said, he rose to call the attention of the House to something that took place that morning at 2 o'clock, and, to put himself in Order, he would move the adjournment of the House. About 2 o'clock, hon. Members had generally left the House, and only a few Members remained. He was about to leave himself, supposing that the Orders had concluded, as the Notice Paper had been cleared, when he heard an hon. Friend of his own moving the first reading of a Bill which had been introduced in the House of Lords for the indemnity of a noble Lord (Lord Byron) who had voted without having taken the Oath. He was aware that no Notice was required for an occasion of this kind; but he had been rather surprised when, the first reading having been agreed to, the Bill was read a second time, and passed through all its stages without any Notice having been given that it was intended to take that course. When it was in Committee, he moved to report Progress; but he withdrew the Motion on the representation of the Under Secretary for the Home Department that it was a case of emergency, because it was desirable to prevent legal proceedings being taken against the noble Lord. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. He considered this a most unusual and dangerous course to take, and one as to which, they ought to have some assurance that it should not be repeated without the House in some manner having sufficient warning that such a matter was to be brought forward. In this case there was no such notification whatever. One precedent for the course which had been adopted he knew existed, and it was identical with the present case. It was that of Lord Scarborough, and occurred in the year 1841. But, in that case, the Bill was brought in at the commencement of the Business, and in a full House it was assented to by the then Premier, Lord Palmerston. He would suggest whether the Rules of the House might not in some way be altered so as to prevent the possibility of Members being taken by surprise in such cases. Notice should be given, or the Bill should be brought forward at the opening of Public Business. He begged to move the adjournment of this House.

in seconding the Motion, said, it was an improper thing that the Bill, of which nobody had received any Notice, should be passed in the small hours of the morning, when only a few Members were present. He should like to ask the Member of the Government who had been in charge of the Bill, why it had not been brought on at a quarter-past 4 o'clock yesterday, when the House was full; and, if it could not be brought on then, why it had not been postponed till a quarter-past 2 that day?

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—( Mr. Dillwyn .)

said, that the hon. Member for Swansea (M. Dillwyn) had rightly stated that at a quarter-past 2 o'clock that morning he had asked that the Bill should be read a first, second, and third time, and that that had been done; and he was obliged to the hon. Member for not having taken a division, as the result would have been to show that there were not 40 Members present. He had been asked why Notice had not been given of the introduction of the Bill. His answer was that, as he was informed by high authority, no Notice could be given of a Lord's Bill. The only rule was that, when such a Bill came down the fact was communicated to the House, and it was invariably proceeded with as soon as it could be consistently with the Business of the House. The reason the Bill was not introduced at 4 o'clock was that it was not received from the House of Lords until 6 o'clock, and it was contrary to the Rules of the House to interrupt proceedings in Committee. He had no alternative, therefore, but to wait until Progress had been reported. There was no Standing Order applicable to a Bill of this kind. Its introduction could only be justified by urgency, and he had rested the case on that ground. The Preamble of the Bill showed that Lord Byron had most inadvertently subjected himself to penalties, and he was informed that it was a matter of courtesy to the House of Lords as soon as possible to pass a Bill meant to relieve a person from the responsibility arising from his inadvertent act. He should be sorry to do anything that was at all irregular; but he had been informed that it was important the Royal Assent should be given to the Bill without delay, and he had proceeded with it on the authority he had consulted. Having laid the facts of the case before hon. Members, he considered they would agree he had acted rightly.

said, that, under the circumstances, he thought the House ought to be fully satisfied with the explanation which had just been given. They were, however, indebted to the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) for having called attention to the matter. It was, of course, desirable that no irregularity should take place in their proceedings; but, after what had been stated, they would be of opinion that no irregularity existed in the present case.

said, he thought that there was a general feeling in the House that his hon. Friend had acted rightly in the position in which he stood. At the same time, there would be evident advantage in so framing their proceedings that Bills of the kind should be introduced at the commencement of the proceedings in a full House, as had been done in 1841; but that was impossible in the present case. It appeared to him that to secure that object was rather a matter for the House of Lords than for them. It would be far from desirable that they should make a Rule that Notice should always be given in such a case, because, then, the risk of the service of writs and commencement of actions would have to be run. It would be desirable that in the case of Bills requiring despatch, the precaution should be taken in the House of Lords to pass them at such a time that they could be introduced in the House of Commons when there was a full House.

said, it had been stated that the House had acted in this matter with great courtesy towards the House of Lords. He trusted that if it should happen that any Member of that House inadvertently or otherwise took part in its proceedings without having taken the Oath, and that an Indemnity Bill were brought into this House, the House of Lords would reciprocate their courtesy.

said, if such a Bill as that in question could be legally and commendably dealt with in this way, he thought it important to know whether it was possible for any other Bill passed by the Lords to come down to the Commons, and be passed, without notice or warning, at 2 o'clock in the morning, through all its stages by 10 or 14 Members? If it was possible, the sooner the Rules of the House were altered the better for the protection of Her Majesty's subjects. He was Member for a part of the Kingdom which had greatly to fear legislation without discussion. He wished to know from the Speaker whether there was any peculiarity in this Bill which enabled it to be dealt with in a way that another Bill could not be treated?

said, he was one of those present when the Bill was passed, and failed then, as he failed now, to see the immediate urgency of the case. Execution did not follow at once upon the issuing of writs, and Lord Byron could not, therefore, have been put in any danger by the brief period of delay which would have enabled the Bill to be dealt with in a full House.

said, he did not think that the Prime Minister had fully appreciated the motive of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) in calling attention to this question. The difficulty was as to its being possible for any Bill from the House of Lords to be hurried through all its stages in the Commons without Members having the opportunity of knowing that such a Bill was to be brought in, or what were its contents. He thought the occasion for passing the Bill under discussion was one of very great urgency; but, at the same time, he thought it was perfectly justifiable to ask whether the Government would not think it right to propose some modification of the Rules of the House, so as to prevent the recurrence of such a thing in future, as cases might occur where the practice would result in great scandal, although in the present instance very little harm had been done?

In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), I have to state that, as the House is aware, it is occasionally the custom to pass Bills through their different stages at one and the same Sitting. That course, however, is never taken except in cases of extreme urgency and with the general assent of the House. It was considered yesterday that the case, as far as the present Bill is concerned, was one of urgency, and precisely the same course was taken as was followed in the Lord Scarborough Indemnity Bill in the year 1841. It was, perhaps, unfortunate that the Bill came down after the Business of this House had commenced; and, according to the practice of the House, its Business is never interrupted for the purpose of dealing with Bills sent down from the House of Lords. Such Bills are taken either before the Business in this House has commenced, or after the Orders of the Day and Notices on the Paper have been dealt with.

thought that, as the Royal Assent to the Bill could not be obtained before Monday, the consideration of the measure should have been postponed until the present Sitting.

thought it would have been much better, as there was no real urgency, that the Bill should have been taken at the commencement of the next Sitting.

thought Notice ought to have been given of any intention to suspend the Standing Orders in reference to this Bill.

said he believed there was no Standing Order which had to be suspended in the Commons, though there was in the House of Lords. When a Bill of this kind came down from the Lords it was usual to deal with it at the same Sitting, and the Government could not have properly departed from the settled precedents without especial cause. It was worthy of consideration, however, whether such a Bill in future should not be taken on the following day, and the Government would give the matter their attention.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn .

I am afraid, Sir, it is undeniable that untrue and dangerous impressions have gone abroad, and have received credence with a certain portion of the public, in regard to the character and effect of the Bill before the House. I trust that I am quite right in assuming that what we all desire is that the contents of the Bill, such as they are, and however objectionable they may be deemed to be by some Members of this House, should not be exaggerated and transformed into something totally different to what they are, with the very lamentable result of producing an impression, upon a naturally susceptible population, that this House was entertaining proposals such as I believe we could never induce it to entertain. I will not deal, however, with that subject; but I will say a word upon this other subject, that another impression has gone abroad that this Bill has been greatly altered since it was first proposed by the Government. Now, Sir, the Bill consists of 35 lines, and we are now engaged on the 32nd line. Down to the 32nd line the case stands exactly thus:—One Amendment of a formal character has been introduced into the text of the Bill moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and that is the only change that has taken place in the text. But there is a change proposed by the Government to which some hon. Gentlemen attach great importance, and others less—the introduction of a limit of value of holdings beyond which the Bill shall not apply. Thus, there has been one formal change made; and there is that other change, which is a change of substance in prospect. And these are the only two changes really which have as yet been proposed. I now rise to propose another change, which I will proceed immediately, briefly, and I hope clearly, to explain, for this change touches a portion of the Bill with respect to which it has happened that there has gone abroad an erroneous impression as to the purpose of what is proposed on the part of the Government. Indeed, some hon. Members of this House have used expressions, and have described these changes, as if they were introduced into the Bill, and have spoken of the measure as being amended on these points. The Amendment I have to move is to strike out, in line 32, the word "unreasonable," and subsequently to move to insert, after the word _" landlord," the words '' without the offer of any reasonable alternative." The word in the Bill was adopted by us on the ground that it was in correspondence, virtually, if not exactly, with the language of the Land Act in the 18th section; and we thought it a very great advantage, with regard to the easy working of the Bill, that we should follow closely the wording in that Act. In explaining that language, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, in the course of his able speech on the second reading, construed the phrase, "unreasonably refused by the landlord," as including a case in which a landlord should have refused his tenant permission to sell his interest. My right hon. and learned Friend expressed the opinion, which I subsequently expressed when I addressed the House on the second reading, that the words of the Bill provided for that case. Perhaps I may be allowed, under the circumstances, as the words are not many, and as I believe they are correctly reported, to read the language in which I myself am supposed to have explained the intention of the Government. The words are these—

"Another important question has been raised upon the Notice given by the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness of a Motion to be made before the Speaker leaves the Chair. The substance of it is that the Bill shall not apply in cases where a landlord is willing to allow the tenant to sell his goodwill. That, undoubtedly, is a very important proposition, with regard to which I am in a position to say that the drawers of the Bill believe that it is incorporated in the measure as it now stands, inasmuch as no person in his senses could possibly allow the Bill to apply in a case where a landlord had been willing to allow the tenant to sell his goodwill."

I am not speaking of the precise accuracy of these words, but only of the construction that the Government placed upon the Bill. But that construction was greatly disputed, and authoritative opinions, entitled to great weight, were given, in more quarters of the House than one, to the effect that in the words "unreasonably refused" there was not contained any provision, any efficacy, that would meet this case at all. We thought that when a Bill had a certain purpose in view, which its framers thought to be covered by its language, but which many persons, as well entitled to be heard as its framers, thought not to be covered by that language, that the rational course for the Government to take was to endeavour, by additional words, or by the alteration of words, so to explain their intention, that there should be no doubt about it. It was in fulfilment of that view that the Government authorized and requested my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland to submit a clause, the intention of which was not, so far as we were concerned, in the least degree to alter the effect of the Bill, but to make it clear that the offer to allow the tenant to sell his goodwill, always presuming that it was a fair and reasonable offer, would be held to exempt the landlord from the operation of the Act. Consequently, the clause of my right hon. and learned Friend was given Notice of. Very naturally, and at once, this clause was subjected to severe criticism; and when the microscopic force of the Parliamentary vision of many hon. Gentlemen was applied to it—and I am not speaking in any disparagement of those powers, because they are most useful—it was discovered that there were extreme cases for which this clause might not provide. It was urged, from the side of what is called the "Irish Party," that the landlord might, by an unreasonable rent, have so whittled down the interest of the tenant, the goodwill of the tenant—it is not necessary for me to use strict language—the goodwill of the estate; the thing, at any rate, for which people are usually willing to pay—the landlord might, by excess, have whittled down the interest in such a way that the offer to sell the goodwill might be an offer of no real value, and would give no real relief to the tenant. An offer of that kind, undoubtedly, could not possibly be held to exempt the landlord from the liability of an unreasonable refusal. His refusal was still unreasonable, if he covered that refusal only by a proposition which was itself unreasonable. At the same time that that objection was taken from that quarter of the House, another objection was taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), and by others, of quite a different effect. They said—"What is to be done in case there is no purchaser forthcoming? Are you to hold that the landlord who has made a bonâ fide offer, and an offer which may have been a perfectly real offer, is to be subject to be encountered with a declaration which may be true or untrue, on the part of the tenant, that he is unable to find a purchaser?" This was also raising an extreme case, which we do not regard as likely to occur; but although that might be so, I was disposed to admit there was force in the objection. What we intended upon the second reading was that a reasonable offer to sell the goodwill was within the provisions and the intentions of the Bill; and that it would not be practical, it would not be just, on the part of the Judge, and it was a thing not to be anticipated on the part of a Judge—a rational, intelligent, and competent man—that he would say that where a landlord had made that offer, that where it was really and honourably made, that he was guilty of an unreasonable refusal. The Committee will not fail to notice that the language used is singular language, and invites some attention. There are two sub-heads, marked 2 and 3, as conditions in the Bill, the first of which is that the tenant shall propose reasonable terms; and the second of which, marked No. 3, is that the tenant shall propose reasonable terms; the other, that the landlord shall unreasonably refuse. A reader of this Bill, who was not aware that these were terms already used in the Land Act, and, consequently, have an especial and ascertained meaning, might say, or might be tempted to say—"If the terms of the tenant are reasonable, the refusal of those terms must be unreasonable." But that was not our view. It was our view that the terms of the tenant might be in themselves reasonable, and yet that it might be possible for the landlord to devise other terms which were in themselves reasonable, and, proposing these very reasonable terms, put aside by means of them the reasonable terms of the tenant. The landlords, at any rate, could not then be said to be mulcted by the provisions of this Bill. Our objection to the clause moved was that these were extreme cases which we had not contemplated, and did not conceive would be likely to occur. At the same time, we do not wish to enter into any difficult question of whether the language of the clause was sufficient to exclude or provide for this case. Consequently, we considered whether there was any other manner in which we could clear up what had been declared to be obscure, though we did not think it to be so, and by any way which would not be open to either of these two objections, and which would, at the same time, correspond in substance with the original language of the Bill, and proceed on the principle which had always guided us—namely, by leaving to the discretion of the Judge the consideration of the question of what are reasonable terms, and what is an unreasonable refusal. Our opinion was, that when the terms of the tenant are reasonable, that that is the condition of which the Judge must have convinced himself before he could proceed to consider the refusal of the landlord. There was one way only in which the landlord could exempt himself from the duty of acceding to these reasonable terms, and that was by offering other terms which were also reasonable, and to which it might be expected that the tenant should conform, rather than that the landlord should be brought under the unusual and comparatively severe provisions of this Bill. We, therefore, endeavoured to meet the difficulty by proposing to dispense with the word "unreasonable," and to supply, after the word "landlord," what we think to be a practicable definition of the word unreasonable—namely, that a landlord, in order to be entitled, without being unreasonable, to refuse the reasonable terms of the tenant, shall offer to the tenant some reasonable alternative. We think we cannot deny that an offer to sell the goodwill might be a reasonable alternative. We do not, in the least degree, believe that the goodwill of a tenant in Ireland is an unsaleable commodity. I believe the Judge would be perfectly competent to determine whether these words, "the offer of a reasonable alternative," can be safely applied in a particular case. If the landlord offers an alternative which amounts to this—"You may go and sell that which has become unsaleable by the rent which, under a pressure of circumstances, I have induced you to contract to pay"—such a case as that will be readily discerned, and set aside by the Judge. On the other hand, if the tenant, whether under his influence, or from his own misguided view, is endeavouring to put obstacles in the way of the fair operation of the Bill, and has untruly confessed not to be able to find a purchaser, the Judge, who knows the general circumstances of the district and the general state of the demand for rent—which we are always told, and truly told, is a great characteristic of the local districts of Ireland—he will take care that in such a case the proceedings of the tenant shall not be able to defeat the fair purpose of the landlord. And thus, to go far beyond the Ulster Custom—if I were to quote that as a precedent, which I do not wish to do, because I do not conceive this to be an application of the Ulster Custom—and it would be going far beyond even that, if, as I understand it, the declaration of the tenant that he could not find a purchaser were, of itself, to defeat the offer of the landlord to allow him to sell. I may, perhaps, notice, as it lies in a narrow compass, that the hon Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) proposes to bring in the words, after "reasonable," "and equivalent." We are deliberately of opinion that it is far safer to adhere to the words "reasonable." The word "equivalent" would be a completely new epithet for the Judge to construe, and we are very unwilling—and I think the hon. Member, as a practical man, will appreciate our motive in this important question of the fundamental phraseology of the Act —to introduce a completely new word with regard to the construction of which the Judge has no guide whatever. I need not trouble the Committee at any greater length. The change which we propose will, if accepted, put an end to troubling the Committee with the Motion which stands on the Paper as intended to clear up and define, and in no respect to alter, the original purpose of the clause. This Amendment substitutes for the words "unreasonable refusual" the words "refusal without a reasonable alternative." We have not scrupled to admit—and I feel myself bound to admit—that we do not attach great practical importance to the objections taken to the clause. Not that we do not deny that these objections may, with reference to the extreme cases, hold good. We are acting upon the principle of endeavouring to obtain the best expression of the views of Parliament in the language of this short Bill; and we have proposed, and we really believe that we shall attain that object, if it be the pleasure of the Committee to accede to the Amendment I now move.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 32, to leave out the word "unreasonably."—( Mr. Gladstone .)

Question proposed, "That the word ' unreasonably' stand part of the Clause."

