matter, and I own that I do not understand the importance which has been attached to it to-day. That, however, is another matter which we reserve for consideration. What I must assert now, in the interest of the general rules on which our legislation in this House is conducted, is that it is most inexpedient and impolitic, in the interests of all, when heat and intemperance, or when vehemence of Party spirit, allow people to describe in exaggerated forms and colours as matters of primary consequence subjects that are brought into consideration simply because they happen to be the objects of their particular individual, or Party, dislike. We shall to the last, as we have from the first, pursue, as far as depends upon us, the purpose we have had in view, which has been to maintain intact the principle on which this Bill is founded. As far as modification is concerned, I believe it admits of very little; but, as far as the principle of modifying is concerned, I maintain that it is a sound one. It is one that has been characteristic of all the best legislation of this country in past times; and those who were responsible for such legislation, and who, on every occasion, were ready not only to acquiesce in, but to readily and cheerfully accept whatever they could, from whatever quarter it might come, without detriment to the object of the legislation proposed, have been the men who have most certainly had the best interests of the country at heart. On that principle we have acted, and shall continue to act, in the belief that by so doing we shall best deserve, and most surely obtain, the confidence of the House of Commons.

Sir, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the principles which are involved in this Bill are of so serious a character that we ought to consider the measure itself with the greatest possible calmness and temper. I trust, in spite of the somewhat warm passages that we have lately listened to, that the Committee will endeavour to bring their minds to the consideration of the position in which we now stand—[ Interruption, caused by House leaving, and a cry of "Order!" from The CHAIRMAN.] I am very sorry to detain the Committee, even for a few minutes; but I do most earnestly desire to impress upon hon. Gentlemen that we are in a position which requires great consideration. You have, on the one hand, the questions on which the Chief Secretary has spoken with considerable earnestness affecting peace and order in Ireland; while, on the other, you have to consider the possible results of a measure which does trench considerably on the rights of property—["No, no!"]—well, then, which appears to most of us to do so—["No, no!"]—and to raise questions of the most dangerous and delicate character. You are dealing with this measure in a state of circumstances which requires the greatest prudence and care. By the admission of the Government themselves you are dealing with this measure at a time when the state of Ireland causes anxiety and perhaps apprehensions. I do think that if in such circumstances Her Majesty's Government consider it their duty to bring in a measure which is to be of such a character, and to deal with such material, the Parliament and the country has a right to expect that it shall have the best possible guidance which the Government of the day can afford. They expect that a measure of novel character, dealing with such novel matters, should be brought forward on the responsibility of the Government of the day, should be a well considered and well prepared measure, and should be supported by the convictions of the Government which brings it forward. I do not at all deny that due attention ought to be given to the opinions of all classes among the Irish Members; but I think that it is a matter which requires serious thought if it is implied that special attention is to be given to those among the Irish Members who, at all events, sympathize, if they do not do more than sympathize, with movements of a particular character which are causing considerable agitation and alarm. If anything takes place which leads to a supposition (it may be erroneous and unfounded) that Her Majesty's Government, in the conduct of this measure, are not acting on their own views of what is right, but are swayed by reference to the views which may be taken by the Party represented by the hon. Member for Cork, I say that they are responsible for increasing the natural alarm which exists. The Government says that the alarm is exaggerated and unfounded. Are they doing anything to mitigate it by the course which they are now pursuing, of continually changing, especially at the bidding or invitation of the Member for Cork and his friends, the principles of this measure? Let me just remind the Committee what is the actual position in which we stand. We have a very important question before us—a question of principle—whether the operation of the Bill is to be limited or not, and if it is to be limited, what the limit is to be. My right hon. and learned Friend has moved an Amendment limiting the operation of the Bill to holdings at the rent not exceeding £15. The words £15 have been negatived, and another limit has been proposed by the Government. The Government have accepted the principle of limitation; but they refuse to accept the one we have proposed, and they propose £30 instead. We are not satisfied with that; and, as far as we are concerned, we shall equally object to the Bill whether 30, or 50, or any other number be inserted. We therefore abstained from taking any part in this discussion which was going on between the Government and hon. Members on both sides of the House below the Gangway, because we felt that we could not honestly say that the limitation of the Bill to £30 would meet our object or remove our objection; but when we see the Government take this line, and going, as it appears to us, to the Party of the hon. Member for Cork, and seeming to give into them in a manner which is more dangerous and alarming than if they had said frankly, "We will accept your limit," saying that they will leave it open for consideration, I say that that makes the position more alarming than it has ever yet been. In fact, you neutralize the whole effect of the Amendment by the words you put in. I do not know whether the limit will be £30, £40, £50, or £500; but, whatever the sum is, it is perfectly obvious that those who desire to neutralize the effect of this Amendment must effectually do it by inserting such a figure as may make it practically no limitation at all. Under these circumstances, the Government are surprised that we object to their throwing open the question in the way they are doing, and think that we who take part in this opposition are obstructing the progress of the Bill. But let me tell them that they are holding out a very great temptation to obstruction in the manner in which they are acting, not to one portion of the House, but to all; because it appears that the longer we go on discussing a matter, and the more opposition is shown, the more points are opened up, and the more chances there are of changes and concessions. There is a change every time the Bill comes forward, for discussion; and it is, therefore, very tempting to many persons to prolong the discussion on the chance of obtaining a change in their favour. I hope that will not be done, and that we shall be allowed to proceed, and that we shall not be betrayed into any heated observations such as have just now taken place; but I wish the Committee to consider what we are practically to do. The word "fifteen" has been struck out, and it has now been proposed to insert the word "thirty." What do the Government now propose to do? Do I understand them to adhere to that proposal? [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] They do not. Well, what do they propose? Do they make any proposal? [Mr. GLADSTONE: We propose to withdraw the word.] Then, in what position will the Amendment stand—what is to become of the Amendment? My right hon. and learned Friend has intimated that he does not propose to withdraw the Amendment he has moved, and it will then run "at a rental not exceeding pounds per annum." What is to become of that Amendment? [Mr. GLADSTONE: Negatived.] That will have to be negatived. If it is, do we understand that the whole question of the limitation of the Bill is put aside, and that we are coming to another stage of the Bill? It is desirable that we should have that clear, because the Committee will then know what we are discussing. We must assume, until the contrary is shown, that the Bill is to be discussed as one which is unlimited in its application. That is the only conclusion I can draw from what has passed, and I think that that is a very serious consideration, and makes a serious alteration in the principles which lie at the basis of the Bill. Sir, I will not detain the Committee with any further observations at this moment; but I do wish to put upon record, in the first place, my sense of the great difficulty that is caused and the alarm and anxiety to which this Bill gives rise, by the fact that it is so frequently made subject to changes—changes made in deference to a Party who are not in accordance with our views in regard to the question of rights of property; and, secondly, that, the effect of withdrawing or of negativing this Amendment will be that the Bill, for the purpose of its further discussion in Committee, will stand upon the footing of an unlimited Bill.

understood that the principal argument made use of in favour of this Amendment was that tenants above £30 rental did not require protection. He had also heard it said by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that day, that he did not think there were any cases of eviction above £30. In addition to that, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had said that he had not heard of one single case of eviction above £30. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) regretted that he was not present on the previous day to give to the Committee some information on that subject; for he knew of a case, not three miles from where he lived in Ireland, of a man who had been evicted within the past six months, whose rent was far and away above £30. He would not merely allude to the case generally; but he would state the particulars fully, giving the names of the tenant and the landlord. The first was the case of a man named Murphy, in the parish of Ballingady, in County Limerick, whose rent was £140 a-year. That was a man to whom even the Land Act would be of no use. He wanted to show that such men as these required protection just as much as the small tenants. He had been evicted by his landlord, though he owed only one year's rent up to March last, and a balance, making allowance for the poor rates which he had paid, of about £10. He was sure, when he told the Committee how this unfortunate man had been situated, that they would be surprised at the conduct of the landlord. As a member of the Relief Committee of that district, he could assure hon. Members that that man had to be relieved over and over again. Although he was paying a rent of £140, yet he must either have gone to the poor-house or have starved, but for the intervention of the Relief Committee. Was not that a proof that this class of tenant also required protection? The Committee might wonder how this man could have got into such a position; but they would not wonder any longer when he told them that he paid a rent of £3 5 s. per acre for his land. His landlord was, nominally, resident in the neighbourhood; but he spent most of his time in London, and all his property was let at 25 to 35 per cent higher than that of any other landlord in the same district. It must be remembered that Irish tenants had to pay rent not only for the land, but also for the roads that run through their lands, and the result was that this unfortunate man Murphy paid a rent of something like £37 s. 6 d. per acre. He challenged the best farmer who ever made money out of land to make a profit of more than £4 5 s. per acre out of his occupation in the best year that he could get; and the result was that, while the landlord got £3 7 s. 6 d. , the poor tenant, while running all the risk of a bad harvest, of the cattle disease, of other dangers, and of paying the county cess and half the poor rates, only got 17 s. 6 d. for his share, even in a very successful year. As a consequence, this man and many like him were scarcely able to stand against one bad harvest; and a series, of course, brought them down to actual starvation. But for the Indian meal given to this man he must have gone to the poorhouse. Did the Committee mean to say that he did not require protection? He (Mr. O'Sullivan) maintained that he needed it, and was just as helpless as the smallest tenant in the country. His next case was in the same neighbourhood, and was still worse. A man named Herbert, in the parish of Ardpatrick, in the County of Limerick, paid a rent of £124 18 s. His landlord, Colonel Watson, lived in London, and the agent was a man named Dunscombe, in Cork. The tenant had been evicted from his holding, and though the landlord at first gave him the right to sell, he afterwards went back from his promise, refused it to him, and only gave him £100 for the loss of 38 acres of land, for which he might have got at least £400 or £500, if he had been allowed to sell. He had another case in the County of Limerick, that of a man named Fitzgerald, whose landlord was Mr. Hewson, living in the county. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) held the receipt in his hand, showing that this man had paid his rent up to the 25th of March, 1879, and that he therefore only owed one year's rent in March last. Notwithstanding that fact, he had been evicted; and the only reason for eviction was that, owing to bad harvests, he was not able to pay the last year's rent. He had a family of 10 to support, and his trouble was entirely due to the failure of crops last year and the year previous. During the last five years that man had been served with five notices of eviction by the same landlord, and he had at last been put out this year. With regard to politics, he could only say that he knew two of the landlords to whom he referred, and there were not stronger Conservatives anywhere. As he saw that the speeches in favour of this limitation were all coming from the Conservative side of the House, he thought himself justified in quoting instances to show what sort of evictions were being made by Conservative gentlemen in the County of Limerick. Why was this limitation introduced? Was it laid down upon the lines of the Land Act of 1870? Not at all; for, according to that Act, the only tenants not entitled to compensation were those having holdings over £100. Those up to £100 were entitled only to a years' compensation; and surely even the strongest opponents of the Bill ought not to be ashamed of giving one year's compensation to tenants who were put out merely because the harvests had been bad. One other point he wished to mention—namely, that he would not object to the limitation now proposed by the Government if it were a limitation founded on valuation, instead of a limitation on rent, for he knew many cases where the rent was 100 per cent above the valuation. If the Government accepted the £30 valuation, that would be far better than a rental of £40. He hoped that the facts he had given would strengthen the Government in complying with the wishes of the bulk of the independent Members on both sides of the House, and that they would consent to make a limitation of at least £50 rental if they felt that they could not fairly pass the Bill without any limitation at all.

