only about one-half of the tenant far-from those men who were suffering mers of Ireland; but the very class of tenants which, by reason of their poverty, most required protection was, owing to the failure of the Arrears Clause, excluded from the operation of the Act. Of all the tenants in Ireland who were entitled to apply to the Land Court, only about 80,000 had done so, and yet its machinery was so clogged that years must elapse before these cases could be disposed of. Consequently, widespread disappointment and disaffection prevailed among the people. Those who were precluded from applying to the Land Court denounced the invidious and unjust distinction by which they were excluded; those who had applied lamented the prolonged delay, coupled with the continued obligation which rested upon them of paying exorbitant rents pending the decisions of the Court upon their cases. All this time the work of eviction was steadily proceeding, and the Irish people, who were told to look upon this measure as a message of peace, and as a settlement of their just demands, saw now with consternation that the work of extermination was carried on with increased facility under its provisions. The natural result of the failure of the Land Act on the one hand, and of the provocation by Coercion on the other, was the condition in which Ireland was found to-day. The Bill which he had now the honour to propose afforded a means-he was almost tempted to say the only means— whereby peace, prosperity, and tranquillity could be restored to Ireland. The proposals in the Bill were moderate and just. They were made in the name of the Irish people, and he claimed for them the fair and unprejudiced consideration of the House. The Bill might be said to deal with four distinct matters of importance. He would take first in order that question which, by reason of its vital and pressing necessity, might be considered first in importance. He meant the question of arrears. It might be well to recall the history of those arrears. They had their origin in those years of bad harvests, when over a large portion of Ireland famine was averted only by the charity of the world. In the districts referred to small tenant farmers were unable to live without assistance, and, naturally, rents fell into arrear. The necessity of averting destruction

from the act of God was recognized by the House of Commons, which two years ago passed the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. The necessity of lifting off the shoulders of the people the load of arrears it was impossible for them to meet was recognized by Parliament when last year it inserted the Arrears Clause in the Land Act. In recent times no responsible politician had alluded to the subject without acknowledging that the Land Act must remain, to a great extent, a failure so long as those arrears were allowed to continue an inpassable barrier between a large portion of the people and the benefits of the Land Act. The Arrears Clause of the Act of last Session had expired. From first to last the Arrears Clause was inoperative. To-day the work of evicting from their homes those who were unable to pay rent in respect of years when the soil did not produce enough to enable them to live was being carried on with terrible rapidity. During the quarter ending the 31st of March last, no fewer than 1,300 families, or 7,000 souls, were evicted from their homes in Ireland; and as long as such scenes continued to be enacted peace would be an impossibility. At all cost the work of eviction must be stopped in Ireland. So long as it continued discontent, bloodshed, and outrage were absolute necessities of the situation. Now, the proposals of the Bill for dealing with the question of arrears were strictly moderate, and they had the merit, which the Arrears Clause of the Bill of last year had not, of being thoroughly practical. In a spirit of fairness to both landlord and tenant they recognized that Providence had blessed Ireland with, at least, one really good harvest since the arrears were incurred; and, consequently, the first requirement of the Bill was that the tenant should be obliged to pay a year's rent, or, at any rate, what the landlord should consider equivalent to one year's rent, in respect of the year ending the 31st of August last. When that had already been done by the tenant of a farm valued at not more than £30 a-year, and when the Court was satisfied that the tenant could not possibly pay the arrears, the Court was empowered to make a grant to the landlord not exceeding one year's rent, or not exceeding one-half the total arrears, which grant was to release the

tenant from all liability for arrears up | calculated on the basis of Griffith's Valuato the 31st of August last. The result of that proposal would be that, in the case of the tenant of a farm of the yearly value of not more than £30, if three years' rent were owing, the tenant would be bound to pay the rent for the year ending August 31 last; the Court would grant a sum equal to the second year's rent, and the third year's rent the landlord would be called upon to sacrifice. That sacrifice could not be considered unfair; because it must be remembered that these arrears were, for the most part, arrears of rack rents, and that under no conceivable circumstances could the landlord hope to recover, by any means, the total amount of arrears due to him. One great difference between the proposed clause and that in the Act of last year was that the latter was optional to the landlord, and the former to the tenant; while the grant proposed to be made to the landlord was absolute, and would not have to be repaid by the tenant. The Bill proposed that the money required for these grants should be supplied from the Irish Church Surplus Fund. The Irish Church Surplus Fund was the property of the Irish nation; and he knew of no more national object to which it could be devoted than to saving the Irish people from extermination and ruin. That, he thought, was a practical proposal, and moderate; and he thought when hon. Gentlemen, who in that House represented the landlord class, came to give their opinion, it would be found that, even in their eyes, the proposal did not deserve opposition or censure. There were also other provisions in the Bill connected with arrears, which he had, perhaps, better mention at once. In view of the block in the Land Courts, it was deemed absolutely necessary that some protection should be afforded to tenants pending the settlement of their rents. As things were a tenant might apply to the Court, but might have to wait years for the decision of his case, during which time he would be called upon to pay his present, perhaps, exorbitant rent. Moreover, when the judicial rent was fixed, it was only dated from the first gale day after the decision. This Bill stated that when a tenant applied to have a fair rent fixed all proceedings for recovering the full amount of the old rent should be stayed, pending the decision of the Court; that the rent payable in the meantime should be

