said, that last night he had suggested that his mind was not clearly made up as to the necessity of this Amendment; but, on further reflection, it now was. He took it that the two new clauses which stood on the Paper were introduced by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in order to improve the condition of the labourers' dwellings in Ireland. The first of them was a clause to facilitate the erection of labourers' cottages. Now, the Bill of 1870, as it left the House of Commons, bore a striking resemblance in some of its essential features to the proposition which had been placed upon the Paper by the Chief Secretary; but there had been almost strange addition to the clause, which addition had the effect of placing further restrictions upon the tenant farmers in reference to the building of labourers' cottages. In the Bill of 1870, when it left the House of Commons, there was a provision which was afterwards struck out by the House of Lords, and for striking it out their Lordships had been very severely censured. They had been strongly censured more than once by the Chief Secretary for the course they took, and the right hon. Gentleman had constantly predicted that evil results would follow. Now, the reprint of the Bill, by order of the House on the 12th of May last, showed the portions of the Bill of 1870 that were struck out; and it would be found that in the clause which was omitted by the House of Lords there was no restriction whatever placed upon the tenant farmers in regard to the building of labourers' cottages save one, and that was that a sub-tenant of any holding of 25 acres or upwards should be relieved from the penalties of sub-letting or sub-dividing the holding, provided the portion to let was devoted to the use of the agricultural labourer, either for cultivation in the shape of gardens, or for the erection of cottage accommodation. It was provided by the clause that an allocation of part of the holding should not be deemed to be a sub-division or sub-letting of the land coming within the operation of the Act. He had thought when he saw the new clause upon the Paper that the Chief Secretary was introducing now words, or that it was brought in on the suggestion of those evil geniuses of the right hon. Gentleman, the permanent officials, who seemed to have warped and perverted the intellect of the right hon. Gentleman ever since he had been brought within the purlieus of Dublin Castle. If it were not accounted for in that way then it could only be accounted for on the supposition that the Chief Secretary wished to place additional obstacles in the way of the erection of labourers' cottages. When the Act of 1870 passed the House of Commons, and, indeed, as it now stood, the 18th clause directed that any landlord might, after six months' notice in writing to be served on the tenant, resume possession of so much of the holding as did not exceed the 25th part of the entire holding, for the purpose of erecting thereon one or more labourers' cottages, with or without gardens attached. Now, that clause had not been enforced by the landlords during the 11 years which had elapsed since the passing of the Act in no single instance. Then, how did the right hon. Gentleman propose to facilitate the erection of cottages on behalf of the tenant farmers? He proposed to place a restriction which would prevent any person from availing himself of this provision of the Bill and without the express sanction of the Court. That was to say that a tenant farmer, a man holding 50 acres of land, who wished to erect a couple of cottages on his holding, and to erect them at times that might be most convenient to them, would not be at liberty to do so unless he first obtained the sanction of the Court, and the Court would also have power to prescribe such terms in regard to rent and otherwise as to the Court seemed just. As the Bill left the House of Commons in 1870, the erection of a labourer's cottage, or such a sub-division of the holding, would not have come within the penal clauses of the Act. But what was the result now? The first thing the tenant farmer must do was to serve a notice upon the Court. As a rule, the tenant would be a poor ignorant farmer; be would know nothing about legal formalities, and would be altogether unable to conduct his own case. He would not know how to serve a notice, either upon his landlord or upon the Court; and he must, therefore, go to an attorney in order to secure the proper notice being served upon the Court, and also upon the landlord, for leave to erect a labourer's cottage, and this was what the Chief Secretary for Ireland called a clause for facilitating the erection of labourers' dwellings. Was there ever anything more preposterous than to say that under the operation of this Bill the tenant farmer must serve a notice upon the landlord and upon the Court, that he must then arrange for a hearing, wait for the convenience of the Chief Commissioner, or a Special Commissioner, who would make periodical visits to various parts of Ireland and would not probably complete his round more than once in three years, or else the tenant must go to Dublin and show that he required this cottage accommodation for the bonâ fide cultivation of the holding, after which the Commissioner, in his benevolence, could direct the applicant—

"Of his great bounty, To build a bridge at the expense of the county."

The Court might authorize the tenant farmer to erect the cottage; but all the formalities that it would be necessary to go through would place additional difficulties in the tenant's way. At the present moment no such difficulty was placed in his way, and this was one of those new-fangled schemes which the evil genius of the Chief Secretary for Ireland had induced him to propose. He (Mr. Callan) pressed upon the Committee the necessity of adopting the Amendment in the interest of the labourers themselves, whatever their prejudices might be in regard to making the labourer independent of the farmer. The only object of the Amendment was to remove an unprecedented restriction which the clause placed upon the tenant farmer, and to require that he should not be compelled to go to the Court before he undertook the erection of a cottage. There were very few inducements at present to the farmers to build cottages for their labourers, and it was undesirable to throw additional difficulties in the way. He therefore hoped the Government would yield to the suggestion he had made; if not, he should certainly feel strongly tempted to go to a division.

said, he was unable to be present yesterday, although he had desired to be in his place to express his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for having inserted in the clause the words to which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had objected. He regarded those words as a safeguard to the labourers, and if they were struck out it would be open for any tenant farmer, on availing himself of the provision, to charge any rent he chose, either for the cottage or for the piece of ground he wished to let. He (Lord John Manners) had taken that objection when the right hon. Gentleman origin- ally proposed his Amendment; and he rejoiced to see that the right hon. Gentleman had now inserted these words, which, he believed, would afford a fairly satisfactory safeguard to the labourers of Ireland. That being the case, and as it had been clearly established in evidence before both of the Royal Commissions that no class in Ireland required exceptional protection so much as the labourers, he was not oppressed by the consideration that this restriction was against the principles of political economy. The whole Bill was opposed to the principles of political economy; and if it was right to protect the tenant against his landlord, in opposition to the principles of political economy, it was 10 times more necessary, in opposition to the principles of political economy, to protect the labourer against the tenant. In respect of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), that these words would prevent the tenant from erecting cottages, he denied that there was any force in the objection. It must, however, be borne in mind that the clause applied not only to the erection of cottages, but to the letting of land for growing potatoes, and for any other agricultural purpose. Therefore, it was necessary that these words should be inserted in the clause for the benefit of the labourer, and he should do the best he could to support the Government in securing their insertion.

said, it was quite impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the County of Louth (Mr. Callan). The object of the Amendments proposed by the Chief Secretary for Ireland was to encourage the building of labourers' cottages. It was obviously to the interest of the landlord and the tenant that such cottages should be suitable for the cultivation of the holding; and as it was both for the interest of the landlord and of the tenant that the labourer should be there for the purpose of cultivating the holding, it was only common sense to suppose that both of them would do that which was best calculated to promote their own interests. Therefore, the natural inference was that they would join in seeing that proper buildings were erected in suitable places. The very words which the hon. Member sought to exclude formed the only protection the tenant had in enabling him to erect a cottage for a labourer. Suppose that a landlord, out of spite, wished to injure the tenant, and refused his consent to the erection of a cottage, the words which the hon. Gentleman wanted to omit would be a protection to the tenant. It must be borne in mind that sub-letting or sub-dividing a holding was prohibited in another part of the Bill; and unless the tenant had protection in the case of desiring to erect labourers' cottages, it would be impossible for him to do so against the consent of his landlord. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary to protect the tenant in the way provided by the clause. The hon. Member for Louth seemed to think that some limitation was placed on the tenant which did not exist before. That was a great mistake, and was entirely erroneous. The yearly tenant never had such an interest in the holding as would enable him to erect a building against the desire and consent of his landlord. [Mr. CALLAN dissented.] The hon. Member for Louth shook his head; but if he made an inquiry into the subject, he would find that the only way in which a yearly tenant could do it was to obtain the concurrence of his landlord. This clause, if the landlord refused to give his concurrence, would enable the tenant to appeal to the Court for its intervention; and, therefore, the words which the hon. Member sought to exclude were those which gave mutual protection both to the tenant and to the landlord, and encouraged the object of the Bill so far as the erection of labourers' cottages was concerned.

said, he was bound to say—and he said it with all due deference to the legal knowledge of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland—that he did not read the clause in the same way as the hon. and learned Gentleman did. He failed to see that the assent of the Court was necessary in order to give the tenant under the clause the right of building a labourer's cottage. As explained by the learned Solicitor General for Ireland, the tenant was bound by statutory provisions which prevented him from exercising his Common Law right, as a yearly tenant, of erecting a labourer's cottage; and the hon. and learned Gen- tleman said these words, "with the sanction of the Court," would give the tenant a statutory right to do so, and would replace the statutory provision which was originally contained in the Land Act of 1870. Now, it appeared to him (Mr. Parnell) that the words "with the sanction of the Court" were distinctly a limitation of the clause, which was an enabling one, and that they would operate injuriously upon the tenant farmer. They would manifestly be a drag upon him, because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knew—probably no one knew better—the tenant farmers regarded with considerable disinclination any formal proceedings in the way of an application to the Court to enable them to do anything at all. He had no doubt that many farmers, who might be desirous of erecting cottages for their labourers in obedience to this clause, would be deterred by the insertion of these words, simply because they would be unwilling to make the necessary legal application to the Court.

asked the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to explain what the Common Law right was that the tenant now possessed?

said, he imagined the tenant had a right, from the mere fact of being in possession of the tenancy, to erect dwellings for the labourers to live in, unless he were distinctly barred by statutable conditions.

said, he was sorry to disagree with the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan). If the Committee allowed the clause to pass in the way suggested by the hon. Member, it would read in this way—

"Any person prohibited under this Act from letting or sub-letting a holding may let any portion of land with or without dwelling-houses thereon to or for the use of labourers bonâ fide employed and required for the cultivation of the holding, and such letting shall not be deemed to be a sub-letting within the meaning of this, or to be a letting prohibited by this Act."