said, he wished to withdraw his Amendment.

Before the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant withdraws his Amendment I wish to refer to the remarkable speech of the Prime Minister. I cannot help expressing my sense of the deep injury which has been done to the Irish people by the dissemination of the opinions advocated by the anti-rent and land agitators. I am aware that the state of Ireland is abnormal, and I do not wish to advert further to that subject, except to say that if the views so expressed are to have their legitimate and their practical effect unrestrained, we may expect to see Ireland lapse into the condition of Poland—a consummation which, in my long experience, it has been the constant labour of English and Scotch Members of this House to avert. The right hon. Gentleman, who now sanctions the withdrawal of the limit to the operation of this Bill of a £30 rental, announces to us that during the discussion on the Land Act he carried the Act through this House with no limitations at all, and that he only conceded the limitations at the instance of the House of Lords. He, therefore, declares that he was obliged to introduce limitations. I wish to show the importance of limitations. This Bill has been introduced and carried, so far, in this House as an eleemosynary measure, as a totally exceptional eleemosynary measure. When I ventured to intrude, on a former occasion, upon the attention of the House, it was with the view of preventing any principle, incorporated in this temporary Bill, which might be of a subversive character, from being rendered permanent in its operation thereby giving encouragement to the anti-rent and land agitation. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared that the limitation in this case has been adopted by the Government merely to satisfy the feelings of the Conservative Party and of those of his own supporters, who agree with me in desiring to preserve the character of this measure as eleemosynary and exceptional. We must, therefore, look to these quarters of the House, and not to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, if we desire to preserve the character of the Bill, and to prevent its being perverted to the purpose of the anti-rent agitation. All that has been said of high rents in Ireland only increases the importance of preserving these principles. Those rents would not be so high if there were no tenants willing to give them in ordinary times, and that is a distinct proof of over-population in these now distressed districts. If relief is needed by the class of tenants with holdings above £30 yearly rental, I would most cordially vote for affording relief. The House ought to consider whether it ought not to provide funds for facilitating emigration, and thus be prepared to afford assistance to those whose position excepts them from the eleemosynary limits of the Bill. I should most heartily hail any measure proposed on the part of Her Majesty's Government with that object. I am fully sensible of the tremendous pressure put on the Irish farmer by these adverse seasons, and I am prepared to extend the bounty of this country to relieve his distress. But nothing will reconcile me to the abandonment of some limit to this measure, because that abandonment will change its character. It will cease to be an exceptional, an eleemosynary measure, and upon it will be grafted those pernicious principles which already, as we have been told by Her Majesty's Ministers, have extended so far among the Irish population as to threaten the public peace. If ever there was a time when Parliament should extend a firm, but an open, hand towards the people of Ireland, it is now. I thought it would not be consistent with my duty as a Member of this House to allow this Amendment to be withdrawn without remarking on the dangerous admissions with which, in my opinion, the speech, of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was fraught.

said, that he thought they ought to have some explanation as to what the Government was going to do. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister seemed to think that some limitation ought to be imposed in the Bill, but that it would require time for consideration. If that were so, the best course apparently would be to retain the words, "at a rent not exceeding pounds per annum." That blank the Government might fill up when they had made up their minds as to the amount. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland intended to strike out both words. In his opinion, it would be better to adopt the course he had suggested.

said, that in the remarks as to the course to be pursued, he was thinking only of the principle of limitation. He conceived that they were bound to the principle of limitation, which had been formally accepted on the part of certain hon. Members, and the only thing that remained to be considered was the amount. If it could be done in the way suggested by the noble Lord he should be ready to adopt it.

said, that it was not the practice for the Committee to send up to the House an incomplete Bill. It would be possible to put in the words "not exceeding pounds per annum," for that might mean £2, and the blank would not then have to be reported to the House. The alternative course was to negative the proposed Amendment, and to introduce the Amendment in a complete form on the Report.

said, he thought it might be better that the Amendment should be negatived.

said, that the limitation should be placed on the rating and not on the rent.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said, that in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Callan) he begged to move the Amendment that stood in his name, and which was as follows:—In page 1, line 11, after "holding," leave out from "situate" to "and," at end of line 12 inclusive. The effect of that Amendment would be to extend the provisions of the Act to every portion of Ireland. He did not propose to trouble the Committee with any remarks on the merits of the proposal, because he thought the most practical way for him to do so was to dwell upon the details of the matter with regard to the constituency that he had the honour to represent. He proposed to make observations upon that subject on the occasion of his moving to insert Queen's County in the Schedule. He intended to give Notice of an Amendment to that effect; and, therefore, he should defer his observations to that occasion.

Amendment proposed,

In page 1, line 11, to leave out from the word "situate," to the word "and," in line 12.—( Mr. Arthur Oconnor. )

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would give his best attention to the Amendment which had just been moved. Like his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), he did not propose to enlarge upon that occasion on the reasons which justified the Amendment further than to say that, although those portions of Ireland outside the scheduled districts were not so poor and distressed as those districts which would be affected by the Bill, yet, from successive bad harvests and the failure of the potato crop, the people had been reduced to a state of great poverty, and it was rendered desirable that the Bill should be extended to the whole of Ireland.

said, that the great moderation with which the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) had spoken upon the various stages of the Bill had recommended to their respectful consideration everything that came from him. He (Mr. Gladstone) was bound to say that the local limitations of the scheduled districts with which Parliament had already dealt in a peculiar and exceptional manner was, in the view of the Government, of the very essence of the Bill. He hoped the Committee would bear in mind that while the Government had advocated the necessity for an exceptional legislation, they had asserted quite as strongly the necessity for fixing the limits of that exceptional legislation. For his own part, he always felt that the principal justification for the Act depended upon the legislation already adopted by Parliament. Parliament had already adopted exceptional legislation with regard to certain portions of Ireland, and it had placed them in a particular category; and, in the opinion of the Government, legislation for that part did not lay down a precedent for the whole. The Government sought to avoid the necessity of adopting exceptional means of dealing with the whole of Ireland. The legal limitations to the scheduled districts already adopted by Parliament, and dealt with in an exceptional manner was, in the view of the Government, of the essence of the Bill.

