I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the Committee of the Railway Clearing House have decided no longer to issue for public use the sectional maps of railways, with distances marked thereon, formerly issued by Mr. Airey, and considering that, in the absence of such maps, traders will frequently have great difficulty in determining the legality of the rates charged by railway companies, the Board of Trade will consider the desirability of themselves issuing similar maps as official publications; whether he is aware that, in contravention of Section 14 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, the distances are in some cases omitted from the rate books required to be kept by railway companies for public inspection; and, if he can see his way to compel the railway companies to comply strictly with the obligation imposed upon them by this section, and also require them to publish the distance tables which he stated that, in compliance with their obligations, they have had already prepared?

I am in communication with the Railway Association with reference to this matter, and it is engaging their attention at the present time. The statute to which my hon. Friend refers imposes a penalty for a contravention of Section 14, and it is of course open to any person aggrieved to institute proceedings. I cannot compel the companies to do more in the way of publication of distances than the law demands. The distance tables referred to are compiled by the companies for their own use, but they arc, no doubt, valuable in assisting the companies to compute the distances for insertion in their rate books.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether He is aware that there still exists on au important thoroughfare in London a turn- pike where toll is claimed and paid at Dulwich; whether inquiry could be made to discover whether this gate has any legal right to exist; and, whether, in such an event, it would be desirable to take stops for its abolition?

I am informed that the gate referred to is the property of the Dulwich College Estate, and that College Road, in which it is fixed, is a private road belonging to and repairable by the estate. I understand that the Vestry of Camberwell, as the highway authority, asked the London County Council last year to include this gate in a Parliamentary Bill for removal. It is not a matter in which the Local Government Board have any jurisdiction or authority to intervene.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it will be necessary to obtain a Vote in the present Session for British expenditure in connection with the Soudan expedition or dispatch of Indian troops to Suakim, or whether it is the intention of the Government to defer asking for such a Vote until next Session?

No, I do not expect to be in a position to propose such a Vote this Session.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General (1) whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction exists in trading circles owing to the fact that the minimum charge for a packet of patterns or samples is one penny, and that the circulation of patterns and samples is thereby rendered expensive; (2) whether he has observed that it costs an American or Japanese merchant no more to send a packet of patterns or samples to this country than it costs an Englishman to send a similar packet from Liverpool to Birkenhead or from Leeds to Bradford; and (3) whether he will confer a much-desired boon on British trading enterprise by assimilating the minimum charge for patterns and samples to that prescribed to book-post matter, namely, one halfpenny for two ounces?

The Postmaster General is not aware of the accuracy of the statement in the first paragraph. As the Foreign Sample Rate is the same as the Inland Sample Rate, it costs no more to send a sample from America or Japan to this country than to send a sample from one part of England to another; but it also costs no more to send a sample from this country to America or Japan, so that the British merchant is not subjected to any disadvantage. The question of adopting the minimum rate of one halfpenny for samples has been fully considered; but such a rate would involve a considerable loss of revenue, and the Postmaster General cannot see his way to its adoption. The hon. Member, who apparently objects to the Foreign and Inland Sample Rate being identical, had a Question upon the Paper yesterday objecting to the Foreign and Inland postage for invoices being different.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if serious complaints by Miss A. Kenny respecting the treatment of postal matter at Castlecomer have been acknowledged to be well founded by the Department; if he will explain how they arose, and what notice has been taken of the matter; and has anything been done to prevent a recurrence of such complaints?

The facts of the case referred to in the hon. Member's Question are as follows: In March 1895 Miss A. Kenny, of Castlecomer, wrote to the Secretary of the Post Office in Dublin complaining that a letter addressed to her had been tampered with. Inquiry was at once set on foot; but, by some unfortunate accident, the official papers on the subject, together with the envelope of the letter said to have been tampered with, were lost, and Miss Kenny's complaint remained unanswered. On Miss Kenny renewing her application, the Secretary of the Post Office in Dublin placed the matter in the hands of an experienced officer for special investigation, but he could find no reason for supposing that the letter had been tampered with in the post. The officer who made the investigation saw Miss Kenny personally and explained the whole case, as he then supposed, to her satisfaction. The Postmaster General believes that there is no ground for thinking that postal packets are improperly treated at Castlecomer.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if an official written information was conveyed to the abstractors in the Statistical Office, Customs, on 8th May last, to the effect that the question of ordinary leave to be allowed them was being dealt with separately by the Treasury; and, if so, whether considering that the holiday season is now well advanced, he can state when the Treasury Minute dealing with the question may be expected?

A Treasury letter of the 22nd April referring to the Statistical Office Establishment stated that the question of the abstractors' leave and sick leave Would be dealt with in a separate communication. The reference was to a circular letter issued two days later very largely extending the sick-leave of abstractors—which thus became the same as that of second division clerks—and pointing out that the maximum amount of sick-leave and ordinary leave combined which an officer may have on full pay in any one year should be strictly limited to six months, but there was no intention of issuing any further minute dealing with the ordinary leave of abstractors, which is the same as that of second division clerks during the first five years of service.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, when renewing the contracts with the Midland Railway of Ireland for the carrying of letters, he will include in it the carriage of letters addressed to Kilmessan, county Meath, and thereby prevent the delay in their delivery which exists at present, owing to their being sent by the Great Northern Railway round by Navan, where they were kept for 24 hours before being sent on?

It is not the difficulty of making arrangements with the Midland Great Western Railway for the carriage of the bags that prevents the Postmaster General from complying with the requests which have been made for a day mail to Kilmessan. The difficulty lies in the small amount of correspondence to be benefited by a day mail, which is insufficient to warrant the cost of conveying the additional bags and effecting the delivery.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board in Ireland sanctioned a considerable time ago the erection, on certain conditions, of 35 labourers' cottages in the Tulla Union, and the taking of 50 additional half-acres of land for existing cottages; and, have the Guardians, so far as it lay in their power, complied with the conditions, and, if so, has the Local Government Board now any objection to sanction the scheme?

The Local Government Board are awaiting a further report from their auditor, which has been promised very soon, before considering the question of confirming the scheme.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a memorial has been received by the Lords of the Treasury from one Afred Charles Lott, relating to certain freehold, leasehold, and copyhold properties, situate in the county of Middlesex and elsewhere, of the estimated value of three millions sterling, in which it is alleged that one Henry Page executed a voluntary deed conveying the said estate to his solicitor; whether such a deed can be maintained against the Crown to escheat on failure of heir-at-law; whether, in face of the allegations in the said petition, he will cause steps to be taken to bring the facts before the Law Officers of the Crown, with a view to the property being escheated; and whether, in the event of the property being so escheated, the said Alfred Charles Lott would be entitled, as petitioner, to a share?

A Memorial dated 20th July has been received by the Treasury from one Alfred Charles Lott, alleging that certain property mentioned therein has escheated to the Crown, and praying that a lease of such property may be granted to him. This Memorial is one, of many of a similar description which have been received from this person during the last 25 years, and the Treasury have, under legal advice, declined, and must still decline, to take any action in the matter on behalf of the Crown.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the assurance given by the Ulverston Burial Board in September 1894, that the Board's table of fees and charges would be altered to bring them into conformity with the provisions of Section 17 of the 20 and 21 Vic, c. 81, the Board has continued to include in its table fees payable to the minister in the unconsecrated ground identical in amount with those legally payable to the vicar in the consecrated part: whether he is aware that the Countesthorpe (Leicestershire) Parish Council, acting as a Burial Board, charges a fee for the erection of a headstone in both parts of the cemetery, but, while paying the fee to the incumbent in the consecrated part, carries the fee in the unconsecrated part to the account of the Board; and, whether steps will be taken, in the case of both cemeteries, to obtain such an alteration of the charges as will make them conform to the provisions of the above-quoted Act?

