said, he had an Amendment on the Paper, in page 1, line 25, to insert, after the word "limitation," the following words:—

"That where a tenant has a saleable interest in his holding, such interest shall he duly con- sidered and taken into account by the Court as an asset in estimating the amount to be paid in discharge of any antecedent arrears of rent under this Act."

said, that an Amendment in his name was next on the Paper; but he should defer moving it until after the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen).

The hon. Member may do that; but I would point out to him that I have carefully considered the Amendments on the Paper, and I do not think it would be out of Order if he moved his first.

May I venture to ask if, on the other hand, the Amendment would be out of Order after the Committee has dealt with the Amendment I have alluded to?

No; I do not think it would, for reasons which I will explain presently.

said, he had on the Paper an Amendment to the effect that the onus of proving his inability to pay should rest with the tenant; and his object in putting down that Amendment was to obtain, on the inquiry into the question of the ability or inability of the tenant to pay rent, some sort of security that the investigation should be a real one. In framing his Amendment he had had in view the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), wherein that right hon. Gentleman had distinctly referred to an inquiry by the Land Commission, or other persons delegated by the Land Commission, with regard to the property possessed by the tenant. He also desired to propose that all bankers, managers of Post Office or other Government banks, collectors of agricultural returns, and other persons should be bound, on receiving notice from the Land Commission, to produce books, papers, and documents within their custody, which were required in the course of the inquiry. Of course, he felt it possible that the terms of his Amendment might be objected to, on the score that such an inquiry as the one he contemplated would be of an inquisitorial character; but what he would submit to the Committee was this—that if the inquiry into the means of the tenant was to be a real one, it must necessarily be of an inquisitorial character. If a person applied under the provisions of the Poor Law for poor relief, the Guardians did what it was their duty to do—made inquiry into the means and circumstances of the applicant to the fullest extent. If, again, a person applied to the Commissioners of Income Tax, either for a reduction of his assessment or a return of the income tax paid by him on profits that he had not made, the inquiry was or ought to be searching and inquisitorial. Such inquiries could not be pleasant to those who were the subjects of them; but if the inquiry which was proposed to be instituted by the Land Commissioners under this Bill into the ability or inability of the tenant to pay was to be a real inquiry, it must, he was afraid, be made both searching and unpleasant. He had put his Amendment down at that point, because it seemed to him that the question might be fairly raised here; but he did not wish to delay the Committee if the discussion could be more conveniently taken later on. Therefore, if the Government, without entering upon the merits or demerits of his proposal, were to say that it would be more appropriate to move it on a later clause, he should refrain from pressing it now. It might, perhaps, be moved as a separate sub-section in the clause, or as an addition to what might be called the Powers Clause of the Bill—the clause under which certain powers were given to the Land Commission.

said, he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he had stated his views. The question was a novel one; but he (Mr. Gladstone) was of opinion that the best place to discuss it would be on the Powers Clause. He could not see his way to deal with it at present.

Then I beg to give Notice that I will bring it forward at a later stage.

said, he had put an Amendment on the Paper which was in accord with the observations he had made in the debate on going into Com- mittee on the Bill. He was anxious, if possible, to meet the argument that, as the Bill was drawn, the tenant right might be realized for a considerable sum after an advance had been made by the State—that was to say, that the tenant might receive a gift at the hands of the Exchequer, and next day, or next year, he might sell his tenancy, pocket the money, and leave the country. That, he thought, was an eventuality which the Government would not wish to occur; and he considered, therefore, that it was a perfectly fair Amendment that he had put on the Paper. It in no way interfered with the object of the Bill, and it came to this—that the amount advanced by the State should remain a charge on the tenant right, though not a charge at interest; and that it should only be raisable in case the tenant right came to be sold. It seemed to him that the Amendment he proposed would give some of the advantages of a loan, without the disadvantages attaching to it. There was no interest to be paid which would make it more difficult for the tenant to pay his rent; but, on the other hand, it would be brought home to those who received the gift from the Exchequer that there was some distinction to be drawn between them and those who had paid their rent. He should be glad to know what was the general view of the Government with regard to the Amendment, or, at any rate, with regard to some Amendment of this kind. With regard to the proposal that stood on the Paper before his in the name of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt), that involved a repayment of arrears antecedent to those satisfied under the Act, the repayment to be made out of the amount realized by the sale of the tenant right. That was not his (Mr. Goschen's) proposal. His proposition was that the State should be recouped for the sum which it had advanced in the case of the tenant right being sold. He did not know whether the Amendment would be more acceptable to the Government if a limit of time were introduced into it—that was to say, if it stated that the clause should apply if the tenant right were sold within a certain number of years. If the Government saw their way to the acceptance of the Amendment, a limit of time might be inserted; but, whether or no, he thought the proposal was one well worthy of careful consideration. He would not detain the Committee by dwelling upon the matter at any great length, as he was anxious to ascertain, in the first instance, what was the general view of the Government and of the Committee upon a question of the kind.

said, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) how he was going to calculate the sum when the sale of the holding took place? If this Amendment were adopted it would be necessary for them to have the most complex machinery in order to enable the State to get back the money it had advanced to the tenant; and it should be borne in mind that, in all probability, the machinery by which these gifts would be made to the tenants in the course of a year or a year and a-half would be done away with. If the Amendment were accepted, the machinery, in view of the eventuality contemplated by the proposal, might have to be kept up for 20 or 30 years. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman, as a financier, that the game he proposed was really not worth the candle. The staff which it would be necessary for the Government to keep up would cost a great deal more than they would be likely to get from the tenants who sold their tenant right.

said, he thought there was great force in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy); but he would make this admission to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen)—namely, that his proposal was a perfectly fair one as a method of meeting a difficulty which they all acknowledged. They all admitted that there was great difficulty in the case, supposing that a man, on the ground of disability to pay, received public money in discharge of his arrears, and shortly thereafter received a large amount for his tenant right and left the country. Many of them had recognized the fact that this was a case requiring some attention, and his right hon. Friend had proposed one method of dealing with it. But the Government proposed another, and, if he might say so, a better mode of meeting the difficulty. The Amendment of his right hon. Friend, and that which he (Mr. Gladstone) himself intended to bring forward subsequently, could not well stand together. If they did, they might constitute too much. Therefore, having carefully considered the matter, and having to choose between the two methods, he and his Colleagues had come to the conclusion that their mode was the safer—and this he said without in the slightest degree censuring the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman would himself, he (Mr. Gladstone) thought, admit that it would be a very great disadvantage, independently of the cost, to render the continuance of an expensive machinery necessary for a lengthened period. As the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had pointed out, it would be a great disadvantage to keep this demand hanging over the head of the tenant for a long period. The right hon. Gentleman offered to limit the period; but he would see that by doing so he would greatly impair the principle to which he sought to give effect. To keep this charge hanging over a man's head for a long time, and to come down on him in the event of his quitting his holding, must be a matter very burdensome to the State, and the question was whether the method of meeting the difficulty proposed by the Government was not a much better one. The method of the Government was this. They proposed to put words in the Bill which would have the effect, not of altering the measure, but of calling the attention of the Commissioners definitely and distinctly to a point upon which common sense and sound judgment ought to be brought to bear. They proposed to draw the attention of the Commissioners to the question, and to leave them to determine whether the value of the tenant right, and the position in which it placed the tenant, were such as to make it unfair to say whether he was a fit and proper person to receive public money. Her Majesty's Government did not deny the advantages attending the proposal of his right hon. Friend. It would relieve a man at the moment from investigation as to the value of his tenant right; but, on the whole, the Government considered that it would be better that the matter should be investigated, and he was afraid that the Amendment would not relieve the Commissioners very much.

thought the Amendment was not only inconsistent with the Proviso Her Majesty's Government proposed to bring before the Committee—on which he would not offer an opinion—but he considered it inconsistent with the course the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) and his Friends had taken on this Bill. What had been their contention as to the tenant right being an asset? Their contention had been that it was an asset in favour of the landlord. Now, after that contention, and after the landlord had given up part of his rent, he would be deprived of any interest in the tenant right, and the gift was to be turned into a loan in favour of the State. A more inconsistent proceeding on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends he (Mr. Synan) had never witnessed in the proceedings of that House, or in Committee. Which contention did the right hon. Gentleman stand by? That the tenant right was to be an asset in favour of the landlord, or that, when a tenant left his holding, it was to be realized solely in favour of the State? Let the right hon. Gentleman take his choice; but clearly he could not stand upon both stools—he must give up one or the other. He (Mr. Synan) looked upon it as most ridiculous, and as an insult to the understanding of the Committee, that these two classes of Amendments had been put forward in the same Bill, and from the same quarter.

said, he must confess he was very much surprised to see this Amendment come from his right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), because he (Mr. Givan) knew the view the right hon. Gentleman generally took with regard to questions of this kind. However, it was not necessary to detain the Committee more than a moment to point out how totally impracticable this Amendment would be in its working. In addition to the ob- jection pointed out by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) there would be this difficulty. Supposing, at the time the money was given by the State, the land was in a bad condition and the tenant right was not worth a farthing, and supposing, in consequence of the relief given under this Bill, the tenant began a better course of cultivation, and in a few years' time converted that which had been a desert into a garden, thereby creating a valuable tenant right, why should that operation of the tenant and of the tenant's family, and, perhaps, of his successors, be for the benefit of the State? An Amendment more calculated to hamper the whole operation of the Bill he could not conceive. On the one hand, the assistance a tenant would receive from the State would be called a gift; but, on the other hand, this possible demand for repayment would be hanging over the farm, lessening the value of it, and threatening, in a certain eventuality, to be a great inconvenience to the tenant or his family. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see the propriety of withdrawing the Amendment.

said, he did not think the argument of the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Givan) was of great weight. The hon. Member asked them to take a farm which was of little value at present—upon which the tenant right was almost valueless. If the tenant put his labour into the holding and improved it, making the tenant right worth a premium, should he, asked the hon. Member, after having received assistance from the State at the time the farm was worth nothing, be liable to be called upon at some future time to repay the advance which had been made to him out of the enhanced value of the farm? How unjust, said the hon. Member, to charge the tenant right so created with the debt the tenant owed to his landlord! But did the hon. Member not see that if the tenant, by neglecting to cultivate his farm, had failed to pay the debt that was no reason for relieving him of his debts, but an additional reason to insure his paying them? Under the hypothesis of the hon. Member, the tenant, if he had cultivated his farm in a proper manner, would have been able to pay his rent, and the fact that he had not done so was no reason for not compelling him to pay them.

