sures unnecessarily. He thought hon. J it without knowing beforehand that it Members would agree with him that the was coming on. Government were justified in pressing on the Bill. MR. DILLWYN said his hon. and learned Friend's objection was not a matter of detail. The Government were seeking to take power to modify and rescind and alter regulations with regard to the sale of petroleum. Clause 3 said that one of the principal Secretaries of State might, from time to time, alter, repeal, and add to the regulations contained in the Act; so that, in point of fact, the clause gave power to the Government to alter the law which they were establishing in the other provisions of the Bill. He could not, therefore, think that any objection taken to the clause could well be called a matter of detail. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, the point raised was obviously a single point upon a single clause, and at that time of the Session he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow the Bill to proceed. MR. THOMASSON said, he would withdraw several Amendments he had proposed to move. MR. R. N. FOWLER suggested that Mr. Speaker should leave the Chair, and that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Courtney) should then consent to report Progress. SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG urged that the Bill should, at that time of the Session, be allowed to proceed. MR. WHITLEY said, he looked with considerable alarm upon the notion that men should be allowed to go about the streets with petroleum in carts; and he thought it would be well to report Progress now, because of the great importance of the Bill. The principle of the Bill was a very dangerous one, and he considered that such a Bill ought not to be discussed at 1 o'clock in the morning. MR. R. H. PAGET also thought it unreasonable to go on with the Bill at such an hour. The House had not had an opportunity of considering the Bill in order to see whether it in any way affected the amending Act passed a few years ago with regard to petroleum. He did not for a moment desire to obstruct the passing of Bills; but this was a Bill of such importance, that it would be unreasonable to ask the House to discuss Mr. Courtney MR. WÄRTON supported the proposal to defer the consideration of the Bill, observing that the point to which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had referred, and which the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had raised, was one of the most important points the House could have to consider. It was legislation by Secretaries of State. The House ought to regard that as a Constitutional question. The hawking of petroleum was a very objectionable practice altogether. Petroleum was a favourite engine of the ultra-Radical Party, and the House did not know for what purpose it might be used. They might have dynamite hawked about in small quantities. Who were the people who were expected to keep the stringent rules proposed? Common pedlars, who were not to be trusted. They knew how reckless men were with gunpowder; these pedlars would not understand, or, if they understood, would disregard and despise the rules. They, no doubt, smoked, and they would care much more for their smoke than for the public safety. MR. DUCKHAM complained that the Bill had been sprung upon the House. He had never seen or heard of it till tonight, and he thought an opportunity of reading a Bill of such an important character should be given to the House before any decision was taken upon it. He should, therefore, support the Motion for Adjournment. MR. COURTNEY said, there was every disposition on the part of the Government to give ample consideration to the Bill; but the Government were obliged, at that time of the year, to be guided by a common-sense view, and if the Speaker were not allowed to leave the Chair the House might be precluded from considering the Bill. If the Motion to go into Committee was agreed to, the Government would be ready to stop at any moment after the Speaker had left the Chair. Petroleum was at present hawked under licence, and this Bill only proposed to allow people to hawk it from one county into another. MR. HOPWOOD said, he would accept the offer of the hon. Gentleman, and would withdraw his Motion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Original Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee. Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday. SUPERANNUATION ACT (FOST OFFICE AND "That the Land Law (Ireland) Bill as origiOn Motion of Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH, the result of a revolutionary agitation, encounally introduced and amended in Committee is Bill to extend "The Superannuation Act Amendment Act, 1873," to certain persons rages the repudiation of contracts and liabilities, admitted into subordinate situations in the De-offends against individual liberty, is calculated partments of the Postmaster General and the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings, ordered to be brought in by Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH and Mr. JOHN HOLMS. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 228.] to diminish the security of property, will not contribute to the peace or prosperity of Ireland, and tends to endanger the union between that country and Great Britain." ORDER OF THE DAY. 1609 House adjourned at half LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.—[BILL 225.] after One o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Wednesday, 27th July, 1881. The House met;-And having gone through the Business on the Paper, without debate House adjourned at a quarter before Five HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, 27th July, 1881. Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, resumed. Clause 7 (Determination by Court of rent of present tenancies). MR. T. P. O'CONNOR, in moving, in the absence of Mr. PARNELL, to insert, in page 8, line 27, after the word "tenant," the words "Where an application is made by the landlord to the Court under this section in respect of any tenancy the tenant of which alleges that the landlord is an absentee, the Court may refuse to accede to the application if it is satisfied that the absence of the landlord from the estate is of such a character and extent as to disentitle him to an increased rent," said, some persons seemed to imagine that the proposal to give discretion to the Court had been rather sprung upon the House by the hon. Member for the MINUTES.]