asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has come to any decision in regard to the fines illegally imposed upon six persons (amounting with costs to 36s. 6d. each) at Warrington for refusing to have their children vaccinated, the conviction having been made under the 29th Clause of the Vaccination Act, while the children were from three to six years old?

, in reply, said, in this case he had directed the fines to be remitted.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that a letter, dated 21st May, written by a Member of this House to one of the gentlemen in Kilmainham, was stopped because it contained a passage reflecting on the political wisdom of one of the members of the Government connected with the affairs of Ireland; and, whether he will state shortly some of the principles of censorship on which the governors of prisons are instructed to act, for guidance of the public in their communications; and, if not, whether he will cause the letter to be handed to the gentleman to whom it was addressed, and issue suitable instructions in future?

It is the fact that a letter, dated the 21st instant, written by the hon. Member for Wexford, and addressed to Denis Hannigan, a prisoner in Kilmainham Gaol under the Protection of Person and Property Act, was stopped by the Governor of that gaol. The hon. Member will find the rules as to the writing and receiving of letters by such prisoners among the Regulations made by the Lord Lieutenant under the Act, and which have been laid before Parliament.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, When the enlarged ordnance map of the county of Warwick will be accessible?

, in reply, said, that in consequence of the additional sum voted for the prosecution of the Ordnance Survey the survey for the county of Warwick would be commenced in the year 1885.

asked, whether there would be any objection to furnishing the House with a Return of the enlarged maps for counties, and also of the order in which they were intended to be taken?

said, he had no objection to lay such a Return on the Table. Under the accelerated scheme of survey, he hoped the Survey would be completed in about 10 years. There must, of course, be some counties the survey of which would be undertaken later than others, and he was afraid that under the arrangement Warwick would not be one of the early ones.

asked the Chief Secretary to the, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been directed to a Return, issued to Members on the 26th May, relating to Agrarian and other Crimes (Ireland), for the month of December 1880; whether Hugh M`Linden, the person named at page 17, in the Return for the county Wicklow, as having been injured on the 18th December last by the receipt of a threatening letter, is the person who charged Patrick Kelly, a respectable Catholic farmer, with having fired at him, and thereby caused his confinement in gaol for several weeks, the committing magistrate having refused to accept bail, though forthcoming to any amount, and the grand jury having subsequently found that the charge was groundless; whether this Hugh M'Linden is the same person who was himself recently committed to gaol for using violent threats to a witness in open court; and, whether he will inquire through the police into the character of this "injured person," so as to be able to inform the House that he is not a "mauvais sujet," and that the other ten cases entered in the Return, of intimidation by threatening letters, or notices or otherwise, are furnished on equally reliable testimony?

Sir, Hugh M'Linden, the person referred to in this Question, is the person who charged Patrick Kelly with having fired at him on the 13th of December last. On the 14th of December, Kelly was committed for re-examination on the 8th of January, when bail was accepted. He was returned for trial at the Wicklow Quarter Sessions; but the Grand Jury ignored the bill. I am informed that Hugh M'Linden is a man of indifferent character, and in March last was committed for seven days at Newtown Petty Sessions for contempt of Court. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information on which the cases of intimidation have been included in the Return.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to a letter published in the "Free State Journal," attributed to Sir Morrison Barlow, the British Agent in Swazi Land, and in which the writer alludes to a belief, on the part of the Boers, that a Swazi army was then waiting for his orders to "rush into the district (Transvaal) slay, burn, and destroy all and everything," and goes on to say—"There are few things would give me greater pleasure than to receive such an order;" and, whether, in case it shall be proved that Sir Morrison Barlow is the writer, Her Majesty's Government will take steps to remove him from a post in which he may endanger the peace of the Empire?

Sir, I cannot answer the Question in detail; but I can acquaint the hon. Member of that which will sufficiently meet his purpose. This letter has been noticed by Sir Evelyn Wood. I believe that, as the hon. Member states, there is no doubt as to the authorship of the letter, and that, in consequence, Sir Evelyn Wood suggested to Lord Kimberley that leave of absence should be given to the gentleman who had written the letter. Lord Kimberley has acted upon that suggestion.

wished to know whether any further information had been received with regard to attempts to incite the Natives against the Boers in the Transvaal?

Sir, as far as I am aware, no such attempts have been made. I feel very confident that we had not, up to last evening, received anything in the nature of authentic information on the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If there was any charge against John Ryan of Murroe (who was arrested in March last), except trying to induce others to join the local Land League; and, if not, if he considers that sufficient grounds for detaining this young man any longer in prison away from his business and his family?

John Ryan was arrested on reasonable suspicion of having, since the 30th of September last, been guilty as principal of the crime of intimidating a certain person with a view to compel him to join the Land League. This man's case will shortly come before the Lord Lieutenant for consideration, under the provisions of the Protection of Person and Property Act, and, no doubt, a just decision will be arrived at in reference to it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Arthur Page Bettingham, who, on May 21st, was fined twenty-five pounds and costs at the Solehill Police Court, for illegally betting, the evidence showing that the defendant shouted "three to one on the field," and took a shilling on Rochester and a shilling on Merryfield; and, whether the police have instructions to carry out the Law in a similar manner against any Members of this or of the other House of Parliament who may be found laying or taking the odds at the forthcoming Epsom Races?

Sir, my hon. Friend has rather misconceived the facts of this conviction. He seems to have assumed that the conviction in this case was for making bets. That was not so. The law on that matter was altered in 1845, when the old betting Acts were repealed. The law is now directed against persons who keep places for betting. In this case the conviction was for keeping a betting stand. He was proceeded against because he was the keeper of a stand for betting on the racecourse. My hon. Friend asks me whether I will cause similar proceeding's to be instituted against Members of this or the other House of Parliament in case of such offences being committed by them. If my hon. Friend is able to assure me from personal observation to-morrow that any Member of this House has kept betting stands on the racecourse at Epsom, after looking at the law on the subject, I will, on receiving information of that character, consider what steps ought to be taken. I find that the use of a large umbrella constitutes a "place."

asked, whether it was any offence to bet with the men who kept these stands?

That is a question of law upon which I should not like to commit myself offhand. All I can do is to refer my hon. Friend to the Act of 1845, repealing the Act of 18 Geo. II., which did inflict a penalty on betting of £10 or £20. I should not like to commit myself further than this. The Acts of 1853 and 1874 are directed against persons who keep places for betting.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government is aware that thirteen telegrams sent from Tunis by the correspondent of a London newspaper have been suppressed, by order, in Paris; if such action is not an infringement of the International Convention regarding telegraphic communications; and, if Her Majesty's Government is prepared to make any representations in the matter?

Sir, no information has reached Her Majesty's Government beyond the report contained in the newspapers, and they are, consequently, unable to express any opinion on the subject. If the action mentioned in the newspaper paragraph had been taken, it is rather doubtful whether it would have been a violation of the International Telegraphic Convention. Article 7 of that Convention, which was concluded in 1875, and laid before this House in 1876, gives all Powers ability to stop the transmission of any private telegram which may appear dangerous to the security of the State. By Article 8 power is reserved to each Government to interrupt the whole system of telegraphs for an indefinite period—on condition, however, that the other Governments should be informed.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he will consent to lay upon the Table a list of annuities and grants of money awarded for special Military Services to officers of Her Majesty's Army, whether Imperial or Indian, since 1835?

Sir, so far as the India Office is concerned, there will be no objection to give a Return of all the grants made from the Indian Revenues. The India Office has no knowledge of the grants made from Imperial Revenues; but I will communicate with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, and ascertain from him whether there will be any objection on his part to make the Return. I will then communicate further with the hon. Member as to the form in which it should be moved for.

asked the Secretary of State for India, If it be true, as reported in the "Times" by telegraph, dated 29th May, from Calcutta, that the Government have concluded a Treaty of Peace with the insurgent Bheel tribes, and that among the principal provisions of the Treaty are the following:—The Bheels are not to be troubled on account of the Census; their lands are not to be measured; all who took part in the recent insurrection are to be pardoned; all the Bheels who were imprisoned during the last three years are to be released on payment of a proper ransom; half the Tisalu tax is to be remitted; no new police stations are to be established; the Excise Duty is to be abolished; the Bheels are to be allowed to levy black mail on travellers; whether such a treaty has been accepted by the Bheels, who thereupon dispersed to their hills; and, if such a description of the said treaty be a fabrication, if he can take any steps to prevent in future the infliction of such hoaxes on the public?