I shall confine my observations, as closely as possible, to a very short criticism of the Amendment now proposed, and I think it might have been as well if the right hon. Gentleman had abstained from prefacing his remarks upon it with the denial that there had been any change in the purpose or propositions of the Government. It appears to me, and to a large number of Members in the House, that the Bill was introduced on one set of premises, and is now defended on others totally different. The arguments presented to the Committee have varied from week to week, from day to day, and almost from hour to hour; and no one can question that there has been—it is admitted by the right hon. Gentleman himself, that very substantial changes and propositions have been made in a hurried and rapid way. I am very glad that the Prime Minister, in introducing this Amendment to the notice of the Committee, has abstained from putting forward, in the slightest degree, words which have been frequently used, though never without challenge, by the Chief Secretary—the proprietary rights of the tenant under the 3rd section of the Land Act. There is no such right under that Act, no such right was intended to be created by that Act, and the idea of creating such a right was distinctly and expressly repudiated by the Prime Minister himself in the various arguments that he offered the House in relation to that measure. Therefore, I hope we shall be spared, in the further stages of the discussion of this Bill, the reiteration, on the part of the Chief Secretary, of this assertion of the proprietary rights of the tenant. Now, what is the position of the Amendment of the Prime Minister, and what is its precise meaning? The Prime Minister asks us to find its meaning in following the history of the Bill, and of the various Amendments which have appeared upon the Paper. Well, now, the first clue I can find to the meaning of the Amendment is contained in a very clear sentence of the Prime Minister on the second reading, which was used to meet an objection urged on the part of the landlords that it would be very unreasonable, if the landlord expressed his willingness to allow the sale of the goodwill of a farm, that that landlord should still come within the operation of this Bill, and have damages awarded against him. That was an argument obviously having great weight with both sides of the House, and the Prime Minister grappled with it by saying that no Judge in his senses could possibly allow the Bill to apply to a case where a landlord had been willing to allow the tenant to sell his goodwill. I had the honour of speaking after the Prime Minister in that debate, and I at once challenged his statement. I gave it as my clear, deliberate, and distinct opinion, on the construction of the Bill, that the Chairman or the County Court Judge would have absolutely no discretion, and would be bound to hold, first, that the landlord, under the Bill as it stood, was liable for damages, although I said he might, in reduction of damages, consider the fact that the landlord had expressed a desire to permit the tenant to sell his goodwill. That the contention was not ill-founded, was demonstrated next day by the appearance on the Paper of the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland. Now, that Amendment was either necessary or it was not. I assume it was put upon the Paper because it was felt to be necessary, and that, under the circumstances, it was safer to develop the meaning which it was thought was latent in the Bill by putting it there. That was, of course, a concession of the validity of the argument I ventured to address to the House. Now, what was the effect of that Amendment? That is extremely important, because we are asked to interpret the Amendment of the Attorney General by the original intention of the Bill, and we are now asked to interpret the Amendment of the Prime Minister by the meaning that was intended by the Amendment of the Attorney General. In fact, it is a series of meanings that we are to deduce—first, from the mind of the Premier in regard to the Bill, then from the Bill to the Amendment of the Attorney General, and the last stage of the development is the Amendment of the Prime Minister himself. It must be assumed that the Amendment of the Attorney General was a deliberate proposition. All along the Government have said that they intended the meaning of that Amendment. That was their contention and argument. That was put down after three days' discussion on the second reading in the name of their Officer, who emphasizes the fact that the legal acumen of the Irish Department had been brought to bear upon it. Therefore, there can be no doubt that it must be taken to be the deliberate meaning of the Government. What was the immediate effect of that? It was read in different ways by two important sections of the House. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, who did not approve of the Bill in its earlier stages, and had voted against it, now abstained from opposing the Government on the Motion to go into Committee. So far, it had worked out a very satisfactory result; but it became apparent that the Amendment was not so satisfactory to the other element that it was desired to conciliate and to meet. And it became apparent, if the moderate Liberals who had previously dissented, had thus been, to use a common but distinct expression, squared, that that process had not been equally successful with the Party mainly led by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork City. They abstained from supporting the Government on the Motion to go into Committee, and, as I understand, two wholly opposite constructions must have been put upon this simple Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend contained in four lines. The usual Supporters of the Government were satisfied that this was an Amendment which, to use the words of the Prime Minister—"would enable the landlord to escape from the operation of the Bill, if he was willing to allow his tenant to sell his goodwill." That was the interpretation that was put on the Amendment by one side of the House; but that did not meet the views of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork. He said—"No, it is unreasonable to let the landlord off thus; the tenant may have been unable to sell from no fault of his own. The rent may not have been reasonable; it may have been raised, and, therefore, the Amendment must be guarded and fenced round in such a way as to make it pleasing to me." What was then the position of the Government? It was quite obvious, if the Amendment of the Attorney General was to be re-cast, and the Government was to make what is called a change of front—and they are now got tolerably used to that—if they made a change in the Amendment of the Attorney General, it would be obvious that they could only do it by introducing words, or omitting words, and that would make it apparent that, in pleasing the hon. Member for the City of Cork, they would necessarily displease the Supporters they had satisfied by the general provisions of the Amendment. That being so, it became necessary for the Government to re-consider their position, and, accordingly, they reconsidered it between 1 o'clock on Friday night and on the following Monday afternoon. On Friday night, having told my noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) that they would stand by the Attorney General's Amendment, and had no intention of changing it on Monday, the first thing the Prime Minister does, when he came down to the House on Monday, is to announce that he would introduce these changes in the 3rd condition, and that would render it unnecessary, or probably unnecessary, to move the Amendment of the Attorney General. Has the House read it with any clear understanding of what it now means? The only thing absolutely plain is that it takes the responsibility from the Government of expressing a clear meaning and a clear proposition, and bundles it off to the Chairman to exercise the best discretion he can about it. Surely that is not the way in which the House of Commons has a right to be treated on an important question. If the original meaning of the Government was that a landlord who is willing to give a fair right to sell should not be onerated by the provisions of the Bill, in the name of fair play and common sense, why not say it plainly? But, in spite of that, the Government cloud up all their meanings into an Amendment of this 3rd clause; and now I ask this question—Does that Amendment include the Amendment of the Attorney General? Does that Amendment include the Amendment of the Attorney General as placed upon the Paper? We are entitled to know that. It either includes that proposition—that is, one thing, or it includes more. If it includes more, I ask how much more? Or if it includes less, then I ask how much less? Then, if it is intended as a substitute, to stand in all particulars in the place of the Amendment of the Attorney General, I am entitled to ask these two questions. Is it intended to be a difference in phraseology, retaining the identity of meaning, or is it intended as a difference of phraseology with a different meaning; in which case I ask, what difference and what meaning? Let there be no mistake about it. Is the Chairman to have a wider discretion under the Amendment of the Attorney General than under the Amendment of the Prime Minister, or not? Is his discretion enlarged or contracted? We are entitled to have clear answers to these things. Now, I put this question—can a landlord, under any circumstances, supposing that the Amendment of the Prime Minister is carried, no matter how reasonable his conduct, no matter how kind he may be to his tenant, is it possible he can escape if he does not name a reasonable alternative? I apprehend clearly he cannot. Then, again, let us take this case—A landlord receives only a very small rent, and his conduct has been not only blameless, but praiseworthy. He has abstained from exact- ing a high rent; the rent is moderate; he has been kind to the tenant; he has been in connection with him for an entire generation; but he is unable to suggest an alternative. Must that landlord, if the Amendment is carried, be mulcted in damages? I say he must. I say there is no possible escape from it. Then, again, I put this. Supposing a landlord is advised. "You are bound, under this clause of the Prime Minister that was framed in such haste, to pay damages for disturbance if you do not name an alternative, and a reasonable alternative. When the case comes into Court, and is submitted to the one crucial test, then the Judge may say that your alternative is unreasonable; and then, under the Amendment of the Prime Minister, you must pay damages." Now, is this Amendment introduced in furtherance of the protection of the landlord or not? I say that the change made in the Bill is distinctly reactionary from that point of view; and the proposition now made to amend this condition, by striking out the word "unreasonable," is distinctly more unfavourable to the landlord than the Bill as it was introduced. The 3rd condition, as originally framed, puts upon the landlord the task of discharging himself from these conditions. To do that he has to show the Court that the terms previously referred to are not unreasonably refused by him. Well, that left to the landlord, at all events, some latitude. It left him the opportunity of going, as he undoubtedly could, into all the arguments at his disposal, of pointing out every circumstance that he thought could influence the mind of the Judge in considering his position, and of inducing the Judge to say—" True, the tenant may be unable to pay, owing to circumstances for which he is not to blame. True, it may be that the tenant is willing to continue in possession—for which I do not blame him very much—and on reasonable terms as to rent; but I am not satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances you bring before me, that your refusal is unreasonable; and, therefore, I hold you do not come under the Bill." The power of saying that is, by the Amendment of the Prime Minister, absolutely taken away from the landlord. Of course, that is a very substantial change, and a change which is distinctly against the interests of the landlord. I admit that there is not very much in this Bill which is a safeguard to the landlord; but the changes sought to be made, and which have been made and then withdrawn, are certainly not to the interest of the landlord. Notably, that was the case last night in the withdrawal of the limit of £30 rental. I do not wish to go back on what took place then. But, certainly, what was done then did not show any desire to exhibit much consideration to the interests of the landlord. Now, I will put a proposition, and I should be glad to hear the statement of my right hon. Friend upon it, with reference to the 9th section of the Land Act taken in connection with this Amendment, and we shall see how it presses on the kindest and most forbearing landlords. The more kind and forbearing, the more they will suffer; and the harsher they have been and more exacting, the more easily they will escape. In the 9th section of the Land Act there is this statement, to which I wish to call the attention of the Committee. Under that section, as the Committee must now know tolerably well, for it has been repeated to them day after day, the landlord already, and without any change in the law, is liable, in cases of ejectment for non-payment of rent, to pay damages for disturbance in two cases—first, where there were tenancies existing at the passing of the Act, which would cover the greater part of all the tenancies in Connaught, where a very large number, and, indeed, the vast majority of tenancies have gone on, unchanged and unbroken, and there has been no change of tenancy to talk of since 1870. Under this 9th section, in a tenancy existing at the passing of the Act, under the circumstances I am about to state, the landlord, without this Bill at all, can be made to pay damages for disturbance. The Court may, if it think fit, treat the ejectment for non-payment of rent as a disturbance, if the arrears of rent in respect of which it is brought has not wholly accrued within the three previous years, and if any earlier arrears remain due at the commencement of the ejectment. What is the meaning of that? Its object is to prevent landlords keeping stale demands hanging over their tenants, and then suddenly coming down on them and getting rid of them when they could not bear the strain. That provision was a warning to the landlords that it was not prudent or wise to allow stale demands to accrue against the tenant, and that the law would jealously regard the landlord who did so. The landlords at the present time, when this Bill comes into operation, will have—very commonly—two or three years' rent due to them in the scheduled districts. When they were within the limits of the 9th section, and if they now brought actions they could recover their lands, or recover their rent. But this Bill practically tells the landlord that it is wiser and more expedient not to bring the ejectment until after 1881, because, if he does so, he will have to pay damages for disturbance. That is holding out an inducement to the landlord to abstain from bringing the ejectment until after 1881, for he is told that if he does so he will have to pay damages. Now, I ask the Committee to contemplate the effect on the landlord so placed by this Bill, and the operation of the 9th clause of the Land Act. What is the position of the landlord? He must say—"Now this tenant owes me two and a-half years' rent, and if I allow further arrears to hang over till 1882, I can be damaged under the 9th section of the Land Act, because I shall have allowed more than three years' arrears to become due, and the Judge can give damages against me for disturbance." Surely, that was a startling point. Supposing that the landlord is shut out by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister from showing that it is not unreasonable of him to refuse the offer of the tenant, then, by the refusal of the offer of the tenant, he might be landed in the 9th section of the Land Act. That is a matter well worthy of the serious attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, who now, that his mind is free from attending to the solitary Amendment given to his charge, may have some time to apply his mind—and no one could bring more powers to bear upon a question—to frame some other Amendment which may possibly remove the objections to the clanse now before the Committee. For the reason I have referred to, I am of opinion that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister takes away the flimsy protection of the condition as introduced. It practically hands everything over to the Chairman—it supersedes the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and it absolutely destroys the 3rd condition. These, I think, are the points which should render the Committee, at all events, clear upon this Amendment, as one which is distinctly reactionary against the landlord, and which will result in handing over everything to the discretion and decision of the Chairman. I will now, with the permission of the Committee, read a quotation from a national Irish newspaper, which, came out a week ago; a paper written with great ability—I mean The Nation . It discusses the Bill with a great deal of its usual ability, force, and candour. The Nation says, speaking of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister—

"These we repeat, are admissions of the utmost importance from the point of view of the Irish tenantry. They cover the whole ground of the Irish demand in the matter of Land Reform, and would justify, not merely the wretched little Bill on behalf of which they were made, but a measure as sweeping as any recommended by Mr. Parnell or Mr. Davitt. It is, indeed, almost ridiculous to think that such weighty arguments as were used by Mr. Gladstone should be urged in support of a proposal which, even within the restricted limits of time and area in which it is to operate, will probably be of no practical good whatever. The Land Bill, however, gives expression to a principle which all tenant-right advocates regard as a vital one, and we have no doubt that it is for this very reason that the landlords have worked themselves into such a rage in its regard."

If that be so, and if this Bill is asked for by nobody, and if no one thanks the Government for it; if it is alienating a great many of the staunchest Supporters of the Government who, at best, look upon it with a kind of frigid resignation; if it be regarded by those who act with the hon. Member for the City of Cork with contemptuous acquiescence, surely it will be well, before the House gets into a heated discussion, for the right hon. Gentleman to consider the advisability of even now withdrawing the Amendment, instead of allowing it to stand over till a later period.

said, there was one part of the quotation made by his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) which he thought was not inapt—namely, where the writer spoke of the rage into which hon. Gentlemen opposite had worked themselves when discussing this Bill. The House had something of it to-day; but a very striking instance occurred last night, when, the crater being full, it boiled over in a violent eruption. He would not follow his right hon. and learned Friend in what he called his prefatory observations on the history of the Bill. In his opinion, they did not all tend towards the elucidation of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. His right hon. and learned Friend had asked what portion of the House this Amendment was intended to conciliate? Well, his (Mr. Law's) answer was simply this—that the Amendment was not intended to conciliate any hon. Members. Its object was simply to do what was just and right. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also desired to know what was the difference between this and the previous Amendment of which he (Mr. Law) had given Notice? He could not, however, now go into that question further than to say that the Bill, as it originally stood, and as it would have stood with the Amendment of which he (Mr. Law) gave Notice, or as it would stand if the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) were adopted, would come to the same thing. If his right hon. and learned Friend could suggest any hard-and-fast line by which the discretion of the Judge would be infallibly regulated, he would invent something that would be very useful for all judicial tribunals. With reference to the question as to what the Court would hold to be a just and reasonable arrangement between landlord and tenant, they must leave a large discretion to the Judge, and trust to his good sense and fairness for a proper decision in each case. The Judge would have to decide whether, if the tenant's proposal were refused, a reasonable alternative was offered him by the landlord; and, if satisfied that this had been done, he would hold the landlord free from all liability. His right hon. and learned Friend had said in his speech on the second reading that he saw nothing in the Bill as drawn to the effect that a reasonable offer to the tenant to sell his goodwill would be an answer to a claim for compensation, insisting that such offer would merely go to reduce the damage payable by the landlord. With all due respect, however, to his right hon. and learned Friend, he (Mr. Law) entirely disagreed with him on that point. Nor could he conceive that any Judge would hold a refusal unreasonable, if justified by so good a reason as that he had given the tenant liberty to sell. Coming now to the Prime Minister's Amendment, he (Mr. Law) did not think that instances could be suggested to the Committee in which a landlord's refusal of a tenant's reasonable offer must not in itself be unreasonable. If the tenant offered reasonable terms —that was to say, reasonable with reference to the position of the landlord as well as of himself—the refusal to accept those reasonable terms must be itself unreasonable, unless a substantially equivalent alternative was offered to the tenant. And, on questions of this kind, they could do nothing but leave the Judge to determine them, exercising his discretion as to what, having regard to the circumstances of each particular case, was reasonable or unreasonable. It should be remembered that the tribunals in which this discretionary power was to be vested were those which for the last 10 years had been in the habit of deciding under the Land Act what was reasonable or unreasonable as between landlord and tenant. If a tenant sought compensation for disturbance under Section 3 of the Land Act, and the landlord could show that he was willing to let the tenant continue in occupation "on just and reasonable terms," but the tenant refused this reasonable offer, then he got nothing. The landlords considered that this provision in the 18th section of the Act of 1870 was sufficiently clear to protect them, and the same terms would be just as efficient and as easily applied now for the protection of the tenant. Attention had been called to the 9th section of the Land Act, with reference to cases in which more than three years' rent was due. His right hon. and learned Friend had said it was a very common thing, in the Province of Connaught, for three years' rent to be due.

said, that his remark was, that if landlords held over their present arrears till 1882, then there would certainly be three years' rent due.

said, that if a difficulty of that kind arose, it would be for the County Court Judge to deal with it, who would consider whether such cir- cumstances did not furnish sufficient grounds for holding the tenant's proposal not to be just and reasonable. Each case, in short, seemed to be left to be dealt with by the Judge as it arose. It appeared to him that, from first to last, the meaning of the Bill, with or without his own or the Prime Minister's Amendment, was precisely the same. A refusal by the landlord to accept the tenant's terms could not, he (Mr. Law) submitted, be considerd by any Judge to be an "unreasonable" refusal, if the tenant had been offered permission to sell his holding for its full value. This proposition, however, was denied by his right hon. Friend; and though he (Mr. Law) could not well understand the denial, still it occurred to him that, when a Gentleman of the experience of his right hon. and learned Friend expressed doubts as to the meaning of, what to him was perfectly clear, it was his duty to put the matter so that no complaint should be made of its form. For that reason, he had put his Amendment on the Paper; not for the purpose of relieving the landlord who made an illusory offer, but to relieve one who made a bonâ fide offer to give the tenant permission to sell, leaving the landlord's liability to remain where the tenant availing himself of the permission to sell could make nothing of it. The Prime Minister's Amendment, however, had the advantage that it was simpler, as well as more concise, and also covered a wider field. It enabled the landlord to offer any fair alternative he thought fit. It might be an offer to purchase the holding himself at a fair price. It might be the offer of a good farm elsewhere. It might, in short, be the offer of anything substantially as good for the tenant as his own proposal of continuing in his holding on fair terms. All that would be necessary would be that the County Court Judge should deem it, under the circumstances, a just and reasonable alternative. There had been considerable improvement in the position of the Irish County Court Judges, and several of them, indeed, had been appointed by the late Government during their tenure of Office. As to the entire body generally, he thought they were quite competent to discharge more onerous duties than were likely to be imposed upon them by this Bill. They had already to find out what was just and reasonable under words in the Land Act identical with the clauses of this Bill. They had been doing that for the last 10 years, and they might be surely trusted with the jurisdiction proposed to be given them now, particularly, when there was a right of appeal. The contingency of injury to the landlord was abundantly provided against by the conditions which were imposed on the tenant. If the landlord did not want to accept the just and reasonable offer which the tenant made to continue on in the holding, then he must show that he had offered something reasonably equivalent; but this one showed no compensation would be payable. He hoped that the Committee would accept the Amendment without hesitation.

