, resuming the debate, said, the Amendment was opposed to fairness and justice, and he asked the House, without hesitation, to decline it. The Government had over and over again refused to allow the landlords to be placed in a worse position as regarded the recovery of their rent than other creditors occupied; and unless it was to be laid down that the landlord creditor was to be treated exceptionally, and have no consideration—that he was to be penalized and treated as an outlaw—he could not see the object of the Amendment. It would affect the existing law in an unsatisfactory manner, inasmuch as at present there was a discretion vested in the Court as to granting costs, which the Amendment would, in some cases, fetter and confuse; but he should not base his opposition to it on technicalities. He took his stand on the broad basis of justice. The landlord was entitled as a creditor to deal with his debtor like any other member of the community, and therefore he asked the Government to adhere to the rules which they had laid down over and over again, and to decline to accept the proposal.

thought that the advantages conferred by the Amendment were so apparent that the case did not require argument. It simply provided that if the Judge declared that an action by a landlord in a Superior Court for the recovery of rent should have been brought in an inferior Court, the landlord should not be entitled to costs.

said, he would remind the House that yesterday the Government assented to this Amendment.

asked the indulgence of the House while he made an explanation on the matter. As he stated yesterday, he accepted the Amendment, because he was under the impression that it made no material alteration in the existing law. He now found that it did make such a change; but he thought they might adjust the matter so as to meet the views of all reasonable persons. The Amendment under consideration would operate unfairly in actions for sums over £20. He should, therefore, propose a new Amendment which would limit the clause to actions for sums not exceeding £20.

said, he was sorry the Government had not adhered to their original determination. He asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland yesterday whether under the Bill, when it became law, the Court would have power to stay actions for the recovery of rent instituted in a Superior Court or otherwise, under a writ of fieri facias? The right hon. and learned Gentleman stated the Court had no such power, and consequently, after the passing of the Bill, it would be possible for a landlord, where no application had been made by the tenant to the Court in regard to the fixing of a rent, to issue such a writ for arrears. Under such circumstances, was it not reasonable to suppose that many landlords would evade the provisions of the Bill, and would proceed in that way against the tenants where no application had been made? That was such a plain injustice, that he thought the Government ought to re-consider the matter and accept the Amendment as it was originally proposed.

said, he failed to see, even from the landlord's point of view, any reasonable objection there could be to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), which was to discourage the bringing of actions to the Superior Courts, which could be as well tried in the Inferior Courts, and at much less cost. He hoped the Amendment would be agreed to.

said, he deeply regretted that the Government proposed to modify their concession on this point. He thought they had paid too much attention to the vehement speeches made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), and saw no reason why the clause should be limited to actions under £20. He trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would not insist upon the limitation. In fact, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford proposed in part to embody in the clauses the spirit and intention of the Limitation of Costs Bill which had passed the Houses last Session. It was not right the landlord should, except unless special circumstances, cast on the tenant the burden of costs incidental to proceedings in the Superior Courts, when the law had given him the power of suit in the County Court.

thought the proposal of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland was a very fair one. It covered the whole ground, and would secure the tenant against being unduly harassed by the landlord in respect of costs.

said, he thought the question was not being argued on the most important grounds. It was not whether the amount should be £20 or £50; and if they were debating whether to raise the sum, he should be inclined to take the view of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). The question he had to consider was, first of all, whether it was just; and, in the second place, whether, in the present state of feeling, it was politic, for the sake of this rather limited but not unimportant matter, to introduce a distinction between the power of the landlord in regard to the recovery of what was due to him and the power of other creditors. The Bill had to undergo another ordeal after it left the House of Commons, for it would be subjected to a scrutiny in "another place," and would be examined from the landlords' point of view; and what he felt in point of policy was this. It was very doubtful policy for the Government, for the sake of such an object as the hon. Member for Wexford had in view, to send the Bill to the House of Lords with an enactment, introducing into the Bill, for the first time, a distinction which placed the landlord at a disadvantage in comparison with other creditors. What they had to look at was the interest of the whole Bill, and not whether they had a preference for this or that particular form of law on a matter of secondary importance. If the hon. Member's alteration was accepted, an exaggerated importance would be attached to the proposal, and the whole credit of the Bill might be seriously impaired from the discovery of what might be a slight provision, but what would apparently indicate a spirit of inequality and even injustice. Under those circumstances, they felt bound, in the interests of the Bill—and he did not deny in the interest of justice also—to support the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland.

said, with respect to the reference of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister regarding "another place," he would ask him "to be just and fear not." The substance of the Prime Minister's contention was, that because the House of Lords had to deal with the Bill, justice was not to be done to the tenants of Ireland. It was not a fact that landlords would be in a worse position than other creditors. In the foregoing part of the clause they were put in a position whereby they would be able to get out their writs in a manner that ordinary persons could not. The Government were swallowing their previous doctrine because they were attacked by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). They changed their front, and their conduct was not likely to gain for them the respect of the Irish Members. He would far rather strike out his Amendment than have it altered in the way the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland proposed. As the clause stood there was, at least, a presumption in the tenant's favour. He should be prepared to move that £100 stand for £20 in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment.

said, the law had already granted facilities to the landlord, and he should be compelled to exercise his privileges, subject to special limitations.

said, the most convenient course would be to put the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to the House; and after that question was decided, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) could move the further Amendment he announced his intention of moving.

explained that the landlord had two remedies for rent in arrear, one being ejectment, and the other the recovery of a debt, as to which he was placed in the same position as any other creditor. When the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was accepted in Committee, it was believed to be merely a declaration of the law with reference to ordinary debts, but it turned out not to be so; accordingly, it was proposed to bring the case of rent as nearly as possible to that of any other debt by introducing the limitation of £20. Perhaps the better alternative might be, as suggested by the hon. Member for Wexford, to omit the Amendment which had been accepted from the hon. Member.

moved to add to the Clause—

"And whenever an action for the recovery of rent shall have been taken before or after an application to fix a judicial rent, and shall be pending before such an application is disposed of, the Court before which such action is pending shall have power, on such terms and conditions as the Court may direct, to pospone or suspend such action until the termination of the proceeding to fix such judicial rent."

