said, he wished to ask a question on a point of Order. He had risen at 1 o'clock in the morning to move an Amendment, which he had had upon the Paper for about two months; but, before he could move his Amendment, an Amendment to the same clause was moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. At the close of the discussion upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, the Chairman called upon him (Mr. Macfarlane) to move his Amendment as it originally stood on the Paper, and as it remained unaltered, except that the additional words moved by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had been added to the clause. On being called upon by the Chairman to move his Amendment, he thought he had the right to assume that, in having been so called upon, the Amendment itself was in Order; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, assuming for a moment the functions of the Chair, got up and told him that the Amendment was not in Order, that it could not be moved in that place, and that if it was to be moved at all, it should have been moved before his own Amendment. The question he now wished to ask the Chairman was this—who was to regulate the order in which Amendments were to be called? Was it the Chairman, or hon. Members who had Amendments on the Paper? He would not say that his Amendment was of very much importance. He said nothing about its importance or non-importance. That had nothing to do with the question. What he wished to call attention to was the effect of the proceeding, because, upon another occasion, it might have the effect of striking out some very valuable Amendment. He (Mr. Macfarlane) had accepted the ruling of the right hon. and learned Gentleman last night, acting in the place of the Chairman, and he had accepted the right hon. and learned Gentleman's decision that the Amendment was out of Order; but, at the same time, when Amendments had been placed on the Paper, he thought it was a duty the Chairman owed to the Members who gave Notice of them to see that they were taken in the proper place. The Amendment of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland was only a week old, whereas his (Mr. Macfarlane's) was at least two months old. He wished to know who was to regulate the order in which Amendments were to be called, whether it was the Member in whose name an Amendment stood or the Chairman?

The question of the hon. Member is a natural one from his point of view; but there was no irregularity in the course that was actually taken. Whenever there are a number of Amendments in the same place, which in this case was the end of the clause, the Government Amendments, by the practice of the Committee, have precedence. The Amendment of the hon. Member, coming after the part relating to the Ulster tenant right custom at the end of the clause, would have been in Order had not the Committee, at the instance of the Government, added a number of lines which prevented the Amendment of the hon. Member from being put in that place, because it then had no connection with the words which appeared previously in the clause. But the hon. Member is not without redress. He will have full opportunity of moving his Amendment on the Report.

said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Macfarlane) must have misunderstood what he had said. He did not object to the proposal of the Amendment on the ground of Order; but because, if it were proposed after the adoption of his (the Attorney General for Ireland's) Amendment, it would make nonsense of the clause. It had reference entirely to the Ulster Custom, and if it were tacked on to the end of the clause after the words which had been added to the clause, it would have made the latter part of the section quite insensible.

said, he wished to point out, on the question of Order, a matter which ought to act as a guide and warning to the printer of the Votes. There were two sorts of additions to a clause. One was the addition of part of a sentence which was to be read with part of another phrase. The other was the addition of entirely new matter, such as the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had proposed in this instance. Therefore, as a point of Order, he would submit that a sentence which formed, with the concluding sentence of a clause, one harmonious whole, ought, by every right of reason and grammar, to have precedence of Amendments which, although coming at the end of a clause, had, nevertheless, no connection with it.

With respect to Clause 12, I may remind the Committee that the well-understood purpose of the clause was simply to provide for a possible interval between the engagement of an incoming tenant and an outgoing tenant, and the incoming tenant being accepted by the landlord. But I am now assured by the legal authorities, who are unanimous on the point, that alterations made in a later clause of the Bill will secure the object this clause was intended to meet, and therefore Clause 12 will be quite unnecessary.

moved, in page 11, line 25, after "holding," insert "the estate of."

moved, in page 11, line 26, to leave out from "is" to during "in line 27, and insert "determined."

moved, in page 11, line 27, after "tenancy," insert "from year to year, whether subject or not to statutory conditions."

said, the clause, as originally proposed, would have given rise to the most extraordinary and startling consequences. If it had not been amended, this strange consequence might have been the result—namely, that a man might have got a lease of 10 years from the immediate landlord and the lessee might have sublet a large portion of the holding at a nominal rent for 1,000 years, and the head landlord would have found himself saddled with this lease for 1,000 years, and would only be entitled to this nominal rent. The Amendments proposed by his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland obviated a result so startling, and they were very much an advance on the original clause in the direction of common sense and simplicity. But he thought that a case had not been made out for even so wide a change as was now applied. It appeared to be a hardship that in the case of a long lease the sub-lessee who, with his family, might have been in possession of the farm and holding for generations should at the termination of the lease, and at the end of the tenancy, find himself, from no fault of his own, deprived of his holding. On the other hand, the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend was so widely drawn that a man who came in as a sub-tenant six months before the termination of a long lease would be given all the benefits which the Act of Parliament, and this section, conferred upon a present tenant. The clause, therefore, was much wider than the exigencies of the case demanded. It would be better to say a "sub-tenant from year to year who had been in occupation "for a certain definite period, naming the period. The clause entitled the sub-tenant to the immense rights and privileges it was now proposed to confer on a present tenant; and it would be clearly unreasonable to the head landlord, under all the circumstances of the case, to permit such a state of facts, that a week or a month before the termination of a long and an old lease the lessee might create a series of sub-tenants from year to year, who would come in with the right of having their rents fixed and to a statutory term granted. He did not propose at the present moment to challenge further the introduction of the words submitted by his right hon. and learned Friend; but he had thought it right to point out what he considered to be a fair and reasonable objection to them. He would, however, ask his right hon. and learned Friend on the Report to introduce words which would prevent the landlord from being deprived of his rights in consequence of a lessee unfairly dealing with the property shortly before the termination of the lease.

said, he would consider the matter before the Report; but he did not think that the difficulty suggested by his right hon. and learned Friend was likely to arise. On the contrary, the arrangements made by the lessee whose tenancy was about to expire would be for his own advantage, and not for those of another person. He would, however, consider whether it was not desirable to introduce an Amendment which would prevent a mischievously disposed lessee from sub-letting for the purpose of doing harm to the property without securing any corresponding amount of good for himself.

pointed out that if a head landlord originally conferred a right upon a middle-man, it would only be the consequence of his own act if the lessee availed himself of such right. He could not take advantage of his own wrong, and could not complain if the power he had originally given was exercised.

moved, in page 11, line 29, to insert after the word "in" the word "the."

moved, in page 11, line 31, at the end of the clause, to insert—

"Every tenancy to which this Act applies shall be deemed a present tenancy until the contrary is proved."

The hon. Gentleman said the Amendment would have come better in the next clause, and it was by a mistake on his part that it had been connected with the present one. It could, however, do no harm at the end of Clause 15, and therefore he would move it. His object was to throw the burden of proof in all cases upon the landlord. There could be no injustice in making such a provision, for this reason—that the landlord and his agents were the persons who kept the books, the legal documents, and all the estate dockets; whereas the tenant was generally an illiterate man, who kept no books or records at all. Of course, an Amendment of this nature would have very little effect at the present moment; but at the end of 30 years, when it became necessary to prove that the tenancy was a present tenancy, the burden of proof instead of being thrown on the illiterate tenant would rest with the landlord, who would have kept all the books and records. He did not think it was too much to ask under such circumstances that the onus should rest upon the landlord.

said, he did not think that the words proposed to be added by the hon. Member would come in well at the end of the present clause. It would, therefore, be more convenient to discuss the matter on the Report, and he would undertake to consider it before the Report was brought up. The hon. Member admitted very fairly that the difficulty would not arise immediately, but was one which was only likely to occur at some future time. In the meantime, proof would be easily available that the tenancy was a present tenancy, or, at least, it would be only in very rare cases that any difficulty could arise.

said, they were told that it was not the object of the Bill to drive the tenants into Court; but he was afraid there would be a great number of disputes in reference to ordinary tenancies, where the aid of the Court would be invoked. The tenant would claim the rights of an ordinary tenancy, and unless the landlord filed an objection to that claim it would be allowed.

said, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment and bring it up on the Report. He thought it was possible to devise some means of putting the tenant's claim on record, and of thus preserving the rights of the tenant for the future.

said, he was anxious that the House should not be required to thrash all these questions out again upon the Report. They were subjects that would be much more satisfactorily dealt with in Committee. On the Report, an hon. Member would only be entitled to make one speech; and it would be inconvenient to be followed on the Report by hon. Members who took very little interest in the matter, without having the power to answer them. He would be content, however, if the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland would promise to bring up a new clause.

There would be great force in what the hon. Member says if it were not for two considerations—in the first place, that the words cannot be inserted here, and the matter must, therefore, be postponed; and next, that the other parts of the Bill will afford conclusive proof as to the nature of the tenancy.

said, he was glad that the Attorney General for Ireland had engaged to consider the matter. It would be a great disadvantage if the want of a record should prejudice the rights of the tenant.

We now come to Clause 27. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) has given Notice of his intention to move the omission of this clause, with a view of submitting a plan of his own; but I think I shall be able to show some grounds why the right hon. Gentleman should not press his Amendment. The points which I wish to state principally are these. First and foremost, it is quite obvious that during the present Session—I do not say during the present financial year—we can make no other than a purely provisional and initial arrangement. I do not speak now of the plan of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, with respect to arrears. That is a definite plan, and can be treated apart from every other financial question. It contemplates drawing money from the Church Fund; but I do not hesitate to say that if hereafter it is found desirable to make the Church Fund available for any other and larger purpose than that of arrears, we should be quite prepared to move any obstacles in the way of the plan, by carrying over the whole of the arrear arrangement bodily to the Consolidated Fund for the sake of getting it out of the way. But, speaking of the other great financial demands which may arise under this Act, first and foremost come the advances required for the purchase of estates, and behind that come the questions with respect to the reclamation of land, agricultural improvements, and emigration. With respect to these questions, it is quite impossible that we can have any light whatever, or any means of estimating what we ought to propose, until the Act is passed, the Commission has met, and its establishment and offices have been got into working order, and until it has begun to receive applications from persons proposing to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill. We can only make a proposal in the present Session—I distinguish broadly between the Session and the financial year—because in February next it is quite possible and highly probable that we may be able to propose a more definitive and broader arrangement. We only propose to take the clause which constitutes a charge on the Consolidated Fund. We shall have to ask the House, on the Public Loans Act, to vote £1,100,000 for advances in Ireland under Acts already existing; and we shall propose, in order to have an ample margin for any calls that may arise—although it is really difficult to say whether any serious call could arise before the month of December—we propose to raise that sum to £2,000,000. That could not prejudice any conclusion to which the House may desire to arrive. That is my first point. My second point, is to notice the plan sketched out by the right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith) in his speech on the second reading of the Bill, and which he has since embodied in certain clauses, with one object and principle which apparently lies at the root of his ideas. He is desirous of constituting an Irish Fund, and he conceives that that can be done, first of all, by providing an insignificant nucleus from the resources of the Church Fund. Although that nucleus is inconsiderable in itself for purchasing purposes, compared with the large sums that would be required for the purchase of land in Ireland under the provisions of the Bill, it must be remembered that the money that is laid out in purchasing operations would immediately begin to trickle back, if I may so say, into the Exchequer, through the re-sales, and a very considerable fund, we hope, will be provided in that way. But it is not possible at this moment to say what proportion the nucleus which would provide the means for the first advances would bear to the amount of the sales; and the nucleus which the Church Fund would afford would only enable us to set out on a somewhat limited scale. Until we know what the scale is on which we will have to set out, we cannot enter with advantage upon the consideration of this question. If the demands appear to be likely to be spread over a considerable space of time, it will be possible to organize, with general satisfaction, a plan on the footing proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. But I may say this, that, so far as we can make a calculation at present, and speaking very roughly, we are inclined to say that about £10,000,000 of purchases may be made on the, basis proposed by the right hon. Gentleman within a period of six years. That is the best information I can give, and it must be taken with some indulgence and some liberty, for nobody can tell at this moment whether that would be an adequate provision or not. Therefore, the upshot of what I have to say is that the Government propose to adhere to this clause for the time, without prejudice to any future action. But, as it is absolutely necessary to make some provision at the present moment for possible contingencies, it is eminently desirable that a more definitive statement of the provisions we propose to make should not be made now, but that it should be reserved. With these few observations, I would propose to retain the clause as it stands.

