cottier tenants for non- payment of great political crisis, or for any grave arrears. One great object of the Go- quarrel between the two Houses. It was vernment was to stop the evictions, and hardly sufficient for that, although he the other was to enable the tenants to thought it was quite clear, at the get into the Court; and, in connection same time, that it was a matter in with those two points, what would be which the Government could hardly the effect of the Amendment under be expected to go further than they notice? Why, it would put it in the had gone. He only alluded to the power of any landlord to prevent them possibility of another result on account from getting into the Court, and to evict of what he could see would be the most them from the estate. In some cases, it serious and alarming consequences in was the interest of the landlord, and not | Ireland. At present, matters were mere caprice, to prefer getting pos- better in that country, and he must consession of the land and to get rid of the gratulate his right hon. Friend and Suctenant, instead of obtaining one year's cessor (Mr. Trevelyan), who, he thought, rent from the taxpayers and one year's had an easier time before him. Somerent from the tenant. He need not now times he fancied he saw symptoms of go again into the argument as to whe- considerable improvement in the state of ther the landlord ought to be prevented Ireland. But would hon. Members confrom so securing his own interest. He sider what would be the effect in the had watched carefully what had been immediate future if, after the Governsaid in both Houses, and he did not find ment had thought it right to bring forthat anybody had advocated that the ward such a Bill as this, to meet the landlords should take that course. He particular cases which he had described, heard the remarks of Lord Salisbury, the Bill were lost altogether-which he who had taken the most prominent part was glad to think was practically imin this question in the other House, and possible-or that it should be so who treated any attempt by a landlord amended in the manner desired by the to clear his estate as a matter of caprice House of Lords, as really to lose all its and wantonness, of hardship and of power, and lead to the eviction of tenviolence, which his Lordship did not be- ants who were unable to pay, not lieve any landlord would commit. But through dishonesty, but simply from the there were many landlords who would great distress with which they had been consider it merely their duty to improve visited two or three years ago? their estates by evicting those who were unable to pay their rents. But what they had to consider was, whether it was for the interest of the State, for the interest of peace and order in Ireland, that there should be these evictions on a large scale? Parliament had come to the conclusion that it was not, and had called on the people of England, through their Representatives, to make every possible sacrifice in order to prevent these evictions. The Lords Amendment would make that sacrifice of no use. It would put it in the power of a landlord to act just as if the Bill had not been passed, for many of the cases for which the Bill had been brought in would be the very cases in which this Amendment would be brought into operation. He could not say how glad he was to see the spirit in which this matter had been dealt with by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson). He was convinced there was a general feeling that this was not a matter for any

MR. CHAPLIN said, the right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken (Mr. W. E. Forster) seemed to base his objections to the Lords Amendment on the effect it would have on the poor tenants who could not pay their rents; but he (Mr. Chaplin) failed to see how the case of the poor tenants would be made worse by the Amendment. One of the essential conditions of the Bill was that they were to pay down a twelvemonth's rent. How was it possible they could pay that if they were in the position described by the right hon. Gentleman? If that were the case, the sole ground of the right hon. Gentleman's object would be cut away. He (Mr. Chaplin) should support the Amendment of the Lords on another ground, because it removed what, according to the admission of Members of the Government themselves, constituted the most demoralizing tendency of this measure. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) was now advocating the principle of compulsion, when, with his

MR.W. E. FORSTER remarked, that he had used these words in regard to a measure in which there was no necessity for proof of inability to pay.

obtain

own mouth, he told them last Session | whether the Bill should be put in mothat any measure of compulsion was not tion only upon the action of the landlord only demoralizing, but very demoraliz- and tenant, if they were to adopt the ing. So far as he (Mr. Chaplin) re- Amendment of the Lords, that would membered, the sense of the words used completely deprive the Bill of any force by the right hon. Gentleman were—“ To or efficacy. When it was said it was force upon either Party a measure of impossible to adduce evidence of the this kind would not only be demoraliz- ability or inability of a tenant to pay, ing, but very demoralizing indeed." it was forgotten that the Judges of the Those words of the right hon. Gentle- High Court of this country were every man were well known. day engaged in inquiries of that kind. In Chambers, particularly, they had to deal with judgment debtor summonses, which raised questions that it was now contended it was impossible for any tribunal to decide; and not only so, but they did it under conditions that were by no means favourable, for the evidence consisted mainly of affidavits, while those who administered this Bill would have every means of sifting the cases-they could summon witnesses and whatever materials they thought necessary to the formation of an accurate judgment. Moreover, it was, in the first place, a primary condition of the application of the first clauses of the Bill, that the inability of the tenant to pay should be established to the satisfaction of the Court; and if the inability of the tenant was clearly proved, was the landlord to be able to deprive the tenant of free access to the Court under the Act of 1881? Was it to held that the landlord should be allowed, to the detriment of, and interference with, the peace of the country, to pursue the strict limit of right which the law had given him? It was said that in dealing with questions which affected large classes, Parliament should not legislate for exceptions, but for majorities; but it was also admitted by a noble Lord in "another place" that the Lords Amendment would not touch 99 out of 100 cases; and at the Conservative meeting held yesterday at Hatfield it was said by the Marquess of Salisbury that the question raised was not one of great practical importance. And it was certain that in Ireland the Amendment would be regarded with the greatest possible distrust, therefore he did not see why the House of Commons should be asked to adopt it. Having regard to the action of the House of Lords with reference to the Land Act of 1870 and the Compensation for Disturbance Bill of 1880, which Ministers responsible for the government of Ireland thought necessary for the preservation