said, that he did not think that any definite answer had been given to the arguments of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), unless it were an answer to say that there was no difference between the Amendment now proposed and the words which originally stood in the Bill. If that was a fact, he should to hear some reason for the proposal of the words now before the Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentlemen had challenged them to say—first, that there was something in the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that would injure the landlords; and, secondly, that there were any alteration of the proposals of the Government. He should endeavour to convince the Government, before he sat down, that they had something to say on both of these points. He had listened with great attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in the hope of obtaining from that speech some explanation of the difficult and almost uninterpretable word, "reasonable." He understood from that speech that, in the opinion of the Government, it would be unreasonable on the part of the landlord merely to allow the tenant who held his holding at a full rent, the power of selling a holding which would be of no value. So far, he understood the right hon. Gentleman; but, on the other hand, he thought he said it would be unreasonable on the part of the tenant if, having a valuable right, he capriciously declined to avail himself of permission to sell it. These points were clear; but it was reserved for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, in his significant speech, really to explain to the Committee what the effect of the Bill would be on the landlords of Ireland. He seemed to forget, during the progress of this measure, the existence of the pernicious and dangerous land agitation in Ireland. He should like to know what, in the opinion of the Government, would be the duty of the County Court Judge in such a case as this. Supposing a tenant, having held for years under a good landlord at a low rent, was much in arrear, and, having a valuable right in his holding, said—"It is true you have let me this land at a low rent; it is true my right in the land is a valuable one. You have given me permission to sell that to another one, but I cannot avail myself of that permission." Why? "Because in my county town, three weeks ago, at a meeting numerously attended by tenant farmers, shopkeepers, and others interested, a resolution was passed binding all who voted not to take any land from which a tenant had been evicted for non-payment of rent, and denouncing any shopkeeper or farmer who took such land, as an enemy to the people." He would like to know from the Government if they were not aware of such a state of things as that in a large portion of the districts scheduled to the Bill; and, knowing it, whether they meant to tell the Committee the existence of such agitation would not result in preventing the tenant who wanted to sell his holding from being able to do so? Did not the Government know that the tenant who might directly or indirectly have taken part in the agitation might make use of it to continue in his holding without the payment of rent? Did they mean to tell the Committee, for the benefit of the County Courts Judges, that for the next two years, if the tenant pleaded this before the Court as an excuse for not selling his right, the Judge was to take it into account, and the landlord was to be fined by being called upon to pay damages? If they did know that, it was an injury to the landlords, which he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland scarcely contemplated when he said that if a tenant tried to sell and could not sell, the landlord was to be liable for damages. He hoped that before they got any further they should, at least, be told what was the real meaning of the Government in this matter. He did not want to bind the County Court Judges to unfair or unpractical restrictions; but the House and the country had a right to know the intentions of the Government as to the meaning of the Bill and the effect of its provisions.

said, the word "reasonable," which had been described as uninterpretable, had been interpreted in difficult cases almost every day since the Land Act came into operation. The case had been put of the land agitation being directed against any man taking a farm from which another had been ejected. No doubt, the land agitation in Ireland was a very serious matter, and the Government would be neglecting its duty if it did not do its utmost to protect any man who took land from which another had been ejected. That was not the case to which the clause applied. It was not the case of a man who was being ejected or driven out by his landlord, but that of a man who was making a bargain with his landlord to remain in. The right hon. Gentleman asked how a man was to be protected against a combination which said that land was not to be taken up if somebody had been driven away? But the very object of the Bill was to enable the tenant to remain quietly in, or to make a bargain with his landlord so that he might get the value of his holding from some other person. He would not say whether he considered that such a Bill as this would entirely stop the land agitation, because its roots were deep-seated; but he believed the Bill would go a long way towards stopping it. At the present time the tenant had no other resource; he was driven out without power to sell, and without the possibility of recovering compensation. He did not believe that they would have had this agitation if there had been power to sell, any more than they had it in Donegal where there was distress, and where there had been ejectments, but where were none of those meetings and combinations, because there was no attempt to prevent a man selling what was saleable. What they were called upon to discuss was the 3rd sub-section of the clause. This, when originally brought in, said that not only must the tenant have been unable to pay his rent, and not only must he have made a reasonable offer to his landlord, and approached him in a reasonable spirit, but he must have been met by the landlord in an unreasonable spirit before any damages could be assessed by the County Court. The words originally proposed by Her Majesty's Government carried out their view; but they were thought not to be sufficiently clear to hon. Members opposite. They were misunderstood, or not sufficiently understood, by hon. Members on the other side of the House. They supposed that the words did not include a reasonable proposal or reasonable permission to sell the holdings. The Government had always meant that the words should include as a reasonable proposal, permission to sell the holdings; but in order to make it clear, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was brought in. The Government never for a moment proposed, and they would have been treating the Committee with contempt, and have been treating persons in Ireland interested with worse than contempt, if they had proposed, that a mere illusory offer on the part of the landlord would meet the circumstances of the case. It was a case in which discretion must be left to the Judge in interpreting what was reasonable. That was no new discretion. It had been exercised with great success before, and they had no reason to believe that it would not be again. It was said that the Government had adopted a change with regard to this question. He did not think that it mattered whether they had or not. At all events, it would make no difference in carrying out the action in Ireland. There could not be much use in having a Committee upon a Bill, if every suggestion were not considered and appreciated by the Government; and he did not see why the adoption of a suggestion should always be considered a serious change. Sometimes, if a stranger came in, he would suppose that the fate of the Government was at stake, and that, if they accepted a suggestion, they ought to resign at once. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen desired to call these things changes, they could derive any comfort they pleased from that sort of Party triumph, and they were welcome to that; but that was not the question. The real question was, whether the words they proposed to insert, in order to make their meaning more clear, afforded a fair protection to the enormous majority of reasonable landlords, and would prevent, as they wished to prevent, unreasonable proposals on the part of the small minority. What the Government said was, that when the tenant was unable to pay, if the landlord did not accept a reasonable offer on his part, and did not propose some reasonable alternative, then the discretion as to compensation was to be left to the Judge.

said, that he was sorry he was obliged to press the right hon. Gentleman a little further on this point. The right hon. Gentleman was asked a very distinct question by his right hon. Friend, and he had not answered it, or even attempted to answer it. With great respect he put the question again to him. The question was, whether, in the present state of the land agitation in Ireland, if permission were given by the landlord to his tenant to sell the interest in his farm, and he refused to sell, stating that he could not get anybody to purchase it from him, was that to be considered a reasonable offer on the part of the landlord, and an unreasonable refusal on the part of the tenant? Under those circumstances, would the alternative be available to the landlord? That was a point which required a distinct answer. It was a very important question, and they were entitled to have an answer to it. In the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, the Attorney General for Ireland, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the permission to sell was an alternative which was suggested, and, in the opinion of a great many hon. Members, was a valuable one. He would suppose the case of a tenant affected by the Bill, who obtained his landlord's permission to sell, but who stated that an association had been formed—and he might be a member of that association himself—for the purpose of having only such rents paid as they thought fit, and that association had forbidden any man to take that farm from him. The offer, there, was bonâ fide , but the refusal would make the alternative wholly illusory, even though, the difficulty of finding a purchaser was only part of a conspiracy. He was not putting an imaginary case. The hon. Member for Mayo, when the clause of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was put upon the Paper, made an able speech in which he pressed the Government against the Amendment, and said it was no use to give them the Bill if they gave the landlord the alternative of offering permission to sell. He spoke of the existing anti-rent agitation, adding, very wisely, that he would go into the question on its merits and demerits; and he asked how the word "reasonable" was to be construed under such circumstances as he (Mr. Plunket) had just now suggested? The hon. Member for Mayo got a straightforward answer; and now, he thought, a straightforward answer should be given to his question. He wished to know if, when a landlord gave his tenant permission to sell, and the tenant was prevented from selling by the land agitation, that would be a reasonable refusal of the landlord's offer? The answer given to the hon. Member for Mayo was that the change which had been made in the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was made by placing on the Paper that of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, which left the whole matter at large. The right hon. Gentleman had, very justly and properly, said that undue expectations had been raised and undue apprehensions had been excited in Ireland which it would be well to set aside. The question which he asked now went to the root of the whole matter. There was a case in which they had not yet had a distinct expression of opinion on the part of the Government. How could a man sell if there was a combination to prevent his doing so; and if that was the answer he took back to his landlord, would the latter cease to be protected by the offer he had made? He would ask the Government to give a straightforward answer to that question, and to tell the Committee whether they would carry out what they said were their intentions in this matter.

said, that he was somewhat surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had asked the question. He thought it was rather a suggestive one, as to what might be done in the County of Mayo. Hitherto they had no such experience as that referred to. There had been a combina- tion and a strong combination, against which, words too strong could not be used; but the object of the combination was to prevent tenants taking farms from which landlords had ejected tenants. But there had been no combination that he had ever heard of to prevent tenants taking farms in which the landlords gave permission to the outgoing tenant to sell. He had never heard that any such combination existed anywhere where there was a right to sell. It had been his business to read the reports of the meetings held with a good deal of painful attention. He had seen nothing in these reports which turned upon such a combination, and he hoped that the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not suggest it. With respect to the question put to him, if there was such a combination, it was a matter in which the Judge would have to use his very best discretion. He would have to find out how far the tenant had anything to do with such a state of things; and, of course, if the tenant had been in any sort of way connected with any such combination, the Judge would instantly dismiss the tenant's claim. It appeared to him to be one of those cases in which it would be impossible for the Committee to put itself into the position of the Judge. The remark had been made that the Government ought not to excite unreasonable fear or unreasonable expectations in Ireland. He could not but regret what had happened, for he believed that not only had unreasonable fears been excited, but unreasonable expectations had been raised in the minds of the tenants in some parts of Ireland, who believed, from the statements constantly made in this House— most mistaken and fallacious statements —that this Bill was to be a Bill for the suspension of the payment of rent. That was an expectation for which he did not think that the Government were in the slightest degree responsible. It was not a Bill for the suspension of rent; but he was not sure that the difficulties of the Government would not be increased by the extraordinary manner in which the Bill had been discussed.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had declared the Bill was not one to suspend the payment of rent in Ireland. While he acknowledged that, according to the letter of the law, it was not a Bill to suspend the payment of rent, he ventured to assert that, practically, it would have that effect. What did all men of experience in Ireland—all men who knew the real condition of the country—say? They said that the first effect of the Bill would be that the day the Bill passed the whole of the tenants in the scheduled districts would accept what they believed to be the intention of the Government, and decline to pay their rents. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman said "Hear, hear!" [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear !] He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would say "Hear, hear!" when that proved to be the result of the Bill in Ireland, for he had very grave suspicion, from their proceedings, that the object of the Government was to create a state of chaos and confusion in Ireland. It seemed to be pretty generally understood that there was no desire on the part of the tenants to avoid payments of rent where they were able to make such payments, notwithstanding the startling and alarming picture which was drawn not long ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) of the baneful consequences which would, at the hands of the Land League, follow the payment of no rent at all. He maintained, that being so, that hon. Members on that side of the House were justified in regarding this measure as a practical one for the suspension of rent, if it was not actually so. Then he wanted to meet an impression which appeared to exist on the Front Bench, though it certainly existed in no other part of the House. They were told that this Bill was not designed to meet cases of men driven out of their farms, but of men who were bargaining to continue in them. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by that? The case he had suggested could not arise if there had not been an ejectment for non-payment of rent. No case of this sort could come before a County Court Judge until the ejectment had actually taken place; and, therefore, he said positively, and he contradicted the right hon. Gentleman flatly, that this was not the case of a man bargaining to continue in his farm, but of a man distinctly ejected. Then, what did an ejectment for non-payment mean? It was a process by which a man was absolutely ejected from his farm. ["No, no!"] Well, he hoped hon. Members would try and prove he was wrong. There was another great practical difficulty under this clause. The right hon. Gentleman said, in the course of his opening speech, that a Judge would always be able to decide when a tenant was unfairly trying to put obstacles in the way of the operation of the Act. But how was a Judge to decide that a tenant was truly, or untruly, professing he could not pay his rent? If the anticipation of men of experience in Ireland, to whom he had gone for information, was correct, all tenants in those scheduled districts, as a matter of course, would decline to pay rent. Well, then, how many cases would there be for County Court Judges to decide? The scheduled districts contained the greater portion of the small farms in Ireland, and there would be some 3,000 or 4,000 cases awaiting decision. How many Courts and Judges would be required in this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman had complained that Members on that side of the House objected to the concessions which the Government had made. They never made any objections to concessions when the Government were able to give a reason for them; but what they did object to, and what, if it was repeated, would justify them in endeavouring to stop the further progress of this measure was, the Government suddenly and constantly making changes, five minutes after they had declared that they could see no reason for the change.

said, that he was reluctant to intervene in the details of a purely Irish Bill; but as he had spent a great part of his life in construing Acts of Parliament, he might be able to assist the Government by making one or two observations on the Amendment. Nothing could be more noticeable than the difficulties under which the Ministry laboured. The moment they yielded to an objection from one quarter of the House, they raised a corresponding objection in the other; and in their endeavours to meet arguments based, more or less, on reason from one point of view, they were met by the supporters of the opposite view with charges of changing their front every few minutes, and so forth. In this state of things he would very respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that he should take a course which, though it certainly would be called another change of front, would really save trouble and be a better course— namely, that he should give up his Amendment and adhere to the Bill as it was laid on the Table. He would explain his reason for that suggestion in a very few words. Those who had to draw deeds and Acts of Parliament knew perfectly well that there were only two ways of dealing with prospective events; the one course was to imagine all the circumstances to which the provisions of the deed or the Act of Parliament were likely to apply, and to provide for them in detail. If they could foresee all these circumstances, then the object in view would be attained, and they could all be provided for. But the difficulty of this course consisted in this—that experience showed that provision was always made for the cases which did not happen, and that no provision was made for the case which did happen, which was generally unforeseen. Therefore, the wiser course was to adopt the other mode, and in making prospective legislation or arrangements to leave the legislation as free and as general as possible. This second method was the one which had been followed in the Bill as originally drawn. Sub-section 2 of this clause required and looked at a "reasonable offer" on the part of the tenant, which he apprehended meant reasonable. Having regard to the position of his land, and so on, sub-section 3 introduced another element into the consideration of this exceptional relief, which was that the landlord might refuse, so long as he was reasonable in his refusal, to accept the tenant's offer; and the difference which the Prime Minister proposed, and which his alteration would make in the Bill as originally submitted, was this—that his proposal eliminated from the consideration of the Judge the right which the Bill, as originally drawn, gave to the landlord to refuse, if his refusal was reasonable. A little transposition of the words would show that he was right in that construction of the Bill. If the words ran—"Provided that the landlord may refuse, if his refusal is reasonable, and in that case this Act shall not apply," the meaning would be plain. That, surely, was the effect and intention of the Act as it was drawn. Accordingly, one condition which had to be satisfied before this enactment took effect as against the landlord was—first, the admission in his favour that he had a right to refuse the tenant's terms, if his refusal was reasonable; and, secondly, that the Judge should be satisfied that he was unreasonable, and that he was capriciously or wrongly refusing to fairly consider or entertain his tenant's propositions. Under the Bill as originally drawn, therefore, the landlord had the same right to have the reasonableness of his refusal considered as the tenant to have the reasonableness of his offer considered. But the Amendment of the Premier, as he read it, cut out from the Bill that term of reasonableness on the part of the landlord, and proposed that when the Judge came to try a question of this sort he would not be entitled to say that there might be an element of reasonableness in the refusal of the landlord. But all he would have to consider would be whether or not, in point of fact, the landlord had proposed any reasonable alternative. He could quite conceive that there might be cases of refusal by the landlord which, though not including any alternative offer, were yet in themselves reasonable, and which, therefore, might properly exclude the operation of this Bill. [Mr. LAW: What?] He did not pretend to be acquainted with every possible state of circumstances in Ireland. But he need only refer to his right hon. and learned Friend's own Amendment as an example; and he had heard so many hypothetical cases suggested from the opposite side, both above and below the Gangway, that he thought there might, and, indeed, must be cases of that kind. Of course, if it was maintained that there could be no case in which the landlord could be condemned for being unreasonable, his argument failed. It seemed to him that nobody could pretend to foresee all the eventualities that could arise out of this Bill; and, therefore, the safer course would be to leave as wide a discretion in the tribunal as they possibly could. And whether that discretion was exercised in favour of the tenant or against him in favour of the landlord, both parties would have equal rights and positions admitted by Parliament; while the tribunal confessedly impartial would deal, according to the best of its discretion, with all the circumstances. The two right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill had gone through an endless amount of turmoil and trouble, and had shown the very greatest patience and attention in endeavouring to meet the view of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. But he hoped they would pardon his suggesting that they would have done better to have stuck to their original scheme, and to have left as much discretion as possible to the County Court Judge when he was trying this question. He wanted the County Court Judge left perfectly free, without any advice or indication of the specific circumstances to which the Legislature looked, to consider the circumstances for and against the tenant, and for and against the landlord; and to act as a quasi -arbitrator for the purpose of determining, by his own knowledge of the situation of both parties, the position of the land, its advantages and disadvantages, and so on, without any kind of statement in the Act as to what was reasonable and what unreasonable. He believed that would be the best way of making a workable Bill, and of relieving the Committee from a long and wearisome discussion, which was not tending to the good government of Ireland.

