this Bill, be no difficulty in finding a solvent man who would be happy to stand in his shoes, and whom the Board of Works could approve as his successor. He believed, therefore, that the scheme would not result in any injury either to the Treasury or to the taxpayer. As to the objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) that by the course taken they had acted unfairly towards Parliament, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that if the House of Lords thought these provisions ought to have been embodied in a separate Bill, they could, though he hoped they would not, pursue that course, and strike out these clauses from the Bill. COLONEL WILSON - PATTEN said, he objected strongly to this clause, for the reasons expressed by his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Gathorne Hardy). If he felt sure that this was but an experiment he would support the Government, as he was willing to do much in the way of concession for the purpose of pacifying Ireland; but, as he believed the result of the present proposal would be to increase and not to allay discontent in that country, he should vote with the hon. Baronet if a Division were taken, although it would be better not to press the Amendment. MR. POLLARD-URQUHART said, he would remind the Committee that what was now entitled an experiment had, through the instrumentality of the Credit Foncier, and similar companies, been tried in France and Prussia, and with the happiest results. He did not think there was any ground for apprehending that the subdivision of land in Ireland would ever be carried to anything like the extent to which it was carried previous to the potato failure. LORD ELCHO said, he would recommend his hon. Friend who had proposed this Amendment not to divide, because it would, he thought, be a useless ceremony as far as practical result went. Individually, moreover, he could not support him, because on the second reading of this Bill he had certainly, with reference to this part of the Bill, stated that he did not think it so objectionable, because in other cases the State had been in the habit of lending money to landlords to drain their estates. There was, however, so much force in the obMr. Chichester Fortescue. jections urged by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), that he was anxious to hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in 1868 had denounced the folly and impolicy of the State placing itself in the position of an Irish landlord, had to say in support of the clause. If the Government found a tenant did not pay and ejected him, what would be the result? No one would dare to take the land, and it would be left tenantless upon the hands of the Government. Having granted this privilege, moreover, to Ireland, he could not see how a similar demand in the case of England and Scotland could be refused." MR. WREN-HOSKYNS said, that if hon. Gentlemen would study the two Blue Books which had been issued about the conditions on which land was held in different parts of Europe, they would find that the ownership of land in small quantities was one of the most conservative, valuable, and pacifying elements, which it was possible to introduce into a State. He was disposed to think that when all the rest of the Bill was forgotten in Ireland this part of it would be remembered with a feeling of gratitude to those who had proposed it. He looked with apprehension at the enormous aggregation of land in this country, and the prejudice which existed against small proprietors, and he should, therefore, heartily support the Government in a Division. COLONEL BARTTELOT said, he would ask the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Wren-Hoskyns) whether the system of small proprietors which he lauded so highly had proved successful in France? On the contrary, it was well known that the properties in that country were mortgaged to the chimney-tops. He believed that the same result would be produced in Ireland under the operation of this clause. Tenants, anxious to get hold of their land, would borrow from their neighbours or friends the money with which to pay the first instalment, and they would thus set out in their career clogged by a debt that they would never be able to pay off. This provision would not prove a blessing, but a curse to Ireland, and he should, therefore, support the Amendment. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had endeavoured to show that the money to be paid in in terest would not be equal to the rent to the clause was grounded on the plain which was now paid. That might or and intelligible principle that it was not might not be the case, though his own the duty of the State to interfere in the impression was different from that of the consolidation of large estates or in their right hon. Gentleman. But who was going disintegration. The result of his obto pay the county cess, the tithes of the servation-which was not founded upon newly-purchased estate, the poor rates, Blue Books-of the subdivision of land and other charges? Who would pay in foreign countries led him to a very for looking into the title of the landlord? different conclusion to that of his hon. He entirely agreed with the noble Lord Friend (Mr. Wren-Hoskyns). (Lord Elcho), who had said if this was to be done for Ireland, it could not, and ought not to be refused to England and Scotland; indeed, all the arguments in the case of the former country might be used with much greater force in regard to the latter. For his own part, when order and security prevailed once more in Ireland, when the Government found