The clause would consequently read in a very contradictory manner. He believed that it was absolutely necessary to retain these words and to give the Court the power of interfering in the matter, not for the purpose of cutting down the labourers' wages, or for interfering with the rent of the holding; but they all knew that the tenant farmers of Ireland were not as just and as generous to their labourers as they ought to be. No doubt the circumstances of the tenant farmers themselves were bad, and prevented them from being generous; but, at the same time, it was quite certain that in this matter it was necessary to have some control over them on the part of the Court. He would, therefore, suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for Louth that he was really pressing an Amendment which was altogether unnecessary.

said, the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) had not expressed the opinion attributed to him by the learned Solicitor General for Ireland that the clause imposed restrictions which did not exist before. All his hon. Friend said was that it imposed restrictions which would not have existed if the Land Bill, as it left the House of Commons in 1870, had been passed. The chief difficulty which the Irish Members saw in the adoption of the words proposed by the Government was this—that an application to the Court could not be made without some expense, and there was great danger that the prospect of incurring the expense of a law suit would prevent anything being done in the way of erecting dwellings for labourers. The landlord would be a party interested, and he would therefore be entitled to go into the Court to show cause against any proposal on the part of the tenant farmer to erect a labourer's cottage; and, as a consequence, the tenant would pause before he proposed to put up such cottages from fear that he might have to face a law suit. He failed to see, further, that there was any power to advance the money necessary for the purpose of erecting cottages to the tenant farmers. [An hon. MEMBER: That power is contained in the next clause.] He (Mr. Leamy) gathered that the power was given to advance the money only where the tenant applied to have a judicial rent fixed. Under the clause they were now discussing there was no power to advance any money for this purpose. Therefore, the tenant was putting himself forward to build cottages for his labourers out of his own pocket; and, certainly, if he was willing to do that, he ought not to be compelled to go to the Court.

thanked the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) for the interest he took in the welfare of the labourers; but he thought that the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member would be altogether ineffectual for the protection of that class of persons. The clause as it ran, and as it was moved by the Chief Secretary, was that—

"Any person prohibited under this Act from letting or sub-letting a holding may, with the sanction of the Court, and with power for the Court to prescribe such terms as to rent and otherwise as the Court thinks just, let any portion of land with or without dwelling-houses thereon to or for the use of labourers bonâ fide employed and required for the cultivation of the holding, and such letting shall not be deemed to be a sub-letting within the meaning of this Act, or to be a letting prohibited by this Act."

His hon. Friend proposed to strike out all the words which placed the farmer under the necessity, when sub-letting to the labourer, of having a fair rent fixed for the holding. In the clause, when so amended by his hon. Friend, there would be nothing to prevent a farmer from erecting on a farm of 250 acres some 10 labourers' cottages, and then charging the occupants of such cottages any rent that he might think fit, letting them as accommodation land from year to year. He thought the adoption of his hon. Friend's Amendment would offer a direct premium to the tenant farmer to deal with the land after that fashion. If the object of Parliament was to protect the bonâ fide labourer, nothing was more incumbent upon them than to see that the farmer had not the power in his own hands of dealing exactly as he chose with his labourers, and of preventing them from having cottages or land except upon such terms as he thought fit to prescribe. What his hon. Friend proposed to do was to provide that no rent should be fixed by the Court as between the labourer and the farmer. [Mr. CALLAN said, that was certainly not his intention.] His hon. Friend struck out the words "with the sanction of the Court." If that was not his intention, and his hon. Friend could present his Amendment in such terms as would satisfy the Committee that it would operate bonâ fide for the protection of the labourer, he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) should be happy to support it; but it certainly struck him that as it stood at present it would practically leave the labourer altogether in the farmer's hands, and they were precisely the hands in which it was not desirable that he should be left.

said, he thought he had been misunderstood. His attention had been drawn to this 1st clause by the wording of the 2nd new clause, of which Notice had been given by the Chief Secretary, and which gave power to the Court, on application for a statutory lease, to impose conditions as to the erection of labourers' cottages. The clause ran thus—

"Where an application is made to the Court for the determination of a judicial rent in respect of any holding, the Court, if satisfied that there is a necessity for improving any existing cottages, or building any new cottages, or assigning to any such cottage an allotment not exceeding half an acre, for the accommodation of the labourers employed on such holding, may, if it thinks fit, in making the order determining such rent, add thereto the terms on which such accommodation for labourers is to be provided by the person making the application."

The conditions were imposed in a subsection, or a second paragraph of the clause, which ran as follows:—

"Where, upon any such application, the Court requires the tenant of the holding to improve any existing cottage, or to build any new cottage, such tenant may be deemed to be a person to whom a loan may be made under the Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Acts for the improvement or building of dwellings for labourers, and if such person were an owner within the meaning of the said Acts; but any such loan may be made for a less sum than the sum of one hundred pounds."

But in the clause they were now discussing there was no such advantage given to the tenant; and, nevertheless, he was required to obtain the sanction of the Court to the building of a cottage. His objection was, that there was no such sanction required in the provision made for the same purpose in the Act of 1870. It was quite true that the clause itself was struck out by the House of Lords; but it never was proposed that the tenant should be obliged to go to the County Court, which occupied the position of the Court now proposed, in order to obtain its sanction to the erection of a cottage. He should be willing to withdraw his objection to the clause if the Government would come to a compromise; but otherwise he should be forced to go to a division. What he would suggest was this—that if a tenant obtained the sanction of the Court to build a cottage, he should then come under the operation of the second paragraph of the 2nd clause. [An hon. MEMBER: That relates to reclaimed land.] He hoped no Irish farmer would be so foolish as to build a house where the land had not been reclaimed. As the clause was at present drafted, the tenant would not come under the operation of the second paragraph of the 2nd clause, which would enable him to obtain an advance in the shape of a loan, under the Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Act for the improvement of dwellings for labourers, as if such person were an owner within the meaning of such Acts. Under those Acts the tenant farmer would be able to obtain a loan for any less sum than £100. If the Solicitor General for Ireland would so re-draft the clause as to bring it under the second paragraph of the next clause, his objection, although to a considerable extent remaining, would be very much modified, because there would be a quid pro quo; and he would, in that case, withdraw the Amendment. But unless that was done he should certainly proceed to a division.

I understand the question before us is whether we should retain the words, "with the sanction of the Court." The noble Lord who addressed the Committee jubt now (Lord John Manners) thought the question went a little further than that, and that it included power to the Court to prescribe the rent of labourers' cottages and other matters. Now, the position we are in is this—we have already, in another clause, positively prohibited subletting without the consent of the landlord. We have given power to the landlord, under the 17th clause, to re-sell land for the purpose of building cottages for labourers; and the question is, in what way we should give power to a tenant to sub-let for a similar purpose. We think that the tenant ought to have this power, and it would be rather a strong measure to say that he should have the power to do it contrary to the assent of the landlord, and with the dissent of the landlord, without the sanction of the Court. That is what it will come to. He has already the power of doing it with the consent of the landlord; therefore, the question can only arise where the tenant wishes to erect a cottage, and the landlord refuses to give his consent. In that case we think that inasmuch as the Court comes in, in the case of a dispute between the landlord and tenant, where the landlord desires to resume, it is not unreasonable that the Court should also come in between the landlord and the tenant if the tenant is willing to build a cottage himself and the landlord objects. So much for the position of the landlord. But we also think that it would be for the advantage of the tenant to have power to apply to the Court, and for this reason—that I have a very strong opinion that the Court should have the power of prescribing the rent, and unless we bring in these words—"with the sanction of the Court," there would be very little advantage in leaving in the rest of the clause. The cottage or piece of land might be apportioned and let; but it might be let at an exorbitant rent, and the Court know nothing about it. Therefore, although other provisions are contained in the 2nd clause, this 1st clause is really required in order to make the 2nd effective. The hon. Member for Louth says that we have put into the clause words which were not in the Act of 1870. [Mr. CALLAN: I said in the Bill of 1870.] Certainly these words, "with the sanction of the Court," were not in the Bill of 1870. The hon. Member is quite right in that respect; but the Bill of 1870 contained no power to fix rents, and it is because we give that power here that we think it reasonable to give the Court, in extreme cases, the power of settling what the rent shall be for these small cottages. These are the reasons why the Government think it desirable to adhere to these words.

asked whether the case put by the hon. Member for Louth was not met by Clause 25, which gave power to the Treasury to advance loans to occupiers on the security of their tenant right for different purposes, and, among other things, for works of agricultural improvement? It was understood during the discussion which took place upon that clause, and it was certainly stated by a Member of the Government, that labourers' cottages were included in the term "agricultural improvements."

wished to point out that, however prominent or influential any declaration from the Treasury Bench might be considered in the House of Commons, it would not be worth anything when it came to be put forward in any Court of Justice, either in Ireland or in England. In fact, any counsel who would presume to tell the Judge what expressions of opinion had fallen from the Treasury Bench during the passage of the Bill through Parliament, with the hope by such a statement of influencing the judgment of the Court, would not only be laughed out of Court, but he would certainly fall very low indeed in the estimation of attorneys, and would injure his professional prospects very considerably. What was this clause? The very title was—"Reclamation of land and emigration." He would ask the hon. and gallant Member whether the erection of labourers' cottages came within the term "emigration?" Suppose the clause were to pass and a farmer went before the Court and asked for the declaration of a judicial rent. The Court might impose conditions upon him as to rent and as to the terms on which accommodation for labourers was to be provided; but according to this the Treasury would not have power to advance the money even with the consent of the Court. Were the Court to make no order unless the application came before them, not for the purpose of building a house, but for the determination of a judicial rent? If the farmer went before the Court for a judicial rent, the Court might impose terms upon him on which he was to build and let cottages; but he was to get the money under the Landed Property and Improvement (Ireland) Act. But if the tenant, being on amicable terms with his landlord, did not ask for a judicial rent, but only asked for sanction to build a cottage, then the Court would not have power to make an order for the advance of the money from the Treasury. Such a condition of things was, then, a direct encouragement to the tenant to apply for a judicial rent. ["Hear, hear!"] He heard some hon. Gentleman cry "Hear, hear!" He only hoped that that hon. Gentleman would be so open to reason and to public opinion that his tenants would not be compelled to apply for a judicial rent. But he would like to have some assurance from the Government that the paragraph in the 2nd clause would provide for giving the sanction of the Court to build labourers' cottages. Such an assurance would, he was sure, be received with great satisfaction.

