I have to move an Amendment on the clause, and, in doing so, I will promise not to detain the Committee very long. I hope, in the course of a few minutes, to be able to state clearly what I propose to do by this Amendment, and my reasons for proposing it. I am very glad that the Government have accepted the principle which I advocated on the second reading, of fixed rents on a scale of prices for temporary abatements. I find, on going into the question with legal advisers, that materials seem to exist for removing most of the objections which have been made to a scale of rents fixed exclusively with reference to prices, and I would really urge upon the Government whether they cannot improve upon their proposed new clause, even with a view to its temporary operation. I would further point out that it is most desirable, if possible, for them to put things on such a footing that it might, if necessary, be adopted as a permanent basis for the settlement of judicial rents. That is surely the most important object to be carried out, both in the interests of the landlord and of the tenant, for nothing could be more pernicious to the welfare of a country as unsettlement and disorder recurring with every bad crop or fall in prices. I will state shortly what I propose, and my grounds for proposing it. I think everybody will admit, considering what the causes are which enable a tenant to pay his rent, that there are three great factors which determine that power, and which ought to be taken into consideration by the Land Commission in any attempt to fix judicial rents fairly, so that the separate rents of farms in each district would become self-adjusting. These three factors are, first, the acreage in a county or district under cultivation with varying crops or used for the maintenance of stock, as this is necessary to enable the Commission to decide in what proportion the yield of crops or the prices of different articles of agricultural produce should influence the rents of a district; secondly, the average yield per acre of the several articles fixed upon, and the number of stock available for sale in the district; and, thirdly, the prices of these various articles of agricultural produce. Now, on all these subjects it will be found that we have very interesting statistics. We have had Parliamentary Returns issued year by year. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR dissented.] I see that the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but there are three sets of agricultural statistics with regard to Ireland which profess to give all the details. Of course, I know there is no such thing as absolute accuracy or justice in such matters; and these three factors will surely, with such inquiries as the Commission might make, form a far better basis for varying judicial rents than the arbitrary decisions of a number of Commissioners acting independently and without any fixed rules to guide them. Neither in the Amendment which I first put on the Paper, nor in the clause proposed by the Government, is any account taken of the second of these factors—namely, the amount of production; and yet it is one which occasionally produces as great, if not greater, disturbance as any other. I am, of course, aware that the Government contend that this Bill contains only temporary provisions to prepare the way for a grand scheme of purchase; but I would venture to point out that even for such a scheme of purchase we should have a much better basis to go upon if rents are fairly fixed on certain tangible rules than if they are unfair and unsettled. I know the Government say that it is by the revaluation of farms that rents are to be fixed. But it is inevitable that the valuers could not help being biassed and influenced by the rent fixed, as the Land Courts have been notoriously influenced by the actual rents and by Griffith's valuation, But we must go further than that, and I venture to urge that the Government would be guilty of the same blunder which has constantly led us into difficulty with regard to Ireland if they risk finding themselves, during or at the end of the three years which they allow for the creation and action of their land purchase scheme, face to face with similar difficulties in regard to failure of crops or a fall in prices, which upset the operation of the Land Act of 1881, and which they have now to deal with. What we have done invariably is what we did under the Encumbered Estates Act, what we did under the Land Act of 1870, and under the Land Act of 1881; we just deal with the present difficulty in Ireland, and we leave a place through which the waters of trouble may again flow in. I do not wish to detain the Committee at great length; but I point out that we acted then as we are acting now, and that the result will be the same hereafter if we do not take into account the seasons. The Government have relied exclusively on the Land Purchase Bill for settling this difficulty, but it will be some time before it can be worked. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Northampton in saying that this country never would and ought not on any account to incur any liability in order to facilitate a Land Purchase Act as applied to part of the and of Ireland. I consider that our failures and neglect in times past do make us partners in the conditions which exist in Ireland, and that we ought to take a limited share of the liability; but I am satisfied that this country will never submit to an enormous scheme which would render it, liable for the purchase of the whole of the land in Ireland, and that if it did it would do great injury to Ireland as well as involve itself in inextricable difficulties. There is the greatest possible difference between the conditions of land in the various parts of Ireland. We must deal with that part of the land of Ireland which, being poor land let in small holdings—say of under £10—affords little, if any, margin for economical rent, and which would cover in number the greater part of the Irish tenancies and those parts of the country which were the seed-beds of famine, of disorder, and of outrage. But if the Government attempted to deal with those larger farms of rich land in which there was room for considerable economical rent beyond the profits of the farmer, they would produce a state of things infinitely worse than that which now existed. The landlords concerned in Ireland have a better property than the landlords in England; and if you attempt to abolish dual ownership, you will substitute for landlords like the Duke of Devonshire and the Duke of Leinster small, hard landlords, who will convert their farms into property and live upon the profit. Therefore, you must not rely solely upon your Purchase Bill. We must try to make this Bill such as that it will, as far as possible, operate justly, and, where there is dual ownership, make the action between the landlord and tenant rest upon certain real and sound foundations which both can understand, and which, when rules are laid down for an area, will he applicable to the individual tenants. I think I see in the countenance of my right hon. Friend opposite this difficulty—that it would be absolutely impossible to deal with the case of each tenant. If you are to attempt to fix the rent on the produce of each farm you will get oven into a worse difficulty than you are now in. I strongly urge upon the Government to adopt the proposal embodied in the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper, and whether for temporary, or, still bettor, for permanent purposes, to make the clause as just and complete as they can. I will only add that it should be observed that this proposal gives the Land Commission definite rules and directions to guide them, and that when once they have given their decision for an area it will be self-acting over that area. I hope that the Chief Secretary for Ireland will favourably consider the points I have laid before the Committee, and accept the Amendment which I now beg to move.

My hon. Friend who has just sat down has moved a very elaborate Amendment to the scheme of the Government; and I will at once admit that the scheme proposed by the Government is a rough and ready scheme, and one which has never been suggested to the Committee in any other sense. I also admit that the scheme of my hon. Friend is not only more elaborate, but more theoretically perfect than that of the Government. Having made those admissions, I hope that my hon. Friend will make me some admissions in return. I hope he will admit that his scheme, although elaborate, is not elaborate enough to make a complete and perfect system of the sliding scale. My hon. Friend takes into account the special yield of the district and the prices in the district, and he has fixed those two quantities in rather a more elaborate fashion than we do. These are not, however, the only things to be taken into account in making a perfect automatic system of rent settlement. You have not only to take into account the variation of prices and yield, but you have also to take into account the variation of profit. At a time when profits in all industries are lower than they have been before the farmers can- not expect to make the same profits as at other periods, and the House ought not to attempt by legislation to keep up the profits of farmers under such circumstances. Yon ought to find out what are the profits in other industries before settling a perfect system of the sliding scale; and you ought to take into account the variation in the cost of production, the variation in the price of labour, and in the price of those articles which the farmer consumes, as well as the variation of such things as clothing, the necessaries of life and even those luxuries of life in which the farmer is in the habit of indulging; and, further, if you want a perfect system you must take into account how much of the produce of the farm is consumed on the farm. Take the case of two farms, one worked by an ordinary farmer and another by a peasant farmer. In the latter case there is hardly anything which is sold off the farm, with the exception, perhaps, of a little oats; the tenant probably consumes all the bacon produce and the greater part of the oats. In that case the variation in the price of the article which he consumes does not or ought not to enter into the calculation. On the ether hand, there is the case of the farmer who sells practically everything and pockets a certain sum as profit; in his case the variations of price are far more necessary to be taken into account. My hon. Friend appears to think he has laid before the House a perfect scheme free from all difficulty which might arise in the working of the Irish land system hereafter.

No. I think I said distinctly that there was no such thing as attaining perfection, but that the Government ought to set about eliminating one of the great elements of disturbance which exists. I admit that a perfect scheme is an impossibility.

My hon. Friend will see that he has adopted a scheme which, however much it excels our scheme, must necessarily fall very far short of perfection. My hon. Friend says that the present state of the Land Question in Ireland is due to difficulties which we might have foreseen, and for which we failed to provide a remedy, and that our failure is likely to be destructive of any good effects resulting from this legislation. The hon. Gentleman's scheme falls far short of one which would meet all objections. No doubt, difficulties may fall in the way of the scheme of the Government; but what we ought really to take into consideration are those evils which we can foresee and which can be dealt with in passing a Bill through this House. We have attempted to deal with one particular difficulty which has arisen in the course of the last few years. It is the difficulty which produced the Cowper Commission; it is the difficulty into which the Cowper Commission were asked to look; it is the difficulty to meet which the Commission made certain suggestions; it is the difficulty which the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) attempted to meet by his Bill last year, and which hon. Gentlemen opposite have tried to meet by their schemes of remission; and, further, it is the difficulty with which the Government, in a much humbler spirit and on a more moderato scale, have attempted to cope in the clause under discussion. We do not consider that this or any other scheme which the wit of man can devise, or the wisdom of Parliament can enact, is likely to meet all the evils that have arisen, or are likely to arise, in the future; but we think that we can suggest nothing more likely to pass, or that will be more adequate to the situation, than the clause we have laid upon the Table. For these reasons I would ask my hon. Friend to be satisfied with a discussion, which I admit has been instructive, and not press his elaborate Amendment further on the attention of the Committee.