The hon. Member said that the Amendment was intended to supply a deficiency as regarded the power of the Court to suspend proceedings where an application was made to fix a judicial rent. If the Bill passed as it now stood, a landlord, in the case of a tenancy where a judicial rent had not been fixed, even though the application might have been made to the Court appointed under the Act, might sue his tenant for even six months' rent, if it were due, and might obtain judgment in any Court—a Civil Bill Court or a Superior Court—and if the judgment were not satisfied within a very limited time—he thought it was two days—the landlord might proceed to sell the whole of the interest of the tenant in his holding. Unless some provision of the nature he proposed were inserted, they would find landlords suing tenants for rent, with the sole object of getting rid of them.

thought the principle of the Amendment was not unfair. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) seemed to fear that the tenant might be sued for his arrears of rent, a judgment be obtained against him in respect thereof, and the tenancy sold before the judicial rent could be fixed. Well, that was a matter that might, he thought, be dealt with in the Bill, for no one could desire that the general operation of the Act should be defeated in the indirect way pointed out by the hon. Member; but, on the other hand, a permanent enactment of this kind would hardly be necessary or desirable. What the hon. Member desired to meet was a present emergency, and to prevent the hardship of the tenant being deprived of his holding before he could have the benefit of the Act. If the hon. Member would qualify his Amendment by limiting the actions brought for rent within a reasonable period—say within six months after the passing of the Act, which would give everyone an opportunity of applying to have the judicial rent fixed—he (the Attorney General for Ireland) would be disposed to consider it favourably.

asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman to limit the period to 12 months, because many of the tenants would probably wait to see what the Court could do for them before applying to it in large numbers.

said, he was astonished at the Government's acceptance of the Amendment. It was out of place, had been moved without Notice, and was one which would penalize the position of the landlord alone of all creditors. It did not seek to interfere with the landlord's right of ejectment; but it picked out the landlord alone of all creditors, and said if he allowed a tenant to remain in occupation, declining to sue, and came before the ordinary Courts of the country and obtained judgment for the rent due as a creditor, the Court within a time not fixed by the Government, would be able to say—"We will arrest your process and will compel you to wait for some indefinite period before receiving your rent of your debtor." At the same time, any other creditors of the tenant could take means to enforce payment of what was due to them, and might sell the tenant's interest in his farm. Where was the justice of that? Were they going to leave the banker, the village money-lender, and any other creditor free to sell out the tenant, and only stop short at the landlord? This was an Amendment to which he could give no assent, either in principle or detail, and he should offer it his most strenuous and persistent opposition.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had evidently exaggerated the effect of the Amendment. He (Mr. Forster) understood that what was proposed was in accordance with other provisions of the Bill by which they had determined that the landlord should not be able to eject a tenant from the occupation of the land without the tenant having had the opportunity of appealing to have a judicial rent fixed, and to get the rent lowered if the Court so determined. There could be nothing unfair in passing this clause, which would merely hold the proceedings of the landlord in abeyance until the judicial rent was fixed. He had supposed that the Government had covered all the cases by which the landlord could eject a tenant; but it now appeared that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) thought there was a mode by which a landlord could get hold of the land, which was not covered by the Bill at present, a mode by which a landlord would be able to get rid of a tenant without the latter being able to get the advantages of the judicial rent. He (Mr. Forster) thought it would be fair to meet the case contemplated by the hon. Member for the City of Cork by adopting the suggestion of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. It was a principle he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) had assented to, and he could not see, therefore, why he should so strongly object to it.

thought that under the circumstances contemplated they ought to protect the tenant from every creditor. He had no objection to the landlords being tied up, if the other creditors were also tied up; but if a tenant was sold out by any other than the landlord, then the landlord's claim should be considered prior to that of any other creditor in the distribution. He would suggest, therefore, that words should be added to protect the interest in the holding of a tenant who had given notice to have a judicial rent fixed, from execution at the hands of other creditors.

said, there had been no such disposition on the part of the Government to adopt a violent course as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) seemed to suppose. Therefore, he could not see the necessity for the right hon. and learned Gentleman getting on the high horse, and asserting himself with such vehemence as he had done on the subject of that Amendment. He (Mr. Gladstone) knew that he was struck, and that all the Members of the Government were struck, with the argument that the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, as it stood, did not adequately protect the tenant in all cases, and that there was evidently something equitable in the hon. Member for the City of Cork's (Mr. Parnell's) Amendment, and that it ought to be extended to the case of all other creditors. His right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland was considering whether there ought not to be some other changes made; and, viewing the matter in that light, they did not consider the Amendment adversely. The effect would be that the sale of a tenancy would be prevented, and the main assets which the tenant would have to enable him to discharge a debt would be probated, and put in a proper condition for protection. There would be a power to put the assets in the best condition for the tenant. Taking the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork as their raw material, the Government would propose, in the first place, to make it a temporary provision; in the second place, to limit the power of the Court to the stopping of the action only in so far as to prevent the sale of the tenancy until after the judicial rent was fixed; and, thirdly, to provide that the enactment should apply to every case where this form of action was brought, and not merely in the case when it was brought by the landlord.

said, that the proposal had better stand over so that it might be added to Clause 53, thus affording time for adjustment to the phraseology.

asked whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make this Amendment applicable to all tenancies, irrespective of their annual value?

assented.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment on the understanding suggested.

moved, as an Amendment, to insert words entitling the Judicial Commissioner to a pension.

said, he could not understand why the principal Commissioners other than the Judicial Commissioner should not have pensions.

said, he would like to know what was meant by providing that one Assistant Commissioner was to get a superannuation. At first there was nothing about superannuation in the Bill; then the Judicial Commissioner crept in, and, of course, he must, like all other Judges, be entitled to superannuation.

said, the Amendment wanted the word "being" before "an Assistant Commissioner."

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 28, lines 20 and 21, to leave out the words "after the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one," said, he did so for the purpose of asking the Government whether they would instruct the Commission to make a preliminary Report during next Session?

said, it was best to leave the matter to the discretion of the Commissioners. The Government would take care to bring the subject under their consideration.

moved, at end of clause, the insertion of a long sub-section, with the object of providing that in case of arrears they should be reckoned on the basis of the judicial rent.

asked Mr. Speaker, whether the Amendment was in Order, the House having already agreed to a section which provided that the refusal of either party to join in an application under the Arrears Clause should not prejudice any future proceedings by the other party?

, in reply, intimated that it was competent for the hon. Member to move his Amendment, and that the objection taken by the right hon. Gentleman was rather a matter of argument than a point of Order.

said, the Government could not agree to the Amendment for the reasons stated by him in Committee—namely, that they could not consent to any compulsory proposal for dealing with arrears. It would, not be just or expedient compulsorily to diminish the debt owing to a man; and he was sure that it would be useless for any such proposal to be accepted by the House after what had happened "elsewhere." It would, moreover, put the man who had paid his rent in a most unfair position as compared with the man who owed it.

said, there would be some ground for the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the only penalty falling on the tenant was the payment of his debt; but the penalty would be considerably heavier, for he would lose the benefit of the Act. If the tenant had been paying a reasonable rent previously, he would not have allowed arrears to accrue at all, and therefore it was only just to give him some substantial relief in respect of what had become due through no fault of his own. He thought at that stage of the Bill, and after a certain amount of concession had been made by the Government, there was no use in taking up a long time in that discussion.

believed the whole raison d'être of the Bill was that the tenants of Ireland had been unfairly rented, and therefore he did not see why the Government should object to deal more liberally than they had done with the subject of arrears.

said, the Government had gone to the length of their tether with regard to arrears, and could not go back upon the reduction of debts due before the passing of the Act. If any of the unjust or unfortunate transactions that had occurred previously were to be corrected, they should be corrected universally.