My contention is, that the tenant may have been prevented from cultivating his farm in a proper manner by rack-renting. He may have been prevented from paying his rent not through his own default.

said, he would not enter into the question as to whether rack-renting injured cultivation. Payment of a full rent in no country in the world with which he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was acquainted prevented a farm from being properly cultivated; in fact, in the part of England with which he was most familiar, high renting had an entirely opposite effect. High-rented farms were the best cultivated. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister seemed to think that his Amendment was a rival Amendment to that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). He had asked the Committee to choose between the two; but he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) apprehended that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon had the same object as that of the Prime Minister. It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon had mainly in view the moral effect which his Amendment would produce—the right hon. Gentleman seemingly wished to draw a broad distinction between the tenant who had paid his rent and the tenant who had come under the provisions of this Bill; and he therefore placed great reliance, and attached great weight, not so much to the financial operation of the Amendment, as to its moral effect on the tenant. It would be observed that the Amendment which the Prime Minister intended to introduce—which he had not yet, but which he proposed to place on the Paper—would have no moral effect whatever. It did not seek to draw a distinction between a tenant who had paid his debts and a tenant who came under the operation of this Bill. The Committee, therefore, in considering this matter, had to take into view that which the Prime Minister had left out of account in dealing with the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had said—"If you carry this Amendment you will do very little good to the finances of the State; the amount of money that will be required to work the clause will be so great that, practically, the State will gain nothing by it" That might possibly be true; but the moral effect on the tenant, which was the chief argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen), was outside that matter; and in giving his support to the Amendment, if it were taken to a division, he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) should do so, not in order to save the money of the British taxpayer, but because he thought it would do something substantial in the way of preventing that demoralization that everyone on both sides of the House admitted was one of the greatest dangers that would attend the operation of the Bill. The Prime Minister said it would have an evil effect to keep this debt hanging over the head of the tenant. But allow him (Mr. A. J. Balfour) to point out that the debt would not hang over the tenant in the sense that an ordinary liability hung over him. It would not hamper him in the cultivation and management of his farm—it would not be a debt that he could be called on to pay at any moment. It would not injure him as a tenant; in fact, whilst he was a tenant, he never could be called on to pay it—it was not in any sense like, for instance, a debt to a money-lender; it was not in any sense a liability which could darken a tenant's future. The debt would not be increasing in any way, there was no interest on it; and of this the tenant would be aware—that so long as he stuck to his holding the debt could not be called on. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) did not think that there was any other consideration which the debate so far obliged him to put before the Committee; but he certainly hoped that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) would not too easily abandon his Amendment.

said, that, having listened with attention to what had been said, it appeared to him that the main point for the consideration of the Committee was, how far the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was in conflict with the present Amendment or not. He (Mr. Goschen) had put his Amendment on the Paper before he was aware that Her Majesty's Government intended to make a proposal on the subject, and he would point out to hon. Members from Ireland on the Opposition side of the House that of all the Amendments which proposed to charge the tenant right with any future payment, the one he had proposed was the least onerous. He had searched for a mode whereby this charge could be made so as to the least affect the operations of tenant right, and the mode set forth in the Amendment was the one which he had selected as the most satisfactory. He could not admit the correctness of the statement of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) as to the cost of the machinery. He (Mr. Goschen) had no doubt that the call upon the taxpayer would be considerable, and that, therefore, the repayment of the advances in these cases would be a substantial benefit. He was most anxious to save the time of the Committee, and he felt that they could not discuss this matter in regard to the tenant right until they knew how it would be dealt with under the Amendment of Her Majesty's Government. He thought he should be best consulting the interests of the Committee if he were to withdraw his Amendment, at the present stage at all events, subject, possibly, to revival, if they found that the Prime Minister's Amendment did not deal with the matter satisfactorily.

said, that, before the Amendment was withdrawn, he should like to point out to the Committee one reason which led him to think that some plan of the kind should, in any event, be adopted. As a matter of fact, the tenant right was an existing, but not a realized asset, and it was not the idea of the Government or of the Bill that that asset should be realized in order to enable the tenant to obtain the benefit of the Bill, but merely that the tenant right should be charged to a certain extent, that extent being not so great as to prevent the tenant remaining in his holding. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) must say that the Amendment of the Prime Minister did not entirely meet the case, and that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon dealt with another class of cases besides those the Amendment of the Prime Minister would deal with. The Amendment of the Prime Minister was to the effect that for the purposes of the Act the saleable value of the tenant's interest might, if the Commissioners thought it reasonable, be taken into account as an asset. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) understood that if the tenant's interest was so considerable as to enable him to raise sufficient money on it to pay his arrears, without unduly burdening himself, he would be excluded from the advantages of the Bill. But what was to happen to the tenant who possessed a tenant right of such a value that it might suffice to enable him to pay a certain portion of the arrears due, but not the whole of them? That was a case which it seemed to him might fairly be met by such a proposal as that of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen). According to the Prime Minister's proposal, the tenant in such a case as that would be admitted to the advantages of the Bill; but yet his tenant right might be worth something—perhaps some considerable sum beyond the amount absolutely necessary to enable him to carry on his farm, Well, surely it was only fair to the State that when such a tenant sold his tenant right he should have to pay, as a first charge on the amount it realized, the money he had received from the State in payment of his arrears. Therefore, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) hoped the Committee would not deem the matter settled by the words the Prime Minister would put on the Paper, but that they would consider it when those words came before them from the point of view he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had put before the Committee.

said, that before the Amendment was withdrawn, he wished to observe that the difficulty they had in making progress was really owing to their not having settled the principle on which the Bill ought to be passed. He did not, therefore, think a discussion of this kind could be regarded as a waste of time, provided it settled in their minds the principle on which the Bill ought to be carried out. The only objection he saw to this Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) was the difficulty of carrying it out. He believed it to be based upon a just and right principle, and he wished it could be carried out; but the multiplicity of accounts that would be required, and the irritation that would be caused by the misrepresentations that would be made in Ireland as to the intentions of the Government in giving this boon to the Irish tenants, would undo, in his opinion, the advantages of even an excellent machinery for collecting this sum when the tenant right was sold. He wished it were possible for Parliament to mark its sense of the conduct of those tenants who had wilfully refused to pay their debts from dishonest motives. Many tenants in Ireland had made the greatest exertions, not only in a pecuniary sense, but they had incurred the greatest dangers to life, limb, and home in the fulfilment of their duty by endeavouring to pay their rents. He knew, from communications which had been sent to him, that these tenants felt very bitterly the suffering they would have to endure through an indiscriminate distribution of this boon amongst honest and dishonest men alike. He begged to observe to the Committee that the difficulty in which they were arose, in his opinion, from the mode in which this proposal had to be worked. If the Government had proposed to proceed by way of universal loan the difficulty would not have arisen. For his own part, he was in favour not of universal loan, but of taking a small rating, say, a £5 rating, and making the assistance given to tenants who came within that category, who were in difficulties and destitute, and in such circumstances as to be almost paupers—who, in fact, were fit objects for the receipt of bounty—in the nature of a gift; and of giving tenants who were in possession of tenant right—which was an asset of great value, amounting often to several hundreds of pounds— the relief they needed by way of loan just as it had been given to the landlords.

I would point out to the hon. Member for Galway that the next Amendment raises the question of loan.

said, he should not have addressed the Committee another moment if the Chairman had allowed him to finish what he had to say. If the right hon. Gentleman ruled him out of Order, of course he should not continue. He would point out, however, that this was the 1st clause of the Bill, and that, as it contained the great principle of the whole measure, it was almost impossible to confine one's self to the terms of the Amendment, when discussing an Amendment upon it. He should like to ask the Chairman whether it was in Order for the Prime Minister to discuss Amendments which would come on at a later stage in connection with this proposal? The Prime Minister had done so, whether it was in Order or not. The Prime Minister had contrasted two Amendments, and hon. Gentlemen opposite had done so also; therefore, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) did not think—seeing that those hon. Members had been allowed to take that course—that he could be considered as wilfully transgressing the Rules of Debate. ["Oh, oh!"]

said, it would not be convenient for the hon. Member to go on with the discussion of Amendments other than that before the Committee.

said, he must complain of the ungentlemanly and ungainly interruptions of the hon. Member for Wexford. [dries of "Order!"and "Withdraw!"] What he said was, that to interrupt an hon. Member by an inarticulate sound of that kind was not an act of courtesy which was usual in that House, or usual amongst any Assembly of Gentlemen. Let the Committee take warning from the words which had fallen from the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). The hon. Member had spoken of the Bill as a "Twopenny halfpenny gift;" and be (Mr. Mitchell Henry) knew how the measure would be represented in Ireland by the hon. Member and his Friends. It would be spoken of as a thing not worth having. The Committee, therefore, should be careful to act in the matter on the right principle. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) would withdraw his Amendment. [An hon. MEMBER: He has asked leave to do so.] The right hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, alarmed by what had fallen from the hon. Member opposite, which certainly would have unsteadied his (Mr. Mitchell Henry's) nerves if he had made the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman intended to withdraw his Amendment; but it was to be hoped that, in doing so, he would not abandon the principle in it, which established that a clear distinction ought to be drawn between those tenants who had endeavoured to meet their obligations and those who wilfully refused to do so.

