HC Deb 19 July 1881 vol 263 cc1313-61

Progress resumed.

Clause 47 (Saving of existing tenancies).

MR. VILLIERS STUART

said, he wished to move an Amendment to the effect that, in such leases, no clause imposing a penalty upon the building of labourers' cottages in any farm exceeding 25 acres should be deemed valid. His object in moving that was to render null and void all such clauses, as being contrary to public policy, and throwing an unfair amount of poor rate upon the small towns, and as leading to great waste of the labourers' strength by compelling them to walk long distances to their work. That point was strongly insisted upon by the deputation that waited upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland at the Irish Office the other day; and he (Mr. Villiers Stuart) had had many communications from people in different parts of Ireland in regard to it. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would favourably receive the Amendment, or some modification of it. The persons who inserted such clauses in their leases were entitled to little consideration, because the motive for inserting them was generally to evade their just obligations—to avoid the duty of supporting in sickness and old age those labourers who had devoted their lives to working upon their properties.

Amendment proposed, In page 27, line 19, after the word "Act" insert the words "Provided also, that in such leases no clause imposing any penalty upon the building of labourers' cottages on any farm exceeding 25 acres shall be deemed valid."—(Mr. Villiers Stuart.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he did not see how these words could come in at that point; and he was afraid, if they were to be adopted at all, they must assume the form of a new clause. He did not know that he should be able to accept the Amendment at any time; but certainly it could not be accepted here.

MR. VILLIERS STUART

said, he understood that the Amendment had been postponed as a matter of convenience until the Amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had been disposed of.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the Amendment which he had proposed, and which had been carried, was a mere declaration as to what would happen when the lease had expired. The present Amendment should have been moved earlier in connection with these words.

MR. VILLIERS STUART

I had given Notice of the Amendment, and it was not my fault that I did not move it before.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw the Amendment?

MR. VILLIERS STUART

There seems to be no other alternative. I withdraw it with great regret; but I hope to have an opportunity of bringing it in again on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he had a verbal Amendment to propose—namely, after the word "year" in the last Amendment, to insert the word "and."

Amendment proposed, after the word "year" in the last Amendment, insert the word "and."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Question, "That the word 'and' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 27, line 19, after the word "Provided," insert the word "also."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Question, "That the word 'also' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, he did not propose to move the Amendment which stood in his name, as the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) had superseded it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the next Amendment, which stood in his name, was to enable the Commission to deal with leases which appeared to have been forced upon tenants after the passing of the Act of 1870, as the Prime Minister had expressed it, "in fraud" of the Act, and contrary to its real spirit. It was stated that there were a number of cases where such things had happened—and where tenants would be deprived of the benefit of this legislation by having had forced upon them leases which could not be regarded as other than improper and unfair; and this, if it had occurred, would be admitted to have been a most inequitable proceeding on the part of the landlords. The Amendment which he was about to propose was guarded in its language; it dealt with cases where a tenant had been forced to take a lease, the landlord seeking thereby to deprive him of the benefit of the Act of 1870. The clause ran as follows:— In any case in which the Court shall be satisfied that since the passing of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' the acceptance by a tenant from year to year of a lease of his holding containing terms which, in the opinion of the Court, were at the time of such acceptance unreasonable or unfair to the tenant, having regard to the provisions of the said Act, was procured by the landlord by threat of eviction or undue influence, the Court may upon the application of the tenant made within six months after the passing of this Act, declare such lease to be void as and from the date of the application or order, and upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as to the Court shall seem just: and thereupon the tenant shall as and from such date be and be deemed to be the tenant of a present ordinary tenancy from year to year at the rent mentioned in such lease. They assumed in this particular case that the lease was destroyed and gone, and that the tenancy was a simple tenancy. He did not think any hon. Member on the opposite side could object to the Amendment, because it was merely an enabling one, one which would enable cases to be dealt with when they presented themselves, and the tenants could bring forward proof. A number of cases were stated before the Royal Commission, and although hon. Members knew very well that these statements made by tenants, who were not examined on oath, were not always to be taken as literally accurate, and though there might not be very many cases of extreme hardship, there might still be plenty of reason why a safeguard of this description should be adopted. Where such a case as that contemplated by the Amendment was proved, no Member of the Committee would say that the lease ought not to be set aside. The landlord was fully protected, and it was only in the case of gross hardship or fraud that the relief would be given.