As regards Ulverston, I am informed by the District Council that they have quite recently transferred to themselves, under, I presume, the powers conferred upon them by the Local Government Act, 1894, the duties of the Burial Board, and that a new table of fees will shortly be framed and submitted for approval. The facts as regards Countesthorpe are correctly stated in the Question, and had already been brought to my notice. There appears to be a misconception on the part of the Parish Council as to the proper construction of the Burial Act of 1857, and I am in communication with them on the point.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War—(1) whether he is now able to state what reparations have been effected to Bradford Moor Barracks during last year and this, and what sums of money have been expended thereupon; and (2), whether the War Office have taken steps to confirm their previous figures by inquiries and investigations made on the spot?

The sum expended in the last financial year was, as previouslystated, £1,125. The sum estimated for this year is £1,257. I have forwarded to my hon. Friend a detail of these services, which could not be given within the compass of the Question. The answer to the last paragraph is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War at what part of of the Army Estimates, either of the present or of previous years, are shown the fortified works now being proceeded with in the neighbourhood of the (Guild-ford, Dorking, and Reigate line of hills.

the sums included in the Estimates for these works have been taken on Vote 10, Part I.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Abkari Department Bombay has granted a licence for a new liquor shop in Sleater Road (a part of Bombay where there had not previously been any such shop), notwithstanding that an influentially-signed protest had been forwarded from residents in that neighbourhood; whether granting a licence under such circumstances is at variance with the declared policy of the Indian Government as expressed in the Dispatches of the Secretary of State, No. 28, of 19th April, 1888, and No. 31, of 14th March, 1889, and of the Government of India, No. 157, of 25th May, 1889, and No. 29, of 4th February, 1890; whether the police interested themselves in discouraging opposition on the part of the inhabitants; whether the licensee had rendered useful service to the police during the Bombay riots; and whether facilitating the grant of this license was in the nature of a reward for such services?

I have no official information as to the matters to which the hon. Member alludes; but it is the practice of the Department before new shops are opened to ascertain the wishes of the local residents.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty for what reasons boatswains of the Royal Navy are not permitted to qualify for a gunnery certificate on similar terms to those extended to gunners by Admiralty Circular of 12th March last?

Boatswains are not called upon to perform the duties of gunners, and thus there are no reasons for allowing them to qualify in gunnery. Petty officers who are candidates for boatswains' warrants are allowed to change their election for promotion to gunners or torpedo gunners, if they are considered suitable.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the crew of H.M.S. Magpie, recently returned from the West Coast Station, will be granted a week's extra leave for services on the Gambia, as has been conceded to the relieved crews of other vessels engaged in this expedition?

This leave has already been granted.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Thirsk, as a Charity Commissioner—(1) what is the total capital value of the endowments excepted from the operation of the scheme of 1890, which have recently been acquired by the governing body of Christ's Hospital for the purposes of the said scheme; (2) what proportion of such capital sum it is proposed to lay out upon the site purchased by the governing body near Horsham; (3) whether it is proposed to devote any and what amount of this capital sum to the establishment of day schools in London, in accordance with the provisions of the scheme of 1890; (4) what is the estimated cost of the new buildings proposed to be erected for Christ's Hospital Schools on the site near Horsham, and for what number of scholars is accommodation to be provided; (5) whether an adequate and unexceptionable water supply has now been found on the estate itself, and whether any and what analysis of the same has been made; and, if so, by whom, and what is the result of such analysis; (6) what proportion of the sum proposed to be laid out on the site near Horsham will be expended on under-draining the land on which it is proposed to build, and what amount will be spent in laying out and developing the adjacent land; (7) whether any and what arrangement has been concluded with the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company as to the number of trains per diem which will stop at the special station which is to be provided for the school; (8) what approximately will be the duration of the journey from London to the special station and from the special station to London respectively, and what arrangement has been made with the railway company as to the issue of cheap return tickets at reduced rates; and (9) will such tickets be available for use by all trains, or, if not, by how many and by what trains?

asked whether it was not the fact that for several weeks the people had been engaged in draining the land which was the subject of the question; and that the medical officer of health in West Sussex, who was an acknowledged authority, had reported; most favourably on the situation and the water supply?

Yes, Sir, I have had those facts brought to my attention. As to the Question on the Paper, the answer to the first Question is, about, £122,000. To the second and third, the governing body of Christ's Hospital are entitled to receive the income only of the accepted endowments, and have no power to deal with this capital. To the fourth, the estimate for the erection of the new buildings, in accordance with the plans as now modified, is about £253,000. These plans have not as yet been approved by the Charity Commissioners. It is proposed to provide at present for 500 to 600 boys and for 200 girls. The Charity Commissioners, while responsible for the approval of the site for the new hospital buildings and for the general sanction of capital expenditure upon that site, are not charged with the current administration either of the hospital generally or of the particular work of its removal to another site. The Commissioners are, therefore, unable to answer these questions further than to say that their approval was given to the acquisition of the site at Horsham upon professional evidence as to the abundance and excellence of the water supply there, and that they have sanctioned the expenditure by the governing body of a capital sum not exceeding £20,000 in draining, roads, levelling, and planting, in connection with the new buildings. It may be added that the Commissioners learn from a report issued by the governing body that the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company have agreed to build a station on the site and to give cheap fares and exceptional facilities for reaching it.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the official complaints of the Shipley District Council as to the alleged dangerous state of the platforms at the Saltaire railway station; whether he is aware that the station is frequently very crowded with traffic; and, if he will communicate with the Midland Railway Company with a view to every possible step being taken to increase the safety and convenience of the Saltaire station?

My attention had not been called to this matter until the hon. Member's Question appeared on the Paper—no complaints having reached the Department on the subject. The Board of Trade are now in communication with the Midland Railway Company respecting it.

said he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having brought up the clause, but he regretted to say that, as drawn, it would not apply in one case in a thousand of the cases which he had in his mind and to which he drew attention. His desire when he raised the question was to place a case of family settlement inter vivos in practically the same position as if it were being made by the will of a deceased person. When the owner of a farm was making his will he had power under the Land Act to leave the farm to one person, and then he went on to provide for the other members of his family, generally by a charge on the farm. The defect of the clause was the use of the words "money or money's worth." What the tenant did was to make over his farm to his eldest son; it was all the means he had, and he was bound to do something for the other members of his family. He provided for them, and the son's wife brought in a dowry which was handed over to the tenant. In 999 cases out of a thousand of those marriage assignments there was always money passing in connection with the transaction; but it was not a sale in the ordinary sense, nor did the money represent the value of the farm, it represented the dowry brought in by the wife on marriage. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, if he could not adopt his clause, to strike out the words "for consideration in money or money's worth."

said that he thought the object of the hon. Member for Cork would be met by the insertion after the word "mortgage" of the words "or family settlements, or where marriage forms a portion of the consideration." He moved the insertion of those words.

