a vast number of matters, whether rea- | Court at all unless the landlord joined sonable or unreasonable, it would be out in the application. If the tenant alone of place to step in and take questions made an application to the Court it would out of their view. The whole object of be refused, not on the ground that the the Amendment was to place these ques- landlord had unreasonably refused to tions entirely beyond the Court, who join in it, but on the ground that the were to have nothing to say on the sub- landlord did not join in it, and thereject. He understood the argument of fore the provisions of the section did not the right hon. Gentleman opposite to be apply and could not be acted on. It that the Court could, if they considered was always dangerous to put a provision the conduct of the landlord unreasonable, of this kind in one place and not in make the acceptance of this clause com- another, and no case had been suggested pulsory upon him. That was an impor- of any application to the landlord to tant question which could not be decided which this clause had any reference. that night. It was a complete departure The Government need not be charged from the object of the clause as they with any sinister motive. were led to understand by the Government in the first instance. There had been no explanation from the Government, and, in order to give the Government time to consider this new phase of the matter, he would move to report Progress.

MR. W. E. FORSTER said, he thought the hon. Member would hardly mean to insist upon his Motion.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL hoped Progress would be reported to give the Government time to consider this question. One reason for the Amendment was the object it had effected namely, to show the cloven hoof. This was the beautiful voluntary arrangement of the Government. If the landlord did not accept the clause, the matter was to be referred to the Court, to say whether he was right or wrong. Then, the Government desired it to be purely voluntary; but it was nothing of the kind, and he was glad that that had been discovered.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) thought the noble Lord was under a misapprehension, and did not realize what were the cases in which the conduct of the landlord would come before the Court. It would be difficult to suggest any application which the landlord could make to the Court, which it would be possible for the Court to refuse on the ground that the landlord had not entered into this arrangement, because the reasonableness of such proposed arrangement or conduct did not come before the

Mr. Chaplin

MR. WARTON hoped the Motion would not be pressed, because he did not think the Amendment would be out of place in this case.

MR. PARNELL said, he could not pretend to even guess whether the refusal of the landlord to consent to a pro

posal of the tenant with regard to arrears could be considered by the Court as unreasonable conduct; but he should like to put a case which had not presented itself to the noble Lord. The Amendment did not alter the Bill in the slightest degree in regard to the Court refusing an application of the landlord, on the ground that his refusal to agree to the tenant's proposal was unreasonable. Nor could it be said to alter the position of the landlord. This clause provided that in the event of the landlord and tenant agreeing to an application, the Court should make an advance to the tenant of one year's rent, in order that he might pay the landlord one year's rent; and he did not think the noble Lord was right in asking on behalf of the landlords that the Bill should be altered. The Bill gave the landlord benefits and also the tenant, by advancing one year's rent as arrears; and if the landlord refused to make this arrangement with the tenant he was taken out of the operation of the Bill. With regard to the action of the Court as to what was unreasonable, it simply empowered the Court to give an advance of one year's rent, and he did not see how any claim could be set up by the landlord if he was liable as the Bill stood to have his conduct considered unreasonable.

MR. W. E. FORSTER said, he would promise that the Government would consider this matter on Report. He wished to point out that if a tenant was unable

to pay, and the landlord applied to the | prejudiced by anything that happened Court, the tenant could apply to the in regard to this offer. He did not think Court to stay ejectment, and the Court that the landlord or the tenant should could stay ejectment whether there was be put in a worse legal position, and, a judicial term or not. If a tenant did if necessary, he would prepare words not pay, the landlord would evict him; putting that point beyond question. but the tenant could plead that he could But, for his own part, he did not think have paid the rent if the landlord had it was necessary. It was not intended, made an arrangement such as that pro- under the section, that the offer should posed by the Government. be more than a voluntary one, and the Government did not wish that either party should suffer because of a non

MR. MACARTNEY said, he believed the clause would be almost obligatory, because although it said that the land-acceptance of the offer. lord and tenant might agree to go into Court, if the landlord objected to do so he would be held up to public opprobrium. Still, he accepted the clause, because it was advantageous to the country; and he believed nothing could be more detrimental to the country than to leave the tenants with a kind of millstone round their necks, with five or six years' of arrears which they could not possibly pay. He thought the landlords would accept this clause, although at a loss.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL said, he would raise the matter again on Report.

MR. CHAPLIN explained that he had not moved his Motion to delay the Bill, but because he was most anxious that this point should be cleared up before further progress was made. If the Committee would recollect how many cases had happened since 1870, he thought they would admit the propriety of the course he had taken. When he first read the words "the joint application of the two," he thought them satisfactory; but his views had been entirely swept away by the two speeches of the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite, which appeared to indicate that in certain circumstances the Court might be called upon to decide on the unreasonableness or reasonableness of the case

before it, and if that were done it would entirely alter the Bill. If the Government would consent to do this, either at the present stage or on another stage of the Bill, and make it perfectly clear that under no circumstances would the conduct of the landlord be called

into account as to the reasonableness or unreasonableness of his decision, then he would withdraw his Motion. It should be a purely voluntary arrangement on the part of the landlord with which the Court should have nothing to do.