Amendment proposed, In page 27, at end of Clause 47, to add the words "In any case in which the Court shall be satisfied that since the passing of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' the acceptance by a tenant from year to year of a lease of his holding containing terms which, in the opinion of the Court, were at the time of such acceptance unreasonable or unfair to the tenant, having regard to the provisions of the said Act, was procured by the landlord by threat of eviction or undue influence, the Court may upon the application of the tenant made within six months after the passing of this Act, declare such lease to be void as and from the date of the application or order, and upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as to the Court shall seem just: and thereupon the tenant shall as and from such date be and be deemed to be the tenant of a present ordinary tenancy from year to year at the rent mentioned in such lease."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. M'COAN

said, he heartily supported the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, though it did not go so far as another Amendment in the same sense which he (Mr. M'Coan) had put on the Paper before it. The Amendment he had proposed was as follows:— Before 'any' to insert 'all leases of agricultural holdings executed since the passing of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' which can be proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been forced upon the tenants now holding under them, shall, upon application by the tenant, be subject to review by the Court; and if their covenants in regard to rent or otherwise should appear to the Court to be inequitable or oppressive, they may be varied as to the Court shall seem just, or the leases may be declared wholly void, and in all cases of such avoidance the tenants shall thereupon become present tenants under this Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland's Amendment, however, would substantially do justice between the Irish landlord and tenant; and he (Mr. M'Coan) would, therefore, waive what he should be inclined to ask for as a measure of equal justice in the case. It might be imagined by some English and Scotch Members, who were not thoroughly conversant with the state of things in Ireland, that there was, at the best, only a sentimental ground for the Amendment. When the discussion, which was somewhat prematurely forced upon the Committee some three weeks ago by the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. Corbet), was going on, the hon. Gentleman adduced in support of his Amendment a lease granted on the property of Earl Fitzwilliam, and it was recognized that that lease made out rather an insufficient case for an appeal to the Committee for a concession. Earl Fitzwilliam was admittedly one of the best landlords in Ireland; in fact, so good a landlord was he, that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) admitted that his tenants had not joined the Land League, and that was, perhaps, the best proof they could possibly have that these people had no substantial hardship to complain of. But he (Mr. M'Coan) had to complain of a lease granted in the same county by a Home Rule landlord, which, he thought, illustrated the case put before the Committee by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland; and he did not think he could better support the appeal now made to the Committee than by shortly quoting a portion of a letter which he had received from the tenant holding the lease in question—a letter which was eloquent in its simplicity. The writer said— I will tell you the history of my lease as briefly as I can. I came into possession of this land about 20 years ago by marrying the widow of a former owner, the family having been in occupation of it for centuries. It seemed to be a lease of lives, and the last life had died out in July, 1875. The writer went on to say that the interest in the farm passed to the son of the previous tenant, whose widow he had married, and from that son he bought the remainder of the lease. The writer went on to say— The land had previously been let under the old lease at £1 10s. per acre; but the landlord, immediately on the expiration of the lease, sought to raise it to £1 17s. 6d. per acre. The landlord called on me, and said unless I would give this amount he would have me turned out immediately. I explained that the land could not possibly bear so heavy a rent, and that I must ask him to reconsider the high charge to be made on it. He said he would do so, and see me again about it. However, he did not himself see me again; but I was told that I must see the agent. When I saw the agent, he said no change would be made, but I must pay on the new lease for 31 years the increased rent of £1 17s. 6d. I thought I must pay, else I should be evicted; and I remembered my delicate wife and my helpless children, and, unfortunately, I accepted the lease on these terms. I told him several times afterwards that I did not want the lease, as I should never be able to pay the amount he asked. He said I should take the lease, or a certain person"— mentioning a well-known lawyer in Dublin, whose name he (Mr. M'Coan) would not state— would compel me to do so. I have paid the rent so far, and am otherwise sunk in debt in doing it; and the farm will not at all bear the rent I am forced to pay. That was a sample of a dozen letters he had received from tenants in the county of Wicklow; and he had reason to believe that cases of that kind could be quoted, not by the score, but by the hundred, since the passing of the Act of 1870. In nearly every case the screw was put upon the tenants, with the alternative of eviction. That being so, he thought it was not an unreasonable thing for the Irish Members to make an appeal to the equity and sense of justice of the Committee, and to ask them to give the Land Commission the alternative power, either of reviewing the provisions of these leases and varying their covenants, whether with regard to rents or otherwise, or to declare the leases in question wholly void, and place the tenants in the position of present tenants. As he had said, the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) did not go quite so far as he should have proposed. In the interest of the Irish tenantry, he should have been glad if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been prepared to go a little further; but, under the circumstances, as a Representative of the County of Wicklow, he very gratefully accepted the Amendment. It would do a large measure of justice to a considerable class situated as he had described.