After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall not persevere with the Notice which stands on the Paper in my name. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I have not given that Notice with any feeling of hostility to the proposal to set up a peasant proprietary in Ireland. On the contrary, I am convinced, from the experience which I gained when in Office, that the present system has been practically a failure. There has been, up to the present moment, something like 800 peasant proprietors in Ireland constituted under the Act of 1870, and less than one-half of the sum of £1,000,000 sterling which was authorized to be advanced by the Act of 1870, has been appropriated for the purpose. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will feel that fair play has not been given to the scheme, and that the difficulties connected with the administration of the money, and the circumstances in which the Fund was placed are so great, that I am not sanguine that any scheme on the same lines can be really successful. In the first place, it will be understood that it is the duty of the Treasury, and very properly so, to exercise a wholesome check upon the expenditure of the public money, and to be extremely jealous as to the value of the security which is offered for public loans. It must also be borne in mind that under the provisions of the Bill as they now stand it will be necessary from time to time, and from year to year, to apply for an Act to authorize the expenditure of the money; and as there is likely to be a discussion in which different opinions may be expressed, I do not think that any public financial authority can be very earnest in its desire to give full effect to this scheme. I have the greatest confidence that the proposal which I intended to lay before the Committee would have been found to work sucessfully in practice. That proposal was, that an Irish Fund should be established on the security of Irish property, and administered by Irishmen in Dublin, competent men and desirous of insuring its success. I am confident that such a scheme, if carried out in that way, would have had fair play given to it. In the first place, it is quite certain that many of the purchasers of land who will avail themselves of the facilities which will be afforded under any scheme will be more or less unsuccessful. It will require strong and vigorous hands to see that the object the Government have in view in constituting a solvent, an independent, and a thriving peasant proprietary is attained. In order to do that, it will be necessary to deal from time to time with a man who has proved to be a complete failure, and to turn such a man out of his holding and sell it, because he is utterly unable to comply with the conditions which are necessary in order to secure success. I venture to say that a Government officer, acting on the responsibility and on behalf of a Government having a Chief, whose position must always be regarded from a political point of view, would really be placed in a position of the greatest possible difficulty, and would hardly be able to discharge his duty—so that the success of the whole scheme would be imperilled. We should have growing up a number of men with small means—weak men with a load hanging round their necks—and a new Encumbered Estates Bill and a new application of the public money would be necessary; and we should arrive at this position—that, at the end of four or five years, there would be a general admission that the scheme had failed, because the officers of the Government were really incapable, under the circumstances, of giving effect to it. Then I come to consider how the scheme would work if you constituted what would practically be a Land Bank, with officers alike responsible to the Government and the country and to the people of Ireland, for the manner in which they carried out the scheme and administered the fund intrusted to their charge. We should have to consider first of all what the security would be which the intended bondholder would give. He would have to give the security of the margin of 25 per' cent, either of his own money or of money obtained from his friends. The Commissioners would have the security of the new interest given by this Bill to the tenant and the occupier, and the tenant himself would have the great individual security that the fund would be preserved intact for the benefit of the whole community. That, I think, would a powerful and a strong additional security. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that the sum of £2,000,000 placed at the disposal of the Commissioners, taken by itself, would be a comparatively small sum on the strength of which to undertake very large operations; but I am convinced that, taking that sum with the security I have referred to, strengthened by an honest and careful administration, a very large sum might be raised by means of debentures secured on the property which the Commissioners would have to administer. Let us consider how the system would work. There would be an income at once secured to the Commissioners of £60,000 a-year from the fund of £2,000,000 placed at their disposal, which would be far more than sufficient to make good any deficiency in the repayments by the purchasing tenants of the capital advanced to them for the purchase of their holdings. I think it must be clear that, unless the administration is ineffective—and I believe it might be made thoroughly effective—the deficiencies which would occur would make a very small demand indeed upon this annual income of £60,000 a-year. But the value of this income would be that any investor desirous of taking up these land debentures would have his interest secured on the day on which it became due, and the absolute security of payment on the day it became due would make a great difference in the circumstances under which the debentures are issued. They might be issued with great ease at even a lower rate of interest, in the present state of the market, than 3½ per cent. We have had, in a limited way, evidence of the success of an Irish Reproductive Loan Fund. According to the last Report, out of £30,000 advanced, £20,000 have been repaid, and there are only £800 of arrears altogether at the present moment, and of that sum a considerable amount has been repaid since the Report of the Commissioners was printed. That affords evidence, in a small way, that sums not easily recoverable are repaid in Ireland, if it is an Irish fund administered by Irishmen, and the Irish people have confidence in it. As the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the scheme of the Government is not intended to be a final scheme at the present moment, and as I fully admit that it would be impossible to frame a measure that would be completely satisfactory in a short space of time, it is desirable that I should refrain from going further into the proposal which I have submitted. It was intended merely to suggest the way in which a successful attempt to deal with the question might be made. It was intended not by any means as a complete scheme, or as an indication of the extent to which the scheme might go. But I hope some good will have been done by directing the attention of the Government and of the Committee to a question which I believe to be one which, if followed up, would prove to be extremely beneficial to Ireland, by inducing the people of Ireland to rely on their own resources rather than to trust to assistance to be derived from the Imperial Exchequer. In our past experience there has been nothing more depressing than the feeling that there are Irishmen who come to this country with the idea that we possess resources which can be and ought to be placed at their disposal, in order to get them out of any misfortune into which they may happen to fall. That is not consistent with the principle and spirit on which the future of a great and prosperous country, such as I sincerely trust Ireland will become, ought to be built up. I believe there are material resources in Ireland which, if properly applied, should make her as prosperous and her people as vigorous as any people on the face of the earth; and it is my desire to see those resources applied by Irishmen for Ireland in a spirit of true independence, rather than see her come to this country for aid from the Imperial Exchequer. For the reasons I have stated I do not propose to proceed with my Amendment.

I only rise to express the pleasure with which I have listened to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. I receive with, due respect, for future consideration, all the remarks which he has made; and there are two things which I feel specially bound to say—first, I am very glad to see that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has been received in a favourable spirit by many of the Irish Members; and secondly, that I do not think we ought to depart from this discussion without an expression on my part of my sense of obligation to my right hon. Friend for the entire spirit with which he has approached the question. Upon the scheme itself I can give no opinion now, except this—that it may be possible to frame a plan which may take the form of an Irish Fund, and, at the same time, not be permanently dissociated from the Consolidated Fund.

I wish to ask one question of the right hon. Gentleman. I understood him to say that, according to the demands at present made on the Exchequer for advances for the coming year, and which have to be provided for under the Public Works Loans Act for this year, but irrespective of any matter under the present Bill, they amount to about £1,100,000, and that he proposes to increase the power of advance from £1,100,000 to £2,000,000. Will that additional £900,000 be money that will be advanced in respect of obligations that must be met before the 31st of December, or will it be of a more general character? I put the question in this sense. According to the principles we have adopted in dealing with these Public Works Loans, the applications for the money that would be required in the coming year have to be sent in by a particular day, so that we may be able to know what the demands would be. With regard to this amount, will it be applicable to demands that may be made before a particular time, or generally applicable to loans applied for at any time?

It must be made applicable to demands made before a particular time. That seems to me to have been the principle adopted by the right hon. Gentleman when in Office. It might, however, be right to make that time as late as the close of the financial year.

said, he wished to express on his own behalf and on behalf of the Irish Members their full appreciation of the admirable spirit in which the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith) had been made. If there were Irish Members or Irishmen who were of opinion that the Imperial Exchequer was the source upon which they must rely for relieving them of all their difficulties, they must be peculiarly constituted. Such an idea had long ago been revolutionized, and it would be a great misfortune for Ireland if it ever got hold of the Irish people in any way again. It was certainly not the object of Irishmen to rely for assistance upon the Imperial Exchequer, but upon their own resources. Their real object was to work on the lines of the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman had sketched out, not in the present Session, because that would be impossible, for reasons which had been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister; but, as a permanent mode of carrying out the frame-work of the Bill, he entirely approved of the scheme of the right hon. Member for Westminster for the establishment of a great Irish Fund to be administered by Irishmen. He believed that such a fund would be easily obtainable. It was not necessary to discuss now the mode in which it, was to be accomplished; but as the Prime Minister had suggested, it might be absolutely necessary, to a certain extent, to depend upon the Consolidated Fund. He thought that such a fund might in future, with great benefit to Ireland, be rendered available for purposes other than those indicated by the present Bill, and that it should not be confined exclusively in the promotion of the objects of the Land Commission. Nothing was more wanted in Ireland than money. There was an immense amount of wealth in the country in the shape of raw material, and there was also an immense amount of power in bone and sinew. But there was no country in the world in which its resources had been less used. He believed that a marvellous change would be brought about if the Irish people were only allowed, to some extent, to manage their own affairs. If that principle was once brought into action, the further it could be extended the more contented, happy, and prosperous Ireland would become.

wished to say a word as to the effect of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister with regard to an Irish Fund, and the sources from which such Irish Fund was to come. He desired to place before the Committee the impossibility of any Irish Fund depending upon money drawn in any way from the Irish Church Surplus. He hoped this would be made public, because they heard a great deal about the way in which that Fund might be rendered available. Everybody cried out that the State might go the Irish Fund for this object and for that. The Government had recently written off a sum amounting to £2,000,000 advanced for the payment of arrears of tithe, and which the Treasury had until recently always hoped to recover from the surplus property of the Irish Church, and it was an absolute impossibility to make many further demands upon it. At the present moment the Fund only brought in an income of £75,000 a-year; and how were they going to pay off £2,000,000 out of an annual income of £75,000? Moreover, this income of £75,000 by the year 1890 would be diminished to £40,000 a-year. The sum of £2,300,000 advanced during the Famine was advanced out of this Fund, on the understanding that it was to be returned to the Church Surplus Fund; but it would be impossible to repay it, so that, in point of fact, if they made further demands upon it, they would be, in reality, drawing upon the Imperial Exchequer—an object they professed to discountenance. He hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman proposed his clause as to arrears, he would be prepared to say whether the arrangements under which advances were to be made would be carried out in their integrity, or whether it was intended to set aside the arrangements come to with respect to loans, and to put a further charge on the Church Surplus Fund; and also that the Prime Minister would state what really remained of that Fund.

said, he thought it would be vain to enter on the subject of the Church Fund now. All he could say was that the estimate as to the probable amount of purchases was the best estimate that could be made on the available data; but, of course, there was a certain degree of uncertainty in the calculation.

said, he could not let the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) pass without some expression of opinion from the Irish Members. He accepted with gratitude the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, in which, acting on the germ theory, he thought he could detect in an embryonic form an advocacy of local self-government. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman paid a just and fair tribute to the solvency and good faith of the Irish people with regard to advances made to them. The result of the Irish Reproductive Fund and the loans under the Church Act had shown that the people of Ireland could be safely trusted to discharge their lawful debts; but there was immense force in the right hon. Gentleman's argument against the whole principle of Government action in this matter. He pointed out with irresistible force the enormous difficulties in the way of the Government in driving their bargain with the Irish tenant to its ultimate issue in case he failed to meet his liabilities—that was to say, turning the tenant out. That placed the Government in a most difficult position, and he would point out a solution of the difficulty. What was wanted for the Government was the sanction and support of public opinion. That support would be wanting to any Government that attempted to rule Ireland from Westminster; and until the Government had at their back the full support and sympathy of the public their action would be very much impeded. The future of Ireland must be largely dependent on Irishmen being allowed to devote all their enegies to the advancement of their country; and it would be much better if Irishmen of ability were allowed to do so.

said, his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland proposed to introduce an Amendment which expressed with perfect fidelity the intention of the Government on full consideration of the circumstances of the case.

We have been moved to this selection of names to be submitted to Her Majesty upon a very full consideration of the circumstances of the case. Of course, it was intended that the Judicial Commissioner should be a person of judicial rank, equal to any member of the High Court of Justice, and capable, if need be, of taking part in the ordinary duties of the Court in lieu of the Commissioner at any time. That being so, it was natural to consider whether it would be more expedient to appoint a person already a member of the High Court of Justice, or a person who would be recognized by public opinion as fully qualified to become a member of it. I believe it will be admitted that Mr. Serjeant O'Hagan is in the first rank of the Irish Bar, and that his appointment to the High Court of Justice on the occurrence of a vacancy will be welcomed by the public opinion of Ireland. He has had practice in the administration of the Land Act of 1870, and it is an advantage, though not a capital consideration, that he is of the religion of the majority of the Irish people. It is desirable that it should be so, and that the Commis- sion should consist of Irishmen, as matters of race and nationality are associated with the question, and popular jealousies may be excited. It was thought wiser, on the whole, to appoint a gentleman thoroughly qualified to go into the High Court of Justice rather than a member of it. The office of a Judge is one of great dignity and responsibility, but not on the whole of excessive labour. The work to be performed under the Bill will be rather of a novel kind, and it was felt that it would hardly be fair to ask a Judge to change his habits and address himself to this novel and constructive work. It was believed that a man having the highest qualifications for being a Judge, and at the same time not so far advanced in life as the Judges are, would, on the whole, be better able to address himself to this work with the prospect of being able to carry it out in a thoroughly satisfactory manner. It was on these grounds that the selection was made.

said, he did not desire to raise any objection to the particular constitution of this Commission, but he desired to elicit some information as to its power and duration. He inferred that it was intended that the Judicial Commissioner should be the sole arbiter of everything connected with this Bill at the end of seven years. He inferred that the office of the Judicial Commissioners was to be a permanent one, and that the appointment of the other Commissioners would be for seven years only. If they died or resigned within seven years, there was power to appoint successors for the residue of that term, but not beyond; and then he inferred that the vast powers of the Commissioners would devolve on the Judicial Commissioners. Was that intended, or was it intended to reserve power, to appoint someone to divide the responsibility with the Judicial Commissioners? Were the Commissioners to be amenable to the criticism or jurisdiction of Parliament in respect of plans of emigration and reclamation, and the exercise of patronage in the appointment of Assistant Commissioners? If they were, the names, salaries, qualification, tenure of office, and duties should be submitted to Parliament earlier than they could be in the annual Report, as the Prime Minister was understood to have promised; but there was no Amendment on the Paper indi- cating that the Commissioners were to be bound to furnish this information. A further question was whether the whole patronage was to be at the absolute disposal of one Commissioner at the end of seven years. Of course, the Treasury would check the number of appointments; but the Government would have the right to recognize, as it had done in the selection of Commissioners, only one side in politics.