thought that the discussion had been left a little too much in the hands of the legal Members. The matter before the Committee was not so difficult as it really had been made to appear. They were discussing the Amendment of the Prime Minister, which had been substituted for the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the First Law Officer of the Crown in Ireland. Now, what his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) wanted to know, and what also most Members of the Committee on both sides of the House wanted to know, was whether this Amendment was the same as that of the Attorney General for Ireland, or whether it included less, or whether it included more, whether it was more in favour of the landlord or less in his favour? On that point the two right hon. and learned Members for the University of Dublin and his right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had addressed very searching questions to the Ministry, and had received what he must call most unsatisfactory replies; what were, infact, not replies at all. For his part, he ven- tured to think, if the Government pursued their present course, and determined not to answer these questions, they would not pass the time to the best advantage. Now, he fortunately found himself in a position on which he could give the Committee some useful information. Was the Amendment of the Prime Minister the same, in substance and meaning, as the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland? It was not. Did it mean more than that Amendment? Yes, it did. Was it more in favour of the landlord than the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland? No, it was not. He would tell the Committee why he said that. He felt absolutely certain he was right; and he was certain also that when the Committee heard his explanations they would be certain too. He turned away altogether from the Treasury Bench. He sought no information from the right hon. Gentlemen there. He was not inclined to pay any great attention to the arguments of the First Law Officer of the Crown (Mr. Law). He was aware that he was a man of great ability, and that he was capable of arguing almost any point. Nor would he pay any attention to the statements of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, for he invariably found that he was rather more bewildered when the right hon. Gentleman sat down than when he got up. Nor would he any longer attempt to understand the statement of the Prime Minister, because, on no fewer than three consecutive occasions, he had utterly failed to understand him. In fact, he gave the Treasury Bench up as a bad job. But he had another and far better source of information. What was the attitude of the Irish Party on the Amendment of the Prime Minister, as compared with the attitude of the Irish Party on the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland? When the Attorney General gave Notice of it, the Irish Party, who had previously been tolerably well pleased with the Bill, became at once extravagantly displeased; and it was perfectly evident that if that Amendment were adhered to the Government had not the slightest chance of passing their Bill. That being so, the Prime Minister, who told him on Friday night that he did not intend to alter the Amendment of the Attorney General, on Monday morning gave Notice of the fresh Amendment which they were now discussing. Now, the Irish Party was composed of men of singular intelligence—of intelligence possibly equal to any which was in existence on the Treasury Bench, and they had a most intimate and practical and accurate acquaintance with the feelings of the Irish people. There were no persons who were better able to tell the House what would be the view which the mass of the Irish nation would take upon a particular Bill, or upon a particular point in a measure, than those Gentlemen. And when he found those Gentlemen receiving the Amendment of the Prime Minister, with open arms, as an instalment of what they had a right to expect, he would ask whether he had not suggested an absolutely fair and undeniable answer to the questions he had put; and whether he had not shown that the Amendment of the Prime Minister, as compared with the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland, was more contrary to the interests of the landlord than the original Bill? Under these circumstances, with an unerring guide before them—and a better guide they could not have—was it worth while wasting any more time in endeavouring to get explanations from the Government which they would not give, and which would not be worth anything were they given—and had they not better go at once to a division on the Amendment of the Prime Minister?

said, the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had passed a very high eulogiuin on what he termed the Irish Party. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had observed, since he had had the honour of a seat in the House, that, like the Peri outside the gates of Paradise, the noble Lord had approached as near as he could to the entrance of this Irish Party, though he had not been received by them with those open arms which the noble Lord suggested were extended towards the Amendments of the Prime Minister. Perhaps the noble Lord would forgive him for saying that, having been relieved from the cares of partial Office by the retirement of the late Government, the noble Lord found himself at leisure to offer a large amount of gratuitous advice to the present occupants of the Treasury Bench. But he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had yet to learn that a Government failed in its duty because it accepted reasonable suggestions from any Members of that House who were returned by citizens of the country possessing the franchise equally with those who formed the constituency of the noble Lord. The noble Lord seemed to think that a suggestion which came from the Party he referred to was to be rejected, not upon the ground that it was in itself unreasonable, but because it was put forward by a Party who represented, at all events, a considerable portion of the people of Ireland. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I never said anything of the kind.] He begged pardon; but the remarks of the noble Lord had led him to that conclusion. He was quite willing to admit that the Government were prepared to entertain and consider, and, if proper and necessary, to adopt, any suggestion that came not merely from a Party in that House, but from any single Member in it. Therefore, he altogether repudiated the suggestion that because the Irish Party, as the noble Lord termed them, acquiesced in a particular view, that, therefore, for that reason, the view was unreasonable. With regard to some observations that had fallen from the front Bench opposite, they were exceedingly apposite and plain, and deserved a plain answer. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) had put this hypothetical case. He asked the Committee to assume that the tenant was under ejectment, that the landlord offered him the opportunity to sell; but that, owing to a combination in the country, the tenant was unable to sell, and, therefore, declined to avail himself of that permission. Was the landlord, under those circumstances, to be considered to have acted reasonably under this Bill? But such a case had not arisen, and could not arise, under this Bill. The combinations which had been alluded to, so far as he had seen, were not combinations to prevent a tenant selling his interest in his holding, but were those where a landlord—he did not say either rightly or wrongly—but where a landlord had absolutely evicted his tenant for non-payment of rent, and so became the owner of the land discharged from the rights of the tenant. In those cases some persons, he believed, had resisted another man going in and taking the farm as tenant. Such cases had no resemblance whatever to the case where a tenant was not put out, but where he was allowed to realize in money the interest or right that he had in the land which was the alternative of his being continued in possession. That, he apprehended, was the actual state of the case; and to illustrate it he would desire briefly to refer to a letter which had been written to him by a well-known solicitor of high standing in the County of Cork. In that county there was no Ulster custom, no absolute right of free sale, beyond the right which the law gave everyone of selling the interest he possessed. That, practically, was of no value outside the Ulster district, unless the landlord consented, expressly or impliedly, to the sale; because if the outgoing tenant sold his interest without such consent the incoming tenant had no claim on the landlord under the Land Act. The letter, which was written on the 12th of July, referred to two holdings in the County of Cork; one in the Midleton Union, the other not far from Bandon. His correspondent wrote—

"You have no idea what large sums are paid in this county, where there is no Ulster tenant right, and where it depends on the landlord whether he will consent to a transfer of the occupation, and whether a tenant is permitted by the landlord to sell. On the other hand, there is scarcely a month passes that I do not meet with cases of terrible wrong committed by those landlords who refuse to give such permission. I was present lately in Cork, where a tenant's interest in his holding was put up for sale. But because that tenant had executed a mortgage for£60 to a creditor, permission to sell his interest was refused by his landlord; he was, therefore, unable to effect the sale, in consequence of the landlord's permission being refused; and thus he lost£200 or more, thereby raising a bitterness of feeling which will hardly ever be forgotten. That tenant was under notice to quit, and he was afterwards evicted, and driven to make a claim under the Land Act for compensation for disturbance."

There was a case in which the tenant had been evicted, and thus lost the saleable value of his interest in his holding. That would not have happened if he had had the chance of selling; and he hoped that by giving the opportunity to do so, such cases would, in future, be put an end to. Now, apply those facts to the hypothetical case put by the hon. Member. The tenant, if under ejectment in the way suggested, would have an interest of the value of£200 in his holding; if the landlord gave permission to sell, then a case of eviction—which was dispossession—did not arise. Where the landlord gave permission to the tenant to sell, there the tenant did not lose the value of his interest in the land; nor was he dispossessed, and the landlord thereby obtained one tenant in place of another in the holding. His correspondent also stated another case in which he was interested for a creditor. A man had 17 acres of land at a moderate rent. A Writ of fieri facias was issued on a judgment for debt against him, and the Sheriff put up the holding for sale. There was only one bidder, and the tenant had to buy it in. The reason why there was only one bidder was—

"Because the landlord's agent served notices warning anyone against buying an assignment of the holding, because assignments were not allowed on the estate. Several bidders were willing to give£95, which would have more than paid the debt, and would have left a nice balance to the tenant."

That was another instance of what was going on in Ireland. In that case the landlord could not be asked for compensation for disturbance. Where the tenant was allowed by his landlord to realize the value of his interest in the land by sale, then the incoming tenant who bought this interest had, by virtue of the Land Act, the same claim against the landlord for compensation in respect of the money thus invested by purchase in the land. He thought his right hon. and learned Friend assumed a state of things which, so far as he knew, did not exist. But, speaking in his individual capacity, he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) was of opinion that when any unlawful combination existed, it was the duty of those charged with the administration of the law to sustain every person in the assertion of lawful right, even to the letter of the law, until the law was changed. The object of the Bill, as had been repeatedly pointed out, was to compel harsh and unrelenting landlords to do what was universally done by fair and generous ones—to force all bad landlords to do what every honourable Gentleman in the House or out of it of his own accord would do, and was doing. Then, how were the County Court Judges in Ireland spoken of in that House? There was no hon. Member from England who would not consider himself rather insulted if the Judges in England had been spoken of in the terms which had been applied to the Judges in Ireland. He would tell the Committee that the Judges in Ireland were, as he knew, honourable and competent men, of whom any country might be proud; and he had the utmost confidence in them. They might be trusted to decide what was reasonable or unreasonable. It would be no new task to the Judges in Ireland to decide upon the construction of those words, for they had been so used to decide on them for the last 10 years in the Land Act. Probably unprofessional Members of that House were not aware that the word "reasonable" was not used for the first time in the Land Act so as to call for judicial interpretation. There was not a contract unwritten or written, hardly even an Act of Parliament, in which the word "reasonable" did not expressly or impliedly call for construction and interpretation by a Judge. There was not a single word in the English vocabulary upon which there had been more judicial decision than the word "reasonable." To say that it was impossible to decide the meaning of that word was to cast a slur not only upon the Judges in Ireland, but upon the Judges who adjudicated at Westminster and Lincoln's Inn; and he was sure it would be found that a word which had been interpreted for years in the Land Act, and which was familiar to all lawyers, would be equally capable of judicial construction in this Bill.

said, that he fully agreed with the observations of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland with regard to the County Court Judges in Ireland. He had himself the greatest respect for them—many of them were his friends, and he knew that many of them were men of great learning and ability. They should endeavour, however, to make the law as clear as possible to the Judges who would have to administer it. As the clause now stood in the Bill it was extremely obscure. It had been said, on behalf of the Government, that the anti-rent agitation would not touch such cases as these. It had also been stated that the object of the Bill was to make bad landlords do what good landlords had done up to the present time—namely, allow the tenant to sell his tenant right. But he wished now to point out what the real effect of the clause would be, and that the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland did not confer so great a benefit upon the landlord as seemed to be supposed. Whatever might be the intended effect of the Bill, this clause would simply enable the landlord who was obliged to pay damages under the Bill to one tenant to borrow of another, and saddle his estate with the debt. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had argued the case as if the tenant was not to get compensation for his improvements. Of course, he would get such value for his improvements as he was entitled to. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND said, that that was not his argument.] The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that a tenant who put £200 in the land would, if the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) were adopted, get nothing for his improvements. The answer to that was that he would get the value of his improvements as given him by the Land Act. At all events, it was the intention of the Land Act to give that value to every tenant ejected for non-payment of rent. He wished to make some observations with reference to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had not answered the question put to him. What were the right hon. Gentleman's arguments? He reproached hon. Members on that Bench as if they had raised the question. It should be remembered that the objection to the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was raised by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power). That hon. Member told them that the matter was one of extreme importance; and it was discussed on his own Bill whether, as a matter of fact, the alternative offered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would or would not deprive the tenant of the right of compensation, if his answer to the landlord's permission to sell was that the anti-rent agitation going on in the country prevented him. When the Government brought in this Bill they found the anti-rent agitation going on in Ireland, and they had proposed a Bill which was considered reasonable by hon. Members who were in favour of that agitation. The matter was one of very great consequence. Indeed, it was his duty to speak for his constituency in the University of Dublin, many of whom would be greatly injured by the Bill. It was not right to charge Members of that House with causing excitement in Ireland because they stood up for the interests of their constituents. By the sub-section, if an offer was made by the tenant to remain on his holding, by the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, the tenant's claim might be met by offering him the alternative of selling. Then this question was asked—whether, if the tenant were prevented from selling by anti-rent agitation, the landlord would be protected from any claim for further compensation? In answer to that, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that there was no agitation at all, and that putting such a question was simply putting a hypothetical case. He seemed to disbelieve in any combination to prevent the sale of the tenant's interest in his holding. Was that merely a hypothetical case; and was it never likely to arise? He would, in a few words, put a case which actually occurred. It was this—the sale of a farm was, on Friday, attempted at Boyle Court House by order of the Sheriff. The land comprised 10 acres, with suitable out-buildings. Only one bidder came forward. He offered £5; but a crowd of people collected, and caused the bidder to retire, so that the Sheriff had to adjourn the sale. The farm, which had been held at a moderate rent, was on Colonel King-Harman's estate. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER said, that it was not the sale of a goodwill.] The right hon. Gentleman denied that it was the sale of a goodwill; but he said it was the sale of a farm. What he would ask was this—Was this proposal brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister exactly the same thing as the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland? Was it offered in ease of the landlords as an alternative and as a concession to those who were defending the interests of the landlords? and was it not an advantage of which it was impossible that the landlord could be deprived by those who swayed the anti-rent agitation in Ireland, by forbidding people to take farms? It was treating them as if they were children to suppose that it was any such thing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland said that if the tenant were connected with the agitation, that was a circumstance which the Judge would have to take into account. But did not his right hon. and learned Friend think that the agitation would be carried on by other tenants on the estate, who would take good care that the men immediately concerned in it should not be brought into it. They ought to have a distinct answer whether the case alleged by the hon. Member for Mayo as being likely to occur, and which, in the opinion of those best acquainted with the subject, was most likely to occur—nay, was almost certain to occur—was to be considered against the landlord or not? He would now simply ask whether, in the event of the sale of farms being prevented by combinations, the landlord would be deprived of the alternative offered him by the clause? Until they had an answer on that point it would be worse than useless to proceed with the clause.

said, that the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) had, in a most lucid manner, pointed out that every change ever attempted to be made by the Government to conciliate hon. Members opposite had only met with increased reproaches from various quarters of the House. He owned that he was surprised, after that preamble, that his hon. and learned Friend should propose that they should make another change. But there was another practical reason why they should not take that course. Upon the original language of the Bill a lawyer of great authority—the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket)—had advisedly given a strong and confident opinion that a landlord, making the most reasonable offer to the tenant for the sale of his goodwill, would not be entitled to escape from the consequences of the Bill if the original language of the Bill were adhered to. It was because the Government felt that an opinion of that kind tended to cast a doubt upon the language of the Bill that they departed from it. To return to the original Bill would be to bring forward a Bill subject to doubt. For those reasons, his hon. and learned Friend would see that it was impossible for the Government to accede to what he had suggested.

said, that he only rose to take notice of one statement that had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket). He talked of exceptional legislation, and stated that the present Ministry had found the anti-rent agitation existing in Ireland. The present Ministry found that state of things existing in Ireland; and they also found some other matters existing, such as arrears in Indian finance, under the late Government. If the late Government, with its great majority, had, during its years of Office, brought forward a just and moderate measure of Land Reform, they would not have had exceptional legislation at that moment before the Committee. If the Irish Members were animated with a spirit of hostility to landlordism, with which they had been charged, then they would have been found actively supporting Her Majesty's Conservative Opposition in opposing the Bill. He denied that the Irish Members were hostile to all landlords. What they were opposing was the evil landlordism which existed in Ireland; and what they sought was that tenants unjustly deprived of their rights might be given satisfaction by legal tribunals. What would be the consequence of throwing out the Bill? If there was an agitation of a dangerous kind in Ireland now, they would make it still more dangerous. If they took from the Irish tenants the hope that their just claims would be adjudicated upon by an impartial tribunal, there would be no other option left to them but to have recourse to some measure of trade unionism applicable to their miserable circumstances. He thought that his observations on this point deserved some attention, even from the occupants of the Conservative Benches; because it was no secret that he differed from the aims of the Land League as to the measures ultimately to be applied for the relief of the Irish tenants. Warm words had passed on both sides; but if some just measure, such as that proposed by the Government, was not passed, and if legal redress was refused, then it would be the duty of men like himself, who differed from the Land League, so long as they had some hope of a satisfactory remedy, to do all in their power to extend and to make successful the operations of the Land League against the evil landlordism represented, he was sorry to say, by the Conservative Benches on the present occasion.

said, that it could scarcely have escaped observation that the greatest consternation had been caused by the attempt to introduce the word "reasonable" into the measure affecting Ireland. It was because the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland had always been so unreasonable that the idea of introducing the element of reason into those arrangements now caused so much alarm to hon. Gentlemen. He had heard the Government taunted with changing their front upon this question in deference to the opinions of Irish Members. If they did so, it was to their own honour and credit. One of the reasons why the English Government was so distrusted in Ireland was because they had found that it was impervious to reason in the case of everything brought forward by the Representatives of Ireland. Why was it that the laws of the land and the House of Commons were so much distrusted by the people of Ireland? It was because they found they had hitherto been talking to deaf ears, and to stone walls, when they addressed themselves to Parliament or to Her Majesty's Ministers. That was the real reason why the English Government and the House of Commons had been so distrusted in Ireland; but it was to the credit of Her Majesty's Ministers if, after having heard arguments and facts, they gave those arguments and facts due consideration, though they proceeded from Irish Members. They had heard of the land agitation in Ireland, and it had been said that it would prevent the sale of the goodwill of Irish farms. The land agitation was founded upon existing circumstances, and had a relation to a state of things in which there could be no sale of the goodwill of Irish farmers. They had agreed to see how far the anti-rent agitation and the feeling of the Irish people would be removed when the principle of the sale of tenant right and of the goodwill in Irish farms was extended to them. They had been told by many hon. Members that the landlords of Ireland saw nothing but ruin before them if this Bill were passed into law. He would ask, what reform ever passed without some prediction of the kind being made? Was not the Land Act of 1870 met by predictions of the most dismal character? Was it not predicted that the Church Disestablishment Act would produce fearful results, both natural and supernatural? So the Tithe Commutation Act and the Catholic Emancipation Act were said to be likely to give rise to most dreadful consequences; but, notwithstanding these predictions, they still lived. He had noticed the letter of an Irish landlord in the newspapers. He was a worthy and honoured gentleman; but he had said that if this Act were passed he would stop all employment on his estate, shut his doors, and leave Ireland. These remarks only reminded him of the Laureate's hero, who betook himself to a foreign region, and married a number of savage women, because of a temporary misunderstanding with his cousin Amy; or another hero of an Irish bard, who, for the same reason, declared he would retire to some grotto under the sea, and there sympathize with mussels. Notwithstanding all this, these gentlemen did not carry out their threats; and he believed if this Act passed into law, that the condition of Ireland would not be worse, but better, than it was before, and, therefore, he hoped this Bill was merely the forerunner of many other Acts conceived in a similar spirit.