, in withdrawing the Amendment, took occasion to observe that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland's manner of meeting it by appealing on a point of Order to the Speaker was very characteristic indeed.

moved an Amendment extending the definition of present tenancies to every tenancy

"Created before the 1st of January, 1883, in a holding in which a tenancy was subsisting at the time of this passing of the Act."

moved to amend the Amendment by inserting, after "subsisting," the words "or the tenant is in possession." He explained that the object of the Amendment was to provide against the application of the clause to holdings acquired by the landlord through the instrumentality of sheriffs' sales, for instance.

said, if the landlord bought the holding there would be an end to the matter, and if anybody else bought it he would be protected by the Amendment.

said, the mistaken tactics of the Land League were now being exhibited by hon. Members opposite. Farmers had been induced to allow their farms to be sold over their heads, and when the Bill passed would find themselves in great difficulty.

complained that the insertion of these words would give a great extension to the meaning of a present tenancy and that they were larger than had been asked for by Irish Members below the Gangway. It would put into the position of a present ten- ant, the holder of every tenancy created before the 1st of January, 1883, and that was six months longer than some of the Irish Members had proposed. The effect of that would be that it would operate most unfairly towards the landlord in the case of a tenancy ceasing before the proposed date. The landlord, in such a case, would either have to hold the land in his own hands, or let it to a tenant, who, the day after, would be in the position of a present tenant, and be able to bring the landlord into Court in order to have a judicial rent fixed. He urged that, at all events, the time should be limited to 12 months after the passing of the Act.

moved to add to the Amendment the words "or had been subsisting within 12 months previously."

thought the promise of the Prime Minister had not been fulfilled by the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman distinctly stated that in no holding, in respect of which a breach of condition had been committed before the Bill became law, should a future tenancy be created without an interval having elapsed. That promise was not carried out in the Amendment.

said, he would at once acknowledge the hon. Member's (Mr. Healy's) capacity for ingenious argument; but could assure him that not only could no breach of covenant committed before the passing of the Act be made the foundation of a future tenancy, but that some breaches of covenant committed after the passing of the Act should not lead to the growth of a future tenancy.

said, he did not think the Amendment provided for the large number of evicted for whom he and his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) had been pleading. The tenants he more particularly referred to were those who would be assisted by the Arrears Clause, and enabled to make an arrangement with the landlord to pay portion of the arrears themselves and borrow another portion. He had hoped they would be able to come in as present tenants, and have the advantage of Clause 7; but it appeared to him that the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland provided nothing of the kind, because those tenants would not be tenants existing at the passing of the Act.

said, a man must be a tenant to apply under the Arrears Clause, and if he was a tenant, he was a present tenant. If he had been evicted, but retained his right of redemption, then also he was still a tenant.

moved the following addition to the same sub-section:—

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

The right hon. and learned Gentleman said it was reasonable when they started with present tenancies to presume that every tenant was a present tenant until the contrary was established.

thought it was unfair to establish such a presumption against the landlord. It would be far easier for the tenant to obtain evidence in his favour than for the landlord, and the Amendment was therefore unnecessary.

moved the following extension of "the present tenancy" definition:—

"Or a tenancy beginning after the passing of this Act, in respect of which it shall be mutually agreed between the landlord and tenant that it shall be a present tenancy."

declined to accept the Amendment, observing that the Government had already gone quite far enough in the direction pointed out by the hon. Member for the City of Cork.

said, the Amendment was intended to enable any landlord who thought fit to reinstate as a present tenant any person who had been a tenant of his, but who would not be a tenant at the passing of the Act. Surely, there could be no objection to it, for it was not in any sense obligatory; and he thought if a landlord wished to restore a tenant and confer a present tenancy upon him he should be at liberty to do so.

said, that all the cases which the Bill intended to meet were met, and it would be unreasonable to accept a proposal the terms of which were perfectly unlimited, and might apply to cases occurring at any time. If a tenant was evicted six months before the passing of the Act he had the right of redemption, and therefore was a present tenant.

said, the Bill was said to be pervaded by the great spirit of freedom of contract; and, if so, why not allow a landlord to make a contract which would be favourable to the tenant and agreeable to himself? By not doing so, they would be limiting the freedom of contract they were so anxious to uphold.

said, the Amendment was much more important than the Government seemed to suppose. It was one which would be followed by results entering into the national life of Ireland, and he ventured to think that even the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson), who was always ready to mount the war horse and charge the Government Benches, would scarcely object to the liberty which it proposed to confer upon the landlord, seeing that it would enable him to do in a cheap way what he could now only do by an expensive deed. Freedom of contract was their battle cry at the present moment.

pointed out that the unlimited character of the Amendment would enable tenancies to pass backward and forward into and out of the condition of a present tenancy any number of times. That seemed to him more like confusion than order, and it was a state of things they did not like to create.

moved, in page 31, line 30, to insert as a separate paragraph—

"Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Acts' means the Act of the session of the tenth and eleventh years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter thirty-two, intituled 'An Act to facilitate the Improvement of Landed Property in Ireland, and any Acts amending or extending the same.'"

moved, in page 31, line 35, after "Act," to insert—

"And 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' except in so far as the same is expressly altered or varied by this Act or is inconsistent therewith, and this Act shall be construed together as one Act."

moved the following Amendment to the clause:—In page 32, line 3, insert as separate subsection (2)—

(2) "Where the landlord has resumed possession of a tenancy from a present tenant, he may, if he thinks fit so to do, reinstate such tenant in his holding as a present tenant; and therefrom such tenancy shall again become subject to all the provisions of this Act which are applicable to present tenancies."

proposed, as an Amendment to Mr. Attorney General for Ireland's Amendment, in lines 1 and 2, to leave out "a present tenant."

said, the word "reinstate" covered the whole ground. To be restored, a tenant must have been in possession already. It was impossible to make the clause so general as to enable the landlord at any time and in favour of anybody to make the tenancy a present tenancy.

asked what objection the Government had to enable an Irish landlord to confer a present tenancy if he so desired? Indirectly the landlord could do so already, because a tenant applying to the Court would, according to the Amendment they had lately agreed to, be deemed to be a present tenant if the landlord did not prove the contrary. "Why not give the landlord express power to do what he could do indirectly?

regretted that they could not agree to a provision which would allow the passing backward and forward of a tenancy from a "present" to a "future" tenancy, and from a "future tenancy" to a "present tenancy." The 9th clause gave general powers which were quite sufficient to meet the case. Under that clause, power had been given to a landlord in an orderly manner to create a present tenancy, and give to it absolute permanence if he thought fit.

said, he thought the Amendment left the matter in some doubt as to the position and liabilities of tenants reinstated. He thought the Amendment ought to go on to say that the landlord might reinstate the tenant as a present tenant at a rent to be agreed upon, and that then the tenant should occupy for 15 years subject to statutory conditions. It was clear that unless some change was made the tenant would have the absolute right to go into Court and subject his landlord to litigation.