Sir, we have only received extremely meagre telegraphic accounts of the disturbances which have taken place in the Bheel country. The insurgent Bheel Tribes are not British subjects; but the disturbances appear to have arisen amongst some of the tribes which are subject to the Oudepore State. From the accounts we have received, it seems that the importance of these disturbances has been very considerably exaggerated. The last information that reached us was that the Oudepore Dunbar appeared disposed to treat these tribes fairly, and to remedy any substantial grievances. It is extremely improbable that the British Agent would have concurred in any such Treaty as that alleged; but we have no full information at present. I think the hon. and gallant Member will see it is quite impossible that the Indian Government should exercise any supervision over the telegrams which are despatched from India to this country. Very useful and very accurate information is generally contained in them; but no doubt, in this case, the information furnished is extremely erroneous.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it not the fact that great dissatisfaction has been expressed at the manner in which the claims of drawback of Malt Duty were met by the Inland Revenue Department; whether it has not been admitted by one of the heads of that Department that injustice has been done to traders by the method adopted in making the allowance; whether it is not the fact that in some cases the drawback was allowed to persons holding stocks of malt on the quantity shown by their books, and not by measuring or gauging, as provided by the Act; and, whether he will authorise a Copy of the Correspondence on the subject, which has taken place between the Department and the persons aggrieved, to be printed and placed before Parliament?

, who was indistinctly heard, said that he would endeavour to answer the Question of his hon. Friend as briefly as he could. Great dissatisfaction had been expressed by gentlemen whose opinion was of great weight; but it was a mistake to suppose that general dissatisfaction had been felt at the manner in which the Excise officers performed their difficult duties. He did not think that the proportion of those who were dissatisfied was more than 1 to 100. In saying that he intended no disrespect to those who were dissatisfied, but only desired to do justice to the Department. With regard to the supposed admission on the part of the Department, he found, unfortunately, that Mr. Ellis was out of health, and he had not been able to consult him on the subject. But the question would be examined hereafter. With regard to the third Question, there was only this foundation in fact—that some of the stocks of the great traders were taken in a particular manner, having regard to the fact that the malt was stored in large bins which it was difficult to test by penetrating to the bottom of the bins. The measurements were brought in and then the stocks were entered in the books. Thus the books were collateral and complementary evidence. He was afraid his hon. Friend would not be satisfied with the succinct answer which he was obliged to give. As to the production of the Correspondence which had taken place between the Department and the persons aggrieved, rather than lay it on the Table at the present moment he would suggest that, when the extreme pressure of Parliamentary Business had a little subsided, he would endeavour to make arrange- ments with the hen. Member, who took great interest in the question, for a personal discussion on the nature of the rules adopted in these cases.

asked the Secretary of State for India, If it is a fact that civil war has already broken out in the Kandahar district between Ayoub and Abdurrahman; that the immediate evacuation of the Pishin Valley has been ordered by the Home Government against the wishes of the Indian Government; that the Czar has by Imperial Ukase incorporated in the Russian Empire the whole Country of the Tekke Turcoman's, including Askabad, the furthest part of General Skobeleff's advance, notwithstanding the assurances of his Government that Russia merely intended to punish the Turcomans; that this Country is being colonised by Cossack and Russian immigrants, and that the railway from the Caspian to Herat is being rapidly advanced; that a deputation of Turcoman leaders is at present at St. Petersburg, and has promised fidelity and military service to the Czar, thus securing for Russia the aid of some 60,000 of the finest cavalry in the world?

Sir, it is a fact, as stated in the telegrams which have been communicated by the India Office to the Press, that skirmishes, apparently of an unimportant character, have taken place between the partizans of Abdurrahman and Ayoob Khan. But nothing has yet happened which differs very much in character or degree from the circumstances which have from time to time taken place in that part of the country during the occupation of Candahar by the British troops. With regard to the other Questions which the hon. Member has put to me, I must refer him to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as we have no official information at the India Office on the subjects to which he refers.

I wish respectfully to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you have received a Letter from the senior Member for the County of Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) complaining that he has been prevented from coming to this House by his arrest when on his way here, and stating that in his absence he has been misrepresented in this House by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, and asking for your intervention in order that he may be able to resume his duties in this House? I wish also to ask whether you have any objection to communicate the contents of the letter to the House?

I have to inform the hon. Member for the City of Cork that I received yesterday a communication from the senior Member for the County of Tipperary, and last night I answered the letter. With regard to the production of the communication or my answer, that is a matter for the determination of the House.

May I ask you, Sir, to be good enough to inform me in what way I may obtain the opinion of the House as to the desirability of producing the letter, whether it would come on as a matter of Privilege, or in the ordinary way?

It would certainly not come on as a matter of Privilege. If the hon. Member thinks proper to move for the production of the Correspondence, that will be a matter for the House to determine. So far as I am concerned, I can see no objection to its production.

So far as the Government are concerned, to whom reference is generally made on the subject of Returns, we make no objection to the production of the Correspondence, which may be moved for as an unopposed Return.

Sir, I beg to give Notice that I shall move for it to-morrow.

When Mr. Bradlaugh sent a letter to you, Sir, complaining of his, treatment by the House, that was regarded and dealt with as a matter of Privilege. And I would ask whether there is any difference between the two letters which renders this letter from Mr. Dillon incapable of being treated in the same way?

In answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle, I have only to may that I cannot consider that any communication whatever which Mr. Dillon may think proper to make to me is necessarily a Question of Privilege, and to be laid before the House.

I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle whether he is not aware that Mr. Bradlaugh is an English Member, and Mr. Dillon is an Irish Member?

said, he rose for the purpose of moving that the House at its rising adjourn until Thursday next. He was very happy indeed to find that there was to be no opposition to that Motion. [Sir WILFRID LAWSON dissented.] Well, at all events, the hon. Baronet who shook his head had not had the courage of his convictions. No Notice of opposition appeared in the Parliamentary Record; and if the hon. Baronet really intended to challenge his Resolution, in all fairness he ought to have signified his desire in the usual Mode. Rashness was one of the failings of youth, and he (Mr. R. Power) feared it was his failing upon that occasion; for he had spoken so often upon that important subject, that anything he might then say would be tedious as "a thrice-told tale:" He had, therefore, determined not to make a speech. [Cheers.] Really those cheers almost tempted him to break his resolve; but he would only make a foxy remarks. He vainly hoped that they might have been allowed innocently to enjoy themselves to-morrow without this miserable annual squabble. He thought that reason had at last dawned upon the obtuse mind of the temperance Baronet; and he believed that the constant beatings which the hon. Baronet had received for his misconduct upon these occasions would have had some effect upon him; but he found that he was absolutely irreclaimable—logic and argument were alike thrown away upon him, and he clearly proved by his conduct that Providence thought it necessary to inflict certain evils upon the human race. What did the hon. Baronet propose to do? He proposed to imprison the Members of the House on Wednesday, and also its hard-worked officials, Did not the hon. Baronet think that the hours occupied by the talk of hon. Members on the Liberal Benches—hours which sometimes extended to 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning—entitled the officials of the House to at least one day of rest and recreation? Never before had there been a Session notable for so few "counts-out." With regard to this question of "counts," however, he had acquired new hope now that that long lost child, the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins) had returned to the House. "Counts," he thought, would now become a little more frequent. He would remind the House that there had been an increasing majority on the question of adjournment over the Derby Day. In 1877 the proposal was supported by 207 Members, and last year by 285. They certainly deserved a holiday considering the arduous work which they had gone through in the present Session. They had been summoned at an unusually early period, and, judging from present appearances, they were likely to sit for an unusual length of time. They had, in the prosecution of their labours, turned day into night and night into day, and their zeal in the fulfilment of their duties had been such that he believed Her Majesty had no harder-worked subjects than Her faithful Commons. He contended that all Parties in the House would be benefited by a holiday on Wednesday, and they would return to their work in a better spirit and temper than had some-times been exhibited. Anyhow, he could speak for his own Party on that occasion. For the Irish Members there had recently been nothing but interruption, Obstruction, Questions, and Amendments, coercion, and suspension. A Member of that Party hardly knew whether he was to be allowed to sit in the House, or whether he was to be consigned to a cell in Kilmainham. In fact, for an Irish Member there stood "a palace and a prison on each hand." After what he had said, no one could doubt that the Members of his Party deserved to have their physical and mental energies recruited by a holiday. If any further argument were needed to convince his Colleagues, he would remind them of the very remarkable and agreeable fact that when Plenipotentiary won the Derby in 1834, Mr. Batson made his tenants a present of one whole year's rent. He failed to see how any illustrious Colleague of his could possibly vote in antagonism to a race which had had so beneficial an effect. On the last occasion when the subject was brought forward, 42 Irish Members, who constituted all that was enlightened and intelligent among the Representatives of Irish constituencies, supported him, and only 10 foolish Irishmen, consisting of eight barristers, one clergyman, and one major, voted against him. Of course, the wants of their small Party went for little in the decision of that House; but then there were Her Majesty's Ministers, who deserved a holiday as much as any schoolboys in the country. Their troubles were not confined to that House, but extended all over the world, from Constantinople to Afghanistan, from Afghanistan to the Transvaal, from the Transvaal to Ireland, and from Ireland back to Northampton. He did not say that all the Members of the Government were entitled to a holiday on Wednesday, for there were drones as well as bees in the Government hive. But, at any rate, there was one right hon. Gentleman whom all would agree had earned the right to a holiday—he referred to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The number of speeches he had had to make, the number of attacks he had had to repel, the number of explanations he had had to give, the number of Questions he had had to answer, was quite sufficient to muddle the brains of any ordinary mortal, and if he was to get through the remainder of the Session with safety to himself and benefit to his Party he had better enjoy himself tomorrow on the Epsom Downs. Men of all stations, creeds, and classes, shared alike this sport. Epsom was a neutral ground where all religious and political differences were buried. He only wished they had some such burial-ground in Ireland. To show how the love of this sport permeated all classes, he might just mention that on the racecourse at York there was a celebrated spot known as "The Archbishop's Corner," where the grandfather of the present Home Secretary, in defiance of all canon law, hid himself in seine bushes in order to see the winner of a big race. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman inherited not only the fortune, but also the sporting proclivities of his grandfather, and that he would find himself at the Derby to- morrow. The hon. Baronet opposite thought it derogatory to the dignity of the House to adjourn for a horse race. Well, he was sorry to say that recent events had cast some doubt upon the existence of that dignity; but he would remind his hon. Friend, if he had ever read Roman history, which by-the-bye he very much doubted, that the Romans, who could not have been insensible to considerations of dignity, never met in the Forum when there was a race in the Circus. The ancient Britons, as soon as they became civilized enough, stamped their coins with equine subjects, and King Athelstan set such store upon horses that he prohibited their exportation except as presents. In his Derby Day speeches the hon. Baronet was accustomed to sneer at those who went to races. He called them "bawling blackguards." Well, that was scarcely a generous phrase. [Sir WILFRID LAWSON: I applied it only to professional. betting men.] It might be extended to others besides betting men. The loudest bawler and the biggest blackguard he had ever met in his life was a gentleman who was a paid temperance lecturer, and who died of delirium tremens. His hon. Friend's great argument was—"Let those go to the Derby who will, and let the rest stay at home and transact Business." But the Select Committees were largely composed of betting men, and both in the Committees and in the House it would be found that the statesman-like majority would go away, and the crotchetty and chimerical minority remain. He really thought that if the hon. Baronet had his way he would keep them all in the nursery and sustain them with Zoedone. He forgot the lines of the celebrated poet—