-SELECT COMMITTEE-Third Re- City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The quesport-Public Accounts [No. 350]. PUBLIC BILLS Ordered First Reading tion of absentee landlords was one of many questions connected with the land tenure of Ireland, which had been discussed over and over again, and introduced into that House repeatedly, but without many beneficial results. As far back as 1819, when a Tory Government was in full vigour, absenteeism had been so great an evil that a Select Committee of this House was appointed to inquire into it. That Committee reported at that time that it was the greatest of all the causes which tended to distress the agricultural prosperity of Ireland. He had seen the speeches of Lord George Bentinck, and this proposal did not go so far as the policy which the Leader of the Conservative Party and the landed interest recommended to be adopted with respect to Ireland in 1846. He hoped the House would, as one means of removing this great evil, draw this distinction between absentee and resident landlords. As a matter of fact, the estates of absentee landlords were those upon which the greatest amount of rack-renting existed; and he thought it was high time that something should be done to stop this, and thus to improve the condition of the labouring population of Ireland. Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 27, after the word "tenant," to insert the words "Where an application is made by the landlord to the Court under this section in respect of any tenancy, the tenant of which alleges that the landlord is an absentee, the Court may refuse to accede to the application if it is satisfied that the absence of the landlord from the estate is of such a character and extent as to disentitle him to an increased rent."(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted." MR. W. E. FORSTER said, it was impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment; but in making that statement he hoped the hon. Member, and the House generally, would not consider that the Government were at all unaware or forgetful of the great evil of the extent of absenteeism which existed in Ireland, and he supposed there was a general opinion that anything that could be done legitimately to check absenteeism would be an advantage. But it was almost impossible to do it by direct legislation. They might hope, by getting Ireland into a better condition, to induce landlords to remain more in that country, and perform their duties with regard to property more thoroughly; but that was a matter that could be furthered a good deal more outside the House than in it. He thought, in fact, that the Amendment itself showed the difficulty of checking absenteeism by direct legislation. The Bill provided that the Court should fix a fair rent, and the hon. Member proposed that if the landlord wished the Court to fix it, Mr. T. P. O'Connor it was not to do so because he was an absentee. He did not see why the fact of a landlord being an absentee should disentitle him to a fair rent for his holding. According to the Amendment the Court was to be satisfied that the absence of the landlord was to be of such a character and extent as to disentitle him to an increased rent. Those words clearly proved how impossible it would be to work the Amendment. It gave the Court no directions or guidance as to what should be the extent and character of absenteeism. It was an Amendment which the Government could not accept. MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD remarked, that absenteeism was, undoubtedly, a great evil in Ireland. So long ago as 1846 a former Leader of the Conservative Party (Lord George Bentinck) proposed that there should be two poor rates levied in Ireland, one on the occupiers, and the other on the owners of land who did not reside in Ireland for a certain period of the year. That was a definite proposition, and it proceeded upon a principle which he did not observe in the Amendment now before the House. He agreed very much with the remarks that had fallen from the Chief Secretary. It could not be contended that because a landlord was an absentee he should, therefore, not be in a position to obtain a fair rent. That was not, in his opinion, a just proposition. Irish absenteeism was an evil, and an evil which it was sought to get at by legislation. He believed it could only be got at by the compulsory purchase of estates of absentee proprietors. But, be that as it might, he could not consent to an Amendment that would leave to the Court a vague and indefinite reference which it would be impossible for the Commissioners to interpret in a satisfactory manner. MR. P. MARTIN said, he was of opinion that the Amendment was both wise and reasonable. Upwards of £6,000,000 left Ireland annually through absentee landlords; and if the Amendment was adopted he believed it would have the effect of diminishing this drain on the resources of the country. The remedy suggested by the Amendment was both useful and just. Indirectly it properly enforced residence as one of the conditions of the exercise of the rights conferred by the Bill on the entire land lord class. It was not unreasonable | less cause to complain of absenteeism in that it should be required for the pro- the future. tection of tenants that the proprietor should, before he demanded an increase of rent, be bound to show of his own knowledge the claim was just. How was it possible that an absentee landlord, who demanded an increased rent, could tell whether the rent being paid was just or not, or that the tenant was able to pay it? Every endeavour should be made to discourage the management of Irish estates by agents, who were the most detested class in Irish society, and to encourage the personal supervision of landlords, if landlords were to have a separate existence. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division. MR. DAWSON contended that the opponents of the Amendment showed by their opposition that they were unaware of the evils of absenteeism in Ireland. In an article in The Quarterly Review of 1825, he found that at that time the non-residence of Irish landlords was regarded as the greatest evil afflicting the country. Other countries exported their produce and received the ordinary exchange of commerce. Ireland exported hers to the extent, at that time, of £4,000,000 per annum, and all she received in return was rent receipts. The Conservative Party, and, indeed, all Parties, had lamented the evils of absenteeism. The great landlords always resided out of the country, and only the struggling proprietors remained. The country was forced into a sham state of society-it was the agents and not the land proprietors who filled the high official and social positions in Ireland, and it was their interested and hard the country that were accepted as accurate. The connection of Ireland with England was productive of many shams, but that was one of the worst. Taking his own county (Limerick)—where were the owners of the soil? Lord Leconfield, Lord Lansdowne, and others, who MR. SCHREIBER said, that, considering the quarter from which it came, the Amendment struck him as the most wonderful proposal which had yet been made in connection with that most wonderful Bill. As far as he had been able to understand the policy of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Par-hearted