I will offer a few words in reply to the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, as to the scope of the Commission. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says—he does not found any charge upon it—that we have appointed this Commission from one side of politics, as, he frankly admits, it was in our power to do. Of course, we were in this difficulty—that to appoint Commissioners who did not enter into the spirit of the Bill would quite plainly be an absurdity. We were very happy at the time of the Church Act in appointing Mr. George Alexander Hamilton; but he was a man who had had large experience, and who we knew was a man who would act precisely in the spirit of the commission he undertook. Nor was there any difficulty in that case, for, once having passed the Act and appointed the Commission, our desire was that everything should be done in the most liberal way, and not as between the Parties. Therefore, we were glad to appoint a gentleman who was in marked opposition to ourselves. But in this case the Commissioners are to deal with a vast number of questions, and the most difficult part of their duty will be between the Parties; and it is absolutely necessary that those appointed should be persons entering into the spirit of the Bill as between the Parties. At the same time, it was our very great desire that at least one of the Commissioners—our choice was very limited, as there are few Gentlemen on the opposite Bench who are so associated with the leading ideas of this Bill as to make them possible subjects of selection—but we were very anxious that one of the Commissioners should be a person who was totally disassociated with political action, and who was not under suspicion on that ground. I believe with regard to Mr. Vernon, that it would be impossible to describe him as a Party man in any sense. I only know that he voted against the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) in favour of the Tory candidate. That being so, it is an indication of the opinion of the political character of Mr. Vernon. It is not necessary to state his qualifications; but I believe that if all the land agents in Ireland were to be placed in their rank and importance and experience, without any prejudice at all, probably by general suffrage Mr. Vernon would be placed at the head. Mr. Vernon's connections and associations are almost entirely Conservative. He has been the agent of Lord Pembroke, Lord Bath, and many other landlords, most of whom are of Conservative politics; but what is more is this—he has had charge of the relations between 5,000 tenants and their landlords since the date of the Land Act, and he has never had a single contentious case. I think that of itself constitutes a eulogy which cannot be disputed. As to the other specific point with regard to the reporting of the names of the Assistant Commissioners, the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) perfectly understood and accurately represented the effect of what I said, that it appeared to me that any anticipation of any annual Report—for, after all, we cannot very well have an annual Report for 1882—and that immediately on the appointment of the Commissioners, or within an approximate time, Parliament should be made acquainted with the names of, and particulars relating to, the proposed Assistant Commissioners. But it appears doubtful whether it is necessary to put that into the shape of a positive enactment; and we think, perhaps, we are not asking too much, having made a positive statement on the point, that the House should leave that matter in our hands on the assurance that has been given. Now as to the general scope of the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In that respect he has not correctly gathered the general view and contention of the Government with regard to the limitation of time in the Act. The whole meaning of the enactment on that subject does not confine us to the precise limit; but, viewing on the one one hand, the probable extent of their duties, and, on the other hand, the uncertainty as to what degree they may continue to be as difficult and re- sponsible, and to involve such large considerations in future years as there are likely to be in the first year, we have thought it our duty above all to endeavour to provide for bringing the matter of the constitution of the Commissioners again at a reasonable time under the review of Parliament. That is the meaning of the whole affair. How do we do that? We do that with regard to the lay Commissioners, by saying that they shall hold office for seven years; and it is a common thing on the part of Parliament in cases of this kind, where a limit of years is fixed, if it is found that the duties are continued, and that the same kind of emolument is required to prolong the office. But as to the Judicial Commission, that is a different case, for we cannot expect any man of eminence at the Bar to accept what is to be a judicial office upon any other footing than that upon which judicial offices are generally accepted—that is, with permanent tenure of office, and salary or pension for life. Therefore, we are obliged to go that length with regard to the Judicial Commission. But we have done the only thing we could do by leaving the door open to the Judicial Commissioner, for he may be required by order of the Lord Lieutenant in Council to perform any duties which an ordinary Judge is required to perform; so that we have left the door open for any future change even as to the Judicial Commissioner, and the entire aim of this provision is not to leave him upon a solitary throne, at the close of seven years, but to make sure that the whole matter shall, before that time, be brought, without prejudice, before Parliament. I hope these facts may give a more favourable turn to the views of hon. Members.

It appears to me, then, that the proposals have in view to practically give seven years' effect to the present measure, because this is a provision which will, as a matter almost of certainty, bring under the view of Parliament at the end of seven years, if not before, the whole working of this system. Considering the position in which we are going to leave the question, and the scope of the measure, which places the reconstruction of the agricultural and, to a great extent, of the social relations of Ireland in the hands of the Commission, this is a very important statement, and the importance of it is not diminished by several hints and suggestions thrown out by the Prime Minister, and the questions that are still left open for consideration. We can only feel that we are in the hands of the Government, and that they have a work to do which will be of great importance to the future of Ireland. Further, very much will depend upon the carrying out of details by the Assistant Commissioners. It is, therefore, important that it should be known, as early as possible, who they are to be and how they are to perform their duties.

I am afraid that, although I have not a word to say against the spirit of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, I do not see how we can give the names of the Assistant Commissioners during the time that is to lapse before the passing of this Bill, or during the present Session. It is quite evident that the Commission cannot meet until the Act has been passed, and they will certainly require several meetings before they can make even a skeleton scheme for the appointment of Assistant Commissioners. I assure the Committee that our great desire is to keep down the patronage of the Executive Government on this matter to the lowest point, and obviate, as far as we can, all jealousies. We do not object to give the names of the Assistant Commissioners without waiting for their Report; but I am afraid we could not give a promise with regard to that being done this Session, as it may be only a few days before the Prorogation that this Bill becomes law.

said, he understood there was no objection to give the names, qualifications, salary, tenure of office, and other information in regard to the Assistant Commissioners at the commencement of next Session. It was a matter of the highest importance that there should be complete confidence in the equity, fairness, and justness of this Act, and the greater part of the work must be done by the Assistant Commissioners; and in order to give that confidence these names and particulars should be given at the earliest possible moment after the meeting of Parliament, in a Report which, it was understood, should be made before the financial year.

agreed that it would be right to give the names on the meeting of Parliament next Session, and promised to do so.

observed, that the Prime Minister was perfectly right in saying that the appointment of Mr. O'Hagan to the High Court of Justice would be welcomed in Ireland; but it did not follow that he would be welcomed as a Commissioner. In Ireland, a man of the character of Mr. O'Hagan would be welcomed in the High Court, because it was very difficult for the Government to get honest men for that position in Ireland. Anybody upon whom the British Government put its seal was immediately looked upon with distrust by the great body of the people, and to say that Mr. Serjeant O'Hagan had managed to go through life without leaving behind him sufficient traces of bitterness as to make his appointment to a Judgeship not unwelcome was not saying very much. The Prime Minister had rested the appointment of Mr. O'Hagan also on the fact of his being a Catholic. At all events, he allowed the fact of his being a Catholic to enter favourably into the question of his appointment. Now, they in Ireland did not care whether a man was a Thug or a Tartar, so long as he was an honest man. They did not care whether he was a Catholic or not. What they wanted was an honest man; and he must say they had had a great deal too much experience of the pious political Catholic in Ireland. They had had Mr. Justice Keogh, and other great ornaments of the Judicial Bench. Neither did he hold it to be absolutely necessary that in addition to the man being a Catholic he should be an Irishman. He held that in addition to being an honest man he must be an able man. And that being his opinion, his expectation would have been that men like Chinese Gordon and Sir Evelyn Wood, associated with a Judicial Commissioner, would have been appointed. They had had some experience of the way in which a man like Sir Evelyn Wood had conducted delicate operations, and he believed such an appointment as that would have had the whole confidence of the Irish people. Colonel Gordon had been to Ireland at Mr. Bence Jones's invitation, and his dictum was that the people of Ireland were the most suffering people he had known℄worse than Bulgarians and Chinese—and that they had full ground for their agitation. It was desirable that on the Commission they should have honest men, altogether irrespective of race or religion; and he protested against the dictum laid down by the Prime Minister that they were to accept a gentleman because he was an Irishman and a Catholic, irrespective of other qualifications.

said, he was one of those who know the very great difficulty there was in making such appointments as these, and he also knew that the first thing to create confidence was that the Commission should be strong. He ventured to say, however, that both in the House and out of the House, this Commission had been looked upon as one that was neither strong, nor one that would have the full confidence of those with whom the Commission would have to deal. He had nothing to say individually against any one of the gentlemen selected; but he was bound to say that if the right hon. Gentleman would look at the public organs of opinion, he would see that the Commission had not been received with that favour which might have been expected in regard to a Commission selected by the right hon. Gentleman. The Church Commission was a strong Commission, and one that commended itself to all parties. He also thought the Committee would like to know exactly how the Assistant Commissioners were to be appointed. This Commission would change the whole state of affairs in Ireland, and, in truths, re-arrange the whole social condition of that country; and he wished to know whether these Assistant Commissioners were to be appointed for political, or for other purposes connected with the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman could not disguise that the Bill, ably as he had handled and well as he had conducted it, had not attracted that attention in this country which a great Bill of this kind usually would have attracted in England; and he ventured to say that it was looked upon with apathy, if not with something else.

observed, that the question of how the patronage was to be distributed could not be discussed, for by the 36th clause it was provided that the Lord Lieutenant, with the consent of the Treasury, should appoint the Assistant Commissioners; but the Commissioners themselves were to determine the number and other conditions with respect to the Assistant Commissioners. It would, therefore, be impossible for him to give the names of the Assistant Commissioners until the Assistant Commissioners had met and complied with the instructions of Parliament. He did not know that it would be well to prolong this discussion any further; but the hon. and gallant Member seemed to take two things for granted—first, that public opinion did not approve of the Commission; and, secondly, that it was the business of the Government to consider the reception of the names of the Commissioners by the organs of public opinion. So far as Ireland was concerned, if the hon. and gallant Member would look at what was stated in the organs of public opinion there, he would find that the reception had been quite as good as could have been expected; but, after all, the first duty of the Government was to consider the fitness of the gentlemen appointed, and he could only state his conviction that it would be impossible for more care to be taken in choosing fit and suitable men than had been taken by the Prime Minister in choosing these Commissioners.

said, he must protest against the constitution of the Commission, although he had no sort of objection, in a personal point of view, against any of the three gentlemen named for the appointments. He thought the Prime Minister had entirely misappreciated the position by the names he had chosen, inasmuch as the duties the gentlemen would have to discharge were not, as in the case of the Church Commission, merely administrative, but constructive, and would, therefore, require statesmanlike qualities, which neither of those Gentlemen could be said to possess, or, at any rate, to have displayed. The work which the Commissioners would have to do—to borrow a picturesque expression of the Premier when speaking on another question—would be to "restore a ruin," and that was rather more than could be expected of the gentlemen who had been nominated. He thought it a distinct disadvantage that two of the gentlemen should be lawyers. That one of them should be was all very well and proper, inasmuch as the Commission would have to interpret Acts of Parliament and legal documents; but in dealing with the agrarian question in Ireland they did not want law, but common sense, and that not of the spurious character known by the name in England. The common sense they wanted was that of Irishmen, who understood the Irish Question. If he had had to make a choice he would either have asked the Viceroy of India to select from his officials three Irishmen practically acquainted with the work of the Land Laws existing in India, or would himself have appointed the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), Sir Richard Temple, and Dr. W. K. Sullivan, President of the Queen's College, Cork. Who would deny that the Irish Church Commission was a far abler and a far more vigorous Commission than that proposed to be appointed? [Mr. GLADSTONE: I.] The right hon. Gentleman would deny it. Well, to contend against the right hon. Gentleman's denial he would be led into an unpleasant personal analysis, and that was a thing not at all to his taste. He would not go into a personal discussion unless it were absolutely necessary; but he thought most people would say that the three gentlemen appointed on the Church Commission were far more eminent than the three persons named as the Land Commissioners. He spoke now from the bosom of the Tory Party. [Mr. WARTON: No, no!] Well, he spoke physically from the bosom of the Tory Party, and if that Party would allow him on this occasion to be the interpreter of their opinions and their wishes—[Mr. WARTON: No, no!]—if they would allow him, for once, to be the interpreter of their opinions, he would say that they were utterly weary of the internecine struggle that had been going on between the landlords and tenants in Ireland for the last few years. Was it not better for the interest of the landlords, as well as for the interest of the tenants, that this question should be settled on the broad lines of common sense and statesmanship, in place of having the weariness of litigation between the parties? He thought the Prime Minister, by the appointment of this Commission, had done his best to minimize the good effect of his own Bill. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had completely grasped the situation in Ireland, because all through these debates he had spoken more as a Conservative. ["Oh, oh!"] All through this discussion the right hon. Gentleman had spoken from the point of view of a still unregenerated Conservative with regard to Ireland, and he (Mr. O'Connor) thought it was the right hon. Gentleman's desire not to transform, but to maintain as much as possible, the old system of things in that country. He would give the right hon. Gentleman fair warning that the old system of things was dead, and could not be brought back to life again, even through the indirect and complicated agency of this Land Bill; and he could assure the Government that it would be far better to face the realities of the question, and put on the Commission men who had the intention of laying the foundation of a new and better state of things in Ireland, than to appoint such men as they proposed to do.