I thoroughly appreciate the motives which have made the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) place this Amendment on the Paper. It is certainly a very elaborate scheme, but I am afraid, to some degree, it is open to the objection which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has urged against it. I join with the hon. Gentleman in the belief that it is impossible to devise any scheme by which you can have, theoretically or otherwise, even an approach to perfection in the annual adjustment of rents. We have tried that in Scotland; it has been gradually given up. It seems to me that the proposal of the Government goes in the right direction, and, perhaps, all the more so because it is somewhat vague and leaves much lati- tude to the Land Commission; indeed, it seems to me in one sense to go too far, although in another it does not seem to go far enough. The scheme of the right hon. Gentleman does not contain many words, but it seems to be a plan to settle rents annually for each of the next three years. It seems to me the Government would have done better if they had followed that course recommended by the Commissioners. I never could understand the system under which schemes of this kind are settled in some room of a back office in London, without persons experienced in matters of this kind being consulted, and which schemes appear to be evolved out of the inner consciousness of officials. I think the right hon. Gentleman would have done better if he had taken the opinion of experienced men who have devoted themselves to this subject. I do not think the Government are bound to accept the whole of the Report of the Commissioners; but I do think that the Commissioners are more likely to be right than a few gentlemen consulting together in the way I have described in order to concoct a clause of this kind. I think the Government might have derived great advantage if they had taken into consideration the experience furnished from India. That country is a long way off; but it is in many respects like Ireland, and I am struck by seeing how absolutely identical the conditions of the two countries are in the matter of land. This is a problem we have been attempting to grapple with in India for 100 years; after 100 years of debate we seem to have arrived at some appreciation of the question, and it is probable that about the year of our Lord 1900 we shall have come to some settlement of it. If the Irish Government deal with the matter from the beginning, they may arrive at the same point about the year 2000. But it is necessary that, we should now deal with the subject by a plan that will come immediately into operation, and I believe that the scheme of the Government is in the right direction; although I think it will be very difficult to adjust the whole of the rents in Ireland, year by year, for the next three years. There is the extreme difficulty of fixing the areas, and again I cannot imagine any areas to which it will be possible to apply any uniform scheme. Then how various are the factors in each area with which you have to deal; you are to have two sets of varying factors; almost every farm will differ from other farms in the matter, quality, and produce of the land, and altogether I say you will have throughout the country an enormous amount of complication. I think, also, the proposal of the Government does not go far enough in another sense. Why should you limit the rents to the year 1886 and the preceding years, and not go to 1889? It is not unlikely that you may have as much variation of rent in 1890 as in the years which you have suggested. I must say I think it would have been very much better if the Government had followed in this matter the advice of their own Land Commission; if they had confined their action to cases where the tenant was unable to pay; if they had drafted Clause 22 in a modified form, and adopted the plan of five years' adjustment of rents. That I think would have been a better plan. It may, perhaps, shorten the discussion if I allude for a moment to an Amendment of my own upon this subject, which is an alternative Amendment to that of the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone). I would point out that my Amendment embodies the most recent experience in India upon this subject—it embodies in a compact form the law of India with regard to the land. My Amendment deals with the re-adjustment of rents and the variation in prices, and so far it coincides with the proposal of the Government. My proposal is, that a term of five years should be substituted for the statutory term of 15 years provided by the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881; that when the fair rent of any holding has been fixed for the statutory term under the provisions of that Act, then in any subsequent proceedings for the fixing of a fair rent, the rent previously fixed shall be deemed to have been and to be a fair rent until the contrary is shown by either party; that in any such proceedings, unless the previous rent is shown to have been unfair when it was first judicially fixed, by reason of error or otherwise, the Court shall not increase or decrease the rent on any ground other than that either the value of the produce or the productive powers of the land have been increased or decreased otherwise than by the agency or at the expense of the tenant or by his default. Practically what I propose is, that every five years there should be an adjustment as prices vary, the Commission having regard to that factor mainly and that factor only. This plan has been found on the experience of 100 years in India to be most workable; it prevails now in India; it is recommended by the Commission, and I think the Government will find it a much better and easier system than that which they have brought forward, which provides for a three years' adjustment, but which does not take into account the variation there may be in the years 1890 or 1900. It seems to me, having regard to the great uncertainty as to prices in this country and all over the world, that it would be most desirable that, instead of attempting to fix the rent each year for three years only, you should fix it for five years by the same kind of machinery as is already in working order in India. I think if you had a system of that kind it would not be at all difficult to re-adjust rents in Ireland on the limited grounds to which I have alluded every five years, and that we might have come to an adjustment, not by actually automatic, but what I may call a quasi or semi-automatic process. You may possibly have prices rising considerably, and I think it would be very hard on the landlord if when prices were down you should reduce his rent, and not increase it when they are up again. You must remember that you have to deal with two classes of tenants, the one solvent and the other insolvent. With regard to those that are solvent the worst that can happen to them is that for the last two years they might be paying a little more rent, and that they might lose something in the aggregate. But with regard to those who are insolvent, unless hon. Members are prepared to accept the insolvency clause suggested by the Government you cannot go into their case. I again say that it is my impression that it would have been better if the Government had confined the annual adjustment to a much narrower limit, and adopted the plan of the Commission for a general adjustment every five years.

I do not wish to detain the Committee more than two minutes, but I desire to address one word by way of warning to the Government. Their scheme appears to me to be open to the objection which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) has urged against it. As I read the clause the Land Commission will only be entitled to consider the question of price, and will have no right to regard any other point whatever. Let me suppose the case of bad harvests through the three years; the prices will then rise, and the rent will be increased, although the produce may be less than the average, and the tenants less able to pay their rents than they were in ordinary years. I remember the Report of the Commission in which it was pointed out that there were hundreds and thousands of small tenants who would be totally unable to pay any part of their rent if there should be a failure of crops. It seems to me that in laying down a rule upon which for three years rents are to be determined, you ought to take this matter into consideration. At the present moment the difficulty arises in connection with the fall in prices; but it is quite possible that in the next three years there may be an alteration, and I do think it would be wise, without going to the length of adopting the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone), if some attempt were made to deal with this point. I shall be glad, for my part, if the Government would put in words to give greater latitude to the Land Commission, so as to enable them to take into account not only the question of price, but also that of the produce of the area.

Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I sympathize with the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland when he says that the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) ought to be contented with the discussion which has taken place upon this Amendment without dividing the Committee. I do not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) with regard to what may happen in the year 2000—I simply rise to make what I believe to be a practical suggestion. I do not share the views either of the Government or of those hon. Members on this side of the House who say because this is a temporary measure we ought not to make it a perfect measure so far as we can under the circumstances. At the same time, I may be allowed to say, on behalf of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman, that I believe the solution of this question does lie in the abolition of dual ownership. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is no fair balancing of rent as a share in the produce of the soil. There is a certain share of profit required for the working of the soil, a certain share required for the capital of the tenant, and a certain share out of which the tenant must live. Now, I suggest that the Land Commission or valuators should settle the productive power of the land. Supposing that the land is occupied, and producing five quarters per acre, and supposing that the Commission should settle the proportion belonging to the landlord and the proportion belonging to the tenant; then having settled that you must fix the rent; if the production of the land is regulated by low prices, the rent will be correspondingly lower, and if by high prices it will be correspondingly higher. I admit that the tenant and landlord must take even chances of good and bad years; but I think there ought to be a premium on good farming, and a fine on bad farming. I think the tenant ought to be made to strain his utmost efforts to make the land as productive as possible. Both on principles of political economy and in the interest of the tenant, I think the landlord ought not to desire to take more than his fair share, because the tenant happens to be an enterprizing man. There would be this encouragement to the tenant—that if he could make the land produce five or six quarters, one quarter would be his own as the produce of his skilled farming; if he were a careless or indolent farmer, and allowed the farm to fall below a fair standard, he would be fined to the extent of 20 per cent as the result of his own carelessness. It can, of course, be said that this plan is subject to many contingencies. You may ask, how is it possible to regulate the prices on a farm where the product is so very varying? My contention is that the general productiveness of the farm is confined to two or three articles produced in the district; and that if you have two or three main products to regulate the rent, you will not go far wrong in the amount of general pro- ductiveness of the land and the general profit of the farmer. This is the conclusion at which I have arrived, after much thought, on a subject which has come forward lately in connection with the crofters in the Bill of last year, and which will undoubtedly be brought forward again. I think any Government that may be in power will do well to take this matter into consideration as a basis on which there is a possibility of settling this much-vexed question. I hope, after all the endeavours that have been made, there will be a unanimous attempt on this side of the House to settle the present strained relationship between the landlords and tenants, which is becoming more strained every day, on a basis which will be at once fair to the men whose capital is invested in the soil, and fair to the agriculturist, who is passing through a time of great trial. If the Government can so alter their Amendment as to bring the principle I advocate into working operation, I think it will relieve them of great difficulty, and bring about a better settlement than their proposal, or the Amendment moved to it, is likely to effect.

It appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) and the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) have this object in view—they seek to provide for certain contingencies which have not yet arisen; whereas the object of the Bill is to meet and cope with an acknowledged evil—namely, the fall in prices since the fixing of judicial rents. It seems to me that if we are to adopt the advice of these hon. Gentlemen, we had better at once repeal the Act of 1881, because it would be importing into those proceedings an entire departure from the principle adopted in that Act. I am no admirer of the Act of 1881, of which I recollect that in bygone days I prophesied the complete failure on this particular point. But in existing circumstances it is impossible to put anything in place of that Act. I wish to remind the Committee that the two matters which the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member desire to be taken into consideration—namely, the amount of produce, and the effect and character of the seasons—were taken into account, once for all, by the Land Commission when the judicial rents were fixed. The Commissioners gauged at that time the quality of the land; and I presume they calculated for an average series of seasons. Now, it has not been alleged that the character of the seasons has changed in any material degree; and as regards the amount of produce, the largeness or smallness of the crops depends far more upon the industry and skill of the farmer than upon anything else as a general rule. I maintain that unquestionably the productiveness of the farm depends more on these qualities in the farmer than upon any other cause. The right hon. Gentleman opposite pointed out the possibility of bad yields during the next few years, and the effect of them on the prices of produce. That plea would have been perfectly valid some years ago, but it is not a good plea at the present time. The price of corn, for example, is regulated, not by the quantity produced in this country, but by the amount of foreign competition; it is regulated by the imports from America on the one hand and from India on the other, I have been loth to interfere with the judicial rents fixed under the Act of 1881 at all. What that Act did, and what the State said, in effect, at that time was this—" In reference to that Act, on grounds of high policy we are going to make a tremendous alteration in what have hitherto been held to be the rights of property in land; we are not going to allow you to fix the rents in future; we are going to fix them ourselves; we shall, practically, select your tenants for you, and when selected we are going to give them something like perpetuity of tenure." In fact, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) said on one occasion—" We are going to put the landlords in a position in which they will be mere rent-chargers on the land." This was an extraordinary interference with the rights of property; but in lieu of all this, and as some compensation for it, I suppose, the Government of the day promised the landlord two things: one was that whatever happened, as far as the State was concerned, there should be no further interference with their rents, and that if for any reason those rents wore not paid their land should be restored. Now, I have always held that to be a valid and binding contract, a distinctly honourable obligation between the State on one hand and the landlords of Ireland on the other; and it is one to the setting aside of which I will never be a consenting party, unless either the consent of the landlords is obtained or something in the nature of an equivalent is given him instead. But there are two things which the Irish landlords and the Government should remember—first, that however much rents in Ireland have been lowered, in all probability rents in England have been lowered to a much greater extent; and, secondly, that the Government, from no fault of their own, are confronted with a situation from which there is no escape except with the greatest difficulty. I regard this clause not merely as a provision for the reduction of rent; there is this also to be borne in mind—that if from any unforeseen circumstance prices, happily, should rise again in future, then, as the hon. Member opposite says—for I understand him to agree with me—undoubtedly rents will rise also. The Government have, in fact, adopted a modified form of the sliding scale system; and as I consider that to that extent it does give something in the nature of an equivalent to the landlord I intend to support the clause, and I hope it will be carried in its present form.

It is evident that the Government do not see their way to the acceptance of my Amendment, and I will, therefore, ask leave to withdraw it. But I would urge on the right hon. Gentleman to consider between this and Report whether he cannot insert words in the clause which would enable the Committee, in case there should be such a great failure of crops as there was in 1847 and 1879, to prevent a difficulty arising similar to that we have now to deal with.

As I understand the matter, the Commissioners are to take into account the prices at the date of application as compared with former prices. I am of opinion that this is the best plan, and venture to hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.

I wish to point out that the rents that will be payable on the next gale clay before the passing of the Act are those accruing from November to May last, and that these were earned on the prices of 1886—not those of 1887. It is notorious that it is not until the end of the year that you can calculate the prices which have prevailed in the year. It will, therefore, be impossible for the Land Commission to say what are the prices for 1887 for the purpose of the clause.

I cannot quite agree that the Commissioners would not be able to get at the prices of 1887. But I should like to point out that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman rather tells against the object he has in view, the prices this year being decidedly lower than they wore last year.

Everybody knows that the prices may be affected by circumstances which cannot be controlled; and it is exceedingly dangerous to judge of land on prices which may vary from day to day. To make a correct estimate you must have the average prices. We propose a standard that cannot be altered. Thus, in judging the rent on a gale day of 1886, you should consider the prices of 1886; and, in the same way, when you are judging the rent on on a gale day of 1887, you should consider the prices of 1887. I consider that our proposal is much more rational than that of the right hon. Gentleman.

According to the proposal of the hon. Member, it does not matter how low the prices may be this year; the tenant will have to pay on the higher prices of the preceding year. Practically, however, it is well known that if the Irish tenant pays his rent it is out of the profits of the year in which he pays it, and therefore I do not think we can take the prices from another year.

I think the right hon. Gentleman is shutting his eyes to the fact that this clause is intended to affect rents becoming due on the 29th September; and, consequently, if the landlord is to be in a position to recover that rent on the 30th of September it will be absolutely necessary that the Land Commissioners should make their decision before that date. Our position is that the alteration in the rent must be made before the 29th of September; and, that being so, it will be impossible for the Commissioners to take into account the prices of produce. The prices will not have been fixed, because the farmer will not have sold his crops. To proceed on the plan proposed by the Government would amount to absolute injustice to the tenant, and hence we propose to them an Amendment which is necessary to make the clause work. As the clause at present stands, it will be absolutely impossible for the Commissioners to discharge their duties properly, because they must give their decision before the 29th of September.

I am perfectly aware of what is necessary to be done by the Commissioners under this clause, and the necessary preparations are being made to carry out what is intended. I do not think there will be any difficulty of the kind suggested.

I regard the next Amendment as being extremely important, and it is one which I trust my hon. Friends will press very strongly on the Government. My Amendment is intended to deal with a fallacy which the Government have introduced into this clause. The Government have proceeded on the idea that judicial rents in each year were fixed on the prices of that year. That is a most absurd contention on their part. If it is necessary, I can give the Committee numbers of instances in which the Commissioners testified before the Cowper Commission that they had fixed rents on the basis of the average price of a series of years. I have no desire to occupy the time of the Committee reading the evidence if it can be avoided. I merely make the statement that the average of a series of years was taken by the Commissioners; and I defy hon. Gentlemen opposite to point to a case in which a Commissioner said he was guided by the prices of any single year. It is, as I have said, the rents were fixed on the basis of the average price of a series of years. And that series carried the Commissioners back into some of the good years which came before 1879. Now, if you take the prices of the individual years on which the rents were fixed, and compare them with the prices at present, you do the tenants a gross injustice; because the rents were fixed on a series of much higher prices than that of the year in which they were fixed. With regard to the rents fixed in 1885, you will do the tenants the greatest injustice, because, although the prices then were very low, that fact made no impression whatever on the minds of the Land Commissioners. Up to August, 1885, the average reductions were 19 per cent; in the following three months they were about the same or slightly under that percentage. That clearly shows that the judicial rents fixed in 1885 were not fixed on a lower scale in consequence of the fall in prices. It is also perfectly clear, if you compare the judicial rent with the Government valuation, you will find that the change in the rents did not commence until 1886; and it is quite natural that it should be so, because the Land Commissioners, with a great pressure of work upon them, are unable to take into account the varying prices from time to time. But yet the Government propose to take it for granted that the rents fixed in January, 1885, were fixed on the prices of that year. That leads me to consider another absurdity on the part of the Government. Rents are fixed in January, February, and March of a given year, and yet the Government choose to lay it down that they are fixed on the basis of the prices of that year—that is to say, on the prices of the nine months following, which could not be the case. Now, the Amendment I am about to move proposes to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Land Commissioners. If those Commissioners are fit to be entrusted with the responsibility of fixing the amount of rent, surely they ought to be trusted with the responsibility of finding out the basis on which those rents are to be fixed. My Amendment does no more than throw upon the Land Commissioners the onus of discovering that basis. I trust, therefore, it will be agreed to by the Government; and, in the other event, I shall be under the necessity of going at some length into the evidence given before the Cowper Commission in order to show that the position of the Government in this matter is utterly untenable.