MR. CHAPLIN said, that raised another question. It was quite true that all of the essential conditions of the Bill were proof of inability to pay; but that was also a question to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded last Session. But what was his view upon that point? Why, that to give to the Court, or to anyone, the power of ascertaining who could or could not pay would be to impose upon the Court an impossible task. On that ground, also, he (Mr. Chaplin) should support the Amendment, because he was anxious to see this provision of inability a real, and not a sham, condition to the benefits of the Bill, and he thought that might be effected by the House accepting the Lords Amendment. If the joint application of the two parties were required, probably the information obtained from the landlord would be the best evidence procurable of the tenant's ability to pay. When hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House declared that this measure was absolutely necessary in the interests of peace and prosperity in Ireland, they must forgive hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Opposition side if they did not place implicit trust in their promises. Ever since he (Mr. Chaplin) himself had been in the House, when Irish measures had been introduced by a Liberal Government, they had always been accompanied by assurances of perfect success, and in every instance, he might say, the results had been disastrous.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL said, he did not see any objection to the proposal of the Government, requiring a 10 days' notice from either of the parties, seeing that it was reasonable in the interests of both, and a proposition which could not generally lead to injurious consequences. But, as regarded the graver question,

Mr. Chaplin

of the peace of the country, any yielding | suspected of a rather hard-hearted desire now on the part of the House would to improve their estates, irrespective of have disastrous consequences. The Bill the results to their tenants. He would was not brought forward in the interests not venture to say a word in defence of of landlords only or of tenants only; such landlords, certainly not a word more and, from the letters he had received, than had been said by the right hon. he did not believe that any considerable Gentleman the Member for Bradford; section of landlords in Ireland viewed but it was a question of political economy the Amendment of the Lords with how far they were justified in giving great favour. The Bill subserved the temporary relief to the tenants of such interests of both landlords and tenants, landlords. A gift of £10, £5, or less, and it was proposed, above all, in the would not rehabilitate a man in a state interests of tranquillity. After the dis- of destitution; so that this question would astrous years experienced by Irish far- come up again year after year, and they mers, it was incumbent on Parliament would have Session after Session devoted to give Irish tenants the chance of a new to further remedial legislation, which starting-point, as proposed by the Bill; might be avoided by adopting the Lords and for that reason he hoped the House Amendment. The result would be that would reject the Lords Amendment. before long they might wish they had Remedial legislation had not yet had a relieved themselves of the responsibility fair chance, for these arrears obstructed they were now undertaking. the entrance to the Court, upon which everything depended, and until that was secured the position to those who owed arrears was the same as if the Land Act had never been passed.

MR. RAIKES said, there was one consideration which had not been pressed very much by hon. Gentlemen from his (Mr. Raikes's) own side of the House, and that was the taxpayers' view of this question. It seemed to him that, by the measure, they were asked to be generous to a certain class of people in Ireland; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) seemed to forget the importance of being just before they were generous. They were asked to deprive themselves of the best method they could possess of sifting the claims made upon the British Exchequer and determining that public money should be used only to meet destitution. If they could secure, on the side of the Government, the natural selfinterest of the landlord, they would have the best protection they could have for the British Exchequer. But if they were to rely, as the Government proposed, upon the judgment of the SubCommissioners, who could not know as much of the circumstances of the tenants as the landlords did, they would lack the perfect security of the enlightened self-love of the landlords, who would not refuse a good composition in the case of a tenant whom they knew to be insolvent. But there were some landlords of a different kind-what were called improving landlords. These landlords were

COLONEL NOLAN said, that he was among his constituents when the Bill was in the House of Lords, and he was assured that it would not be worth having with the Amendment of the Lords in it. If it were allowed to remain, the Bill would be worse than useless.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY said, he did not question the motives of the House of Lords in regard to the Amendment; and, so far as it was intended to secure that only those tenants who really could not pay should take advantage of the Bill, he sympathized with it. It was said that if the landlord could get 10s. in the pound, he would be willing to take it; but he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) could assure the House that there were many landlords to whom the exercise of absolute power was much dearer than the pecuniary benefit to be derived from the payment of 10s. in the pound. On the other hand, concessions were refused to tenants from mistaken notions of duty; and, in either case, the retention of the Amendment would operate most injudiciously. He knew landlords who, considering they were trustees for their infant children, would refuse to make any concession, on the ground that, by so doing, they would be perpetrating a fraud on their children. By disallowing the Lords Amendment, the House would not be casting any imputation upon the motives which prompted it.

MR. PARNELL said, he did not propose to discuss the question of option and compulsion at that moment, because it was manifest, from the appear

of the Amendment of the House of | Hildyard, T. B. T.

The House divided:-Ayes 157; Noes Newdegate, C. N.