it possible to withdraw their troops and to diminish the police, he should be more disposed than he was now to give his assent to this experiment being tried. MR. TIPPING said, he would ask whether the effect of the proposed advances for the acquisition of land in Ireland would not be to multiply the number of families upon the soil in that country? The diminutions that took place in the families of peasant proprietors was a point well worthy of consideration when it was proposed to pass a clause of this nature. In France it had been found that within the last 20 years the average number of children constituting the family of the peasant proprietor had decreased by one-half. The prosperity of the country under this system was essentially attributable to that fact, and the same result was observable, more or less, in Belgium and Germany. It was true that in the more favoured regions of France--of garden soil and in the wine districts-subdivision worked successfully. In the region near Blois he had found that as much as £130,000 or £140,000 had been placed in the bank by the small proprietors. But it was a failure in districts where the soil and climate more nearly resembled our own; the condition of the peasant proprietors in those regions being decidedly inferior to that of our agricultural population, while the births of children had dwindled so much that it was seriously recommended that premiums should be offered to those who could show the largest families. MR. J. HOWARD said, his objection MR. G. B. GREGORY said, he thought the practical effect of the clause would be to make a free gift of a very large sum of money to the landlords of Ireland; for he considered it certain that the tenants would, in the great majority of cases, never be able to complete the payment for their land. MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUN said, he should vote with the hon. Baronet (Sir George Jenkinson) if he pressed his Amendment to a Division. A sense of duty to his constituents would compel him to oppose this waste of the public money. The First Minister of the Crown had argued that what made the people of Ireland desire to purchase land was the want of a sufficient security of tenure. But what was the use of this Bill, or of the 3rd clause of it, if not to give security of tenure? If the Bill became law, tenants in Ireland would have a much greater security than the same class in England or Scotland. MR. CORRANCE said, there were a hundred good reasons why they should not go to a Division, and one good reason why they should; and that was that they had not yet had a speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though in the early part of the evening he (Mr. Corrance) had quoted the opinions expressed some time since by the right hon. Gentleman. They had been told by the First Minister of the Crown that this was avowedly an experiment, and that he relied upon its success for the pacification of Ireland. He (Mr. Corrance) had already given his reasons for doubting that it would be successful. They had been told that the House of Commons would possess the power of limiting the expenditure of the public money in the way proposed by the clause. But that power now existed, and how were they about to exercise it? The proper time to exercise the power was now that the power was before them. If the Government wanted £1,000,000 this year, what was there to prevent them from 2 C [Committee-Clause 41. demanding £2,000,000 next year? By this experiment they were about to violate all the great principles by which a State should be governed. MR. WHALLEY said, he considered this clause held out a direct premium to conspiracy, murder, and outrage in Ireland. ["Order! order!"] The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had not satisfactorily explained the grounds on which he based his expectation that this part of the Bill would produce contentment, happiness, and peace in Ireland. For his own part, he feared that the Irish mind would draw from this particular concession, as it had drawn from many previous ones, a fresh incentive to turbulence and crime. SIR GEORGE JENKINSON said, he could not accede to the request that he would not divide, because the question before them was an important one of principle. He must divide the Committee, because he was answerable to his constituents, and because other English and Scotch Members would also have to answer to their constituents if MR. STAPLETON said, that the present system of agriculture might become exploded, and then the hon. Member's definition would have to be amended by another Act of Parliament. MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, that if a perfect definition could be devised it would be acceptable; but he thought perfection had not been attained in the hon. Member's Amendment. MR. M'LAGAN said, he noticed the omission of guano in the Amendment, and asked how it could be regarded as a perfect definition without. MR. CORRANCE said, he had purposely omitted guano. Amendment negatived. Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 67 agreed to. Clause 68 (Application of Act). SIR JOHN GRAY said, he had put they sanctioned the proposed appropria-effect that the Act should apply to every on the Paper an Amendment to the tion of Imperial funds. Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill." The Committee divided:-Ayes 114; Noes 27: Majority 87. Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 42 to 65, inclusive, agreed to. Clause 66 (Special Definititions). MR. WREN-HOSKYNS said, he would propose, in line 38, after "tillages," to insert "That is to say, acts of husbandry other than tenant, of any class, to which its provisions are applicable, who was in occupation of a holding on the first day of the present Session. He did not intend to press that Amendment, but offered it as a suggestion to the Government. MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, he thought that, unless a very strong case could be made out for the Amendment, the Committee should not entertain it, as it would cause ill feeling. MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING said, that, in anticipation of this Act, notices were served last November, to expire on manuring done in the last year of the tenancy for the 1st of May inst., and unless there the benefit of the succeeding occupier;" After "manures," to insert "That is to say, any farm manure or compost unused and left on the farm, or any lime, or bones, or marl used on the farm in the last four years of the occupancy, which shall be considered to be exhausted in equal proportion in each of such four years." was some provision in the Bill such tenants would be deprived of the benefit of the Act. To his own knowledge there were 200 such cases. MR. GLADSTONE said, that if there were any considerable number of such cases it would be necessary for the Government to consider the subject; MR. M MAHON said, he hoped the but at present no facts of sufficient graGovernment would not adopt the Amend-vity had been made known to the Go ment. MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, he thought it very undesirable to limit the discretion of the Court in the interpretation of the words. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. vernment to warrant them in dealing with it. The giving of a notice last November, in anticipation of the Bill, seemed to him to be a very wild and speculative action; but even if a tenant had quitted this month, the land lord did not intend to take the holding that the knowledge of persons being into his own possession; it must, there- well secured in their rights would go far fore, pass to another tenant, who would to dispense with litigation altogether, come under the operation of the Bill. while there were different circumstances He therefore did not understand what which applied to various parts of the benefit the landlord would derive, nor country, and cases arising under the Bill what could be his inducement to give might be very rare or very serious in different provinces. the notice. DR. BALL said, the Bill would operate on all subsisting tenancies, and he, therefore, thought that the Government were not called upon to take any particular action, or to make any such alteration as that which had been suggested. A notice could not have been given last November in anticipation of this Bill, because neither a landlord nor any other person in Ireland ever dreamt that the Government would introduce such a Bill as that now before the Committee. With respect, however, to the clause relating to the Judges who were to administer this Bill, he wished to suggest to the Government the propriety of considering, before the Report, whether, instead of leaving the additional amount of salary to be settled afterwards by the Lord Lieutenant, or the Treasury, or any other arbitrary tribunal, it could not be settled by the Bill. The Judges would thereby be placed in an independent position, and additional confidence would be felt by the public. MR. GLADSTONE said, the Government had considered this question, in which there were two points involved; the first was as to the sort of addition that should be made to the salaries of the Judges; and the second was, from what source, and through what channel, should that increase be given-whether it should be from the Consolidated Fund, or be dependent on the annual Votes of the House. With regard to the Consolidated Fund, it was rather a question of dignity than of substance, because the charge in one case was not less secure than in the other; but there would be no objection on the part of the Government to the addition being drawn from that source. As to the amount, it was not possible for the Government to determine that at the present time, because it was not known whether the Judges would have much or little more business under the Bill. Some persons supposed that after the Bill passed Ireland would be a hive of litigation, while others were sanguine enough to believe Clause agreed to. MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE proposed to insert the following clause after Clause 1 :— (Legality of tenant custom other than Ulster custom.) within the Province of Ulster, it shall appear that "If, in the case of any holding not situate an usage prevails which in all essential particulars corresponds with the Ulster tenant-right custom, it shall, in like manner, and subject to the like conditions, be deemed legal, and shall be enforced in manner provided by this Act. "Where the landlord has purchased or shall hereafter purchase from the tenant the benefit of such usage as aforesaid to which his holding is subject, such holding shall thenceforth cease to be subject to such usage. "A tenant of any holding subject to such usage as aforesaid, and who claims the benefit of the same, shall not be entitled to claim compensation under any other section of this Act; but a tenant of a holding not claiming the benefit of such usage shall not be barred from making a claim for compensation, with the consent of the Court, under any of the other sections of this Act, and where such last-mentioned claim has been made and allowed, such holding shall not be again subject to such usage as aforesaid." Clause brought up and read a first and second time. MR. SYNAN said, he would beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed clause, after "with," to insert "the usages, or any of them, existing in the Province of Ulster, and commonly known as." His object was to make the clause conformable with the 1st clause, and to narrow the issue to be brought before the Court. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DowSE) said, he must object to the Amendment as unnecessary. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, he would beg to propose, after Clause 3 to insert the following clause :-— (Satisfaction from incoming tenants.) "Where the tenant of any holding is disturbed by the act of the landlord he shall not be entitled to any compensation under section three of this Act when it appears to the Court that such tenant has been given permission by the landlord to obtain from an incoming tenant satisfaction in lieu of 2 C 2 [Committee-New Clause. Notice was given of this clause about three weeks ago, and it was then considered to provide a fair alternative to be given to the landlord. MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING said, he thought the 3rd clause sufficient in itself without the addition of the proposed new clause, which he conceived was calculated to lead to litigation. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DowSE) said, that this clause was not absolutely necessary, but it was modelled on the provisions of other clauses, and the Court would have to determine whether the terms of the transaction were just. of a preserver of the public peace and order, which he had always regarded, speaking as a landlord, as one of their most important duties. By Clause 3 they imposed a heavy fine upon a landlord if, for the purposes of peace and order, he disturbed a tenant for gross misconduct. That was bad enough; but without some such proviso as he proposed the landlord would for the future cease to have a voice in the selection of those who were to be his tenants. The very worst characters might be forced upon him, to get rid of whom he would have to incur all the penalties in Clause 3, although they might have been brought in upon his estate in direct opposition to his will. It was taking from the landlord a power which he never could use harshly, as its being used at all would depend upon the tenant's own wish; but which gave him a most salutary and essential influence MR. O'REILLY said, he thought that the arrangement contemplated was one which did not require to be authorized by a clause in an Act of Parliament. in keeping objectionable persons off his MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE | said, he agreed with the hon. Member that the clause was unnecessary, and that it was advisable the arrangement should be made out of Court. He had no desire to press the clause. Clause negatived. MR. KAVANAGH said, that, in consequence of the course taken by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in withdrawing his clause, he would have to move as a new clause the Amendment of which he had given Notice, as an addition to that which was withdrawn. He begged to move the following clause to follow Clause 3: "Provided always, That in the event of any tenant holding from year to year, assigning his interest in his holding without the knowledge and consent of his landlord, the tenant coming into possession of such holding shall not be entitled to any compensation under Clause 3 of this Act, if evicted within one year from the date of the making of such assignment, or of his taking possession of such holding." He thought this clause was required, because as the Bill now stood it would be quite competent for any tenant-at-will to assign over his holding to anyone he chose without even consulting his landlord. It was not easy at first to realize to the full the dangerous nature of such a principle. He would endeavour in a few words to explain it, leaving the rights of property out of the question for the present. By giving a tenant this power they struck a fatal blow at a landlord in his capacity Mr. Chichester Fortescue property. Even if it were not unjust it would seem to be most unwise; but, regarding it by test of justice, it appeared to be one of the greatest blots in this measure, an unwarrantable violation of the rights of property, and perfectly indefensible on the plea of being requisite for the proper working of this Bill, unless the Bill contained some hidden principle which Her Majesty's Government had not had the candour to avow. As far as his knowledge of its nature and purpose went, he regarded it as having for its object the securing to a tenant the value of his improvements, and affording him protection against capricious eviction. They had already granted that. But he wanted to know upon what plea it could be urged that it was, he would not say right, but even expedient, to give a tenant power to dispose of what was not his to whom he liked. It was one thing to protect him in his existing interest; it was a widely different matter to give him the power to assign over to another-without the knowledge and consent of the real owner those interests which only upon the plea of expediency were his so long as he was individually content to enjoy them. To give one man the power to give away or dispose of what belonged to another, not only without the knowledge, but contrary to the wishes of the rightful owner, was a doctrine which he could hardly believe it would be possible to have raised in that House. He did not |