According to my recollection, there is nothing in the Bill about the powers of investment of trustees. This Amendment would appear to be more pertinent to a Trustee Investment Bill.

pointed out that there was a good deal in the Bill about guarantee deposits, and that this Amendment only referred to the investment of such deposits.

said that the Acts which this Act amended dealt with the investment of guarantee deposits in trustee stock.

said that if the Acts were to be read together as one Act the clause would be in order.

hesitated to accept this Amendment, because it would alter essentially the present legal arrangements affecting the investment of trust funds, and because he did not like to make a special exception in favour of this guarantee stock. If they were to accept tins Amendment they would be dealing piecemeal with a large and important question. He might point out to the hon. Member that under this Bill guarantee deposits would practically cease in future.

invited the Chief Secretary to express his opinion upon the following clause standing in his (Mr. Healy's) name:—

"In the case of any holding to which the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, did not as um-amended apply, but to which the Land Law Acts as amended by this Act apply, a tenancy subsisting at the time of the passing of this Act shall he deemed to be a present tenancy if the tenant was in occupation of the holding at the date of the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881."

said that he had resisted the principle of this Amendment throughout, and he did not think that he could consistently accept it in this particular form.

said that he did not move the clause, but would raise the question later on. The hon. Member moved the following new clause:—

said that in his judgment nothing could be clearer than the words of the section of the Act of 1887 referred to in the clause of the hon. Member. According to his construction of the section, this Amendment was not necessary.

was willing to accept the clause with a slight alteration. He should propose to insert, after the words "shall not," the words "if in Ireland at the time that he was so acting."

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to the following words:—

"If as regards advances made after the passing of this Act, he shall declare at the time that he was so acting."

No, Sir. I think those words will meet the case.

said the stamp duty on a conveyance was payable on the total value of the property conveyed. When a property subject to a mortgage was purchased, the mortgage was considered as included in the value of the property. The hon. Member thought that an exception should be made in the case of properties sold under the Land Purchase Act to a third person. If an exception were made in this case it would also have to be made in the case of property subject to an ordinary mortgage. The tenant bought the freehold title subject to the payment of certain instalments to the Land Commission, and if he had only to pay stamp duty on the purchase money he would obviously escape the payment of stamp duty on the freehold. He could not agree to the clause.

said he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment.

Oh, I withdraw it, Sir. That shows the spirit in which the landlords act.

said the proposed limit was inserted in the Act of 1887, but he did not think that was a reasonable thing to do. It seemed to him that towns under 2,000 would very likely be those which would chiefly negative protection. Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, in his evidence before the Committee last Session, said it was impossible to arrive at a conclusion merely by looking at the number of inhabitants.

contended that the only way in which things could be set right was by putting in some sort of population limit. He himself had an Amendment further down in which he proposed that no town should be deemed to be a town within the meaning of the 58th section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1881, or of the seventh section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1887, unless the town was within the district of an urban sanitary authority under the Public Health (Ireland) Acts. In some form or another the word "town" ought to be defined by the Bill.

said that he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adopt some limit with regard to the population of a town, because there was great doubt as to what a town really was as distinguished from a village. The present want of definition led to a great deal of litigation, and the Irish tenants would be much dissatisfied if something were not done to define the meaning of the words "town park." The word "town" was a most elastic one, and if a definition of it were required anywhere it was in Ireland. A population of 2,000 appeared to him to be a sufficient limitation, and would not materially affect the landlords' right.

said that perhaps he might be allowed to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the use of the phrase "populous places" instead of "towns." He thought that the substitution of those words for the word "town" in the Bill would be a great improvement.

said that if the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite were to be adopted, some inconveniences and absurdities might be expected to arise. For instance, if 2,000 population was fixed upon as the limit, a place having 1,999 inhabitants, which would not be a town, might find itself raised to the rank of a town because a lady in it happened to give birth to twins. ["Hear, hear!" and "Question!"] That showed the absurdity of the proposition of the hon. and learned Member.

said that the conclusion that had been arrived at was that the population was the test of a place being a town. The law upon the point ought to be so clear that every man would know what his right was. A definition of a town should be given in a Bill so as to form a guide to the Judges, and that could be easily done by taking a population limit. There was nothing to prevent the landlord from regaining possession of a town park holding if the property was required for development. The theory on which the opposition to the clause was based was that the landlord should have the right by the eviction of those town park tenants to take the property of one man and hand it over to another. The supporters of the clause did not want to deprive the landlord of anything that equitably belonged to him. All they wanted to secure was that the property of town park tenants should not be taken away from them. Of all the land of Ireland, town parks were farmed the best; and on no land was there such a lavish expenditure of money, care, and nursing as on the town parks. It was, therefore most unjust to deny the protection of the Land Acts to those tenants.

, said he rose not to discuss the vexed question of town parks, but, as a practical politician anxious for the smooth passage of the Bill, to appeal to the House not to plunge itself into the unfathomable bog of the town parks' controversy, but to accept the decision come to in the Committee stage that they should leave the question untouched.

sympathised with what he conceived to be the object of his hon. Friend, but he did not think the proposals he had made were either practicable or consistent with provisions already in the Bill. He saw great difficulties in connection with the whole question of sporting rights, and in any case He did not think it was the proper way of dealing with them to vest those rights in the Land Commission, and depriving the landlord of any power of obtaining them for himself, and leaving the Land Commission to be the body which should be intrusted to let sporting rights all over Ireland.

expressed satisfaction that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had made use of one expression, namely, that you could not have sport in Ireland or any other country without the co-operation of the occupiers. ["Hear, hear!"] He regretted to say that was not a view always shared in in his part of Ireland, because he remembered very well it was not observed by the old Marquess of Waterford, for he had seen the Curraghmore Hunt followed by six or eight cartloads of police. The Irish were a sport-loving people, and if the landlords treated them with moderation the people would co-operate with them in promoting sport in that country.

suggested to the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Great Yarmouth, that he and his friends should offer inducements to the tenants to take part in sport, and give them a reasonable chance of showing they took an interest in it.

thought the Amendment might be accepted if the word "may" were substituted for "shall" in the passage "and the Land Commission shall," etc.; and if, after the words "persons interested" "other than the tenant" were inserted.

thought it very inconvenient that when a new clause was proposed they should not be told what the effect was. As far as he could see, this section was a great innovation on the law as it at present stands. If "any person interested" meant a person other than the tenant, who could that be but the landlord? The clause was quite unnecessary, because two different landlords owning different portions of the same property had already the right to apply for a separation of their interests.

said that the clause was for the convenience of the landlords.

hoped that the Government would not reject this Amendment, moved from their own Benches, after they had accepted so many from the right hon. Member for Dublin University to the detriment of the tenants. The clause would simply be removing a doubt in the law as to the position of the tenants concerned.

said that there was a strong feeling in his constituency that the tenants concerned had been hardly used by being excluded almost accidentally.

said that the particular case in the mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the clause was a hard one; but the clause would have a general application. However, as there had been no objection to the clause, the Government would accept it with some modification. If there was an express provision in the contract between the landlord and tenant that the landlord might resume, he did not think that in the resumption they should leave those terms to be decided under Section 5 of the Land Act of 1881. He proposed, therefore, to omit all the words after "therein" and to insert the words "on the terms that the rent of the holding be proportionately abated."