tion; and that payment should be made of the new rent (when decided), not as now, from the next rent day after the decision, but from the next rent day after the application to the Court. It was provided also that, after the decision of the Court, the difference between the fair rent and the rent paid on the basis of Griffith's Valuation pending settlement should be refunded by either the landlord or the tenant as the case might bean arrangement not unlike that recently suggested by the hon. Member for the County of Tyrone (Mr. Dickson). He might point out, in passing, that Griffith's Valuation, which had been the subject of many denunciations, and had been described as "confiscation and "robbery," had been virtually approved by most of the Sub-Commissioners throughout the country. He now came to the second important matter dealt with by the Bill-namely, the question of leases. To the leaseholders of Ireland the Act of last year had unquestionably been a mockery and a delusion. By a process of reasoning not easy to understand, a distinction was drawn in the Land Act between leases made before 1870, and leases after 1870. The latter, if certain conditions were fulfilled, could be interfered with by the Court; but leases made before 1870 were held to be sacred. It was notorious that leases were forced upon tenants since 1870, with the intention of robbing them of the benefits of the Act passed that year; but it was equally notorious that in 1869 similar leases were forced upon the tenants in anticipation of that Act. The fact of a man paying an exorbitant rent under an unjust lease for 20 years instead of 10 was no reason why redress should be denied to him. However, in their wisdom, Ministers and Parliament thought otherwise; and they decided that the only leaseholders who should have the benefits of the Act last year were leaseholders holding under contracts made since 1870; but experience had proved that those men had been fooled to the top of their bent by the action of the Land Courts. He believed that only about 70 leases had been set aside, or about 5 per cent of the number of applications. He understood that Mr. Justice O'Hagan had stated no lease had been interfered with by his Court, which could not have been upset in an ordinary Court of Equity. The Lease Clause of the

Land Act was hedged round with such out from the benefit of the Act. The conditions that it was practically useless others had gone into the Land Court even to holders of leases made since and obtained reductions varying from 1870. One reason which made the 20 to 30 per cent. That illustration clause of last year useless was that the showed how the Lease Clause of the provision that leases forced upon a tenant Land Act was a mockery. It had kept since 1870, even under a threat of evic- the word of promise to the ears of the tion, if it was at the expiration of an old people and broken it to their hopes. lease, could not be interfered with by This Bill proposed to deal with the questhe Court. That was a needless and tion of leases in a thorough and simple absurd provision. Its effect had been to fashion. He proposed to place a leasecut away from the operation of the Act holder on the same footing as any other nine-tenths of the leaseholders who had tenant in Ireland, so that if he conaccepted leases since 1870. He would sidered that he was suffering injustice give an illustration. He knew a farmer he could apply to the Land Court for who held under a lease which expired redress, and trust to the Court to judge towards the end of 1871. During the of the merits of each individual case. continuance of that lease, which had He trusted when the Bill was discussed been a long one, the tenant had erected they would hear no more about the exa house, in which he established the ploded fallacy of freedom of contract business of a general country shop. This between landlord and tenant; it no more business became valuable, and the land- existed in the case of leaseholders than lord knew the tenant would pay anything in the case of yearly tenants. It was rather than be deprived of it. At the well known to all who were acquainted expiration of his lease, accordingly, a with Ireland that no tenants were more new lease was forced on him at an severely rack-rented than the leaseexorbitant rent, and he had to pay to holders. Unless the protection and benethe landlord a fine of £500 in respect of fits of the Land Act were extended to the business which he had himself created. this class of tenants, it must fail to meet This lease was forced on him by threat the requirements and to satisfy the just of eviction in the very tangible form of demands of the Irish people. He now notice to quit. This man had no remedy passed to the third matter of importance under the Land Act, for the reason that dealt with by this Bill. He referred to the lease was forced upon him, not when the "Healy Clause," which he might be he was a tenant from year to year, but permitted to call the heart of the Land on the expiration of another lease. An- Bill of last year. That heart had been other way in which the leaseholders since paralyzed, if not killed, by the judg 1870 had been cheated out of the benefits ment of the Court of Appeal in the case of the Act was by the provision making of "Adams v. Dunseath." The "Healy it necessary to prove that the lease had Clause" enacted that no tenant should been forced under threat of eviction. be charged rent in respect of improveMany landlords or their agents had ments made by himself or predecessors sworn that the notices to quit were not in title for which he or they had not been technically to make them accept a new compensated by the landlord. The Court lease, but to induce them to pay a higher of Appeal in "Adams v. Dunseath" rent. Upon that subtle distinction a practically killed this provision, by delarge number of applications were dis- fining the word "improvements" to mean missed. He had a curious piece of in- improvement works effected by the tenformation with regard to how the Lease ant, and not the increased letting value Clause had worked in the county Wick- which was the consequence of that imlow. Sir Edward Hutchinson had a num-provement. He might give from a maber of tenants who, up to 1872, were tenants from year to year. In 1872 large increases of rent were demanded from them, and they were given the option either to take a lease or not. Many of them accepted leases as the lesser of two evils. Those people had to pay as high rents as those who did not accept leases, and were now shut

gazine article which he read the other day an illustration which bore on this point. It was the case of a tenant who held a farm, a portion of which was waterlogged, and valueless in consequence. The tenant expended £100 in drainage works, thus largely increasing the letting value of the farm. According to the ruling in "Adams v. Dunseath," the