said, he did not wish to dictate to the Government who were to be the Assistant Commissioners; but he agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) that the country expected, that though the law should be dominant amongst those who had been appointed, yet care should be taken that the Assistant Commissioners should be persons thoroughly conversant with the value of land and agricultural produce in Ireland. This was a most important matter, and it was also of the highest importance that the Assistant Commissioners should not be men chosen from one side of politics. There was one passage in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite which was calculated to alarm even the humblest Member of that Committee, because even that Member had a constituency. The right hon. Gentleman said he knew Mr. Vernon had voted for a strong Tory instead of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). That statement was one which might well terrify Members of that House, because if the right hon. Gentleman was able to ascertain who voted for Members of Parliament the electors of the country would grow fearful, and the confidence which they had hitherto felt in the Ballot would be seriously weakened.

said, he had not intended to take part in this discussion, and he should not have done so had it not been for some remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) and from the hon. Member for Galway City (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). The hon. Member for Wexford had stated, in expressing his opinion, that he spoke on behalf of the Irish people, and had declared that it was unimportant to them whether the Commission was composed of Englishmen or Irishmen. Well, in expressing that opinion the hon. Member for Wexford was certainly not expressing his (Mr. Daly's) view. He should be sorry to endorse any such sentiment as that the Commission might be composed of any but Irishmen. The Prime Minister had said, incidentally, that he was glad the Official Commissioner was of the same religion as the majority of Irishmen; but he guarded himself from saying that a Roman Catholic had been expressly appointed. The right hon. Gentleman said that, as a concurrent matter, it was a good thing that Serjeant O'Hagan was of the same religion as the majority of Irishmen. He (Mr. Daly) was inclined to think that it was a most important fact. The first function of this Commission would be to generate confidence amongst the Irish people. Well, he knew that Serjeant O'Hagan possessed the confidence of his country so far as he was known. As to the other Members of the Commission, it was not a matter of importance to Irishmen that one was a Presbyterian and the other a Protestant. The Presbyterian was thoroughly in accord with the feelings of the tenants of Ireland on the Land Question. His (Mr. Daly's) only knowledge of Mr. Vernon was derived from reading his evidence before the Land Commission. He knew him to be one of the Governors of the Bank of Ireland, and, as such, he was greatly struck with the fairness of his evidence; and he must say that such evidence, given without any idea of any subsequent appointment, stamped him as a person fit to exercise the functions of a Commissioner. As a matter of fact, whoever the Government had appointed, someone or other would have objected to them. So far as he (Mr. Daly) was concerned, he was glad the three Commissioners were Irishmen, because he believed it would have been a great source of pain and regret to the people of Ireland if they found that the important functions of the Commission were to be discharged by any but their own countrymen. With regard to Dr. W. K. Sullivan, who had been mentioned as a man whom it would have been well to appoint upon the Commission, so far as he was able to judge, no fitter person could have been appointed; but he should be sorry to say that there were no fit men in Ireland to be appointed outside the three who had been selected, which would not include in their number Dr. W. K. Sullivan. As far as regarded the Commission, when appointed, there would, of course, be a great deal of anxiety as to their first acts and operations; but it was important that they should not be jealously watched. It was important that when they began their operations they should have the confidence of the Irish people, and that the great chance which was to be given to the nation should not be marred by any defect in the administrative function of the Commission. He would not give an opinion as to the personal capabilities of the gentlemen to be appointed; but, judging from external circumstances, he thought the Government had made a reasonable and fair selection.

regretted to be obliged to say that he conceived a very great blunder in one respect had been committed in the appointment of this Commission, and he was glad that the Prime Minister was in his place, in order to hear what he had to say. He did not wish to utter a word against any one of the gentlemen who constituted the Commission, for he believed they were all exceedingly competent and honest men, and he had the fullest confidence that they would discharge the important duties entrusted to them with satisfaction to the Government and the country; but, at the same time, there were many men who could have been found in Ireland just as competent. He thought the serious mistake that had been made by the Cabinet in the appointment of the Commission was in neglecting to nominate some one gentleman who was marked by strong sympathy and great effort in the cause of the tenantry. If such a gentleman had been appointed it would have given confidence to the mass of the tenantry of Ireland. If this Commissioner's predilections in the direction of the interest of the tenantry had been too strong, there would have been the other two Com- missioners as a sufficient counterpoise. Some of the journals in the interest of the Government had taken credit to the Government for having offered the appointment to three gentlemen, all of whom would have given the utmost satisfaction. One of these was Lord Monck, another the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law), and the third the senior Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw). The Government might very well have anticipated, and he dared say they did anticipate, that none of these gentlemen would accept the position. They knew that Lord Monck had worked very hard on the Church Commission, and it was generally believed that he was pretty well tired of the hard work, and that he did not intend to undertake such arduous duties again. The Attorney General for Ireland, from his learning and ability, they knew, might very well aspire to a much higher position than that of Judicial Member of the Commission, and to a post, at the same time, much easier in point of work. Of the third gentleman—of whom he should speak very freely, because he had made strong efforts to conquer him on the point, and had been defeated—he had no information except that which he obtained from the public journals. If appointed on the Commission, to everyone in Ireland the hon. Gentleman would have given unbounded satisfaction. But they knew the hon. Member occupied a most important commercial position. He was at the head of an important banking establishment in Ireland, and the world gave him credit, and no doubt correctly, for being in possession of an independent private fortune. Besides this, he was glad to see the hon. Member was fond of hard Parliamentary work, and it might very well have been anticipated that this hon. Member would not—as he did not—accept the position. But on both sides of the House there were hon. Gentlemen who nearly approached the hon. Member for the County of Cork in ability, and who held as high a character in point of probity, and who entertained as much sympathy for the Irish tenantry as the hon. Member, and, he thought, a serious mistake had been made in not adding some gentleman of that description to the Commission. He understood that it was probable that in "another place" an attempt would be made to increase the Commission from three to five; and should that take place—and he thought there would be ample work for five Commissioners to do—he earnestly trusted that the Prime Minister would remedy the very great blunder which he had made in the formation of the Commission. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) that it would have been a matter of indifference to the people of Ireland if Tartars or Thugs had been appointed on the Commission. In the one instance they might have found that they had caught a Tartar; and, in the other, no one would have wished to see the Thug Commissioner, in carrying out his religious convictions, now and then chopping off the heads of the landlords and tenants. He could only say that the function the Commission now appointed would have to perform would be of great importance and moment to the people of Ireland. He had the very utmost confidence that these duties would be performed in a conscientious and satisfactory manner, and he merely rose for the purpose of expressing his views in a perfectly disinterested manner.

said, that as marked reference had been made to Serjeant O'Hagan, he wished to give expression to his conviction that a better selection could not possibly have been made. There was no man in Ireland who more commanded the respect, esteem, and confidence of all who knew him than Serjeant O'Hagan. He (Mr. Smyth) was confident that the voice of the country, without distinction of Party, would ratify in his regard the wise selection of the Prime Minister. With regard to the Commission as a whole he believed it to be an admirable one.

said, that as other Irish Members were expressing their opinion upon this matter, he would venture to express his. It appeared to him that the Commission would be an admirable one, and would possess the entire confidence of the people of Ireland. He believed he was the only Member of the House who knew each of the Commissioners personally. Mr. Vernon was a man of broad views and enlightened spirit, and would approach the subject in a proper manner. As to Serjeant O'Hagan, he had had many years knowledge of him, and knew him to be a distinguished lawyer, a man of ability and sound views, and thoroughly acquainted with the subject with which he would have to deal. He had been for many years a County Court Judge, and he had never heard of any of his decisions being quarrelled with by the Irish tenants. He had been very sorry to hear the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) give a quiet sneer at the piety of this gentleman. He knew Mr. 0' Hagan to be a thoroughly religious and pious man; but he could not see that for that reason he was less worthy of the confidence of the Irish people. He (Mr. Findlater) knew that the learned Serjeant had the confidence of everyone who had come into contact with him. As to Mr. Litton, everyone in the House had an opportunity of appreciating his ability and his thorough knowledge of the Land Question. He (Mr. Findlater) had been brought closely in contact with him since the commencement of the present Parliament, and he felt convinced that he was a thorough worker, who never spared himself when business was to be done. He also possessed qualities which would be invaluable to him in his new position—an excellent temper and great patience and judgment. He (Mr. Findlater) had no doubt whatever that he was "the right man in the right place."

said, there had been no impugnment from that (the Ministerial) side of the House of the fairness of the Commission. What made him rise was an observation which had fallen from the hon. Member for the county of Waterford (Mr. Blake), in which that hon. Member expressed his regret that no person of a more distinctively tenant-class character had been nominated on the Commission. Very lately in the county of Tipperary there was a meeting held in connection with the Land Question, and one of the most distinguished Roman Catholic clergymen in the county, who, he believed, held an official position about the person of the Archbishop of Cashel, had declared on that occasion that if there was to be any confidence reposed in this Commission there was one man who should be appointed on it, and that gentleman was Mr. Serjeant O'Hagan. He (Sir Patrick O'Brien) merely made this observation in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Member for the county of Waterford. To him it was not necessary to speak of Mr. Serjeant O'Hagan. He had had the advantage of being his class-follow in the University of Dublin, and from that time, in common with all the learned gentleman's countrymen who had come into contact with him, he had entertained the greatest respect for him. As to the tone and character of Mr. Litton, they all knew what they were; and it would be unbecoming for him (Sir Patrick O'Brien) to say anything about the hon. Gentleman. But as to Mr. Vernon, it might be said that he was, to some extent, a representative of the landlords. Well, no one could say that the landlord party ought not to be represented on the Commission. From all he had been able to learn of Mr. Vernon, in connection with the agencies he hold in different parts of Ireland, everyone spoke in the highest terms of his high-mindedness, his broadness of view, and freedom from narrow prejudices. In common with all Irish Members, he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) had received letters referring to possible patronage in connection with the Commission; and an opinion prevailed, so far as he could gather, in Ireland, which, if it were accurate, would show that the Assistant Commissioners might be anything but a satisfactory body. That opinion was that these Assistant Commissioners were to be formed into local Courts, and that men were to be appointed for a special county or for their own district. He ventured respectfully altogether to disapprove of such a system. If they were to have Assistant Commissioners under this Act, those officials ought to be removed from every tinge of local feeling. If it were possible they should act more like Circuit Judges. Special care should be taken that these gentlemen should be segregated as much as possible from the localities with which they were connected.

said, the discussion was as to the appointment of the whole Commission, though, technically, the question before the Committee was only as to the appointment of one of the body. He gave the Government full credit for possessing an anxious desire to appoint the very best men for the difficult duties which were to be performed; but he thought there was a matter of principle at issue as to the appointment of one of the Commissioners. They all know that the ambition of a lawyer was to get into Parliament, because it was supposed to be a short cut to the Bench. Now, he was one of those who thought that that was not the best way of getting the best law upon the Bench. In making these observations, he did not so much refer to the present Parliament, because there were more lawyers in this Parliament than there had been in any other he had ever known, and he had no doubt that if they examined these hon. and learned Gentlemen they would all show they were greater pundits of the law, and had a greater knowledge of the law, than any learned gentleman out of the House. But, as a matter of principle, if they wished to get the best men on the Bench, it did not follow that those men were necessarily such as had succeeded in captivating a constituency, and who had subsequently captivated the House by their eloquence. [An hon. MEMBER: They never do that.] An hon. Member told him that they never did that; but he had known some who had done it, and everyone knew that Ministries were frequently captivated by these gentlemen being good political partizans. When a Ministry was captivated these gentlemen were put on the Bench to administer the law of the land. But what had they here in connection with this Commission? They had the most special and peculiar law that had ever been passed in the recollection of anyone in this or in any previous Parliament. This was essentially a Party measure, if ever there was one, and who were to be appointed to administer it? One gentleman was Mr. Serjeant O'Hagan, of whom he knew nothing; another was Mr. Vernon, of whom also he knew nothing; but the third was a gentleman whose views he had had the opportunity of listening to, and whose actions he had watched in common with every other Member of the Committee during the whole of these discussions. The hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), who was to be one of these Commissioners, was an earnest partizan. He objected to such an appointment not because, personally, he found fault with the hon. and learned Gentleman, or because he doubted his ability, but as a pure matter of principle. When they had au Act of this kind which was admitted to contain a new kind of equity, giving a power that no Equity Judge had, and when they knew that the Commissioners were not to be guided by the ordinary rules of equity, he thought that, as a matter of principle, they ought not to select from the House of Commons—and he did not care on which side of the House he sat—a Gentleman who had taken an active part in the framing of that measure to sit upon the Commission. That was his objection in principle. He would recall to the remembrance of the Committee a speech which the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone had made in Belfast in April last. He (Lord Elcho) had called the attention of the House to it at the time, and he should have said no more about it if it had not been for the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone had been nominated as one of the Commissioners. The hon. and learned Member, at a great meeting of the Liberal Party, had said, speaking of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, that the Government were surrounded by certain difficulties, which they had endeavoured to get rid of by the skill with which the measure had been prepared, and not by trying to overpower them by mere force. The hon. and learned Member said there was "a strong Opposition in the House," and if Mr. Gladstone had come forward with a Bill distinctly declaring that every tenant in Ireland must have fair rent, free sale, and fixity of tenure, he would have found it impossible to carry it.

"Mr. Gladstone had aimed at in this Bill—and he thought that in his Bill he had secured—fair rent, free sale and fixity of tenure, but secured not in a direct way, and not in such a manner as he who ran might read, for if the Bill had been so framed, there would have been a hostility to the Bill that those who framed it were anxious to keep back."