said that this subject had been threshed out in previous discussions, and that the hon. Member had not used a single now argument in support of his clause. As he had already said in Committee, he could not accept this proposal for a 10 years' term, believing that the change would be likely to increase the friction between the parties and to involve both them and the State in great expenditure. Even if this clause were adopted he doubted whether they would really get over the difficulty which formed the excuse for the second part of the hon. Member's proposal. One reason why the Government refused to adopt this suggestion was that they objected on principle, unless a case of absolute necessity could be proved, to interfere with contracts entered into under Parliamentary sanction. The hon. Member always spoke as if contracts were of no importance whatever in Ireland. It was perhaps not surprising that the hon. Member and his Friends should take that view after the legislative interferences of recent years, but in his judgment the fact that they did take that view was rather a reason for seeking to restore the state of things which it was a misfortune to have imperilled by the legislation of the past. He should, in any circumstances, be exceedingly reluctant to adopt a course which would have the effect of destroying the tenant's belief that when he entered into an agreement under Parliamentary sanction he would have to keep it. The hon. Member contended that, if the tenants whoso rents had been paid under the Act of 1881 could come into Court again, they would obtain considerable reductions. But the risk of a fall in prices was a risk which had to be run, and the essential condition of the 15 years' term was that, whether prices rose or fell, the rent should remain the same. Hon. Members, therefore, should not talk of rents fixed as unjust or oppressive rents. The other objection of the Government to this clause was the administrative objection. The administrative difficulty was not one that could be neglected or overlooked. The hon. Member himself said that, if his proposals were adopted, four-fifths of the tenants of Ireland would at once apply to the Court. How would it be possible for the Court to deal with such a mass of applications?

explained that he had not said that four-fifths of the tenants would apply. His view was that, in regard to the number of applications, the Court would be in exactly the same position as the Land Court was in 1881.

said it was true that the tenants did not all apply to the Court in 1881, but, if their present condition was as parlous as the hon. Member made it out to be, it was clear that they would all apply now. The accumulation of arrears between 1881 and 1887 was enormous, and there were cases in which tenants were not able to get their rents fixed for two, three, and even four years after they applied. Exactly the same thing would happen now unless they appointed a perfect army of such Commissioners. He thought the House would agree that it would not be desirable to have the Commission flooded with applications, for the administrative machinery of the Land Acts would break down under the strain.

said that it was rather late in the day to raise the question of the sacredness of contracts in connection with Irish land. The principles accepted in 1881 had been recognised by every Government since then, and adopted by the Party opposite in the legislation of 1887. At that time they heard language even more forcible than that used by the Chief Secretary that evening. It was said that contracts could not be disturbed, and that judicial rents could not be revised. He had recently read again Lord Salisbury's declaration on that subject. Speaking on the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill of 1887, the Prime Minister said:—

"A belief on the part of men that they will have to perform the promises they make is the very foundation of civilised society. You are laying your axe to the root of the fabric. There is nothing to prevent the tenantry from again acting at a future period for the purpose of again operating on your feelings by the means which they have used in times past. And you may depend upon it that such interference with judicial rents, attractive as it may seem for the moment, will be dearly paid for by the absolute loss of confidence which it will introduce into all transactions between man and man."

But what happened? A term of 15 years was established, and only five years of that term had expired when the Government found that they could not standby it themselves. They found that they could not bind the landlords and tenants in Ireland by their hard-and-fast rule of a 15 years' term. They found it absolutely necessary to do that which they said would destroy the fabric of civilised society. That showed, in his opinion, that the 15 years' term was a great deal too long. Was there anyone who would say that in the last few years of that 15 years' term the relations between landlord and tenant had been satisfactorily regulated? He did not think even the Member for South Tyrone would say that, nor anyone else who knew anything of the condition of the country. When such a long term as 15 years was taken, a state of things which was not contemplated at the commencement of the term was certain to arise. It used to be the habit in England to have leases for 15 years; but was there a landlord now in England who would think of making, or a tenant who would think of taking, a lease for 15 years? He did not think there was an estate in England on which such a venture would be made. The experience in England, as well as in Ireland, showed that 15 years was too long a term to tie up either the landlord or the tenant. The late Government did propose to shorten the term, and certainly they should support the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]

very much regretted that the Chief Secretary had not seen his way to accept the Amendment. He regretted it the more because the right hon. Gentleman's refusal was admittedly founded more on motives of expediency than on considerations of justice. The Irish tenant-farmers were to be left to struggle on as best they could under a burden which was acknowledged to be heavier than they ought to bear, simply because immediate relief would be troublesome and costly. The attitude of the Government would not have such serious consequences if the farmers were in a position to keep their heads above water, but that was not so. The majority of farmers in Munster whose rents were fixed between 1883 and 1887 would be quite unable to continue to pay them for the next three, or four, or five years. Many of them were, indeed, already on the border of bankruptcy. He was, of course, aware that nothing he could say was likely to alter the resolve of the Government, but He considered he would have failed in his duty if he did not enter an emphatic protest against that decision.

said that, as he supported the Amendment brought forward in Committee, he should of course support it now. It seemed to him to be as much desired by the Unionist tenant-farmers of Ulster as by the tenant farmers in the South of Ireland. He would have been glad if the Chief Secretary had given him such reasons against the Amendment as he could have put before his constituents as a justification for voting with the Government; but the reasons the right hon. Gentleman had given were not sufficient. They were, first, that it would be impossible to find a sufficient number of Land Commissioners, and that there would be a block in the Committee. Had the right hon. Gentleman been able to prove that, he would have thought it unanswerable from his point of view. Another reason given by the right hon. Gentleman was that short periods tended to unsettle men's minds and keep up constant friction; but he had been told by a gentleman in England that they had the strongest objection to let farms for more than 10 years. It would give immense satisfaction to the tenant-farmers if the Government accepted the Amendment. He was sure it would raise the Bill greatly in the estimation of the tenant-farmers.

said he was extremely glad to hear that the Chief Secretary did not intend to accept this proposal. The hon. Member for East Mayo said that the present condition of the tenants in Ireland was in-tolerable, that prices had fallen to such an extent that they could no longer pay their rent, but, as usual, the hon. Gentleman did not give the House a single figure to back up his assertion. On a former occasion he ventured to adduce some figures to the House, and those figures had never been disputed by any hon. Gentlemen on the other side. He was glad to hear his right hon. Friend say that He did not agree with hon. Gentleman opposite that all contracts in Ireland should be looked upon as valueless. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were always asking for justice—" Justice without contract "was their new war cry. Mr. Gladstone, at the time that the Irish Land Act was under discussion, had pointed out that the Irish landlords would be in a far better position after than before the passing of the Act, because they would be perfectly sure of getting their rents for 15 years. The tenant farmers in Ireland ought to be made to know that contracts would he enforced in that part of the British Empire, and that knowledge would be given them if this Amendment were rejected. A 15 instead of a 10 years' term gave the landlords something like breathing time. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that he hoped that the Amendment would be accepted so that the lives of the Irish people might not be sacrificed to mere technicalities. The position of Irish tenant farmers was far worse than that of English agriculturists. If the relief proposed to be given to the Irish farmers were not given the farmers would be driven from their homes into the slums of the towns where they would remain for the rest of their lives. He hoped that the Government would reconsider their determination with regard to this clause.

said that this was probably the most difficult question which could occupy the attention of the House in connection with this Bill and he did not think that, as an Ulster Member, He ought to give a silent vote upon it. He quite admitted everything that had been said by hon. Members opposite with regard to the amount of fooling and excitement on the question, and especially in the province of Ulster. He admitted that to the full, and he thought that it would be exceedingly strange if that feeling did not exist. The farmers everywhere were suffering from bad times, and when men saw the reductions in rent on the second statutory period now commencing, of course those who had to wait for a year or two would be exceedingly obliged if they could get that reduction at once. He desired, as an Ulster Member, and representing a farming constituency in Tyrone, and not as a Member of the Government, to show what his action in the past had been upon this Question, and why he adhered to that action now. With regard to the retrospective part of the Amendment, if they looked at the proceedings of the Committee on the Land Act, they would find that the question was raised, and that Mr. Sexton moved a paragraph to this effect:—

"and in regard to the conclusions stated in paragraph 19 of the Chairman's draft Report, they consider it equitable to apply this abridgment of period to existing statutory terms."

