very complicated subject. [Mr. JOHN | evicted me." All this, I must say, has BRIGHT: Not defined in Ulster.] We very much astonished me. If I had are not talking about Ulster. In the considered the matter now for the first former part of the clause, not only is time I should not have been so much Ulster mentioned, but also any other surprised; but that is not the case. This part where there is a custom or usage; question of fair rents has been argued and but we are now coming to the places re-argued over and over again. There is where there is no custom or usage. a celebrated anecdote told of a learned Wherever there is a custom or usage, of advocate who, in the hurry of opening course the case is clear, and we can his case, got hold of the wrong story understand the matter without asking and made a powerful oration in favour of the right hon. Gentleman for an expla- the other side; but, being reminded by nation; but, coming to the place where a touch on the shoulder by one of his there is no custom or usage, we ask friends of the mistake he had fallen what is it the tenant will have to sell? into, with the utmost self-possession And we are told, a certain, at present said "Such, gentlemen of the jury, undefined, value of his holding." Is is the case which my learned friend that to be the only explanation to the opposite will put before you," and County Court Judge? How is the then proceeded to demolish it and County Court Judge to interpret it? put the right case before the jury. That The right hon. Gentleman thinks this is is exactly the case of the right hon. a difficult part of the Bill, and I agree Gentleman the Prime Minister in this with him, seeing what a gross injustice matter. The only difference is that will be perpetrated by the clause. I am during the 11 years which have passed not speaking of this as a matter of since the introduction of the Land Act drafting or of Committee, for it is a of 1870, many things that the right hon. question of deep principle. What the Gentleman said have been forgotten. Government have said in the Bill is that Many of the arguments used by the the tenant's interest is to be estimated Prime Minister in 1870 against the prowith reference to "the scale of compen- visions contained in this Bill remain at sation for disturbance by this Act pro- the present time unanswered. That is vided." What do you mean by that? something that I am bound to say does When you put in a scale of compen- astonish me. They were arguments, sation for disturbance, what did you do not of principle, but of positive fact. it for? You did it in order to inflict a Why, when we came to this question of penalty upon the landlord for unjustly the valuation of rents, the right hon. evicting a tenant. First you said a man Gentleman declared that it was not only may be fined, say £100, for unjustly extremely unfair, but that it was imposevicting a tenant; and now you say he sible and could not be done. When the is liable to pay the same sum, not as a question came before the House as to penalty, not for evicting a tenant, not whether exorbitant rents could be because he takes any action whatever, valued with a view to their being rebut because the tenant chooses to say-duced, the right hon. Gentleman said "I want the money and will appeal to he should like to see the man who would the Court." Can anything more unjust get up and state, in reasonable lanbe conceived? In 1870 it was said- guage, that he could support that pro"We want to prevent tenants being un- position. Before the debate closes, no justly evicted;" and, further, to the land-doubt we shall hear this "reasonable lords it was said "If you are going to evict these men, you shall pay this penalty for doing so." Well, the landlord does not want to evict a tenant; but the latter may come forward in the Court and say "I know my landlord does not want to evict me, and would like very well to see me stay; I do not, therefore, claim anything as compensation for disturbance, but I want to leave-but I wish to have the sum I should have been entitled to if he had

Sir R. Assheton Cross

language." Now, I want to go one step further. I quite agree that you met the evil of eviction, to some extent, by the Land Bill of 1870, by which a penalty was put on the landlord for unjust eviction. That Bill has, however, in some degree failed, because, as you yourselves say, landlords do not evict but raise the rent. You therefore say— "Let us have this clause for valuing the reut." It seems to me that is rather jumping at a conclusion far beyond the