"The man who bath no soul for racing, Is only fit for treasons, stratagems, and water-drinking."

"Remember, my brethren, this is not a sermon I have been preaching to you; it is only the truth I have been telling you."

was about to speak, when—

rose to Order. He submitted that the hon. Baronet was not entitled to be heard. It was one of the Rules of the House that no Member should address the House on a subject in which he had a pecuniary interest—[Cries of "Oh!"]—and the hon. Baronet, he understood, had been betting on the result of the division. [Cries of "Oh!"]

I can only regard the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport as trifling with the House.

who rose again amid interruption and cries of "Name him!" said, he could assure Mr. Speaker it was nothing of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman could not have heard what he said. ["Order, order!"] He stated, and now repeated the statement, that he was informed the hon. Baronet had been betting on the result of the division. ["Oh, oh!"]

said, as the Speaker appeared to have overruled the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), he should proceed to give a few reasons why he could not agree with the Resolution. He admired the entertaining speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford; but it only wanted one thing—namely, a little argument. He gave no reason why that House should adjourn for a horse race except that the Romans used to do so. That was surely a poor argument to use in a Christian Assembly. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) thought it was an argument in his favour when in such an Assembly his hon. Friend was obliged to go back to a heathen assembly for a precedent. Last Friday he had read in The Morning Post, which was one of the organs of sweetness and light, the following sentence:—

"The Motion for the adjournment over the Derby will be moved, and Sir Wilfrid Lawson will oppose the Motion, and, if need be, take a division. He will be supported by the section of Radical Nonconformists below the Gangway, who object to adjournments on Saint days, Derby days, and all that sort of thing."

asked, what was the first Bill for to-morrow?

, said it was a peculiarly Irish Bill—it was about lunacy. Strange to say, there was only one Drink Bill among the 14; but there were three Ecclesiastical Bills. One was about churchwardens, one about Church Boards, and then there was the very important Bill of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. E. Stanhope) as to Church patronage, and he hoped that the hon. Member would not be seduced by his Colleague (Mr. Chaplin) to visit the Derby instead of attending to that important measure. That constituted a pretty good list of Bills, and it showed that they might be better employed tomorrow than in all going to the Derby. His hon. Friend the Member for Waterford said they had met unusually early this year, and so they had; but then it must be owned that they had done unusually little, although there never was a Session requiring them more to attend to their work. His hon. Friend told them that last year he had opposed that Motion on Sabbatarian grounds; but surely nobody but an Irishman could suppose that the Derby was run on a Sunday. His hon. Friend had the modest assurance to come down there and say that the House wanted a rest; and he made an appeal ad misericordiam to the Speaker and the officers of the House. Now, he was there at 5 o'clock last Saturday morning; and who, he might ask, was the leader of those who kept them out of their beds up to that time? Why, his hon. Friend who now professed so much anxiety for the ease and comfort of the Speaker and the officers of the House.

asked the hon. Baronet to remember that on Saturday morning he appealed to his hon. Friend to give way.

believed that at half-past 4 in the morning his hon. Friend made such an appeal; and he admitted that his hon. Friend was not quite as bad as some of his Colleagues. To show that he quite realized that need of rest on the part of the Irish Members, he would tell the House what he had heard of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). He was told that at the end of a long week of obstruction the hon. Member went to a church on Sunday, and, quite excusably, he fell asleep. Suddenly, by some peal of the organ, or by some loud expression of the clergyman, the hon. Member woke up, and, on looking round and finding but a few persons in the church', he rose and said—"Mr. Speaker, Sir, I move that the House be counted." Now, he objected to the adjournment over the Derby Day, because he said there was not a national feeling on the question; and the House ought not to take such an exceptional step save in a genuine national matter. Many people, whose opinions were worth considering, objected to the system of racing, and thought the House ought not to sanction it. The hen. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) last year cited to the House a long list of Dukes, Marquesses, and Earls, to show that racing was supported by very good men; of course it was, but a thing was not made good simply because it was supported by good men. Every evil that had maintained itself in this country had maintained itself because good men had supported it. An evil system would fall at once if it lost such support. Mr. Wyndham, the very soul of chivalry and honour, had supported bull-baiting; John Newton, the head of the Evangelical party in his day, was a slave-dealer; and they all knew, in regard to the drink traffic, that the best men in the world carried it on. If all the Dukes in the House of Lords, and all the Bishops on the Episcopal Bench, supported the Derby, that would not make it right. They must judge the thing on its merits, and they were very clear. The system of the Turf did more harm by way of demoralization than it did good by the amusement it afforded. One of the papers had attacked him on this matter in a poem, and what did it say?—

"Hence of late years the sport has wellnigh flown,

The vices have it almost all their own."

"There was one subject on which Mr. Rodney appeared to be particularly interested, and that was racing. The Turf at that time had not developed into that vast institution of national demoralization which it has now become."

"The ruin and misery entailed on numbers of our fellow-creatures through the gambling-tables of Monte Carlo demand that an organized effort should he made for their suppression."

said, he only rose to make an appeal to the House. They had had two most excellent speeches, representing both sides; they had met to transact very serious Business. If they were to take one day as a holiday, let them not lose another. Every hon. Member must have made up his mind as to his vote, and he would now ask the House to go at once to a division. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes 246; Noes 119: Majority 127.—(Div. List, No. 223.)