said, he did not know that he had quite followed the hon. Member; but he remembered the debate on the 25th clause, and he thought it was understood then, or stated, that the paragraph that was introduced to authorize the Board of Works to make advances to occupiers for reclamation, or any other work of agricultural improvement, would include the building of labourers' cottages among works of agricultural improvement. But, as the hon. Gentleman had pointed out, whatever might have been stated from or understood upon the Treasury Bench in the House of Commons would make no difference in a Court of Justice; and it was not unreasonable to ask that the Government should make this matter quite clear. On their behalf, he would undertake that they should do so upon the Report of Amendments.

said, that one difficulty in dealing with the clause arose from the dread that the Committee might be unduly adding to the number of small holdings, and in that way be increasing the trials and troubles of Ireland. His reason for suggesting that was, that the extent of the holding on which a cottage might be erected was set down at 25 acres. Now that they were discussing the principle of the clause——

Order, order! The clause has already passed its second reading, and we are now upon the Amendments.

said, he was quite willing to accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the second paragraph of Clause 25 should be so altered as to make it clear that the building of labourers' cottages should be included among agricultural improvements. Under those circumstances, he was perfectly ready to withdraw the Amendment.

said, the matter should be made perfectly clear upon Report.

said, he thought there was some point in the objection that a farmer would be deterred from building a cottage if he had first to incur the trouble and expense of a law suit. But the object in view might easily be attained by altering the words "with the sanction of the Court," into "on appeal to the Court." He pre- sumed the main thing was to prevent these cottages being built to the detriment of the landlord; but the next words would prevent the cottages from being forced on a reluctant landlord where he had good reason to oppose them.

said, that what, to his mind, was of great importance was that the Court should know of what was being done, because, if they did not, they would not be able to exercise any powers of arbitration.

said, he did not think they were quite clear as yet as to what was really the principal point. What he desired to have declared was, not only that where a tenant desired to make an application to the Court for the definition of a judicial rent, but that where a tenant desired to ask the sanction of the Court for the erection of labourers' cottages, in both cases such tenant should be deemed to be a person to whom a loan might be given under the Landed Property and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act. If that was to be made clear upon Report, it would answer his purpose.

It shall be.

Then I withdraw my Amendment.

, in moving an Amendment to strike out from the clause the words—

"And with power to the Court to prescribe such terms as to rent and otherwise as the Court thinks just,"

said, he was bound to say that if there had been one thing more than another that he had heard with trembling during the progress of this Bill, it was when the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) some days ago thought it expedient and prudent that this provision should be inserted. The noble Lord had now publicly thanked the right hon. Gentleman for inserting these words, and had said—"You object to it because it interferes with the principles of political economy. But the whole Bill is an interference with the principles of political economy." Still, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) did not see why, because they offended against the principles of political economy in one respect, they should also offend against those principles in another. No doubt, by inter- fering between landlord and tenant, they could attain their object, and procure the fixing of rent; but by compelling the building of labourers' cottages they did not attain their object, because another consideration came in, in the shape of wages, which they could not touch. Nothing could be more mischievous or monstrous than to violate the principles of political economy on grounds such as these. Then there was another point. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by the words—"The Court is to prescribe such terms as to rent and otherwise?" What did "and otherwise" mean? A labourer might work in one part of the country one year, and in another part another year. But by fixing the rent of the cottage, were they not giving that man a certain interest in the cottage or allotment? And, if so, were they not giving him a permanent interest of some kind or other? If that was done in the case of the tenant, it must be the same in the case of the labourer. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland this question—If a farmer went to the Court and obtained permission to build a cottage, and said—"I will put in such-and-such a man who will pay such-and-such a rent," could the man so put in be afterwards evicted? The man might be a very respectable man, and when he had had a cottage built for him by the assent of the Court, and the rent fixed for him by the Court, it would obviously be very hard to leave him to the caprice of the farmer, and liable to be turned out. When they fixed the rent, could they help giving him an interest in the cottage? He (Lord Randolph Churchill) had the strongest possible opinion that this provision would prove a most unfortunate one. He was certain that the clause would be absolutely reduced to a dead letter, and that no farmer would go to the Court to ask permission to make the improvements, when he knew the condition in which they would place him. Nor was it all necessary that the Court should step in. They all knew what the agricultural labourers' movement was in England—it had shown that the labourer did not require protective legislation, for by union and strike there had been a sensible rise in the wages of the English agricultural labourer, who, by combination and agitation, had helped himself, without any interference from the Legislature. He thought the same thing would take place in Ireland, because there was a notice in The Times of this morning, which seemed to have come as a direct interposition of Providence in this matter. He found from that notice that at Cork, on the 20th, there was a congress of farmers and labourers of the district on strike. It was presided over by the parish priest, and 200 labourers attended. Some 20 farmers were present, the labourers presented a list of their demands, and the farmers seemed anxious to meet their views. They arrived at a basis of agreement, under which the labourers were to receive an advance of 1s. a-week, grass for two sheep, and, it being shown that while some farmers charged £12 an acre for the ground which the labourers held, and that £10 was the average price per acre, it was arranged that in no case should the farmer charge his labourer more than £8 an acre, and for inferior soil £7. All the employers present signed those conditions, and the men agreed to work for those farmers who subscribed the agreement. In that way the strike, so far as it affected that part of the country, was brought to an end. Was it not most gratifying, under such disturbed conditions, to find these two classes meeting together, and settling their differences in a business-like way, without any outside interference? They had seen what the farmers had got by agitation; they were now perfectly well able to protect themselves. If Parliament should now decide to step in and regulate what should be the rate of wages, they would do great harm to the interests of the public. He thought the rest of the clause was unobjectionable in every way. It might be a very good thing to allow the labourer to get, through the assent of the Court, a good cottage built for him; but he entreated the Government not to spoil the clause by bringing this immense engine of State interference into matters which would do perfectly well without it.

said, the provision under which the Court would prescribe terms as to rent, &c. would only come into operation in extreme cases. The noble Lord seemed to suppose that the Court would fix a rent, and retain a particular labourer in a particular cottage; but if he read the clause he would find that that was not its meaning. The words of the clause ran thus—

"Any person prohibited under this Act from letting or sub-letting a holding, may, with the sanction of the Court, and with power to the Court to prescribe such terms as to rent and otherwise as the Court thinks just, let any portion of land, with or without dwelling houses thereon, to or for the use of labourers bonâ fide employed and required for the cultivation of the holding, &c."

If the tenant said—"I wish to do as is done in England, and to provide my labourers with decent cottages, having these cottages for whoever may labour upon the farm," that would not, in the least degree, alter the tenure upon which the labourer would be in the cottage; it only provided that the farmer should not be frustrated in his intention. As to the provision with regard to rent, the tenant would have the power of the law to assist him in fixing his rent, and in making a bargain with his landlord, and the Government thought that the Court ought to have the same power, in extreme cases, of fixing the rent to be paid by the labourer, so that the man who had his own rent fixed as against the landlord should not be able to charge just what he pleased in the case of the labourer. He did not see how the clause was to work at all without some such provision. He did not wish to make this a labourers' case, as against the farmers; in point of fact, he did not wish to treat either party better or worse than the other; but, no doubt, there were instances in which very high rents had been charged. The noble Lord said—"You need not mind about this, because 200 labourers in Ireland have already settled the matter with the farmers who employ them." Well, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) was very glad to hear that; and if such a state of things were general throughout Ireland this power never need be asked for. But the labourers of Ireland in general were not a powerful class. They were, perhaps, in some counties, and they were making their power felt in Cork; but in many parts of Ireland, and especially in those districts where most of the work was done by the farmer himself, and by his family, they were not a strong class—in fact, they were about as helpless a class as could be found anywhere. And, inasmuch as the Government were taking power to assist the tenant under this Bill, they could not well pass this clause without also taking power to prevent any injustice on the tenant's part.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his point. What he asked was, could the labourer be evicted? Because, if not, he would have a permanent interest in the cottage given to him; while, if he could be evicted, it was of no use whatever fixing the rent, as the farmer could easily say—"If you don't pay an increased rent, I will evict you."

said, the operation of the clause would be simply this—that the tenant would build a cottage, and the Court would fix a rent for it, or rather would say that the rent to be charged should not go beyond a certain sum. It did not follow that the labourer who first occupied the cottage would always have to stop in it. It would still be in the power of the farmer to say to him—"I do not want you to labour for me, and I do want somebody else."