I certainly object strongly to the plan of the hon. Gentleman, which seeks to make a comparison between a single year on one side and an aggregate of years on the other. The Commissioners may, by the clause, compare the prices of 1887 with each of the years from 1881, and the hon. Gentleman wants to have that altered in the way described. If the hon. Member is going to substitute for 1882 another average year, it is clear that he ought to substitute another average year for 1887. I believe the Land Commission will not find themselves bound down in the manner supposed by the hon. Gentleman, seeing that the clause leaves them an equitable jurisdiction.

I agree that, instead of varying from year to year, you ought to take an average, say, of five years at one end and an average of five years at the other end. But the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to do that; he proposes to vary the rent from year to year up to 1889. That being so, I really think the Committee might well accept this Amendment, unless they see some practical difficulty in doing so, which I confess I do not.

I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) has answered the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in a most unanswerable way. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has treated this proposal as if it were one permanently varying the judicial rents. The excuse for the clause is that it is a temporary clause, and that the rents which the Land Commission fixed will be rents respecting 1886, 1887, 1888, and 1889. The principle the Government have is this—to adjust the prices in this year, next year, or hereafter, as the case may be, to the average of prices on which the judicial rents were fixed. That being so, you can only take into account the individual year, and it would be monstrously unjust to take anything else. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I think I am quite right in saying that the Land Commission will have no such latitude under this clause as he says. The clause leaves the Land Commission no option; when they are dealing with rents fixed in 1881, they are bound to assume that the rents were fixed on the prices of 1881. There is no other mode of construing this clause; the clause is too plain and obvious. The clause says that the Land Commission is to—

"Determine with reference to such counties unions, or other areas, what alteration, if any, ought equitably to be made in the judicial rents to become payable in such counties, unions, or areas, in respect of the year commencing from the gale day next before the passing of this Act, according as such judicial rents were fixed in one or other of the years before the first day of January, 1886," &c.

I do not intend to occupy the time of the Committee more than a moment. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was almost willing to give way to our proposal. He recognized that it was a fair one, and he attached a great deal of importance to it. Surely the only difficulty existing in his mind is absolutely removed by the fact that this is not a reduction of judicial rent, but only a temporary abatement.

It is perfectly evident that the Commission will be bound to consider the rent of one year alone, and I ask on what assumption this clause is drafted? It is perfectly obvious that no one proposes to lay down that the judicial rents fixed in 1881, 1882, 1883, 1884, or 1885, was necessarily a perfectly just and equitable rent for that year alone. The Commission never proposed to make the rent a perfectly just and equitable rent for one year. They did not propose the rent for one year. What they did say was this—

"In arriving at this rent we have considered the average prices for a period of about 15 years; there are some high years and some low years; and we do so because the judicial rent will run for 15 years, and we assume that in the 15 years to come there will be high and low years."

We shall be perfectly satisfied if the right lion. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will carry out what he himself desire. I listened very attentively to what he said, and I understood him to say he thought the Commissioners were directed under the clause, as it stood, to do the very thing which is proposed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Mahony). I do not know whether I rightly interpret the right hon. Gentleman's words; but I must say that if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Commissioners ought to do what my hon. Friend proposes they should do, surely there is no harm in his acceptance of the words which We think are necessary for directing the Commissioners to do this. I venture to differ very respectfully from the right hon. Gentleman when he says that these words give no such direction to the Land Commissioners as We desire. The words of the clause, as they stand, direct the Commissioners to make a comparison of prices between one year now and the year in which the rent was fixed. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman if that is fair? Is it fair to compare the prices of a single year now and of the single year in which the rent was fixed? I do not think anybody will say that is fair. Mr. Robert Reeves, giving evidence before the Land Commissioners, said, in answer to Sir James Caird—

"The Sub-Commission in fixing the rent take into consideration the average of prices for 12 or 14 years back."

I am afraid the imperfections in the relief scheme we have presented are not such as can be removed by an Amendment of this kind. The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that some of the Land Commissioners took the prices of 15 years preceding when they fixed the rents. I presume that they took more than that into account; they must have taken into account not only the prices, but the yield and other circumstances. They were not limited to a, consideration of prices; but they took into account a vast number of other circumstances, and for that reason alone it is not proper to simply take out of the calculation a certain number of considerations. But there is another point which ought to be taken into account. What is the argument on which hon. Gentlemen have relied over and over again to induce us to take so gigantic a stop—namely, that of interfering or remodelling, even to the smallest extent, the judicial rents of 1881? They say there has been a fall in prices amounting, I think, to 20 per cent. If hon. Members are going to take the prices of 15 years, the comparison will be between 15 years ending with 1883 and 15 years ending with the year 1885. But the large number of years in those two periods are years common to both; therefore, without trying to work it out in arithmetical detail, it is obvious the fall between the two periods cannot be so great as between the individual years of 1882 and 1885, when hon. Gentlemen tell us the fall in prices was so great.

If the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is final, there is hardly any use in saying more; but I should like to say a few words upon this matter. The right hon. Gentleman must feel that as the clause stands it is not likely to work properly. For example, three farms may lie together, and be identical in condition to which the rent was fixed in 1882, 1883, and 1884 respectively. According to his clause, it may well be that the abatement will be different in respect to each of these farms; not because there is any difference in the condition at the present time, but because there is a difference in the prices now and in the year in which the rents were fixed. I recollect that when the original Land Act of 1881 was proposed, it was intended that when a fair rent was to be fixed the Commissioners should have regard to particular considerations certified. Mr. Macnaghten—now Lord Macnaghten—suggested that it would be better to leave the Commissioners to decide what was a fair rent under all circumstances; and he pointed out that to fetter the discretion of the Commissioners by an arbitrary and hard-and-fast rule would tend to produce injustice. I cannot help thinking the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has endeavoured in his clause—the good intentions of which I fully recognize—to be too precise in framing the particular standard by which the Commissioners shall act in making the abatement. If he is not willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Meath (Mr. Mahony), I suggest that, if possible, it may be competent for the Government to leave the matter to the discretion of the Commissioners—to say that the Commissioners shall have power to say what abatement ought equitably to be made, having regard to the differences in prices. That would get rid of the arbitrary and inconvenient standard by which the right hon. Gentleman, in endeavouring to be too precise, has imperilled the utility of the clause.

I did not intend to introduce into this debate the element of produce; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has dragged it in. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is not a perfect system of remodelling rent, because the element of produce was taken into consideration on the first occasion. Let me refer to the words of the Cowper Commission. They say that the fall in prices during the last two years was intensified in its effect by the gradual deterioration which has been going on in the quality of the produce of the soil; so that if we take into account the element of produce the tenant ought to get a greater reduction than we are asking for. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has said nothing whatever in answer to my statement that under the clause, as it at present stands, the unfortunate tenants who had their rents fixed in 1885 will get no reduction at all. As a matter of fact, the tenants in some districts may have their rents slightly increased. It must be perfectly clear to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary himself—though, unfortunately, he does not appear to know much about Irish matters—that the rent fixed in the first half of the year 1885 cannot possibly have been based on the prices of 1885, because those prices were not known; and yet in spite of that the right hon. Gentleman wants us to accept the clause which, I maintain, will have the effect in some districts of actually raising the rent fixed in 1885. The fall in prices began in 1885, and it did not affect the Commissioners in any way in fixing the rents of that year. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee in, arguing this point over again; but it must be plain to every man who studies the question that the moment we get into 1886 we find a very substantial change. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would be valid if we were proposing to alter the judicial term, if he were going to substitute the judicial term of five years as the Cowper Commission recommended. But, in place af adopting the recommendation of the Commission, he proposes to deal with this matter as a temporary difficulty. Now, I suggest, as a compromise, that the right hon. Gentleman should not tie the Commissioners down to the prices of any individual year, but should simply say the prices of 1879, 1888, and 1889, as compared with the scale of prices on which the judicial rents mentioned were based, and leave it to the Commissioners to ascertain, as far as they can, what that scale of prices was. I do not want to drive the Chief Commissioner into a corner; but I believe, as a matter of fact, the real reason which actuates the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is that he has been in correspondence with the Chief Commissioner, who has told me that it is not possible to ascertain the scale of prices on which the rents were fixed. I dare say there will be difficulty in ascertaining the scale on which the judicial rents were fixed. I am quite aware, judging from the evidence in the Blue Books, that various Commissioners appear to have adopted a different series of years—that some went back further than others. Mr. Robert Reeves went back 13 years, and that may account for the extraordinary judicial rents fixed at Bodyke. Other Commissioners, perhaps, took into account a similar series f years. Let the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary ascertain, as far as he can, what each Commission did. I suggest that the Chief Secretary should consider this matter carefully and bring forward some Amendment, substituting the prices of a series of years for the prices of each individual year. I ask him to consider this matter, otherwise we must carry on the debate, because, as the clause stands, the tenants who had their rents fixed in 1885 will get no relief whatever.