said, that as he not only represented a constituency chiefly composed of tenant farmers, but was also a tenant farmer himself, he, therefore, thought he was fairly entitled to speak on behalf of that class. He was more particularly acquainted with the tenant farmers of the Queen's County, and he could tell the Committee that one-half of the tenant farmers of that county could be evicted for non-payment of rent, and he had reason to believe that the case was the same all over Ireland. What did that mean? It meant that 300,000 tenant farmers, with their families, or 1,500,000 of the population of Ireland could be evicted, and rendered homeless. Farmers were to be found in the Queen's County as badly off as farmers in the scheduled districts. The distress of the farmers in Ireland arose chiefly from the failure of crops; but not entirely from that cause. It was partly due to the extraordinary and unreasonable exactions placed upon the farmers by the landlords. Then, again, low prices caused by the depressed state of trade in the United Kingdom had had their influence in impoverishing farmers. At the present time, in the Queen's County, rents were from £50 to £100 per cent over the valuation. The price of beef during the last season was only 40 s. per cwt.; whereas, in former years, it was 65 s. per cwt. The price of calves—a very great source of rent-making to the small farmers in the Queen's County—had been reduced to half the price of former years. Then, again, the price of butter was, during the past season, only 5 d. a-pound, instead of 10 d. , as it was during previous seasons, and sheep had died in dozens all over the country. Wool was only half the price it formerly was, and there was no food for pigs. The price of hay was only 30 s. a-ton, as compared with 50 s. during previous years. There had also been a complete failure both of turnips and the potato crop. From all those causes, at the present moment, about half the farmers in the other parts of Ireland were nearly in as great distress as those in the scheduled districts, and in particular the Queen's County, although left out of the scheduled districts, was, in many places, in as great a state of distress as any county in Ireland. The Land League had to supply many of the farmers in that county with seed, because they were utterly unable to obtain it for themselves. He believed that in every county and in every parish in Ireland there were farmers who needed protection against their landlords. It might be said that if these rights were given to farmers in the districts not already scheduled an injury would be inflicted on the landlords. He denied that, and he considered that it would, on the contrary, be a saving to the landlords. It was a well-known fact that according to the Poor Law, the landlords were obliged to support the people when they were rendered homeless and without funds. Was it not very much better for the landlords to support them at a reasonable rent for a year in their holdings than to have to support them for many years as paupers in the Union? The rights of property had been talked of; but was not the right of the people of Ireland to live in their own country paramount to the rights of the landlords? The landlords complained of confiscation; but where was it? He maintained that confiscation was going on from day to day by landlords against the tenantry. Who built the towns and cities of Ireland; who built the schools and court-houses and the churches of Ireland? Not the landed proprietors, but, in great part, the tenant farmers of Ireland. Who drained and fenced the land of Ireland? Not the landlords, but the tenant farmers? Who built the homesteads of Ireland, humble though they might be, but the tenantry of Ireland? When the landlords of Ireland spoke of confiscation they did not know what they were saying, for they were speaking as men who lived upon the plunder of the people whom they accused of wishing to confiscate their property? Where was the injury to the landlords? He could not see it. If they would have to support these men as paupers in the Unions, would it not be better for them to support them for a short time on their farms? When they talked about the rights of property, it should be remembered that they had no right but what the law gave them. Was it not the right of the people of Ireland to live in that country in spite of any right of the landlords against them? This was not a question concerning a few individuals, but one which affected the whole of the tenants of Ireland. On the one hand, it concerned but a small class, that of the landlords; on the other, the whole nation. Was it better, then, to legislate in favour of the superfluities of a few landlords than for the necessities of a whole nation? It had been said that there were no evictions. At the last two Quarter Sessions of the Queen's County, 121 decrees for eviction were taken out. And that did not include those taken out at the January Session. He would give a sample of the kind of evictions that took place in the Queen's County, and, he had no doubt, took place throughout the whole of Ireland. About 30 years ago a farmer took 100 Irish acres in the Queen's County—that was about 160 English acres—at a rent of £127 a-year. There was neither dwelling-house nor outhouse upon the farm. The landlord encouraged the tenant to build a house and out-offices; and he, the tenant, built a good substantial dwelling-house, and made other improvements, and expended altogether about £300. In the meantime, the Land Act of 1870 came into operation, and about three years afterwards the landlord came to the tenant and said to him—"You have the farm entirely too cheap; I shall have to raise your rent." The tenant, after protest, and rather than sacrifice his late improvements, consented to the rent being raised from £127 to £155 a-year— that was to say, £28 a-year was charged to the tenant for his own improvements. The tenant had to submit to that. For several years the poor fellow worked along, but gradually got poorer, and last November he failed, and the landlord ejected him for non-payment of a single year's rent. By borrowing, he was able to offer to the landlord the old rent for the farm; but the landlord refused it, and ejected him. When it was said that the £30 limitation would cover the cases of the tenants likely to be ejected he thought a very great mistake was made, and that the tenants above that sum needed protection as much as those beneath it. In the case he had mentioned the people came to a resolution not to take that farm, and the authorities thought it well to send down police to take possession of the house. Up to a short time ago the police were still in possession; and be believed they were at the present time there, in order, he presumed, to protect the landlord's property, who lived in an adjoining county. He hoped that that illustration would dispose of the idea hon. Members seemed to entertain, that the class of men who required this relief in Ireland, on account of their distress, were confined to tenants under £30 a-year rent. In his opinion, every man foully treated by law, or by custom, or by the social relations between landlord and tenant—and every man run to the last—was a dangerous man. He did not know whether, if he were in the position of that farmer, and should see his wife and family turned out upon the roads, with the option of going into the poor-house, he should not become a dangerous character also. He did not think that he was an exception to the tenant farmers of Ireland. He thought that the limitation of the Bill to the scheduled districts of Ireland would cause the value of the Bill to be very slight indeed.

said, that the principal value of the Bill lay in its underlying principle. Unless the Bill was extended to the whole of Ireland the results must necessarily be disappointing. Its chief importance lay in the recognition of property in Ireland. That principle ought not to be restricted to any particular district of that country. If it was true that the tenants in the Western part of Ireland had a property in their land, that principle must apply equally in equity to tenants all over the country. Although tenants might not have suffered equally over all the country, still they had suffered to such an extent, generally, that it was only just that an individual case of suffering should be judged by the Chairman of the county. Landlords were protected by the machinery in the Bill from the Bill working them injustice; in case it should be extended generally, each case would be tried upon its merits; and, therefore, they could see no reason why it should not be extended in its operations to the whole of Ireland. The most pleasing and important part of the Bill was the recognition of property in labour. Hon. Gentlemen of the Conservative Party in that House were constantly talking of the rights of property; but they seemed to forget that property produced by labour was just as much property as that in land, perhaps more so. That Bill recognized the property of the tenant in his land. They saw no reason why it should be applied to any one special class of tenants. They had been told that it was, to a certain extent, Communistic; but the answer to that was, that a good principle was equally applicable to the case of both rich and poor. There was a right of property underlying and recognized by the Bill. Therefore, the better-to-do tenants in Ireland should unquestionably be admitted to the benefits of the Bill. The middle-class farmers were the very class to whom it should apply. Landlords had little property comparatively to protect. The value of small tenants' holdings was not a saleable value; it was a value derived from the fact of its being able to be let; but when they came to selling, the property had a money value of little or nothing; but with middle class men, for instance, farmers of from £30 to £100, the property was of a different character. That Bill should be extended, so as to protect that class as well as the former ones. They saw no reason why it should be confined to the poorer classes only. Their contention was that the principle upon which the Bill was based was a principle of justice; it was the principle that a man who laboured on a farm and improved it thereby created a property, and that property had been recognized by that House in the Land Act of 1870, and that the landlord, by no process of law, ought to be able to deprive that man of his property. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) had charged the Chief Secretary for Ireland with changing the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland. Either that law was just or unjust. If it were just, that Bill should not have been introduced; if it were unjust, the Government ought not to withhold their aid. They did contend that that law was unjust and unjustifiable; that by that law men were enabled to confiscate the property of other men; and the reason why they supported that Bill was, because they considered that it laid down a principle, which, if developed, would, in time, put an end to legal confiscation, or rather confiscation by legal process. When they listened to the remarks of some Conservative Gentlemen, one would have imagined that confiscation was almost unknown in Ireland; but those who had seen the homeless cabins there were the best judges of that. Though the Irish Members regretted that that measure was to be limited, still they were inclined to support it, because they considered it promised a future settlement on a basis of justice.

I must point out to the hon. Member that the Question is that the words "scheduled Unions" should be struck out. They were not upon the general question of the Bill.

said, that the object of the Amendment was that the Bill should be generalized. It simply came to this—that if the Bill could be generalized in its application, it would unquestionably exert a tranquillizing effect upon the country. Nothing else could deprive it of its valuable character, so far as the people of Ireland were concerned. There was one point with reference to ejectments to which he should like to call attention. That was the system of care-takers. Now, to his mind, that was a most unjust and indefensible form of eviction to practise, because that system of eviction was not gone through for the purpose of getting possession of the land, but for the purpose of depriving the tenant of his property in the land. Another principle had been brought forward—namely, to do away with the Irish cottier class, and turn them in to wage-earners. He thought that such a change would be regarded with very great objection in Ireland. The whole system of the agricultural class was totally different to that of this country. That was just one of the reasons for opposing a limitation being placed in that Bill—namely, to prevent the people being reduced to the condition of the English agricultural labourer.

said, he had invariably supported measures which had been introduced for the benefit of Ireland. He had voted for the reduction of the borough franchise; he had voted for the extension of the municipal franchise; he had supported the larger development of her fisheries, and measures for the reclamation of her waste lands. He had listened to every argument which had been urged in favour of the Bill with every wish to support it; but, unfortunately, he found it impossible to do so. It did not appear to him to be based on justice. It was a proposal to benefit one class at the expense of another—a proposal to help Peter at the expense of Paul. No one could be more aware than he was in respect of what Irish landlords had fallen short, and he felt that what they wanted in Ireland was some measure by which—

I rise to Order, Sir. The hon. Baronet has only recently come into the House, and he probably is not aware of what the Amendment is on which he is to speak.