I do not rise to detain the Committee, but merely to explain the vote which I shall give on this Amendment to leave out the word "unreasonable." It will, I think, merely diminish and prejudice the condition of the landlord. It seems to me we have to consider the question from two points of view. We have to consider what may be considered reasonable terms on the part of the tenant to offer; and we have also to consider what are reasonable terms or grounds for their refusal by the landlord. The real difficulty we are in is—that the rights of the landlord are made in many quarters a matter of question. If it was made a question whether a man could part with his property in a book, or something of that kind, the matter would be treated differently. If someone offered the landlord what he considered a reasonable sum for a book, and the landlord replied that he did not consider the sum reasonable, the book would remain with the man who was acknowledged to be its possessor. But you do not admit, in the same unqualified manner, the unquestioned right of the landlord to his property; and by putting in these words in the clause as it will be amended, you take the view of the tenant, and you exclude the view of the landlord. By doing that I think you put the landlord in a position of some considerable difficulty, and I see no reason for that. It is not a question whether you should add the words, "with regard to the offer of a reasonable alternative" as an addition to the clause. That I pronounce no opinion upon—it is impossible to do that without leaving out the word "unreasonable;" and the question at the present moment is, whether or not you will retain the word "unreasonable" in the clause? It seems to me that by retaining it you can do no possible injury, while you make it clear that the landlord is not to be mulcted in the way in which he is mulcted by the Amendment; and, therefore, I shall vote for the retention of the word.

said, he merely wished to explain that while he should support a Motion to leave out the word "unreasonable," he must not thereby be understood to support the Amendment of the Prime Minister, as if that became a substantive question he himself intended to move an Amendment to it.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 155; Noes 263: Majority 108.

Amendment proposed, to add, at the end of the Clause the words, "without the offer of any reasonable alternative."—( Mr. Gladstone .)

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

said, he proposed, as a further Amendment, to add at the end thereof the words—

"Comprising just and reasonable terms as to rent, arrears of rent, and otherwise, to the incoming tenant, if any."

The Amendment which he had placed on the Paper to insert the word "explanation" before the word "reasonable" was objected to by the Prime Minister on the ground that it would introduce a term which was not known to the Land Act, and the effect of which it was difficult to estimate. He admitted that there was some force in that objection; and, therefore, he had substituted for it what he now moved, which was not at all open to the objections urged by the Prime Minister. He pointed out that the terms of his Amendment were already comprised in the 2nd subsection of the Bill; and it was one of the conditions upon which a tenant was entitled to claim compensation under the 3rd section of the Land Act, when he was disturbed or ejected for non-payment of rent. The Prime Minister, by his Amendment, sought to provide, if a reasonable alternative was offered by the landlord, that the tenant was not to be entitled to compensation. The admitted meaning of the Prime Minister's Amendment was that, if a landlord offered a tenant the right of selling his interest to some other person, then the tenant was not to obtain compensation. But where was the justice of saying that a tenant was to be entitled to obtain compensation for his holding, provided he was willing to take it upon just and reasonable terms as to rent, arrears of rent, and otherwise, and then to take that right from him by saying—"You must sell to some other person who is not to be entitled to reasonable terms as to rents, arrears of rent, and otherwise." The Amendment would work in this way—the tenant of a fair landlord, who refused to pay his rent, would be entitled to go before a Chairman and claim the compensation provided by the 3rd section, or else that he might be allowed to sell his interest, as in such a case the interest would be valuable, the tenant would have something worth selling, and would get a large price for his interest. But in the case of a tenant who was paying an unreasonable and unfair rent, who was entitled to compensation under the 2nd sub-section of this 1st clause, if he was willing to continue in the occupation of his holding on just and reasonable terms as to rent, he was not to get the right of selling his interest in the payment of this high and unreasonable rent to some third party, so that the very class of tenant whom they really wanted to benefit by the Bill—namely, the rack-rented or highly rented tenants—were left unprotected. They were given the right to sell an interest which was of little or no value; while the tenant of a good landlord who, from the fact of his having a good landlord and paying only a fair rent, had a fair interest in his holding, was given the maximum of protection afforded by the Bill. In other words, the rack-rented tenant was practically unprotected; because he was deprived of all the compensation provided in the Bill if his landlord gave him the alternative of selling, while the other tenants enjoyed the advantages of which he had spoken. He submitted if this Amendment were accepted the Bill would be worth very little. He would quote sentences from a speech delivered in that House in 1874, by the late Mr. Butt, in introducing a Bill with reference to land tenure in Ireland. He stated that the House had already sanctioned the payment to the tenant of compensation. The measure of that compensation ought to be taken in every case, as if the tenant held his land at a fair rent, and the holding should be subject to the tenant right the landlord had created by his own voluntary act. He (Mr. Parnell) maintained that the landlord would have to create a right of property in his tenant if he took advantage of the provisions of the Bill and compelled his tenant to sell, and he put in for arrears of rent; but in the words of the late Mr. Butt, the value of that tenant right was to be measured by the rent which the tenant had to pay. If he paid a high rent the value of the tenant would be too little; if he paid a fair rent its value would be too large. What he wished the Government to do was to provide that the provisions of the 2nd section as to allowing the County Court Judge to consider whether the rent, when a landlord was willing to continue the tenant's occupation, was a just and reasonable one, should follow on after the offer of sale; and that the County Court Judge, in considering whether the landlord had offered a reasonable alternative, should also be obliged to consider whether the alternative was also accompanied by an offer of the payment of a fair and reasonable rent; otherwise, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, introducing, as it did, the principle of compulsory sale, and making that principle a bar to the tenants receiving compensation from the landlord, must, to a great extent, defeat the objects with which the Government had introduced the Bill. These objects were to give protection to tenants who, owing to distress in Ireland, found themselves unable to pay their rents. The tenants most likely to find themselves unable to pay their rents, owing to the distress, were rack-rented tenants; not the tenants who were paying a fair rent. If, therefore, the Bill failed to provide that an offer of sale by a landlord was to be accompanied by an offer of a fair rent, they would leave the rack-renting tenants in the same position they occupied before the introduction of the Bill. He had all along been apprehensive of the introduction into the Bill of the principle of forced sale, and if it was now accepted it would require to be guarded by some such Amendment as he had suggested; for, otherwise, they would do great injury to the tenants who were paying high rents, while they would be placing inducements in the hands of the tenant paying a low rent to effect a purpose which everyone in that House must deprecate. The Government had stated that the germ of this principle of forced sale was contained in the Bill from the first; and they had referred to quotations in the speeches of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland and the Prime Minister in proof of that assertion. He wished to point out that these quotations conveyed an entirely different meaning. The quotation from the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland ran as follows:—

"That the word 'unreasonable' in the 3rd sub-section included a case where the landlord had refused permission to sell."

Those words of the Attorney General excited no apprehension in his mind; but the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, some days afterwards, had raised an entirely different issue. He said—

"No Judge in his senses could possibly permit the Bill to apply where the landlord had been willing to allow the tenant to sell his goodwill."

There was a wide difference between the landlord being willing to allow the tenant to sell his goodwill, and the landlord refusing permission to sell his goodwill. They raised different issues, and different states of circumstances. The one involved the principle of forced sale, and the other of free sale. To the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland he had no objection whatever; but the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister conveyed an entirely different impression. They admitted that it was reasonable at first sight, where a tenant fell into arrear and was unable to pay his rent, that the landlord should allow the tenant to sell, provided a solvent tenant could be found who was willing to pay the value of the property he had acquired under the Land Act of 1870. But they said it was to the last degree unreasonable to permit the landlord to escape from the operation of the Bill by giving him the opportunity of forcing his tenant to sell, unless provision was made to insure that the tenant should, at all events, receive some of the value of the property which the Land Act of 1870 gave him; that was just what the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister provided. There was nothing in that Amendment to compel, or even to allow, the County Court Judge to inquire as to the rent of the holding. He was only to ask what the rent of the holding was under the provisions of the 2nd sub-section. He was to inquire whether a tenant was willing to continue in the occupation of his holding upon such reasonable terms, as to arrears and otherwise, as he might think fit. If such terms had been refused by the landlord, the Judge was only entitled to refuse compensation to the tenant, provided that the landlord had made some reasonable offer. He wished to provide that the Court should take into consideration, in determining whether this alternative was a reasonable one, the amount of rent that the previous tenant had had to pay, and the incoming tenant would, consequently, have to pay. If the County Court Judge considered that the rent of the tenant was not just and reasonable, then he could hold that the landlord's offer was illusory and deceptive, unless accompanied by a change in the conditions in the rent. He begged to move the addition after the words "on principle of justice," of the words "and reasonable terms as to rent, arrears of rent, and otherwise" of the incoming tenant, if any."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,

To add, at the end thereof, the words "comprising just and reasonable terms as to rent, arrears of rent, and otherwise, to the incoming tenant, if any."—( Mr. Parnell .)

Question proposed, "That those words be added to the said proposed Amendment."

said, that the hon. Gentleman had left him a very short time to state his objection to the Amendment. He could lay it before the Committee in a few sentences. He had gathered one argument, and one argument alone, from the speech of the hon. Gentleman—that the high-rented landlord would destroy the value of what the tenant had for sale, unless the Amendment were adopted. His answer to that was very explicit. It was that if a high-rented landlord did offer such an alternative, it would not be a reasonable alternative, and would be agreed to by the tenant. The Government wished to leave a large discretion to the Judge; but if they were to direct the mind of the Judge to the rent the incoming tenant had to pay as the one particular and exclusive topic, the effect would be that they would shut out many beneficial alternatives which it was quite conceivable the landlord might offer. The Judge might have no connection or concern whatever with the rent which the incoming tenant would have to pay. The fundamental objection to this Amendment was that it would have a tendency to prevent the free and full consideration of the whole matter by the Judge, and would exclude many elements of alternative.

said, that he wished to point out that, in his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister did not meet the contention of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork. The right hon. Gentleman stated that this Amendment would tend to limit the authority and power of the County Court Judges when determining what were reasonable terms. If he understood the Amendment aright it would have no such effect. Its object was simply to draw the attention of the County Court Judge to a very important matter, that of rent. It was a weak part of this Bill when the mode in which the rent was to be fixed was treated with such looseness. Unfortunately, the whole of the advantage was given to the bad landlord, and the disadvantage was given by the Bill to the good landlord. He should have thought that the question of exorbitant rent was one element upon which the Bill ought to have been founded. If the whole Bill were as useful as it ought to be, it would render rack-rents entirely impossible. He did not think that the Government had met the question raised. It did not seem to him that the whole discretion should be left to the Judge; but that the question as to whether the amount of rent was just and fair should be left to depend upon the Government valuation. That valuation was made by valuers, sent down and employed for purposes of taxation. If the County Court Judges were ordered to make the county valuation their basis for determining the rent for this occasion it would be a satisfactory solution of this question.

It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman reported Progress; Committee to sit again this day.

The House suspended its Sitting at a quarter before Seven of the clock.

The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

rose, pursuant to Notice to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the erection in Westminster Abbey of a statue to the memory of the late Prince Louis Napoleon Bonaparte would be inconsistent with the national character of that edifice, opposed to the general sentiments of the English people, and calculated to impair the good feeling which happily exists between this Country and the Government and people of France."

Having presented a Petition from a public meeting of inhabitants of the Metropolis, held in St. James's Hall on the previous night in support of his Motion, the hon. Member said, that since he had placed his Resolution on the Notice Paper he had been astonished to find the amount of sympathy which it had evoked throughout the length and breadth of the land. From almost every town of importance in the country resolutions had been forwarded to him in support of the action he had taken, and letters from every kind of persons had been sent to him assuring him of their sympathy. He did not suppose there was any more common way of endeavouring to dissuade a Member of the House from doing what he conceived to be his duty than to ask him in a tone of surprise what business of his was the special Motion which he wished to bring before the House. What was Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba? And he, who sat there for many thousands of the taxpaying, law-abiding people of the North of England, was asked what he had to do with Westminster Abbey? Now, the question had been put frankly, and it required a frank and bold answer. It was because he did not think that Westminster Abbey was a local self-governing institution, but that it belonged to the English-speaking community throughout the length and breadth of the land. He could not hope to escape the criticism of certain journals whose business appeared to be to collect the flotsam and jetsam of aristocratic scandal—of course, in the highest interests of morality—which told them, in touching accents, that Lady Jane This had the measles, or gave long lists of the quite too awful presents which Lady Mary That had received on her wedding day, and which combined with an abject servility to personages in high places an amusing assumption of insolence to those who belonged to the vulgar ranks of society. To such a pitch of insolence had they reached as to flourish over Members of that House the aristocratic shillelagh of one of the highest names in the land. Hon. Members, he knew, would not be influenced by that in their decision that night. But if there should be any weak-kneed brother among them who would rather fly in the face of Providence than in the face of the Court, let him present him with this soothing unguent for his delicate mind—that Dean Stanley, with his customary courage, had taken the whole responsibility of those proceedings on his own shoulders, and had moreover intimated—if not in so many words, at least intimated—that he was willing to be guided by the decision and the vote of that House. Now, for himself, he did not take up that matter on any grounds of religious intolerance. He hoped that he was as free from any jot or tittle of that intolerance as any Mem- ber of the House. Nor would he yield to any hon. Gentleman in his respect for the personal character and amiable qualities of the young Prince, who, as far as he could judge, led a blameless life up to the time he went out to Zululand. Nor would he filch away one drop of that pure and broad stream of sympathy with that widowed wife and bereaved mother, who offered in her person one of the most touching examples of the changes and vicissitudes of fortune. He also quite approved the sentiment which dictated the desire to raise a monument to the deceased Prince. But let it be erected at Woolwich, among those who know him and loved him when living; or at St. George's, Windsor, where lay the remains of the late lamented Prince Consort, of foreign extraction, and those of the late King of Hanover; or at green, quiet Chislehurst, where his bones lay now, near those of his father, and where he was interred amid universal regret and with military pomp and ceremony—a regret which, though universal, was personal to himself, and a military pomp which bore reference to his previous connection with Woolwich, and had no political element whatever in it. But he objected, as did hundreds of thousands of his fellow-countrymen, to that memorial being erected in Westminster Abbey; for there they were upon the threshold of an edifice which had been consecrated and hallowed, not only by the rites of Roman priest or Anglican prelate, but by the memories and associations of those who slumbered there—of heroes and statesmen, of Kings and poets, and of men who had been pioneers in the cause of civilization and saviours of their country—men who had in no small degree contributed to its glory, its advancement, and its power. In all cases the claim of any man to a memorial in westminster Abbey should be carefully considered before he should be allowed to be thrust into such goodly company; and he asked hon. Members to dissociate from their minds that which was irrelevant, the qualities and characteristics of this young Prince, and to judge impartially of the claim. It might be said that there were many men buried within the walls of the Abbey whose lives were discreditable and vicious, and who had broken the laws of God and man. It was said, too, that some were lying there who were celebrated for nothing at all. No doubt, it was so; but these instances were not of modern date. They were anterior to the time in which Westminster Abbey had been considered especially the mausoleum of our mighty dead—the national Walhalla, of which not only ourselves, but all the inhabitants of that Greater Britain all round the world, were justly jealous and proud. The Dean was not absolute master of the Abbey, though he (Mr. Briggs) admitted no one had loved the Abbey more, or had conceived a better idea of the uses and purposes for which it ought to be maintained. The House of Commons had, from time to time, interfered in the affairs of the Abbey. He did not wish to weary the House with the numerous instances in which such interference had taken place; but he would mention a few of them. During the Commonwealth, a Committee of the House was appointed to inquire into the matter of one Pym, deceased. It was ordered by the Committee that a monument should be prepared for him at the charge of the Commonwealth, and that the House should accompany his body to interment. That was a case in which that House had interfered, not only with the management of the Abbey, but with its most important purposes. It might be said that that was a case which happened during the Commonwealth, when the Government had hazy notions of the difference between meum and tuum in ecclesiastical affairs. But what happened when the King came back home? Were the authorities of the Abbey treated with greater consideration? On the 4th of December, 1660, the House resolved—

"That the carcases of Oliver Cromwell, of Henry Ireton, of John Bradshaw, and of Thomas Pride, whether buried in Westminster Abbey or elsewhere, be with all expedition taken up and drawn on a hurdle to Tyburn, and there hanged up in their coffins for some time, and, after that, buried under the said gallows; and that James Norfolk, Serjeant-at-Arms attending the House of Commons, do take care that this order be put into effectual execution."