, in rising to move, in page 1, line 8, after the word "applies," to insert "the annual rent of which does not exceed thirty pounds," said, in deciding as to this Amendment it was right that they should consider what the general object of the Bill was. He had listened with much attention to the views of the Prime Minister when he introduced the measure, and he thought that the Amendment which he now proposed was not in contravention of any leading principle of the Bill. He understood that the Bill was introduced by its promoters for the purpose of interfering to the least possible extent with freedom of contract between the owners and the occupiers of the soil; and he thought they only required, in judging what should be done, to consider what was the cause of the discontent and the disaffection in Ireland, and the misery and distress of her population. He felt that anyone who had considered the merits of this question must feel that the people of Ireland were entitled to much sympathy and respect. He had heard the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) denounce the legislation of the English Parliament, when they bad succeeded in destroying the industrial resources of Ireland and the development of her manufactures, and preventing the application of the intelligence and energy of the people to any other occupation than the cultivation of the soil. Now, that he held to be the true cause of the necessity for the present legislation, and he felt that everyone who was acquainted with the subject must recognize the accuracy of his opinion on that point. They had occasion last year to legislate for the distress and destitution from which the people of Ireland suffered, in consequence of the bad harvest of the previous year. Now, he could not conceive that anyone acquainted with the condition of farms could be in doubt as to the cause of the destitution amongst the Irish people. It was nothing that legislation had done during the present century. It was the legislation of previous centuries that was responsible for that, and they were now suffering because of the iniquity of their forefathers. He admitted the accuracy of that view, and he appealed to the friends of the Irish people to recognize the fact that no change in the tenure of land, and no change in the ownership of the land, could affect the permanent welfare of the Irish people so long as there was a greater number of persons depending exclusively upon the cultivation of the soil for their existence than the cultivation of the soil was fitted to support. That observation might, indeed, be held to be an axiom? What were the real facts of the case? There were, at the present time, 660,000 holdings in Ireland; and from a Return presented to the other House which he had obtained of the occupations he found that there were 286,957 occupiers within the distressed districts scheduled by the Irish Board of Works each holding land under £15 rent. The number of holdings did not necessarily determine the number of occupiers; but, on the contrary, the number of occupiers was less than the number of holdings. In the distressed districts, he found there were 306,000 of these occupiers in 1879, the rent of whose occupations was under £20 in each case. Thus, no one acquainted with the management of land and with the amount of produce it could yield would fail to realize what was meant by such a number of families as these 306,000 occupiers expressed in the distressed districts of Ireland. These were not the whole of the occupiers of Ireland who were under £20, but only the families who were within the districts scheduled by the Board of Works, because of the distress which prevailed in those districts. He called the attention of the House to the recognition of the fact that this implied that 1,500,000 persons in Ireland were placed in circumstances in which destitution must have been continually staring them in the face, which circumstance could not but cause that discontent and disaffection which at present characterized that country. He had heard Gentlemen in that House refer to the fact that to the lack of industry on the part of the Irish people could be attributed in great part the cause of the distress that prevailed among them. He held that there was nothing so unjust as an imputation of that character against the Irish people. He believed they would not be able to find on the face of the earth a people placed in similar circumstances who had developed so many virtues as the Irish people. It was not in human nature that men who were constantly living in circumstances not free from the risk of seeing their families destitute at any time should have developed energy and industry in prosecuting the means of subsistence. And as to the so-called land hunger, which was said to be one of the grievances of Ireland for which Parliament had now to provide redress, he held that it was not land hunger, properly so-called, at all. The people of Ireland, when they went to other countries, did not show any special liking for the cultivation of the soil. In the United States, the Irish people dropped the cultivation of the soil and engaged in trade and commerce; and a large number of them, having left the small homes of their ancestors and gone to America, found that they were able to embark in trade and commerce with success. Many of them fought their way upward, and became eminent men in all the cities of the United States. Well, for these evils they were to provide a remedy, and as such he regarded this Bill; otherwise he would not have voted for it on the second reading. He regarded it as an honest attempt on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers to do something for the people of Ireland. But what were they to do? He conceived that freedom of contract, which was a very desirable thing in itself, and for which he had always contended, was not applicable to the circumstances of the people who were small occupiers of land in Ireland. The men were in such circumstances that, when the landlord came round and said they had to pay a certain amount of rent, they were ready to agree to any terms he was pleased to name, not because they had any liking for the cultivation of the soil, but because they saw no other source from which they could obtain subsistence for their families. It was truly, indeed, a struggle for existence on the part of the Irish people that drove them to stick to the land as they did, and nothing else. It was not any hunger for the land itself. In dealing with the question, he thought these facts showed they ought to restrict the operation of the Bill to the classes whose circumstances were such as to require the protection of Parliament; and he, therefore, proposed that this clause should apply only to holdings the annual rent of which did not exceed £30. It was not the £50 tenant, however, that he specially cared about, because, in his judgment, he was just as independent as the man in any other part of Great Britain who occupied land of the same value, or who was a tenant of £100 or £150; and it would be held to be a mockery to give such a man compensation. He did not wish to take anything from anyone which they at present enjoyed, and hon. Members would see an Amendment on the Paper in his name, which provided—

"That nothing in this Act shall ….in any respect restrict or impair any right or privilege to which any tenant is now entitled under the foresaid custom or usage, whether the rent of the tenancy be greater or less than the amount of the rent herein specified."

In page 1, line 8, at the end of the previous Amendment, to insert the words "the annual rent of which does not exceed thirty pounds."—(Mr. Ramsey.)

approved of the Amendment, because it limited the operation of an unwise clause which, as it stood, might be a good clause for the present generation of tenants; but he thought they were bound to look to the probable operation of the Bill as regarded the tenantry beyond the year 1881, and to see how it would be likely to operate, say, in 1901. What would they find then? Why, that the incoming tenant would be burdened with a heavy payment to his predecessor, such as had hitherto been unknown in three-fourths of Ireland. It had been argued by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that such a payment would not affect rent. He altogether disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman. He cared not in what form they put it; but the greater the sum the man had to pay on entering upon a farm, the less sum he would agree to pay as rent, and they could not eventually separate this payment from rent. He wished now to call the attention of the Committee to the different principles on which the tenant and the landlord were treated under the Bill. One of the great objects of the Bill was to counteract what some people called the cupidity of the landlords; but he (Mr. Biddell) was not satisfied that it existed in Ireland except to a limited degree. The Bill said to them—"You shall not exact an excessive rent in the present exigencies of Ireland." And, apart from that position, he thought the Court was a good institution for the purpose of regulating the rent. But what did the Bill say to the tenant? It said—"Not only shall you sell the goodwill of your holding, but you shall sell it for the largest sum you can get for it." But he should have thought the financial sagacity of the seller would need this superfluous direction to obtain the highest price. The Bill would induce nearly all the tenants to go into Court in this way. A tenant finding his relations with his landlord getting shaky, although satisfied with the rent he was paying, would go to the Court in order to get as good as a 15 years' lease. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] At any rate, that was the way in which he (Mr. Riddell) road the Bill, and he should be glad to find that he was not correct in his reading. Perhaps he might make himself best understood if he put a hypothetical case. A tenant's father dying, the son wished to take his father's farm, it being larger than his own; accordingly he went to an auctioneer to assist him in getting rid of his own, stating—"I expect to get a good round sum for my tenant right, as I had a cute man to represent me at the Court, who induced them to put it at a low rent." The auctioneer said he had other farms to get rid of, and that he would call an auction. He accordingly did so, and, probably, after the whisky had circulated and the bidders got a little excited, the most sanguine man with the least judgment and the most money would obtain possession of the holding. He ultimately finds he has given too much and fails; nobody sympathizes with him as he outbid his neighbours; whereas, had he hired direct of the landlord, he would have excited general sympathy, and the finger of the agitation would have branded the landlord as a rack-renter, and thus have tended to keep down rents. The Bill, then, encouraged competition in the keenest way, and did everything for the present, and was most injurious to the future tenant. The same result always followed a departure from great principles. ["Question!"] The Amendment before the Committee was that the operation of the clause should be limited, and that was the question he was now speaking to. He was of opinion that they ought to consider something beyond the old proverb—"Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." It might be that the Government thought their time might only be short, and they were therefore anxious to get over the difficulty in the easiest way they could. But that was not the principle which ought to guide the legislation of the House of Commons.

said, that, as a point of Order, he wished to take the opinion of the Chairman whether the hon. Member was speaking to the Amendment?

I think the hon. Member is rather speaking against the sale of tenancies altogether, and not to the limit of £30 proposed by the Amendment.

said, he was endeavouring to show the expediency of fixing the limit of £30. If a landowner died with an estate in hand of £1,000 a-year, and the trustees did not care to carry on the farm themselves, were all the tenants to be paid under this clause who paid nothing on entry? If they were, all he would say was that they would, by thus depreciating the estate, be depriving the widow and children of that which, in all equity, belonged to them. He did not wish to express hostility to the Bill, for he had forborne to follow those whose judgment he generally approved in voting against the second reading. Far from it. Indeed, he approved of the establishment of the Court, and he thought the Government were perfectly right in bringing the matter forward; but he did not think that a property should be created in the tenant which had never before existed, except in one quarter of Ireland, where it had arisen solely in consequence of the kindness of the landlords.