said, he only wished to say one word before the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) withdrew his Amendment. The Prime Minister had made a statement that he (Mr. Gibson) could not follow at the time it was made, and bad been unable to follow since, notwithstanding that he himself had an Amendment on the Paper on this subject. It was to the effect that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) was involved in the Government Amendment. He (Mr. Gibson) desired to point out, before the Amendment was withdrawn, that the Government Amendment had nothing to say in bur to an Amendment like that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, or any other mode of dealing with the grant made to the tenant. The Amendment proposed to make a charge that should not come into force, unless and until the tenancy was sold, which, of course, would only occur in the case of a limited number of tenants in Ireland. The majority of the Irish tenants were not going to sell their holdings—they remained on their farms from generation to generation; therefore the Amendment would not meet with violent objection from any part of Ireland. It was obvious that the Prime Minister's Amendment could not be inconsistent with, or have anything to say to, any Amendment to be proposed to deal with this question by way of loan.

said, that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) would more properly come on when the Amendment of the Prime Minister was discussed. Therefore, he (Mr. Magniac), who wished to make a few observations upon the matter, would defer his remarks until the Prime Minister's Amendment was before them.

said, he proposed to withdraw the Amendment; and, in doing so, he wished to say that be did not entirely agree with the view of this matter taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson), which was that the Prime Minister's Amendment did not touch the Amendment before the Committee. His (Mr. Goschen's) Amendment would deal with all cases of tenant right, if it had not been treated as an asset, and was moved in view of the fear that the tenant right would not be treated as an asset; but when the Government distinctly said that tenant right was an asset, and that the Amendment they would propose would only have the effect of limiting the number of cases that his (Mr. Goschen's) Amend- ment would deal with, it certainly appeared to him accurate to say that the Prime Minister's Amendment had an important bearing upon this matter.

said, he wished to move, as an Amendment, the insertion of words to the effect that the amount advanced to a tenant to assist him in the payment of his arrears should be deemed to be a debt due from the tenant to the Land Commission, and should be repaid with interest at the rate of 1 per cent per annum, in the prescribed manner, by 15 annual instalments. In the first place, he wished to disclaim all hostility to the helpful purpose of this Bill. He desired to put on record his deep and sincere sympathy with the small and suffering tenants in Ireland, and he could assure hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House—those who claimed to be the special Representatives of the poor tenantry of Ireland—that he should be the last man in the House to move an Amendment of this kind if he did not believe it would give increased efficiency to the measure, and that, in the long run, it would be as much to the advantage of the tenants themselves as to that of the State. He did not lay stress upon his Amendment on the mere ground of abstract principle. The proposal he now laid before them involved, to a very considerable extent, the principle of gift—the gift of a large amount of interest during the term of years over which the loan extended. He thought the discussion which had taken place last evening had been attended with this advantage—that it had opened out to the view of the Committee the series of extraordinary difficulties and inherent objections which existed to the working of this measure; and he believed that, upon consideration, it would be evident that if the Committee should be pleased to adopt his proposal, it would, in a great measure, remove those difficulties and objections. Now, it would be manifestly just as necessary that a close and searching inquiry should take place into the question of the tenant's inability to pay, in case of the adoption of this provision, as under the proposal of absolute gift. But there would be this difference—in that doubtful class of cases as to which it might be very difficult to ascertain whether they ought or ought not to be admitted, the adoption of this provision would allow them to be dealt with on the most favourable conditions, because the advance of the money would then no longer involve the loss of a large amount of capital by the State. Again, he would point out that the adoption of the Amendment would remove a serious evil which resulted from absolute gifts of capital on the part of the State. About 20 years ago he (Mr. Ecroyd) was Chairman of one of the local Committees for the distribution of the charitable fund so nobly raised by the people of this country in aid of the people in Lancashire reduced to distress by the Cotton Famine. Some remarkable points forced themselves at that time on the attention of the Committee. In the first place, there was great difficulty in getting proof of the absolute necessity of those who made application for relief; and it was found almost impossible to defeat the continual attempts that were made to obtain the benefit of the fund by persons for whom it was never intended. They had then to deal with one of the most proudly independent populations in the Kingdom; and, notwithstanding that the Committee discharged with the greatest care the duties cast upon them in connection with the fund at their disposal, they were, unfortunately, unable to avoid breaking down the independence of many of the people, and so leaving in the minds of a considerable section of the labouring population the evil habit of dependence on public or private charity, rather than their own savings, to meet any future emergency. Further, the Committee received the testimony of the most respectable portion of the working class themselves that the breaking down of the distinction which ought always to be maintained between those who were provident and honest and those who were the reverse had implanted in the minds of the people that reliance on external aid to which he had referred, and had lamentably discouraged the habit of saving. But what impressed him most was the strongly expressed opinion of many such persons that this result would not have followed if the Committee had proceeded from the beginning on the principle of loan. Now, the proposal he made would place an obstacle) in the way of a man selling his tenant right and carrying the proceeds away to America or elsewhere without discharging his just debts; whilst the incoming tenant, who might probably have purchased the tenant right with borrowed money, would almost certainly stand in a worse position than the former tenant occupied 12 months or two years ago. The effect of his Amendment, however, would be to compel such a man to repay the money advanced by the State before he could betake himself to a foreign country. It would also, to some extent, remove the temptation to improvident dealing with the tenant's security, for there would be an existing charge upon it which must be considered by the usurer, and which would doubtless discourage that improvident contraction of loans on onerous terms, which, they were told, was one of the great obstacles to the well-doing of this class of society in Ireland. With regard to the pressure of other creditors on the tenant immediately after the settlement of arrears with the landlord, he thought a great advantage would be realized by giving the State, as creditor for this loan, a voice in the settlement of the tenant's affairs. Let them examine for a moment the reduction of the charge to be imposed on the State which would follow the adoption of this proposal. They would see that if it were adopted a man who sought the benefit of the Land Act of last year would obtain a reduction of rent, with fixity of tenure, and, in addition, the extinction of his arrears on extremely easy terms—that was to say, in the case of a £20 new holding, by the payment of £21 8s. 10d. a-year for the term of 15 years. Now, surely, that was not a great acknowledgment to ask from a class of men who, contrary to all the principles of political economy, and contrary to what had ever been done for the trading classes in England and Scotland, had been relieved by the State from a pressure from which they could not deliver themselves. Then, let the Committee look for one moment at the difference which would result to the State, and therefore to the taxpayers, from the adoption of the principle of loan at 1 per cent, to be repaid in 15 annual instalments, as compared with the adoption of the principle of absolute gift. He thought that during the discussions upon this Bill the case of the British taxpayer had received but scanty consideration. They could not for a moment put out of sight the fact that large classes of society in this country—farmers, artificers, and small tradesmen were themselves labouring under a burden of debt incurred during the last five or six unfortunate years which gave them an equal right to claim public assistance if they saw an opportunity to urge that claim with anything like a chance of success. There were numbers of people of slender means who asked how this much-needed relief to the Irish tenant, and that settlement of affairs with the landlords which was so necessary for the peace and order of Ireland, could be given, not only with the least breach of sound principles and public morality, but at the smallest cost to the British taxpayer. He (Mr. Ecroyd) found that, taking the cost of money to the State at 3½ per cent, the loss upon the advance of £2,000,000, to be repaid with interest at 1 per cent as proposed in his Amendment, would be something a little short of £900,000; it would, in fact, be the difference, at compound interest for 15 years, between 1 per cent and 3½ per cent. But if they proceeded on the principle of absolute gift, at the end of 15 years the loss would be, in the first place, undoubtedly, the £2,000,000; and, in the second place, the whole amount of the interest and charges, amounting to, say, £1,350,000, which would bring up the total to £3,350,000. The difference of cost, then, between these two modes of procedure, at the end of 15 years, would be nearly £2,500,000 in favour of the British taxpayer. But did any Member of the Committee believe that this advance would be limited to £2,000,000? If, as he believed would be the case, the advance amounted to £4,000,000, the difference of loss would amount to nearly £5,000,000. There were many interests which demanded consideration in that House. Not only had they to consider the importance of obtaining a settlement in Ireland, but they had to avoid, if possible, the creation of a strong feeling of injustice on the part of the people of this country, who could never be brought to believe they were personally responsible for the state of things which existed in Ireland. Was it not possible to place these advances in the position he had indicated, and, in so doing, really to afford a little wholesome stimulus to the Irish tenantry? No one could believe there would be the least hardship in the small repayment required. If the condition of the tenant were so desperate that they could not reckon on his paying back £1 8s. 10d. per annum for 15 years, he thought the Committee were setting themselves a hopeless task in attempting to rehabilitate him. There was still one consideration remaining to which he attached great weight, and that was the danger of creating a feeling of irritation and a sense of injustice in the minds of the population of our large towns, who were themselves placed in straitened circumstances from the reduction of wages and the increased difficulty of making profits by retail trade—the great danger of implanting in their minds a feeling of indignation at being called upon to make a sacrifice for people not worse off, and certainly not more deserving, than themselves. Much as everyone would lament the creation of such a feeling between the English and Irish populations of the manufacturing and mining districts in this country, he had reason to know that the fear of it was no chimera, and that there was already great danger of its spread in many towns. He was so profoundly impressed with the importance, both in Ireland and this country, of the adoption of a sound economical principle in making these advances, that he was disposed to hope that the Government would look favourably on the Amendment which he now begged leave to move.