That was distinctly an approval of the Bill being brought into Parliament under false pretences, and the tone of mind exhibited in that speech did not appear to him (Lord Elcho) to be such as should characterize one of the Gentlemen who would have to administer the measure.

I rise to a point of Order. I wish to point out that the Amendment only deals with the appointment of the Judicial Commissioner, Mr. Serjeant O'Hagan, and that the noble Lord is travelling beyond that proposal.

I assume that the noble Lord was quoting a speech of one of the Gentlemen whom it is proposed to appoint to show why that person should not be selected.

said, he should be glad to see, on Report, a clause inserted declaring that no member of the Commission should have a seat in that House. It might go further, and declare that no person should be appointed who was a political partizan.

The noble Lord's statement is rather a remarkable one, and I do not think that the Committee will agree with his observations with reference to the strong support which the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) has given to the Bill. In the noble Lord's earlier remarks, I understood him to give an unqualified approval of the Commission; but then he went on to express disapproval at any Gentleman being appointed on the Commission who was a political partizan or a Member of Parliament. That appeared to me to show how entirely he approved of the appointment of Serjeant O'Hagan, who has never had the advantage of having a seat in this House. But when he came to the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone, he gave us a quotation from his speech, and I hardly think that that quotation can afford much ground for objecting to the hon. and learned Gentleman's appointment. Under any circumstances, I do not think that it can be fair to take hold of certain words in a single speech without their context; but, after all, for the sake of argument, admitting it to be fair, what was there extraordinary in the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Tyrone? After all, he only said what has been said, not only by the noble Lord himself, but what almost every Member on the Front Opposition Bench has said about the Bill.

said, that the tone of the speeches to which they had been listening showed how difficult it must have been for the Government to make up their minds as to whom to appoint on the Commission. The debate, although critical, was certainly not ill-humoured, and the Government could not but be satisfied with the result. There had been no acrimonious speeches, and no very bitter attacks made against the gentlemen placed upon the Commission, which showed that, on the whole, in spite of the great difficulties which the Government had had to face, they had not done very badly. He should not have taken part in this discussion if it had not been for the remarks of the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) with reference to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton). Presumably the objection taken to the hon. and learned Member by the noble Lord was a landlord's objection, coming, as it did, from a Member of the House who sat on the Conservative Benches. The noble Lord's objection was that the hon. and learned Member had shown himself to be a partizan—a supporter of the Government and a tenant right partizan. Well, he was quite certain that if the noble Lord read the newspaper reports published in the North of Ireland, he would not find that the hon. and learned Member was regarded by the tenants as a warm partizan of theirs. No one in the House was more pleased than he (Mr. J. N. Richardson) to see the hon. and learned Member appointed a Member of the Commission. No one more deserved the position, and no one was more fit for it; and many of them would be sorry to lose the hon. and learned Gentleman from amongst them, for to them—his Colleagues—he was more like a brother than a person whom they had met for the first time in Parliament. The tenants would have preferred a man much stronger in their interests than the hon. and learned Member. They would have preferred, for instance, a Gentleman whose name he had no hesitation in mentioning, as other names had been given during the debate. They would have preferred the late Member for Dungannon (Mr. Dickson) on the Commission. He regretted that that Gentleman's name was not on the Commission, because he knew the tenants would not always be satisfied with the decisions that were given. They would consider that the rents might be reduced more than, in all probability, they would be; and he could not help thinking that, if they had had such a gentleman as Mr. Dickson on the Commission, the people would have taken an adverse decision uncomplainingly.

said, his objection had been to the principle of appointing upon the Commission any hon. Member—on whatever side of the House he might sit—who had taken an active part, either on behalf of the landlord or of the ten- ant, in the framing of this Bill. He still held that the speech he had quoted was a disqualification for membership of the Commission.

said, that the noble Lord had quoted an oration in the nature of a hustings speech, and probably few of them would like to be bound all their lives by declarations made from the hustings. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members apparently did not approve of that courage in others which, on every occasion, they had not themselves. It seemed to him that the noble Lord was entirely mistaken in his apprehensions; it was much more likely that the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) would lapse more into friendliness to those parties amongst whom he usually moved than that he would go forward too strongly in the ranks of the friends of tenant right. The hon. and learned Member for Tyrone had made one or two propositions to the Committee which had not been successful. They were all on the Liberal and tenant side of the question, and he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) had succeeded in inducing him on one occasion to withdraw a certain proposal. But he did not think that the hon. and learned Member was a Gentleman who, sitting judicially, would be in any way swayed by the opinions he had expressed when the measure was in an inchoate state in the House. As for Serjeant O'Hagan, he was one of the best men that could possibly have been chosen for the office of Judicial Commissioner. He had known the learned Serjeant for 25 or 30 years, and there was no one with whom he had ever come into contact in whose favour more could be said to recommend him for such a post as that to which he was to be appointed. As to Mr. Vernon, he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) only knew him from his testimony before the Committee which sat upstairs, of which he was a Member; and the idea he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) and some of his friends had formed of that gentleman when he came before them was that if ever a Land Commission was appointed Mr. Vernon would be a most fitting person to select as one of the body.

said, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Elcho) had said that this was a Party Bill. He (Mr. Shaw) differed entirely from that view. It might be a Bill that the English landlords did not like; but he could assure the Committee that the Irish landlords from Ulster perfectly agreed with it. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) happened to be the Representative of a Northern constituency resident in Dublin, and a considerable landowner, and that seemed to him to give the hon. and learned Gentleman sufficient qualification for the position to which it was proposed he should be appointed. The hon. and learned Gentleman lived on the most pleasant terms with his tenantry, and he (Mr. Shaw) must say that he did not think he had ever met a broader-minded, or more fair-minded man in his life. He was quite sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman had ability enough and legal knowledge enough for the position. The hon. Member for the City of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) said that the Commission should consist of great statesmen who should be able to compass great motives. Well, he (Mr. Shaw) believed that nothing could be more unfortunate than to appoint upon the Commission any such men. If they had three men of that class upon the Commission they would keep Ireland constantly in hot water. What they wanted on the Commission were men of capacity, men of honesty, men who could devote their whole time to the work; and he sincerely believed that the Government had found such men. He did not know Serjeant O'Hagan personally; but, as a business man, he had had plenty of opportunities of knowing him by repute. He was acquainted with the position which the learned Serjeant held at the Bar, where he had shown great ability and legal knowledge. As to Mr. Vernon, he believed that the Government could not get in the whole of Ireland a better man for the post. He was a good man, because he knew his business thoroughly, and because his feelings and his attitude towards the tenantry with whom he had had to deal had always been of the most generous kind. And not only was he on good terms with the tenants, but Mr. Vernon possessed, he believed, the confidence of the landlords. The landlords were not at all frightened about Mr. Vernon's action in this respect. This conversation had commenced about the Assistant Commissioners; and he (Mr. Shaw) believed those appointments to be one of the most difficult works which the Government would have before them, and one to which they could not give too much thought. The Assistant Commissioners would be a Court of First Instance, and would, so to speak, give a complexion to the other Court. They must be careful not to appoint too many lawyers upon that body; and he agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien) that the Assistant Commissioners should be removed from local influences. There were plenty of men to be found in Ireland fit for the work. He could say of his own knowledge, having gone round Ireland looking at the men whom he believed possessed of the necessary qualifications, that there were, in his opinion, plenty in the different localities who were quite fit for the work. But care should be taken to remove them from the localities, so that they should in no way be influenced in their operations by local opinion.

said, that if the Commission was to receive the confidence of the people of Ireland and advantageously work this Act, it was essential that the Government should appoint upon it gentlemen who, as the Prime Minister had said, entered into the spirit of the Bill. He therefore thought the charge of partizanship which had been brought against the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) was one to which no weight should be attached. They should not forget that on more than one occasion that hon. and learned Member had taken up a thoroughly independent position in that House. On one occasion, though a strong Liberal, the hon. and learned Gentleman had stood out stoutly against the Government, and had, furthermore, rendered considerable assistance to the Irish Party on the question of leases, when they on the Home Rule Benches, who were supposed more directly to represent the tenant farmers of' Ireland, were endeavouring to carry Amendments in their favour. On the whole, one of the greatest recommendations that could be put forward for the Commission was that none of the appointments were of a really partizan character. He thought it was something which must be very grateful and welcome to Irishmen to find that the day was past when appointments of this kind were made in a partizan spirit. The Government might have easily made a much worse selection. With regard to the nationality and race of the Commissioners, he must say that he quite agreed with what had fallen from an hon. Gentleman near him that the point was one of vast importance; and he was satisfied to find that the appointments had only been made amongst Irishmen. The first important requirement of a position of this kind was, of course, that a man should be able. Then, to look upon it from a practical point of view, there could not be the slightest doubt in the world that if Englishmen had been appointed serious dissatisfaction and discontent would have been felt all over Ireland. They had great reason to be satisfied, therefore, that the three Commissioners would be Irishmen. Allusion had been made to the religion of Serjeant O'Hagan, and upon that point he could fairly say that no one could accuse the Irish people of intolerance upon questions of religion—that they set an example of toleration to every part of the United Kingdom, and especially to every part of England. In Ireland large Roman Catholic constituencies returned, in some cases, Protestant Representatives; but yet in the whole of Great Britain there was not one Roman Catholic returned, in spite of the large Roman Catholic element in some of the constituencies. No doubt, great satisfaction would be felt in Serjeant O'Hagan's qualification of religion, in addition to his many other qualifications, about which it would be presumptuous for him to speak. Of the appointment of Mr. Vernon he should not like to offer an opinion, because he knew nothing of that gentleman except from having read the evidence which he gave before the Bessborough Commission. But he thought it a matter for congratulation that whilst they had a man whom they must acknowledge as a fair representative of the landlord's interest, he was a representative of that class of landlords who, unfortunately, had been so few, and the effect of whose conduct, had such landlords been more general throughout the country, would have prevented the crisis which had arisen. Although Mr. Vernon would be a representative of the landlords, he was evidently animated by a spirit of fairness and liberality towards the ten- ant. So much with regard to the component parts of the Commission. As to the Commission as a whole, he must say that he had felt great disappointment when he heard the names announced, because, in the first place, he thought that the gentlemen who were to compose the body should have been, if he might use the expression, of more eminent standing. He was not speaking of the judicial member of the Commission, and he did not wish to say anything discourteous or unpleasant with regard to the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton); but he had thought that the gentlemen appointed might have been of more commanding ability. On the whole, he could not help thinking that the Commission was a weak one. He believed that the appointment of Mr. Vernon would be of the greatest importance. Mr. Vernon was a man of strong will and feelings; and the other two, albeit that they were most amiable gentlemen, and well disposed, were men of considerable weakness of character. It therefore seemed to him that all the work of the Commission would, practically, be in the hands of Mr. Vernon.

said, the hon. Member for the City of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had expressed disappointment that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), a Scotchman, and Sir Richard Temple, whom he believed was an Englishman, had not been appointed on the Commission. Well, he (Mr. Macfarlane) must say, as a Scotchman, that he was exceedingly pleased that neither the one nor the other gentleman had been appointed; and, in saying this, he did not wish to be misunderstood. He was speaking in regard to the nationality, and not as to the personal qualifications, of those gentlemen. To his mind, it was most important that the Commissioners should be Irishmen.

said, with reference to the strong accusations made by the hon. Member against the Irish landlords, he would remind the Committee of the remarks which the Prime Minister had made in his opening address on the Irish Land Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the landlords of Ireland had been placed upon their trial, that their conduct had been subjected to a rigid examination, that, on the whole, they Lad passed through the ordeal with flying colours, and that they had been fully and honourably acquitted. [Mr. HEALY: As to rents.] He had only one fault to find with the appointments, and that was, they were not permanent; but he was afraid it was too late to remedy that now. At any rate, if the Prime Minister would make some provision by which the position of the two Commissioners would be thoroughly secured, it would be of great importance. If he could give them to understand that they were certain on retiring to receive some other appointment, they would be rendered independent of any influence, from whatever quarter it might come. At the next Election a wicked Tory Government might be returned; and, unless there was some kind of permanency in the appointments, they might say—"Unless you rack rent the tenants we will not maintain you in your present positions." His experience inside that House had not been large; but his experience outside, he was sorry to say, had been considerable, and it was to this effect—that when persons connected with politics were appointed to permanent positions they threw aside all feelings of political partizanship, and were guided solely by a sense of duty. What they required was men of ability, and honour, and high principle; and if they got such men, it did not matter whether they came from the Liberal, the Conservative, or the Home Rule Benches. Nay, he should not even object to them if they came from the Fourth Party itself; but their position should be assured.