There is one difficulty which presents itself to my mind. By what means will you ascertain the series of years on which the reductions were fixed by the landlords who voluntarily agreed with their tenants and had their claims registered in Court?

I do not think there is any force in the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because the landlords who agreed with their tenants were guided by what happened in Court.

That is not so, because I, for instance, was guided by my sense of justice.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is an exception to the rule. To come to the point at issue, let me say it is really one of most earnest and vital importance. It affects the entire question of how this clause is going to work in Ireland. What will be the result if the clause is passed in its present shape; how will it work? There cannot be a shadow of doubt in the mind of any person who reads the Blue Books that whatever was the guiding principle of the Commissioners from the years 1881 to 1885 it was an unfair one. Now, take the case of a number of farms. Some got their rents fixed in 1881, some in 1882, some in 1883, some in 1884, and some in 1885. Judicial rents were fixed; whatever the scale proceeded upon was, it was the same scale in all these years. Suppose a man got his rent fixed in 1882, he will get 20 per cent reduction; but a man who got his rent fixed in 1885 will get nothing at all off his rent; indeed, it is possible his rent will be slightly increased. Is there any kind of justice in that? We are strongly of opinion that this clause will work in such a way as to do most grotesque injustice to the people of Ireland. The Irish Land Commissioners must have had in their view some equality of prices; that scale of prices was plainly unaltered during all the years from 1881 to 1885. Let us ascertain what that scale of prices was, and when you make this temporary abatement, order that scale to be the comparison of the scale on which the Commissioners acted with the scale of the present year. No other system will prevent grotesque injustice being done to the various classes. My hon. Friends are quite willing to remove all the words from the Amendment which will fetter the clause. Let us leave it to the Commissioners to say what was the scale of prices upon which the Commissioners acted in 1881 and 1885, and in fixing this temporary abatement to compare that scale of prices which was intolerable with the prices of the present year. If this is done, this clause, whatever amount of relief it gives, will give it equally and fairly.

I am unwilling to prolong this debate; but if hon. Gentlemen want to have a comparison, they ought to make it between the scale of prices which obtained during the 15 years ending 1882 and the 15 years ending 1887. If you make such a comparison, I believe it will be far less favourable to the tenant than what is now proposed to be done. I think that to take the isolated year 1887 and compare it with a series of years would be grossly un- fair. If hon. Gentlemen prefer the other system, I will consider before Report whether it can be adopted in view of the applications which would arise. At all events, there will not be inherent injustice in comparing the series, 1882, 1883, and 1884, with the series of 15 years ending 1887.

The assumption upon which the series of years was taken in fixing the judicial rent was that the judicial rent was to run for 15 years. If we were now making a permanent revision it would be clearly just to take as the basis of that permanent revision prices for a series of years ending 1888 and 1889, &c. That is not what we are doing at all; we are merely dealing with a reduction for one year. It is found that the tenants cannot stand a series of bad years in the hope of a series of good years. We feel that the rents of 1882 were fixed on a series of years which included some good years. The average of prices for that series of years was considerably greater than the average of prices in the year 1882 alone. The farmer cannot pay the rent with a small reduction now, in the hope of being called upon to pay with a large reduction afterwards. You must give him the full benefit of the reduction in prices and the full benefit of agricultural depression.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has somewhat changed his line of argument. When he first rose to reply to this Amendment he told us we were mistaken in our facts; he told us we were mistaken in thinking that the Land Commissioners would be bound to take the basis of 1882 as the basis of comparison. In his subsequent speeches, however, he has changed his argument. The offer he has made is perfectly illusory, and I would prefer the clause as it stands to any alteration in the sense in which the right hon. Gentleman says he is prepared to consider it. I take this view for the reason which was very conclusively stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) earlier in the discussion. What you want to do is not to find a rent which shall be a fair rent for a series of years, but a fair rent which will be a fair rent for one year. That being so, any consideration of averages is entirely out of the ques- tion. You must consider the question of averages when you are dealing with the rents of 1881 or 1882, because those rents were fixed on an average; it is only because they were fixed on an average that the question of average comes in. If you were now fixing a rent for a period of 15 years, it would be a fair thing to insist that if you take an average in one case you must take it in another case. We have arrived at the year 1886, and, having regard to the change in prices, we have to find what proportion a fair rent for 1886 would bear to the judicial rents fixed in 1882. To find that, Sir, it is necessary to ascertain on what principle the rent for 1882 was fixed. The real way to test this question is to ascertain how it would operate, say, in the case of the rents fixed in 1885. I maintain that if the right hon. Gentleman persists in this clause, as it is at present framed, we shall be compelled to exclude the rents fixed in the year 1885 from its operation; because, although the rents fixed in 1885 were not affected by the fall in prices, the fall in prices will affect their re-adjustment. There has been no change in prices between 1885 and the present time; and, consequently, the result of bringing the rents fixed in 1885 under the operation of this clause would be that the tenant who got his rent fixed in 1885 would get no benefit from, this clause, although his rent, when fixed, was not fixed with reference to the prices of 1885 at all. This being so, if the right hon. Gentleman persists in the line he has taken up, it will be necessary for us to consider whether we ought not to exclude the rents of 1885 from the operation of the clause.

I wish to appeal to hon. Gentlemen. They have stated their case clearly and repeatedly; and I venture to say that the Committee ought now to come to a decision upon this clause. I do not wish to stand in the way of legitimate discussion; but it is evident that too much attention may be given to one subject and too little to another.

In answer to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, let me say we certainly are most desirous to conclude the present stage of this Bill, and several of us showed this desire by abstaining from speaking upon the question which engaged the attention of the House at the commencement. The reason we have dilated upon this; Amendment is that, in our opinion, this is a capital Amendment—one affecting the working of this Bill and this clause for good or evil. Under circumstances like these, I think we are justified in appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to try and meet us, so as to remove the difficulty which we think stands in the way of that success of the clause which, I have no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman wishes it to achieve. Unless some Amendment is accepted by the Government to meet our views in this matter, we believe that the clause for the reduction of the rents will be nugatory, and, in some cases, oven prejudicial. Under circumstances like these, I think the right hon. Gentleman the first Lord of the Treasury will fairly recognize we are justified in pressing for attention upon this clause. I do not want to repeat our arguments. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary should have shifted his position as often as he has spoken, and, in place of making progress, has rather gone backwards. Nothing can be fairer than his first speech, which was practically an acceptance of our Amendment, followed by an expression of opinion that the Amendment was unnecessary, because the clause carried out our intentions. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be true to his first position, and to make the clause carry out the object which he admits to be beneficent. We are strongly of opinion that unless the clause is amended in some such way as we propose, the rents of 1885, instead of being reduced, will, in some cases, be subjected to an increase, inflicting injustice upon the tenants. I trust the Government will meet our views in this matter. We are anxious to see this stage of the Bill brought to a conclusion; and I assure the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that the amount of attention which has been bestowed upon this Amendment has been solely caused by the enormous amount of importance attaching to this Amendment.

I have hitherto abstained from taking part in this discussion. My sympathies are entirely with the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Meath (Mr. Mahony); and I only rise now for the purpose of asking the Government if they could not get rid of this stage of the Bill to-day by consenting to reconsider the whole position on Report?

I have no objection to reconsider the matter on Report; but let me add that, in my opinion, there is no answer to the arguments I have laid before the Committee. While I am prepared to reconsider the matter, I do not think it probable that the reconsideration will lead to any favourable result.

I have no intention to go again through the arguments the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary thinks he has answered fully; and I merely rise for the purpose of making a definite offer of compromise, which I think, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own theories, he would consider to be fair. He considers it necessary to compare one individual year with another; and the offer I make is that the rent should be influenced by the prices of the previous year—that is to say, the rents of 1881 should betaken on the fixed prices of 1880, the rents of 1882 on the prices of 1881, the rents of 1883 on the prices of 1882, the rents of 1884 on the prices of 1883, and the rents of 1885on the prices of 1884. That will be comparing one year with another year. I am bound to say I do not at all like the compromise. I think it will do injustice; and I only make the suggestion because the Government have been so obdurate.

Does the hon. Gentleman press his Amendment?

I think the Government ought to make some answer to the observations recently addressed to the Committee.