The Court would deal with that.

said, it would be poor comfort to the landlord to know, after he had been subjected to the annoyance of being dragged into Court, that the Court would give a just decision. He desired to obviate litigation, which was the rock ahead of the Bill.

thought the contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) unreasonable. Ought the landlord to be allowed to bring pressure on the unfortunate tenant, fix upon him an unreasonable rent, and then prevent him coming into Court? The Amendment was a violation of the principle of the Bill, and would give rise to much mischief. The landlord would induce the tenant under eviction to make a fresh bargain to his own detriment. The result would be that a single bad harvest would bring back all the old evils and create a fresh agitation.

said, that the Amendment was really more in favour of the landlord than of the tenant. The tenant could not be reinstated without the landlord's consent, or except on the landlord's terms. Then, when the tenant was reinstated, he would get all the advantages of a present tenant for 15 years. He thought the views of his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) would be met by the insertion of words to the effect that where the landlord had resumed possession of his tenancy he might reinstate the former tenant as a present tenant, and such tenant would become subject to all the provisions of the Act, provided always that the landlord and tenant might agree upon the rent to be charged. In such case, such agreement to have the same effect as if a judicial rent had been fixed by the Court under the provisions of the present Act.

, in opposing the Amendment, said, that it would be inadequate to meet the cases contemplated by the hon. Member. A mere raising or lowering of the rent would not determine the tenancy, and he could not conceive why a tenant should give up his farm to immediately resume it.

supported the Amendment, but suggested that it should be so altered as to provide simply that a present tenancy should be deemed to subsist so long as the tenant for the time being and his successors in title continued in possession of the holding, whether the incidents of the tenure be varied or not.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had pointed out to him practical difficulties in the way of adopting the Amendment as it stood; and he, therefore, begged leave to withdraw it.

said, that the clause exempted from the operation of the Act all holdings which were ordinarily known as "town parks," and which were "adjacent to any city or town." With a view to limit the operation of the clause, he would move the insertion after the word "town," of the words "containing not less than 6,000 inhabitants." He had adopted that limit as it was the number mentioned in the Sanitary Acts. A town of 6,000 inhabitants or upwards might be formed into a sanitary district; towns containing a lesser number were to be regarded as rural districts. He objected to the hardships inflicted on owners of land near small towns owing to the sweeping exception contained in the Act of 1870, and which was continued under this Bill. He contended that lands in the neighbourhood of towns in Ireland were ordinarily not more valuable than other lands, and there was therefore no reason for exempting them from the operation of the Act.

, in supporting the Amendment, said, there were many cases in which town parks should be excluded, but such cases did not exist in respect of holdings adjoining small villages, which holdings, purchased with the acquiescence of the landlord for large sums of money, should not be deprived of the benefits of the Ulster Custom and compensation under the law.

regretted that the subject was renewed after the considerable discussion which took place in Committee. The Prime Minister on that occasion said it was undesirable to extend the geographical limits of the Act of 1870, although he thought there was a good deal to be said on behalf of the tenantry with regard to town parks. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) thought the Amendment had better be withdrawn, and that the matter might be left to the understanding arrived at in Committee. Perhaps, during the Recess the Government would consider the matter in order to see whether legislation was desirable or not.

said, that now was the only time to take the matter into consideration with effect.

said, he could not see the value of the matter being considered by the Government in the Recess, after the Bill had become law, unless they intended to introduce another Bill next Session.

suggested that the matter might be compromised, by inserting a provision in the clause to the effect that the exemption should be subject to the approval of the Commission.

said, that was not a proposal to be entertained at that time. The House had had the matter before it in 1870, and he hoped the Government would firmly adhere to the decision arrived at in Committee. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Carlow County (Mr. Macfarlane), if the matter was to be dealt with at all, it should be dealt with by the House.

said, in reference to what fell from the hon. Member for Carlow County (Mr. Macfarlane), that it would, of course, have to be proved to the Court that the lands in question, which would be exempt from the Bill, were town parks. If hon. Members from Ireland desired, a Return could be provided before the commencement of the next Session showing the extent of these town parks, and under what conditions they existed, so that an opinion might be formed as to what would be the probable operation of the clause.

said, that it would be no great been to obtain such a Return, and it was very easy for anyone to get the details.

moved to omit the words "from year to year," after "tenant," at the commencement of the clause, which gave the Court power to quash a lease accepted by a tenant from year to year since the passing of the Act of 1870, when the Court was satisfied that such lease was procured by the landlord by threat of eviction or undue influence. A leaseholder whose lease was expired was in a far more defenceless position than a yearly tenant, and the Amendment, if accepted, would save hundreds of cases.

said, the object of the clause was to provide redress for leaseholders who, by threat of eviction or undue influence, were deprived of the rights which they ought to have had under the Act of 1870, by having leases thus forced upon them. The class of leaseholders which the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) sought to include had comparatively slight benefits con- ferred upon them by that Act, and, therefore, did not come within the principle of the clause. He could not accept the Amendment.

supported the Amendment, and referred to cases of hardship which it would remedy.

supported the Amendment.

moved to insert "twelve" instead of "six months" after the passing of the Act, as the period within which a tenant might apply to the Court to have an unfair lease made void, on the ground that it had been accepted under the threat of eviction or undue influence. It was, he thought, too much to ask the tenant to go before the Court within six months.

resisted the Amendment, considering it only reasonable that in six months a tenant ought to be able to make up his mind what he intended to do.