THE CHAIRMAN

There are a large number of Amendments to this proposal, and these will all have to be called before we get into a general discussion.

MR. GIBSON

said, that in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) he would move the next Amendment. It would not be candid of him if he did not say, whether the words were accepted or not, he should feel bound to give his reasons more in detail against the whole Amendment by-and-bye.

Amendment proposed, to Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND'S Amendment to Clause 47, in page 27, at end, line 1, after "satisfied," insert "by sufficient evidence."—(Mr. Gibson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he could not accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. HEALY

moved to leave out the words "since the passing of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870.'" He was very glad indeed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had moved his Amendment, and he thought it would go a long way towards giving satisfaction in Ireland. But why they should have stopped at the Land Act of 1870—[Mr. GIBSON: Hear, hear!]—he was glad to have the approval of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin—was what puzzled him. There was nothing sacred in parchment and sealing wax. A contract between any two individuals was just as holding and as binding if made in words as it would be when put upon paper; and it was not because a man wrote on parchment and then stamped it with sealing wax that the agreement acquired anything of a more sacred or sacramental character. Therefore, why leases should be supposed to be documents incapable of being broken more than any other form of contract was a thing he was unable to see; and it was charming to think that in submitting the Amendment he had the support and approval of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. This was a matter upon which it was desirable that there should be a good deal of evidence. Though it was true that since the Act of 1870 there had been more inducements to insist on taking a 31 years' lease in order that there might not be compensation for disturbance, still there had been great inducements to force on leases before the Act of 1870. No doubt, since the Act of 1870 there had been more unjust leases than at any other time forced upon tenants; and he could appreciate the position of the Government, which he took to be this—that as it was by their Act of 1870, and this stupid proposal as to a 31 years' lease that this unfortunate state of things had been brought about, they would redress the wrong they had done in 1870, and propose the Amendment. That was a fair position; but if they were once for all to settle the Irish Land Question, why should they not do it thoroughly? It was admitted that unfair documents had been imposed on tenants previous to the Act of 1870. Anyone who went through Ireland would discover many pieces of parchment in the possession of the peasantry containing the most extraordinary covenants—for instance, there was Campion's compound lease. The Duke of Argyll the other night had taken to task the evidence of one of the County Court Judges as to the case of Mrs. White. His Grace had also found fault with the evidence of Professor Baldwin with regard to Mrs. White's property, and he stated that he had gone into the case, and had failed to find any hardship at all. Well, he (Mr. Healy) had spoken to these poor people himself, and he had been shown a letter which had been sent by the agent to the tenants, and it was to this effect—"John So and So, if you do not accept the lease I give you now,"—this being a £10 increase—"within so many hours I shall insist upon your taking a lease at £40," thereby doubling his rent. It had been proved, in spite of the Duke of Argyll, that the improvements made by these unfortunate people were such that, in the opinion of a civil engineer who