said, no one could object to the spirit in which the hon. Member (Mr. Ecroyd) had moved his Amendment; but he (Mr. Childers) must point out that the speech to which they had just listened was more appropriate to the debate on the second reading of the Bill than the present stage. The Bill was intended to provide for cases which the Act of last year failed to meet, by offering loans to assist tenants in discharging arrears. The failure of the clause referred to was the reason for introducing this Bill; because it was absolutely necessary that the question of arrears should be taken up, and its principle had been adopted by a large majority on the second reading, and confirmed in the discussion upon the question of Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair, which was, in reality, a second reading debate also. Still it seemed only proper, having regard to the fair manner in which the hon. Member for Preston had put forward his views, that he (Mr. Childers) should make some remarks upon the proposal to proceed in furtherance of the principle of loan. He was bound to point out that this very proposal of the hon. Member contained in itself the fatal element of gift to which he (Mr. Ecroyd) was so much opposed, inasmuch as the hon. Member did not recommend that the money advanced to the tenants should be repaid strictly in accordance with the principles which regulate loans. He proposed that the advance should be made with interest at 1 per cent per annum, to be repaid by 15 annual instalments, and he said that the burden which would be thereby imposed on the taxpayer would be something like £900,000, as against £3,500,000, which would be imposed by the plan of the Government. His argument, therefore, simply amounted to this —that a small gift would be less demoralizing than a large one.

said, he had not objected to the principle of gift, but to the principle of gift exercised in a demoralizing manner.

pointed out that the hon. Member, in dealing with the Irish tenants, proposed to make them a gift of only one-seventh of the total amount. But, in 1880, certain advances were made to the Irish landlords, with interest at 1 per cent, extending over a period of 35 years, but without interest for the first two years. That was equivalent to a gift of one-third the total amount. The Committee, would therefore, see that, by adopting the principle of part gift and part loan, as proposed by the hon. Member, the Irish tenants would receive one-seventh of the whole amount of the loan, as against one-third received by the landlords at the time referred to. But the main question before them was this—having adopted, on the second reading, the distinct principle that these advances should be made by way of gift, were they now going to retrace their steps, and adopt the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Preston of part gift and part loan? There was another difficulty which would follow the adoption of the Amendment. Could the Committee conceive that if this principle were adopted it would be possible to limit the amount of advances to £2,000,000? Would it be possible to avoid going the length proposed by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), of making these advances in respect of the whole of the Irish tenants who were in arrear, and not in respect to those alone who were unable to pay? In the former case, it would be necessary to make advances not of £2,000,000 only, but probably of £6,000,000, for it must not be supposed that the Irish people would be satisfied with the extent of the relief proposed to be given. The Government would be pressed to extend the advances from cases of inability to pay to all cases of arrears, and from tenants below £30 value to all tenants, the effect of yielding to which pressure would be to double the amount of advances which it was believed would result from the present proposal. Again, while the Land Act of last Session provided, in the 52nd clause, that the advances therein referred to should be a debt to the State from the landlords—a comparatively small body—the proposal of the hon. Member was to make the tenants debtors to the State for the purposes of this Bill. But, surely, the hon. Member could not have contemplated the effect of making 300,000 or 400,000 tenants direct debtors to the Exchequer? It was practically an impossibility for the State to have on its books from year to year the accounts of some 300,000 or 400,000 tenants. There were so many objections to the proposal of the hon. Member that he (Mr. Childers) could not think it would be adopted by the Committee, especially as the matter had already been threshed out on two previous occasions.

said, the only principle affirmed on the second reading of the Bill was that certain advances should be made by the State for the relief of Irish tenants. The House was then precluded from considering the important point now raised, which he (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) trusted, on the present occasion, would receive the attention due to it, particularly as it was distinctly stated by the Government on the second reading that the subject was one that would properly be discussed in Committee. He thought there was much in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) which deserved the full and favourable consideration of the Committee, and which, he was bound to say, would commend itself to the common sense of the country. The Amendment raised, in distinct and unmistakable terms, the issue which the Prime Minister told them, on the occasion of the second reading, was really the main question with regard to the Bill—namely, whether these advances should be made by way of gift from the National Exchequer, or whether they should be made, following ordinary precedent, in the form of loan. He (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) was not surprised that the hon. Member for Preston, who had been so long connected with the mercantile world, and who represented in that House a most important commercial community, should view with suspicion and distrust a proposal which contemplated a free grant from the public funds for the purpose of enabling a limited section of a particular class to get rid of their personal and legal obligations, and which contemplated, besides, the compulsory and general interference of the State between debtor and creditor, irrespective altogether of the special circumstances of individual cases and of the ordinary principles of law. Now, he (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) was far from saying that there was no pressing juncture of affairs in Ireland demanding Parliamentary consideration; nor would he say that, in certain circumstances, it might not only be necessary, but desirable, to make a free grant from the Public Exchequer; but he might be permitted to doubt whether the arguments which had been advanced by Her Majesty's Government on the present occasion were such as to warrant, not only the Committee, but the country, in agreeing to a course so exceptional in its character, and, as he believed, so doubtful in its results. Now, the Prime Minister, in moving the second reading of the Bill, very properly characterized all interference of the nature contemplated by the Bill as exceptional and extraordinary; and he grounded his argument in favour of it on the fact that the circumstances which had arisen were in themselves exceptional and extraordinary. But he (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) would point out to the Committee that the mere occurrence of circumstances in themselves exceptional and extraordinary did not necessarily imply an extraordinary and exceptional course of treatment; and, if that argument was a valid one, it would not only cover the particular remedy now proposed by the Government, but any other proposal, provided only it was, in its character, exceptional and extraordinary. He should like to narrow that issue to a final point by ascertaining what were the circumstances exceptional and extraordinary which would warrant them in proposing State aid by way of a gift. For his own part, he thought they were only justified in doing this when the distress was so widespread as to amount to a national calamity. If that were so, Parliament had already had to deal with circumstances of the kind, and had dealt with them in a particular way; and he was desirous of hearing from Her Majesty's Government the reason which induced them to treat this particular case in a manner different from other cases of widespread distress amounting to a national calamity. Now, the second argument used with regard to this point was that the House had already taken this step. That was the statement of the Prime Minister in May last. Now, in a case of difficulty, it was, no doubt, most important to be able to bring forward precedents, and he was perfectly prepared to admit the force of arguments founded upon them. But he must also point out that it was very difficult to distinguish what were the conditions which went to make up a true and valid Parliamentary precedent? The whole force of an argument founded on precedent depended upon similarity of principle and similarity of circumstances. If the circumstances were the same and the principle different, that could not be quoted as a Parliamentary precedent. On the other hand, if the principles were the same, and the circumstances differed, in that case, also, the force of the argument failed. Now, he was prepared to admit that the circumstances in 1881 and those in 1882 did not differ on any material point; if they differed at all, they differed in degree. But they were asked to take this course because the same principle applied to both years. Now, he thought no better answer could be given to this argument than that used by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself, who said the principle now desired to be applied to the circumstances of 1882 was not the principle of 1881. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), on the same occasion, said that the Arrears Clause of 1881 was—

"Merely to facilitate the payment of these arrears by means of loans to two parties, who were both agreed, and who made themselves liable for repayment."—[3 Hansard, cclxix. 1284.]

"One very great object, if not the chief object, of the Land Act of last year, which sought to meet the case of the poor cottier tenants of the west, could not be attained."—[Ibid. 1285.]

said, the system of loan, as compared with that of gift, had a manifest advantage. He believed the adoption of that principle would have saved them from the difficulty they were in, and which would every day increase, with respect to the question of tenant right. Nevertheless, he was bound to ask whether it was possible for a Government who had deliberately adopted the system of gift in this Bill, with any sense of self-respect, to take back their measure, and remodel it entirely on the system of loan? He did not think it would be. He did not, however, believe the arguments adduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers), as against loans, were valid; at any rate, they did not carry conviction to his mind. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that an amount of from £4,000,000 to £6,000,000 would be taken up; but he (Colonel Colthurst) had pointed out, on a former occasion, that oven on the easy terms he proposed no one would ask for a loan who did not really require it, for the disinclination of the occupiers of land in Ireland to pay any additional annual charge, however small, was notorious; and he believed it would be a perfect guard against abuse. He might observe that the suggestion he made did not lay him open to the charge cast upon him by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), of throwing away public money. But now, however, it was too late to retrace their steps; and he would, therefore, implore the Government not to try to impair that which they had done by Amendments tending to narrow these gifts. If they gave way to these different suggestions as to going into the question of the ability or the inability of the people to pay, and, above all, into the value or part value of tenant right, then the Bill would become not worth the value of the paper it was written on.