I have not hitherto noticed any connection between the remarks of the hon. baronet and the Amendment before the Committee.

said, he had proposed to bring his observations into connection with the Amendment by condemning the insertion in the measure of certain words which should extend its operation to the whole of Ireland. In doing that, he was prefacing his condemnation with a few words to show what his own position was in regard to the measure; and, so far from its being advisable to extend the measure, that its adoption, in any part, would be impolitic and ill-advised. He considered that the proposal of the Government would be fatal to the interests of Ireland, to the tenant as well as to the landlord; but if the Chairman thought he was wrong in pursuing the course of argument he had followed, he would stop. He did feel, however, very strongly that, having supported many measures, in his opinion, calculated materially to benefit Ireland, he was entitled to state his views upon this measure. What was wanted in Ireland was not to take the land, even temporarily, out of the hands of the landlord, because, in that case, the tenant would be less inclined than ever to industry and exertion; and he did hope that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, whose statesmanlike views they all acknowledged, would not press on this Bill, but would seriously consider what measure could be introduced into the House to promote the general prosperity of the country. He maintained that the present Bill would do nothing of the kind. If it would, he would be the first to support it, and the last to leave it. He had often given expression to his feelings for the sister country, and had always walked into the Lobby in favour of remedial measures; but, in the present instance, he did not think this measure was calculated to promote the welfare of Ireland. He would, therefore, join in the appeal made by many of the warmest supporters of the Government to the Premier not to pursue the course he was now adopting; and, though having gone so far, it would be a serious matter to draw back, he, nevertheless, would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make that considerable sacrifice. He would warn him also that he was pursuing a course which was impossible to be continued with success. A measure based on injustice could never prosper; and he foresaw, and would foretell, without much prescience, that the measure now before the House would never pass into law.

said, the hon. and prophetic Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had, at all events, established to his own satisfaction that he was animated by the most benevolent intentions towards Ireland. But, by some strange process of reasoning, he arrived at the conclusion that he should vote in accordance with the prejudices of his Party, and refuse even this most limited measure of land reform to the Irish people. It appeared strange, after the facts brought under the attention of the Committee in the eloquent statement of the Prime Minister, that any hon. Member, professing a desire to serve the people of Ireland, should refuse to affirm the principles enunciated by the Chief Secretary for Ireland when he introduced the measure, and refuse in this season of severe distress to protect small tenants in Ireland in the enjoyment of that interest given to them under the Land Act of 1870. Now, what he complained of was that both the Prime Minister and Chief Secretary for Ireland had forcibly proved the justice and necessity of extending the remedial provisions of this measure to every district where distress prevailed in Ireland. And, therefore, as the Representative of a county, almost the entire of which was excluded, he had to express his dissatisfaction that, though admitting the principle that it was right and just, the Bill should be extended, the Government, unfortunately, had not now the courage to give effect to their own admissions. That result would be viewed with considerable regret and no slight disappointment. The Irish people, not unnaturally, had welcomed with joy and expectation the advent to power of the Prime Minister as the originator of the great and beneficial land reform achieved 10 years ago. The same Prime Minister, they would say, acknowledged the injustices inflicted upon the Irish tenant, and yet he had not the courage to stop the grievances which he himself admitted. On what principle was this Bill based? Last Saturday morning, the Chief Secretary for Ireland told them that the Bill was necessary, because ejectments had increased, were increasing, and probably would continue to increase. If that were the case, why should the unscheduled districts be excluded from the Bill? He should be able to show, from the Government statistics, that there was every reason to apprehend as grave consequences, and that there would be as much difficulty in vindicating the law in some of the unscheduled districts, as in those which actually were scheduled under the Bill. In the County of Meath, a small portion only of which was included in the Bill, ejectments were increasing, and would probably very largely increase in future. The total number of ejectments in 1878, according to the Return presented to the House, was 68. In the year 1879 the number had increased to 93; and, from inquiries he had made, he had ascertained that these ejectments, with two exceptions, all took place in the portion of Meath which was unscheduled. But he found, in regard to the smaller class of tenants, the number had absolutely doubled in comparison with 1878. In regard to the County of Wexford, he found that the number of ejectments was 30 in the year 1878, while in the following year they had increased to 64. Was not the injustice done to the tenant in those places to be guarded against, just as much as if he lived in the scheduled districts? Again, in Meath, he found that, so far from there being any decrease, from the 1st January to the 30th June there were 51 cases of ejectment, and in Wexford 68. He ascertained further, from yesterday's Freeman , that in only two divisions of that county no fewer than 77 ejectments had been brought before the County Court; and, according to the newspaper reports, there would probably be a larger number to be tried at other places. He thought those figures pretty clearly established his position that it was not in the scheduled districts alone that ejectments were increasing and were likely still to increase. It had been suggested that in the counties thus excluded there had been no failure of crops, and as the Bill was, therefore, only required to protect the tenant against inability to pay arising from such a failure, that this was good reason for not extending the Bill. He could, however, easily establish, from tabulated figures in the last Return of Irish Agricultural Statistics, that the loss which had been incurred in those unscheduled districts was equal—nay, rather exceeding, looking to the proportionate acreage, that which had occurred in the County of Galway and in the County of Mayo. In many cases, too, as the Chief Secretary for Ireland must know, the poor rates were higher in the excluded than in the scheduled districts. Even in Kilkenny, it appeared, much to his regret, that the same state of things prevailed. There was in that county a very considerable increase of evictions; and, unfortunately, from the distress in several districts, and the reports of the cases before the County Court Judge, he feared that there was every probability of their yet increasing in number. He would not weary the Committee by establishing, more in detail, the facts which, he conceived, clearly established the right of the unscheduled tenants to have their cases considered, and to have extended to them the benefits intended to be conferred by this Bill. It had been said that in these scheduled districts there was not a large number of small tenants. That was quite incorrect; for the agricultural statistics showed, in the excluded districts, there were a very large number indeed of small farmers. In point of fact, in Leinster alone, the greater portion of which was still excluded from, any benefit under the Bill, in 1878, there were upwards of 95,000 holdings under 50 acres; and he would ask, by what consideration of justice could it be maintained that a portion of Ireland, such as Leinster, was to be left without any benefit under this Bill, though they were suffering just as much from the agricultural distress as Mayo or Galway? But then it was said—"Oh, in Leinster, you have not your Unions scheduled under the Act for the Relief of Distress." Did the insertion of a district in the Schedule under that Act mean that the small farmers were not in distress? Not at all. It merely meant that there was a dearth of employment, and that labourers were unable to find work; and, therefore, it was desirable to have the districts scheduled for the purpose of giving relief. The Schedule under the Relief of Distress Bill was a Schedule for Poor Law purposes, and not for the relief, or on account of the distress arising from failure of the crops by the small farmers at all. He was glad to hear, when introducing this measure, the Chief Secretary for Ireland state that the main reason why this Bill had been brought forward was that the Land Act of 1870 recognized in the tenant an interest, or an estate, in his holding; and the right hon. Gentleman, with all the force of that eloquence which always distinguished his speeches, had urged that it was right for the House to recognize the interest conferred upon the tenant, and to prevent him from being deprived of that property by the accident of the distress. Under those circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman had said that the House should preserve the interest of the tenant, and not allow a temporary calamity of this character to interfere with, or to diminish, in any way, his right. Let him then ask, on what principle of justice or common sense could it be said that they should recognize the right of the tenants in one place and not recognize it in another, simply because, in one place, the Poor Law Board had thought fit to schedule a Union, and had not done so in another? It had been urged as an argument against the proposed extension of the measure that the Bill was merely a temporary measure for temporary purposes. But what force was there in this argument? It could not be relied on that the same landlords would not as harshly use their rights in the unscheduled districts as it was conceived would be the case in the places intended to be temporarily relieved. He desired to be in no way considered as the assailant or accuser of the landlords of Ireland as a class. But the intention of this Bill was to curb and control the cruel, grasping, avaricious landlords, and that class existed in Leinster as well as in the other Provinces of Ireland. It had been made in the House more than once without contradiction. Instances had been quoted by hon. Members of landlords in Leinster who had considerably raised their rents, just previous to the coming of the bad years, To such an extent that their rents were double the Government valuation. Were these grasping and avaricious men, who extorted double the rent which was deemed fair by their brother landlords, to be left unchecked in one part of Ire- land and curbed in another. Why, in conclusion, would he ask, should any districts be excluded from the benefits of the Bill? The tenantry throughout Ireland had been told by the Prime Minister that they had a right or interest of property under the provisions of the Land Act of 1870. His eloquent and forcible expressions had passed over the entire of Ireland. The tenantry had now been taught and knew it was oppressive and unjust on the part of the landlords to use the legal rights in the present times. Did the Government consider it would conduce to the peace of the districts excluded that the tenants in them were left without redress or remedy—would they not say, why is this property thus given to us by the Land Act of 1870 not to be respected? Were they to have three classes of tenants in Ireland—those who enjoyed the benefit of the Ulster tenant right, those who, in the scheduled districts, enjoyed benefits under the Bill, and those who were to be excluded from all right and justice, and left unprotected, to be dealt with by those of their landlords who might be merciless and unjust even as to the necessity of preserving the public peace. Statistics in no way justified the action of the Government. In the last Returns furnished that morning, in the East Riding of Galway the number of cases in which protection was given against process-servers was 14, and the number of police engaged 93; but when he turned to Kilkenny, it appeared that the number of cases in which protection was given was also not less than 14, so that, if the police argument was to have any effect at all, Kilkenny ought to be subjected to the provisions of this Bill. There was no reason whatever why the Chief Secretary for Ireland should vindicate this law in Kilkenny suffering from the sting of an evil conscience. Why, then, should the Chief Secretary for Ireland allow grasping and unjust landlords in Kilkenny to exercise their full rights, and, at the same time, refuse to allow them to be exercised by similar landlords in Galway? He did ask the Government seriously to consider whether an imperfect measure of this character would be of any value to the tenants. To pass imperfect measures such as the present, which, in reality, created discontent and engendered disaffection instead of producing beneficial results had unfortunately but too frequently, he regretted to say, been the course adopted by that House in dealing with Irish grievances. The existence of those grievances had over and over again been admitted by English statesmen, and had been depicted in language of burning eloquence by distinguished orators who, at the same time, refused to apply any remedy to evils the existence of which they deplored. He would beg, then, of the Government, who had at their back a triumphant and obedient majority, to pursue a different course, and to continue on some well-defined principle in the path of useful and beneficial legislation which they had foreshadowed previous to the last Election. If they did so, they would find their reward in the grateful hearts of the Irish people, and in the approval of all those who were anxious for the welfare of Ireland. Only that very morning, a letter had appeared in The Times , the contents of which ought to impress themselves deeply on the minds of every Member of the Government. He referred to the letter of Lord Portsmouth, in which that Nobleman stated that more than half-a-century ago the Ulster Custom, with free sale practically, was introduced on his estates in the county of Wexford; that the results were the same as in the county of Down; and wherever that custom existed, a well-to-do, peaceful, and happy tenantry, and a contented population, who looked up with pride to him as a landlord who knew his obligations to those over whom he was placed. Lord Portsmouth went on to say—

"I think confidence, engendered by fair dealing, is the best weapon to use against Communism. Stopping capricious evictions now will check agitation at this critical time."