I think it only right to say one word at the termination of this discussion. I must say that I think the Government have no reason to be dissatisfied with its general tone, nor with the criticisms which have been offered, for they have been not unkindly; and, so far as any of them were of a severe or of an extreme character, they have to a very great extent equalized and qualified one another. It has been the object and desire of the Government to appoint men who would enter into what I may call the spirit of the Act; and it has been our object, on the other hand, to avoid what would be justly stigmatized—namely, partizan appointments. With reference to the observations that have been made with regard to the individuals, I would make this remark—that the business of appointing a Commission of this kind is a very serious one, and requires an examination of a great number of topics in themselves and in their combination together—an examination much more searching, if I may say so, than can possibly be tested by that kind of popular impression which betrays itself in the first conception of a Commission of this sort. I remember that more than 36 years ago, when I was Secretary of State in the Colonial Office, a post in the Government of Canada fell vacant. There was a gentleman—I will not mention his name—who was particularly in the public eye at that moment, for he had, with great success and ability, concluded an important Convention on behalf of this country in another quarter of the world, and he was recommended as a fit person to be appointed to the vacancy. I called upon Sir Robert Peel, who was a man of great sagacity and experience, in respect to this appointment, and, of course, the name of the gentleman came up. Sir Robert Peel said that beyond all doubt the appointment of this gentleman would secure popular approbation; but, said he, "he is the wrong man." It is not possible that these things can be tested by the mere impression out-of-doors, which undoubtedly looks for external marks, high titles, and so on. But knowing the full responsibility that we undertake in proposing these names to Parliament, we are contented that it shall be tested by the result. We have the utmost confidence that these appointments will prove satisfactory. Two names have been mentioned in this discussion as those of gentlemen eminently qualified for appointment on the Commission, but whom we have not been able to include in our proposal to the Committee. One is my right hon. and learned Friend near me, the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law). In the face of all Parties and Sections in this House, and through the intricate and delicate discussions which have taken place in this Committee, my right hon. and learned Friend has had an opportunity of showing hon. Members the metal of which he is made. The other is a Gentleman of independent and unofficial position, my hon. Friend the Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw). To all that has been said in regard to that hon. Gentleman, as well as with regard to my right hon. and learned Friend near me, I subscribe with all my heart and soul; and I admit that the appearance of such names as theirs on the Commission would have been an honour and bulwark of strength to that or any other body. But, Sir, the power of the Government is limited. It is not for us to command the services of those who, in the free exercise of their own judgment, may find that their public duty calls them too much in a direction different to that which we might desire they should take. But having rendered this just tribute to those Gentlemen, I must say that I do not in the slightest degree qualify the declaration I have made with regard to the gentlemen whom we have appointed. We cannot admit that a cordial support to this Bill is a disqualification for a seat on this Commission. We cannot admit that if the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Litton) pointed out anything on a certain occasion which he thought circuitous in our method of proceeding, that it was to be considered in any degree as a fault on his part. It would appear from what the noble Lord opposite (Lord Elcho) said that the hon. and learned Gentleman stated in his speech at Belfast that the "three F's" are in this Bill, although they were not deliberately and directly inserted in it. Well, the controversy as to whether or not the "three F's" are in the Bill is one into which I have not entered. The "three F's" I have always seen printed have been three capital F's; but the "three F's" in this Bill, if they are in it at all, are three little f's. In the communications we have received in Downing Street from the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), as well as from the hon. Member for the County of Cork, and likewise in the discussions in this Committee, we have derived considerable assistance in the construction of the details of this Bill. I am very glad that the Committee has had an opportunity of considering these names, and that every hon. Member has had an opportunity of offering remarks upon them. But in this matter—in passing these names through the ordeal of public discussion—neither on my right hon. and learned Friend near me, with whom I have been so closely associated in the conduct of the Bill, nor anyone else, would I wish to cast one shred or tittle of the responsibility attaching to the Commissioners. That responsibility is ours. We accept it, and even court it.

said, that some Members of the Party to which he belonged more or less differed from him upon this subject; but he was not going to discuss the personnel of the Commission. He was only acquainted, personally, with one of the Commissioners; and, therefore, it would be out of place for him to criticize them at all, and especially for him to criticize them in an adverse manner. The hon. Member for the County of Waterford (Mr. Blake) had laid down a proposition to which he was inclined to take exception. The hon. Member had said that, instead of three Commissioners, it was desirable that they should appoint five; but he (Mr. Biggar) thought two things were desirable—in the first place, that the Government should not have too large a patronage in their hands; and, in the next place, that, as far as possible, public expense should be saved. An hon. Friend near him had made another proposition, to which he should be disposed also to take exception—namely, that the Government should have selected, as far as possible, Members of this House who had been extreme partizans in the interest of the tenant farmers to sit on the Commission. If one thing was more unpopular in Ireland than another, it was the giving of appointments by the Government to men who had openly advocated the interests of the popular party in Ireland. It was believed that those people, forgetful of the interests of their country, associated themselves with the Government for their own personal advantage. He was extremely glad that the Government had abstained from such appointments upon the Commission on this occasion; and he hoped that, in making the other appointments, they would also abstain from giving situations to hon. Members, or to political agitators who were not in the House. Such appointments were always unpopular, and were calculated not only to raise suspicion amongst friends, but also to give rise to suspicion in other quarters. The gentlemen who were so appointed proved themselves not very honest when they expected to be backed up by the Government. The hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) had said that too much attention had been paid to hustings speeches——

I did not say that too much attention was paid to hustings speeches. What I said was that you ought not to pay too much attention to them.

said, he could not see any very great distinction between what he had said the hon. Member had stated and that which the hon. Member now declared that he had said. The doctrine that hon. Members when before their constituents were to make one class of speeches, and were to make another class of speeches altogether when they got into the House, was a doctrine to which he could not subscribe. The hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Daly) had said that they should not look upon this question with too much jealousy. He (Mr. Biggar) thought they should watch the conduct of the Commission closely, and that, whenever there was occasion to do so, they should find fault with it. But that was the extent to which he would go. He would not condemn them before they had been tried; but as soon as they had proved their capacity, or their incapacity, as the case might be, he thought an opinion should be expressed upon it.

wished to remark that what he had said was that too much attention should not be paid to hustings speeches in the House. He had not said that attention was not to be paid to hustings speeches elsewhere.

said, the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had, no doubt unintentionally, misrepresented what he had said. He had not stated that the Commission should be composed of partizans in the interest of the tenants, as he would object to too strong partizans of any kind. What he had said was that it was a regrettable circumstance that some one gentleman had not been appointed on the Commission who was distinguished for his pronounced views in the interests of the tenants, and by his efforts in their behalf, and that such a Gentleman could have been found on either side of the House he had no doubt.

I should here explain that the rest of the Amendments go out until we reach the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gen- tleman the Attorney General for Ireland at page 4, b.

said, he quite approved of the idea of the Prime Minister to bring the matter every seven years before Parliament. But while any future Liberal Government might be in favour of the Bill, he would like to know how far power of revision might be exercised by a Conservative Government?

said, he thought it would be extremely undesirable, when there was a general settling down of the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland, that these relations should be disturbed. Under the Land Act the judicial business in Ireland had been very much less than had been anticipated, and it would be extremely unsatisfactory to the country if any large establishment was being maintained at high salaries in consequence of the Government failing to provide some means of reconsidering the question. Reference had been made to the present indisposition of the Conservative Party to appreciate the value of this Bill; but it must be hoped that when the good results which the Government anticipated from it were gradually realized, he should be slow to believe that the Tory Party would not acknowledge the benefits of the Act. That Party might be in Office for seven years, or might be in Office and thrown out again. Whether that were so or not, he had no doubt that when this important statute came to be recognized as part of the fixed legislation of the country, no Government subject to the control of Parliament and public opinion would object to carrying it into effect.

said, the first new clause was one relating to labourers' cottages, and was a very important matter; and he was quite aware that the time had arrived when explanation of the intention of the Government might be required by the Committee. This was a Bill mainly brought in to settle the relation between landlord and tenant; but it was impossible to lose sight of the labourer and those who knew his position and wished to improve it, and he was glad to see the sympathy which had been expressed with the condition of the labourer on both sides of the House, quite independently of Party, quite independent of the feeling with regard to the general objects of the Bill. There could be no doubt that the agricultural labourer in Ireland was very badly off. The reason why he was so badly off was that there was not much demand for his labour. He did not imagine that by any clause he could bring in, or that the Committee could agree to, they could get rid of the great present cause of the labourer's distressed position. He looked forward with hope that the effect of this Bill would, at all events, improve the labourer's position. If the Bill did any good at all, it would increase the culture of agricultural land in Ireland, it would increase the amount of capital which would be spent in Ireland, and, as the hon. Member for Cork had fairly said that day, what was mainly wanted in Ireland was more money. The Government hoped the result of this Bill would be to induce more capital to be employed successfully and more labour to be employed in Ireland. There could be no doubt that the labourer's condition was made worse and his low wages aggravated by the bad state of the cottages in which he generally lived. Political economists would say that if anybody was compelled to put up better cottages it would merely reduce the wages. There was some truth in that, but it was not absolutely true. If they could get la- bourers' cottages improved, that would happen in Ireland which had happened in England, where improvement in cottages had not always meant decrease in wages. The object of this clause was to improve the condition of the houses, or, at all events, to remove obstacles in the way of improvement. What applied to cottages would apply also to allotments. That which was a good thing for labourers in England would be a still better thing for labourers in Ireland. One reason of the distressed condition of the labourer was that there was much less demand for his labour throughout Ireland than there was in England. A reason for that was that the tenancies in Ireland were so much smaller than in England. The labourer was often a farmer, and had a son, and consequently outside labour merely stood a chance of coming in to fill up gaps. Everyone would admit that the Government should not multiply the number of small cottier tenants. If they did that, they would be producing in other parts of Ireland one of the evils they had to contend with in the counties of Mayo and Galway, where the holdings were much too small for good and decent living. Therefore, in trying to provide for allotments, they must take care that they did not tempt the labourer to rely on his small plot of land for his livelihood, but rather that he should rely on his main source of income, and that was the production of his labour. He hoped he had nearly said enough in explanation. It was absolutely impossible to leave the labourers out of this Bill, because, in modifying the relations of landlord and tenant, they could not avoid affecting the position of the labourer. So far as they gave security to the tenant, they put the labourer for the time being more completely under the control of the tenant. There was no avoiding that. Therefore, there had been a general feeling in the Committee that they ought to take care that in doing that they do the labourer no harm. What the Government had done was to give power to the landlord to erect cottages under the sanction of the Court and under fair terms of compensation. They had to deal with the tenant in regard to the power of sub-letting. The 1st clause was to give him the power of subletting, because by the 24th clause they had taken from him the power of sub- letting. The tenant could not let cottages unless Parliament gave him the power to do so. The Government thought there ought to be some check on the amount of rent charged by the tenant upon the labourer, and that was provided in the clause by the power of the Court to prescribe the terms. It was provided that there should not be more than half-an-acre let in each case, and that there should not be more than one cottage or allotment for every 25 acres, or less than 25 acres. Perhaps he might be permitted, before he sat down, to make some allusion to the 2nd clause, because the course would be more convenient to the Committee. In addition to the 1st clause there was another which would fasten upon every application by any landlord or tenant the possible obligation that the Court would have to consider, or might consider, whether labourers' cottages were absolutely wanted on that tenancy, and if the Court thought they were so wanted, then to fix the judicial rent. He had now explained the way in which the Government had endeavoured to deal with the question; and if the Committee agreed with the Government, they would certainly leave the labourer no worse, and he believed they would leave him better than they found him.

said, he was bound to say the Committee had gone through a good deal in the course of this Bill. They had had to swallow some of the most bitter provisions and principles which had ever been pressed upon Parliament; but there was a limit to the political digestive capacity of even the most capacious of hon. Gentlemen. He could not help thinking that this limit had at last been reached. When they found that freedom of contract between landlord and tenant had been abolished, and not only that, but they had abolished all contracts that had hitherto been concluded between landlord and tenant, now they were called upon to abolish freedom of contract between the labourer and his master. In this matter it was time that somebody in the Committee should make a decided stand upon this point, and for this reason. When they abolished freedom of contract with regard to rent, and when they got such a valuation as the Court thought proper to give, there was no further liability for anyone to interfere between the labourer and the tenant. There would be no fixity at all. They were attempting to regulate by the intervention of the State what it was beyond the power of the State to regulate, unless by the law of supply and demand. He would not object to this clause if certain words were left out, because there was no reason why the tenant should not be allowed to sub-let. The rent of cottages, and the rent of allotments, were inseparable parts of the labourer's wages. In England and in Ireland that was the same. If a labourer occupied an allotment on a farm, that matter must be taken into account in the wages he received. By raising the rent of the cottage they would be diminishing the wages of the labourer. Was it worth while, in order to attempt to accomplish what it was beyond their power to accomplish, that they should run such a tremendous risk? They were attempting to introduce principles which had been dropped ever since the reign of Henry VIII., when the last attempt to regulate wages by State interference was made. It was left to hon. Gentlemen who had sought to defend liberty in every form to go back to the principle of the State regulation of wages. It was said that the building of cottages in England had not interfered with labourers' wages. Hon. Members seemed to forget that cottages in England were never built by the tenants. It was always done by the landlord, who wished to improve his property, and who wished, from the best of motives, to improve the condition of his tenants. Why should the tenant be the person to improve the property? The Government were interfering in a matter which was an inseparable part of wages, and the more they interfered the more ridiculous became their efforts. He ventured to suggest that the Government had not gone rightly to work on this question of the labourer. He would co-operate with the Government in any real attempt to improve the condition of the Irish labourer. The way he would have gone to work would have been to throw greater power into the hands of the local authorities. He remembered a Bill to give Local Boards in England power to purchase land compulsorily for the purpose of allotments for labourers. Not a word could be said against that principle. The proposal now made was in conflict with the simplest and soundest principles of political economy. The Government might attempt to force things on a minority; but the attempt would be attended with nothing but failure.