MR. W. E. FORSTER said, it was entirely the intention of the Government that neither party should be in any way

MR. W. E. FORSTER said, he would consider as to whether there was any doubt as to the intention of the Government having been fulfilled. That intention was that neither party should be damaged by not accepting the offer.

MR. CHAPLIN said, he was ready to accept the assurance that the Government would make it quite clear that the offer was to be a voluntary one, and would insert words to that effect, if necessary, and begged to withdraw his Motion.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL said, he would withdraw his Amendment. Of course, if there were not some words of limitation the Court would hold that it had jurisdiction.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.”—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER said, there was only one other Government clause; but as he understood the Prime Minister would prefer to move it himself, he would agree to the Motion.

MR. HEALY said, it would be convenient to have the Bill re-printed with the Amendments, so far as it had gone, for there would be but a short interval for consideration before Report.

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

RIVERS CONSERVANCY AND FLOODS PUBLIC LOANS (IRELAND) REMISSION PREVENTION (re-committed) BILL.

(Mr. Dodson.)

[Lords.] [BILL 120.] COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read.

MR. PELL said, would it not be more convenient to take a later day than Monday for the Bill? It was understood that, after the Land Bill, Supply would be proceeded with, and the Transvaal question came on for discussion on Monday. There were a great many objections to the Bill, and it had been blocked by Notices of opposition. Would it not be better to put it down for a day when there would be some probability of it being reached?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, the Bill would be put down for Monday, not with any intention or expectation of its being taken then, but simply because it was a more convenient method of dealing with the Orders.

MR. PELL said, if hon. Members had the assurance of that, there was no objection.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he could give that assurance.

Committee deferred till Monday next.

Order for Second Reading read. THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN) said, when this Bill was last mentioned he was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander) whether the Government intended to proceed with it. The Bill had been brought in at the request of Members from Scotland, and the only Notice of Amendment was not from a Member of that part of the country. He did not like to abandon the hope of proceeding with the Bill, but, unless progress was made with it within the next few days, it would have to be dropped.

BILL. [BILL 212.]

(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Frederick

Cavendish.)

COMMITTEE.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."-(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)

stood that although Notice of opposition stood that although Notice of opposition had been placed against this Bill, it being a Money Bill, the Notice did not prevent it being taken.

MR. RYLANDS said, that he under

MR. SPEAKER: As the hon. Mem

ber is aware, the Resolution with regard
to opposed Business does not apply to
Money Bills; and, therefore, does not
apply in this instance.

stood that, and he rose in the full belief
MR. RYLANDS said, he quite under-
that it was competent for the House to
consider this Bill and resolve itself into
Committee. His object in rising was
that he thought the House should not
proceed with the Bill without distinctly
understanding the remarkable circum-
stances under which it was rendered ne-
cessary. The Bill was read a second
time at 2 or 3 in the morning, and the
Government gave no explanation of it,
nor were they asked to do so; but sub-
sequently to the second reading a Paper
had been issued giving the history of
the transactions under which the House
was called upon to pass
the Bill, and to
wipe off as a bad debt no less than
£1,200,000 advanced under an Act of
Parliament 50 years ago to relieve the
tithe owners of Ireland. The owners of

the tithes in Ireland at that time were in great difficulties arising out of the collection of tithes, and applied to the Government to render them assistance, which the Government did by advancing on loan large sums of money. These loans were chargeable on the tithes, and the tithe owners undertook to repay them in five annual instalments. The Government, with great benevolence, allowed them £1,000,000 without interest. But the point he wished to draw attention to was this. He was quite sure that if Parliament in those days had been asked to make a grant to the Church of Ireland, that would have been refused, no Second Reading deferred till Monday doubt, by the House of Commons as next. unreasonable, as the Church of Ireland,

and to the House not to lightly lend money without at the same time taking care that there was sufficient security for repayment to prevent the country ultimately becoming such a great loser.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH said, the hon. Member had done good service in calling attention to the large remissions in the Bill, and pressing on the attention of the House the danger of making these loans. In looking back at the debates that occurred when the last of these loans was made, he did not find that it strongly excited the attention of the then House of Commons. It was quite clear at that time that there was small doubt that the money would be recovered. It had stood in the accounts as a good debt until the present time, and he did not think it was altogether creditable to the national book-keeping that it should have stood so long on the books when so few payments had been made during the last 40 years. As to recovering it from the clergy, that was absolutely out of the question. Whether, on the other hand, it would have been wise to make it a charge on the Church Surplus Fund he would not say; but it could not be done now, and he believed the best course would be to do what any good business man would do