That was, in his (Mr. Martin's) opinion, the proper view to take of the situation, and he, therefore, appealed to the Government to make of the Bill before the House no halting or imperfect measure, but to extend its operation to the whole of Ireland, as they were logically bound to do, for the reasons which they had given when it was introduced, and thus prevent the spread of that discontent and disaffection which, unfortunately, were already but too widely extended.

said, he had no wish to comment at any length on the arguments which had been laid before the Committee by the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Martin), nor was it possible for him to challenge or confirm the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's statistics. It was, however, he thought, obvious that if the debate were carried on in accordance with the example which the hon. Gentleman had set, and made to include the discussion of questions affecting the social condition of the whole of Ireland, neither that evening nor the next would see it brought to a close. He had, under those circumstances, risen to make a suggestion to the Government with the view of shortening, if possible, the proceedings of the Committee, while acting in a manner strictly in conformity with a very recent precedent. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster) was prepared to reply, or indeed could reply, to the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin), or whether he could combat or refute the statistics which had just been submitted to the Committee. He presumed the right hon. Gentleman was not in a position to do so on the spur of the moment. But at the beginning of the evening, in reply to the hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue), who adduced two instances, if not more, of eviction in the case of tenants—[The O'DONOGHUE: A great many instances.]—his ear had not caught more than two, and the number of instances in which tenants paying over £30 rent were evicted were, in reality, he believed, very few—but be that as it might, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland seemed to be so impressed with the statements of the hon. Member for Tralee, and the necessity that the Government should have sufficient time at their disposal to verify and digest the facts which that hon. Gentleman communicated to the Committee, that he consented to postpone the consideration of the particular Amendment which was under discussion. But the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had adduced a great many more facts and figures than the hon. Member for Tralee, and had opened up a still wider and more important question; because, whether the Bill should be made applicable to the whole of Ireland, or be limited in its operation only to a portion of that country, was a very important question indeed. What, under those circumstance, he should suggest to the Government was, that they should postpone the consideration of the present Amendment also, in order that they might have time to verify and digest the facts and figures of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin). By adopting the suggestion, they would simply be acting on a precedent which they themselves had set; and they would be in a position at a later stage of the Bill—namely, on the Report—to inform the House whether, in their opinion, those facts and figures were such as to justify them in making any further change in their marvellous measure. He trusted the Government would follow his advice, and put off the further consideration of what appeared to be a burning question.

said, that although he had for many years sat opposite the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) in that House, the present was the first occasion on which he had heard him make a jocose speech. He had, however, no wish to attach any blame to the action of the noble Lord in endeavouring to raise a laugh at the expense of the Government. In reply to the hon, Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin), who asked him to explain the reasons why the operation of the Bill had been limited, he had to state that the Prime Minister had more than once given the grounds for that limitation. He was afraid, he might add, that although the hon. Gentleman had referred to what he himself had said in moving the second reading of the Bill, he could hardly have paid any very particular attention to what fell from him at the time. It had again and again been stated by Members of the Government that they based the justification of the Bill on exceptional circumstances which had been acknowledged and defined by legislation at the beginning of the year. He was ready to admit that there might be some parts of Ireland outside the scheduled districts in which the relations between landlord and tenant were, as the hon. Gentleman said, extremely unsatisfactory; but the Government had not deemed it expedient, in making their proposals, to go beyond what appeared to them to be the necessities of the case. Limitation of area they, in a word, regarded as being of the very essence of the Bill, and it would, he thought, be unreasonable to apply it to the whole of Ireland. He hoped, after the long discussion which had taken place, the Committee would at once proceed to a division on the Amendment.

said, that as the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) seemed to have some doubt as to the statement which he had made in the early part of the evening, he might be allowed to repeat that he had been informed in answer to a telegram which he had sent to Tralee, that at the recent Quarter Sessions there 9 or 10 per cent out of 56 cases of ejectment were cases of tenants who paid more than £30 a-year rent, while in Listowel there had been 13 such cases out of 43 ejectments, or rather more than 32 per cent.

Question put.

The Committee divided; Ayes 142; Noes 42: Majority 100.—(Div. List, No. 54.)

said, that as the Bill was drawn up it included all the Unions in which any electoral divisions were scheduled, as it was not the intention of the Government to schedule for the purposes of the Bill more than had been scheduled under the Relief Act. In some Unions only, some of the electoral divisions were scheduled under that Act, and the object of the Amendment which he was about to propose was to limit the operation of the Bill to such electoral divisions. He begged, therefore, to move, in page 1, line 12, to insert, after the word "hereto," the words—

"Or where any electoral division is specified in the said Schedule, situate wholly or partially in such electoral division."

rose to Order. He wished to point out that the Committee had just decided that all the words in line 12, including the word "and" at the end of the line, should stand part of of the clause. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, was not, he presumed, in Order, in moving that additional words should be inserted in that line.

said, that what the Committee had just agreed to was that the words in line 12 up to the word "and" should be retained in the clause. The right hon. Gentleman was, therefore, perfectly in Order, in moving the Amendment.

wished to observe, that when the Chairman had put the Question on which the Committee had a few minutes before divided, it was put in the form that all the words in the clause after the word "holding" in line 11 to the word "and" at the end of line 12, inclusive, should be left out.

said, that the Amendment finished with the words "berths," which immediately preceeded the word "and," and that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct in doing what he proposed.

contended that the last Amendment was to leave out all the words from the word "holding" down to the word "and" inclusive, and that the right hon. Gentleman was in consequence precluded from moving his Amendment, because the Committee had decided that the word "and" should stand part of the clause.

said, that when it was proposed by an Amendment that certain words up to another word should be left out, that other word would not properly be held to be included in the Amendment. As he understood the last Amendment, it was to leave out all the words from the word "holding" to "and" at the end of line 12. It was quite true that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Callan) had the word "inclusive" in the Amendment; but he, in putting the Question, purposely excluded that word. It was a common practice for the Chairman to limit the words of a proposed Amendment, so as not to exclude subsequent Amendments.

said, he had listened very attentively to the way in which the Question had been put, and it was put in the way which had been pointed out by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). If, therefore, the words now proposed by the Chief Secretary for Ireland were to be inserted in the clause at all, they must be inserted after the word "and."

wished to point out that the following was the form in which the Question had been put by the Chairman to the Committee for its decision. The Amendment was, in Clause 1, page 1, line 11, after "holding," leave out from "situate" to" and" inline 12, inclusive. The Question which had to be put from the Chair, then, was that the words "situate wholly or partially in any of the Unions mentioned in the Schedule hereto and" should stand part of the clause, and the Committee had decided on retaining those words. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was, therefore, he (Mr. Parnell) maintained, perfectly correct in the point of Order which he had raised, and it would be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Forster) to move that the words of his Amendment be inserted after the word "and," which it had been determined should stand part of the clause.

appealed to the Chairman to say whether he considered that the word "and" was included in the last Amendment or not?

said, his opinion was that the word "and" was not included in the Amendment.

said, that if that were so, the words of the clause would not, if the Amendment had been adopted, make sense. It would then read—

"An ejectment for the non-payment of rent for the recovery of the possession of a holding, and which shall be commenced,"

instead of "which shall be commenced."

said, his Amendment could be drafted so as to meet the objection which had been raised; but he understood the ruling of the Chairman to be that the word "and" was not included in the Question which was put from the Chair.

said, he must rule that the word to "and" meant up to "and," and did not include the word "and" itself, as he did not put the Question with the word "inclusive."

thought it would be satisfactory to the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would explain what would be the effect of his Amendment. As matters at present stood, the Committee were in the dark as to what was likely to be the extent of its operation.

said, it would affect only a very small portion of the Schedule, not more than three or four Unions.

said, he should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would give the names of those properties which would be excluded from the operation of the Bill? It seemed to him that there was an attempt on the part of the Government to minimize the operation of the Bill as much as possible.

said, he did not know the names of those proprietors whose estates would be excluded from the Bill, and, therefore, he could not give them. The object of the Amendment was to make the operation of the Bill precisely similar to the other Act which had been passed for the relief of distress. He might say that in the Schedule whole Unions were included by mistake, whereas only portions of those Unions had been included in the Relief Act. The object of the Amendment was to confine the operation of the Bill strictly to those districts affected by the Relief Act. If hon. Members would look to the end of the Amendment, they would find that some electoral divisions were included, whereas other portions of the Unions were not.

said, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Union of Tramore—he meant the electoral division of Tramore—was included in the Bill as at present; and he should also like to know whether it was a fact, as he had heard some remarks upon that subject, that the estate of the Duke of Devonshire was an exception, and had been excluded from the operation of the Act?