said, he would venture to say, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers), when the latter said this was a second reading Amendment, that it was pointed out by the Prime Minister on the second reading that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) did not go against the whole principle of the Bill; he distinctly said, as regards this Motion, that it only affected the charge on the Consolidated Fund, and it was open to consideration in Committee. He had had some little experience of these things, and he entirely agreed in what had been said as to the bad effect of making the advance a gift; and he would venture to say anyone who had dealt with the subject—and he could call on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) as a witness—must be perfectly aware of the bad economic effect of eleemosynary gifts; but when those gifts were the result, as many hon. Members felt they were, of crime, outrage, and dishonesty, the demoralization would be intensified. But what would be the effect of treating it as a loan? In the first place, the amounts of individual grants would be very small, the average being between £5 and £10. An advance of £10 at 5 per cent would be only 10s. a-year for 15 years, and the rent in most cases would be reduced to £7 10s., and then the charge would be only 7s. on that. How small would be the loss to the tenant, but how great would be the effect! After what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, in a former debate, the latter could not consistently vote against the principle of this Amendment. He (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) remembered, on a former occasion, how, in an eloquent speech upon the Motion for extending the county franchise, the right hon. Gentleman showed what an economic mistake it was; and the demoralization that would follow if people were taught the lesson that they could rely on other resources than their own industry. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett)—he was not now present—it was difficult to see how he could refuse to support the Amendment, based as it was on a principle he had contended for in one of his books. And the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) should be claimed as a supporter, after the speeches made this year and last year—speeches on behalf of the Government, but in which he admitted the demoralizing effect of gifts such as were now proposed. With the necessity of the Bill he (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) agreed, and he did not oppose it as a whole, though the effect expected from it was, he thought, overrated; but he could not see why small tenants should not be put in a position to take advantage of the Land Act by means of loans. This, it was said, was a supplementation of the Arrears Clauses of the Act of 1881, which it was found did not work; but, granting that, and putting the strongest arguments in favour of the Bill, nothing in those arguments would tell against the proposition which he ventured to make— that the advances should be made half by way of loan and half as a gift. If desirable, the loan might be made collectively to the Union, and not to the individual, and this would do away with any difficulty of collection. Thus the element of gift would be maintained, and the element of gift was all that was settled on the second reading. The argument commonly used, that the Bill dealt with an exceptional case, and that something of this sort was necessary, did not affect the question of loan, and the argument itself was a dangerous one to use. While speaking of limiting the Act, of course he meant as to this clause only; but, while limiting the grants, the Bill might be extended beyond the £30 valuation, and in such cases making a full charge of interest on the loan and no gifts whatever. The effect of the Act might be extended by making the rates of the Union or the barony security; in fact, collecting from the Union where they could not collect from the tenant, and thus they would enlist all the ratepayers on their side. These were suggestions he made with the greatest deference to the Government to consider in the further carrying through of the measure. The number of tenants, they were told, who might be affected would be about 200,000; but how many of these would come under the operation of the Bill? He believed that by no means the larger proportion would. Those must be excluded who could pay, but would not pay; and those would be excluded who, though worthy of help, were unable to pay one year's rent; therefore, a large number would be deducted from the 200,000. It would not be an easy process, and arrears would by no means be wiped off; a large number would remain unsettled. And then he wanted to put another argument before right hon. Gentlemen which, no doubt, they had considered, but not, he thought, sufficiently. They were asking the taxpayers of the United Kingdom to provide a fund to pay off the arrears of certain Irish tenants who, many of them believed, had withheld their rents when they could pay. Now, in England, farmers had had serious losses, and there were considerable arrears, and he thought the Prime Minister stated on one occasion that there was almost as much distress among the English as among the Irish farmers. However, there was no doubt there was considerable distress in some parts of England, and what would the taxpayers say when they found an addition must be made to their burdens? These English farmers, many of them in distress and in arrears with their rent, had never asked for help from the State; but they had asked that part of the burden of unjust local taxation should be taken off their shoulders. Her Majesty's Government had acknowledged the justice of their demands, and, going further, had promised that in one item—the cost of roads—they would assist them this year; but then, they added, they had not "a shot in the locker" to help them with, and they must put on a tax in some way to enable them to take local taxation off. Were hon. Members to go to their constituents and say—"Her Majesty's Government have not a shot in the locker for you, though they admit you are unjustly taxed; but they have many shots in their locker for Irish farmers who could, but will not pay their rents?" Think of the effect of such a statement on the English taxpayers. He had expressed his opinion that the demoralization that might arise from this measure it was impossible to fathom or describe; but what it was possible to foresee and foretell was, that, as one result, the whole of next Session would be given up to Irish Business, and the Session after; and unless, meantime, there came that change of Government which some expected, further demands would be made—the Labourers' Question, Purchase, Emigration, Leases, and Home Rule would, in consequence, occupy Parliament—["Question!"

rose to ask if these observations were in Order?

The hon. Member is now going beyond the Question.

said, his argument was that they could not measure the demoralization that might ensue in Ireland from the terms of this proposal, but that it was possible to foresee the results that would arise in that House. That was his argument, which he thought was in Order. The effect of the measure would be to encourage demands which year by year would grow larger. For the reasons he had given, he ventured with great deference to ask the Prime Minister, not to say absolutely he would accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Ecroyd) or that of his own, which more exactly met the question, but to take them into consideration, and, at the same time, the suggestion to extend the operation of the Bill beyond the £30 limit, making the advances on the security of the Union or barony—that was to say, on the rates of the district.

said, they would all be glad if the charges could be met without a call upon the public funds; but as to the Amendment, a few figures would show the position that would be arrived at if it were adopted. About £2,000,000 would be paid to relieve the 200,000 tenants, say, on an average of £10 each. The interest on the loan at 1 per cent, say, would be Is.; that would inflict on the State the duty of collecting 6d. every half-year from 200,000 individuals. Then, for the instalment, a further sum of 13s. 4d., making 14s. 4d. a-year; that meant that every half year the State would have to collect 7s. 2d. from each of about 200,000 tenants; but a great many of these would have much smaller accounts than that. On an estate with which he was acquainted the average payment of the tenants was £3 10s., and the amount of interest which would have to be collected from these 400 tenants on the estate would be A¼d. every half-year; whereas the redemption money would be about 5s.; that would be an increase of the rents on that Irish estate for 15 years of 8 per cent. It had been stated that these insolvent or bankrupt tenants were a class of men who had not paid, and could not pay, their rents; and, under these circumstances, here was a proposal that the State should become the creditor of 200,000 of them, for an increase of their rents by 8 per cent. It seemed perfectly absurd when looked at in connection with these figures, and he hoped the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ecroyd) would not push his Amendment to a division.

said, he could not share the confidence of his hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton), or indulge the hope that by any Amendment they could make this a good Bill; but, at the same time, they might make it a less bad one. The hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) supported the Amendment by his speech; and, while cordially concurring in his premisses, he must altogether dissent from his conclusions. The hon. and gallant Gentleman urged an argument of great power and force in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston; but he concluded by declaring against the Amendment, although he entirely agreed with it. (Colonel COLTHURST: No.] Many hon. Members would confirm him (Mr. J. Lowther) when he said the conclusion of the speech was a surprise and a disappointment to the Committee. But his (Mr. J. Lowther's) principal object in rising was to notice a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) with regard to the precedent set by the late Government in making advances to landlords in the autumn of 1879 and the early part of the following year. This was, at the time, generally accepted by both sides of the then House of Commons as a fair financial proposal; and, though it was criticized in some quarters, it was adopted by the Successors of the late Government, and, in fact, continued and extended by them. The right hon. Gentleman said that Parliament advanced money to the landlords on repayments over 35 years, and that, thereby, the landlords were given by way of gift one-third of these advances; and, he said, what would be thought of the even-handed dealing of Parliament, if it turned round and made the advance to the tenants a loan payable in 15 years, thereby making in the form of a gift only one seventh of the advance? Now, the right hon. Gentleman had not, for the first time, fallen into an error in regard to the scheme of the late Government which was adopted by the present Government. It was not an advance for the benefit of the landlords; it was clearly and distinctly brought before Parliament both by his right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford North-cote), and by himself, not as a boon for the landlord class, but as a means of relief to the people of Ireland, and mainly of the small tenants. It was an alternative suggested to the minds of the late Government as preferable to the establishment of public works, and it was felt that public money would best circulate through the population if it passed, in the first instance, to the em- ployers of labour and the owners of large and small estates, and it was in no shape or form submitted to Parliament as a boon for the landlords, and that was stated distinctly. He had heard the contrary stated before, in good faith, no doubt, and it had passed uncontradicted as an established fact; but it must be clearly understood that the Government proposed the scheme for the relief of the humbler classes in Ireland. That disposed of the supposed precedent of the Act of 1879–80. But the right hon. Gentleman denounced, or rather took exception to, the introduction of this Amendment, the alternative of a loan, because, he said, the matter should be considered as disposed of at the second reading.

I said it was not worthy of two long debates, and that we had had one on the second reading.

continuing, said, he hoped it would not be unduly long, but that the discussion would be kept within reasonable dimensions. But with regard to the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd), he confessed that, knowing the great ability and skill with which the right hon. Gentleman handled all facts of a financial character, he was grievously disappointed at the argument brought forward. He appeared to consider that affording facilities to persons, reduced to a position of temporary indigence, by offering them loans on reasonable terms, to be repaid over an extended period, when it was hoped prosperity would have returned, was not conferring a substantial benefit upon them. Now, the Committee must have been struck by the arguments of the hon. Member for Preston, and the disinclination of the right hon. Gentleman to face those arguments on their merits; but there was a reason which the right hon. Gentleman might have dwelt on against the Government entertaining any such Amendment as this now brought forward; and, as he (Mr J. Lowther) always was anxious to be considered fair in debate, he would supply the missing link in the right hon. Gentleman's chain of reasons. He would remind the Committee of criticisms on a system of relieving by way of loan from a quarter which he knew had for some time had great weight with Her Ma- jesty's Government. The question of loans was referred to in these terms in a letter which had now become historical—

"The proposals you have described to me, as suggested in some quarters, as to making' loans repayable over a term of years, however many years payment might be spread over, should be absolutely rejected for reasons I have already explained."