, in conformity with an arrangement, moved to add to the clause in its altered form the Amendment proposed and withdrawn at an early hour of the evening.

hoped the Government would not listen to the proposal in its present form, more especially as it was understood that they would bring up an Amendment of their own upon the subject. He did not believe that any words the Government would bring up could have any approach to these, which would be fatal to the decisions of the House in Committee on every question of importance relating to time and the retrospective action of the Bill. These words were sprung upon the House at a time when it was almost impossible to take due cognizance of them. Many hon. Members had left the House under the impression that no further question of importance would be introduced, on which assumption the Prime Minister had asked the Leader of the Opposition to raise no obstacle to the third reading being taken that evening. The words as they stood would offer a premium to every tenant in Ireland who was in arrear in his rent to go into Court to get his rent fixed judicially, and were thus inconsistent with the desire of the Prime Minister not to encourage litigation by tempting tenants to rush into the Court. The prospect held out to the landlord was that the satisfaction given by the Bill would be such that tenants would not have reason to refuse to pay their rents; but now they were to be allowed to hold them back six months longer, and thus, in some cases, to bring the landlords to the verge of bankruptcy. This was to be done because the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had come down to give effect to an edict sent forth by the Land League a few days ago. ["Hear, hear!" and "No, no!"] If the Government accepted the proposition, they would be playing into the hands of the Land League, whose action they had denounced. ["Oh, oh!"] He hoped he should not be further interrupted by the hon. Member for Stockton, who seemed to think that because the Members who were present to protest against the iniquity of the clause was small their arguments could be obscured from the country. He appealed to the Government to give a most distinct negative to a proposition to carry out an arrangement into which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland entered far too easily, and by so doing they would show that they did not desire to re-open all the questions which were supposed to have been closed. The Amendment would tempt the farmer to squander money which was due to the landlord, because he could not be sued for it for six months, or possibly for a longer time. What security was there in the press of business which would thus be created that it would not be six years before rents could be fixed, if this incentive were offered to tenants to rush into the Court? The proposition was the outcome of the intention of the Land League to defeat the action of the Bill, and it was unwise of the Government to attempt to import it into the Bill at that stage. If the Amendment were agreed to, he believed it would seriously imperil the passing of the Bill; and, no matter how small the minority might be, he would certainly divide the Committee against it.

thought that some of the statements of the hon. Member (Mr. Brodrick) were without foundation. There was, for instance, no foundation for the apprehension that matters might be suspended for an indefinite time. If the facts did not warrant the application, the Court would reject it, for what was proposed was only a permissive and enabling power. The Court would not grant it if it were not reasonable, and much would depend on the prospect of a speedy settlement. Then, again, there was no interference with the landlord who sued in the Civil Bill Court, a decree in which did not enable the creditor to sell the tenancy. Therefore, for all classes of tenants whose rent did not come up to £20 the Amendment would not have the effect suggested. The Commissioners might also impose conditions on the tenants. For instance, they might require that security might be given, or that a substantial part of the rent should be brought into Court to abide the decision. It might, therefore, the Government conceived, be accepted without the fear of doing injustice to the landlord or other creditor.

strongly opposed the Amendment, remarking that of all the changes introduced into the Bill since its first introduction that was, in his opinion, the most serious. ["Oh, oh!"] He was aware that those Benches were deserted, and that they were at the mercy of hon. Members below the Gangway. If the Amendment were sanctioned, it would not, in the circumstances, carry with it the weight of the House, for it was introduced only two or three hours ago, and it was now being discussed in the absence of many hon. Gentlemen who took a deep interest in the subject, but who did not know that such a proposal had been brought forward. One effect of the Amendment would be to clog the Court with a number of cases which otherwise would not be there. In many cases, a landlord might have five or six years of rent owing to him without an opportunity of his obtaining a farthing. It was urged that an execution could be levied against the other ordinary assets of the debtor; but the tenant might say that the Legislature had practically tied the landlord up until a judicial rent had been settled, and the landlord would be without an answer to such an argument. Again, when the intervention of the Court was invoked, the ordinary creditors were to be told that they must wait until the landlord and the tenant had settled their dispute. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had remarked that the Court might impose a condition that the tenant should pay the rent into Court. But what advantage would that confer on the starving landlord? This was an ex post facto clause of a most obnoxious description, for it gave one party an advantage entirely at the expense of the other. In some cases it might be the ruin of the landlord. There were some landlords who, by the operation of such a clause as this, would be rendered for months and for years totally destitute. He spoke on behalf of landlords who were unable to take care of themselves, and he was strongly opposed to a proposition which would place them at the mercy of a litigious tenant and a dilatory Court. If ever there was an immoral clause, the one now under discussion was stamped with that character. Hon. Members on that side of the House were bound to protest against such a clause being added to the Bill. Various references had been made to "another body" and "another place," but that other "body" and that other "place" would be grossly neglecting their duty if they did not at once scout a provision like this, which had been introduced without Notice and accepted without consideration, and which was, on the face of it, a disregard of the ordinary laws of morality.

said, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lewis) had ended his speech by saying what the duty of another House ought to be; but he (Mr. Forster) thought the hon. Member should wait until he got in that "other place" before he said what its duty ought to be. They had to consider what their duty was; and, for his part, he hoped that the House would accept the Amendment. The hon. Member who had last spoken had used very hard words respecting it; but he had enormously exaggerated his case. He had spoken on the supposition that, in any extreme case, the Court was bound to grant a postponement of any application; but the wording of the clause only gave the Court power to do so, and the House, if it had any confidence in the Court, might be sure it would guard against extreme cases of hardship. Such cases occasionally there might be, no doubt; but there were also cases of extreme rents, which had, in fact, been the real cause of the Bill that had so long occupied the House. He thought they had all by this time come to the conclusion that unfair rents ought to be reduced, and that a man ought not to be deprived of the benefits of the Act because his payments were in arrear. The Bill left an enormous majority of cases to the law as it at present stood; but quite recently the landlords had found out a new process, by means of writs of fieri facias, of exacting their rents, and getting rid of their tenants. He had thought that the provisions of the Bill guarded against such cases, and the discovery that they did not do so was a perfect surprise to him. He was, therefore, obliged to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) for filling up the gap in the interests of the good government of Ireland. ["Oh, oh!"] He repeated that the interests of the good government of Ireland required that, after conferring on the tenants the benefits of the Bill, they should fill up any gap that might be discovered, by which the Bill might be evaded and the tenants would lose the advantages intended for them. The hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) had alluded to certain statements of the Land League; now, he (Mr. Forster) did not know whether or not the Land League had made them; but it was quite possible that even the Land League might sometimes make a correct statement; and, in any case, it would be a misfortune if provisions intended to benefit the tenants were defeated by a comparatively new process of which the Government were not previously aware. Indeed, the House itself would be to blame if it allowed its main object to be frustrated. And what was now proposed was not that the payment of all debts should be suspended, but that a period of grace or waiting should be given—for six months or a year—rather than the tenants should be driven out. He was somewhat surprised at the opposition that had been offered to the Amendment, which he regarded merely as a proposal to supply an unsuspected omission. As he had said, the Government did not know of the gap which it proposed to fill up; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) knew of it, it appeared as if he accepted the other clauses of the Bill with the knowledge that it would be in the power of the landlords to defeat the intentions of the Government.

said, he wished to say a word or two of a clause to which the House would certainly attach much importance. On that side of the House the proposal had taken everyone by surprise, and had been wholly unexpected; and that would also be the feeling in Ireland, not only of the landlords, many of whom would be ruined by the clause, but also of other creditors when they heard what had been done. Whatever might be the provisions of the Bill in favour of the tenant, no one had ever imagined, and no suspicion had ever been breathed, that a clause would be introduced absolutely suspending for a definite time those remedies that by law belonged to every landlord. The chief argument in favour of the proposal—he might say the only argument of his right hon. and learned Friend opposite the Attorney General for Ireland—was that it would be in the discretion of the Court to give effect to the application, or to refuse it. But the Court would know scarcely anything of the equity of each case as between landlord and tenant; while, as regards the other creditors, it would know absolutely nothing at all. All he (Mr. Plunket) could say was, that the adoption of the proposal would be taken in Ireland as the most sublime triumph of the land agitation and the Land League, whose last mandate was that nothing should be paid till the new rents were ascertained by the Court. ["No, no!"] Well, that was he read in the paper over and over again. He could only add that he was confident that of all the unprecedented proposals made by the Bill, public opinion would to-morrow characterize the Amendment before the House as the most novel and the most strange.