with its endowments, then existed. But
it was advanced in the form of a loan,
and his complaint was that whoever were
responsible for seeing the provisions of
that Act of Parliament carried out, and
that the loan was repaid in five yearly
instalments, were guilty of a gross
breach of duty in not seeing that the
payments were made. Parliament
granted the loan for purposes and upon
security with which it was satisfied;
but if a Public Department was to act
in the manner it had acted with regard
to this large sum of money, then the
House of Commons had not the slightest
guarantee that when large sums of
money were advanced to Ireland that
they would ever be repaid; and he ven-
tured to declare that a transaction so
extraordinary was a discredit to every
Government Department charged with
the application of the public money. Of
course, after a number of years, this sum
of money raised by the issue of Exche-
quer Bills was funded, and appeared to
have gone out of the view of Parliament,
and now Parliament was asked to write
it off as a bad debt. In his opinion,
this sum should have been made the first
charge on the Irish Church Surplus, and
it was a matter of wonder to him that at
the time of the Irish Church Act nothing
was done to secure the payment of this-wipe off the debt.
sum. It was entirely overlooked in
1870, and since then Parliament had
been making use of the Church Surplus
for various purposes, amongst the rest
to assist landlords by letting them have
loans from the Church Surplus at ab-
surdly low rates of interest, and, at the
same time, this large sum of money was
reasonably the first charge on the Sur-
plus. The Treasury said they considered
it their duty to be vigilant in vindicating
the rights of the State, otherwise grants
of public money would be obtained
where Parliament had no intention of
making such grants, and with that he
quite agreed; but where had been the
vigilance in this case, and what did they
do to get the money ? If it was the
duty of the Department to look after the
public money, he did not think the
House should be willing to agree to a
Bill to wipe off such a sum as a bad
debt. At all events, he had called at-
tention to the remarkable circumstances
of the case, so discreditable to the ad-
ministrators of the public funds, and it
should be a warning to the Government

MR. A. J. BALFOUR said, he supposed it would be admitted it was a bad debt. The noble Lord was placed in an unfortunate position, having to bring in a Bill for the remission of an old loan on the very night when the Government, against a strong opposition, was pressing the expediency of granting a new loan.

MR. HEALY said, it was the friends of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) who were the cause of the Bill. This £1,000,000 went to the Irish landlords, and it was because of that that the House was now called upon to make the remission. Two years ago, under the Relief Act, another loan was made to the landlords out of the Church Surplus Fund, and he would venture to say that at some future date the State would have to make this good. All the money went to the landlords, not a penny of it to the tenants, and the Irish people continued to pay the tithes till they were extinguished. If these loans had been made to the tenants, they would have been screwed out to the uttermost

farthing without mercy, and the tenants would have been turned off to America or elsewhere.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH remarked, that these loans were not made to landlords, but to the persons interested until the arrears of tithes could be raised.

MR. HEALY said, the loans were not made directly to the landlords, but it was the compensation under which they undertook to pay the tithes.

Motion agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

STATUTE LAW REVISION AND CIVIL
PROCEDURE BILL-[Lords.]

(Mr. Attorney General.)
[BILL 219.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.

persons did not disperse at the summons of a justice they were liable to sentence of death. Of course, this portion of the Act was never carried into effect; but there were other portions of statutes which were almost as inimical to the spirit of the times, and were made use of by the Law Officers under barbarous statutes that had never been repealed. The Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman, the hon. Baronet the Member for Bath, had put down a blocking Notice against the Whiteboy Acts Repeal Bill; and as the Government had treated him in that scurvy manner, he thought he was within his rights and equities in treating them in a somewhat similar manner. He objected to this Bill, and, if in Order, he would move the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." -(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)

MR. WARTON asked whether it was not the case that if the Bill was not

Motion made, and Question proposed, printed it could not be brought for

"That the Bill be now read a second time."(Mr. Attorney General.)

MR. WARTON objected.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) said, he hoped the objection would not be pressed. The Bill was simply to repeal several obsolete statutes that had fallen into disuse, and they were mentioned in the Schedule. These had been reported upon by the Statute Law Revision Committee, and the Lord Chancellor had gone carefully through them. It was only want of time that had prevented the Bill being brought forward earlier.

MR. WARTON said, he objected on principle. This was the eighth or ninth time that the Government had proposed important Bills at such an hour.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR asked if among the obsolete statutes, any Irish Acts were included? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) said, the Bill did not apply to Scotland or Ireland.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR said, he did not know whether he had any right to oppose them; but he should certainly oppose the Bill. He had himself ventured to bring in a Bill for the repealing of some Acts that still existed in Ireland, and which contained, among others, a provision that if an assemblage of 12

Mr. Healy

ward?

MR. SPEAKER: I cannot say so positively.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT thought the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had misapprehended the object of this Act. There were two forms of this repealing Act; but no question of policy was now involved, and as the useful work done under this Act had gone on so long, and that the end of the Session was near, he hoped the House would pass the second reading.

MR. DILLWYN stated that the Bill had been printed. Its object was to repeal obsolete Acts, and he thought the object of the House should be to clear the Statute Book of those Acts.

MR. HEALY said, that the object of his hon. Friend's Bill was to repeal what were not operative Acts. The Whiteboy Acts were not operative till the present Chief Secretary made them so, and did him (Mr. Healy) the honour of trying him under those Acts, by which he might have been sent to penal servitude for life, and twice or thrice privately whipped. He should support the Motion; and he would ask the Government what advantage they would gain by reading the Bill a second time, now seeing that it would be blocked for Committee.