As I understand the Amendment, it certainly appears to me that the hon. Member who has just addressed the Committee has travelled over a very much wider field. He has said that the clause is entirely bad, and because the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay) gets rid of the application of it to a large number of tenants in Ireland, he is prepared on that ground to support it. I understand that to be the explanation of the hon. Member. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Ramsay) spoke in favour of the general principle of the Bill and of the clause; but he considers that tenants above £30 in Ireland, or above some other figure, which is not the figure of his Amendment, are perfectly independent persons, and are quite able to make their own contracts. Now, if the clause is bad, I do not think the House ought to limit its operation, but it ought to reject it altogether. I will, therefore, not attempt to deal with that particular form of argument. But my hon. Friend behind has said that the tenant above £30 is independent in Ireland and quite able to make his own contracts. I do not hesitate to say that my hon. Friend must have made this Motion, and must have made that statement, without the smallest regard to any of the conclusions drawn by the Commissioners who have inquired into the subject. The only Commission which has reported upon it is the Commission of Lord Bessborough, and the judgment of that Commission is entirely and directly contrary to the statement of my hon. Friend, and is to the effect that unless Parliament is prepared to negative such a proposition as is contained in the Amendment, the independence of tenants of £30 and upwards cannot for a moment be maintained. But I am bound to say, even if it could be maintained, that there are other arguments which would lead me to believe that it would be unwise in the interests of the landlord. When, in 1870, we limited the operation of the Act by introducing freedom of contract, not to the point of £30, but to a point somewhat higher, I believe the effect of that limitation was evil in two ways. For the evidence before the Commission places it beyond doubt that tenants very far above £30 are still under the greatest pressure and difficulty in Ireland, and are obliged to pay excessive rents when the landlord thinks fit, as he has done in certain cases, to demand them. Besides that, the policy of the limitation has been to drive all the most important and substantial part of the tenantry in Ireland into the ranks of agitation for further change. The error we committed in the legislation of 1870 in lowering the limitation was, in my opinion, unfavourable to the durability of the settlement then made. But there is another argument which I would venture to press upon hon. Members. I say, first, that it is not politic to make a limitation in the interests of the landlords and of the stability of any law we may pass; secondly, that it is not equitable to the tenant, because he is not independent; and, thirdly, I would call the attention of my hon. Friend to the actual state of the law. Parliament has created by law what has proved to be a real tenant right in Ireland, and the tenants of Ireland generally are in the possession of that tenant right. But they are debarred from its exercise by way of transfer by a prohibition which is inserted in a particular section of the Land Act, and thereby the real interest we have created is made comparatively useless to them. It is available for them in case of their eviction, but it is not available for them in any other case. In the event of the Amendment being carried, we should still have to deal with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). We intend to support that repeal of the 13th clause of the Land Act; and if we repeal the 13th clause of the Land Act, then I apprehend that, even independently of the stipulations of the present law, you will have an effective tenant right in operation throughout Ireland.

The Prime Minister, in what he has said, repeats an argument that he continually uses. He says—"This is a case in which we have, by recent legislation, created a right which we have given to the tenant." [Mr. GLADSTONE: Interest.] Well, an interest. "But at the same time," he says, "we have so guarded it that he can only use that interest which we have created for him subject to a certain limitation, that he is not able absolutely and freely to assign; and, therefore, it is obviously necessary that you should remove that restriction upon the interest you have created." But why? I fail to see the reason. I might or might not be ready to remove that restriction; but the Prime Minister puts it as a matter of course that, having first of all created an interest, you have done something very shocking in re- stricting the free and unfettered use of it. But if, by the same instrument as that which created the interest, you limit the interest, I do not see that it necessarily follows that you should take off the restriction. The argument I refer to has continually cropped up in the course of these discussions, and I entirely dispute the proposition that no man should have an interest in property without the power of selling that interest. However, we are not at this moment at liberty to argue that question; but it has been so often brought into the discussion that I am right in referring to it, especially because the Prime Minister has just used it in his argument against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay). But I understand the argument of the hon. Member to be this. He said, especially with regard to this part of the Bill, which is contrary to economical principles, which raises very great doubts in my mind as to whether it is for the good either of the tenants or the country in general that it should be enacted, I admit that you have to deal with a very special case. You have to deal with a class of men who are small tenants, and who, owing to circumstances—whether by their own fault, whether by the fault of their landlords, the fault of legislation by this House in former Parliaments, or from whatever cause—are in a position of exceptional difficulty. And, he says, I am prepared to deal with the case of these small tenants by putting them on a different footing to that which applies to the case of larger tenants. He names a limit of £30 as typical of the class which ought to be exceptionally treated; but I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he is ready to substitute some other figure. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell) was, I think, perfectly right in calling the attention of the Government to a fact that is too often forgotten—that you have not only to deal with a present emergency, but that you must look to the interest of the country in the future. In the belief that this exceptional provision should be confined to those on whom the pinch and stress has come, I shall vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Falkirk.

said, it was a mistake to suppose that the clause would confer upon the Irish tenant property which he had not got. It simply enabled him freely to use the property which he had. Her Majesty's Government thought that the 13th clause of the Land Act of 1870, which they regarded as an unwarrantable interference with the tenant's interest, ought to be repealed. By the Land Act of 1870, protection was given by Parliament to the Irish tenant from year to year against disturbance by notice to quit—an operation which the purchaser or assignee of the yearly tenancy had to fear. The effect of the 13th clause was that if the landlord did not choose to accept the tenant, however unreasonably, the assignee had no protection whatever. The other House established a hard-and-fast rule that the landlord might, without any reason whatever, refuse to accept the assignee of the tenant, and, serving the dreaded notice to quit, put him out without any compensation, the effect of which, of course, was practically to destroy the right of assignment, because the purchaser, knowing that, though assignee, he would thus be at the mercy of the landlord, would give nothing for the tenancy. Her Majesty's Government thought that the landlord should have power to object to the new tenant, but only on reasonable grounds; and that power, accordingly, they proposed to leave to him. More than that he did not think that any fair landlord would ask for. The proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay) would establish a limit to the operation of the 1st clause of, say, £30. But the objection to all these arbitrary lines was that they were founded on no real principle. Why should they do for a man who was rented at £30 what they would not do for another rented at £30 10s.? Another objection to the proposal was that it was not to limit the clause by the valuation, but by the rent of the holding, so that there would be the strongest inducement for the landlord to carry on the process of raising his rent in order to get the farm above the prescribed limit. Further objection to the Amendment was that it might encourage the attempts of owners to avail themselves of hard times, when tenants could not pay, to consolidate their farms for the purpose of placing them beyond the operation of the Bill. His hon. Friend said that the tenants above the limit named in the Amendment were more independent than those below it, and that statement of his hon. Friend would be perfectly intelligible to him if they had anything to do with the freedom of contract which he spoke about. But they had nothing to do with freedom of contract here, or with the rules of political economy, except that it seemed to him a very sound economical principle that a man should be at liberty to sell his property for what it would fetch. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell) had said that the clause would prejudice whole generations of Irish tenants, who, he thought, would be damaged by the increased amount they would have to pay for their farms. It seemed that hon. Members could never get rid of the notion that tenants in Ireland were constantly buying and selling their farms. That idea was utterly unfounded. The number of sales was extremely small. In Ulster, where free sale had always existed, there was not more than one sale in two generations. But he had still another objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member, and it was this—that on farms of over £30 one looked for a better class of tenants, as well as for the greatest amount of improvement in cultivation; but what possible encouragement would a tenant have to adopt improvements if he was not to be allowed to sell his interest to the best advantage? The right of sale had acted admirably in Ulster, where it not only secured the landlord his arrears of rent, but the tenant a valuable, because saleable, interest in his holding, and the result was that land was cultivated far better in Ulster than any other part of the country. For these reasons he trusted the Committee would not accept an Amendment which, he believed, would only sow afresh the seeds of discontent and disorder amongst the tenant farmers of Ireland.

said, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had omitted to state some of the most important items which the farmers would have to contend with. He had told the Committee that the effect of limitation on the landlord would be merely to remove the landlord's control from his property; but he had not stated that the landlord would have no security against the imposition of a bankrupt tenant upon him, inasmuch as it was impossible to prevent a sum greatly in excess of the value of the holding being paid. A case came before him a few days ago, which showed that the Bill as it stood would work unfairly to the landlord. A man, five years ago, took a farm on the English system for £500 a-year. In consequence of his not succeeding in his operations his landlord made him a reduction of £50 a-year for the last four years. The tenant in a short time had the farm in such an impoverished condition that he was willing to get out of it on any terms. He had never been able to put money, so to speak, on the soil, for he had lost his capital elsewhere. He (Mr. Brodrick) asked what interest that tenant had to sell in his holding, except, perhaps, the reduction in the rent which the landlord voluntarily made him? It seemed to him a bad principle to deprive the landlord of the power of choosing a tenant who would be able to pay a fair average rent. The Solicitor General for Ireland cited a case of a man being willing to expend £1,100 on an £80 holding, or about £20 of capital per acre. He (Mr. Brodrick) asked whether that was a typical case, especially in Ulster, where, if they could get a tenant with a capital of £7 or £8 per acre, it was the utmost they could get? He entirely denied that the present system had produced the vast amount of injustice on large holdings which the language of the Prime Minister had implied; and he challenged anyone to prove from the Reports of any Commission that such a condition of things existed. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite, exception had been taken to the term "rent," as distinguished from the term "valuation." Upon this point he wished to say that if the tendency would be for landlords to push up their rent in order to get above the operation of the clause, then he thought it would be better to substitute the term "valuation." The Amendment was one which he believed the Government ought not to reject without the fullest consideration, and if the hon. Member carried it to a division he should give him his support.

pointed out that in nine cases out of 10 the persons who took large farms in Ireland had not the capital to work them. This class of farmers was not generally successful throughout Ireland. Unfortunately, there was such a liking for sport there that almost immediately a man got possession of a farm of 400 or 500 acres he purchased a hunter and indulged in other luxuries. The custom of selling farms had become very general all over Ireland, by permission of the landlords, and it was therefore unwise to limit the right, because it would work very great injustice, and would, moreover, stir up the elements of another agitation. The men who were most prominent in the present agitation were those who were excluded from the Act of 1870.