said, that he really could not answer the question of the hon. Member; but if hon. Members supposed that there had been any exclusion of districts to meet the convenience of landlords, they were entirely mistaken. His object was to make the Schedules of the Bill entirely correspond with the Schedules of the Relief Act; but it was found that in the case of Waterford and other places, several electoral divisions were included in the 1st Schedule of this Bill which were not in the Schedule of the Relief Act. It might be taken that where a Union situated in two counties was scheduled under the heading of one, it was all scheduled, unless special reasons existed for the contrary course.

said, that he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to the Poor Law Union of Roscrea, which was down under the heading of Tipperary. He should like to know whether it was proposed to make the provisions of the Bill apply to that portion of the county of Tipperary in which the Poor Law Union of Roscrea was situated?

said, if the hon. Member would refer to the end of the Amendment, he would find those Unions of which an electoral division formed a part mentioned in the Bill. He could not give any further answer to the question.

said, he had looked at the paragraphs referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and he could find no mention of Roscrea. He might say that a portion of the Union was in the county he represented, and a portion was in the Queen's County. That portion in the Queen's County was far more distressed than Tipperary, although Tipperary was one of the scheduled districts.

said, that he should suppose that the whole Union of Roscrea was included. Where there was no Amendment excluding any portion of the Union by name, it must be taken that the whole of the Union was included.

said, that the intention of the Government, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, was to the operation of the Bill exactly coterminous with the division scheduled by the late Government, and the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was, therefore, essentially necessary. The principle upon which these scheduled districts were decided upon was to select those where there was any deficiency of employment. If they did not apply to the whole Union, then certain electoral divisions were included without reference to the persons who happened to be owners of the property in those places. He did not know how the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland could have done otherwise than make the Motion he had done. With reference to the sum of his observations, he (Sir Stafford Northcote) must, however, protest against language being used that seemed to imply that what was done by the late Government in certain districts for the purpose of giving employment to the inhabitants, was to be taken as an admission on the part of the late Government that those districts ought to be dealt with differently from other parts of Ireland in the present Bill. If it was the intention of the Go- vernment to make the operation of the Bill coterminous with the Relief Act, he saw no objection to the present proposal.

said, with reference to his inquiry concerning the electoral division of Tramore, he begged to say that he had found on inquiry that the Duke of Devonshire's property was not situated in that Union. It was Lismore.

said, it would be a convenience to hon. Members if they could be supplied with maps showing the scheduled districts. He believed that the Local Government Board had in their possession maps of that character.

said, he was surprised that these maps were not in the Library.

said, he believed they were in the Library; but it would be more convenient if they were in the hands of hon. Members.

said, that in order to enable the Committee to judge whether the selection of the scheduled districts was wise or not, it would be well that a comparative Return should be presented of the amount of relief given by the Unions on a particular day in February last, and on a corresponding day in the present month, so as to show whether the condition of things existing at a former date could be safely taken as a measure of the distress at the present time.

said, he wished to point out that a Return such as that suggested by the right hon. and learned Member (Mr. Gibson) would be totally misleading. He was acquainted with Unions where the rates did not exceed 2 s. in the pound, and where there had not been a single penny of out-door relief given; but, notwithstanding, half the population had received relief from the various charitable committees.

said, he could not conceive any Return which would be more misleading than that suggested. To be of any value whatever, a Return ought to include not only those persons who had received relief from Unions, but all persons who had received relief from the Mansion House Fund and the Duchess of Marlborough's Fund.

said, that, in his opinion, a Return such as that suggested would be most valuable, if for no other reason than that advocated by the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst). If there were districts where no out-door relief had been given by the Guardians, and where the rates did not exceed 2 s. in the pound, but where the population had been maintained by the Duchess of Marlborough's and the Mansion House Funds, then he would say it was desirable to expose the delinquencies of those Guardians who did not give out-door relief, in order to keep the rates down. It would be desirable to have a Return for other reasons, for he saw in the Schedule that one of the richest districts of Ireland was included—namely, the Poor Law Union of Tipperary. He also noticed that portions of the County of Tyrone and other mountainous and poor districts of Ireland were excluded from the Schedule.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

said, that he had to move, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 14, to leave out "thirty-first day of December," in order to insert "first day of May." The effect of the Amendment would cause the Bill to cease to operate in the spring of 1881, instead of at the end of the year. A Bill of that kind could not become law without creating considerable disturbance in people's minds. It was a serious source of disturbance to the rights of property, and the more the operation of the Act was limited the more limited was the damage. He understood the object of the Government, in introducing the Bill, to be entirely that of meeting a special emergency, and he held that as soon as that emergency ceased the measure should cease with it. The emergency was chiefly upon the small tenants, and was caused by bad harvests; and the question was how far was it necessary to make provision for the emergency. By making the measure last up to May, 1881, the tenant would be enabled to receive the fruits of this year's harvest; but by carrying on the operation of the Bill till December following, the tenant would, probably, have no increased resources. It was scarcely possible that during the interval from May to December the tenant would have any better opportunity of realizing than previous to May, or be in a better position to pay up an arrear. He proposed, therefore, that he should pay his rent in May, 1881. It was very desirable, indeed, that a Bill creating such disturbance as this should come to an end so soon as its temporary purpose was effected. The Act was intended strictly to provide for a temporary emergency, and so soon as the emergency was likely to disappear, then the object of the Act was gone. Even in the interest of the tenant himself, it was desirable that the period of the operation of the Act should be abridged.

said, that he trusted the Government would have no hesitation in rejecting the Amendment. The object of the Bill was to tide tenants over the time that would elapse before they would be in a position to pay their debts. That object was effected by adhering to the date, the 31st of December, 1881. Tenants would then have reaped their harvests, and have gained what they could from the produce of their holdings. It was only then that they could meet the claims of their landlords, after a period of severe distress. If the alteration suggested by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory) were adopted, the tenant would have to pay his rent at a worse time for him. His harvest would still be in the ground, and he would have no money wherewith to pay it. The Government would act wisely in adhering to the date passed by them.

said, that the reason why the Government had fixed winter instead of the spring of next year for the expiry of the Act was, that they did not feel by any means confident that the crop of this year would extricate the tenant from his difficulties. They thought that if it were worth while to bring in a Bill at all, it was desirable that it should extend over a period required for two crops.

said, that he did not think that any reason whatever had been shown by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland for rejecting the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory). The only explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman was that he considered it would take tenants two years to get over the distress; but they had to go by the distress which existed at present, and they ought not to assume distress in the future. All accounts received from Ireland at present held out the prospect of extremely good harvests in the coming autumn. Moreover, the Preamble of the Bill spoke of the measure as having regard to the distress existing—not the distress which might exist two years or 18 months hence—in certain parts of Ireland arising from the failure of the crops. What reason had they to say that there was going to be a failure of the crops next year? If the coming harvest proved to be a good one, the tenant would be well able to pay his rent. There was no correspondence whatever between the Preamble of the Bill and the reasons of a temporary character which had hitherto been advanced in support of the measure, and the actual time fixed for the limitation of the Bill. He did not wish to speak in any excited way with regard to the agitation that was now going on in Ireland; but he wished to call attention to the position in which the tenant farmer would be placed this autumn if he had a good harvest. He might find himself in as good a position as he had been for the last two or three years, and he would also find himself under a very exceptional law as regarded payment of rent. They must take one year with another. If the tenant had a good crop, he would find himself encouraged by the Bill to plead pauperism as an excuse for not paying his rent. If he took that view, the argument by which the Bill had been supported absolutely failed, and this would not be a temporary Bill. If it were desired to bring the Bill into harmony with the Preamble, and with the reasons that had been adduced of a temporary character for the measure, then the Amendment of his hon. Friend should be adopted.

Amendment negatived.

said, that he had given Notice of an Amendment, in page 1, line 25, after "Court," to insert—

"That such ejectment is brought by a landlord who has obtained from the Commissioners of Public Works a loan upon terms ratified and confirmed by 'The Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act, 1880;' and the re-payment of which is charged upon lands wholly or partially situate within the same Poor Law Union as the holding in dispute."

Probably, no one in the Committee objected to the Bill more strongly than he did. He felt, however, that he could not move his Amendment without making a second-reading speech; and, as he did not wish unnecessarily to obstruct the passage of the Bill, he would not move it.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 27, to leave out the words "such distress as aforesaid," in order to insert the words "failure of the tenant's crops." He merely desired, by that Amendment, to explain what had caused the distress. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not object to admit it.

said, he could not accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

begged to move the merely verbal Amendment which stood in his name. Its object was to make the interpretation of the Bill clear, as, otherwise, there would be an ambiguity as to the meaning of certain terms. The insertion of his proposal would merely explain the idea of the Government.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 30, after the word "to" to insert the words "rate of."—( Mr. Parnell. ]

said, that the Government could not accept the Amendment, because other matters were involved besides the mere rate of rent.