I think it is desirable we should have some reply from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He seems to have made up his mind to hold fast by the terms of his proposal; and though he said himself that the arguments he put forward are unanswerable, I contend that he has answered all his arguments himself, because he has changed his ground so often. If there was anything plainly established by the evidence given before the Cowper Commission, it is this —that the rents fixed in 1881 were not fixed upon the prices of 1881; and the Commissioners themselves have said in their evidence that when they know there was a fall in prices they regarded it as of a temporary character, and they fixed the rents with a view to there being an increase in prices in a short time. The compromise suggested by my hon. Friend (Mr. Mahony) is not one with which I am very much in love; but, at the same time, it is something of an advantage, because it would, at all events, relieve us of the difficulty of the case of men whoso rents were fixed in the year 1885 being able to get no concession or relief at all. Undoubtedly, whatever the standard on which the Commissioners proceeded was, it was the same for 1881 as for 1885. If you are going to tie a man down, who got his rent fixed in 1885, at the standard you suggest, if you are to have him judged by the prices in 1885, there is no chance for him of any relief under this Bill. We propose to give him some chance of relief by throwing the comparison of the prices back one year. By doing that, we, at least, give some opportunity to a man whose rent was fixed in 1885 to get a temporary abatement.

If the Government do not see their way to meet us in this matter, which We consider vital, it will be necessary for us to divide the Committee.

I beg to move to omit the words, "ought equitably to be made," in line 12, and insert, "is necessary to make." I move this Amendment for the purpose of raising a- very important point. The Government have made what appears to me a very grave change in the form of this clause since it was first put down upon the Paper. Originally, the clause directed the Land Commissioners to ascertain what alterations it was necessary to make in order to make the judicial rents fixed in the year 1882 equitably equivalent to what ought to be the judicial rents if they were fixed now. In the altered form of the clause, instead of laying down a plain rule of that kind for the guidance of the Land Commissioners, the Government merely give the Land Commissioners general directions. In my view, the original framing of the clause was the better one, because the Land Commissioners were directed to find out the prices, and then make such changes in the rents as were necessary. I desire to put the clause back into the form in which the Government originally drew it. If my present Amendment is accepted, it will be necessary for me to move the consequential Amendment carrying out this Amendment, and bringing back the clause to its original form.

I confess I think the present form of the clause does enable the Commissioners to exercise their powers with greater freedom than the clause did as originally drawn. The words were—

"What alteration having regard to the fall in prices is necessary to make the rents equitably equivalent."

"Having regard to the difference in prices … what alteration, if any, ought equitably to be made."

No doubt the alteration has been made with the best intentions; but, in my opinion, the change will have an injurious effect. I quite admit that the clause, as it is at present drawn, is more elastic; but I deny that that is an advantage. In point of principle, it is a great deal better that this elasticity should not exist. As the clause was originally drawn, the Land Commissioners were directed to make a mathematical calculation, and to give the tenants the benefit of that calculation. That was the result of the clause as originally drawn, and that is the form the clause ought to take. My view is that the result of elasticity, which the right hon. Gentleman thinks is such an advantage, will be that it will be open to the Land Commissioners not to give the tenant all the benefit which they would get if that was left a mere matter of calculation. It will be open for the Land Commissioners to say—" In our opinion, having regard to the fact that this change in prices is only a temporary change, and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, we do not think it would be equitable to cut down the rent to the full extent." If this elasticity will hurt the tenant in this way I do not think it is an advantage. The change in the clause can do the tenant no good. That is perfectly clear. The elasticity is not an elasticity which can be exercised in the tenant's favour, because under the clause as drawn the tenant cannot possibly get a bit more than be could have got under the clause as originally drawn; but the elasticity is an elasticity which may be exercised in the landlord's favour, because it is possible the effect of the change in the clause may be that the Land Commissioners will say—" We will not give the tenant the full benefit of the changes in prices, because we are of opinion it will not be equitable so to do." I trust the Government will revert to the original form of the clause, which to me appears better calculated to carry out the objects the Government profess to have in view.

The two Amendments which stand in my name are intended to put back the date. The reason why I move these Amendments is this. We originally anticipated that Clause 22 would be solely modelled as to deal with the question of unjust arrears. In that expectation we have been bitterly disappointed. I propose that in cases where the Land Commissioners actually reduced the rent so as to show they have been too high the reduction should date back. There is one thing I wish to point out to the Committee, and it is that, apart altogether from the application of the hanging gale, it is the usual practice for rents to be paid three, four, five, and six months after they are due, so this Amendment will not have the effect of dating back so far as it appears at first. The clause, as it stands, will only affect rents legally payable on the 29th of September next, and which, according to common practice in Ireland, will not become payable until next spring. The tenants, as a rule, are now being called upon to pay rents due last spring. This clause will not affect these rents at all. Under this clause they will, after this House rises, have to pay rents which the Land Commissioners have declared to be unjust and excessive. Then there is another reason why I am anxious to press this Amendment. If the Government had taken the advice of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), if they had paid attention to his speech in which ho brought this matter under the consideration of the House last autumn, these rents would have been reduced. Practically, the effect of this Amendment will be to include those people who would have been relieved had this House paid attention to the recommendations of the hon. Member for Cork. They then argued against his assertion, but his assertion has since been abundantly proved.

The rent payable on the 29th of September next will be the first rent which will be actually payable in the three years during which this process of abatement will run, will commence on the 25th of March, 1887, and expire on the 25th of March, 1890. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman is to antedate the process by exactly one year, and make the three years run from the 25th March, 1886, to the 25th March, 1889. That is a proposal we are not in a position to accept. I think we have gone as far as it is possible for any Government to go, and I think the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with having brought the matter before the notice of the Committee.

I should like to ask the hon. Member for North Meath (Mr. Mahony) how his proposal will affect those who have paid their rents?

Anyone can see the force of that argument, and I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment. I trust, however, that the Go- vernment will consider the question of the hanging gale. Over great portions of the South and West of Ireland the rents, which accrue due in respect of the half-year, are payable in September. I believe that practically it will make very little difference with regard to law and order whether the Government consent to consider the matter or not. As soon as you get your Commissioners out, where will you get the tenants to pay on the old scale? There will be a universal federation in Ireland not to pay on the old scale. I. suggest that by the introduction of some slight amendment dealing with the hanging gale, by the introduction, say, of the words "ordinarily payable," you might avoid what will otherwise be brought about by a general confederation.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment; but, at the same time, I desire to ask the Government whether they cannot consent to go six months further back, so as to include the rents ordinarily payable in Ireland now.

The final words of the second paragraph of the clause of the right hon. Gentleman are—

"And the judicial rents payable in respect of the year aforesaid in such counties, unions, or areas shall be varied to the extent so determined by the Land Commission."

"And, upon the publication of the orders hereinafter mentioned, shall be deemed to be so varied as and from the said gale days respectively, and to be payable in full discharge and satisfaction of the judicial rents theretofore fixed for such gale days, and all rights, remedies, and incidents existing in reference to such judicial rents, both as to landlord and tenant, shall thenceforth attach to such varied rents accordingly."

was understood to object to the Amendment.

It is not at all clear to me that difficulties might not arise on the clause, as it is drawn, as to the proof of the publication. Suppose that an order has been made by the Commission, and the landlord sues for the full rent. If the cause is to be tried in Dublin, it would be very simple to bring over the original order of the Commission; but in the ordinary case, where a man is sued for rent, he could not put on record at once the receipt of this order of the Land Commissioners, and he would have to incur great expense in going to Dublin. If I were advising a tenant as to his proofs in such an action, I should be found to include that order amongst them. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he could not agree that these orders should be published in The Dublin Gazette, and that such publication should be evidence of the order? I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given his attention to this matter. This seems to me to be a very necessary precaution in the matter—that is to say, to provide for the publication in The Dublin Gazette, and to make that publication evidence of the order. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do that?

I did not put the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, because I did not understand that he wished to move it

I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

The object of the first of the Amendments that stand in my name is to add to the first paragraph of the new clause the words—

"As regards any gale of such rents which shall be paid within thirty days of the time at which the same is ordinarily payable, but not further or otherwise."

No doubt, my hon. and learned Friend has made out a very good case for his Amendment on the Paper: at any rate, he laid before us very strong reasons in justification of his having put that Amendment down. There is, however, one objection to it which I think has already been urged with regard to previous Amendments by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland—namely, that those words will he held as an ambiguity in the particular provision to which my hon. and learned Friend draws attention. An hon. MEMBER: If his Proviso were adopted.

On this occasion I would ask my hon. and learned Friend not to press the Amendment, for which, no doubt, there is a great deal to be said. We are very anxious to make progress, and the Amendment is one which would meet with strenuous opposition from hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have been compelled to resist certain Amendments which those hon. Members have moved in the interests of the tenants, and I should be unwilling to prolong the proceedings by consenting to such an Amendment as this in the interests of the other side.