said, this was a debate in which they ought to have short speeches, and speeches that contained arguments on the proposition as to whether this relief to tenants should be given by way of gift or loan. He would do his best to reply in both particulars. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick), speaking with some force and feeling, drew a comparison between the early Irish famines and what he called the famine and the distress of recent years. In what he described as a national calamity, the hon. Member said it had not been proposed to relieve the poor Irish by means of gift. He (Mr. Trevelyan) allowed that it was not proposed to do that; but it must be remembered that "man proposes, and God disposes." It was proposed to relieve the sufferers of Irish famines by means of loan. No less than £4,797,000 was lent for the payment of the labouring poor. What was the result? Why this. In the following year an Act was passed, which recited that the failure of the potato crop had been more serious than was at first thought, and enacted that the Board of Works should take account of the funds expended, and that half the amount advanced should be put down to the Consolidated Fund, and thus be remitted. That was what the Treasury hoped, while the famine was still in progress; but the hopes of the Treasury fell very much below the results. Out of the £4,800,000, only £590,000 ever found its way back to the National Exchequer; while nearly £1,300,000 had in the end to be remitted. So much for the precedent, in a great national calamity, of relieving the poor by means of loan and not by gift. In addition to what he had stated, £1,250,000 was lent under the head of Temporary Relief, and £500,000 only was repaid, £750,000 being remitted. After that, he thought the hon. Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) would allow that there was, if not in form, yet in fact, a very important precedent for relieving distress by means of gift, drawn from that very period from which the hon. Gentleman challenged the Government to find a precedent. Exactly the same experience as was the experience of the English Government in the famine in 1846 was the experience of the Indian Government in the recent famine. In the case of those districts whore there was a land system which, in some respects, resembled that of Ire-laud, the Indian Government went boldly at once to work. They remitted the Land Tax to the Zemindars, and by them to the Ryots. In the first place, the Government made the remission a loan; but in a year's time they found they could not recover the money, and they remitted the whole sum, exactly on the same principle as the Irish Government attempted to deal with the great remission of tithes in Ireland. £l,000,000 was raised to lend to the owners of tithes in Ireland, and that was to be repaid in five instalments. Parliament thought it would demoralize the Irish tenantry if the money were given in the shape of a gift; but what was the result? The advances under the Act of 1833 amounted to £900,000; and it might be said that none was ever recovered; £12,000 was recovered by the same process by which they were now asked to believe they would recover the enormous number of small sums proposed to be given in the present case. At that time, Parliament, with great wisdom, consented to do that which this Bill asked Parliament to do; they remitted the rest of the sum and made it a gift, and not a loan. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) had referred to the recent loans to landlords in language which brought down upon him severe comments from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther). The loan to landlords was extended over seven years, because no interest was paid at all for the first two years. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) bad said that those loans were not an advance to the landlord, but to the tenant. He (Mr. Trevelyan) did not for a moment dispute that the right hon. Gentleman was quite correct in describing the motives which actuated the late Administration; but he defied the right hon. Gentleman to dispute the fact that, whatever was the primary reason which impelled the late Government to give the money, the result was, the landlords had got the money to spend on purposes which, in the eyes of a good landlord, were, perhaps, the best purposes to which money could be applied. The right hon. Gentleman, with his great knowledge of English Land Law, would not deny that an English landlord would be as much gratified by a present of £5,000 to spend on drainage or other improvements of his property, as by any present given to him for almost any object under the sun. The hon. Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) said a small loss would be imposed on the tenants by this clause—a loss which looked small in the eyes of any hon. Gentleman, but a loss which looked large in the eyes of the Irish tenantry.

said, he put that small charge against the reduction of rent which had taken place; but if, as he suggested, the interest of the loan were extended to the Union, even that charge would be imperceptible.

said, he was glad the hon. Baronet had reminded him of that, because it would fit in with the argument he was now about to advance. It was exactly by comparing the amount of the burden which this clause imposed with the amount of relief given by the Land Act that he was anxious to show how very large that burden would be. Now, the Land Act of last year was represented on one side of the House as a very great boon to tenants, and on the other side of the House it was sometimes represented as a great injury to the landlord. At any rate, it was agreed that the result was very considerable. Let them see what this result was in the case of some of the smaller holdings. He would take some of the holdings on the West Coast of Galway, and the first one that came under his notice was a holding rented at £6, the judicial rent of which had been fixed at £4 10s. Under the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd), the £6 which would, he (Mr. Trevelyan, supposed, represent the outside sum which would be paid to the landlord under the Bill, would be spread over 15 years without interest, at the rate of 8s. a-year— that was to say, the tenant would have to pay 25 per cent upon the advantage which was given him by the Land Act. The rent of the next holding on the list was £5 4.s., the judicial rent £4; the tenant gained by the Land Act £1 4s. a-year; but he would, under the clause of the hon. Member for Preston, pay 7s. a-year, or 35 per cent, for the benefit which he got by the Land Act. The former rent of the next holding was £8, and the judicial rent £7. The tenant in that case would have to pay, under the hon. Member's Amendment, 11s. a-year, or more than 50 per cent of the advantage he got by the Land Act. And in the next case the former rent was £10, and the judicial rent £9. This was a case in which the tenant would have to pay 13s. a-year under the Amendment of the hon. Member, which was equal, so far as he (Mr. Trevelyan) could calculate rapidly, to something like 65 per cent upon the benefits given by the Land Act. That was an enormous percentage on the benefits of the Land Act, which had been referred to by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Shropshire. If, instead of sending a man into the world, for the first time in his life, a free man with a chance before him, they took away from him 50 per cent of the beneficent operation of the Land Act, he (Mr. Trevelyan) believed that the result would be found to be very disappointing. The right hon. Member (Mr. J. Lowther) ended his speech with a quotation which was very interesting, and which came from a very high authority. He (Mr. Trevelyan) ventured to end his speech with a quotation from an authority which, in his eyes, was quite as high an authority—namely, a gentleman he (Mr. Trevelyan) had known all his life (Mr. E. Bagwell, of Clonmel), who had always lived amongst his own people, and who watched with the greatest care all legislation in that House, both remedial and coercive, for the purpose of noting whether or not it would enable Irish landlords to live with comfort and advantage amongst his own people, which that gentleman regarded as an end greatly to be desired by every landlord. These were the last words which Mr. Bagwell sent to The Times yesterday—

"A poor man may honourably take a present from a rich man; but borrowing on sham security savours of swindling. If you wish to demoralize the poor tenant, lend him money, which he never can repay, and make him promise to repay it with interest. I believe the vast majority of small tenants can no more pay arrears incurred before November, 1880, than they can pay the National Debt. A loan would only increase their misery and despair, while a judicious gift might save many and show all that the State means fairly by them."

said, his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had made a very convincing and able speech on this question. An appeal had been made from the other side to hon. Members on this side, whether anything could be more demoralizing than an eleemosynary gift to the tenants of Ireland? He (Mr. Goschen) agreed with his right hon. Friend who had just sat down that if there was anything more demoralizing than an eleemosynary gift it was a sham loan. They had got to look at the matter from two points of view—namely, how far this Bill was demoralizing to the people, and how far it was demoralizing as a precedent in our general legislation. While he (Mr. Goschen) thought it wholly improper that they should, as a Parliament, make gifts, he should view with great alarm the making of loans at an interest of 1 per cent. They had already seen the consequence of a loan at 1 per cent made to the landlords by the late Government. It was quoted as a precedent, and they might depend upon it that if they continued to lend money at 1 per cent they would set up a financial example which would give the greatest possible trouble in the future. It appeared to him that they ought either to make a gift and charge no interest at all, or they ought to charge a fair interest which would be remunerative to the State. It was between these two alternatives they ought to choose. It had been argued by a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and certainly by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland who sat upon the opposite Benches, that the system of loan might have great advantages over the system of gift, inasmuch as it would bring home to the tenant that there was a slight liability incurred in consequence of his not having paid his arrears. But he (Mr. Goschen) should look upon it as a most dangerous financial precedent to set for the future, if, under any circumstances, they were to have recourse to a sham loan made at a sham rate of interest. On those grounds, he should, whatever view he might take of the system of loan, oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd).

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) had characterized the speech of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) as one well fitted for a second reading, and then the right hon. Gentleman himself went on to make a very excellent second reading speech. He (Mr. Shaw) considered that when the Government had adopted the principle of gift, and when that House had also adopted it, the proposal of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ecroyd) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) would go to entirely alter the character of the Bill; and he did not think that they could expect the Government, at that stage, to give up the entire machinery they had provided and adopt the principle of loan. He still continued to think, notwithstanding the excellent arguments which had been used to the contrary, that the system of loan would be better for the tenantry and better for the State. The only reason why he had interposed at this stage of the proceedings was, that he had understood the Prime Minister to intimate that he was prepared to consider the question of loan in certain cases. The Amendment which would come on for consideration by-and-bye, in which the tenant's interest in his holding was to be considered as an asset, changed the whole aspect of the case; and he (Mr. Shaw) thought the view which was put before the Committee some hours ago by the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) a very right and proper one. It was, that in cases where this asset was brought up and considered to exclude the tenant from the gift, and where the case was considered a real one, the Commissioners should have power to lend. There was a very great objection on the part of many of the Irish tenantry to do anything which would in any respect pauperize themselves. It was generally supposed that an Irish tenant would grasp at any money that was put before him; but he (Mr. Shaw) would give the Committee an instance of the independence of one tenant, at any rate. When he (Mr. Shaw) was at home the other day, he heard from a land agent that a tenant came up to pay his rent. The landlord said to the man when he presented the rent—"You had better keep this. You will be able to get relief under the Arrears Bill." The tenant asked—"Will it be necessary for me to swear I was not able to pay it?" The land agent said, "Yes." "Then," replied the tenant, "I would not do it." There were many respectable tenants who would shrink from doing anything which would reduce them to the position of paupers; and he did hope that, at a future stage of the Bill, the Government would see their way to be able to bring in a clause which would enable such men to obtain relief by way of loan.