said, that his Amendment was already contained in the Bill as it stood; but if the Government objected to it, he would withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 31, to insert the words "security for" before the word "arrears." His object was to make the Bill more workable. He had listened with some bewilderment to the discussion, and the difficulty he felt was that of understanding how the measure was to be worked. With the object, therefore, of explaining what were the principles which should guide the Judges who had to carry out the Act, he had suggested this Amendment. The language of this clause followed the language of the Land Act of 1870 to a certain extent, but as applied to a very different set of circumstances. Under that Act it was enacted that, in the event of any tenant claiming to continue, and reasonable terms being refused by him, his claim for compensation should not be allowed. That put the question upon tolerably intelligible grounds, because the only question a Judge would have to decide upon would be with reference to the actual amount of rent which the tenant should pay, as to the reasonableness of the offer, and whether, from such information as might come before the Judge, the rent offered was of such an amount as to show reasonableness on the part of the landlord. But here, in this measure, they had to deal with the solvency of the parties, and he wished to have some understanding of what was the meaning of the words in the Bill—"If a reasonable offer was made and unreasonably refused." He would appeal to any hon. Gentleman who had had experience as to the management of landed property, whether the unfortunate Judge would not have tremendous difficulties who was called upon to act under this clause? It constantly occurred to persons who were not merely in the relation of landlord and tenants, but in that of debtor and creditor, to have requests for some postponement, in consequence of severe distress and inevitable misfortune; and everyone knew that there was nothing more difficult to arrive at than a proper decision in such matters. With all the advantage which a landlord might possess of knowing the position of his tenant, of what was his solvency, his industry, and other circumstances, he was constantly in great difficulty when called upon to decide whether the relief asked for should be granted or refused. The difficulty, especially, of drawing a distinction between individual tenants was such, that it was almost impossible to make a substantial concession to one without giving it to another. Then, suppose a tenant came into Court under this Bill, and pleaded a loss of crops. Supposing he went on and declared that he had made a reasonable offer, and promised to pay if the payment were deferred until the next year, how was the Judge to deal with a question of that kind? How was he to arrive at the facts, which might not even be before the Court—how was he to give a fair and reasonable decision? It must be clearly understood that the Bill merely meant a promise to pay rent; or it must be taken that the postponement of rent would apply to all the tenantry in every one of the districts were that Act applied. A mere promise to pay might be construed as very illusory. And something more would surely be required. Then, he would submit to the Government and the Committee that some words should be introduced such as he suggested, for there must be very few persons, indeed, who could not offer some security to their landlords. Let them consider, for a moment, the difficulty in which they were placed by this kind of legislation. The Judge could not go far beyond proof of failure of crops; but if that was to be held a sufficient excuse, they were laying down a broad principle which must be extended to other people besides landlord and tenant, and extended also to other parts of Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law), in dealing with this objection, had said that Judges were not fools, and that they would easily arrive at a conclusion. He (Sir Edward Colebrooke) did not dispute the weight of the opinion of his Irish Friend; but there was a considerable amount of weight on the other side, and he was quite sure that the Judge would be fairly puzzled in endeavouring to arrive at a conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had declared that the whole object of the Bill was to deal with cases of tenants who suffered by the hand of God. If that principle were to govern the Bill, then, really, a failure of crops was to be a ground for postponement of rent. On that point, they had a right to ask definitely for an answer, "Aye," or "No," from the Government, and they ought to know whether any further proof was to be thrown on the tenant of his inability to pay; what the nature of that proof was to be, and what help was to be offered to the Judges in coming to a decision. In consequence of the statements which had been made from the Treasury Bench, he had looked back to see what was the course of jurisdiction in other countries in former times, and he had especially, as the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has referred to it, looked up the law as laic down by Scotch Judges in former times He did not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be content with the law of Scotland at the present day. He was not at all surprised that a dogma of the kind quoted should have proceeded from the mouth of a Scotch Judge, because they knew that the Scotch law was founded on the Civil Law of Rome, and that, under the law of Rome, every latitude was allowed to the Judge of Superior Jurisdiction. The Prætor was a high Judicial officer, and had power to give relief to tenants in particular circumstances. But when they were going to lay down such a principle as that at the present time—if they were—it ought to be done very gravely and very carefully. In order to ascertain exactly how the matter stood, he went to the fountain head, and he took down a book which gave him almost a headache to look at; and, in the Corpus Juris Civilis , he found the whole question dealt with very fully. There was distress from the act of God; from the act of man; from the act of an enemy; from the calamity of seasons; from flights of starlings; from flights of jays; down to the case where the whole farm was swallowed up by an earthqaake, as to which it was most fairly laid down that the tenant, then, was not liable for rent. Were they prepared to deal with the case in that way? The question had been frequently argued at earlier periods of our legal history; but it had now been settled by a long series of decisions running over many centuries. Therefore, if they were to introduce a new law, let them clearly understand by whom this jurisdiction was to be exercised, and in what manner it was to be enforced. It was surely a most dangerous thing to give this enormous power, which was to be administered under peculiar circumstances, in the midst of a state of great excitement in the country, with a continual struggle going on between class and class, and when, consequently, a Judge would have the greatest difficulty in arriving at an impartial decision. He had been led to discuss the matter at this length, because the Prime Minister, and the Law Officers who supported him, had very imposingly said that, even if this Bill were passed, the landlord would still have all the rights which were exercised by landlords on this side of the Channel. He was staggered by that, and it led him to refrain from voting against the second reading. He took no part in that division, in the hope that they might get something more practical from the Government. He had now, how- ever, made this proposition, because he thought the landlords were entitled to this protection, and because, as the Committee was probably aware, in Scotland, where a tenant was unable to pay his landlord, he could bring him before the Court, and make him give security for his past arrears, as well as for the accruing rent. He did not, in the present instance, extend this proposal to the future; but he thought, as regarded the past, there ought to be some similar power to that in Ireland, and that the Government were bound to give some equivalent power to it to the landlord. If, for instance, power was given to the landlord to compel a full disclosure on the part of the tenant; or, if there were legal penalties if the tenant misled the Judge, that would be something to go upon, and, with something of that kind, he would be quite satisfied.

Amendment proposed,

In page 1, line 31, before the word "arrears," insert the words "security for."—( Sir Edward Colebrooke. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, the Government could not accede to the proposition of the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Colebrooke), and that for the same reason that he had just previously given—namely, that the effect would be to narrow, in some degree, the powers of the County Court Judge. The proposition, in fact, would prevent the Judge where, for instance, the tenant owed five or six years' arrears, and proposed some remission of the arrears on giving security for the rent, from deciding on that proposition. And yet those arrears might be a very heavy burden, and just a part of the debt which a reasonable landlord would wish to get rid of. They could not prudently lay down hard-and-fast rules by which the Judges should decide what was fair and reasonable in these cases. They must decide according to the particular conditions of the several cases which came before them. The Judges had been for 10 years dealing with similar cases described in similar language, and only approached from a different point of view; and as they had hitherto disposed of such difficulties with, substantial satis- faction to all parties, so he assumed that they would be able to dispose of any which arose under this Bill. It must also be remembered that by the legislation effected by the late Government the jurisdiction of these Judges had been enlarged; that they were now precluded from practising, whilst their salaries were substantially increased; so that it might reasonably be expected that they would have a better class of men discharging these important duties. Besides that, an appeal was given from the County Court Judges to the Judges of Assize, and from them to the Court of Appeal; and if that was not sufficient machinery to secure proper decisions, there were no possible means by which such could be secured. The Government certainly were not disposed to consent to anything like an introduction of the Scotch system.

said, the argument used by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Law) was that the Courts had been dealing for years with precisely analogous cases. He (Lord George Hamilton) assumed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman alluded to cases coming under the 18th clause of the Land Act, and those were not by any means analogous cases, because in the whole of the Act, from beginning to end, the word "rent" was never mentioned.

Rent is constantly dealt with under that section.

said, the word "rent" did not occur in the section. Then, did the Government intend that the Courts should decide what was a just and reasonable rent—"If the tenant is willing to continue in the occupation of his holding upon just and reasonable terms as to rent?" These words did not occur in Clause 18. It was quite true that this Bill was limited as to time and area; but if they once laid down the principle that the Courts were to decide what was a just and reasonable rent, it was absolutely impossible to prevent that from being used in the future as some precedent. He was most anxious to obtain some explanation from the Government as to this matter, for it was most desirable that there should be no misapprehension as to their intentions. All who lived in Ireland must be aware that the Bill had excited apprehensions which, would, he hoped, never possibly be realized; but he ventured to say, on the other hand, that it had raised expectations which never could he realized either. He had received recently a paper called The Anglo-Celt , which had a considerable circulation in certain agricultural counties such as Cavan and others, and in that paper this Bill was referred to not in any spirit of criticism or hostility, and in a manner which was supposed to be a most accurate description of the Bill brought in by the Government. In the issue of the 10th of June, the paper said—

"The second reading of Mr. Gladstone's Land Bill, which provides for non-payment of rent for two years, passed Committee on Wednesday, and is expected to become law before seven days."