considered there was great force in the remarks of the hon. Member who had just addressed the Committee. It was only right, when the Attorney General for Ireland argued that every man should have the right to sell that which he possessed, and that there should be no limitation placed on that right of sale, to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman how many limitations of the kind there were in the Bill? The clauses of the Bill abounded in exceptions and limitations of the right of sale. Clause 9, with reference to leases, had these words—

"And the tenancy shall during the continuance of such lease be regulated by the provisions of that lease alone, and shall not be deemed to be a tenancy to which this Act applies."

said, it was clear that the general feeling of the Committee was, at any rate, against the figure named in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Falkirk. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would be withdrawn, especially as the general question of limitation would be raised by another Amendment on the Paper. For his own part, he had no wish to sit into September, and ventured to hope that the Committee would not have to listen to a discussion of the same point two or three times over.

desired to guard him-self against any possible concurrence with the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland, that the Government had made up their minds to yield to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford to strike out Clause 13 from the Act of 1870. That must not be allowed to pass without challenge, and it must not be supposed that it was a proposition that would be yielded to without a large amount of discussion. The clause was deliberately framed, and he was strictly accurate in saying that it was placed in the Bill on the Motion of Earl Granville, and that it came before the House at the time accredited from the Government of the day. It would not be a matter of surprise, therefore, when the subject came on for discussion, that hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House declined to agree to its withdrawal without full discussion.

appealed to the hon. Member for Falkirk to withdraw his Amendment, and, if necessary, to move it in the form of an Amendment to the proviso at the end of the clause. The proviso, he reminded the hon. Member, would afford a much more suitable opportunity for the discus- sion of the question of limitation than the part of the clause at that moment before the Committee. The Bunt was so low, and would exclude so many tenants who had an undoubted right to come within the provisions of the Bill, that if the present Amendment were carried to a division he should be obliged to vote against it.

said, he held in his hand the Bill of 1870 as it came down from the House of Lords, and with notes of the particular changes which were there introduced. It had been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland that Clause 13 of that Act forbade all assignment by the tenant; but that was confined to tenancies held from year to year existing at the time of the passing of the Act. Without going into the question of the right of limitation, he thought the Committee ought not to run away with the idea that the 13th clause of the Act of 1870 was a general forbidding of assignment by the tenant. He was disposed to think that it was exceedingly difficult to place any limit to this section. If they once admitted that they were about to make a new code of law as between landlord and tenant, and then attempted to set up limitations, it was extremely difficult to do so unless they applied them to whole classes of estates and people. He had on the Paper an Amendment which proposed a limit of a different kind from the present. Again, he thought the limitation by a money figure would work very awkwardly; indeed, he did not see how it would work at all in the present state of confusion and dispute which existed throughout the country. While he felt that the question was one of immense difficulty and that there were others arising from the new code which were in themselves so difficult that they must not he discussed in a hurry, but with care and patience, and with a desire to get to the bottom of the whole matter, still he recommended the hon. Member for Falkirk not to press his Amendment to a division. If a division must be taken on the question of a money limit, he thought it would be taken with greater advantage on the limit of £100.

said, he honoured very much the spirit shown by the last speaker, and wished it were more common on the Benches opposite. He de- precated most earnestly any attempt to hurry the discussion on the Bill, such as was shown by hon. Members opposite when they constantly cried "Question!" and "Divide!" This had been very obvious during the speech of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell), who, in criticizing the clause, had stated his case with such complete fairness, and who had never wandered by one word from the point raised by the Amendment. For his own part, he believed that the more carefully the Committee discussed the important matter contained in the early part of the Bill the sooner the end of the Bill would be reached. On the other hand, if the work was scamped, so to speak, and the clauses hurried through, it would be found when they got a little further into the clauses that the confusion in which the Bill was at present involved would become a great deal worse. One of the strongest reasons why the Committee should not be so anxious to save time was that they had not got their definitions in order. He had himself heard the Prime Minister say they had created a "tenant right;" but when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) repeated those words, the Prime Minister said he had used the term "tenant interest." Therefore, he regretted to remind the Committee that they did not even then know what it was they were discussing. Again, that which had been called by the Prime Minister both "tenant right" and "tenant interest," he had himself also described as "goodwill" by an analogy which might be supposed to hold between a tenancy and certain trading occupations. Therefore, according to the varying phases of the Premier's mind, they had every possible definition and every sort of difference of idea. Then with regard to Clause 13 of the Act of 1870. They found the Attorney General for Ireland making use of a most extraordinary argument, in saying that in a normal condition of things there was not more than one sale in two generations. But that, he contended, was not a normal condition of things. As they had, according to the Premier, confirmed tenant right, the moment that right was confirmed by this Bill the tenant would want to sell it, because it was only the present tenants who would get any benefit from the Bill; it would not be the tenants who wanted to become the landlords of the future. When it was fully understood that 200,000 people were going to have the power to sell what they had never paid for, the absurdity of the argument of the Attorney General for Ireland that only one sale would take place in two generations was very apparent. But he must remind the Prime Minister that when the Compensation for Disturbance Bill was before the House last year, he himself accepted a limit, he believed, of £30 beyond which that Bill was not to apply. It might be that £50 was a more convenient figure than £30 in the present instance; but as the principle of limitation was introduced into the Bill he had referred to, and was considered a good one, it was difficult to see why it should not be also admitted in the present Bill.

thought he was entitled to address the Committee after the representation which had been made in opposition to his views on that side of the House. He had no objection, if the Committee would allow him, having regard to the difficulty which had been stated as between rent and value, to amend his Amendment by substituting for the words on the Paper the words "which does not exceed the annual rent of £50." He reminded hon. Members who had listened to the discussions on the Compensation for Disturbance Bill that the argument of limitation was supported on the sole ground that there were two classes of tenants in Ireland, and that there must be some line at which to draw a distinction. There was one class of men so dependent that there was no possibility of their making a free contract, and there was another so independent that they were perfectly well able to make a free contract with the owners of the land in Ireland. The Bill was intended to benefit a poor class which demanded the sympathy of the people of this country; but he believed that no measure would do much to alleviate the distress of the small occupiers, to whom he believed it would do no good to give the lands even without money and without price.

said, he thought the Amendment had better be disposed of.

I must say I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should not extend to his own Friend and supporter the Member for Falkirk the courtesy which is generally extended to Members when they desire to amend their proposals. I would point out that the hon. Member for Falkirk, in his opening remarks, said he had no exclusive preference for a particular limit, although he argued on the assumption that there should be some limit. I think it would be but courtesy, in accordance with the ordinary practice of the House, that the hon. Member should be allowed to withdraw his Amendment and re-submit it to the Committee in the form which he desires. Of course, the Committee will exercise their discretion as to the mode in which they will deal with the Amendment; but I think the best course will be to allow the hon. Member to withdraw it.

I dissent altogether from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which is founded upon an entire misapprehension of the facts of the case. It is perfectly true that it is usual to allow a Member who proposes an Amendment to make alterations in it, even at the last moment, for the purpose of making it clear. But this is simply a case of proposing an Amendment entirely different from the original. The Committee will see that a holding rented at £30 is one thing and a holding valued at £50 is a totally different thing, and means a holding rented at between £60 and £70.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he accepts the principle involved in the Amendment? If that is so his observations will be in point; but if he declines to accept the principle, I contend that he should allow the hon. Member for Falkirk to put his proposal in the form which the hon. Member considers most favourable.

The Government think that the only safe method of limitation is by introducing at a certain line freedom of contract; and we intended to propose, if there were to be any limitation at all, that it should be in that shape. But my point is, that when a particular proposition has been made to the House, and has been debated for a couple of hours, it is better that it should be disposed of instead of being passed by without any judgment being pronounced by the Committee.

pointed out to the Committee that by the arrangement indicated by the right hon. Gentleman there would be two divisions; whereas, if the proposal of the hon. Member to amend his Amendment were accepted there would be but one. He repeated the statement made by his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon, that all through the discussion the Amendment of the hon. Member for Falkirk had been distinctly argued on the principle and not with respect to the particular figure inserted in the Amendment. He had a most complete recollection that the hon. Member himself, in his opening statement, actually said that he did not lay any stress upon the figure 30, and that he was prepared to substitute the figure 50. That had been throughout the general opinion of the Committee.

reminded the Committee that there would have to be two divisions if the Amendment was not withdrawn in order to insert £50. It was quite within the competence of any hon. Member to move that the word "thirty" be omitted. Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "rent," and insert the word "valuation,"—(Mr. Fitz Patrick,)—instead thereof. Question, "That the word 'rent' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived. Question, "That the word "valuation' be there inserted, put, and agreed to. Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "thirty," and insert the word "fifty,"—(Mr. Fitz Patrick,)—instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the word 'thirty,' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

said, before the Question was put, he wished to ask whether it was competent for a Member to move a succession of Amendments, each one involving an increase of, say, £1 upon the other? Suppose a sum of £50 was proposed to be inserted, was it competent to Members to move that £51, £52, and so on, be inserted? He believed the present proceeding was irregular, and that a division should be taken once for all in accordance with previous decisions on points of this kind, otherwise the reductions proposed might be interminable.