, who, throughout the whole of his speech, spoke amid great interruption, in rising to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the charge of Windsor Park be transferred from the Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings,"

said, he did not mean by his Amendment to imply any censure upon His Royal Highness Prince Christian, the Ranger, or to advocate any change in his posi- tion or his authority. Indeed, he had nothing but congratulations to offer His Royal Highness upon the splendid success attending the Volunteer Review so recently held in the park, a success which was, in no small degree, due to the personal exertions of His Royal Highness. He thought, however, it most important that at Windsor, as at Buckingham Palace, the Banger's authority should be considerable, and that the Princes who held those offices should represent the hereditary rights of the Sovereign in the domains of the Crown. The simple object of his Amendment was to obtain an approval of the policy which would place Windsor Park in the same position in reference to the Public Accounts as that in which all the other Royal Parks and Palaces now stood. The question at issue was, whether the policy of the Act of 1851 of regarding Windsor Park and woods as a sort of revenue could be justified? He desired to remove the Royal domain of Windsor from what he might call the commercial category of Crown Lands. That domain was 14,000 acres in extent. He would not diminish it by a rood; his only desire being to place all those Crown Lands which pertained to the Royal dignity in one Department. Windsor Park and woods should be reserved for Royal, not for revenue purposes. When the Act of 1851 was passed, and this portion of the Crown property was so strangely misplaced in a Revenue Department, there were two circumstances in consideration. In the first place, a lower estimate of the Royal dignity and of the interest of the people in maintaining that dignity prevailed at that period, and a Government of that period would have shrunk from placing 14,000 acres of the Crown Lands in perpetual reserve by the measure which he now recommended; and, in the second case, the supply of Navy timber for what were then called "the wooden walls of England" was present to the minds of Ministers, and influenced them. in classing Windsor Park and woods with the Crown forests. Now, it was chiefly as a matter of good administration, and also because he desired to place Windsor Park and woods as a Royal domain out of the reach of the commercial incidents affecting the remainder of the Crown Lands, that he wished the House to express an opinion in favour of the policy of placing Windsor Park and woods in the same category as all the other Royal Parks, Palaces, and Gardens. Windsor woods were now classed with the Crown forests, which might not be permanent possessions of the Crown. By making of the 14,000 acres a Royal domain, and by reclaiming it from a Revenue Department with which it had no proper connection and placing it with other Royal domains upon the Votes of Parliament, the House would show its disposition to remedy a glaring irregularity in our system of Public Accounts, and it would give an assurance of splendid loyalty to the Crown, and of its devotion to the vital interest of the vast and increasing population of the country. He begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

seconded the Amendment.

said, he could not help strongly advising, as far as he might presume to advise, the House not to proceed in this matter. He was very doubtful whether his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) had taken into his view all the considerations which bore upon it. He wanted them to perform an act of splendid loyalty, and to make a magnificent gift to Her Majesty. He (Mr. Gladstone) would venture to remind his hon. Friend that the business of asking the Representatives of the people to lay any burden on the country for the purpose of any new endowment of the Crown was a function which that House jealously required to be reserved to the responsible Advisers of the Crown. The difficulty which might arise in the ordinary Business of that House would be the effect of the proposal on a large number of hon. Members whose minds and hearts were overflowing and almost bursting with loyalty, and who would be making loyal proposals out of the exuberance of their feelings. There were many matters to be taken into consideration in connection with this question, affecting as it did the general group of questions relating to the allocation of Royal residences and pleasure grounds for the Sovereign, and to the relations between those possessions and the general estates of the Crown, and, again, the questions relating to the contingent interest of the Heir Apparent in the estates of the Crown, inasmuch as they became his absolute property on the demise of the Sovereign; all these formed a complicated mass of subjects involving a great variety of delicate and difficult considerations, with regard to which it was almost an established practice that they should be handled mainly at the commencement of each reign, or, if otherwise, on the responsibility of the Government. He was quite aware that, in particular cases, where very small questions of interest of property were concerned, and where, on the other hand, very large matters of public interest were involved—that was to say, where the comfort and advantages of great populations were concerned—a different rule had been observed, and some infractions of the general rule had taken place. But it must be observed, with respect to the great part of Windsor Park, that this question of allocation was considered at the time to which the hon. Member had Referred, and when the general settlement was made. The general settlement was made, with what view? With the view of securing, as far as Parliament was willing to grant it, the management of the Crown estates with some degree of independence, subject, undoubtedly, to the control of the Treasury, but still to a more remote and general control than that which was commonly used in our system of administration, and all this with a view to the good husbandry of the Crown property, because the Crown property was the equivalent which, at the commencement of each reign, the Sovereign offered to the nation in return for the Civil List. Now, that was a serious, grave, and complicated question; and he thought it was plain that there was no case before them to justify their action on the present occasion. Windsor Park was one of the greatest ornaments of the country. It was a property of considerable value, and to make the transfer which his hon. Friend suggested would have a very important bearing upon the proprietary value of that property. It would place it under a different system of management, and subject to different rules, and it would involve important modifications of the arrangement made at the commencement of the reign. He was bound to recommend to the House that they should not initiate or entertain a subject of this kind, which obviously required some very strong evidence of public interest in order to make out even a primâ facie justification. There was no such case here. There was no public grievance. There was no constant inconvenience. The small and momentary question as to the inconvenience threatened to Members of the Legislature, which arose on a recent occasion, was as much a matter of amusement as of convenience, and it afforded no occasion at all for the reopening of this serious question. He could not help hoping that his hon. Friend would not feel disposed to press this matter on the attention of the House. In any case, he (Mr. Gladstone) must press it strongly on the House from an opposite direction—that no step could be safely, or even becomingly or decorously, taken without the most careful preliminary investigation, which must always precede a serious modification of an arrangement having reference to the property of the Royal Family.

begged to withdraw his Amendment, after the statement of the Prime Minister. It was entirely on the ground of good administration that he had brought it forward.