But the terms of the Order, as originally proposed, were not disagreeable enough, and other indignities were added before it was sent to the House of Lords; and the coffins were ordered to be hung up by the common executioner and the Sheriff of Middlesex. But that was not enough; and the order was sent back by the House of Lords, through two Masters in Chancery, with the addition that the Dean of Westminster should give directions to the assistants that they should see to the carrying out of these orders. That was a case of interference with the affairs of the Abbey, not only by that House, but also by the House of Lords, and it was made the duty of the Dean of Westminster to obey the orders of the two Houses of Parliament. Instances might be multiplied of such interferences; and it would be seen that the House had always maintained its authority over the Abbey. But the House had also contributed to the expense of maintaining the Abbey; and, in the year 1854, on the 31st of July, the House placed upon its Estimates a sum of £4,700 for that purpose; and, of that Vote, a sum of £2,700 was voted for the renovation and restoration of those very statues in that very part of the Abbey in which it was now proposed to place a memorial of Prince Louis Napoleon. On another occasion, Mr. Monckton Milnes (now Lord Houghton) advocated the putting into the Abbey a statue of Campbell, the poet, which had been publicly subscribed for—not in accordance with a semi-official document dated from the Horse Guards—and he said that the then Dean would not allow it to be placed in the Abbey unless he got space money to the amount of £200, and he added that if the Dean and Chapter did not provide places for public statues, it could not be the interest or duty of Parliament to spend the national money in the preservation and restoration of the building. Sir William Molesworth, then First Commissioner of Works, thereupon said he would communicate with the Dean and Chapter, and he had no doubt that when he stated to them the wish of the House they would comply with it. That was an instance which was both strictly applicable and modern. He had read with care all the arguments adduced in favour of the proposal to erect a monument to the late Prince Louis Napoleon, and they amounted to this. First of all, it was said that we had buried foreigners of distinction in Westminster Abbey, notably the Due de Montpensier and the wife of Louis XVIII., and that the Abbey was the great temple of silence and reconciliation. Next, it was urged that the circumstance of this young Prince bearing a historic name and dying for us, in our uniform, and under our flag in Zululand, offered a first-rate opportunity to the worthy Dean of supplying a missing link to that chain of charity and hospitality for which he was so much renowned. However, he considered that this was rather begging the question. The Duke of Montpensier was the younger son of Louis XV., and the lady was the wife of Louis XVIII., who, having been chased all over the Continent by the First Napoleon, found a temporary asylum in this country, where his wife died. He could understand why the whole people, with a united voice, demanded that those illustrious personages should be interred in Westminster Abbey. Napoleon I. had declared war against us some years previously, and our policy was to replace upon the Throne of France this family of which two members reposed in Westminster Abbey. But did any reasonable being in that House think there was any analogy between Prince Louis Napoleon and the Due de Montpensier and the wife of Louis XVIII? Would any hon. Member say he was prepared to spend 1 s. of public money, or one drop of English blood, for the sake of replacing a Napoleon on the Throne of France? He interpreted the silence with which the question was received to mean that no one was prepared to do that. This historic name of Napoleon was odious to the great majority of the people of France. ["No!"] There was a time when the French peasants believed that L' Empire, c' est la paix; but they formed a more accurate opinion of the Empire when they saw their villages laid waste. The French people knew that the two great Imperial possessors of that name swore to defend popular liberties, and afterwards broke their oaths, and trampled the liberties of the country underfoot. They knew that the Imperial possessors of that name which was now to be advertised in Westminster Abbey found France vigorous, strong, and respected, and that after a period of tinsel prosperity they left her at the mercy of her foes, her strength having been frittered away in efforts to maintain the personal pride of her Rulers. ["Question!"] Hon. Gentlemen might call "Question!" but Waterloo and Sedan were two very powerful words to use in argument with Frenchmen, and burned and blistered French minds. He would not now pursue that topic, however, because he wished to hear this subject discussed dispassionately. As for the Emperor Napoleon being a friend to this country, he denied it altogether. When the late Emperor had obtained the Throne by means on which he would not dilate, he wanted some respectable Government to condone his conduct and to patronize him. He fixed upon England, and the price he paid for our friendship was the Crimean War. War after war was entered upon by this Imperial possessor of the Throne of France, in Mexico, Italy, and Algeria, for the purpose of diverting Frenchmen's minds from the way in which he obtained the Throne, and from what was going on in the country which he held. ["Question!"] Finally, justice overtook him, and the shameless challenge to Germany, which cost 350,000 human lives and millions of money, resulted in humiliation, disgrace, and downfall to France, which was supposed now to love this historic name of Napoleon. At Bordeaux, when the Treaty with Germany came before the Chamber, and the Deputies of Alsace-Lorraine withdrew sobbing—Frenchmen no more save in heart and soul—a Senator rose and said that there was only one man who ought to sign the Treaty, so that he should be placed in the eternal pillory of shame. That was the name it was now proposed to place in Westminster Abbey. The character and the life of the First Napoleon would be a rather dangerous topic to discuss. That Emperor played with Kings, with Potentates, and even with Popes as ordinary people played with chessmen on a board. It seemed as if the Goddess of Victory herself sailed in the air over his armies.

interposing, asked the Speaker whether the remarks of the hon. Member were not irrelevant to the Motion? He regretted their irrelevancy in the interests of the Motion, for which he himself intended to vote.

called upon Mr. Briggs to continue his speech.

continuing, said, the people of this country were now paying millions of money, the legacy of the Napoleonic wars between France and England. He did not think their fathers and grandfathers would have been in favour of a statue to a Napoleon in Westminster Abbey. If there must be a statue, let them put one up to a great and glorious Englishman—the man who, armed with a nation's authority, overturned a corrupt throne, the soldier who stayed a civil war at home and made England respected abroad, the patriot who handed down to us as a precious heirloom our civil and religious freedom—Oliver Cromwell.

said, he would like to know whether the hon. Gentleman was in Order in mentioning in terms of commendation the butcher of Wexford, in the presence of Irishmen?

proceeded to ask hon. Members whether they thought that, the personal qualities of Prince Louis Napoleon being left out of account, he was really entitled to a memorial in Westminster Abbey? When the Prince died there was universal sympathy, and no one raised his voice against the magnificence of his funeral. But the indignation and surprise was general when it was found that a step was about to be taken which, while it was opposed to the general sentiment at home, was also opposed to the feelings of our neighbours across the Channel. He, for one, could not admit that Prince Louis Napoleon had died fighting for our cause in Zululand, in our uniform, or under our flag. After the great disaster in France he came over here, and spent two years in one of our military schools; and that was all the service he had rendered this country. He was not allowed to join the Army, because the chiefs of his party had come over and announced allegiance to him as Napoleon IV.; and that he would have tried to make that title a reality there could be no doubt. M. Paul de Cassagnac had written to the young Prince 20 times with reference to his intention of making an attempt on France; and he should like to know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite realized what that meant. He might add that in his will, written in his own hand before he started for Zululand, he spoke of the Imperial cause being represented so long as a Bonaparte lived, of the duties of his House towards France not being extinct with his life, and of the task of continuing the Napoleonic succession resting, in the event of his death, with the eldest son of Prince Jerome. Now, the party of which the late Prince was the chief was not dead; it was a living and a powerful party; and if the mark of distinction against which he was protesting were conferred on the memory of the Prince, the inference would be drawn that that party was receiving assistance in its projects from this great country. Prince Napoleon did not die in our service. The Duke of Cambridge had said as much in the House of Lords; and if hon. Members wanted any further proof on that point there were the illustrious Duke's letters to Lord Chelmsford and Sir Bartle Frere to show how the case really stood. There could not, indeed, be the slightest doubt that the Prince had gone out to Zululand for the purpose of figuring before France and not of serving this country. Lord Chelmsford attached him to his Staff as an extra aide-de-camp; that was the only connection he had with the Army of Great Britain; and in civilized warfare, if he had been caught, he would have been hanged as a non-combatant. He was not quite sure that Lord Chelmsford ought to have acted as he had in the matter, or that he ought not to have been subjected to a court-martial for having done so; but it was, at all events, quite clear that the authorities at home had not sanctioned the proceeding. But, be that as it might, the Prince on the 13th of May joined a patrol party, and on occasion he made for a Zulu whom he saw on a hill; but when he reached the place the Zulu was gone, and the Prince was thus saved the crime of having his hands stained with human blood, and the events of the day were brought to a close with the burning of some native houses. Fifteen days later came the scene of the disturbed kraal, the repose in the noontide heat, and the sudden attack, followed by the cry of Sauve qui peut , when, by a trivial accident, the Prince was prevented running away with the rest. He had no doubt he died bravely, all his wounds being in front. Why, he asked, should the Prince be singled out for special honour when many of those who died in the same war fighting for their flag and country, and who were just as dear to their friends at home as the Prince ever was to those who mourned for him, had no tribute paid to their memory? He hoped the House would be able to draw a broad and distinct line between a demonstration of sympathy for bereavement and sorrow and the granting posthumous and superfluous honour upon a chief of an organized, and, as far as our neighbours the French were concerned, a mischievous faction. Trusting that the House would show by their decision that they would never allow the distinction of a record in Westminster Abbey—a distinction which for 200 years had been reserved for the country's most illustrious sons—to be degraded and lowered, he begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the erection in Westminster Abbey of a statue to the memory of the late Prince Louis Napoleon Bonaparte would be inconsistent with the national character of that edifice, opposed to the general sentiments of the English people, and calculated to impair the good feeling which happily exists between this Country and the Government and people of France,"—( Mr. Briggs ,)

—instead thereof.

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

said, he had heard with very great regret the Amendment that had just been moved by the hon. Member for Blackburn. The hon. Member had referred to Westminster Abbey as "the great temple of silence and reconciliation;" and, believing that those words truly described the Abbey, he appealed to the House to reject the Amendment before them. They had nothing to do with the history and dynasty of the Napoleons. The First Napoleon, no doubt, was the enemy of England, but he was finally beaten at Waterloo; and he held that no enmity should be nourished against a vanquished foe. With regard to the father of the unfortunate Prince, it should be borne in mind that for the 20 years during which he ruled France he was the staunch friend of England. At the time of the Crimean War, the Emperor and Empress came to this country, and were received with cordiality, not only by the Court, but by Parliament and the people. The Party then in power was the same as that which now formed the majority in the House, and among the Members of the Cabinet who welcomed the Royal Visitors were Lord Granville and the Duke of Argyll. Three or four years afterwards the Queen and many Members of Parliament were very hospitably received by the Emperor at Cherbourg. These facts showed how cordial were the relations between England and France during the period when the latter country was ruled by Napoleon. They had nothing to do with the errors that might have been committed by the unfortunate Emperor. At any rate, they should not visit upon the son the faults imputed to the father. They should not lose sight of the fact that the Prince was the son of a Potentate who, through the whole of his career, was the friend of England, and that he met his death while enjoying the hospitality of England. It had always been the proud boast of this country that unfortunate foreigners were received with hospitality on its shores. Was the House prepared for the first time to make an exception to what had hitherto been the invariable rule of the people of England? The argument of the Mover of the Resolution was that Westminster Abbey should be reserved for Englishmen who had done service to their country; but, if the hon. Gentleman were to read the names of all those who had received monuments in Westminster Abbey, he thought there would be a considerable number that many of them would not recognize. This unfortunate young man, during his residence in England, had obtained the respect of all those with whom he had come into contact. There were hon. Members on both sides of the House who always respected a man who rode well to hounds, and he believed that there were few men superior to the young Prince in that respect. But, above all, he died fighting under our flag; and it was, therefore, most proper that those who knew and honoured him in life should erect a monument to his memory. Another consideration which had weight with him was a feeling of deep sympathy with the widowed mother of the Prince, who, by his death, was rendered childless, and they should be careful not to add to her griefs. On these grounds, and because it seemed to him that the course taken by the Dean of Westminster was one most becoming to the high position which he occupied, he should most unhesitatingly give his vote against the Motion.

said, he would not attempt to compete with the "native wood notes wild" of the Mover of the Amendment, or to follow the hon. Member who had just spoken in his compendious history of France during the last 20 years. He took a more prosaic view of the matter, and would deal with the question simply as it related to Westminster Abbey. The British Parliament had more than enough, to occupy their time without sitting as a jury on the public or private character of the Bonapartes. What it had to consider was whether a certain proposed monument would or would not be incongruous to the character of a building which was dear to the heart of every Englishman, whatever might be his religious or political creed. Westminster Abbey was essentially a public building in the true old constitutional sense of the word—one that in which had its own custodians and its own internal constitution, while those who were responsible for its care did not owe direct obedience to any large Assembly. This question might, therefore be raised—''Was the erection of a monument in the Abbey a question for Parliamentary consideration?" The Abbey, however, occupied so exceptional a position, it had received so many benefits from the State, and the Government and Parliament had so often interfered in its fittings and its monuments, that he did not think the question he had put need necessarily be answered in the negative. If the Motion became a substantive one, he would move, as an Amendment—

"That the erection in Westminster Abbey of a statute to the memory of the late Prince Louis Napoleon Bonaparte would be inconsistent with the national character of the edifice;"

and that the two last clauses of the hon. Member's Motion, that it was

"Opposed to the general sentiments of the English people, and calculated to impair the good feeling which happily exists between this country and the Government and people of France,"

should be left out. If these words were retained, he would not support the proposal. He trusted the Motion, in this modified form, would be accepted. What was the claim to a statue in the Abbey of the young man, of whom everyone spoke, as he deserved, in the highest terms? He was not in the least sense of the word an Englishman. He was only a denizen of England for a short time, and had not those claims so graphically laid down by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Briggs) of the Duke de Montpensier and the wife of Louis XVIII. There was an historical error in the statement of the hon. Member for Blackburn—the Duke de Montpensier was no brother of Louis XVI., but his very distant cousin was the son of a certain Duke of Orleans, otherwise Philippe Egalité, and brother of King Louis Philippe. He was the descendant of Charles the First's beautiful daughter, the Duchess of Orleans, whose untimely death was a commonplace of history; and he had, therefore, a direct claim to interment in the Chapel of Henry VII., which was named by that King to be the tomb of himself and his descendants. The same descent could be pleaded for the wife of Louis XVIII. The point on which he called on the House to speak loudly, clearly, and strongly, was this—that Westminster Abbey was the great monument of English glory, and that no foreign man, as such, and unless his name were connected with English achievements, should rest or be commemorated there. However great and good a foreigner might be, whatever his qualities, he would oppose a memorial to him in the Abbey. He had been personally grieved and indignant at language which had been used out-of-doors by foolish supporters of the proposal—offensive and unfounded language of demagogues, who pretended that to be a Tory was to be an admirer and follower of Bonapartism. As a Tory he repudiated the imputation. He did not confine his objection to that. Suppose this monument had not been for this excellent young man, who only dreamed in his innocent youth of becoming Ruler of France, but for one who had been Ruler of France, for M. Lamartine or M. Ledru Rollin, he would have said the same thing. In the protest he was making, he was sure that he was speaking as the Representative of many others who agreed with him, although he refrained from giving utterance to their feelings. Scruples due to sympathy to those who had been, by no fault of their own, placed in a false position, kept many people from speaking out their minds; for it was one of those things which required courage to come forward and protest against. From much conversation with many people, he could say that the feeling against this monument was far stronger than the Dean of Westminster, or anyone else who had been abetting him, could conceive. He should vote against going into Committee of Supply, and, when the time came, he should move his Amendment.

said, he had given Notice of his intention to move on this occasion the Previous Question; and, although he was aware the Forms of the House would prevent him taking that course, he could not help thinking the Previous Question exactly represented the course which the House with propriety might follow. Both the proposition of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Briggs), and the Amendment of which the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) had given Notice, were obviously open to the objection that the one by way of veto, and the other by way of sanction, implied the propriety of Parliamentary interference with a matter which he ventured to say that the House of Commons would much better let alone. ["No, no!"] He was quite aware that opinion was not universal in the House. But, after what had been said, there were one or two things which required some explanation. He could easily understand why the proposal to erect this memorial should have raised some dissatisfaction. It was supposed by some to be traceable to that feeling of Imperialism and personal rule which the late Government were said to favour, and the fear on the part of many that the erection of the statue would give colour to the supposition that the English people were retrograding politically as regarded their love of self-government. It had also been asserted a thousand times, publicly and privately, that Court influence had been at work in the matter. Now, it was necessary that justice should be done to everybody concerned; and he had the authority of Dean Stanley himself for stating that such a supposition with regard to highly-placed persons had not a shade of a foundation. As regarded an illustrious personage at the Horse Guards whose name had been mentioned, not one word had ever passed between him and the Dean on the matter; and with regard to a still more exalted personage, so far from there having been anything in the shape of encouragement given, there was hesitation; and the Royal sanction, without which no memorial could be erected in Westminster Abbey, was only given with reluctance. Having said thus much on the authority of Dean Stanley, he felt it would be unbecoming to say more. But there were one or two things which he must say. He could not refrain from alluding to the plea which had been set up, that the British people as a whole objected to this memorial, and that it was also offensive to the French Government. If that was so, why did not the late or the present Government speak out on the subject? If they, the responsible managers of the affairs of the British people, would say that, in their judgment, the erection of this monument would jeopardize the good relations between the two Governments and the two peoples, then, he apprehended, there would be universal acquiescence in their decision. It was also said the British people were averse to the monument. This was one of those comprehensive generalizations as to the wishes and will of 30,000,000 people which were much more rashly hazarded than capable of being proved. There was no evidence whatever of the national feeling; and, in the absence of that evidence each of them might claim to be an authority on that point, and must have his claim allowed until it was disputed. When the heat of controversy had passed away, and people came to look that question in the face, they might say—"Westminster Abbey is an epitome in stone of the history of the British people; that being so, it should illustrate the successive stages of that great national story. Not the least illustrious of its chapters was the alliance between France and England, which first became a living and powerful reality under that young man's father. "There was, indeed, an entente cordiale in Louis Philippe's time. When a distinguished Frenchman wrote a book on The Genius of Christianity , a brilliant woman said the book was so called because there was neither genius nor Christianity in it. Precisely in the same way that entente cordiale was not a good understanding, and it certainly was not cordial. It came to grief in the most disreputable manner in the squabble arising out of the Spanish Marriages. But, in the time of Napoleon III.—for whom he had no respect whatever, whose rule was founded on violence and was supported by all kinds of baseness, and which came to an end amid the execration of honest people—in his time, at any rate, the two countries, from having been what was called natural enemies, became fast friends, and, whatever might have been his other shortcomings, no one could deny that the alliance with England was the corner-stone of his foreign policy. And, further, the benefit of that close alliance between the two Governments and peoples was found alike in the shock of arms in the Crimea and in the negotiations which led up to the Commercial Treaty, and which probably, and he hoped speedily, would receive a still further extension. When, therefore, the British people came to look at it, they might think that that historical edifice might contain one of the Napoleons as it contained one of the Bourbons, as a sort of political equipoise, to symbolize the perfect impartiality attaching to the hospitality of the Abbey. Our countrymen might say that the memorial of that young man, whom the enemy certainly identified with our cause, whom his comrades mourned as a brother in arms, falling from such a height to such a depth of ruin, the only son of his widowed mother—a man, as Dr. Johnson said, combining both the sadness and the significance of Imperial and domestic tragedy—might not unfitly find its place where political animosities were buried and forgotten, and in an edifice, too, which was the abode of that pity and that sympathy which were the characteristics of that religion to which it was dedicated. He, therefore, thought the House had better leave the matter where it was, especially at a time when, by the confession of the hon. Member for Blackburn, nobody had known more wisely how to exercise the jurisdiction with which he was invested than had Dean Stanley—a man large-hearted, highly cultivated, removed both by character and by tastes far above the dust and turmoil of the controversy in which they were engaged. The instances quoted respecting Parliamentary interference were not particularly happy. The one blot upon the Abbey was the treatment of the people who were engaged in the trial of King Charles I., and the indignities offered to the body of Cromwell. At that time the Crown, the Dean of Westminster, the Lords, the Commons, the popular feeling, all united to commit an act of which Englishmen of this day were thoroughly ashamed, and which they wished they could wipe out of the records of the history of their country. It was that vicious Parliamentary interference—not vicious in itself, but in the pressure of the Party feelings which were liable to lead men's minds away in cases of that kind—it was that interference which the present Motion revived and perpetuated, and against which he must enter his strong protest.