said, the difficulty in which they were placed was not indicated by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Shaw), or by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). They said the plan of the Government was, in their opinion, the best that could have been chosen. They thought it would have been better that the system of loan should have been originally adopted, rather than the system of gift; but the Government having proposed the system of gift, and the Bill having been read a second time in that shape, it would be difficult for the Committee to change the whole system, and introduce what the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) called an entirely different Bill. Of course, the Committee felt there was some force in an argument of that kind, though it did not apply to those who objected as much as they possibly could, on the second reading, against the principle upon which the Bill was framed. He believed that many hon. Gentlemen, who were disposed to agree in the view-he took, were precluded from voting with him on the second reading, because they said—"If we do so, we shall, in fact, prevent the Bill proceeding further." Hon. Gentlemen were also swayed by the argument which he (Sir Stafford Northcote) thought was used in the course of the second reading debate, that, after all, the question of gift versus loan was not one to be decided upon the second reading. It was not one forming the essence of the Bill; but it was a question which might and ought to be discussed in Committee. Now, when they got into Committee, the Government said—"Oh, no! you've missed your opportunity, because the House has decided upon the machinery to be employed in the Bill." He would not charge his memory with all the expressions used; but it was the tone of the debate on the second reading which tended very much in the direction he had described. He did not consider that anything had been said in support of the principle of gift which did not apply to the principle of loan. They were told that the loans would be of such small amounts individually, that the interest upon the advances would be so small, that it would be hardly worth while to go to the expense of collecting it for the period of 15 years, or for any other period. An argument which had always been used by Gentlemen who took an interest in the condition of the small occupiers of Ireland—an argument which had always been used by those who desired the small holders to become proprietors—had been, that they would be pleased to gain this position on the terms of a loan being made to them, which loan they would be proud to repay. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), who knew a great deal about the true condition and spirit of a large portion of the people of Ireland, had said that many of them would be honourable, and anxious to discharge every obligation they might incur in the shape of a loan, and that they did not wish to be pauperized. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) did not see why they should not in this Bill adopt a plan which would have the effect of putting the people, so to speak, on their mettle, and inducing them to make those repayments in an honest manner, and deliver them from feelings which were said would be painful to a large number of them. If the principle of loan were adopted, they would got applications from the better class, rather than from the worst class, whom they now heard were the persons most likely to get the gift. The Committee were told again that if they gave a loan at a lower rate of interest than the market rate they were really making a gift, and that if they made a gift at all they had better mate it out and out. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) himself saw the greatest difference in the world between a loan and a gift, even if the loan were made without any interest at all. They must remember that they were dealing primarily, at all events, with a fund which was supposed to exist for the benefit of the Irish people. Suppose they gave all that fund to those who happened to be in need at the present moment; suppose they gave it away for the purpose of stopping present claims; what were they to do in the future? If the money was understood to be repaid, though the interest might be sacrificed, the money, at all events, would be returned, and the fund would be available for any future purpose to which it might be thought necessary to apply it. It seemed to him that two courses were open to them—namely, the making of those advances by way of loan, or by way of gift. There were quite as many arguments to be urged against the system of gift as there were against the system of loan and the advantages which would accrue by the adoption of the principle of loan were quite as great as the advantages which would accrue by the adoption of the system of gift. Therefore, he was anxious to support the proposal to make those advances by way of loan, although he cared little whether the proposal was adopted in the form suggested by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) or by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton). The two proposals were very like, though they differed in respect to the rate of interest. In dividing upon the question they would express their conviction that the principle of loan was that upon which they ought to proceed. They would give effect to the convictions which had been expressed by hon. Members who sat in other parts of the House, though, for some reason or other, they had not thought fit to support the present proposal.

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) was mistaken in supposing that the question of gift versus loan was one which was reserved for the decision of the Committee. His (Mr. Gladstone's) own declarations, which principally expressed the sense of the Government, were in flat contradiction to what was stated by the right hon. Gentleman. There was not a single word, as far as he was cognizant, which gave the slightest colour to the extraordinary statement of the right hon. Gentleman; but, on the contrary, the basis of the measure on the principle of gift was fully brought out on the second reading, and he remembered insisting, in answer to the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), from whom he regretted to differ on any Irish question whatever, upon the fundamental distinction which the Government felt bound to make between the plan of loan and the plan of gift. He (Mr. Gladstone) was therefore much astonished that the right hon. Gentleman had entirely misunderstood the whole title under which the Government had pressed this Bill on the House. The right hon. Gentleman had himself moved an Amendment which would fundamentally destroy the Bill in Committee, and that he hardly thought was within the liberty of an hon. Member. He (Mr. Gladstone) rarely heard from a financial authority in that House any statement with greater satisfaction than the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen)—namely, that whatever might be said as to the question of loan and gift, there was one thing that Parliament ought, above all others, to avoid, and that was a sham loan or a gift with the name of loan. That was quite true; and let them see how it applied in the present case. They had passed by a very large majority the preliminary stages of the Bill, it being avowed throughout by the authors of the Bill that it was framed upon the principle of gift; and it having been from the first promulgated that it was a question of gift with compulsion on the one hand, and loan with voluntary acceptance on the other, and after that principle had been so promulgated and so accepted, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ecroyd), in Committee on the Bill, supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, made a Motion, the effect of which would be to destroy six-sevenths of the gift, and therefore to destroy six-sevenths of what the House assented to on the second reading of the Bill. He would not say that the introduction of such a Motion was a breach of liberty on the part of an hon. Member; but he thought that if they were to make any progress with Business at all the introduction of the Amendment was a very licentious use of that liberty, especially when the House adopted, after full debate and after the fullest and clearest Notice, and with large majorities, the principle of gift. As between a gift and a loan, and especially a loan which was of an unreal nature, which had been called a sham loan, there was a great difference. To make a gift under the present circumstances was a most serious matter. Nothing but the strongest reasons could recommend it; but it came, if he might say so, honestly before Parliament and the country, and was open to all the objections to it. There was nothing insidious about it. It did not introduce itself under false pretences. It did make away with the ratepayers' money, and it told them so; so that, having fair-notice, they knew at once the whole nature of the proposal. But with regard to those sham loans the case was exactly the reverse. They came before the people with the pretence that it was perfectly certain that the money would be recovered. Precedent after precedent was cited to show how the money had not been recovered when loans had been made by the State. But still hon. Gentlemen opposite said—"Oh! that is a different case, and we shall be able to recover it all." In point of financial security, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) was perfectly right in urging that this was a description of proceeding against which, on principle, they ought to be on their guard, and that the question of gift was one they ought to canvas thoroughly and scrutinize to the bottom, and accept or reject upon its merits. They knew, in regard to it, where they were going and what they were doing; but in the case of a sham loan they had no security whatever. The question raised by the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) was a very serious one, and well deserving the consideration of the Committee. It was with regard to those tenants who were not paupers, but who, notwithstanding, required assistance in the payment of their arrears; and it was a serious matter whether something of the kind suggested by the hon. Member ought not to be provided. He wished to give no adverse opinion on the subject; but, if the proposal was brought up in a proper form, it should have the Government's full and candid consideration. The matter was not, however, at all within the scope of the present Amendment. Regarding the present Amendment, though he did not question the right to put it, he would put it to the Committee whether, having determined, after long debate, to pass this measure upon the principle of gift, they ought to adopt an incidental Amendment that might withdraw six-sevenths of that, which they had already decided on granting?