had gone over the property, they could only have been effected at the cost of most extraordinary exertions on the part of the tenants. The improvements were made on a desolate seashore covered with rocks, and, in spite of the barrenness of the land, smiling cornfields and crops of potatoes were now to be found on it. But the moment the extra rent was put upon the tenants they stopped making the improvements; and in a letter which had appeared in reply to the statement of the Duke of Argyll, the writer said he had been over the property in question, and he had seen, on the one hand, a field of corn growing fast to ripeness, and within two or three feet of it, on the other hand, a miserable barrenness. The tenant of the land, when questioned upon the subject, had said that he had been stopped in the middle of his improvements by having a lease of this kind forced upon him. It seemed to be a very hard thing that they should leave out of sight the unprotected condition of the tenants of Ireland before 1870, and only redress the grievance which had been caused since that year. It seemed to him that if a man had suffered from a grievance in 1869 he had as much right to have it redressed as if the grievance were inflicted in 1870. He could not understand how they could draw a line in this way, because it was altogether without principle. If the Government could not accept the Amendment, they would do well to make some offer, such as that they made to-day on another question, which was a very fair offer. He had read a good deal of the evidence given before the Bess-borough Commission; but that inquiry was directed, it seemed to him, more or less as to the defects in the Land Act of 1870. He had considered very narrowly what had taken place before 1870, and he had failed to find much in the evidence bearing upon that condition of things. He thought it would be fair to demand this—that if they could establish to the satisfaction of the Government that a sufficient number of cases of harsh leases in Ireland prior to the Act of 1870 existed, the Government should make some inquiry into the matter; that they should promise, as they did in the case of town parks, to make inquiry, and, if necessary, redress the grievance. That was a fair tiling to ask. It might be that in former times landlords dealt fairly with the tenants, and had given them leases on equitable terms; and he did not see why they should claim an ad vantage for the tenants and exclude the landlords from participating in it. He would deal fairly and squarely with both, and would urge the Amendment as much in the interest of the landlord as of the tenant. What they wanted was justice; and he would, therefore, ask the Government not to limit the Amendment to 1870. If they were disposed to limit it at all, he would ask them to adopt 1869 as the limit, for the reason that in that year the landlords knew that the Land Act was about to be passed; and many of them had, no doubt, been tempted to anticipate the measure by forcing from the tenants the best terms they could get. No doubt the landlords, when the Act made its appearance, were very much relieved. They had not expected, when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) got into power, that the Act of 1870 would have been of such a mild character. In 1869, many of the landlords insisted upon their tenants taking leases that they dictated, and it was only a moderate demand to ask that the Amendment should go back to 1869.

Amendment proposed to Mr. Attorney General for Ireland's Amendment, In line 1, leave out "since the passing of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' "and insert "every tenancy to which this Act applies shall be deemed a present tenancy until the contrary is proved."—(Mr. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'since the passing of "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870," ' stand part of the said Amendment."