in order to save the time of the House, intimated his readiness, if his Motion should be adopted, to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope).

who had given Notice, in the event of the hon. Member for Blackburn's proposal becoming the substantive Motion, to leave out all the words after "edifice," in order to add these words—

"And that henceforth no statue or monument should be erected within the edifice except with the consent, in writing, of Her Majesty's First Commissioner of Works;"

said, they had not yet heard the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on the Motion before the House. He dissented from many of the reasons which the hon. Member (Mr. Briggs) had alleged in support of the Motion. When this question was before the House last year, his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote), who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time in the late Government, gave an official answer, to the effect that the matter rested entirely with the Dean, and that it was not desirable the House should interfere. His right hon. Friend also touched on the question whether Westminster Abbey was or was not a national building, and said it was not desirable to interfere with the authorities who had charge of the edifice. That the Abbey was a national building he, for one, had not the slightest doubt; and, if necessary, he could, in support of that view, recall the famous saying of Lord Nelson—"Victory, or Westminster Abbey." That was the idea entertained by a very eminent "Jingo," as some might call Nelson. He could mention the names of those who had not been buried there, but who had monuments erected to them in the place. There were about 100, and very nearly all these were Englishmen who had rendered distinguished service to their country. Then it was urged that the Dean of Westminster ought to be the only person responsible in that matter. Now, no one had a higher respect than he had for the Dean of Westminster, and he did not wish anything that he said to be construed as casting any censure on that learned and distinguished divine. But the position of the Dean was an anomaly. The deanery was his own peculiar—ecclesiastically, he meant—and the Dean could do precisely what he pleased. He could remove any monument, granting himself a faculty, or anybody from one place to another in the Abbey. There were many appointments of which the Dean was the sole appointer. On one occasion a conflict had arisen between the Dean and Chapter with reference to an appointment made by the former; but the Chapter could not interfere with the appointment, and were only able to exercise an influence by stopping supply. It remained to be considered whether the present system should be continued. If it worked well, nothing could be said against it; but it did not work well—least of all with respect to that branch of the jurisdiction which was then under the consideration of the House. He was old enough to remember six Deans of Westminster—Dr. Ireland, Dr. Turton, Dr. Wilberforce, Dr. Buckland, Dr. Trench, and Dr. Stanley. Dean Ireland was, with regard to monuments, a noted obstructive, and would not admit them at all. The right hon. Gentleman would recollect the case of the Byron monument. No doubt, the objection in that case was to Byron's religious opinions; but, as a matter of fact, during the tenure of Dean Ireland and some of his immediate successors, very few monuments were placed in the Abbey. But he thought it was highly desirable that some check should be imposed upon the power of the Dean, and that some responsible Government authority should have power to interfere. Westminster Abbey was a national building, and he did not hesitate to say that it ought to be under the control of the nation. That remark applied not only to Westminster Abbey, but to many other cathedrals of the same character. In fact, the control of the House ought to be extended to all buildings and monuments of a public character. The right hon. and learned Member then referred to the proceedings of Parliament in reference to the statue of Sir Robert Peel in Palace Yard, and the re-building of Burlington House. The House had recently been discussing the subject of ancient monuments; and there was no reason why Westminster Abbey should not be included in the measure of the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock). He thought there ought to be a responsible Minister who should be able to answer any questions relating to the subject which might be asked by Members of that House.

Sir, I will not enter into the large questions which have been raised with respect to proposed changes in the law by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. Those remarks may be rational and appropriate; but it appears to me rather a singular process to say that these interferences ought to take place before any such law has been passed. There are, however, two points in this discussion which are thoroughly satisfactory. Justice has been done, on all hands, to the gallantry and many fine qualities of the young Prince who unfortunately lost his life in Zululand, and the utmost sympathy has been expressed for his widowed mother. I am also glad that there was some reference made, in the interesting speech of the hon. Mover of this Resolution, to the question of Court influence in this matter, for an idea seems to have got abroad that some influence of a questionable or illegitimate character has been exerted in that quarter. But I must observe that, if I am correctly informed, with respect to the burial of a person in the Abbey the prerogative of the Dean is absolute; and I am not prepared to contradict the substance of the statement which proceeded, in becoming terms, from the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Hutchinson); but, so far as I am able to speak, to confirm that statement. We may, therefore, dismiss from our minds any idea of a disposition in any quarter to trespass, in any way, upon the province of this House in the matter. I have arrived at the conclusion that, without going back to the origin of this business, which, undoubtedly, has created a good deal of feeling in the country, the House would do well to avoid interference in the matter. I will state briefly, and without pitching my argument too high, the reasons which lead me to that conclusion. I believe there is no evidence from any document, or usage, that the House has ever interfered in circumstances like these. The House has exercised its Prerogative with respect to the admission of a monument to a person whom it has recommended to be buried in the Abbey; but for the purpose of excluding a monument, the House has never, on any occasion, interfered. Considering the local proximity and the traditional associations which exist between this House and the Abbey, that is a fact of great importance in its bearing upon this question. My hon. Friend the Mover of the Motion has suggested the alternative of St. George's Chapel, Windsor, alleging, as has been done by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope), if I understood them rightly, that Westminster Abbey is a building which is reserved for the monuments of persons of our nationality, in a sense or degree beyond that of the other churches of the country. My belief is that, if we examine the facts, we shall find that the number of foreigners, more or less considerable, who are buried in Westminster Abbey, is far larger than the number of foreigners buried in any other church in the country. I might mention the names of many foreigners, of great distinction in their day, who are buried in Westminster Abbey. Besides the Duke of Montpensier, there are two Spanish Ambassadors, a Russian Ambassador, and Paleologus, a descendant of the Emperors of Constantinople. [ Laughter .] The Dean says so. The permission which, the Dean gave for the erection of the proposed monument—given, I believe, with the largest and kindest motives, which have been so freely acknowledged on all sides—was an act which, I admit, might, perhaps, have been liable to some misinterpretation. It was, however, if I may venture an opinion, an act of great generosity of heart—of course, without any political intent. My firm belief is that the Dean did not in any manner anticipate that a portion of his own countrymen, or a portion of the French people, would be disposed to put upon that act an unfavourable con- struction Now, so far as the Government and people of France are concerned, I am bound to say that I have no evidence that they have put upon it an unfavourable construction. If there had been such a disposition on their part, the time to manifest it was not the present moment, but some 12 or 15 months ago, when the project first became known to the world. It is worthy of a great nation like France that its people should take this liberal view of the subject; and there does not appear to have been any disposition on the part of the French people to regard the act in any other sense than that in which it was certainly intended by the Dean, as a mark of hospitality, mingled with profound and peculiar sympathy. These, I assume, were the motives in the mind of the Dean, and that favourable construction, I think, has been put upon the act abroad. I rejoice that it is so. With regard to the less favourable construction put upon the act in this country, I firmly believe that that has all been founded on a regard for a supposed susceptibility of the French people, which some of our countrymen have imagined might be excited, but of which we have no evidence. Well, that being so, let us consider that a time, now rather long, has elapsed since this matter became a matter of public debate and consideration. It has been more than once made a subject of discussion in this House; and I would point out that unquestionably, if it was desirable that a public voice should be uttered with such authority that it should reach the Dean, that public voice ought to have been either the voice of the House of Commons or, I should say, still more peculiarly, the voice of the Executive Government. The natural period for the utterance of such voice was, as I have indicated, 12 or 15 months ago. The subject was then brought under the consideration of the House. It was debated more than once, and on one occasion a Question was put to my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the then Leader of the House, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke as follows:—

"The right and responsibility of granting sites for monuments in Westminster Abbey rests entirely with the Dean of Westminster. The Government have seen the announcement of what is intended in the case referred to; but they have not thought fit to give any advice on the matter, as no political significance attaches to the matter."—[3 Hansard ccxlviii . 1176-7.]

My impression is that the Dean of Westminster more than 12 months ago gave Her Majesty's Government an opportunity, if they thought it was an opportunity they ought to use, of interposing so as to enable him to withdraw the permission given. That is my impression of the matter. I believe it is substantially true. Then, if that is so, the Executive Government of the day at a proper time has given judgment against interference in this matter; and not only so, but their judgment was a judgment announced to this House, which the House did not attempt to disturb. Now, what I would put to the House, and to the Mover of this Motion, is whether, considering all the circumstances of the case, considering how largely feelings of pity and sympathy have been at the root of all the proceedings, considering how entirely and absolutely remote the act of the Dean has been from beginning to end from any association whatever with political influences, it is wise for the House now to interfere in this matter after it has passed under the deliberate review of the authorities best qualified to deal with it? I may be told, no doubt, of the difference in the political complexion of the present Government; but I do not think that this subject is one which falls legitimately within the field of that difference. After such a time has elapsed, and after this question has been brought to trial, so to speak, in the only manner in which such a question could be brought to trial, it should be regarded as a res judicata and a res peracta , and we ought not to commit an act of less discretion than is usual on the part of the House of Commons by creating for the first time, after this long delay, a precedent for doing that which in all these lengthened and multiplied centuries the House of Commons had never thought fit to do. I have not argued this question too high; I have treated it as one of prudence and discretion. I think the Executive Government and the House of Commons, acting at the proper time, are the natural guardians of public propriety to a great extent in cases of this kind. But after a deliberate and calm review of the whole circumstances of the present case, I think the wisest advice which I could give to the House would be to abstain from interference. Though the "Previous Question" cannot be technically raised at present, yet that is in reality and practically the point which is before us; and I think that, without being called upon to express an opinion definitely on the subject—either confirmatory or contradictory—we may safely follow the path of prudence and circumspection in giving our support to the Motion " that the Speaker do leave the Chair."

said, he failed to see any reason why a substantial vote should not be taken on the Amendment. He had not heard a single word from the Prime Minister in favour of the monument being erected to the memory of this young Prince in Westminster Abbey, and the right hon. Gentleman had not advanced a single argument why it should be placed there. The Dean of Westminster had challenged the vote of Parliament, and he now asked that a vote of Parliament should be given in answer to the challenge. He thought that the monuments placed in the Abbey were for men of great intelligence and worth, who had rendered great services to this country; and he failed to see, however amiable the young Prince might have been, or however excellent his character, he had rendered such services to the country and to the world, as to entitle him to have a monument to his memory placed in that great historic fane where the memories of men were perpetuated who had done great service to this country. Though a strong supporter of the Government, he could not bring himself to give his vote with them on the question under consideration, but thought, on the contrary, that when the Dean of Westminster threw down his gauntlet in the way he had it ought to be picked up by the House. He should, therefore, support the Amendment of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge.

After the speech of the Prime Minister I do not intend to trespass on the patience of the House further than to say that my right hon. Friend has entirely and correctly described what took place in the last Session. This question was one upon which Her Majesty's Government were in no way consulted before the decision was taken by the Dean of Westminster. When their attention was drawn to the subject they considered whether it was a case in which there was any occasion for them to interfere; and upon full consideration, both with regard to the position of the Dean and of such information as they had upon the feelings, or the supposed feelings, of the French Government on this subject, Her Majesty's Government came to the conclusion, not only that there was no necessity for them to interfere, but that it would be a mistake and an entirely wrong step for them to take if they did interfere. They felt that they would be stepping out of their province and interfering with the prerogative of the Dean of Westminster, and taking upon the Executive Government, or advising Parliament to take upon itself, a function which it was not desirable it should assume. I remain of the same opinion, and I think it is scarcely possible not to feel the force of the observations of the Prime Minister. I quite agree with the right ton. Gentleman, when he says that if this question were to be dealt with at all in the way of remonstrating or objecting to the action of the Dean of Westminster, it ought to have been done by the Government of the day and the Parliament of the day. We hear it said that the present Parliament, being of a different complexion to the past, ought now to claim to interpose, where the former House did not think it right to interpose, and to give effect to views which were not thought right at the time. I think that argument is, in itself, a very strong reason against challenging the presumption that has hitherto prevailed—namely, that the Dean of Westminster, who is a person altogether apart from political considerations, is the proper judge, and that a political Assembly is not a good tribunal to which to refer such a question. I wish in the most emphatic way to disclaim any agreement with the opinion expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) that there should be a relation between Parliament and the Abbey of Westminster wholly different from that which exists between the Legislature and Executive and other churches of this country, because that opinion involves doctrines which seem to me to lean very far in the direction of the Disestablishment of the Church. I, for my own part, consider that the Dean is the proper authority in the matter. Undoubtedly this House has claimed, and has for many years, and centuries, exercised certain rights in obtaining admission into the precincts of the Abbey; and, undoubtedly, when the House of Commons has desired to provide for the interment of some distinguished person within the walls of the church, it has exercised the right which it has claimed of providing for such interment. But with regard to the prohibition of such interments, I apprehend it would be an entirely new step, and a very unwise step, for us to endeavour to take. I would venture to ask the House whether they really do think it wise that Parliament should undertake a duty which would be continually bringing up political questions whenever a person was likely to be buried there? The question is now raised with regard to a Prince of foreign birth; hut the same question would arise upon the burial of men of English birth. If the House of Commons, for the time being, is to decide whether this or that person shall be buried in the Abbey, I can conceive, without the very smallest difficulty, that very exciting political questions might arise as to whether this person or the other should or should not be buried there. Indeed, the question might arise over and over again. As the Prime Minister says, the question now is whether we shall interrupt the ordinary Business of this House in order to pass an entirely novel Resolution, which, in the second place, it is not now the proper time to deal with. The question is not whether it was a wise step for the Dean to have taken, nor whether it is a desirable thing for the young Prince to he interred in the Abbey; but whether we shall not rather do wisely to take the advice of the Prime Minister, and simply vote that you, Sir, leave the Chair, in order that we may go on with the Business of the House.

said, he thought there was some misunderstanding as to the real feelings of the Dean upon this subject, for in a speech delivered on February 24 the Dean said that he was the servant of the State, and that the authority of the Sovereign or of Parliament would absolve him from all responsibility. He (Mr. W. Fowler) repudiated the idea that the question before the House was a party or political ques- tion; and he was sure that if the House of Commons wished any distinguished Englishman to be buried in the Abbey, no Party question would be raised in the matter. The real fact was that many hon. Members did not think that this young Prince deserved the honour which it was proposed should be shown his memory. The Prince was not an Englishman; he resided only a very short time in this country; he went out to Africa entirely at his own risk, and did not fall fighting the battles of England. He went out merely as an adventurer in the hope of obtaining such distinction and experience as would make him more fit to take a distinguished part in his own country against the established Government of the country. He felt deeply for the distinguished lady who mourned the loss of her only son, and many of them rejoiced that there had been that great public funeral to manifest the public sympathy and pity. But pity might degenerate into weakness, and it did so when they were asked to allow the monument to be erected to the Prince in Westminster Abbey because they had pity for his mother. He denied that there was any wish on the part of those who supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Briggs) to hurt the feelings of the Prince's mother. It was those who proposed to erect this monument that were hurting her feelings, because they called up sentiments to which expression would not otherwise have been given. It was making a large demand upon their patience to ask them to express admiration of the Napoleonic family, which he regarded as the embodiment of violence, craft, and deception. He failed to see why the House of Commons should abrogate its functions in this matter; and, therefore, he trusted that his hon. Friend would press his Resolution to a division.

said, that he was one of those who signed the original memorial to the Dean, asking that the monument might not be erected; but he had signed on æsthetic grounds, as he did not desire to see the Abbey still more crowded with tasteless works of art. In his opinion, the Abbey was already too full of statues. The discussion that evening had, however, caused him to change his ideas on the subject. The Dean having decided to admit another statue he thought the House had no right to interfere. In refusing to allow the erection of this statue he thought they would be interfering in a political sense, and taking a side with the existing Government of France against a dynasty that might again be restored. He was convinced that if the great Republic of America had had to mourn the death of the Count of Paris in the same way as we had to lament the death of Prince Napoleon it would have raised a magnificent monument to his memory.

said, the Prime Minister had laid great stress on the argument that the late Parliament had not come to any decision on the question before the House. He himself, however, had brought the subject forward at the end of the last Session but one; and it was only because of the state of Public Business on that occasion that he was prevented, owing to the Forms of the House, from taking a division on his Motion. Another point made by the Prime Minister was that the French Government, so far as was known, took no exception to the proceedings which had been taken with respect to the erection of the proposed monument. Now, he was informed, on good and trustworthy authority, that the French Government had had the matter under their consideration; that they took exception to the erection of the monument; and that they would have made representations to our Government on the subject had they not thought that perhaps more harm than good would have been done if they had taken that course. [ Cries of "Name!"] He should be most happy to give his authority for the statement which he had made to any hon. Gentleman who might ask for it privately; but he did not wish to mention it in public.