evil it is desired to remedy. What you | Staleybridge (Mr. Summers), for inwant I will point out. The right hon. stance, based his speech upon the imGentleman says we make no sugges-provements the tenants had put in the tions; but I would venture to offer one. land. He never touched this point that I assume my premisses are right, and we object to. What we object to is, that the evil you want to correct is that not payment for improvements, but the Act of 1870, though it practically payment for something else-something prevented eviction to a great extent, yet that does not belong to the tenant and did not prevent the raising of rents. The never did The hon. Member for StaleyChief Secretary put before us some bridge, therefore, failed to appreciate that heart-rending cases where tenants had part of the case. Do not let the hon. reclaimed land and removed stones and Gentleman run away with the idea sugbuilt houses, the result being that the gested by the Chancellor of the Duchy rent had been largely increased; and of Lancaster that all the improvements there is no one on this side of the House are done by the tenant. [Mr. JOHN who would not say that that is a mon- BRIGHT: I did not say all, but ninestrous iniquity. I do not mean to say, tenths.]_That is nearly all. Do not and the Commission very properly states, let the House run away with the idea that you cannot say all the improve- that all the improvements are, as a rule, ments are to be taken from the landlord done by the tenant. When we read and handed over to the tenants, other- the Report and the Evidence published wise landlords would have nothing but by the Bessborough Commission, we find waste land. There must be a statutory that on most of the large estates most limitation. What you mean is that all of the improvements have been made the recent improvements made by a by the landlords, and that some of them tenant shall not be put in the landlord's have practically received no rent for the pocket, and you want to prevent the land. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, you find landlord from raising his rent. Well, that to be the case in some parts of why do you not say that if the tenant Ireland, and you know that it is so. has his rent raised he has a right to say- Many of the large Irish landlords have "Very well, we will have a settlement. spent nearly the whole of their receipts If things are allowed to go on as they on their estates. All these improveare I shall be content; but if you choose ments should be deducted when the to raise the rent it is time we had a tenant makes his claim. We are not settlement of accounts. I have done so willing that you should give the tenant much, my predecessors did so much that which he never had and has no built houses, planted manures that are right to have. I am far from saying not exhausted, and so forth. Let us fix that the Ulster Custom is not a wise the value of the improvements that be- one or has not worked beneficially in long to the tenants-let us know what Ulster, and I do not say that if you they are and pay me the money down. introduced that custom to the rest of If you cannot afford to pay me money Ireland it would not work well. down capitalize it and deduct the interest would not suit English habits, and I do from the rent." Here you would have a not profess to be a judge of what Irish remedy for a great evil you want to pro- habits are; but I say if you are going to vide for. You would not infringe any take a serious step, state at once openly principle of political economy; you would and precisely what it is you are going do what is just, and you would not give to do. You are going to take away to the tenant one farthing that he has something which has hitherto been connot a right to receive. If you did this sidered as always belonging to the landyou would do justice between the parties. lord, and to hand it over to the tenant, You are not content with that, however; and you are not going to pay the landyou want to do something more, and it lord anything for it. It comes to that; is just because you want to do some- and I cannot for one moment imagine thing more that we are so entirely op- that in all these discussions the question posed to this part of the Bill. I have of compensation has not entered into observed in a great many of the speeches the minds of the Government. I quite of hon. Members who have spoken on see all the difficulties they must have this matter that they have mixed up had to consider in dealing with the two things. The hon. Member for question. They may have asked them

[Fifth Night.]

It

selves—“Where is the compensation to come from? Can we get it from the British taxpayer?" They might have thought of the Church Surplus Fund: but I am afraid there is no Church Surplus. I have no doubt that that, was thought of; but there is no surplus —or, at least, there is none available. But that does not alter the question whether compensation ought to be given or not. All I can say is, give the tenant by all means the full value, if he wants it, of his improvements; let us have a reckoning up. The landlord raises his rent, and the tenant says-“Very well. then, you shall pay the value of my improvements." But if, beyond that, you are going to take from the landlord what has always been considered to belong to him you must pay him for it. If in the wisdom of the Government they think it right that this should be done, and that the property shall be in the hands of the tenant for the future, let them say so outright, and not by a clause which we cannot understand. Let them say—“In our opinion it is right that the tenant right custom of Ulster should prevail all over Ireland. We shall therefore say to the landlords of Ireland For the public good this must be taken out of your estates, and they must be considered as if they were in Ulster. There is no usage or custom to warrant us in doing so; but as we think it is for the public benefit-that it is for the benefit of Ireland that the custom and usage which prevail in Ulster should prevail throughout the length and breadth of the country-we are bound to say we shall impose that obligation upon you which is imposed on the landlords of Ulster. But, as in all other cases when we take away property from one man for the benefit of others,

That the Adjourned Debate on the Question 2nd May, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for Committee on the Parliamentary Oaths (Motion for Bill be further Adjourned Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.”—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.,

Question again proposed, “That the Debate be further adjourned till Tuesday next, at Two of the clock."