"What was the result of that? There was a long discussion in the Committee, and a Division took place. There voted for Mr. Sexton's Amendment Mr. Clancy, Mr. Dillon, and Mr. Sexton; and there voted against it Mr. Puller, the Solicitor General, and himself. The vote was therefore equal, whereupon the Chairman, the right hon. Member for Montrose, declared himself with the "Noes"; that was to say that, upon the Committee which investigated the Land Acts in 1894, this proposal was rejected by the Committee, and was rejected by the deciding vote of the Chairman, the right hon. Member for Montrose.

I recollect very distinctly that the Chairman said he was not prepared to commit himself on the question without further consideration.

said that he was reading from the actual records, which he had taken pains to study. ["Hear, hear!"] The vote which he gave was an open and a public one, and he saw no reason to recede one iota from it. After He had given that vote, he had been returned to that House. When the Bill of the right hon. Member for Montrose was introduced, he admitted that it was not in harmony with the decision of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman's Bill contained a clause to the effect that the abridgment of the period should be retrospective, and that the statutory period should be shortened; and He (Mr. Russell) had then said that he could give no active support to that proposal. He would point out the reason he had for giving that vote and the vote he was about to give that night. Hon. Members opposite had made little of contracts. The view he had was this. Parliament, rightly or wrongly, had undertaken the duty of fixing fair rents in Ireland in 1881. The tenants went into Court, and the rents had been fixed for 15 years between the parties for that term. He submitted that it was unreasonable to ask that the Irish tenants should have all the advantages of State arbitration and also all the advantages of free contract. If the House interfered in the way proposed, what were they to do if a demand was made for an abatement of the land purchase instalments? He could easily see that they would find themselves in great difficulties if concessions of this kind were made. As to administrative difficulties, he looked with great apprehension upon the appointment of an army of temporary commissioners. They had now a body of men who were permanently in the service of the Crown doing this work. They were not responsible in the way temporary commissioners would be responsible; and he did not hesitate to say he would look with very great alarm to handing over the property of either landlord or tenant to an army of temporary commissioners to do what they liked with for the next two or three years. Whatever might be said of the pressure on the tenants, it was a lessening evil. In view of the serious danger of tampering with contracts in Ireland, and of great administrative difficulty arising, and in view of the fact that the evil was a lessening and not a growing one, he thought the House would be wise in accepting the proposal of the Government and resisting the Amendment. He frankly admitted that the demand in Ulster was stronger than it was in any other part of the country, and that he was going against the feeling of the great mass of the agricultural population. There were times, however, when a Member of the House should do what he thought right; and he, for the reasons he had given, should give his vote in support of the proposal of the Government.

said that, as the representative of the constituency adjoining that of the hon. Member who had last spoken, he felt bound to say he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that a very strong feeling existed in Ulster in favour of a reduction of the statutory term. When the hon. Member rose, he fully expected he would have endorsed the Bill, which was read a Second time last year, and which Bill, if he was not very much mistaken, the hon. Gentleman told his constituents he adopted in omnibus.

said the hon. and learned Gentleman had made that statement more than once; He had never said he accepted the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs in full. On the contrary, he placed on the Paper a series of Amendments, and upon the Bill plus those Amendments he went to his constituents.

was sorry if he misrepresented the hon. Gentleman, but he would ask him if he put down an Amendment to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose cutting down the term from 15 years to 10? He would be the last person in the House to try and do anything that would render more awkward than it otherwise was the position of the hon. Gentleman in reference to the Land Question, and therefore he would pass from the personal matter and deal with the question on its merits. It was clear that in the vast majority of cases rents could not be recast for four or five years. It was clear that the existing rents were higher than the tenants could pay, that farm produce was never at so low a price, or the interests of the tenants at such a low ebb. Under such circumstances, He put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite whether it would not be following the dictates of common honesty and morality to give the tenants an opportunity of having their rents recast. The Chief Secretary sought to draw a distinction between a statutory contract and a contract by lease or any other agreement. There was no distinction between such contracts. A statutory contract had no effect in preventing the rents being recast, as they knew the rents were in 1887, on account of a change in the times. A statutory contract had no effect with reference to estates purchased in the Landed Estates Court. They were aware that in the Incumbered Estates Court and the Landed Estates Court estates were conveyed subject to existing tenancies, and those tenancies were specified to be at certain rents. It was contrary to all experience to contend that a statutory contract could not be altered by a subsequent Act of Parliament. If there was any wish on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that this Measure should assume anything of a final character, he would grant this concession, because, so long as the 15 years' term existed, the tenants would never regard this as a settlement of their claim.