, in rising to call attention to the want of information with reference to the "suitors' funds" in Chancery; and to move—

"That the future lists of unclaimed money be issued with cross references triennially; stating the amount of fund in Court; with the names and last known addresses of persons supposed to be entitled; together with the date of the last decree,"

said, there was a large amount of money belonging to many persons who did not claim it, because there was no sufficient publication of lists of names of those entitled, who were, therefore, kept in ignorance of their rights. In that way the spirit of the Act of Parliament on the subject was violated, and so much secrecy was maintained that persons were not able to claim the money that was due to them. Lists ought to be published every three years. They were due in 1873, 1876, and 1879, and the fourth was due in 1882. But only two lists had been published, and it had required much pressure to obtain these. It was said to be the fault of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who would not provide the Accountant General with the staff that was required to get out the lists. Those that had been published were not as useful as they might be, for, although they professed to be alphabetical, names were not to be found under their initial letters. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

said, he would admit that there had been some delay in the publication of the lists; but as the staff of the Accountant General's Office had been increased, he hoped there would be no ground for complaint in that respect in the future. With regard to the form of the accounts, that was settled by Lord Cranworth, when Lord Chancellor, and the matter was in the hands of the Lord Chancellor for the time being. Those who were responsible for looking after these funds, in the interests of suitors and of the public, were of opinion that it was not desirable to make some of the changes suggested, and for these reasons it was his duty to resist the Motion.

wished to ask one or two questions of the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury before the Vote was put. Upon page 91 of the Estimates, there was an item of £308 for the salary of the Superintendent of the Library. A good many years ago Mr. Woods, who had been employed in Ireland during the Famine years of 1845, 1846 and 1847, and, having done good service in connection with the relief works there, was offered by the Colonial Office, at the instance of the Treasury, the post of Assistant Librarian to the Colonial Office. Mr. Woods, who was in charge of the relief branch of the Boards of Works in Ireland during the period of famine, received a handsome testimonial when he left. He had conducted the drainage and other operations, not only with satisfaction to his official superiors, but to the numerous country gentlemen and others with whom he was brought into communication. By his exertions he greatly contributed to the success of the relief measures; and, in consideration of the services which he rendered, the Treasury desirous of doing what they could for Mr. Woods, offered him the post of Assistant Librarian in the Colonial Office. Upon offering it to him, the Treasury wrote a letter to Mr. Woods, which concluded in these words—

"Your probable, though not the only possible, advancement will be to the post of Librarian, with a salary of £600, rising to £800 a-year. Such is the position we have to offer you."

Some years afterwards, Sir Charles Trevelyan, the Secretary to the Trea- sury, declared that this gentleman had been selected out of regard to his merits and qualifications with the intention that he should obtain better and earlier promotion in consequence of the transfer. Later on, in the year 1870, the Earl of Kimberley, in regard to this particular appointment, used these words—

"Mr. Woods was always told that the superior office of Librarian, rising from £600 to £800 a-year, would still remain open to him."

The Librarian, in course of time, retired, and, instead of Mr. Woods being appointed to succeed, the office was abolished, together with that of Assistant Librarian, held by Mr. Woods, and Mr. Woods received a much less pension than he ought to have been entitled to. Mr. Woods, when he accepted the offer of the Treasury, and went to the Colonial Office as Assistant Librarian, did not obtain any immediate advantage; but it was the prospect of promotion, pointedly and repeatedly held out to him, that induced him to relinquish his post at the Treasury and go to the Colonial Office. At that time there was a Librarian at the Colonial Office as well as an Assistant, and the salary of the Librarian went up to £800 a-year. When the Librarian retired, Mr. Woods found that the Treasury would not keep faith with him; and he found that instead of being appointed to succeed, as he had been distinctly promised, the office was nominally abolished. Mr. Woods had been told over and over again that he might look for the promotion which was admittedly his due. To show that Mr. Woods was not alone in his view of the matter, the words of Lord Carnarvon might be quoted. In 1874 Lord Carnarvon was Secretary of State for the Colonies, and in a letter to the Treasury the noble Lord said that the decision of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, in the case of Mr. Woods, placed that gentleman in a different position from that which he had been led to expect, both in regard to employment and salary. Lord Carnarvon further requested the particular attention of their Lordships to the distinct expectation of promotion held out to Mr. Woods when he relinquished a good position at the Treasury in order to enter the Colonial Office as sub-Librarian. Mr. Woods was over and over again led to expect that whenever the post of Librarian became vacant he would suc- ceed to it. The end of the matter was that the case of Mr. Woods, at the suggestion of that gentleman, was submitted to arbitration. But the arbitration was of a purely illusory character, because when he was prepared to go to arbitration, and submit his case to Earl Cairns, the arbitrator chosen, the Treasury did not allow him to make the statement he desired to make, and it was they only who submitted a case for the adjudication of the arbitrator. Mr. Woods naturally objected to such a one-sided submission, and desired to withdraw from the arbitration; but the Treasury obtained a decision from Earl Cairns. The reference to arbitration did not, he (Mr. O'Connor) was informed, admit of the examination of witnesses in support of Mr. Woods' case. The consequence was that this gentleman, after having faithfully served the public for a great many years, and having, even according to the testimony of the Treasury itself, served it well, found himself debarred from obtaining the post of Librarian at the Colonial Office, which he had naturally thought, from the statements made to him, was his right. Instead of obtaining the advantage he had been taught to expect, he found himself pensioned on a much smaller scale of salary than he had a fair claim to be allowed to go up to; and, at the present moment, the position of Mr. Woods was this—he had lost, in the shape of salary, more than £1,000, and about £120 a-year in pension. He (Mr. O'Connor) wished to add that he had no personal knowledge of Mr. Woods. He had never seen him; but having given to the case all the examination and attention he could, from the materials supplied to him, he was bound to confess that, in his opinion, a very great hardship had been arbitrarily inflicted upon Mr. Woods, and that the Treasury ought to reconsider their position in the matter, if not with regard to the status of Mr. Woods, at any rate with regard to the amount of pension. He (Mr. O'Connor) did not propose to move the reduction of the Vote; but he would ask the Treasury whether they would consent to the printing of the Papers relating to Mr. Woods' case. If the Government side of the matter was such as would bear investigation, he did not see why they should object to the printing of the Papers. He wished further to point out that the abolition of the post of Librarian was, after all, not a genuine abolition; because, in the present Estimates, he found the post revived under the title of "Superintendent of the Library." He did not remember that the item appeared in last year's Estimates; but it was given now, and a sum of £308 attached to it. He trusted that he had stated the case sufficiently to allow the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury to answer it.

said, he happened to be in the Colonial Office at the time Mr. Woods was appointed. Some Papers had been missed from the Colonial Office, and they had appeared in one of the morning papers. They were documents of great importance, and in consequence of what had occurred, it was considered desirable to remove the Assistant Librarian from his post, but not to dismiss him. Mr. Woods succeeded as Assistant Librarian, having been transferred to the Colonial Office from the Treasury. Certainly, one of the inducements held out to Mr. Woods to make the change was that he would be entitled to promotion to the office of Librarian whenever it became vacant. He, therefore, trusted that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Frederick Cavendish) would look into the case, and endeavour, if possible, to do Mr. Woods justice.