said, the noble Lord's suggestion, as to the great question of allotments for labourers, were well worthy of consideration. In the clause now before the Committee, the Government was attempting to deal with the question of labourers living on farms, and hired from year to year, and not with those who lived in towns or villages. There were a large number of labourers who would not benefit by the proposals; and he did not think, with all deference to the noble Lord, that the local authorities could do anything for them. As to the 2nd clause, it would be of most enormous advantage, because it not only imposed upon the tenant the obligation, but the necessity of finding accommodation for labourers, and would find him the means of doing it.

said, he believed everybody would rejoice that the Government, by placing this Amendment on the Paper, had shown their recognition of the fact that the condition of the Irish agricultural labourers was a subject deserving of the attention of Parliament. No one who had any acquaintance with Ireland could doubt that the condition of the Irish agri- cultural labourers was nothing short, as a rule, of a scandal to civilization. They lived, as a rule, in dwellings where human beings ought not to dwell; and he believed the Acts which had of late years been passed giving power to the sanitary authority to prevent these scandals had been found in Ireland almost impracticable. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government had done well to show that they considered this question was one that every person who had an interest in the welfare of the population of Ireland ought to take to heart. Personally, he was not very hopeful as to what legislation could do. He would like more personal effort and private enterprize. He remembered well, when his right hon. Friend the present Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett) called attention to that condition of agricultural labourers, he stated that he wanted the people to consider what in their own localities they could do. So this clause might do much in causing the landlord and farmer to do what they could to raise up the condition of the Irish agricultural labourer. There had hitherto, in regard to this condition, been a great many misunderstandings. He saw it stated, over and over again, in English newspapers that no clause such as this could have any effect, because there were in Ireland no agricultural labourers. That might have been true at the time of the Devon Commission; but since then the consolidation of holdings had been going on extensively in Ireland, and in some parts, at least, it had undoubtedly called into existence a bonâ fide class of agricultural labourers. He believed that hon. Members opposite would fully confirm the accuracy of what he said. What they had now to consider was what was to be done in the future. He regretted that Her Majesty's Government had not done something in the way of giving further powers to the local bodies; and he would remind the Committee that there was a precedent for this in English legislation in the inclosure schemes, which were from time to time brought before Parliament. What was the course pursued when an inclosure scheme came before Parliament? It set out that a certain quantity of land was required for allotments, and for recreation ground, and for labourers' dwellings, and from time to time Parliament gave power to the local bodies to hold land for the benefit of the poor in their own district. He should have been glad if something of that kind could have been done here, and he had been in hopes that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) intended to suggest something in that direction. He believed it would be an effectual method of attaining the end they had in view. He was bound to say that he agreed with the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member. He did not think they ought to do anything in the way of regulating the rent of the labourers' dwellings; if they did, and made the cottages cheap, the farmer would lower the amount of wages he paid. The Irish farmer was a shrewd, calculating man, and as he knew the circumstances of the locality very well, he would know that a labourer was occupying a certain cottage and piece of allotment land for 2s. a-week, for which he ought to pay double. The consequence would be that he would strike off 2s. a-week from the labourer's wages. He agreed with the criticism of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) as to the politico-economic aspect of this clause; but such arguments were addressed in vain to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, because the right hon. Gentleman had a wholesome terror of political economists. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have some difficulty in addressing the Committee without going almost out of his way to throw a stone at the political economists. The right hon. Gentleman said political economists asserted that if they gave the labourer a better cottage they would lower his wages. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to produce any political economist to back him up in that statement. The right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett) was a Professor of Political Economy; but would the right hon. Gentleman say so? He challenged the Chief Secretary to find any passage in any work of recognized authority on political economy which stated that the giving of a better dwelling to a labourer tended to lower his wages. No work on political economy allowed such a deduction to be drawn, but exactly the converse. Political economists always taught that the converse would be the case.

rose to Order. There were two clauses to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. But at present only one of them had been proposed, and was it competent for the noble Lord to discuss the one which had not been moved?

It is not competent for the noble Lord to discuss the 2nd clause in detail. It is the 1st clause which is now before the Committee.

said, he was simply replying to remarks which had already been made, and his remarks were relevant to the 1st clause and not to the 2nd. Political economy had always shown that in proportion as they raised the standard of the comfort of the labourer they tended ultimately to raise the standard of his remuneration. In the rest of the Bill there was a correlative. The tenant had a certain fixity and security for the labour of the labourer.

said, he rose again to Order. He wished to know whether there was anything whatever as to the fixing of rent in the clause now under discussion? The clause was the first of the Chief Secretary's new clauses, and it had nothing to do with that question at all.

I think the clause does bear upon that subject. It says that such terms may be prescribed as may appear to the Court to be just.

trusted the hon. Member would move the Amendment he was about to propose before he interrupted him. The clause distinctly gave power to the Court to prescribe such terms as to the rent or otherwise as the Court thought just, and these interruptions on the part of the hon. Member for Louth were most unusual and most discourteous. The point he was desirous of raising was this—What was to be the position of the labourer? Was he to enjoy, as against the farmer, the same right which the farmer enjoyed as against the landlord? He also wished to point out that the fixing of rent in the way proposed raised a new and important set of considerations, because, as he understood, the whole of this Bill, in regard to the fixing of rent, had arisen from this circumstance, that the tenant had had the rent of the holding fixed by the landlord in away in which the Court has not recog- nized, and you have called in the aid of the Court to decide between the two to prevent the landlord from eating up the tenant or the tenant from eating up the landlord. Nobody could argue that the labourer had the same joint proprietary right as the tenant; and, as had already been pointed out, the Government were in point of fact regulating wages, and they were basing their proposal upon arguments which were exactly the same arguments as those which were used by Socialists to justify the fixing of the price of bread, and the fallacy of which was shown 100 years ago by Adam Smith. Would it not be far better, in regard to this matter of rent, to trust to the improving civilization of Ireland rather than to embark in legislation which was, in regard to these particular words, simply the re-enactment of the Statute of Labourers of Queen Elizabeth, which was one of the most absurd and ridiculous failures that had ever adorned, or rather had not adorned, the Statute Book.

I am glad that the labourers, even at this late period, have been deemed worthy of the consideration of the Government and of the Committee. No one can conceal the fact that when the Bill was first brought in the whole question of the labourers was left out of it. But we are now brought face to face with the question, and I shall heartily support the Government in any endeavours on their part to raise the condition of the labourer in Ireland. But in this particular proposal as to rent, I think they are proceeding upon a wrong tack. I do not see how it can be imagined that the Court can fix the rent without fixing every other detail with regard to the hiring of the labourer by the farmer. The proposal is opposed not only to all the principles of political economy, but to all the principles of sound common sense, and I do not believe for a moment that it could possibly work. The noble Lord who has just sat down (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) has pointed out, clearly enough, the difference between the relations of the labourer and the farmer, as well as the difference between the relations of the farmer and the landlord. The labourer can have no joint proprietary interest as against the tenant farmer; but if he could be put upon a better footing, in respect of cottage accommodation, so much the better. It might be possible to put him upon the land as the holder of an office or of an appointment. The clause, as it stands, limits the matter to providing accommodation for the labourers necessary for the working of the estate; and when a labourer ceases to work on the estate he would, very properly under the clause, be disentitled to any of the benefits of the Act. It is one of the questions dealt with the other day to which the provisions of the Act were very properly and necessarily held not to apply. There is, however, one other question which I would venture to press on the Government. I should have thought it very much better that the matter should be left entirely in the hands of the landlord. All questions, then, as to the imposition of an exorbitant rent would disappear. I do not think it should be in-trusted to the local authority. There would be great difficulty in doing that. But whatever is to be done the tenant should not have permission to put up any building which has not the approval of the local authority in regard to the sanitary arrangements. I would press that upon Her Majesty's Government, because I am certain that unless the local authority has some control over the sanitary arrangements of the building we shall have very bad buildings put up. But on the question of rent, I hope the Government will be able to see their way to withdraw from the position they have taken up, and will leave that to the ordinary controlling conditions of supply and demand.

said, that as he understood the question, the Commissioners would have power to deal with it whenever a dispute arose between the labourer and the farmer; and he thought it would be extremely advantageous that the Court should have some power to interfere in the case of a dispute as to the rent of a cottage. It must be borne in mind that there was no uninclosed land in Ireland; and, therefore, it was impossible to stake out small plots for the accommodation of the labourers. The only other means of giving adequate accommodation to the labourer was to purchase part of the property, and that part would be a very small part only, unless some such arrangement as that proposed by the present clause was come to. The question of labour, and the condition of labour, in Ireland, was one that must be left very much to the future, and he believed that the Government had done as much in these clauses as they could be expected to do under the circumstances. It must also be taken into consideration that if they did too much for the labourer, they might run the risk of improving him entirely off the face of the farm. If they said to the farmer that "he must do this and do that" for the labourer, the farmer, in the end, would do without the labourer at all. He would soon find that it would not pay him to employ the labourer; and, therefore, the labourer would be driven off the land, and would certainly find himself housed in a most miserable condition. He had not the slightest sympathy with the intention, which some of the landlords seemed to have, of getting up a feud between the farmers and the labourers, as if there could be such a thing as antagonism between them. He believed that the labourers, in his own county, were wretchedly paid and wretchedly housed; but if Parliament went to the farmer and said, "You must do this," they would soon find that the labourers, upon many farms, would be in a much better position than the tenants themselves. Nothing could be more wretched than the condition of the tenants. Many of them were miserably housed; no doubt, there were many good landlords, and the people of Ireland were now asking for the interference of the Government, because the condition of the tenant, and the general condition of the estate, were not satisfactory, and because the landlords had not done their duty. It was now proposed to go to the other end of the scale, and impose a duty upon the tenants of providing good dwellings for their labourers, whereas they had never imposed a similar duty upon the landlords, of providing good cottages for their tenants. The whole question was one which it was very difficult to deal with, and he would suggest that the Land Commission should look into all these questions, and report upon them to the Government, with a view to future legislation.

remarked, that as he was the first Member of the House who had suggested that something might be done for the labourers in the present Bill, he was glad the Government had introduced these clauses, which, though very deficient in character, still indicated a desire on their part to do something to improve the condition of the labourers. He was not one of those who thought that because a labourer lived in a good house, he would, therefore, work for less wages, for the farmer. He thought, on the contrary, that the comforts of home would give higher ideas to the labourer as to the way in which he was entitled to live, and he would be more likely to look for better treatment and better wages from the farmer, if he was given a good house, than if he was placed in a wretched hovel without ordinary comforts. But he could not help seeing that as regarded the 2nd clause proposed by the Government, it was proposed to give power to the Commission to direct the tenant, when applying for a judicial rent, to build certain labourers' cottages on his farm. He was afraid that there might be some difficulty in the practical working and carrying out of such a clause. Of course, the 1st clause was a corollary to the provision they had already inserted in the Bill, giving the landlord the power of resumption for the purpose of building labourers' cottages, for, as far as that 1st clause went, he thought it was one that ought to be passed, and one that would be of a highly beneficial character. But the 1st clause was of a permissive character, and only touched the fringe of the labourers' question. The Government, in proposing the 2nd clause, were introducing a provision which, undoubtedly, deserved consideration as a tentative measure, and one which, he believed, would be attended in its working with advantage. He was sorry that they did not propose to give power to the local authority to build labourers' cottages in the manner suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell). The Government could take up the suggestion in three ways. First of all, they might give power to the landlord to do something for the labourer; secondly, they could give power to the tenant; and, in the third place, if they had given power to the local authority to do something, their measure would have been far more perfect than it was, because it must be borne in mind that the large proportion of the labourers were compelled to live in towns, and that the farmers would be deterred from doing anything, owing to the fear of casting addi- tional burdens upon the Union rates. If the Government had included power to the local authority, they would have covered as much of the work as they could be expected to undertake. But he was afraid that unless they gave some additional power to some independent authority, the labourers would not be satisfied with the result of the working of the provisions of the Bill in his favour. He should be glad to hear, oven now, that when the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk came on, the Government would be prepared to reconsider the matter. He admitted that the local authorities in Ireland—certainly in many parts of Ireland—were, to a great extent, deficient and not sufficiently representative, and that, in other respects, they exhibited many shortcomings. But he thought that some confidence might be extended to them, and that they might have some power given to them to take care of a labourer whose case would not be covered by the two clauses proposed by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He hoped, as regarded the suggestion which had been made, that the Government would adhere to the last part of the 1st clause, which provided for the fixing of rents by the Court. He hoped the Government would stick by that. He knew nothing more calculated to breed dispute between landlords and farmers than the practice which many farmers might adopt of imposing exorbitant rents upon their labourers. He did not think that in the working of this provision it would be found that any improved cottage accommodation, or any diminution of the rent of a cottage, would be made a reason for inducing the farmers to reduce the labourers' wages. As a rule, in most counties, the rate of wages was uniform, whether the labourer had a cottage or not. He was assured that a standing rate of wages was adopted in most districts, and the fact that the labourer had a cottage at a fair rent from the farmer would not be considered by public opinion, in such districts, to entitle the farmer to deduct anything from the labourers' wages on that account. He therefore hoped the Government would adhere to the provision in regard to the fixing of rents by the Court. Although it was not a perfectly scientific one, it was worthy of trial, and could not possibly injure the farmers.