said he rose in consequence of statements made on the other side, especially by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, who had said that the existing rents were higher than the tenants could pay, and that the interests of the tenants were at a very low ebb. The true test was the price which the tenants got for their tenant-right interest. ["Hear, hear!"] This very year in Sligo a farm at a rent of £7 sold for £93–13 years' purchase. In Roscommon a farm at a rent of £21 was sold for £465–22 years' purchase. In Tipperary a farm rented at £2 10s. sold for £73. So he could go through all the counties in Ireland. When they spoke about low prices people thought of England, but let them compare the arable land in England and in Ireland and they would find a gigantic difference. Ireland was a stock-rearing country. In some of his own land he was better this year than last, and last year was better than the previous year. Complaint had been made by the Member for East Mayo that the tenants were between the upper and nether millstone of landlord and labourer, but the increase in the wages of the labourers was a proof of prosperity. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that the hon. Gentleman (Sir John Colomb) had informed the House that, as regarded the produce of his own land this year, he had obtained much better prices than last year, and that those prices were better than the year before, but in order to give the House an opportunity of estimating what his position was he should prefer to examine the Income Tax returns. If he had made an enormous income from the land as shown by the Income Tax returns, no doubt it would indicate a great increase in his prosperity, but unless the hon. Gentleman could assure him that he paid a much larger amount he should hesitate to accept his statement. The hon. Member for South Tyrone (the Secretary to the Local Government Board) and other Gentlemen viewed the matter under discussion as one of contract. He (Mr. Healy) had on previous occasions endeavoured to show that there was no contract whatever, that it was a Parliamentary term forced upon them in their despite, and it showed the bad advice continually given to Ulster by those whom the Ulster men relied upon. Who wanted to make the term 31 years? In 1881 the Presbyterian Ministers of Ireland petitioned the House that the 15 years' term should be increased to 31 years. And who was in favour of making it 5 years? The Irish popular Party of that day. Who was it that was in favour of making it 10 years, and who put down an Amendment to the effect? The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, now the Leader of the House. [Opposition cheers.] He regretted that the First Lord was not in his place, but he was a very ardent debater of the Bill at that time, and he put down a number of Amendments, one of which was to reduce the term to the very term which the hon. Member for Mayo now sought to enact, viz., 10 years. Having quoted from "Hansard" the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in favour of that Amendment, the hon. Member went on to say that it was true the Amendment chiefly affected the Ulster farmers, because they preferred to follow the advice given by those eminent Presbyterian divines and rejected the advice given them by the Land League, and because the House preferred to act upon the views presented for Ulster and against the view presented from the Nationalist Benches. If the House had accepted the latter view the term would have been shortened. Mr. A. M. Sullivan had an Amendment down to make the term five years, and that represented the view of the popular Party of the day. Might he use one argument that had not yet been presented to the House to-night? The hon. Member for South Tyrone had dealt with the case as if it only affected a 15 years' term; but the Ulster tenants who went into Court between 1881 and 1887 had not had a 15 years' term, but a 20, 21 and 22 years' term, because the tenants who went in after 1881 did not get their rents fixed, many of them, until 1885, 1886, or 1887, and it was not until 1887 that the law was altered making the rent date, not from the time of the decision, but from the sale day following the original notice. He thought the Government might have given some decision, when they were debating that point, as to how they were going to meet a thing against which no breach of contract could be alleged, the grievance which had sprung up from the congestion of the Land Courts at that date. The Amendment now before the House was one of great importance—["hear, hear!"]—affecting the whole body of Irish tenants, and certainly he was amazed that Irish landlords should commence an outcry against the Government for what they had given to the tenants, while forgetting what the Government were refusing. They were refusing the almost unanimous appeal of Irish Members of all sections to reduce the judicial term which would give relief to tens of thousands of tenants, and yet when the Government accepted some little scrappy Amendment that would admit a little group of one, two, or three tenants to a fair rent, or give them a little bit of bog, instantly the whole landlord party rose in insurrection against the Government. [Cheers.] If the Government resisted this Amendment he thought they were doing wrong, and bringing mischief upon themselves. Certainly it was a remarkable thing to observe, while the Government were maintaining that attitude, what was the attitude of the landlord party towards the Government because of the slight and slender Amendments which they had accepted? The hon. Member for Trinity College, in denouncing the Government for accepting those small Amendments, reminded him of the Princess in Hans Christian Andersen's "Fairy Tales," who, being of royal blood, through 15 eiderdown coverlets was able to feel the crumpling of a roseleaf underneath. [Laughter.] The Amendments accepted from the Irish Benches, were just like those crumpled rose leaves, which so seemed to affect the sensitive epidermis of the landlord party. [Cheers and laughter.] He said that the Gov- ernment were doing wrong in not meeting the question boldly and adequately. It was no question of contract. The length of the term was forced upon them against the protests of the popular party of the day, and the House should remember that the Sub-Commissioners admitted that the rents were unfairly fixed, and that, in Scotland, owing to falling prices, the term was reduced to 7 years. On all those grounds he strongly urged that this was an Amendment the Government ought to accept. If they refused to accept it, they would have, in honour, to accept the Amendment reducing the term, at any rate, to that which would enable the tenant to count from the lodgment of his application, for before it was heard He often was waiting for tardy justice for five years during which he lay at the mercy of the landlord and of the sheriff, when he was seeking to get a fair rent fixed. When, in consequence, evictions took place, and future tenancies were created all over the land, as they had been, by the delay of the Courts in bringing justice to the door of the tenant, why should the Government now turn round and say, "Do not tamper with these future tenancies, they are the operations of the law," forgetting all the time that they were the operation of rack rents and delayed remedies. The Irish tenant had no legal locus penitentiœ when judgment in ejectment was served upon him beyond six months for redemption; the moment a registered letter was fired at him, that moment and for ever the present tenancy was gone, unless he could pay in full the unabated rent. Such were the tremendous consequences which attached to a breach of statutory conditions. He implored the Government to set aside the prejudices, raised on the plea of contract, to induce them to refuse this Amendment, and to bring to the large body of the tenants, as had been admitted by the Member for South Tyrone, something of comfort and something of security in their holdings. [Cheers.]

said he would ask his right hon. Friend to consider the special case of those tenants whose term of 15 years had been prolonged owing to the congestion of the Land Courts in the earlier years of the statutory period. He was told that in a particular district in his own constituency these tenants really had not a 15, but a 17 or 18 years' term simply owing to the congestion in the Land Courts during the first two or three years after the passing of the Land Act of 1881. He felt sure that many of his constituents would like him to support this Amendment. But he felt that his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary had had a most difficult task to perform; he had refused to yield to the landlords on many most important points, and he had refused to yield to the representatives of the tenants on other important points, and he was plainly trying to steer a just and fair course between landlord and tenant. Therefore, he felt bound to support his right hon. Friend and the Government, who were honestly trying to pass a fair Bill. He would, however, ask them to consider the case of those tenants the fixing of whose rent was postponed owing to the congestion in the Land Courts to which he had referred.

cited figures to show that on every occasion when judicial rent-holders, whose rents were fixed in 1881, had had liberty to appeal to the Courts reductions had followed of from 25 to 40 per cent. He had come to the conclusion, therefore, that the real reason why the Government refused to accept this Amendment was not because they wished to steer on an even keel between landlord and tenant, but because they wished to safeguard the property of the landlord as long as they could. The tenant farmers of South Tyrone, as well as of the west of Ireland, would believe that that was the real reason of the Government for their refusal. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh said that they did not point out where the great fall in prices had been since 1887, but he must be aware that on all the smaller holdings in Ireland rent was made largely out of the sale of pigs, and that the price of pigs since 1887 had fallen 30 per cent.

Would the hon. Member give the figures?

said the present price was about 32s. per cwt. for the best class in any of the towns of the constituency which the hon. and gallant Member represented. It was acknowledged that the rents up to 1887 were fixed on the basis of the average prices of the 15 years previous to the passing of the Act, and the average prices of the products that went to make up the rent of the small farmers had fallen very much since 1887. Nobody denied that prices had fallen 30 per cent.

I deny it.

maintained that he had not exaggerated the fall in prices, and it was apparent that under these circumstances rent had almost disappeared. The refusal of the Government was due to the unfortunate fact that the Irish tenant farmers in 1896 were not as united and determined in their own interests as they were in 1886. If the Chief Secretary refused the Amendment, the fact would prove to the Irish tenant-farmer that as long as he remained disunited and squabbled over differences of procedure in politics their best interests would be neglected by the House, and if they were, he, as an Irish tenant-farmer would heartily say, "Serve them right."

, is supporting the Amendment, said the outlook for the Irish tenant for the next 10 years was a dark one. But for the money they received from their children in America they would be unable to pay their rents. "Breach of contract" had been talked of. If there was an agitation in Ireland such as they had in 1887 there would be little talk of breach of contract. The Government would soon sue for peace with the people of Ireland.

said that as a representative of an agricultural constituency, he felt that the Government had made a mistake which they would repent before many years. It was quite true that many tenants would not be able to make ends meet until the time arrived when they could get fair rents fixed. Many would have to go to the States of America as the poor people of Ireland had had to do from time to time.

said he wished briefly to give a few instances of the fall of agricultural prices in Ireland. The average price of wheat between 1886 and 1895 was 16s. 8d. per cwt.; the price now in the south did not average 7s. per cwt. The average price of oats from 1886 to 1895 had been 11s. 8d.; the present price was not 5s. 6d. Barley was 13s. 6fi. per cwt.; now, to his own knowledge, it was not over 6s. per cwt. The Irish tenant was expected to pay the rents he paid 10, 12, and 16 years ago when prices were so much higher and things so much better. The rents paid for land six or seven years ago were now impossible. Not only had the prices of agricultural produce fallen, but the produce of the land is a drug on the market. For instance, barley had not been a marketable article for the last two years Barley grown in the south, where the tenants were asked to pay exorbitant rents, had been sold at as low as 7d. per stone. Shop-keepers who had had to hold it for two years could not even sell it at cost price.

heartily joined with what had been said on his side of the House with regard to this important Amendment, and could only express his regret that the right hon Gentleman had not seen his way to accept it instead of climbing down in face of the opposition of the landlords' friends.