said, the difficulty they were now in was exactly what might have been expected when a Bill of this character was brought in. The Bill interfered with one class in favour of another which, they were told, could not make their own bargains. In the course of discussion, the claims of another class who were said to be unable to make their own bargains had been raised, and in the Bill which the Government brought in originally to deal with tenant farmers an attempt now was to be made to deal more or less directly with the whole condition of the Irish labourers. This new interference was justified on precisely the same grounds as had been used in the case of the tenants, because the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had just said that the agricultural labourers were a weak class, and he presumed the right hon. Gentleman meant by that that they were a class incapable of making bargains efficiently for themselves. It appeared to him (Mr. A. J. Balfour) that they were now going in for the extension of a most dangerous principle. When they were discussing the 7th clause, he had pointed out that if this House thought itself competent to establish a tribunal for the fixing of fair rents, it was impossible to deny that they had a power which they might use of fixing what should be a fair day's wages. The Bill had not gone through Committee before the House had taken a step in that direction. If this proposal did anything at all for the labourer, it must be by raising his wages. Either it would benefit the agricultural labourer or it would not. If it did, it must be by raising his wages. The right hon. Gentleman had said it was most desirable that the labourers should have good cottages; no doubt it was. He had also said it was most undesirable that they should have to pay exorbitant rents for those cottages. No doubt, it was most undesirable. But if legislation was to keep the rents down, how far did the Government mean to carry that principle? At this very moment, within 200 yards of this House, there were whole classes of people infamously lodged and outrageously rented. What would the Government say when the classes much nearer home than the Irish agricultural labourer came to ask for an alleviation of their lot? This Bill, which was originally a purely agricultural Bill—purely a Bill for dealing with the relations between landlord and tenant—had now, by the inevitable logic of events, become a first step towards dealing with the social economy of the country. He could not understand the Government entering upon a course of this kind with a light heart. He perfectly understood the position of his noble Friend who had spoken from the Front Opposition Bench, because it was perfectly true that if it was justifiable to interfere with the tenant farmer, it was justifiable also to interfere with the labourer; and the landlords were not a bit more able to take care of themselves than were the tenants; but when they had admitted a vicious principle in regard to one class, they should be very careful before they extended it to another, especially when such extension was fraught with even greater dangers than the original proposition as laid before the House by the Government. The hon. Member for Louth yesterday asked the Government whether this clause was to be taken as redeeming the pledge given by them in regard to the agricultural labourer, for whom they had promised to do something. They replied that it was not to be taken as redeeming that pledge, so that there was still something else to come to ameliorate the labourer's lot. By a Resolution which was laid before the House some weeks ago, a hope of a most dangerous kind was held out by the Government before the agricultural labourers of Ireland, and now the Government embodied in their Bill a definite proposal for the amelioration of the condition of that class. At the same time, they said that these proposals did not absolve them from their pledge to bring forward other proposals; and, no doubt, the agricultural labourers of Ireland would expect them to introduce a Bill specially in their favour next year. ["Hear, hear!"] That proposition was assented to and cheered by hon. Gentlemen behind him who knew what the Irish labourers were likely to expect; and it was, therefore, impossible to doubt that they, with all the power of organization they possessed, and the votes at their command in that House, would urge upon the Government the claim of that class which was not satisfied by the most dangerous proposal the right hon. Gentleman now laid on the Table.

said, the hon. Member had raised a tremendous issue upon an altogether false basis. The hon. Member forgot that these clauses which all hung together allowed the tenant farmers to build cottages and to borrow public money for the purpose, the State fixing the terms on which the money was to be advanced. In the case of the labourers' cottages already built money had been borrowed by the Board of Works and the terms were fixed. What could be more fair, when the State was going to lend money for accommodating labourers with dwellings, that the State should take care that the labourers were charged only a proper rent? This sort of thing was done every day.

There is one question I should like to ask as to the effect of these words as they now stand. I am not quite sure that I altogether comprehend the observations of the hon. Member for the County of Galway as to whether it is to apply not only to the case where money is advanced by the State, but to every case. The question I wish to ask is this. The clause will give power to the Court to prescribe such terms as they may think just. Well, does that mean that the power shall be a power to be exercised once for all, or a power to be exercised from time to time? If it is a power to be exercised once for all, it really appears to be hardly necessary, because you have the words, "with the sanction of the Court," and the Court will probably look into the circumstances to see if the cottages would be such as would be properly dealt with, and would give their sanction accordingly. But if it is a function which is to be exercised from time to time you will certainly give a very extraordinary power. I think this is so important that we should have a clear explanation upon it.

said, he must press the right hon. Gentleman upon this point, and must protest against his deliberate refusal to answer the question put to him. If the Court was to fix the rent they must give permanence of tenure. If they did not give permanence of tenure it was not the slightest use fixing the rent, for in a month or six weeks after the cottage was occupied the farmer might say to the labourer—"I went to the Court in order to get it to allow me to build a cottage, and I have got the permission I want. Now, if you do not give me 2s. a-week more I will turn you out." If the rent was paid weekly, the farmer might turn out the labourer at any moment, the tenure being one of the most precarious he (Lord Randolph Churchill) knew of. They must give the labourer the right to the cottage as long as he laboured on the farm. The tenant had his farm as long as he cultivated the land; and, in the same way, if they gave the labourer a cottage they must give it to him as long as he laboured for the farmer. Do let the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) for once in a way get up and answer a plain, open question in a plain, open manner. Did he mean to give the labourer a permanent interest in his cottage?

I do not wish to heighten the tone of the discussion, therefore I will not remark upon the manner in which the noble Lord has put his question. He asks me to answer a plain and open question in a plain and open manner; and, in reply, I have to say I have already done so. ["No, no!"] Yes, certainly; I said we did not give any permanent tenure. It appears to me that there is a great deal of for get fulnes as to the position of the farmer and the labourer upon the matter of farm accommodation. At present a great many of the labourers' dwellings are very wretched cabins, and what we aim at is at giving better cottages. I do not at all believe that if you once get decent cottages at a tolerable rent the farmer will attempt to make that dwelling accommodation a question of wages. Of course, you cannot give the labourers fixity of tenure in their cottages, because that would defeat the very object of having cottages for the labourers employed on the farm. A labourer, after working upon a farm one week, might go somewhere else the next and engage himself in a different kind of work, so that your object would be altogether frustrated. We trust by rousing public opinion upon this matter to direct the current and effort towards the erection of better cottages for the labourers on the farms. We say, let the farmer have the power of subletting for that purpose, and let the Court, in these cases, say that a cottage put up for a labourer, and the land connected therewith, shall not be let at an exorbitant rent. No doubt, cases may occur in which the labourers may be turned out; but I do not think it will be with the decided and clear object of defrauding them and increasing their misery. But, for the purposes of convenience and custom, I believe anyone who has paid attention to the relation between farmer and labourer in Ireland will be of opinion that if we once get a fair and reasonable rent fixed for the cottages no advantage will be taken of it.

said, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have started a new theory, that there was a sort of clanship between the farmer and the labourer that altogether negatived the idea of there being any reduction made in the wages. No doubt the labourers should be well housed, but it was objected that it would be fatal to fix the rent if they did not go further, and, at the same time, fix the rate of wages. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had not touched the question raised by the noble Lord, which was that supposing to-morrow the cottages were built and the day after the rent was fixed by the Court, within a month of such fixing the farmer could say to the labourer—"If you do not give me 2s. a-week more I will turn you out of the place." They could not got out of that except in the way that had been suggested. He (Lord Elcho) was anxious that this Bill should go through Parliament as inconsistent, and as absurd, and as contrary to all sound principles as possible. That was the only way to show hon. Gentlemen the lines upon which their work really went. Therefore, as a matter of fact, he should be glad to see the Bill passed, containing this absurd provision for fixing the rent of labourers' cottages, when, in reality, it was impossible to fix it. He would propose that the Government should go further, and should, later on, bring up a clause with the object of fixing the rate of wages all over Ireland.

said, he hoped that the Committee would not accept the Amendment of the noble Lord. It would be an inconsistency on the part of those who supported the second reading of the Bill to do so, because the main purpose of the Bill was the suppression of rack rents. This was undertaken on two grounds—that of justice and expediency; justice, because it was manifestly unjust to let the tenant continue liable to have the capital he had put into the ground confiscated or appropriated without ample compensation; expediency, because there could be no peace in Ireland until the agricultural classes had been rendered contented by the redress of their grievances. He claimed the same protection against rack rents for the labourers, and on the same ground—on that of justice, because they, too, had put their capital into the ground; they, too, could complain that the fruits of that capital had been hitherto appropriated without adequate compensation; they had done all the hardest and heaviest of the work; they had drained the bogs; they had sub-soiled the moors, built the fences, and made the roads. It had been laid down as an axiom that the cultivator was entitled, in return for his labour, to live in decent comfort upon the land he tilled. Had the labourers received this recompense? He thought the unanimous verdict of everyone acquainted with the subject was that they had not; they had been kept at starvation point; they had been shamefully lodged, fed on the lowest description of food, and received a rate of wages lower in proportion than any other labouring population in Europe. He said, therefore, that the capital they had sunk in the soil—that was their labour—had been really and truly confiscated without adequate return to them; and, therefore, that on the grounds of justice their case came within the scope of the Bill, and quite as much and as urgently required attention as the class above them. The Bill was based not only on justice, but on expediency; on the latter ground, also, there was just as strong reason to deal with their case as with that of the tenant farmers. From the point of view of expediency, because the purpose of the Bill was to pacify Ireland. It was obvious that no pacification was possible without bringing about the contentment of the agricultural class. The existing provisions of the Bill only affected one half of that class, and would leave the other half worse off than before, unless some provision was now introduced on their behalf. It was evident therefore that pacification could not follow unless their case was efficiently dealt with. On the contrary, their discontent would be increased if they saw benefits and concessions heaped upon the class above them, while they themselves were left out in the cold. Indications of this were already showing themselves. Labour Leagues were springing up in all parts of Ireland, and there was real risk of a dangerous and trouble-some agitation, unless their case was sufficiently dealt with. Grievances long borne with patience would at last burst forth like a pent up flood, sweeping away all before it. He did not admit that there was any real antagonism between the interest of the farmers and that of the labourers; it was the interest of both that the grievances of both should be redressed. If the farmers were called upon to make any sacrifice, they would be amply compensated by diminished poor rates. No one who had not been a member of an Irish Board of Guardians could have any idea of how large a proportion of the burden thrown upon the ratepayers was caused by the wretched condition in which the labourers live; typhus fever and scrofula resulted from it. He himself knew a case where, in a cabin consisting of one room, a scarlatina patient occupied the only bed in it, and the milk of their cow was placed in pans under that bed, they having, apparently, no other place to put it; the cabin was doing duty both as fever hospital and dairy! A more effective way of spreading pestilence could scarcely be devised. Whole families were thrown upon the rates for months together from similar causes. Whatever was spent on improved dwellings would be amply repaid by diminished poor rates, and by the improved health and efficiency of the working classes. A good deal of evidence had been taken before the Bessborough Commission on the subject. He would not occupy the time of the Committee by entering into details; but one passage in it was so original that he thought they would forgive his quoting it. A clergyman stated as follows:—

"In reply to the question, how are the labourers in your district, he said to describe their habitation would be simply impossible. You will have an idea of it when I tell you the case of one poor man who settled on a bog in my district. His wife was confined to bed. A horse suffering from some disease—staggers, I believe—fell against the house, tumbling it down upon the old woman inside."