Debate resumed.

MR. SPEAKER: It may be convenient to remind the House that the Question before it is-That this debate be further adjourned till to-morrow, at 2 o'clock.

MR. R. N. FOWLER: I beg to move that the debate be further adjourned till Thursday.

MR. SPEAKER: No Amendment to that effect can now be put, as the House has already affirmed the proposition that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT said, he wished to remind the House that the Prime Minister had promised to state the course he intended to pursue when the Motion was brought on that evening, and had also stated that he should like a division to be taken. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) thought the best course the House could pursue would be to proceed, as soon as possible, to that division. He should, to enable them to do so, conclude by moving the adjournment of the debate, and on these particular and distinct grounds. The House had been sitting since the 6th of January, and the right hon. Gentleman had absorbed, under the necessities of the case, and in the interest of the country as he had stated, the whole of the Private Members' nights. The Motion was one which might well be made on some future day without interfering with anything, and on which there might be a far discussing when there was time on a better opportunity of considering and Government night, and then it might be Motion made, and Question, "That right, and fair, and just for the Governthe Debate be now adjourned,"-(Mr.ment to press forward the question. But Shaw,)-put, and agreed to. it was not right, or fair, or just-it was unjust and unfair that the right hon.

we offer you compensation-full, fair, and ample compensation for the injury we undoubtedly do to your estates.'

Debate further adjourned till Thursday. Gentleman should take away private

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS (MOTION

FOR BILL).
ADJOURNED DEBATE.

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on the Question [6th May], Sir R. Assheton Cross

Members' days in the way now proposed. It must be remembered also that if the House granted a Day Sitting to-morrow, they might have another on Friday, and there would be nothing to prevent Day Sittings until this or any other

Bill was brought in and passed. He would move that the debate should be adjourned.

to the proposal to have that Morning Sitting, and twice gave Notice of opposition; but when the time came he did not oppose the Motion, and the debate was proceeded with at a Morning Sitting with the unanimous consent of the House. A Morning Sitting was held on the 27th of May merely for the convenience of the House before the Easter Holidays, and regular Morning Sittings were not resumed till the 10th of June. The practice of not holding Morning Sittings before June was in accordance with the old practice of the House when Morning Sittings commenced at 12 o'clock; and it was clear from the precedents he had cited that Morning Sittings, early in the Session, ought not to be appointed except with the consent of the House-which, in this case, was clearly not given. For the convenience and information of hon. Gentlemen who called themselves independent, and who sat below the Gangway on the other side of the House, he had thought it desirable to make them acquainted with these facts; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would gain a great point if he could so govern them as to obtain their support to some Motions he had proposed, but to which they were extremely adverse. It would also be well if they would come down to the House when encroachments were to be made on the rights of private Members, and would oppose a Motion which, if the votes of the House could be taken, as he thought they ought to be taken, by ballot, he believed would be rejected.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK said, he would second the Motion, in order to place before the House some facts to show that to grant this Morning Sitting would be to establish a dangerous precedent in regard to the rights of private Members. It would, he said, be in the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that during the last Liberal Administration it was his (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's) duty to protest against the encroachments which the right hon. Gentleman made on the privileges of private Members, and especially with regard to the practice, then first established, of appointing Morning Sittings in the early part of the Session. His remonstrances, then, and those of his Friends, were of little avail; but the Government of Lord Beaconsfield adopted a fairer and more equitable course. To prove that he need go no further back than 1876, when, on the 8th of June, and on a similar occasion, Lord Beaconsfield laid down the principle upon which, in his judgment, Morning Sittings ought to be appointed. He said Morning Sittings were not a procedure to which he would ever have recourse except towards that part of the year when the pressure of Public Business was very great. Accordingly, in that year, the regular Morning Sittings commenced upon the above date, and in 1877 were first appointed for Tuesdays only, commencing on June 5. In the following year there were no regular Morning Sittings until June 18, and in 1879 the first regular MornMotion made, and Question proposed, ing Sitting was on the 27th of May. "That the Debate be now adjourned." The principle clearly was that no Morning-(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.) Sittings should be held before the commencement of June, or thereabouts, except with the consent of, and for the convenience of, the House. The precedent mentioned on a former occasion by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India of a Morning Sitting held in 1879, on the 6th of May, by the late Government, was wholly inapplicable to the present case, for it would be seen by a reference to Hansard that that Morning Sitting on the 6th of May was held at the request of Members of the House, in order that the House might proceed with the Valuation Bill. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) took objection

MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, at this time of the night the most rational course would be, if we are to have a division, to go straight to that division; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) thought he had matter to communicate to the House which was so important and so accurate that he could not possibly withhold it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says there was once a Government in this country-at a period so deplorable that he cannot refer to it without painwhen there was in operation a conspiracy against the rights of private

Members, but that that guilty Cabinet | made an accurate statement to this was dismissed from Office, and another House. I make no complaint of those Government came in; and then the Morning Sittings. My own opinion is right hon. and learned Gentleman, al- that, as far as Morning Sittings go as a though he had in vain struggled in plan, they ought not to be introduced at former times to defend the rights of the an early date. This seems to be a special House, found he had a different set of ground, at all events, on which to try people to deal with. [Mr. CAVENDISH the judgment of the House. When that BENTINCK: I never said anything of the judgment has been taken there will be sort.] I am not endeavouring to cite time for further discussion; but it will the words of the right hon. and learned be remembered that a measure to try Gentleman. It would be perfectly in the judgment of the House is no part of vain for me to try to do so; they are far the policy of the Government. It is beyond my powers. It will be seen that simply a proposal made by the Governit is the spirit of his speech to which I ment with a view to providing for a am confining myself. With this new dilemma that has arisen out of a vote Government the principles of the right which the Government resisted. The hon. and learned Gentleman prevailed; Government felt it to be their duty, and then, with some insignificant excep- notwithstanding, to render any assisttions which are hardly worth notice, all ance they could, and they therefore Morning Sittings were adjourned, or not made this proposal. We are certainly allowed until late in May, or until the desirous to have the judgment of the month of June. That is the upshot of House upon that proposal; but before the statement of the right hon. and they can have that judgment they must learned Gentleman; and I must admit have the power of taking the vote of the that, so far as I can judge, during House, and the power of making a prothe time of the late Government the posal. The object of the Morning Sitright hon. and learned Gentleman ting which is now asked for is to enable had ample leisure for informing him- them to make that proposal, and the self on this matter, although he ap- preliminary step to making that propeared to be generally oppressed by the posal is that which is now before the duties of Office. But I wish simply on House. this occasion, without further discussion, to test the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentlemen, and show, with reference to the present circumstances, what were the actual dates, extracted from the Records of this House, when Morning Sittings commenced, as he has told us, when he completely succeeded in defending the rights of private Members. I will take, first, the year 1875, when the first Morning Sitting was on the 16th of March. There was another Morning Sitting on the 13th of April, and then they became usual. In 1877 the first Morning Sitting was on the 27th of March; in 1878, the first Morning Sitting was on the 19th of March, and the second and third Morning Sittings in that year were of particular interest in connection with the part which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken on this peculiar question. On the 26th and the 29th of March there were Morning Sittings on the Mutiny Bill, in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was specially interested. After that the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks he has

Mr. Gladstone

MR. NEWDEGATE said, that the Prime Minister had charged the Opposition with having placed the House in a dilemma; but the fact was that the dilemma had arisen on account of the very peculiar appearance of Mr. Bradlaugh at the Table, for which the Ministerial Party were accountable. No one could doubt that the dilemma of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke had been created by those by whom Mr. Bradlaugh had been supported, of whom the leaders were Her Majesty's Ministers. He hoped that hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House would excuse so humble a Member of the House as himself (Mr. Newdegate) for distinctly repudiating, on the part of the Opposition, any responsibility for the present dilemma. The right hon. Gentleman claimed for his attempt to establish Morning Sittings early in the Session the precedents established by the late Government. But, if his memory did not betray him, he (Mr. Newdegate) thought that the right hon. Gentleman had deemed it to be his duty to repudiate the entire conduct of the late Adminis