thought the Government were quite right in resisting the Amendment, but considered they might make a concession in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for North Louth, and allow the tenants—the fixing of whose rents were delayed by the overcrowding of the Land Courts in former years—to make their judicial rents to date from the time of their application, or, at any rate, from a reasonable period after the date of their application. ["Hear, hear!"] There was a strong ground for such a course, for unquestionably the landlords did get some advantage at that time from a delay which was not contemplated when the Act was passed. It was really a small concession to make, and he thought it would be a fair compromise upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo,

said this proposed new clause must, he thought, be discussed with some reference to the Amendment down on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Louth, which was somewhat analogous to it. Under the law as it stood these tenants, who made application on the first occasion when the Court sat, were entitled to date the judicial term, when it came to be fixed from the gale day after the application. There was a great block in the Court after that, and considerable delay in fixing the rents, and there were no doubt cases where the tenants who had made applications on the first occasion were deprived of the advantage by the voluntary arrangements they made with their landlords. At the same time, he was rather surprised to hear the hon. Member say that neither they nor the landlord knew that in doing so they would be deprived of the advantage they would have been entitled to in the ordinary course of events. He turned for a moment to the case which the hon. and learned Member for Louth sought to deal with. He had already stated that these first applications entitled the tenant to date the statutory term from the gale day after the application. Under the Act of 1887, a similar rule was made for all tenants, and what the hon. and learned Member sought practicably was to make the Act of 1887 retrospective as regarded those tenants who did not apply in the first instance, but who applied before the Act of 1887. No doubt these tenants, and also the tenants who would be affected by the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo, were in a rather curious position, and he had a good deal of sympathy with them. But he must remind the House that this matter was thoroughly discussed on the Committee stage, and he then said he would consider whether this Amendment and the analogous one standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Louth should not be accepted if the procedure was so far expedited as to do away with the administrative difficulty which he foresaw would arise if the Amendments were accepted without such expedition. As the House knew, they were, unfortunately, obliged to withdraw the procedure clauses, and he was afraid that the effect of the changes they had made in the Bill would be, so far from expediting the procedure, to tend to make it slower than it was at the present time, for in the clause that now stood first in the Bill they had required the Court to ascertain and to state a number of particulars which were not required under previous Acts. Under these circumstances he was afraid it was not in his power to accept either the present Amendment or the one of the hon. and learned Member for Louth. But he might just mention that they had introduced a clause into the Bill at the instance of the hon. and learned Member which entitled landlords and tenants who might wish to do so at any time to abridge their statutory term and arrive, by agreement, at a fresh term and a fresh fair rent. He thought that provision would meet the case of the tenants contemplated both by the hon. Member for East Mayo and the hon. and learned Member for Louth. He thought that provision would meet the case of Lord Ormathwaite and his tenants, because they could under the clause, if they desired to do so, come in and arrange for the fixing of a fair rent for a second term, and that it would go a long way to meet the oases of those tenants whom the hon. and learned Member for Louth wished to come in.

, who expressed his grief and disappointment with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, said he had opposed the clause entirely on the fact that, in his opinion, procedure had not been expedited in such a way as to justify him in accepting it. What was the procedure under this Bill? It abolished Court hearings, but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that Court hearings in nine-tenths of the cases occupied no time at all, and that so far as his clause went it would not have shortened the process by one hour. The valuation was the tedious process, and by the right hon. Gentleman's clause that process could not have been abridged but would have been extended. He believed the argument that the rejection of the procedure clause involved the rejection of these Amendments was not put forward by the right hon. Gentleman himself, but by those who advised him. It was a most flimsy argument. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that his clause met the difficulty, but his clause was optional, and being optional it did not touch the question. To suggest that the Irish landlords would allow those tenants to go into Court by agreement years sooner than they would otherwise be able to do was absurd. Now, in regard to this matter, Irish Members were not a little disappointed. It proved that hon. Members should never give up the powers of influencing Governments when in Committee. When this question was brought forward in Committee the Government asked for time to consider it, and said they would deal with it on the Report stage. The Irish Members gave way, and what was the result? Why, that they now absolutely got nothing at all. That was scarcely fair. It should he remembered that the class of tenants referred to were largely Ulster tenants—men who were kept waiting for more than five years at the gates of justice to get a fair rent fixed. Why? Simply because the Treasury would not appoint a sufficient number of sub-Commissioners to hear their cases, and in consequence of that the Government now denied them justice, and would impose on them not even a 15 years', but a 21 years' term. He protested against the policy of the Government in this matter as wholly unreasonable, and he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College that he might here have his revenge on the Government. [Mr. CARSON: "I wish I could."] [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman must know from professional experience how bitterly hard was the grievance of those tenants, who were kept year after year from getting a fair rent fixed, and many of whom were evicted and lost their present tenancies. Yet the Government, who had an opportunity of doing an act of bare justice to these men, refused to do so on grounds utterly insufficient. He could not understand the position taken by the Government in this matter. The Amendment was in accord with the policy adopted in the Act of 1887—a policy which was approved by both Houses. Then what could be the reason why the Government refused to accept the Amendment. If the reason was the glutting or the congestion of the Courts, he could only say that the tenants would be quite willing to take their chance of waiting to get their rents fixed if they knew that the fixing of the rent was dated from the day of application. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, who had fought his corner well for the landlords, must know the heavy disabilities under which the tenants referred to suffered through no fault of their own, and he now appealed to him, under the circumstances, to support his countrymen in the effort to remove a great grievance.

said the Amendment was moved with the object of protecting a tenant from suffering, or from injustice, because He had made an agreement with his landlord. That was really the effect of the Amendment. Under the Act of 1881, tenants got special privileges if they went into Court on the first occasion on which it sat. Thirty or forty thousand did so; but a number of tenants who could not get their cases heard came to an agreement with their landlords, and the position the Government had really taken up was that, therefore, those men were to be punished. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman could not be aware that if those tenants had fought their landlords in the Land Courts they would have had no necessity for seeking the benefit of this Amendment—that if they had held their landlords at arm's length, and insisted on the Court deciding between them, they would have secured the right of which they had been deprived. To deny the tenants, under such circumstances, the right of going into Court for several years to come to have a fair rent fixed was a gross injustice. The clause only applied to tenants who went into Court to have fair rents fixed, and who afterwards agreed with their landlords as to the fixing of the rents. It was a term of all the agreements that the rents should run back to the time the notice was served. The rents had run for 15 years. [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "By agreement!"] Yes; and, therefore, He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter.

said he understood the hon. Gentleman wished to confine the operation of the clause to cases where, evidently by the terms of the agreements, landlords and tenants intended the term should end in 15 years dating from the time of the application. [Mr. M. HEALY: "Hear, hear!"] Then he did not see what objection there was to the clause. ["Hear!"]

said an Amendment to the clause would be necessary, and

rose to suggest an Amendment.

said he would give the right hon. Gentleman time to prepare the Amendment, and left the Chair for the customary interval.

said he should entirely agree with the hon. Member if he believed that, where the contract did not expressly so provide, it was the intention of the parties in every case that the tenant should be reinstated as under a present tenancy. But he could not believe that that was always the case, or that that could always be taken to be the intention of the parties. Under the Bill, it would be possible for the landlord and tenant to agree to make the present tenancy the regular course. He thought, therefore, it would be unreasonable to accept the Amendment.

said that the Government could not accept the clause, because it would be unjust to the person entitled, after the determination of the cause or the litigation, to fix upon him as a present tenant anyone who might be found in possession of the holding, who had no claim upon him, and whom He was not bound to recognise.