said, that the Amendment under notice was, without exaggeration, one of the most important that could be urged, and it was supported by the gravest arguments. It was impossible to keep back the fact that the Bill mainly depended on the element of gift; and it was impossible for any Ministry putting forward such a proposal not to put it in the most prominent position. Neither was it possible, for those who opposed such a measure, to avoid giving prominence to considerations which they thought made it mischievous and demoralizing. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister used the word "licentious," and by its use had almost exposed himself to a similar epithet; but he (Mr. Gibson) would not use it, with or without reserve. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, put forward the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) as a bright example to be followed as to the argument that gift was better than loan, if the latter was not to be accompanied by substantial interest; in other words, it should be all or nothing. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, upon another Amendment, had contested the policy of making this pure and simple gift, and had suggested an intermediate course by which the tenants and the State would be free from the embarrassment and the demoralizing effect of such a proceeding. What was the effect of the Amendments of the Government and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon? The argument was that if the money was not a gift, it was of very little advantage to say it should be a loan with small interest. He never could see the force of that argument. He had always thought that a loan, even without interest, was a very different thing from a gift; and, certainly, if he were offered his choice of a gift, or a loan without in- terest, he should not hesitate a moment, and he ventured to say there were very-few people who would hesitate. He could see the most extraordinary difference of principle, particularly when the giver was the State, between saying to the people who were unable to pay their debts, "We will give you a free gift," and, "We will give you a loan without interest and on easy terms;" and could see still greater difference when not only was the principle of loan given as an alternative to the principle of gift, but when some interest was to be paid, instead of none. Of course, if anybody went into the market to borrow money, he could not borrow it at 1 per cent, and it was reasonable that some interest should be charged, or, at all events, that if the element of loan was preserved, there should be some consideration given to the question of interest. He ventured to think that tenants would feel a sounder and more wholesome responsibility by accepting a loan as suggested by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) than by receiving a gift which entailed no obligation of any kind; that would certainly have a less demoralizing effect than the present proposal. The hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), whose opinion upon these matters was entitled to great respect, not only from his vast knowledge of banking affairs, but his special knowledge of everything connected with Ireland and Irish tenants, was strongly in favour of loan as against gift, and he had suggested that possibly there might be some discretion used; that the Government might keep up a gift for the lower classes of tenants and retain the element of loan for the higher class. That was a proposal upon which he (Mr. Gibson) thought the Prime Minister might have spoken with some clearness, and it was a matter which might be understood without the slightest difficulty. He could understand the argument that for a tenant with a valuation of £5 or £10 there might be a gift; and that tenants above that limit should be dealt with by loan, on whatever terms of interest or advance the State might think wise or just; that was a clear and intelligible proposition. The Government, however, indicated that that was a proposal upon which they had not been prepared to express any adverse opinion—that it was a serious question, and they would reserve their decision for any proposal that might be made with reference to it. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] Then, it was not easy to understand what the attitude of the Government was. Any proposal on the subject must come from the Government, for it was not competent for any private Member to suggest any increased taxation. The Government had had ample time to consider and reconsider every topic in connection with this question of arrears, and it was obvious that the right hon. Gentleman had thought upon this question a few days ago, and it would appear from the words he used that he was disposed to take a more favourable view of that point; and, therefore, he (Mr. Gibson) would suggest that it was only reasonable that some effect, one way or the other, should be given to his statement, and that he should take the earliest opportunity of indicating "Aye" or "No" with reference to this question. It was the cruellest and the most unsettling thing, in the present state of Ireland, to use vague and uncertain words which might feed hopes which were never intended to be realized. As a matter of simple mercy, it was better to speak definitely, at the earliest possible time when the Government had considered this question. The strong difficulty he felt with reference to this proposal of the Government was this—it gave the highest sanction that was conceivable to the "no rent" manifesto, and that was a very serious thing for the Committee to undertake. Everybody in that House was familiar with the "no rent" manifesto, and they knew its teachings and results, and upon what it rested; and if there was any single measure that could be submitted to Parliament that would recognize and give effect to, and strengthen, and encourage the "no rent" manifesto, and possibly suggest one in the future, it was a Bill such as this, proposing a gift and not a loan to enable tenants to clear off arrears, many of which were added under the operation of that manifesto. That was a question upon which opinion in Ireland was entitled to some respect; and he ventured to say that the real opinion of the vast majority of Irish Members, other than those who represented the Land League, was absolutely opposed to gift and in favour of loan. A Memorial was presented to the Prime Mi- nister some mouths ago by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), signed by 112 Members, suggesting that the question of arrears should be dealt with; but that Memorial never suggested that arrears should be dealt with by way of gift. It suggested the principle of loan, and since then a Memorial signed by several English as well as Irish Members—the Ulster Liberal Members, in conjunction with the hon. Member for the County of Cork, and others on the Government side of the House, whose opinions were entitled to respect—had advised the adoption, not of gift, but of loan. That was a matter which was certainly entitled to much consideration, and he was not disposed to lessen the suspicion with which he regarded this proposal, when he found that the sole Representatives from Ireland who supported gift were the Representatives of the Land League; and he could not regard, without the gravest apprehension, legislation which he believed was demoralizing in its teachings and tendencies, and which would not attain the permanent happiness and prosperity of the country.

said, as he intended to vote against the proposal, and yet had always been in favour of the principle of loan and not of gift, he wished to explain why he adopted that course. When once the responsible Government had come forward with a proposal to give money in Ireland, it was impossible to propose that the money should not be a gift, but a loan. By the proposals which had been sanctioned by the Committee, people had been told that money would be given to them, and it was now impossible to hark back and make the advances as loans. He wished the Committee to consider in what a singular way matters were dealt with in the House of Commons. They did those things which they ought not to have done, and they did not do those things which they ought to have done. The legitimate occasion for gift was the time when the crops failed and the people were starving; and he felt convinced that there was no example in the history of this country, or of any other country, of a State endeavouring to obtain the repayment of advances of that kind during a time of famine. The money advanced for the purchase of seed to enable the people to cultivate their ground was an instance of a sham loan, for what had happened? Some of the Irish Members had warned the House, but the House and the Government never listened to them. They told the Government then in power that the money advanced for seed ought to have been made a gift, and not a loan; but the House and the Government refused to take that course, and made the advance a loan. The result was that that money had become a sham loan, and the Government had not been able to collect it. On the other hand, they had given a loan to the landlords at 1 per cent interest; the Irish Members objected to that; but the present Government, when they came into Office, did exactly the same thing, and, in spite of the remonstrances of the Irish Members, they advanced another £750,000 of Irish money in that way.

We did that, as we considered, in fulfilment of an engagement, and not as a voluntary act.

said, he did not think that the Government had, on any other occasion, pretended such a fulfilment of an engagement. The money advanced was absolutely contrary to Act of Parliament. There was never any engagement, and the Government had to pass another Act of Parliament to deal with the loan. There was no engagement whatever, and the simple explanation was, that such a large number of applications came in, that the Government said it would be very inconvenient to stop the advances, and they were in honour bound to continue them, as their Predecessors would probably have made the advances. To do what? To make what he maintained was a profligate use of money which belonged to the Irish people. The Irish Members had asked the Government to extend these loans to tenants, but the Government and the House refused; although, if they had acceded and advanced money to the tenants, the tenants would not have been in their present position. They would have been able to pay their rents, and to cultivate their holdings, and there would have been none of these disputes as to loan or gift. The difficulty of collecting was no valid objection to loans being advanced to Irish tenants; because there had been abundant examples of small loans, and it was found that no money was more easily collected, or more honourably repaid. Had the Committee forgotten the Fishery Loans, which were very small sums, advanced to the very poorest class, and which were collected with the greatest ease, and repaid with the most unswerving fidelity? Who did not know that the banks in Ireland advanced loans of extremely small amounts? Very often the bills were for about £5, and there was no security better than they were for money advanced to poor people. When the House refused to recognize that the Irish tenants had repaid these small sums, how were the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act to be carried out? Under those circumstances, although he should vote against this Amendment, on the other hand, he hoped the Government would extend the principle of loans to holdings above £30 valuation.

said, that, although in favour of loan instead of gift, he felt that it was now too late to ask the Government to alter what they considered the vital part of the Bill; and his anxiety, at the present time, was to see the Bill passed in the most comprehensive shape, in order that it might attain the objects the Government had in view. On the subject of sham loans, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had brought forward the case of £4,000,000 advanced at the time of the Irish Famine. That money was advanced on the security of public works. Those works were obsolete now, and were no security whatever; but he would ask the Committee to compare that security with the security of the tenant right in Ulster, and to remember that the tenant's interest, upon which the money would be advanced, was equal to the fee-simple of the landlord as security. If the tenant's interest was to be taken into account as an asset so far as the North of Ireland was concerned, this Bill would be of no practical value. There were, in the North of Ireland, struggling tenants deep in arrear, who yet would not apply for a loan; and he agreed with his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Lublin (Mr. Gibson) that it was the business of the Government to bring in an Amendment themselves, dealing with this question of allowing tenants who would not ask for a gift to get a loan. In Ulster there were more evictions than in any other Province in Ireland; and the struggling tenants of Ulster, who had endeavoured to pay their way, were entitled to consideration, and to receive loans when gifts were barred, by an Amendment proposed by the Prime Minister, providing that the tenant right should stand in the way of loans.

said, he did not believe that there were many tenants in Ulster, or anywhere else, who, being unable to pay their rents, would refuse a gift and prefer a loan. Human nature was the same all the world over, and he had not found, either in Munster or Ulster, any tenants who were not willing to take a gift in preference to a loan, if they could get it. He denied that there was the slightest foundation for the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), that the tenants who obeyed the "no rent" manifesto were the tenants who would benefit by the Bill. On the contrary, the tenants who would benefit by the Bill would be those who were unable to pay, and who, consequently, whether there had been a "no rent" manifesto or not, would have paid nothing, and would be still unable to pay. In many cases in the West of Ireland, particularly in Mayo, he found that the small tenants bad made payments on account of their rents, and had not obeyed the manifesto, but who were being evicted, because they could not pay the balance of their arrears. So far from the "no rent" manifesto tenants benefiting by the Bill, he believed it would be quite the reverse. The principle upon which the Bill was based was bonâ fide and honest. It was not brought forward by, or in connection with, the Land League, and it was well known that many of the extreme loaders of the Land League in Ireland were very much opposed to the Bill, because they believed it would place in the pockets of the landlords a large amount of arrears which they otherwise would never have recovered. They believed that, in a great many cases, the landlords, if they could not recover the arrears, would eject the tenants; and it was to avoid the misery and suffering that would result in such cases, that he, and his hon. Friends, had thought it right to support the Bill. He did so from no Land League point of view, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman attempted to mislead the Party behind him by trying to persuade them that he knew the truth himself, it would be a case of the blind leading the blind, which would probably result in both falling into the ditch. He thought it would be prudent, and would conduce very much to the restoration of order in Ireland, if tenants above £30 valuation, who proved their inability to pay, were permitted to borrow from the State at a low rate of interest; but he would not interfere with the tenants below that amount. He believed that the vast majority below £30, who were unable to pay their rents, were so harassed and so depressed that, if they accepted loans, they would accept them with the intention of not repaying them. They looked upon these arrears of rent as an unjust exaction; and he thought that if the Committee changed its mind now, at the last moment, and forced upon this pauperized class a loan instead of a gift, the taxpayers of this country would deserve not to have any of the money repaid. The case of the tenants above that class was entirely different; but he should not be disposed to go so far as the hon. Member for the County' of Cork (Mr. Shaw) and to ask the State to convert itself into a vast bank, and advance money to every tenant who, perhaps, found it temporarily inconvenient to pay. The Government might retain the condition that there should be proof of inability to pay in the case of loans as in the case of gifts, and if they gave to the tenants above £30 the privilege of borrowing from the State, they should maintain that condition with those tenants who proved their inability to pay.