representations as to the state of nell) in the matter of Irish landlords, it had been, it still was, and it would be in the future, to make Ireland too hot to hold them. With that view an agitation had been set on foot-the parent of this Bill; and what that agitation aimed at that Bill would undoubtedly facilitate. Its effect would be to increase absentee-owned practically the whole countyism, and generally to leave Ireland "to none of them were resident, none of them stew in her own gravy.' In these cir- were helping to push back from the cumstances, was it not amazing to hear towns of Southern Ireland that tide of the hon. Member come forward with a decay which, under English supremacy, proposal to punish landlords for doing was advancing upon them. The interthat which it was the direct tendency of position of the agent between the landthat Bill to promote? He (Mr. Schreiber) | lord and the people was the inevitable remembered, when Lord Palmerston re- cause of much evil. He regarded the presented the borough of Tiverton, a restoration to Ireland of her Legislature certain butcher, of the name of Row- as the one great solution of the question. cliffe, used to put him yearly to the ques- Then the law where it was now weak tion; and, on the occasion of one of his would be firm; the administration of visits, asked him why he did not come to justice, which was now conducted under see his constituents oftener? "How can the taint of suspicion, would be trusted my hon. friend," said Lord Palmerston by the people. Following this, every -he always called him his "hon. friend" social inducement would come naturally. -"How can my hon. friend expect me He would not impose a direct tax upon to come down oftener unless he makes absentee landlords; but he would deprive himself a little more agreeable when I do them of the benefits under this Bill to come?" Well, mutato nomine, the story which those who resided in the country was told of Irish Members and Irish land- were justly entitled. lords. If hon. Gentlemen from Ireland would only make themselves a little more agreeable to landlords, both in that House and out of it, they would have MR. GLADSTONE said, he could quite understand the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) having brought forward this Motion, as a pro tempted to be dealt with in the present Bill, or in the various attempts that had been made to deal with the question since 1819. The Irish Members had brought the question forward over and over again since 1819; but they had been always met by the same reply as that which the Prime Minister had just given test in favour of principles which he thought it material to bring to the recollection of the House; and he had before confessed that, to a certain extent, he sympathized with the hon. Member in his general views on the subject of absenteeism. Were it a question on which, in the first place, they were prepared with a statutory definition, and with re--namely, that the question was unspect to which, in the second place, they had matured their views, and had considered the precise method in which the absentee landlord was to be dealt with, he could quite understand it; but he submitted that this was not a time when they could with advantage discuss either the creation of a separate Legislature in Ireland, or of the questions involved in this sub-section. The real question was, whether it was necessary to delay the progress of this Bill by a discussion which really must be purely of the character which was called academical in contradistinction to discussions which were practical. It was plain that the sub-section bristled at every point with difficulties, and with questions of the most serious nature, which required very lengthened examination. Was it possible that there could be, in the present circumstances, any fruit from that examination? Was it possible they could derive any benefit from the prolongation of this debate at all corresponding to the inconvenience which attended further delay in the progress of the Bill? He did not at all exclude a discussion of this kind on the proper occasion; but it certainly did not enter into the essence of the Bill. The questions raised were questions of policy, and he was bound to say that he did not think the distinction between imposing on the absentee a tax, and withholding from him a benefit, was a distinction that could be maintained. He denied that increased rent was always an advantage; it might be simple justice. The question was much too wide and too complex to be discussed in an Amendment on the Report, and he earnestly hoped the judgment of the House would not at once be taken upon it. MR. PARNELL said, he had no intention of prolonging the debate; but he might be allowed to say that the Amendment was of a much more practical character than the Prime Minister seemed to suppose. In fact, he thought it the most practical way in which the question of absenteeism had been at Mr. Gladstone doubtedly one deserving attention; that absenteeism was a serious evil, but the Government did not see their way to grapple with it. The Chief Secretary was wrong in saying he did not desire that absentee landlords should have a fair rent. What he desired to prevent was that they should have an increase of rent. In other words, that where an absentee landlord compounded for the discharge of his duties as a resident landlord by allowing his tenants to hold farms at low rents, he should not be permitted to come in and take advantage of the special provisions of this Bill, which provided an easy road for such persons to have their rents raised, and, at the same time, escape from the odium that formerly attached to the serving of notices to quit. Instead of incurring that odium they would take advantage of the royal road provided by the Prime Minister under Clause 7. The House would bear in mind that he (Mr. Parnell) asked nothing more than that Clause 7 should be restored to its original state, the state in which it was when the Bill was read a second time. The clause had been amended in Committee so as to give power to any landlord who desired to increase his rent to apply to a Court to have a judicial rent fixed. He was, therefore, fairly entitled to ask-and he did not think it was a large request coming from him-that landlords so especially circumstanced as absentees should be exempted from the Amendment which was introduced by the Government-an Amendment which would take away the odium from rent-raising, because the landlord formerly had to go through the ordeal of serving a notice to quit. He thought this was not fair, and he asked that discretion should be given to the Court to take into account the nature, character, and extent of the absence of landlords when they were asked to decide whether those landlords were entitled to an increase of rent or not. The most important question of deciding what was a fair rent had been left to the |