I was not aware that the case was coming on to-night, or otherwise I would have refreshed my memory. But I think I can say enough to satisfy the Committee that the claims of Mr. Woods is not one that the Government can. entertain. I would venture to say that Mr. Woods has been treated with every consideration, and that he has been granted as large a pension as his services, under the circumstances, entitle him to. His claim to succeed to the post of Librarian could not be entertained, because, if acceded to, it would establish the doctrine that the office was one which Her Majesty's Government were bound to retain permanently. Mr. Woods, no doubt, considered that he had a grievance, and he commenced legal proceedings; but, at the last moment, he came to the conclusion that it was desirable to abandon the legal proceedings. At the request of Mr. Woods the whole case was referred to Lord Cairns—not only as to his legal rights, but as to any equitable right he might have to compensation. The case was put fully before Lord Cairns, who decided that Mr. Woods' claim could not be recognized; and, under these circumstances, I do not think that the case ought to be re-opened.

said, that he was in the Colonial Office when Mr. Woods was serving in the Office. He was transferred from the Treasury to the post of Assistant Librarian, and, no doubt, he expected to have been made in time Librarian; but he never could have had any absolute claim to such advancement. Indeed, it would be impossible for the Treasury to answer for the organization of any office for all time to come. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), who brought the subject forward, said the abolition of the office of Librarian at the Colonial Office had not been altogether bonâ fide. Now, the fact of the matter was this—the whole Office was re-organized, and, with a view to prevent any increase of expenditure, several posts were abolished, among which was that of Librarian. Anything more bonâ fide it was impossible to conceive. It was found quite unnecessary to have a Librarian and an Assistant Librarian, and the present Superintendent of the Library was appointed at £300 a-year, rising to £500. He was sorry that Mr. Woods had not been allowed to go before the arbitrator. He did not think that that gentleman would have been able to prove his case; but it would have been more consistent with the principles of justice that he should have been allowed to appear before Lord Cairns, and state the nature of his grievance personally. If Mr. Woods had had that opportunity afforded to him of fully explaining his case to an impartial arbitrator, they would probably have heard no more of the matter.

remarked, that from all he could gather in reference to the case, Mr. Woods seemed to have been very badly treated. His hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had already read a few words from a speech of Lord Carnarvon, when Colonial Secretary, when the case was brought before the House of Lords by Lord O'Hagan. Lord Carnarvon dealt with the case upon its merits, and justice and the noble Lord said that in 1859 Mr. Woods, who had been at the Treasury for some years, was transferred to the post of Assistant Librarian at the Colonial Office with the distinct expectation that he would succeed in due course to the office of Librarian. Lord Carnarvon added that he had acquiesced, although reluctantly, in the decision at which the Treasury had arrived in reference to the claims of Mr. Woods; but he thought that that gentleman had taken an inadvisable course in taking legal proceedings against the Government. The fact was that Mr. Woods submitted his claim to the Treasury, and finding that he could get no redress, he published the correspondence. It was always considered that a public officer, however harsh the decision against him might be, should submit without placing his grievances before the general public by publishing the correspondence. It appeared that in this case the Government consented to an arbitration; but the arbitration was of a thoroughly illusory character, because the person most interested in the matter did not obtain leave to state his case before the arbitrator. He (Mr. Biggar) had never in his life heard of a more absurd arbitration. Only one party was allowed to appear and be heard before it. If the Treasury really wished that justice should be done, they should have allowed Mr. Woods to appear before Lord Cairns and state his case; and if the decision of Lord Cairns, after having fully heard the case, had then been against him, no doubt Mr. Woods would have been satisfied. It was not possible that he would be satisfied, or would believe that he had not been unjustly treated, when he found that the Government refused to submit anything to the arbitrator beyond their own version of the case. It certainly seemed to him, if the case had been properly represented, that Mr. Woods' application for a fresh hearing should be acceded to, and that the case should be re-opened by a fair and impartial tribunal, before which both parties could be heard.

very much regretted to hear the statement which had been made by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) objected to the statement he (Mr. O'Connor) had made that the abolition of the office of Librarian at the Colonial Office had not been bonâ fide. He had not made the observation with any desire to be offensive, and, as exception was taken to it, he regretted that he had made use of it. All he now asked for was that the Government would consent to print the further Papers which four years ago were ordered by the House of Lords to be printed. The House of Lords consented to print them in the year 1877; but when he applied to the House of Lords for a copy of the Papers he was informed that the entry in the Votes was a Parliamentary fiction, and that, in point of fact, the Papers never had been presented. He believed they had been printed for the official purposes of the Colonial Office, so that it would not be difficult to furnish copies of them if the Government would consent to their being printed. He merely asked now that the Treasury should consent to the production of the Papers, and he had no intention of objecting to the Vote. With regard to what the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had said as to the unreasonableness of the expectation that any particular post should be retained for the benefit of a particular individual, a careful perusal of the Estimates for the present year would show that, in many cases, existing offices were kept open for certain officers. Here and there a note would be found appended to a Vote stating that "this post will be abolished on the retirement of the present officer," or words to that effect. All he would say in regard to the abolition of the office of Librarian at the Colonial Office was, that however unnecessary the post was a year ago, or 10 years ago, it was equally unnecessary when Mr. Woods was first appointed. If the Government thought at that time that in consideration of the past services of Mr. Woods he should have a claim to the office of Librarian, when it became vacant, they would be equally justified, when the post became vacant, in fulfilling their promise, and allowing Mr. Woods to hold the office until he had attained the maximum amount of pay he was led to believe he would ultimately reach. As a matter of fact, by the course pursued by the Treasury, Mr. Woods had been deprived of salary to the extent of £ 1,000; and the pension upon which he had been retired, having regard to the rate of pay he ought to have received, was about £120 a-year lower than that which he would have received if he had been allowed to go up to the maximum amount of salary he was induced to believe he would reach. He would again press the Government to print and distribute the Papers relating to the case.

I am sorry that I cannot accede to the request of the hon. Member. The case has already been fully investigated. Mr. Woods took legal proceedings in order to assert his rights; and he was subsequently, as a matter of favour, allowed to go before an arbitrator. The case has, therefore, been fully gone into, and I do not think it necessary, or desirable, to re-open it.