The bog on which this cabin was built was described as follows:—"If you hopped upon it, my Lord, you would shake half an acre about you." There was abundant evidence in the Bessborough Commission to prove the urgent necessity for the intervention of the Court. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would cordially support the well-meant proposals of the Government, and not risk the defeat of the main purpose of the Bill, which was the pacification of Ireland.

said, the next Amendment was in his name, and it was one small in its scope, but which, to the landlords, was of great importance. The right hon. Gentleman's clause provided that a tenant might let any portion of land for the use of labourers, provided that it did not exceed half-an- acre in each case, and that the total number of such lettings of portions of a holding did not exceed one for every 25 acres of tillage land contained in the holding. Well, the piece of land in question might mean anything. It might mean the best piece in the, whole holding—a piece in the middle of a field, or a piece in an extreme corner of a field, that it might be deemed desirable, in the interest of the holding, to devote to some other purpose. He thought, in such a case, that it was only fair that the landlord should have such a veto as that which he (Mr. Brodrick) proposed in his Amendment. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) would not suppose, because he had said a very few words in moving his Amendment, that he attached no importance to it. As a matter of fact, he attached a very great importance to it; and he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there were many hon. Members who opposed his clause, not because they objected to it on principle, but because it seemed to them to have a tendency to cut the landlord out from all share in the making of these arrangements for the building of labourers' cottages. The acceptance of this Amendment might remove that opposition; and as he did not think it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to shut out the landlords in the way he had described he would offer this Amendment.

said, he hoped the Government would be able to assent to this Amendment. It was one that could do no possible harm to the tenant, but which might conciliate the landlord, and tend to make the clause more effective and less objectionable. If a landlord made any difficulty as to the granting of a suitable site, the Court would interfere, and decide the matter for the parties. This Amendment would merely give the landlord a locus standi, and enable him to have his interest considered, as well as that of the tenant and the labourer.

Really, we cannot assent to this Amendment. The landlord has the power to resume the land, and the tenant is not able to say to him—"Do not take out the piece of my holding that I like the best." The Court decides the question, and, no doubt, in this case, if to take the piece of land proposed would be injurious to the landlord, the Court would refuse its sanction to the plan. I do not think we can put in words enabling the landlord to fix the place where the buildings are to be.

was sorry to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said. If an owner was to have any enjoyment at all of his estate, he ought, at any rate, to be able to say where the labourers' cottages should be built. Unless he had this power, cottages might be put into extraordinary positions so as to be absolutely detrimental to the property. Surely, there was nothing in the Amendment that would be detrimental to the tenant, because he would be able to ask the landlord to point out a fit and eligible site for a cottage, and the landlord would be bound to provide that sight, and if he refused, the Court itself would decide the matter. At present, the Government seemed to desire to deprive the landlord of the enjoyment of his property, and to place that enjoyment in a tenant, without giving the former any compensation.

remarked, that the hon. and gallant Baronet had said that the landlord would be deprived of enjoyment in his property, and had declared that the landlord, when appealed to, would select the proper site. Well, the landlord, at present, would be able to do that, for if he wished any particular site to be selected he had only to go to the Court, which was to give its sanction. If the site was a proper one, it would be allowed; but, the Court being the controlling and arbitrating power between the two, if it was an improper site it would refuse permission. The tenant would not be likely to put a cottage where it would prove injurious to a holding.

said, he thought the Amendment was a very reasonable one; and he could assure the Committee that if he believed for a moment it would be injurious to the tenant he should be one of the very first to oppose it.

said, the words of the clause were these—

"Any person prohibited under this Act from letting or sub-letting a holding may, with the sanction of the Court, and with power for the Court to prescribe such terms as to rent and otherwise as the Court thinks just, let any portion of land, &c."

What he wished to ask was this—Would the Court be able, when a tenant applied to it, to permit him to sub-let a portion of his holding, without giving notice to the landlord, or his agent, as to which part of the holding he wished to make the site of the cottage? It was obvious, as his hon. Friend had said, that a tenant might desire to place a cottage on a spot where it would be very detrimental to the estate, and destroy what, in Scotland, were called the "amenities" of the estate.

If the landlord and tenant agree, this clause will not come into effect, because there would then be no prohibition against sub-letting. But if they do not agree, the Court will come in, and it will not for a moment entertain the proposal of the tenant without considering why the landlord objected, and deciding upon the merits of that objection.

said, that hon. Members seemed to talk a great deal about the landlord's property, and appeared to be under the impression that these cottages would be built by the landlord. It would be nothing of the kind. It would be the tenant who would build them. It had been the constant practice for the Irish landlords to prevent sub-letting or building cottages on their land. He know as a matter of fact, from his own experience, that the landlords had prevented the erection of these cottages, and he was positively convinced if they got the clause amended as they wished they would continue to pursue the same course. They would be constantly trying to prevent the cottages from being built, or else to get them put up in such a way that they would be of no use to the labourers at all.

said, the clause ought to contain rules for giving notice to landlords. Any lawyer who read the provision would advise tenants that they could go before the Court ex parte, and ask for sanction and obtain it. That was the true construction to be placed upon the clause, notwithstanding the Government made an attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the Committee.

said, he failed to find in the clause anything providing means by which a tenant who proposed to build a cottage and the landlord might be brought together for the purpose of entering into an agreement upon the subject. The clause did not require that notice should be given to the landlord, and the result might be that a cottage might be built in a position where it would be injurious to the interests of the landlord as owner of the fee simple. If the landlord and the tenant failed to come to an understanding it would then be proper for the Court to decide.

said, that in this discussion they seemed to be beating the air and wasting time unnecessarily. The clause referred to those people who were precluded from sub-letting without the consent of the landlord; and if the landlord and tenant agreed the interference of the Court was not required. It was only required in the event of a disagreement. A tenant would go to the Court and say—"I come before you because the landlord will not agree to my erecting a cottage on such and such a site;" and, having ascertained what the difference was, and who were the parties to it, it would have them before it, instead of deciding ex parte, as some hon. Members seemed to think it would.

said, the point at issue was this—whether, after the tenant and the landlord had come into Court, the Court should not have power to fix the site on which the cottages should be built. The Chief Secretary said the landlord could resume possession of a part of a holding to build cottages, and that the tenant had then no right to refuse his consent in any way, or to give any idea as to where the cottages were to be built; "And," said the right hon. Gentleman, "let the tenant have fair play—let him be able to do the same thing." The difference between the two was this—the landlord, when he resumed land for the purpose of building cottages, had to pay the tenant for the portion he resumed, and if it was the best piece he would pay the best price for it; but the tenant, when he built a cottage, could build it on whatever part of the holding he chose without paying compensation.

said, the Solicitor General for Ireland had invented an imaginary dispute; but that was not at all required by the clause. Under this provision the tenant might come to the Court and say—"I want your sanction to build cottages;" and why, therefore, the Solicitor General for Ireland should invent a dispute that was not necessary to take place he could not for the life of him conceive. If this matter was settled now according to the Government view, he (Mr. Warton) should bring up a proposal on Report.

said, it seemed to him that a case would never come into Court until the landlord and tenant had failed to agree. Probably the matter in dispute would be the site. When the case came into Court, the Court would say to the landlord—"Why do you object?" and he would reply "Because I do not think the site is a good one," and then the Court would hear reasons on each side, and would decide according to the best of its judgment. He trusted they would not waste any more time on this matter.

said, that if they put in the word "site" it would settle the whole difficulty. The clause would run—

"Any person prohibited under this Act from letting or sub-letting a holding may, with the sanction of the Court, and with power from the Court to prescribe such terms as to site, rent, and otherwise as the Court thinks just, &c."

said, he thought the Amendment would be much more acceptable if, instead of saying the situation was to be "selected" by the landlord, it stated that the situation should be "sanctioned" by the landlord.

said, that according to the past history of Ireland the landlords had thrown every difficulty in the way of building these labourers' cottages. The noble Lord (Viscount Folkestone) had intimated that if the selection of the site for the cottage were left with the tenant the building might be an eyesore. Probably it would be an eyesore to some proprietors; but it would be no greater eyesore than such a cottage as that which had been described by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Villiers Stuart)—a cottage in which a man and his wife and five children herded toge- ther. In a case of this kind the labourer had been asked from whom he rented his cottage, whether from the landlord or tenant, and his reply was that he got the cabin direct from a noble Lord owner and paid a rent of 18s. per year for it. The noble Lord who got his 18s. a-year for that miserable cottage perhaps did not look upon it as an eyesore; but he would consider as greatly out of place a decent cottage erected upon a healthful and pleasant site on his estate. No doubt, cottages would be eye-sores to noble Lords when they were built under the sanction of the Court; and it would, no doubt, be very distressing to noble Lords for the labourers to be removed from their oppression and from the operation of their neglect, and for these miserable serfs, the agricultural labourers, to become well-to-do cottiers. If a division was to be taken, let it not be taken upon a crotchet, but let them thoroughly understand that it was taken directly in the interest of the landlord party. The people of Ireland would regard it in that light; and, for his part, he looked upon it as nothing but a declaration of hostility on the part of the Irish landlords against giving this small boon to the Irish labourers. He hoped they would go to a division upon this question, and that the good feeling of the Committee would so overwhelm the landlord party, and that their defeat would be so disastrous, that it would have a lasting moral effect upon them.