I do not think the Government can complain of the amount of time which has been consumed in the discussion of proposals brought forward, I will not say in the interests of the landlords, but for the purpose of protecting their just rights. But having regard to the state of Public Business, and the opposition which this Amendment is likely to encounter from the other side, and also to the impossibility of carrying it without the assistance of Her Majesty's Government, I do not think I should be justified in occupying further the time of the Committee by pressing it forward. I will, therefore, withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move the second Amendment which stands in my name.

It would be impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment, as it would lead to great embarrassment if we were to give the Land Commission instructions such as this.

I withdraw the Amendment.

I have, Sir, an Amendment, not on the Paper, at the conclusion of the Now Clause.

I have one before that. My original Amendment was as follows:—In line 36, after "section," to insert—

"And shall also publish the respective average prices, and the respective series of years on which they have ascertained the judicial rents to hive been respectively based in each of the years one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, and one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five in the respective districts, together with the average prices in each district on which the alteration, if any, in the judicial rents has been calculated."

I think it would be very undesirable to accept such an Amendment as this, requiring the Commissioners to declare the considerations by which they are guided, looking at the nature of the work in which they will be engaged. It seems to me that it would be very embarrassing to them to have to publish the nature of the plan upon which they proceeded in each district. It would be highly inconvenient. With regard to what fell from the hon. Member opposite as to the publication of the orders of the Commission, those orders of the Land Commission, of course, would deal with large districts and large areas—with counties, baronies, and Poor Law Unions, or whatever district it might be thought desirable to decide upon. Well, such forms as are considered calculated to give information will be published, although the expenses of so doing must be very great. I do not say that the publication will be in The Dublin Gazette only. The Land Commission must have a wide discretion in the matter, and we must trust to their great knowledge with regard to such things. When they publish the orders in the prescribed manner that will be evidence of them.

I think that a copy of the order should be lodged with the Clerk of the Peace in all cases. It will then always be before the Court.

I think there is no doubt that that will be attended to.

Do I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he will move an Amendment to that effect on Report, or that he will move one now?

I think it will be better to move it on Report.

Does the hon. Member for North Meath withdraw his Amendment?

No, Sir. Hon. Gentlemen opposite during the past few years have been crying out that they do not know on what bases or principle the Land Commissioners are making their decisions. They have been complaining bitterly of lack of information. They have declared that the Land Commissioners arrive at rents by different processes in different years and different places, and they have risen to ask over and over again that those processes should be made known, and over and over again they have been told that it would be inconvenient to give any statement upon these matters. If those hon. Gentlemen now oppose my Amendment, if they choose to put themselves in such an inconsistent position, it is their own affair, and not mine—at any rate, I will be no party to the coures they seem anxious to adopt, and I must refuse to withdraw my Amendment.

Everyone who has read and considered the very important evidence given before the Select Committee appointed by the House of Lords to inquire into the working of the Land Act of 1881 must be aware that very strong objection was taken by the witnesses examined by that Committee to there being no means of ascertaining the principle upon which the Commissioners arrived at their decisions. It was very generally alleged that there was no evidence that the Commissioners took account of the state of prices, and that they decided on the rents by an arbitrary process or rule of thumb. And this complaint came from representatives of both sides. Well, I think it would tend to promote harmony and a more settled feeling in Ireland, if it could be clearly known on what tables of prices the rents are to be now revised. I hope the Government may be able to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Meath. If they cannot accept it in its present form, I think they ought to endeavour to meet the object aimed at by some other method. I think the point should be met in some way or other.

Objection was taken to the general action of the Commissioners, and it was urged that the House was entitled to ask them to declare the factors in their general decisions. It is not general judicial proceedings which are involved at the present moment. The parties will not be entitled to be hoard in this case, and I think it would give rise to a great deal of heartburning if this Amendment were adopted; especially if it were found that one set of parties were not treated upon the same principle as another, and the different circumstances of different districts may, of course, render it impossible for similar treatment to be universally adopted. I think it would be much better to leave the Land Commissioners to deal with this matter in a broad spirit, and in a way they conceive to be equitable and fair. It would lead to considerable difficulty to have such facts as the hon. Member seems anxious to secure published.

When the Court acts generally—that is to say, when it gives decisions upon general principles—those decisions are given pub- licly, and are before the whole country; but in this ease the tribunal will act differently, and it therefore appears to me all the more necessary that means should be taken to check the action of the tribunal. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite seems to think that it would lead to great heartburning if the Commissioners published the bases upon which they arrived at their decisions. I admit that it would lead to heartburning, and would be extremely inconvenient in one case—namely, where they act improperly. We ask that the people of Ireland shall be placed in the position of knowing whether they are treated fairly or not. We ask that the Committee shall relieve the Sub-Commissioners from the imputation which will rightly or wrongly be cast upon them of being influenced in favour of the landlords by the hole-and-corner methods, the wire-pulling and the means of "getting at" which the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) knows that the friends of this class possess, and are not ashamed of exercising. I can perfectly understand that hon. Members would be brought trooping from the Smoking Room and elsewhere, knowing nothing about the question at issue, to vote us down, if this question were put to a Division. I warn them, however, that they will not assist this Act by casting a cloak around the proceedings which, in the case of such men as Colonel O'Callaghan, are adopted to avoid the cutting down of the rents on the plea—" If his rents are cut down, the poor man will have nothing to live on." the Government had better consider their position before they lay down the law with such extreme vigour and determination, and bring hon. Members in from the Smoking Room to vote us down.

I beg to propose an Amendment to the effect that the powers under this Act—the powers conferred on the Land Commissioners—shall not be delegated by them to a Sub-Commission. Under the Act of 1881, to which this Bill is an amending measure—under the 43rd section of the Act of 1881—the Land Commission have power to delegate their powers to a Sub-Commission. Well, so far as this Bill is concerned, nothing but confusion would arise under that provision—

I think I heard the hon. and learned Member use the words "powers conferred by this Act."

That was so.

Then his Amendment will not be appropriate to this section. He must bring it forward in the form of a new clause. If the Amendment contained the words "this section" it could be moved upon this clause.

Probably my purpose may be effected by calling the attention of the Government to the matter on the Report. I will not, therefore, go on with the proposal.

The new clause which I now move I have good reason for believing the Government will accept—

There is a clause of mine next but one on the Paper, which I think I am entitled now to move.

The hon. Member for East Mayo is moving a new clause, which was not put upon the Paper before last night. It was only printed to day.