said, that with all his experience of the working classes of England he had never found them signing a Petition so readily as they did that which had been presented against the erection of the proposed memorial. In signing, the members of the working classes had no idea of imputing bad motives to the worthy Dean of Westminster, who had taken an active and valuable part in support of many of their movements. They felt, however, that they could not allow the memorial to be set up in the national Abbey without a strong protest; and he would appeal to the Dean whether it was wise to exercise the authority which he possessed in face of a deep-seated and general objection. The working classes objected to the memorial on many grounds. They objected to it because of the great men who had found their resting-place in that hallowed spot, and of the great men who might yet find a resting-place there; while, as to the feeling in France, he might mention that he had a sister who was married to a humble working man, resident in one of the largest working-class districts of Paris, from whom he received letters to the effect that the French workmen desired to encourage the workmen of London to oppose the erection of the memorial, not because the workmen of Paris had no sympathy with the widowed mother of the late Prince in her great trials, but because they believed it would perpetuate the memory of a Power which they wished to be buried for ever. And how, he would ask, could it be buried for ever if visitors from all parts of the world might see the proposed memorial erected across the way? He, in these circumstances, hoped the House would, by a large majority, record its objection to the proposal, from a desire to pay proper respect to a nation which must always be dear to the English people, and because the Abbey up to the present date had always commanded the respect and veneration of the English people of all religious opinions on account of the many grand monuments which it contained.

said, it was an established principle in this country that communications from foreign Powers should be conveyed diplomatically, and should not be made in a haphazard way through private Members in that House. He thought that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) should give his authority for the statement he had made. The Prime Minister had told the House that no official representation had been made by the French Government, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle had told them something else. He would ask the House whether they would accept the statement of the Prime Minister, or the unauthentic assertion of a private Member who might have got his information from a clerk in some office of Paris. The statement of the hon. Member who had just sat down, concerning the opinion of the working classes of France, was entitled to respectful consideration; but that of the hon. Baronet was one which never ought to have been made in the House.

confessed his regret that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Briggs) should have thought it his duty to call for an expression of the opinion of the House upon that question. Were he convinced, with the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, that the French nation had taken serious umbrage at the prospect of the monument being erected, he would unquestionably, even at the last moment, have entered his protest against it; and if he abstained from doing so now, it was not at all because he was one of those who approved the project itself, or would have given his sanction to it had he been consulted about it in the first instance, but because he felt that it would be a greater evil to oppose the authority of the House to the erection of the monument than that the House should tacitly have sanctioned such a proposal. He felt bound to confess that, to his mind, no sufficient ground had been shown for the erection of any monument to the gallant and unfortunate Prince Imperial. Had it been his fate to die a natural death in this country, or had he died by accident, say in the hunting-field, no one, he presumed, would have thought Westminster Abbey a proper place in which to erect a monument to him. The proposal, therefore, could only be defended on the ground that the Prince met his death in Zululand, where, he was bound to confess, he had no business to be, and where, also, those who had authority over him should not have allowed him to go. But the scheme had now been carried so far that he thought it would be inexpedient on the part of the House to interpose to prevent its execution. Moreover, it had not been stated what kind of monument it was proposed to erect, which surely was a matter of some little importance. The matter, however, had been dealt with as one of sentiment, and there was just one reflection which, looking at the matter from that point of view, suggested itself to his mind. It was this—What would people 50 years hence think of the monument if it were erected? Would they be influenced by the feelings which at present animated the House? Would they not rather pause, merely for a moment, to read the few lines of sympathy and pity which recorded the fate of the unfortunate but gallant Prince, and pass on to other objects of interest?

inquired of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Briggs) whether he accepted the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope)?

Yes, Sir, I do.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

Another Amendment was proposed to be made to Question,

By leaving out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the erection in Westminster Abbey of a statue to the memory of the late Prince Louis Napoleon Bonaparte would be inconsistent with the national character of that edifice,"—( Mr. Briggs ,)

—instead thereof.

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

The House divided :—Ayes 147; Noes 162: Majority 15.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put.

When the Tellers returned, and before the numbers were declared—

addressing the Speaker seated, and with his hat on, said: Mr. Speaker, I desire to call your attention to the fact that right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench—["Order, order!"]—I will ask if I am in. Order.

The hon. Gentleman is in Order.

I desire, Sir, to call attention to the circumstance that right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench left the House and went into a room behind the Chair, after the door in the Lobby had been closed by the Serjeant at Arms. I ask you, whether, having heard the Question, they are not bound to give a vote on this subject?

The hon. Member does not state that the Members in question heard the Question put.

I did, Sir, state that I saw them there.

The hon. Gentlemen were entitled to withdraw.

also addressing the Speaker in the same manner, said: I want to know, Mr. Speaker, Whether it is in the power of any hon. Member, after a Question has been put, to withdraw into a private room behind the Chair? If that be so, I should have been very glad to have availed myself of the opportunity.

The room to which the noble Lord alludes is not within the House for the purpose of a division. I call upon the Tellers to declare the result.

Ayes 171; Noes 116: Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 59.)

Resolved , That in the opinion of this House, the erection in Westminster Abbey of a statue to the memory of the late Prince Louis Napoleon Bonaparte would be inconsistent with the national character of that edifice."

Mr. Speaker, I beg to give Notice that on Monday, as a matter of Privilege, I shall call the attention of the House to 'the course pursued by right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. [Interruption.] I shall call attention to the disorderly conduct of right hon. Gentlemen, and move for a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances of the case.

Supply.—Committee

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into the Committee of Supply."—( Lord Richard Grosvenor .)

Mr. Speaker, I beg to move—

The only Amendment that can be moved is as to the day on which the House will do this.

Sir, I beg to move that this House do resolve itself into Committee of Supply this day three months.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned his intention to bring this forward as a matter of Privilege. I beg to ask you, Sir, whether, having stated his intention to bring it forward as a matter of Privilege, he does not thereby render himself incompetent to proceed with the matter in this way?

The Question is that this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into Committee of Supply.

As my name is on the Paper for a Motion this evening I believe I shall be in Order.

I have already stated to the hon. Member that the only Amendment that can be moved is an Amendment as to the day when the House shall go into Committee of Supply.

["Order!"] Sir, I have announced the fact that I was going to move that we should go into Committee this day three months. ["Order!"] The hon. Member for Glasgow very properly intervenes; but as you have not ruled me out of Order I shall go on unless you tell me I ought not.

The hon. Member is not in Order, because there is a Standing Order that this House shall go into Committee of Supply on stated days; and to move that the House should not go into Committee of Supply for three months is clearly opposed to this Standing Order.

I beg to speak, Sir, on that very Question. I pointed out a very grave, to my mind a very great grave, breach—

I have already stated to the hon. Member more than once that the only Amendment is as to the time at which the House do resolve itself into Committee of Supply.

I beg to move that this House do now adjourn, and in doing so I must explain my reasons for the Motion. Hon Gentlemen opposite are quite as much interested as we in this great breach of conduct by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who left the House after the Question had been put a second time from the Chair, after they had heard it was put a second time, and after the door in the Lobby was closed by the Serjeant at Arms. I beg, Sir, to bring this question seriously before your notice. I do not want, Sir, to interrupt the progress of Business. I never have interrupted the progress of Business. [ Loud derisive cheers .] If hon. Gentlemen will point out when I have I shall be happy to acknowledge myself in the wrong. What I have to say is this—that I consider a very gross breach of Order has been committed.

I rise to Order. Is the hon. Member in Order, as he has already given Notice of his intention to bring on this question at another time, in now endeavouring to do so? I will ask for your ruling whether he is in Order or not.

I may remove this difficulty from the minds of the hon. Gentlemen opposite.

I have not done speaking yet. I do not know whether the Home Secretary—

I rise to Order.

The Question before the House is that this House do, on Monday next, resolve itself into Committee of Supply. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, in moving the adjournment of the House, is in Order.

The question of Order on which I rise, and on which I ask you to give us your opinion, Sir, is this. The hon. Member opposite—the hon. Member for Portsmouth—distinctly gave Notice of his intention to raise this very question of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in leaving the House as a matter of Privilege on Monday. He gave that as a distinct Notice of Motion. I wish to know now whether, having given that Notice— that distinct Notice of Motion—he is in Order in discussing the very subjects which he has given Notice of his intention to bring forward as a matter of Privilege next Monday?

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth is acting under a misapprehension.

I have already stated that the hon. Member for Portsmouth is in Order.

I am very sorry I should offend the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite the Home Secretary. I cannot help that; I must bear up against it. I am especially sorry at all to interfere with the equanimity of the Home Secretary. He occupies a very high position in this House—in the estimation of this House—but he occupies a far higher position in his own estimation. [ Cries of " Oh, oh!" and "Withdraw!"] If hon. Gentlemen opposite—[ Renewed cries of "Withdraw!" "Order!" "Chair!" "Oh, oh!"] Will hon. Gentlemen—[ Cries again renewed, coupled with loud cries of "Order!"]

The hon. Member for Portsmouth is in possession of the House. [ Renewed cries of "Withdraw!"]

If hon. Gentlemen opposite wish me to withdraw the expression I made use of, I will withdraw it, and I will say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not occupy a high position in his own estimation. What I want to bring before the House, and before you, Sir, is this. I maintain, and many of my hon. Friends will bear me out, that after the Question had been put a second time, and after the door in the Lobby had been closed by the Serjeant at Arms, that many of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench went out of the House and betook themselves to a room which, I believe, belongs to them, behind the Chair. Now, Sir, it is held that if hon. Members have heard a Question put a second time that they are bound to give a vote on the subject. On that point there is no doubt. I therefore, Sir, would ask you whether it would be competent for me on Monday to move for a Committee to inquire into the question of Order; because it seems to me to be a very dangerous precedent if hon. Gentlemen who have the privilege of a room behind the Chair are enabled, after a Question has been put a second time, to take refuge there; whereas ordinary Members of this House have not that privilege. It is on that ground that I beg to move the adjournment of the House, not with any desire of defeating or obstructing Business, but simply, Sir, with the view of asking you how far I may call your attention to this subject, which appears to me to be a very important one indeed.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth has made a discovery—he often makes discoveries—his discoveries are all of the same character as the present. He has discovered a mare's nest.

I rise to Order. I beg to ask you, Sir, whether the Question ought not to be put to the House?

At present, the Motion has not been seconded.

Sir, in rising to second the Motion, I shall not detain the House very long. I distinctly challenged the Motion before the House upon the assumption that as the Front Bench—the Government Bench—had voted one way in one division they would vote the same way in the next, and, because I had such a strong feeling against the Motion of my hon. Friend, I challenged the decision which you gave. I was an eyewitness of what then took place. I had been sitting opposite the Prime Minister, and I can distinctly say that I saw that door barred by the proper authority; and after it was barred, and after the Question had been put a second time—["No, no!"]—I am in the recollection of the House, and I am quite sure I am right, and that they will not accuse me of saying anything I am not justified in saying, and I distinctly assert that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on those Benches, after you, Sir, had put the Question a second time from the Chair, walked out of the House to a place which ordinary Members like myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth have not access to. I therefore think the House would be justified, Sir, in asking you for your ruling, because we ought to know how to act in the future. I will ask you, Sir, whether, after you have put a Question, and have risen in your place to put it a second time, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen can go out of the House? because we believe there is a Rule that when a Ques- tion has been put a second time every Member must vote.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— ( Sir H. Drummond Wolff .)

Before I put the Question to the House it would be right that I should state what the Rule of the House is. That Rule is very plain. It is, that after a Question has been put a second time Members present are bound to vote. The matter all turns on a question of fact. The Question is that this House do now adjourn.

Sir, I suppose I may be allowed to state the fact. Persons are supposed to have a knowledge of what they have done themselves. I, and every one of my Friends round me, walked out of the House before the Question was put a second time. ["No, no!"] What do hon. Gentlemen opposite mean? Do they mean to say that we do not know whether we did do that, or that, knowing the facts to be opposite, we state that which is untrue? The fact is plain and obvious. The outer door was not locked. The hon. Member for Portsmouth is entirely wrong. Not one of us were in the room to which he refers. We passed through the door behind the Speaker before the Question was put a second time, and that door had not been locked. The whole thing is an absolute mare's nest.

I think there is some confusion here, as there was a large number of Members in the House when the Question was put a second time. I can bear my testimony to what was a fact. I was sitting at the further end of this Bench when I saw several of the right hon. Gentlemen go out. I did not think that was quite the course I should like to adopt; and, therefore, I came to the place where I usually sit, and, after I had taken my seat, the Question was put a second time.

I only rise to say, Sir, what has been already said, that I saw hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench go out before you put the Question a second time.

I beg, Sir, to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn .

Original Question put.

Supply Committee upon Monday next.

Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill.—[Bill 232.]

( Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland .)

COMMITTEE. [ Progress 16th July .]

Bill considered , in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Temporary provision regarding compensation for disturbance).

Amendment proposed,

To add, at the end of the Clause the words "without the offer of any reasonable alternative."—( Mr. Gladstone .)

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

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,

To add, at the end thereof, the words "comprising just and reasonable terms as to rent, arrears of rent, and otherwise, to the incoming tenant, if any."—( Mr. Parnell .)

Question proposed, "That those words be added to the said proposed Amendment."

said, that he moved his Amendment about a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes before the time for the suspension of Business arrived that morning. He was sorry not to have been able to move it earlier; but the greater portion of that Sitting had been taken up with the discussion of other matters, and he had had no opportunity of moving it at a time when the Government could give it better attention. But he would venture to press the matter upon their notice then, because he thought it was of the utmost importance that the County Chairman should have some discretion in that matter. They gave that authority a discretion as to the conditions upon which to award compensation for disturbance, provided the tenant proved certain things; amongst others, that he, the tenant, was willing to continue in the occupation of his holding upon just and reasonable terms as to arrears of rent and otherwise. Well, by the Amendment of the Prime Minister, which he sought to amend, they provided that the landlord should be relieved from the liability to pay compensation to the tenant, provided that he offered him a reasonable alternative; but in that case they gave the County Court Judge no such discretion for his guidance, as they gave him in the case where he was directed to award compensation for disturbance. He could not see the justice of that, much less the utility or advantage of it; because it stood to reason that if the rent was fair the tenant's interest was worth something, and he could get something worth having for it. If not a fair rent the tenant's interest was worth little or nothing, and he could get little or nothing for it. He should ask the Committee to agree to give some directions to the Chairman in the case where he decided that the landlord should be relieved from the necessity of giving compensation for disturbance, just as they had already decided that directions should be given in the case where the County Court Judge had to consider what compensation should be given to the tenant for disturbance. They should recollect what was an alternative. The money the tenant received from the person to whom he sold his interest was in the shape of an alternative for compensation. He submitted that some alternative ought to be taken into account in dealing with those cases, such as the Chairman was directed to take into account in dealing with compensation for disturbance. Otherwise, they must necessarily run the risk of a great inequality of decisions. It was a matter in which the Chairman would not have the time that he had under the Land Act of 1870 in order to assimilate the decisions by corrections of the Superior Courts. In the present case, probably by the time the leading cases had been taken to the Superior Courts for consideration and judgment, the Bill would have lapsed, and would no longer have the force of law. The Chairmen were entitled to some guidance, such as in the case where they had to award compensation for disturbance. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, just before the Sitting was suspended, said that he agreed with the principle he had put forward in moving his Amendment. If so, why should he not adhere to the plan of his Bill, and give instructions to the County Court Judge with respect to the law he had to administer? He submitted that there was no reason whatever for leaving that matter vague, any more than there was for leaving the conditions in Section 3, sub-section 12, in that state. There it was directed that if the tenant was willing to occupy the holding, on just and reasonable terms as to rent, the County Court Judge might award compensation. Then, surely the Judge was entitled to be directed that unless a landlord was willing to allow the tenant to sell his interest to his successor on similarly just and reasonable terms as to rent, compensation might be awarded. He pressed that matter upon the attention of the Government most respectfully. He thought it was of great importance, and most undesirable that the matter should be left vague and unsettled as it was by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. No one would deny that the question of rent was an important one; but a more important one was that of giving directions to the County Court Judge from that House, as to the grounds upon which he was to decide.

said, that the question arose in the following way:—The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister proposed that that sub-section of Section 3 should run—"such terms being refused by the landlord without the offer of a reasonable alternative." The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) doubted whether that expression was sufficiently explanatory, and wished to add—"or of just and reasonable terms as to rent or otherwise." The hon. Member for Cork City had proceeded to show that if the tenancy was at too high a rent there would be nothing to sell, and, therefore, a sale in that case would be an unreasonable alternative. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said that he agreed with the spirit of the Amendment. He said that he did not want to force on the tenant, as a reasonable alternative, to sell when the rent was of such a character that there was nothing, in fact, to sell. He then said that he believed that the Judges would be able to interpret the meaning as the words stood, and where there was a high rent and nothing to sell, that could not be taken as a reasonable alternative. He would venture, with great respect, to suggest that the question of clearness or ambiguity was one which had not been sufficiently considered, and, therefore, he trusted that either then or on Report the matter would be made quite clear. It was most important that no error should happen. If the tenant was paying a high rent he could not be driven into the market, for by so doing the com- pensation would go for nothing; and he felt assured that if the terms were not clearly defined the Bill would be worth nothing, because those landlords who charged high rents would evade it by making one of these illusory offers. He hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would consider whether that expression, "reasonable alternative," was sufficiently clear as to make it perfectly certain that in the 32 Courts where these cases could be tried the results would be satisfactory. If not, he should ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to see if it would not be possible to place the matter beyond a doubt. Of course, it might be said that the moment the Government promised to take a subject into their consideration, they were yielding to the Home Rulers. It was nothing of the kind. The principle insisted on by the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) was the same as that which had run through the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. What they contended for, then, was not a change in the principle of the Bill, but rather that what was contained in the Bill already should be plainly stated.