was inclined to think that the clause would operate against the tenant. If, on the fair-rent application the saleable value was determined by the Land Commission, and if the rent was going to decline, it was obvious that the earlier the period the greater would be the advantage to the tenant, because at the end of 14 years, the rent having declined, the landlord was bound to pay the price fixed by the Court several years previously. He hoped that the Government would not give way on the clause. He was not merely a landlord. He was a middle-man, a present tenant, a future tenant, and a tenant outside the Act. [Laughter.] His interest in the last capacity exceeded all his other interests; and he was voting on this question in the general interests of Ireland. If the Land Commission could fix a fair rent they could fix the saleable value; and he hoped the Government would not give way.

urged that the hon. Gentleman ought to support the Amendment if he were a tenant; because, the knowledge that the holding would never get beyond the specified value was a bar to improvement by the tenant.

said that Judge O'Hagan, speaking on 3rd May 1883, used these words:—

"With all respect to the Legislature, to put upon an unfortunate Commissioner the task of estimating the value of Land in places where laud has not been in the habit of being set up to be sold, and where no experience can he brought to bear upon it, was one of the most absurd tasks ever put upon man."

Outside Ulster there was no means of determining what the tenant-right was before 1881. It was to be hoped that the Government would accept the Amendment.

said that he had always entirely failed to understand what earthly good the landlord derived from the fixing of a specified value. The Government would be prepared to accept the Amendment.

stated that the effect of the 7th Clause of the Act of 1887 had been this—that by the receipt of a registered letter hundreds and thousands of tenants had lost all their rights under the Land Acts without knowing what had happened. Indeed, for a considerable period after the letter had reached them they had not the least idea of the disastrous consequences that had been inflicted upon them by a registered letter. Country people could not understand all the subtleties of an Act of Parliament, and He held that the old system of the Sheriff marching out with a force of constabulary to deprive the tenant of the right of occupation of his home was a more wholesome system, painful though it was, because it gave the man full warning of the chance wrought in his condition. Under the operation of the clause in question 30,000 or 40,000 tenants had been driven outside the pale of the law and were now future tenants at the mercy of the landlords, and just in the same position as if no Land Act had ever been passed at all. He received a letter the other day on behalf of 300 future tenants in one parish alone. He warned the Government that no Bill could settle the Irish Land Question which did not take into account the position of the future tenants, those tenants, most of them, being in their present position owing to the failure of the Government in the Act of 1887 to provide a remedy for a grievance which they admitted to exist.

said he was not going to ask the Government not to give way on this matter, because that was certain to produce a decision of the Government to give way. [Nationalist cheers.] But he was going, as an English Member representing an English constituency, to explain to English Members what was the difference between a present and a future tenant. The Act of 1881 created every tenant in possession a present tenant, and as such he had a right to get his rent fixed and a right to his improvements, but it was conditional on this, that when he had his rent fixed he paid it. He had been a Member of an East London constituency from 1886 to 1892, and had seen more evictions in East London during that period than he had seen in all his life in Ireland.

Did the English tenants build the houses they were evicted out of? [Nationalist cheers.]

hoped that no heat would be imported into the discussion, as they had up to this got on amicably together. [Laughter.] He would not ask the Government whether or not they were going to accept the Amendment, for they had done so many extraordinary things that one was never sure of them. But when he told English Members that future tenants were men who had lost their positions as present tenants, with fair rents fixed by the Land Courts, because they had not paid those rents, He felt sure that English Members would not support the Government if they gave way.

said his hon. Friend need not be afraid; the Government were not going to give way on the point. If a tenant were evicted from a holding he might be replaced as a present tenant if the landlord so desired; but if the landlord replaced the tenant as a future tenant, there could be no justification for the Government stepping in and saying that all future tenants should be present tenants. He believed that if the clause were passed it would be an incentive to landlords not to put back evicted tenants as they could only put them back as present tenants, but to let the holdings instead to other men as future tenants.

said that a clause similar to the one now under consideration was inserted after great deliberation in the Land Bill of the late Liberal Government, which passed its Second Reading last year. He thought the suggestion of the Chief Secretary that the effect of the clause would be to prevent the landlords from reinstating evicted tenants was rather strained, The meaning of the clause was that a man who had lost the status of a present tenant by eviction should be placed in the position of the present tenant again and have a fair rent fixed. It was unfortunate that the Bill of last year had not passed into law. If it had passed there would be some hope that the vexed question of landlord and tenant in Ireland would be settled for half a century; but they would be as badly off as ever after the present Bill had become the law

said the unfortunate condition of the future tenants was exemplified by the condition of the Madden tenants in the constituency he represented. These tenants, about 100 in number, owed in 1881 a couple of years' rent as a result of the great distress of the preceding years. When the Land Act of 1881 was passed the landlord came down on them, served them with ejectments, and thus deprived them of their status as tenants, which prevented them from going into the Land Court to have fair rents fixed. They were then compelled to accept agreements constituting them future tenants, and making their arrears a debt to be paid oft' in instalments. This landlord was, therefore, better off than landlords who treated their tenants with more wisdom and less harshness. It was not the good and generous landlords who would be touched by the clause, but the bad landlords, who were a constant source of trouble in Ireland.

said the condition of the future tenants had been much exaggerated, A few cases which had occurred on his own estate in Tipperary would show that future tenants were in as good a position as the present tenants. In one case a man paid down £600 for the sake of going into a farm as a future tenant; in another case between, £300 and £400, and in a third case £500, were paid for the interest in farms held under future tenancies.

gave instances of present tenants on his own estate who had gained a distinct advantage by being converted into future tenants.

explained that the class of future tenants was largely composed of men who were obliged to take advantage of the Arrears Act of 1882 These tenants found themselves in the position of owing one year's rent after they had taken advantage of the Act, and that liability debarred them from benefiting under the Land Act of 1881. Of course as had been shown, there were cases of men who had voluntarily consented to occupy the position of future tenants, and he admitted that as far as they were concerned, this clause perhaps went a little too far. It might be fair to exclude them from the operation of the clause until they should have been in possession of their holdings for five years. It should not be forgotten that the tenants who took advantage of the Arrears Act of 1882 were men who had been grievously rack-rented. It was computed that there were 40,000 future tenants in Ireland at present, and the process of converting present tenants into future tenants was proceeding at the rate of 3,000 a year. In a very short time a very large percentage of the total number of tenant-farmers in Ireland would have been converted into future tenants. It was to the advantage of the landlord to make his tenants future tenants, for he thus deprived them of the benefits of the Land Acts, and was able to extract from them the whole value of the produce of the soil. The hardship of the condition of a future tenant was chiefly felt in the poor districts of South Antrim, Mayo, and Galway. To large numbers of small tenants in the congested districts of the West, this Bill as it stood would not apply. If nothing was done for them he feared that these men might be driven to agitate in order to force their grievances on the attention of the House.

The next clause which stands upon the Paper, in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Londonderry, as I understand it, is not in order, because it proposes to throw an additional burden upon the State. The clause appears to me to propose that where a tenant has, under previous Acts borrowed any portion of the purchase money from persons other than the State, the Land Commissioners shall make such further advance as may be required to pay off such debt. That would be to throw an increased burden upon the State, and such a proposal is out of order upon the Report stage of the Bill.

said that his only object was to put tenants who had purchased their holdings under the Land Purchase Acts in the same position as other tenants would occupy under this Bill.

That is exactly what I understood the meaning of the clause to be, and as it proposed to throw an increased burden upon the State, it is out of order.