If the Committee negative the Amendment to insert the word "fifty," it will be competent to any hon. Member to move that another sum be inserted. Question put, and negatived. Question, "That the word 'fifty,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Question proposed, "That the words 'the annual valuation of which does not exceed fifty pounds,' be there inserted."

It is not necessary, as far as the Government is concerned, to renew the debate; but I wish to point out that this was the limit introduced, unfortunately I think, into the Land Act of 1870, but for a very different purpose. It was introduced for the purpose of allowing freedom of contract at a certain point; but it did not exclude from a free disposal of the interest, which, we think, should be an equitable interest existing in law. Her Majesty's Government, of course, regard the Amendment in its present form with feelings of somewhat diminished intensity; but our objections to it are absolutely of the same force as they were to the figure of 30. Question put. The Committee divided:—Ayes 140; Noes 243: Majority 103.—(Div. List, No. 224.)

said, there was a point which he wished to raise which limited the tenant right to farms on which the tenantry resided; but as his object was covered by the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson), he should not move.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would see his way to go, at any rate, some distance in the direction of the Amendment he was about to propose. He could understand a wide sympathy existing for those occupying tenants who were themselves working men, and worked their farms by the aid of their families. He could also have great sympathy for those who, although they did not actually exist on the farm, had, by industry and thrift, two or three farms. These classes formed a meritorious and industrious tenantry who were deserving of every consideration. His Amendment, therefore, made the distinction clearer between those tenants who occupied and those who sub-let; and, although it might not be the best way of dealing with the question, he ventured to think there was substantial justice underlying his proposition. He was fully conscious that this was not the intention of the Prime Minister, or of his Colleagues; and, therefore, he presented his Amendment, which needed no lengthened argument to support it, in perfect good faith, and in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to make some concession in the direction which he had indicated. Amendment proposed,

In page 1, line 8, after "applies," insert "and in actual occupation of the holding."—(Mr. Gibson.)

said, if his right hon. and learned Friend would turn to the Definition Clause he would see the word tenant defined as meaning "a person occupying land." If, accordingly, the tenant sub-let his holding, he ceased to be "tenant" within the provisions of the Bill. The tenant was, in short, the person in occupation.

accepted the statement of his right hon. and learned Friend; and he would not press the matter further at that stage of the Bill. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said, that, as he understood, the Government proposed to establish on those holdings which were not subject to the Ulster Custom a new custom or tenant right, and that the regulations relating to the sale under that custom were contained in this clause, but that the regulations in this clause were not meant to control the Ulster Custom or usage. That being so, his Amendment would not in any way affect any holding subject to the Ulster Custom. But the custom which the Government proposed to establish outside Ulster differed from the Ulster Custom. Now, it was quite clear that outside Ulster a different state of relations between landlords and tenants prevailed, as compared with the relations between landlords and tenants within that Province; and, therefore, he desired by his Amendment to make provision for certain cases which were likely to arise. The Committee would bear in mind that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had just stated that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give the tenant the right of selling anything he had not got; and he was quite willing to suppose that a tenant in Ireland was, in this respect, in the same position as any other individual—that was to say, he could not sell anything which he had not created, or bought, or inherited. There were persons on estates in Ireland who had neither bought nor inherited tenant right; and, therefore, he thought some words should be inserted in the clause to enable the Court to deal with cases of this kind when they came before it. With this view, he proposed to add words that would make it clear that, while the Committee, on the one hand, were desirous of protecting tenants improvements, and giving them the right to get compensation for such improvements, and for tenant right where they had either inherited or bought it—that it was not the intention of the Committee to allow a tenant who had neither bought nor inherited it to sell any part of his tenant right. Amendment proposed,

In page 1, line 8, after the word "may," insert "except in the cases hereinafter in this section specially mentioned."—(Lord George Hamilton.)

asked what were the intentions of the Government with regard to cases similar to that which he would describe to the Committee, and of which there were any number that could be instanced to his personal knowledge. There were men in Ireland known as "gombeen men," who acquired, by lending money to small tenants, their rights and interest in their occupancies; and he was acquainted with one case where fully 10 or 12 small farms were in the hands of a person of the kind he had alluded to. Therefore, he asked, was that man to be considered a tenant in occupation under this Bill, having acquired the tenant right in a holding for which he had paid only a nominal sum? In his opinion, there ought to be a pro vision of the kind which had just been proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex inserted in the clause, for the exclusion of such persons from the operation of the Bill.

In answer to the observations of the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham), I may say that I think the question raised by him is substantially and entirely disposed of by the conversation which has just taken place between the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. It is the intention of the Government to fix the tenant's interest where it now subsists—namely, in the real occupier, consequently no transaction between the "gombeen man" and the tenant can come within the scope of the Bill. The Bill would take no cognizance of such a person whatever. But it appears to me that such an Amendment as that suggested by the noble Lord is unnecessary, because, if I understand aright, he has in view the making of a substantial and improved proposition, these words being merely words of reservation, pointing to some other operative Amendments which the noble Lord is going to introduce, the nature of which I am not at present acquainted with. Now, the Amendment before the Committee I think is unnecessary, because the noble Lord will, when he makes his operative proposals, put them in strong indicating words; and, therefore, I hope we may pass over this point without prejudice to the proposals of the noble Lord.

said, in the case of the transaction of the "gombeen man," the tenant was got rid of, and the" gombeen man" actually became the occupier of the property. He maintained that there was no provision under the Bill for the protection of the man who had sold his right in the way indicated, and a valuable property was being created for the money lender, for which he had only paid a nominal sum; and, therefore, it was but reasonable that an Amendment should be inserted to meet the case.

was understood to say that the "gombeen man," if in occupation as tenant, and accepted as such by the landlord, must, of course, be recognized and treated as tenant by the Bill.

said, after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he was willing, by leave of the Committee, to withdraw the preliminary Amendment which he had moved. There was one question, however, which, no doubt, the Attorney General for Ireland would answer. Was he right in saying it was quite understood that the restrictions in Clause 1 were not intended to apply to time Ulster Custom so far as free sale was concerned?

said, there was no intention to alter the Ulster Custom by the regulations contained in the clause; but it was hoped that when the Bill passed, it would be in such a form that the Ulster tenants, like other tenants, would find it convenient to avail themselves of this statutory right of sale.

said, he had known instances of persons getting hold of property in the manner alluded to by the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham); but he had never known the law of property interfered with because these persons were "gombeen men." Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

reminded the Committee that, a few days ago, he had asked the Prime Minister when he would furnish the words proposed as alterations to the 2nd clause. At that time he had intended to press the point; but the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was, he thought, satisfactory—namely, that it would be better to see in what shape the 1st clause stood before they came to deal with the actual wording of the section. He wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the question of how they could best got a clear notion and definition of what it was that the tenant could sell; and that was the main object of the Amendment he lied placed on the Paper. It appeared to him that great confusion of ideas prevailed amongst the Committee with regard to this subject; some hon. Members thinking that the tenant who had created improvements had the right to sell everything that could possibly be sold in connection with the tenancy; whilst others took an entirely different view. He asked for a definition of what the tenant actually could sell, because the words of the clause, "his interest," were extremely vague, and carried with them no definite idea. He wanted to draw the attention of some hon. Members behind him—particularly those from Ireland—to this fact. They appeared to think, if you allowed the tenant to sell without defining what it was he had to sell, that you could afterwards limit what he could sell by limiting the price. They said, if the tenants could sell their full interest, the proper course was to limit the price at which the tenant could sell. But that suggestion was open to answer, because if you once allowed the tenant's right to sell absolutely, there was clearly a difficulty when you once fully acknowledged the power of the tenant to sell his interest to limit the price at which the tenant could sell. He did not say there were not certain limits which could be put on the right of sale; but the matter was one which required very careful consideration on the part of hon. Members; for, after having given the power to sell, he thought that the tenant might say—"It is very hard to limit me after giving me the right to sell." There ought to be a clear and definite understanding as to what the tenant could sell, and what he could not. Supposing that the Bill of 1870 had not passed, what was it that the tenant would have had a right to sell? He clearly would only have had a right to sell that which he had—namely, an unexpired tenancy. He was to have the full benefit of all his improvements, and, if he had paid money on entering the farm, either with the expressed or implied assent of the landlord, he would be entitled to have that recouped. He could sell his improvements and receive back the money he had paid; but all he could sell beside was the unexpired term of his tenancy, and, he being a tenant from year to year, that was not of high marketable value. That, he understood, was the foundation of the argument of the Prime Minister; for, when he introduced the Bill, the Prime Minister said that what the tenant had to assign was so small that it was little worth giving or receiving. The Prime Minister founded the power to sell in this Bill upon the Act of 1870, and what that Act did was, not to put money in the pockets of the tenants, but to secure them in their hold- ings, in order that they might work out the land to the best advantage. The proposition advanced by those who represented Ireland at that time was that the tenant had a right to continual occupation, subject to the payment of rent, and also that he had a right to sell his interest to any solvent tenant to whom the landlord could make no reasonable objection. That was the contention of the Irish Party at that time; and what was the answer of the Prime Minister? He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) contended that the Act of 1870 was passed, not to give the tenant the right to sell, but to secure him in his holding; and the Prime Minister in 1870 said the Government wanted to shelter the tenant from loss by eviction and to make that shelter effectual. Therefore, the object of the Act of 1870 was clearly not to put anything in the tenant's pocket except what he got through having security. It was distinctly stated that the object was not to give the tenant a paramount and permanent interest in his holding; but that was the whole position of the Government at the present time. The Bessborough Commission, considering this question of free sale, said in their Report—

"We say that the tenant, upon whom has been conferred fixity of tenure and fair rent, will be in a position differing little from the owner of the soil, and ought not to be unnecessarily deprived of any ordinary incidents of property; and, therefore, he should be at liberty to sell."