I must say I hope that no division will be taken upon this question; and I do not think that anything that has occurred in the discussion so far should give anyone, whether representing the farmer or the landlord, any right to claim superiority over any individual Member or section of Members. If there is one person, or one set of persons, more likely to suffer than another from any attempt to claim an advantage of this kind, it will be the unfortunate labourer.

said, he need not refer to what had fallen from the hon. Member below him (Mr. Callan), because he could with justice lay claim to this—that hon. Members representing English constituencies were as much interested in the fate of the labourers as any other hon. Members could claim to be. He did not under- stand, from the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Ministerial Bench, that it was possible or probable the landlord would have any voice in the selection of the sites of the labourers' cottages. He was certainly not a lawyer, but he must say it appeared to him that there was nothing in the clause which would render it necessary for the landlord to have anything to do with the matter. A tenant might, with the sanction of the Court, do whatever he pleased without the slightest reference to the landlord.

The hon. Member who moved the last Amendment has another Amendment on the Paper, to add at the end of the clause these words—

"Provided also, that if the landlord is willing and undertakes to provide on the holding the accommodation required for such labourers, and proposed to be provided by such person under the provisions of this section, the landlord shall be entitled, subject to the limitations herein—before contained, to resume possession from the tenant of so much of the holding as may, in the opinion of the Court, be necessary, without being required to make any compensation to the tenant."

I observe there is a difference in this proposal to that negatived on the 7th of June; but it is not a very substantial one. Therefore, I think the Amendment cannot be put.

said, there was a very broad distinction between his Amendment and that which had been proposed on the 7th of June. In the other case the tenant proposed to give up the land.

I have looked carefully at the Amendments, and I find that they are so substantially the same that this cannot be put.

I shall bring up the Amendment on Report.

said, the clause just passed applied only to the case of cottages to be erected by the tenant, but not to sub-tenants of cottages already existing. He thought the occupiers of cottages already existing, which, in many cases, were of a very inferior description, should, in regard to the privilege of having fair and reasonable rents fixed by the Court, be placed on equal terms with those who might have the good fortune to occupy the cottages to be built in the future. He would propose an Amendment to add certain words to this effect at the end of the clause.

said, the hon. Member's Amendment, which had been handed to him in manuscript, and which he had carefully examined, was not consistent with the clause, and, therefore, could not be put.

said, he had an Amendment to propose, providing that the total number of the lettings of portions of holdings should not exceed one for every 50 acres of tillage. It was proposed by the clause that the sub-lettings or allotments should not exceed the proportion of one for every 25 acres of tillage; but that, he contended, was far too high a ratio, and would unduly and improvidently multiply the cottier class, whose poverty had always been the reproach of the country.

I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. I would point out that 25 is the limit in the Act of 1870.

said, be was not much influenced by the fact of the limit of 25 having been inserted in the Act of 1870. They had seen no such favourable results from the Act of 1870 as to induce them to proceed on similar lines. The statute had been a failure, and they could not be expected to have any faith in it. However, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

said, he did not wish to say a word with regard to the 25 or 50 acres; but he wished to draw the attention of the Attorney General for Ireland to the construction of the clause. The clause, as it now stood, contained no provision whatever as to the number of cottages which there might be at present on a farm. It was just possible that there might be 10 or 12, or even more.

said, that an hon. Member had presented him with an Amendment in manuscript during the division; and he had not been able to say, on first looking at it, whether or not it was in Order. However, he had now discovered, on reference to subsections 5 and 8 of Clause 45, that it was not in Order, and could not be put.

said, he acknowledged the kindly feeling of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in bringing forward this clause; but he did not think they were doing anything for the labourer—in fact, he was rather afraid that they were doing something against him. Though it went very far in the interest of the labourer, he was quite certain that this clause was not a very practical one, and he was afraid it would operate as a dead letter. He did not know that it was reasonable to desire to compel the great majority of the farmers to build houses for the labourers, or to undertake to borrow State money for that purpose. The farmer himself was so badly housed that it was impossible to think that the Court would impose this onerous duty upon him of the building of cottages for labourers. At the same time, the farmers were receiving such enormous boons under the Bill that it was quite time for them to make some sacrifice in the interest of the labourers. The tenant might be a new comer, and might have executed no new improvements—one day he might have no interest whatever in the land, and the next day he would be a leaseholder in perpetuity at a fair rent. No greater boon, short of absolutely giving the man the fee-simple of the land, could have been extended to the farmer. Therefore, seeing that the farmer had these privileges given to him, to the detriment of the labourer, was he not to do something for the labourer? He (Mr. A. Moore) should like to see the Court endowed with larger power, and to see it enabled to reserve a portion of the land for the labourers—to be able to say to the tenant—"We will give you the laud for a judicial term; you will have fixity of tenure; but we do not pledge ourselves to continue to you the possession of the whole of the farm. We may want part of it at some future time for the labourers, who have as much right to live in their own country as you have." He would propose that, say, a statute acre should be reserved in a farm of £50 valuation. Some provision of this kind should be made, so that, later on, when the land had to be taken for the labourers, the farmer would not be able to claim compensation. So long as they rendered it necessary for compensation to be paid to the tenant where land was resumed in the interest of the labourer, so long would they find nothing effected for the benefit of the labourer in the way of improved habitations. He was afraid that if something like this was not done they would find it almost impossible, without incurring great expense, to carry out their object; and they must remember that expense was really the key to this question. The landlord would not make great sacrifices in this matter, nor would the tenant; and he was afraid that the time would come, unless they were very careful, when there would not be a spot of land in Ireland on which to grow a potato or feed a cow, or build a cottage, for the labourer. He had no wish to stir up feud and hostility between the tenants and the labourers; he had as much good feeling for the one as for the other, and he thought it would be prejudicial to the interests of the country at large to set them at loggerheads. But he thought this was a case of paramount necessity, and, if this opportunity were allowed to pass without adopting some such proposal as this, he was afraid no opportunity would again present itself for doing anything for the labourer. The position was one of great difficulty and danger.

said, he believed that of all the clauses which had been brought forward none would work more to the advantage of the labourer than that now before the Committee. Without this clause, all the apprehensions of hon. Members might, perhaps, be realized. He did not think that it would be the case, but it might be; but it would be utterly impossible for them to be realized were this clause included in the Bill. It was stated that where an application was made for judicial rent, the Court might impose terms, which were that accommodation should be made for the labourers. They had heard a great deal about giving fixity of tenure to the labourers; but, if that were given, the people would cease to be agricultural labourers, and would really be peasant proprietors. No one expected that a labourer attached to a farm should have durability of tenure approaching to perpetuity of tenure. Labourers should not be weekly or monthly tenants. However, the very fact of giving an allotment of half an acre of land precluded the labourer from being a weekly or monthly tenant, because, when they took into account the question of crops, they would see that where an allotment of half an acre was given they constituted the labourer, for all practical purposes, a yearly tenant. The Court would have power to make orders in this matter, and he supposed the orders they would make as to the tenure of the labourers would be that which prevailed on all well-regulated properties throughout the county be represented, which was that the labourer would establish his right at Candlemas, or the first week in February, and come into possession on the 1st of May, and he would be a bound man—the farmer and the labourer would be bound together for 12 months, except in such a gross case as, whether through breach of contract or some other failure on the part of either party, relief was obtained from the binding nature of the contract. If, on the 1st of February, the labourer renewed his bargain, he would re-plant his garden, sow his corn, or his cabbage and potatoes, and was really a yearly tenant. If they made such a contract general, it would exercise a beneficial interest on the labourers. There was one word, in the third line of the second paragraph, that he should like to amend.

As soon as the clause is read a second time the hon. Member can move Amendments to it.

said, that, at the proper time, he would move an Amendment; and, with a modification of the kind he would propose, the clause would, no doubt, work beneficially.

said, that, under this clause, no tenant could obtain a judicial rent without running the risk of being compelled to build cottages. The landlord was not to be compelled to build cottages; therefore, he was placed in a different position to the tenant. In England, where cottages were found to be in an unsatisfactory condition, local authorities had power to compel them to be pulled down, and others to be built in their place. He believed, under the provisions of an Act passed during the term of Office of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), the local bodies had power to borrow money for the purpose of building these cottages. He believed the Government intended next Session to introduce a measure of local government for Ireland; and he would suggest that they should consider whether it would not be better to intrust these local bodies with the task of seeing that labourers' cottages throughout the country did not remain in an unsanitary condition, and give them power to borrow public money for the purpose of re-building these cottages, rather than to attempt to deal with the subject in the present clause. He had great doubts as to the expediency of this provision, and would far rather that the question should be dealt with next Session.

said, he accepted the clause on the principle that half a loaf was better than no bread. No doubt the Government would, sooner or later, have to take up the question of the sanitary condition of the dwellings of the poorer classes in Ireland, and deal with it in a broad and comprehensive manner.

said, he thought it was one of the greatest blots on the whole Bill—the exclusion of cottier labourers in Ireland from its benefits. There were 200,000 holdings valued at under £4 in Ireland; and he was sure that he was not exaggerating when he said that over a-half of that number were occupied by labourers. Well, he could see no reason why these unfortunate people, who were more to be pitied than any class in Ireland, should be made martyrs of, because that would be really the effect of saying that the tenant farmers should be relieved, and that the labourers should not. He did not see why one should not be relieved as well as the other. There certainly was no more over-taxed and over-rented people in the whole of Ireland than these men. It was only reasonable to expect that they should have their holdings at a fair rent. He therefore hoped that, when the Bill passed to another stage, the Government would see their way to removing the exemption that existed against the agricultural labourer, who was at present in possession of land, preventing him from receiving the same benefit from the Bill as the tenant farmer.