I do not wish to shorten the discussion on the subject generally; but I hope that the Committee will consent now to take a division upon the second reading of the clause. I do not think that there is any difference of opinion upon that point, and the discussion could then, if necessary, be continued afterwards. As to the question which has been raised, of giving power to the local authorities to require cottages to be erected for the labourers, that is a matter which would really require another Bill. It is not a matter that could be dealt with in a measure affecting the relations between landlord and tenant. If such a measure were brought forward it would be necessary to give compulsory powers of purchase, and it has already been stated that such compulsory powers may not be introduced into this Bill. Therefore, we are precluded from dealing with this question in the present measure. The Chairman has stated, in regard to another matter, that the care which is taken by our Standing Orders of the rights of property would require, when compulsory powers are asked for to purchase land, that the application should first of all go before the Examiners of Standing Order proofs, and that obligation has not been complied with in regard to this Bill. We are all agreed that there must be a clause giving power to sub-let for the purpose of providing labourers' dwellings, and the only difference of opinion is, whether—

"Power should be given to the Court to prescribe such terms as to rent and otherwise, as the Court thinks just, to let any portion of the land with or without dwellings thereon."

The meaning of that is, not that the Court must fix the rent, but that the Court may fix the rent. I think my noble Friend (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) who has made charges against me, in regard to political economy, has somewhat misapprehended my remarks. I will not, however, enter into a controversy with my noble Friend now, I will only put the question in this way. Can we really decide that the Court shall have absolute power to fix the rent for every holding taken by a tenant, and that it shall not have power to interfere with any amount of rent that may be charged for the cottage of the labourer?

said, he approved of the Government clause as fairly indicating the only way in which the labourers' question was to be settled. He understood that the question was to be settled through the instrumentality of the farmers. What the labourers desired was to get back upon the land, and there was no probability of the landlord gratifying that desire to any appreciable extent. He admitted that in a few cases landlords had built cottages on the estate for labourers; but, as a rule, no landlord would take land in an agricultural district and plant labourers upon it, nor did he think the State, or any other body, would do it, for they would be unable to guarantee labourers anything approaching permanent employment. He agreed with the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) that there was no antagonism between the farmers and the labourers. The labourers were men who had been themselves evicted, or they were the sons or grandsons of men who had been evicted; and the farmers had, under threats of fatal consequences to themselves, been prevented from allowing labourers to get back on the land. So far as the clause indicated that it was through the instrumentality of the farmers that the labourers' question was to be settled, he quite approved of it; but most assuredly the clause was far from settling the question. The farmers had pledged themselves, and certainly would not repudiate their engagement, to assist the labourers to the same terms as to rent and tenure as they had obtained for themselves.

said, that so long as there were divisions between labourers and farmers the extreme landlord party encouraged the differences; but now, when a small attempt was being made to settle this question, the same extreme party protested that this was an attempt to settle the wages that should be paid to the labourers. But this was nothing of the kind. What was wanted was that labourers should have decent homes near their daily work, and not have to walk two, three, and four miles to and from their labour. It was not proposed that there should be any Parliamentary settling of the rate of wages, but that there should be homes for the labourers. The land could not be tilled without the labourers, and they had as much right to live on the land as either landlord or tenant. But the clause would be almost useless unless it were made imperative. Take the cases of such estates as those of Lord Ashdown, Mr. Gascoyne, or Mr. Coote, where the tenants had leases for one, two, or three years, every one of those leases contained a clause against giving any part of a holding to a labourer. What would be the use, then, of a clause of this kind, unless it were made imperative? It might be some good in the case of tenants with statutory terms; but, with tenants holding such leases as he had mentioned, to merely allow them to build cottages was worthless. All the labourers wanted was a house with, say, half an acre of ground attached, to every 25 acres of land. To the word "tillage" he objected, as likely to destroy the effect of the clause. The farm might contain a less area of tillage; but if the labourer were employed, there was equal necessity that he should be housed. He begged to move that the word "tillage" be struck out of the last line.

The hon. Member must give Notice of that Amendment later; at present the Motion is for the second reading of the clause.

said, it would be well to have some indication of the tenure upon which a labourer should occupy his cottage. The clause was simply one to permit the letting of plots of land for erecting cottages for bonâ fide labourers; but he wished to know, if the labourer, after getting his holding, should differ from his landlord—the tenant of the entire holding—as to the rate of wages upon which he should work, or upon any cause, how would the clause work? Would the labourer's tenancy of his cottage cease instantaneously with his cessation of work? He pointed this out merely as a difficulty which the clause did not seem to meet; he believed, however, in the object, and that the giving facilities to farmers and inducements to landlords to build a sufficiency of labourers' cottages would be a great boon.

said, as he had an Amendment on the Notice Paper which would give him an opportunity of entering fully into the subject later on, he was unwilling to trespass on the time of the Committee now; but, at the same time, having, heard the criticisms on the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, he was anxious to take the opportunity, on behalf of the labourers, of expressing their gratitude for the clause. The subject was very difficult, and, in the clause, had been dealt with very ably and skilfully. It fell, of course, far short of meeting the entire case; but, so far as it did go, it was excellent. He agreed with what had been said by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); and he knew, from his experience of the relations between farmers and labourers, that it was a fallacy to suppose that the improvements in the cottages of labourers would diminish the rate of wages. That would not be the case, he was satisfied. As the hon. Member for Cork had said, there was an understood rate of wages in different counties, and no farmer would offer less than the usually-accepted rate of wages—so that objection entirely fell to the ground. He should give a hearty support to the second reading of the clause.

said, he should like to know under what tenure the labourer's cottage was to be held? Were labourers to become statutable tenants, and to be under the Act? There was nothing in the clause to decide that. Would the farmer from whom the cottage was hired be able to eject the labourer, or would the latter come under the working of the Bill? because he maintained that if the labourer did come under the working of the Bill then the clause would be entirely useless, and no cottages would be built. It was quite evident they would not be built unless the farmer were able to eject his labourer when he might happen to disagree with him, or when he had no use for his labour. The labourer might fall into bad habits, get drunk, grow riotous, or careless; and would he still continue to occupy his cottage, though it was not worth the farmer's while to pay him his 10s. or 12s. a-week? Probably the labourer would come under the working of the Bill; it was not clear that he did not. Perhaps the Chief Secretary could explain that point.

said, he would not come under the Act, and the reason would be found in the Definition Clause, the 46th, sub-section 5, which excluded from the Act any holding held by the occupier by reason of his being a labourer or hired servant. Power would be given to the Court to prescribe such terms as to rent and tenure as seemed just.

said, the clauses in this Bill could not be considered a final settlement of the question. He agreed with the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Villiers Stuart) that the clauses did, to some extent, encourage the building of cottages and the providing better accommodation for labourers. But, considering the expectations encouraged and the promises made by previous Governments as well as by the Chief Secretary, it was now impossible the subject could be put off for an indefinite period. So far back as the first Commission on the Land Question it was pointed out that it was necessary to deal with this part of the subject; and he would respectfully suggest to the Committee that if they took up the subject at all, they should deal with it in a thorough and satisfactory manner. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the pressing necessity of finding some mode of satisfying the well-founded complaints of the labourers had been admitted by both sides of the House. In the proceedings of the Committee which sat in Dublin on Land Tenure the grievances of the labourers were not only pointed out, but the form of machinery for their remedy was indicated. He would not enter into the question at large, because the clause would have to be dealt with afterwards; but he would venture to suggest, again, that if the right hon. Gentleman would carefully consider the clause as put upon the Paper by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), and the recommendations that were made in connection with the Report of the Committee on Land Tenure, he would see that the subject, when approached, was not so difficult and incapable of satisfactory adjustment as at first sight might appear.

said, he hoped the Committee would have a distinct undertaking given in relation to this matter that the adoption of this clause would not in any way relieve the Government from the pledge given through the Chief Secretary for Ireland, on the 6th of May, to deal with the labourers' question in a comprehensive manner. Next year, when he introduced a measure on the subject, as he promised to do if the Government did not take it up, he did not wish to be met with the rejoinder that the promise given on the 6th of May was redeemed in the Irish Land Bill of 1881. Without such a declaration he must go to a division. He wished to pin the Government to a distinct understanding, for without such given across the floor of the House he had no faith in Government intentions. On the 6th of May the Chief Secretary said—

"I think it may be expedient to pledge the House to the proposition that measures should be taken to improve the condition of the dwellings of agricultural labourers in Ireland, if the hon. Member for Louth would consent to leave out of his Resolution the words in the present Session of Parliament.'"—[3 Hansard, cclx. 1983.]

Now, would the Chief Secretary say that he would not hereafter rely on this clause as the redemption of the pledge given to take up the subject? For if he did not, it would be a mere subterfuge to tell the advocates of the agricultural labourers another year that it had been dealt with by this clause. Let the Government next year bring forward a measure dealing with the subject in a large and comprehensive spirit. He did not suppose that they considered the clause anything of that kind, though it might tide over the difficulty. He hoped the Chief Secretary would relieve all apprehensions on the point. There was another matter he would commend to the Government if they wished to deal in a large and comprehensive manner with the subject, and really wished to facilitate the erection of cottages, and that was that they should strike out that portion of the clause that required the farmer to obtain the sanction of the Court. He would take it for granted that next year the Government would relieve the clause from all restrictions, so as to facilitate the setting aside of land for the purpose; but, meantime, it might be assumed that the Court would not be at work before January next year, and there was no stipulation as to what time the Court should take for consideration. It might take 12 months before giving the farmer sanction to erect labourers' dwellings. He wished to have this sanction omitted, so that without restriction the farmer, if he so pleased, and had the necessary number of acres, could proceed at once to build his labourers dwellings. As to the condition of 25 acres of "tillage" land, every friend of the labourer must oppose that, for it would be an absolute prohibition to the building of cottages in grass districts, where they were most required. But, as he had said, his point was now to get from the Government a pledge that they would not consider this clause the redemption of the promise of May 6th.

said, the hon. Member had declared he would divide against the clause unless he had a satisfactory answer; he, however, generally approved of the clause. He had referred to the debate of the 6th May, and in that debate he (Mr. W. E. Forster) stated that in all probability something would be included in the Land Bill which would improve the condition of labourers' dwellings; that the Government would do this if they could. It was very well known that in the Bill they could not legislate generally on the labourers' question; but the Government did believe that it ought to be dealt with so far as the Bill would allow, and with that object, and the hope of a good result, this clause had been brought forward. He did not consider that in the slightest affected the Resolution arrived at by the House on the 6th of May, that the condition of agricultural labourers required the attention of Parliament.

said, were the Committee to understand that the Government did not, under cover of this clause, retreat from the position they took up on the 6th of May, that the question of labourers' cottages required attention, not in the present Session, because time pressed, but in the next?

said, he hoped it might be done, but no promise was made. He assented to the Resolution that the condition of the labourers required attention and improvement, and from that the Government did not wish to recede.

said, he begged to move the omission of the words requiring that the tenant should obtain the sanction of the Court. This was a mere tentative measure, and would be in operation only for a year, because next year the Government, in fulfilment of the pledge given, and just now confirmed, would deal with the question of labourers' dwellings in a subsequent measure. If the words to which he objected were retained in the clause, the tenant farmer would have to make his application to the Court, and, following the general rule of Commissions, he would have to serve a notice of his intention on the landlord, and the result would probably be that the tenant farmers of Ireland would not be enabled to get permission from the Court for at least six months after the Court came into operation. For that period, at least, the building of a labourer's cottage would be put off. The Bill, however, would become operative the moment it passed; and he wished to relieve the tenant farmer from the restriction that would tie his hands and compel him to wait for the sanction of the Court, and to allow him to begin at once, and, if he pleased, erect cottages for his labourers in the proportion of one to every 25 acres. So clearly did this seem for the advantage of the class in whose interest the clause was inserted, that he could not understand how the Government should object to his Amendment.

said, he could not imagine any Court, especially a Court constituted as this would be, would refuse the sanction, except in extremely rare cases; but some power of limitation was required, some check was necessary, otherwise it would be found that under cover of dwellings for his labourers, the tenant might provide cottages for his labourers' families or others. It was necessary, also, to have such a power in the interest of the labourer, and to prevent, in extreme cases, the tenant charging an exorbitant rent.

said, an answer to the Chief Secretary's argument that the tenant might abuse the power given him and erect dwellings for other than bonâ fide labourers, would be found in the clause itself, which provided that the portion of any holding so let should not exceed half-an-acre in each case, and that the lettings should not exceed the proportion of one to every 25 acres of tillage land. If the Chief Secretary knew as much about agriculture as he did about the woollen trade, he would know that one labourer to every 25 acres was a rather low average, and that a very high tillage could be carried on with that proportion. The fact was, a restriction would be imposed such as had never been imposed before as to this building of cottages. It was proposed that under no circumstances should cottages be built on a farm without the sanction of the Court. The importation of American beef had, within the last few years, materially changed the nature of farming operations in Ireland. For instance, he had a farm before his mind, one of his own, consisting of 100 acres entirely grass. If he wished to build labourers' cottages, and convert the farm into tillage, he would have under the clause to go to the Court and get the sanction of the Court to build cottages; but, at the present time, he was under no such restriction. Could it be said that such an enactment was in the interest of agriculture? Hitherto a farmer could build a cottage when he wished; and the provision that the proportion of one to 25 acres was quite sufficient to check any abuse.

said, he must certainly go with his hon. Friend that the restriction "with the sanction of the Court" was not necessary, because it appeared to him that if there were any abuse of the clause, the landlord would have the power to bring the tenant before the Court to answer for it.

said, there was no necessity to hurry the clause through, for it would not advance the progress of the Bill to pass the words and raise the discussion at the next stage. If the words were struck out, a restriction would be removed that would prevent many tenants from erecting cottages.