This clause differs from the clauses we have up to now been considering, as it is one to enable the Land Commissioners to make advances of money in payment of sums borrowed by tenants from private lenders to purchase their holdings. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that I have all along, in making my demands, based my claim on right. The right hon. Gentleman was entirely misinformed as to what I said. I based no claim upon right. I simply said that it was a question which should be considered as a matter of generosity and fairness, and that, inasmuch as anyone might suppose that the State would go as far as it was safe to the taxpayer in relieving these people, I undertook to show that there would be nothing unjust to the taxpayer in what I proposed. I based no claim at all for this provision on the question of right. Now, what is the proposal I make on this clause? It will be in the memory of all hon. Members who look into this matter that in all these Acts providing for the purchase of their holdings by the Irish tenants, the tenants were required to advance a considerable portion of the purchase money. The glebe tenants were required to advance one-third, and the tenants under the Act of 1870, and under the Act of 1881, were required to advance one-fourth. There is a provision to this effect in all previous Land Acts. The Irish Party were always opposed to these provisions. We always held that if you were going to give State assistance to purchase the land, the only safe and right way to do it was that all the purchase money should be advanced by the State. We, at least, are convinced—and I hope I may succeed in convincing the Committee—that there is in the Irish tenants' interest in the land, beyond the interest of the landlord, that which would serve the State as ample security for any advance it might make. The principle on which I base this claim on behalf of these tenants is this—that this legislation with regard to the purchase of Irish land must be looked at as a continuous whole. You have been groping your way in the dark to reach a principle of legislation that can be carried out successfully. In the Act of 1885, you reached very near to the right principle of carrying it out. Is it, I ask, unreasonable that I should request that tenants under previous Acts should be placed under the same conditions as those under the Act of 1885? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be seriously alarmed lest this claim should interfere with the permanence of the arrangement that is necessary in future to carry on land purchase in Ireland; but I cannot see that there is much in that argument, because the character of this claim is simply this—that those who purchased under previous Acts may be admitted to the benefits that have been conferred by the whole body of the tenantry of Ireland, who did not purchase under those Acts. Until they fixed the principle in the Act of 1885 that the whole of the money was to be advanced we made no claim for these tenants; but we say it is hard on these tenants who bought under previous Acts that they should see men who bought under the Act of 1885 allowed benefits from which they are deprived. We ask that those tenants shall not be penalized for having bought previous to the Act of 1885, being satisfied that the Treasury does not incur any additional risk; you should say to those men not that they are to be made a present of anything at the cost of the taxpayers, or of the State, but that they should be placed in precisely the same position as if they had purchased their farms under Lord Ashbourne's Act. That is the whole principle of my Amendment. Having explained the principle of the Amendment, I would impress upon the Committee that it is a proposal of vital importance. The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) said yesterday that many of the tenants who purchased under former Acts are in arrears. I know that many of them are in a desperate condition. If they are not in arrears, it is true that they are in debt to the merchants for goods which have been advanced. I am afraid, from communications which have been sent to me, that purchasers under the Act of 1870, and under the Glebe Loans Act, cannot sometimes redeem themselves unless they have such relief as is given under Lord Ashbourne's Act. The greatest evil that occurs most continuously in the case of those people is that of debts that they may contract to the money-lender or the banks. They are weighed down by liabilities they have been compelled to contract in this way, which liabilities the bad times have rendered it impossible for them to pay off as they expected to do when they contracted them. They thought that by a succession of good years, that in the course of some 30 years time, when they had paid off their indebtedness to the State, they then would be able to pay off their debts to the money-lender and the banks. No doubt they would have been able to do that if they had had good times. But, as everyone knows, they have had to face the worst of times, and as a result they now find themselves in a hopeless condition. That is the position of purchasers under the Act of 1870. I should now like to say a word as to purchasers under the Act of 1881. So far as I know, they number 2,000 or 3,000, and it seems to me to be simply grotesque and ludicrous that the men who bought under that Act should be denied the advantages allowed to those who purchased under the Act of 1885. I know that a great number of those purchasers who purchased in 1883 borrowed large sums from the bank, and purchased under threat of eviction; and what was the result? Why, that between the instalments they have to pay to the State under the Act of 1881 and the instalments they are obliged to pay to the bank their rents are now, in some instances, higher than ever they were. I think it is well worthy the attention of the Committee to consider whether they cannot see their way to putting these charges under the Act of 1881 on the same footing as the charges under the Act of 1885. The question at stake is simply one of the ruin or salvation of these people. They cannot continue to pay the banks and to pay the Government. They will be sold out, and the farms will be left vacant, and the Government will then be placed in what must be to them a very disagreeable position—namely, in a position of being obliged to realize by sale in order to pay themselves. If this were a case of dishonest claim on the part of the tenantry I should be the last man to stand up on behalf of these people. These people have consulted rue on many occasions, and whenever they have done so I have always advised thorn to pay the Government on the day their instalments were due, and I could prove that, if necessary, by reference to numerous letters. But there is no doubt in the world that the men who bought under the Act of 1881 are placed in a most cruel position. They are debarred from the benefits of the great reductions of rent which are allowed to ordinary tenants: they are debarred from the benefits of the Act of 1885; and they are now, in many cases, called upon to pay a higher rent than ever they were called on to pay in good years. The system under which they live cannot be defended. I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether he cannot accept the Amendment; whether he cannot extend the Act of 1885 to all those classes of tenants I refer to, in the way I suggest, as I have not the slightest doubt that they will honestly and regularly pay their liabilities. I beg to move the clause which stands in my name, as follows:—

The hon. Member who has just sat down said that it seems to him grotesque and ludicrous that the tenants who bought under the terms of the Act of 1881 should be in a worse position than those who bought under the Act of 1885. That reminds me of the discussion upon which we were engaged last night, and of many other discussions. The demand put forward by the Amendment is an illustration of the fact that the moment a concession is made it is said that it is necessary, in the interests of justice, that it should be made retrospective, Now, the hon. Member says that the conditions of the Act of 1885 should be applied to those tenants to whom he has referred—to those who bought under the Acts of 1870, 1872, and 1881. But the hon. Member must bear in mind that, under the Act of 1885, one-fifth of the purchase money was obtained from the vendor, a condition which cannot apply to the cases mentioned by the hon. I Member. In that way, the Act of 1885 limited the risk of the State to four-fifths of the purchase money, whereas the hon. Member now asks that the State should take the whole risk by stopping into the shoes of the tenants who purchased under the former Acts. The hon. Member wishes the State to assume the position of the other creditors at a time when he himself admits that it is especially difficult, and almost impossible, to for them to fulfil their obligations. The very words of the Amendment are to the effect that if it is proved that the applicant is unable to pay the instalment, and such inability does not arise from his own conduct, the Land Commission may, if satisfied with the security, advance to the applicant the amount ascertained to be owing and unpaid, together with any interest found to be due in respect thereof. Now, on behalf of the State, I really must protest that it is impossible to give advances to tenants under such circumstances. It is impossible for us to run these further risks. I think I may say that the Government have shown that they have gone as far as they possibly can, and are absolutely unable to sanction this proposal. Looking at the position in which the tenants now find themselves, it would be absolutely impossible for the Government to put themselves into that position.

The purchasers under the Act of 1881 have more than paid the one-fifth that it was arranged was to come from the vendor; consequently, if the Government were to give to the purchasers under the Act of 1881 the advantages given to the purchasers under the Act of 1885, they would have better security than they would have from the purchasers under the Act of 1885, for the purchasers under the Act of 1881 have already paid in their instalments. The hon. Member for East Mayo recommends that the burden which the tenants who purchased under the Act of 1881—the burden of the debt to the banks of which it is now impossible for them to relieve themselves—should be taken over by the Government at the State interest. The bank interest is a heavy interest for the tenant to bear. It is greater than the instalment that is paid to the Government, and I would press on the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the security to the State in regard to those who purchased under the Act of 1881 would be greater in consequence of the sums the tenants have already paid than in the case of persons who purchased under the Act of 1885.

It does not follow that those who purchased under the Act of 1881 purchased in the year 1881. They may have purchased in 1882, 1883, 1884, or at any time before the passing of the Act of 1885, so that in many cases they may not have paid five years' instalments. As a matter of fact, these tenants may have paid very few instalments, and we must bear in mind that the prices in 1881 were higher than in 1885. The security of the State would therefore be much diminished if the price that a tenancy was worth in 1881 was considerably reduced in 1887. The margin which would be secured by the payment of two instalments would be more than covered by the fall in value.

I would point out that the clause omits that point.

I now wish to make an appeal to hon. Gentlemen who have new clauses on the Paper for consideration at this stage. We have arrived at a period when there is hardly time for the consideration of any Amendment proposed except those of considerable importance; and hon. Members opposite know very well that if they refrain from moving their clauses in Committee, and put them on the Paper for Report, as new clauses they will be taken first after any new clauses of the Government, and that they will then obtain whatever consideration they may require. I only throw out that suggestion for the consideration of lion. Members. It will not be possible to take the Bill until after Supply, if it is taken at all, assuming that we do not pass the Committee stage to-day. Delay may have very serious consequences; therefore I would urge hon. Members to allow the Committee stage to be completed this evening.

The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman appears to me to be a very reasonable one. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury if he proposes to give two days for the consideration of the Bill on Report?

If the Committee believe that two days are necessary, certainly two days will be given. It is, however, proposed that the Report shall be taken on Friday, and we hope that it will be concluded on that day.

Will the Bill be reprinted?

It is already reprinted as far as the Committee has settled it.

Will it be delivered to-morrow?

I hope it will be.

In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, might I be allowed to say that I shall be willing to enter into his views, or to recommend my hon. Friends to reserve all their clauses until the Report; but if they do that, I would ask him to give us Friday and Monday for the Bill—I do not like a Saturday Sitting.

I am sorry to say that the exigencies of Supply are such that the Government cannot give Friday and Monday for the Bill.

Can you not take Supply on Saturday?

No; it is impossible to postpone it beyond to-morrow; besides, a delay of 48 hours with respect to this Bill may have serious results in Ireland. We wish to avoid unnecessary delay.

I ask is it not possible to take Supply on Saturday?

I shall be extremely glad were it possible to meet the convenience of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. I shall be glad to meet their convenience as far as possible; but the two days delay in disposing of the Report stage of this Bill which he suggests is a delay which we consider would have serious results in Ireland.

So far as I am concerned, I see no objection to adopting the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. I will withdraw the clauses of which I have given Notice, and will bring them up on Report.

I also will withdraw the clauses which stand in my name, and will bring them up again on Report.

said, he must appeal to the House to go into Committee on the Bill, which would give relief to the taxpayers. The only Amendments to be made were Amendments by consent.

said, that any relief to the taxpayers would be thrown upon the ratepayers of London. He thought it very unfair that while there was no Municipal Body for London, the maintenance of these Parks should be placed on the shoulders of the ratepayers. He did not wish to give any effective opposition to the Motion to go into Committee; but he desired to enter his protest against the Bill as unjust and unfair.

, in moving that the House go into Committee on the Bill, said, it was one of a purely formal nature.

objected to the Motion.