said, that when he looked at this question of labourers' cottages generally, he found one of the difficulties to be this—that if they made the condition very stringent against the farmers the result would be that the farmers would be very unwilling to build new houses for their labourers. If they offered a strong inducement, no doubt they would be more willing to do it. When the farmer came before the Court to have a judicial rent fixed, he should be compelled, if it were desirable, to accept conditions for the building of labourers' cottages. But the difficulty with regard to this subject seemed to be this—that there was no one to appear before the Court on behalf of the labourers generally. So far as that part of the matter was concerned, very likely either the landlord or the tenant would wish to have money laid out for the purpose of building labourers' cottages. The policy of the landlord had hitherto been to discourage the building of these cottages, because they naturally thought that the result ultimately would be that these people, when they became old, would be chargeable on the poor rates, of which they—the landlords—paid a large proportion. The benefit to the labourers would be this. If the Bill, which the Government thought and hoped it would, encouraged the farmer to spend money on improvements, there would be a greater demand for labour, and the labourers would be more independent, and would be able to make arrangements with the farmers on different terms to those which they had made before. Arrangements with regard to rent would be facilitated, and he had been told that a great unpleasantness in this respect had occurred in the past, and that in many cases the tenant farmers had acted in a tyrannical manner. If these waste lands were offered to the industrious labourers, the result would be that the pressure on the labour market would be removed. He did not like to take any decided view as to these clauses, because it was uncertain what their result would be. If they made the law too stringent against the farmer, he would neglect to make improvements; on the other hand, if they were too liberal towards him, it was possible that he would overcharge the labourer.

said, they must remember what the Bill would have been without this clause which it was now proposed to insert in it. He was inclined to accept the provision with gratitude, though it might not be, in every respect, so satisfactory as they could have wished. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) what the process would be by which the labourer would be able to show to the Court that the cottage accommodation he required was not there already? How, he should like to know, was the subject to be brought before the Court?

We must rely upon those into whose hands we place power. We must trust to the Court to do its duty. It is a very strong clause, and is one which casts on those who make the application for the fixing of a judicial rent the obligation of constructing cottage accommodation, if the Court thinks it necessary. That is a very strong condition, and the Government would not have proposed it if we had not thought it an essential condition. The Committee, I trust, will agree with us that we ought to go as far as this; but I do not think we ought to be asked to go any further. We may, one of these days, have a measure of County Government, and then, perhaps, we may do something more; but I do not look with great hopefulness upon the bestowal of power for the future on Boards of Guardians, and I think that we must rely mainly on the two parties interested in the cultivation of the land—the landlord and the tenant—probably more on the tenant than on the landlord in the future. We must rely upon their doing their duty. I must say before I sit down—the circumstance is of such rare occurrence—that it is gratifying to find the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) for once in agreement with the Government.

said, he had no objection to the Amendment.

said, he was sorry the hon. Member who had just moved these words did not follow the context, and add "as the Court thinks fit." He would move to strike out the word "may" in the third line of the second paragraph, in order to substitute the word "shall." No doubt, the Solicitor General for Ireland would tell him that the word "may" was the same as the word "shall," and under other circumstances he should agree with him; but here he thought it was essential that the language should be made perfectly clear. If the words meant the same, the Government surely would have no objection to make the alteration.

said, that power was given to the landlords by one of the clauses of the Bill to resume the holding for the purpose of building labourers' cottages, and it was provided that the application of the landlord to resume should not be allowed, except subject to the clause relating to the provision for labourers' cottages. Then there was another clause which dealt with the statutory term consequent on the fixing of a judicial rent, and at the end of this clause a peg was introduced on which to hang another clause. He wished to know if the clause they were now discussing was supposed to be the Supplementary Clause which was to be inserted in reference to the case of resumption by the landlord?

said, the only case in which the landlord could resume was upon requiring the land for the purposes of erecting labourers' cottages, and after compensating the tenant for his rights. This clause had reference to a different object altogether, and it was to provide that where an application was made for a judicial rent the Court might impose upon the tenant terms as to the erection of labourers' cottages.

said, the clause would never come into operation, because the Court would never of its own motion inquire into the matter. It was just as likely that the Court would stop to inquire how many cows the tenant had. He did not see what was to bring the clause into operation. Certainly the poor labourer could not, because he could not afford the expense of an application to the Court, and he did not suppose that the landlord would, because he could have no personal wish to put up another house upon his land.

moved, after Clause 42, to insert the following new Clause:—

said, he agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there was a very fair excuse for the introduction of this clause. It was, undoubtedly, the desire of the landlords that they should be deprived of the power of making an unfair use of the Court against a tenant, and they were quite ready to have the practice of the Superior Courts adopted in every case. He believed that cases had been of frequent occurrence where the landlord had proceeded in the Superior Court against the tenant, and where the landlord had recovered costs. He apprehended that the tenant would be liable for the costs of a Superior Court, where the action could be initiated in a Superior Court; but if the case did not come to judgment the question of costs would not arise, and the tenant would have no remedy. If that were so, he hoped there would be no difficulty in adding a second clause to the Bill in order to meet the case.

thought the apprehension of his lion. Friend were not well founded. If the case did not go to judgment there would be no costs at all to be paid by the tenant.

said, he regretted the course which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had taken in the matter, and was sorry that it was considered necessary to insert such a clause. He should certainly like to get an assurance from the Government as to what they intended to do in the event of the Lords materially altering the clause in "another place." He wished to know whether, if the Lords threw out any material part of it, Her Majesty's Government, when it came back from the Lords, would adhere to the measure as it now stood? He should object to the second reading, and should take a division against it, unless he obtained a satisfactory assurance from the Government upon the question he had asked. They had the experience of last year before them, when the House of Lords threw out the the Limitation of Costs Bill, and also a very important measure relating to compensation for disturbance. He, therefore, wanted to know if the Government would adhere to the second portion of the clause in the event of any part of it being rejected by the House of Lords?

Her Majesty's Government are very earnestly working and doing everything in their power to secure the Bill becoming law, and to secure its acceptance by the House of Lords. The hon. Member asks me what we propose to do in the alternative of a refusal. We hope that the Bill is not likely to miscarry. The hon. Gentleman asks us what we shall do in the event of its miscarrying. I think the hon. Member ought to be satisfied with that assurance. I think he will see that it would be most inconvenient to attempt to forecast a question which may indirectly be mixed up with many other questions. I hope the contingency which the hon. Gentleman has shadowed forth is not likely to arise. The Government will certainly do their very best to avoid it, and to give full effect to the provisions of the Bill.

said, the House of Lords had much more excuse for the course they took last year than they would have in taking a similar course now. He did not think any great apprehension need be entertained as to the action of the House of Lords.

wished to put a question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. As the clause stood, it provided that where a landlord went into the Superior Courts, and could have gone into a Civil Bill Court, he should not, in the case of obtaining a verdict, be entitled to his costs. Now, where the landlord complained that a tenant was guilty of a breach of statutory conditions, he could proceed in a Superior Court quite independent of the Land Commission; and, if not, where was the Land Commission to come in? There was a general impression that the Land Commission were to be the parties to settle all questions between landlord and tenant, whether relating to statutory rents or otherwise. He wished, therefore, to know whether a landlord would be entitled to go into a Superior Court to sue out his action there against the tenant for non-payment of rent and get rid of him; and, if so, would the tenant have any right to apply to the Land Commission?

said, that the landlord could go to a Superior Court in place of going to the County Court, either for non-payment of rent or for a breach of statutory conditions.

said, he was aware of that; but he wanted to know whether the landlord could bring the tenant into a Superior Court and have the case decided by the Superior Court, without the tenant being entitled to apply for the jurisdiction of the Land Commission?

said, he must have misunderstood the question. The jurisdiction of the Land Commission on all questions of dispute between the landlord and tenant could not be ousted for the jurisdiction of the Superior Courts; but where an action of ejectment for breach of statutory condition was brought in a Superior Court, that Court also would have jurisdiction to stay the proceedings on payment of damages.

, in moving the omission of the first portion of the clause from the word "the" in line 1, down to the word "sufficient" in line 6, at the end of the first paragraph, said, the Amendment, if adopted, would have the effect of leaving out all that portion of the clause which proposed to amend the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act of 1877. He was sorry that the Government had acceded to the suggestion made from the Front Opposition Bench the other night, and had gone into the question of amending that Act. He was perfectly willing that, as far as judicial rents went, the procedure should be regulated by the Commission, and that it should be as simple as possible; but in cases where the tenant and the landlord had not gone into Court, and no judicial rent had been fixed, and no statutory term entered into, he thought the tenant and the landlord should be left to seek a remedy under the old law as it stood before the introduction of the Bill. It was clearly not contemplated, when the Bill was introduced, to amend the law in respect of the service of processes. The provision made in the 42nd clause, in sub-section G, did not contemplate anything except giving power to the Commission to amend the rules of procedure in cases where judicial rents were fixed. Consequently, that provision was clearly an after-thought—foreign to the scope and general purpose of the Bill, and it was simply thought necessary to adopt it, because some difficulty had arisen in some parts of Ireland with reference to the serving of processes. He submitted that when they looked into the whole history of the Land Question, and when they saw that up to 1870 statute after statute was enacted by Parliament for the purpose of placing the tenant in a worse position to retain his holding, and to place the landlord in a better position to dispossess the tenant from the holding, he thought they ought to be exceedingly cautious before they applied fresh statutory facilities for the purpose of upsetting the old Common Law arrangements which existed between the landlord and tenant in Ireland, and still subsisted in England, and facilities which did not exist anywhere else for the getting rid of a tenant. The state of the law with regard to yearly tenancies rendered it exceedingly difficult for the landlord to dispossess his tenant. The only case in which it was possible for a landlord to eject a tenant by summary process was for the non-payment of rent. Nearly all the tenants in Ireland were tenants from year to year, and it was found so exceedingly difficult for the landlords to get rid bf them with sufficient celerity that a series of statutes had been passed by the Legislature for I the purpose of upsetting ejectments for non-payment of rent; and the state of laws that had no existence whatever, either in practice or in the Statute Book, relating to England, had been enacted for the special benefit of the Irish landlord, and the special disadvantage of the Irish tenant. Those statutes did away with the old Common Law protection the Irish tenant had enjoyed from time immemorial, and they enabled the landlord to bring ejectments against his yearly tenants for non-payment of rent. The provision which was sought to be introduced into the clause was intended to give another facility to the landlord in that direction, and it was certainly one which ought to excite a very strong protest from the Irish Members. It was a matter which he could assert the Government did not contemplate when they introduced the Bill, and they only consented to insert it at the instance of the Front Opposition Bench. In point of fact, there was a bribe held out to the Irish Members in the first part of the clause, but it amounted to nothing, because, in all probability, the Lords would throw it out. They threw out the Limitation of Costs Bill last year, and the consequence would be that the House of Commons would have the Bill coming back with the clause intact so far as it related to the part he objected to, but with the beneficial part of the clause struck out. Then, of course, they would be told that it was not desirable to sacrifice the Bill by insisting upon the whole of the clause as it stood originally. Therefore, this was entirely an illusory inducement which the Government held out in order to get the House to give these extraordinary facilities for serving processes in Ireland. He thought the Government were not treating the Irish Members and the Irish tenants fairly, in stepping aside from their course and stumbling into an alteration of the Bill which converted the measure into a Bill for amending the County Court Act of 1877, rather than a Bill for amending the laws relating to land tenure in Ireland.