"We believe that any new legislation ought to follow more closely the Ulster example, especially in respect of what is known as free sale and tenant's interest. There are objections to the unqualified application of that system to every holding, which may be thus stated. Tenant's interest might in many cases exist with no difference between fair rent and low rent actually paid, and this value, where no tenant right payment has been made at the beginning of the tenancy, is not morally the property of the occupier, and to treat it as such by legislation would be to wrong the landlord."

In page 1, line 8, after the word "sell," to insert the words "such interest as under any contract, express or implied, between himself and his landlord, or by any legal custom or usage he may then have in unexhausted improvements or in the unexpired term of."—(Sir Richard Cross.)

Before speaking generally on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I think I may as well notice the point which he raised at the conclusion. He said—"Is it to be held that when a landlord has brought a railway into the neighbourhood, or by other measures has added to the value of the farms, that increased value is to form part of the tenant right?" Most certainly, in point of right, that would not form part of the tenant right; and if the landlord is wise he will take care that it shall not form part of the tenant right. And that word "tenant right" is not a word that I have chosen. It is so much in usage, and it is difficult to exclude it from the discussion; but the word I have always chosen is the word "assignment," because I do not want to raise the question at all how far this value of assignment is in the nature of a right, but wish to treat it rather as it is—as a matter of fact. I have never laid down the doctrine that the tenant was entitled to the whole of the difference between a fair rent and full rent which arises from the scarcity of land in Ireland. I do not know that it is any part of my duty to prescribe or attempt to lay down an abstract proposal on the subject. I think the more we avoid abstract doctrines in dealing with this subject the more practical progress we shall make. But what I must repeat is this. I was describing the actual position of the tenant—and, unquestionably, the occupancy of the land, which is what the tenant has to sell, does bear value in Ireland which it would not otherwise bear in consequence of the scarcity of land. But for that it is impossible to suppose that that would happen which constantly has happened—namely, that when a landlord has evicted a tenant from a farm under the Land Act, he does not pay compensation for disturbance, but that it is paid by the incoming tenant. I dealt with that, not as a matter of right, but as a matter of fact. That is an actual interest of the existing tenant, limited, however, by certain stipulations of the Land Act. I make that statement to ensure its being clearly understood that I lay down no abstract rule as to the property of the tenant, in the strict sense of the word, in that extra rent which is due to the extreme competition for land. I think it is not very easy to make out, perhaps, if that were an abstract doctrine, a claim either for the landlord or the tenant, in so far as that disposition may be the result of that competition and excess in the demand as compared with the supply. We have had before us, in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, two questions which are quite distinct. One is the question whether there is any element of value in tenant right in Ireland beyond the tenant's improvements; and the other is the question whether it is wise to attempt to define tenant right. On the first of these we hold that there was an element of value in the tenant right beyond improvements; but that is an element of value which attaches to the fact of occupancy, and it has been indicated by the willingness of the tenant to pay for obtaining it. As to the expediency of attempting to define the tenant right, without having any absolute conviction, the more I think of it the less I think it would be expedient to make that attempt. It is quite plain, in my opinion, that the definition proposed by the right hon. Gentleman will not do. I have no doubt he has bestowed great pains upon this definition; but I think it would be unsafe to adopt it. The tenant's interest is the interest made up of what the law gives or shall give him. We are going to operate on the tenant's interest in all the clauses of this Bill. We shall adopt from time to time enactments which, I hope, will improve the tenant's interest. There seems to be a general admission that the Court, under the circumstances of Ireland, shall have the power to fix a judicial rent. There seems to be also an admission that the judicial rent, once fixed, must endure for a certain time. I do not want to gain any surreptitious advantage; but these admissions are generally made. But, supposing that we may agree in considering that the Court shall fix a judicial rent, and that that rent, when fixed, shall be followed by a statutory term—15 years is the period in the Bill, but it has been proposed to increase it and to reduce it—I do not think we should increase or reduce it for the purpose of this argument; but if you adopt any provision of that kind—and the majority of the Committee seem disposed to adopt it—you will at once add to the value of the tenant's interest. The right hon. Gentleman puts the tenant's interest under the head of a contract between himself and his landlord; and, secondly, under the head of legal custom or usage. That element of contract, derived from a statutory term, will not flow from the legal custom, but from the enactment of the Bill. I think that is an indication of my meaning when I say it would be unwise to attempt to define exhaustively the tenant's interest at the time when we are going to consider that matter under the different clauses, and we do not know in what shape the interest may come out from the discussion. There-fore, the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I am only using this as an illustration. Evidently, the object is to prevent the invasion of the landlord's rights. The landlord's rights will not, in my opinion, be infringed. The landlord's rights are to be defended mainly under one head only; and, secondarily, perhaps, under neither—mainly, of course, by preserving to the landlord the right of obtaining, in the shape of increased rent, or in the shape of judicial rent, the fair rent of the land which we shall hereafter have to discuss. The landlord may possibly have an interest in preventing tenant right from running to an excess, partaking of no rational explanation by reference to improvements, or to any such interest as has usually been known in parts of Ireland other than Ulster. But these are the limits of the landlord's interest; and so far as the landlord's interest depends on the augmentation of rent, that is provided for in other parts of the Bill. As far as it depends on the value to be given for the assignment, that is a question that will be raised at a future time. There is no necessity for our defining the interest; but, if we look to the general argument of the right hon. Gentleman, what does it mean? He admitted, in the first place, that we do not constitute any new claim on the landlord. We did in 1870, but we do not now; and he says that the ultimate result will be that the landlord will have to pay. But against the speculative and hypothetical argument of the right hon. Gentleman I place an assertion, founded on historical experience, that in Ulster, where tenant right has prevailed, and where it has prevailed to a greater extent than it is likely to do under the provisions of this Bill as it stands, rent has exceeded the rent paid in the rest of Ireland, and has increased, as we know from undeniable figures, very much faster than elsewhere. Therefore, I cannot admit the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman. Then he asks, what has the the tenant to sell? What he has to sell has to be tested in this way—is anybody ready to give anything for it or not? He says that I laid down the abstract doctrine that because a tenant has the means of livelihood in his occupation, therefore, that is in the market. I laid down no such abstract proposal. I said the tenant would have the means of livelihood in his occupation, and that his means of livelihood were fortified by the law which prevents his being removed except on a certain payment, and that that increased the value of his occupancy. Why is he not to have that? The right hon. Gentleman thinks it is extremely hard on the incoming tenant; but why is it hard that he should pay that which he is willing and desirous to pay? He only wants the opportunity and the opening to pay, and you are not satisfied with facilitating the way to do that, but you insist that for this thing, which has value, which in innumerable cases is paid for, he shall not pay at all. Why? Has it been inexpedient in Ireland? Has it produced bad effects? The hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) says it has. He denounces the Ulster Custom as vicious in principle and mischievous in effect. The united wisdom of the Bench below him had devised the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire, which declared it to be a matter of great importance that the Ulster Custom should be maintained. If that is so; if it is good for the outgoing tenant; if it has been proved to be good for the incoming tenant; and if it is proved that he desires to do that which you, in the tenderness of your interest, will not allow him to do, why do you prevent him from doing so, and deprive him of the right to sell the interest he now possesses, which policy and principle alike recommend? The present question is a narrower one. I frankly own the fair spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has sought to consider the arguments for this Bill. I separate from the general argument the question of a particular argument for a definition. I think I have shown that the definition he proposes is not practicable; and I think that as we progress with this Bill we shall do wisely, taking every just security for the landlord's interest, when we come to the proper provisions of the Bill, not to attempt to define the right—which means, after all, the occupancy—of the tenant, together with such incidents as it may please the Legislature to attach to it. Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Ritchie,)—put, and agreed to. Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday. And it being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting. The House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.