The writer of that was, probably, as ignorant of the Forms of the House as he was of the proposals of the Bill; but, still, those who read the paper would probably never get a copy of the Bill, and, therefore, it was above all things desirable that Her Majesty's Government should express what was their intention on this matter; and he was sure if it once went forth that the Courts were to decide what was a fair rent, they would be creating a principle which would involve them in endless difficulties, because if it was competent for the tenant to come forward and say—"The rent which I pay is unreasonable," it would also be competent for the landlord to come forward and say—"The rent which my tenant pays is too low." Was it, then, the deliberate intention of the Government that the Courts should decide what was a just and reasonable rent?

replied, that the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) did not seem to be aware that it was under that very 18th section that for 10 years the Courts had been engaged in adjusting questions of reasonable and unreasonable rent The question of the reasonableness of the rent was, with other matters, included in the provision referred to, which imposed upon the Court the duty of considering the conduct of both parties, and determining whether it was reasonable or unreasonable. The Court had to consider, when the landlord de- manded an increase of rent, whether the increased rent demanded was a reasonable increase or not. If it was found that it was an unreasonable increase, then the Court adjudged the case against the landlord, and gave the tenant full compensation. If, on the contrary, the Court was of opinion that the landlord had only asked for a reasonable increase of rent, they would decide in his favour. Therefore, the case was one which the County Court Judges had really been deciding during the last 10 years, although the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex asserted that it was a case which could not be decided. Again, in the latter part of the same clause, it was provided that if it should appear to the Court that the landlord had been, and was willing, to permit the tenant to continue in occupation on just or reasonable terms, which, of course, included rent and everything else, and these were refused by the tenant, the Court should award him no compensation. So, in the present Bill, a strictly analogous question would come before the County Court Judge—namely, whether the terms proposed by the tenant for continuance in his holding were reasonable. Now, whatever other matters might be considered, it was clear that the arrears of rent constituted a point upon which the tenant must make a reasonable offer. There was, therefore, he submitted, no sufficient reason shown for making the alteration now proposed, and he hoped the Committee would not have any difficulty in dealing with the matter.

said, this was one of the things which it was open for the Judge to consider. There was nothing to prevent him from considering a reasonable offer for arrears.

asked, why, if the principle had been laid down and acted upon during the last 10 years, it was impracticable to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke) giving the same authority other powers based upon the same principle?

said, the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) had referred to an article in an Irish national newspaper called The Anglo-Celt , which described the Bill as one for the non-payment of rent for two years, and which supported the views of the noble Lord and his Friends, who, for the last month, in point of fact ever since the Bill had been brought before the House, had been stating that it was a Bill to secure the non-payment of rent for two years. The noble Lord, therefore, could not complain of that article. Whether it was written by one of the noble Lord's Friends or not, he (Mr. Synan) was unable to say, as he was not in the noble Lord's secrets. With respect to the 18th section of the Land Act of 1870, his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland was perfectly correct in his version of it. In the event of a claim for compensation on the ground of disturbance, the lowness of the rent and the length of the occupation might be taken into consideration by the Judge in awarding compensation. Whether the rent was low or high was quite as much an element in the calculation as the length of the occupation. In regard to the Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), which was now before the Committee, the hon. Baronet had fallen into the error of framing his Amendment upon Scotch principles and Scotch law. The hon. Baronet had told them that in Scotland the tenant would be required to give security for the rent in a proceeding by the landlord for the recovery of it. The Irish landlord could also proceed by civil action for the recovery of his rent; but this Bill referred to ejectments, which was a proceeding for the recovery of the possession of the land, and, therefore, the Scotch law was not applicable to it, and the Amendment, therefore, could not be supported.

said, he did not intend to detain the Committee by making a speech; but he thought it was important that he should point out that the case established by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) proved that the County Court Judge, under the Land Act, was entitled to consider rent as an element in the claim for consideration. At the same time, the case put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not the strongest that might be made out. Under the 9th section of the Land Act of 1870, the County Court Judge had express power conferred on him to consider whether the rent was reasonable or not. He would read three lines of the clause which referred to the claim for compensation for disturbance, and he thought the Committee would agree with him that they showed the County Court Judge had, at that moment, the very powers which this Bill sought to confer upon him. The clause read thus—"If in case of any such tenancy"—that was to say, a tenancy terminated by ejectment for non-payment of rent, if the holding did not exceed a certain amount—

"Compensation for disturbance can be given in the Court, if the Court certify that non-payment of rent has arisen from the rent being an exorbitant rent."

In that clause, the County Court Judge received in explicit terms the power sought to be given to him in the present Bill.

said, he did not think that the question was open to the construction which had been placed upon it, and he had no desire to lay down any hard-and-fast line. The words "reasonable or not" must govern the question of rent, as well as the arrears of rent, and the matter must be left entirely to the jurisdiction of the County Court Judge to ascertain whether or not the offer was reasonable or not. After the discussion which had taken place, he had no wish to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 31, after "otherwise," to insert—

"Provided, That no rent shall be deemed by the Court to be unreasonable which any other solvent tenant is willing to pay for the same, or would be willing to pay one year with another for the same, or which does not exceed the existing rent at the time of the ejectment."

The hon. Gentleman said, the question was somewhat analogous to that which had already been discussed, and he moved the Amendment now, because the clause as it stood undoubtedly involved a question of principle—namely, that of the valuation of land by the State. That principle was either a cardinal principle in the Bill, or it was not. If it was not, he hoped the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland or the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would consent to accept the Amendment which he moved; if, on the other hand, it was to be looked upon as a cardinal principle of the Bill, then he must say that he did think hon. Members on both sides of the House would do well carefully to consider it before accepting the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman; and he should certainly take a division upon the question, unless the Amendment were accepted. He admitted that the principle was already in the 9th clause of the Land Act of 1870, so far as related to tenancies in the past; but the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in the course of the discussion of that Bill, most explicitly stated that he gave the most solemn pledge to the House which it was possible for a Minister in his position to give, to the effect that, under no circumstances, should the Ministry of the day attempt to apply it in the future. That was the statement made by the Prime Minister in 1870, and he Mr. Chaplin) challenged him to adhere to it that night. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) said the same principle was in the 18th clause of the Act. He (Mr. Chaplin) denied altogether that it was so. The word "rent" was not mentioned in the 18th clause at all. And, if necessary, he could quote whole volumes from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman adducing, according to his (Mr. Chaplin's) mind, the most unanswerable and convincing arguments against the principle of the valuation of rents. He moved the present Amendment in order to make the point perfectly clear. He thought, if this principle was to be adopted in the Bill at all, that it was highly necessary they should give some instructions to the Judge who was to decide the question as to what were, and what were not, reasonable terms in regard to rent. He proposed, in the first place, that no rent should be deemed unreasonable which ony other solvent tenant was willing to pay. He wanted to know what argument could be advanced on the other side of the Committee against such a proposition as that? Were they to have two or three tenants applying for a farm which happened to be vacant, and when one said—"I am ready to give £120 a-year," they were nevertheless to direct the Judge of the Court to say—"No, I admit that you can get that sum whenever you please; but I am to decide, and I decide that you are only to take £80." Where was that principle to stop? Were they going to say to the tenant—"It is perfectly true thet you can 50 s. a-quarter for the produce of that land, but there is competition for the supply of food as well as for land, and we cannot admit that you are to sell your produce in the dearest market; but we will lay down a rule that you are to take 35 s. a-quarter." Was not that exactly the same principle they were asked to adopt in regard to the rent? That was the first ground upon which he wished to give an instruction to the Judge. What was the second? He said, in the second, that no rent should be deemed by the Court to be unreasonable which the tenant was willing to give one year with another; the third principle was, that no rent should deemed to be excessive or unreasonable which did not exceed the existing rent at the time of ejectment. He wanted to know upon what ground that could be disputed? The tenant entered into a contract with his eyes open, and he agreed to give a certain rent for a farm. Owing to circumstances he was unable to do so, but there were 20 other persons who were able to give it, or more. Were they going to turn round and say to the landlord—"No, though you can get a far higher rent than you are getting now, we refuse to allow you to entertain these offers, and we make an order that you must take considerably less rent than you could otherwise get." He acknowledged the unfortunate position of the tenant; no one had greater sympathy with him than he had, and he was quite willing to help him; but if the tenant was to be helped, the proper way to do it was by the State. They ought all of them to join in bearing the burden. That was necessary. But what he protested against, and would never cease to protest against, was the kind of sympathy manifested for the tenant on the part of the Government. The Government proposed to be generous and just to the people of Ireland. Generous and just! Yes, but it was justice and generosity to one class at the sole cost of another, while they did not bear one iota of the burden themselves. If the principle were once admitted, he did not know where it was to stop. There was no reason why it should not be applied to England, Scotland, and Wales, to- morrow. He should certainly take the sense of the House upon the Amendment.

Amendment proposed,

In page 1, line 31, after the word "otherwise," to insert the words "Provided, That no rent shall be deemed by the court to be unreasonable which any other solvent tenant is willing to pay for the same, or would be willing to pay one year with another for the same, or which does not exceed the existing rent at the time of the ejectment."—( Mr. Chaplin. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, he was sorry to be compelled to trouble the Committee again; but if hon. Members and the hon. Member (Mr. Chaplin) would give him their attention for a few moments, he thought he would be able to show that the instructions proposed would hardly attain that substantial justice which the hon. Member seemed to be anxious to secure. The Amendment of the hon. Member divided itself into two parts. [Mr. CHAPLIN: Three.] Well, into three parts. First of all, the hon. Member said that no rent should be deemed unreasonable which it appeared that any other solvent tenant was willing to pay for the holding; in other words, no rent was to be deemed unreasonable which the holding, as it stood, would bring in the open market by competition; so that if the tenant had built a house on which he had spent £500, the measure of the rent was to be what any other tenant would give for that farm with house and all. [Mr. CHAPLIN remarked, that the tenant got compensation for improvements if ejected.] The effect of the hon. Member's proposed Amendment would be to exclude the tenant from compensation. Take the case of a man who had built a house which had cost him £300 or £400. He brought his claim for compensation, because, after having built a house or made other improvements, he found himself unable to continue to pay the rent. He fulfilled all the other conditions of the Bill; but when he made a proposition to the landlord to reduce his rent for that year or the next, he was met at once with—"Oh! your rent is perfectly reasonable, because it would not only be paid by an outsider, if he got the opportunity, but he would pay even a higher rent than you now pay for the farm as it stands with your improvements on it." How could that case be met? How could they measure the rent of the existing holding, part of which belonged to the tenant in the shape of improvements, by the sum which the other holding would bring in the open market? The last part of the Amendment, however, was the worst of all, because no rent was to be deemed unreasonable which did not exceed the existing rent at the time of the ejectment. So that no matter how exorbitant the rent might be, so that not even another man in Ireland could be found who was willing to pay it, still that rent was to be deemed fair and reasonable, and why? Just simply because it was the rent. It was impossible for the Government to accept such an Amendment.