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not persist with his Amendment. The present condition of things was not only anomalous and inconvenient, but it was discreditable to our institutions, and was opposed to the good of the country. The hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell), the other night, on the first discussion which took place on this matter, pointed to what was said and done by the House when the Act of 1877 was passed. Attempts were then made to regulate these details, and when the question was about to be discussed, it was very properly pointed out that all matters of practice might be omitted and left over for the Judges to settle by rules. The clause referred to was, accordingly, intended for this very purpose, and his (the Attorney General for Ireland's) opinion was that it accomplished that object. That, too, was the opinion of his right hon. and learned Friend opposite, who had charge of the Bill of 1877. Her Majesty's Government thought the question was settled, and so did the hon. Member for Cork, but the County Court Judges differed upon the matter; and as it was always meant that the power should exist, this clause was proposed in order to give it. By the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1860, power was given to the Inferior Courts as well as to the Superior Courts to deal with the service of ejectment processes; but, owing to some obscurity of expression, the County Court Judges in this case also held different opinions. The provision was that ejectments for non-payment of rent should take place in a particular way, or in such other ways as might appear to the Judges to be sufficient. That left the whole question open to the Courts to determine what should be sufficient; and most of the County Court Judges, and some of the Superior Court Judges, held that this only applied to the Superior Judges, and not to the Judges of the Inferior Courts. The result was that an absurd anomaly and inconvenience in practice had arisen, and it was therefore desirable that the County Court Judges should meet under the Rules Clause of the Act of 1877, and settle what the practice should be in future. When this Bill passed, every man in Ireland would be able to get a judicial declaration of a fair rent, and if he did not get one, it would be because he did not want it. He confessed that he had not heard any answer to the argument advanced by his right hon. and learned Friend the other night which showed to demonstration that, without this clause, they left the good landlord without any opportunity of recovering his claims, whereas the rack-renting landlord, if dragged into Court to have his exorbitant rents reduced, would have all the advantage. He had felt that this state of things should not remain longer than was necessary a blot upon the Statute Book; and having brought every tenant within the scope of the Bill, so that he might have a fair rent fixed if he desired it, it was only just to make provision for the due service of process upon him where he declined to pay his rent. All the tenants said they were willing to pay the rent if the rent was fair. Every tenant would, in the course of a short time, have a fair rent, either because he went before the Court, or else because he considered the rent to be a fair one as it stood at present. This clause was to enable landlords to serve civil bill processes when necessary upon their tenants, to enforce payment of their rents. The whole object of process was to bring the claim to the knowledge of the defendant; and he certainly failed to see why, in serving these processes, they should be compelled to have recourse, as at present, to the assistance of armed forces. He hoped, under these circum- stances, that the Committee would accept the clause as it stood. Of course, as the Prime Minister told them, the Government were anxious that this clause, as well as the whole Bill, should be carried in "another place." It was impossible to say whether any part of the clause, or any part of the Bill, might not be struck out in "another place." All they could hope was that such a step would not be taken. He did not think there was the smallest likelihood of one part of the clause being struck out, and another part which was favourable to the landlords being kept in. All he could say was that the clause, as it stood, removed an absurd obstacle in the way of the serving of civil bill processes which was never intended to be placed in their way.

asked what was the procedure by the County Courts of England upon the same matter?

said, the rules framed under the English County Court Act made admirable provision for the service of all process. If personal service could not be had, service on a member of the family at the house was sufficient; and if the person to be served was absenting himself, service at the nearest place was sufficient. A series of rules, in short, had been laid clown giving the largest possible facilities, so that there should in every case be au effective service.

said, he believed that the rules under the English County Courts Act were inserted in the Act itself.

Pardon me, they were rules made by the County Court Judges under similar powers to those we now propose to confer upon the Irish County Court Judges.

said, it was the genesis of the thing that was objectionable to the Irish Members. The history of the clause was one of the most curious histories in connection with the Bill. As the clause originally stood, its meaning had been rendered so dubious, either by the draftsman, or by some error, that it gave these remarkable powers to the Land Commission—

"The Land Commission shall circulate forms of application, and directions as to the mode in which applications aro to be made under this Act; and may from time to time make, and when made may rescind, amend, or add to rules with respect to such circulation, and to the following matters, or any of them."

One of these matters was "the mode of service of civil bill processes in ejectments and for the recovery of rent." All the previous sections, A, B, C, D, E, and F, contained the words, at the end of each, "under the provisions of this Act," but when they came to section G, there was nothing whatever about the purposes of the Act; accordingly, he had moved to repair this omission, and the proposal was accepted by the Treasury Bench. Everybody knew that this process-serving had been one of the chief sources of trouble in Ireland; and would they permit the people to be buckshotted hereafter simply because they would not stick up for this clause? The Government, in the first instance, accepted his Amendment, and actually put up the Chief Secretary, the Solicitor General for Ireland, and the Attorney General for England to support it. After having put up those three great Officers of the Crown they were met by a fusillade from the Front Opposition Bench, calling upon them to repeal the existing law and to make provision for the more effectual serving of writs and processes. It was getting late in the morning when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) moved to report Progress. When the Irish Members moved to report Progress, there were generally not more than 20 or 30 Members behind them, so that it was very easy to exhaust them. It was different when a right hon. Gentleman rose to report Progress from the Front Opposition Bench. He generally had a good round number of supporters behind him; and therefore, in the particular case he was now referring to, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, having had this declaration of war, at once gave up the ghost of a struggle. If the Government had been straightforward in the matter, he ventured to say that the clause would not have been heard of. There seemed to him to be a good deal of huckstering about it. It was altogether an arriere pensée, and if it had been suggested from those, the Home Rule, Benches, it never would have been adopted. It was an exceedingly clever suggestion, made in an exceedingly clever manner, by an exceedingly clever Member—the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). Her Majesty's Government sprang forward to receive it at once and accepted the sop to Cerberus. It might be desirable to have a fair rent in Ireland without being equally desirable to facilitate the speedy service of ejectments. That was not the question they had to consider. The Bill was not introduced with that object, and was never intended to meet that case. It was not until the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin made the suggestion that the Government dreamt of making the Bill a vehicle for facilitating the serving of processes. He therefore thought the objections of the Irish Members to this proposal were most valid and legitimate. Of course, they knew the difficulties the Government had to contend with in the matter; but in opposing this addition to the provisions of the Bill they were altogether within their rights, and they were justified in making the strongest protest in their power against the course of action which the Government had pursued. It was not a kind of action that became a great Government; and the proposal to limit the bill of costs, in order that the Committee might be induced to swallow more speedy rocess-serving, savoured more of huckstering and bargaining than the desire to attain a really great object.

thought that really, after all, the question was not what the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) called the genesis of this clause, but the exodus of the Bill from the House. He looked upon the clause as representing a fair bargain; and he did not think that any honourable man, whether Liberal or Conservative, would wish to run away from a fair bargain after it had once been come to. He thought that nothing could exceed the fair and handsome manner in which the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had met the arguments on that side of the House.

said, he understood that the rules in regard to serving processes for ejectment under the County Court Act in England were the same as were proposed in this case.

I said they were made by the County Court Judges, and that the English County Court Act contains powers similar to those which we propose to give in this clause.

moved, after Clause 42, to insert the following clause:—

said, that of course a Report of the proceedings of the Commission would be very interesting; but he thought that as it might be necessary to delay it until a late period of the year, Parliament ought to have an ad interim Report of what had been done during the Session. The Commission would get to work at once, and Parliament ought to be informed of the preliminary steps that were taken. He thought it might, if it went vigorously to work, make some progress between this Session and the middle of next. As the clause now stood, it gave a rather long interval, when it said that the Commission was to report in every Session after 1881. He knew very well what Commissions were, and how their Reports were sent in. There had been plenty of experience in reference to Irish Commissions. Their Reports rarely came in until July or the beginning of August, when Parliament was on the point of proroguing and nothing was really known of their proceedings until the beginning of the following Session. He should prefer that the right hon. Gentleman should mention a particular month in which the Reports should be presented, so that there might be a definite time fixed for the presentation of the Report before the end of the financial year. So far as the first Report of the Commission was concerned, it should be presented in June next, and it would then be seen what had been done after the financial year until the time the Report was presented.

I hardly think it would be desirable to call on the Commission to make a Report before a year has passed. It must be presented next year and once a-year afterwards. It would almost be absurd to require the Commission to make a Report between the present time and the end of the financial year. The time is much too short.

remarked that, if he rightly understood the clause proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, the Report need not, and would not, be presented to Parliament until the year 1883.