MR. O'SHEA

said, he had taken great interest in this matter, and he believed that there was no question which was looked on with more interest by the Irish people generally than that of leases. He was very glad to have heard such an eloquent description of the state of affairs with regard to leases as they had heard from the Prime Minister; but he thought all the right hon. Gentleman's arguments tended to prove that they ought not to leave out of the remedial provisions of this Bill the case of tenants suffering under very serious disabilities at the present moment, merely because the leases of those tenants were dated previously to 1870. These men would feel their position very much more bitterly when they saw not only tenants from year to year, but tenants who held under leases since the year 1870, helped in the manner that this Bill proposed to assist them. The measure was, no doubt, a very great one, and the Prime Minister had said that they must look to this matter of leases from the point of view, generally, of equity and public policy. Well, as the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had said just now, he could not see the difference between the condition of the tenants on whom leases were forced in 1869 and that of tenants on whom they had been forced since the Act of 1870. No doubt, a great many landlords had insisted upon the tenants accepting their terms in 1869, in anticipation of the Land Act. It was within his personal knowledge that there were many cases of leaseholders in Ireland who had had their leases forced upon them long before 1870, and these were people who were in a much worse condition than those who had accepted unfair leases since 1870, because no one could deny, however the Land Act of 1870 had failed, that it had put the tenants in a better position, with regard to making contracts, than they had been in before. They must bear in mind that not only did the Act of 1870 contain the Compensation Clauses, but that the force of public opinion, consequent upon the passing of the Act of 1870, was considerable, so that the tenants had had a better chance of fighting their battle with the landlords than those who made their contracts before 1870. And there was another case, one which was not very frequent, but of which there were many instances in existence in Ireland; and that was the case of those tenants on whom, or on whose fathers, leases had been forced on account of their action at elections. Such leases had been forced on tenants by Conservative landlords owing to their having identified themselves with the Liberal interest; and he thought it was very hard, seeing that the tenants had stood by the Liberal Party in those days, that the Liberal Party should not stand by them now. He had in his mind the condition of four properties in County Clare, two of them belonging to Lord Leconfield and Sir Augustin Fitzgerald. On both these leases were unknown, yet there was perfect security to the tenants; but, in the immediate neighbourhood, there were two other estates where the tenants held under leases which ought long ago to have been brought before some Court of Equity. The evidence of pressure was so great that no Court of Equity, in such cases as these, would have refused relief. The leases had been accepted simply because the tenants had been subjected to constant nibbling and increases of rent; and everyone knew that the Irish tenant would rather have his rent increased 20 per cent at once than 15 per cent by small increments. These tenants were rack-rented, because they would accept any lease they could get rather than be subjected to these uncertain and unequal increments, and they had also been subjected to a great deal of persecution at election time. He did not wish to delay the passage of the Bill; therefore, he would merely say that, as a matter of public policy and general equity, they ought not to throw over these leaseholders who acquired possession before 1870. It might be said that they were a very small number of people; but, although they might be small in number, they were influential, and he was certain that great agitation would take place and great jealousy would spring up if Parliament left them out in the cold. It would, in fine, be equally inequitable and impolitic to leave these people without relief.

MR. GLADSTONE

The ground upon which Her Majesty's Government have proceeded in this matter is so simple and clear that I am anxious to explain it at once to the Committee. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) stated that there was no principle in the course we were taking; but I must say that there is clearly a principle laid down in the Bill, and that we are proposing the exception to that principle. In matters of this kind, the general principle is to endeavour to improve the laws that determine the relations between different classes of society, and to deal only with the present and the future. That is the general principle, and it is a princple which, whatever arguments it admits of on abstract grounds, is fully confirmed by the dictates of prudence and long experience. But, in this particular instance, it so happens that in the Act of 1870 we framed a measure in which we gave special opportunities and special inducements of a certain kind. The inducements were intended to be towards the establishment of perfectly free and fair contracts between landlords and tenants, which free contracts should have effect without any sacrifice on the part of the landlords. We gave a qualified fixity of tenure for a number of years. We have evidence, I believe, that in a limited number of cases these limited opportunities have been abused; and on that ground we thought it desirable to give the Court power, on proof of the facts, to put an end to such abuses by quashing the leases. But, first of all, we require a special ground to warrant our going back at all on prior arrangements, and the moment we get beyond that special ground we have nothing to warrant our going further. Beyond that special exception the Government cannot go; and we must, therefore, decline to consider the further extension of the Amendment.

THE O'DONOGHUE

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister did not appear to give any reason why they were not able to produce special grounds for breaking leases made prior to those of 1870. It appeared to him (The O'Donoghue) that the Amendment pro- posed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) was based on reason, and on the precedents established by the Bill. The measure was based, in great part, if not altogether, on the recognition of the fact that the Irish tenants had not been free to contract. In a previous discussion, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) had stated that the majority of Irish tenants were not free to contract; in fact, he (The O'Donoghue) thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the overwhelming majority of the Irish tenants were not free in this respect. There was no ground for assuming that while the yearly tenants had not been free to contract leaseholders had been free to do so. Taking the great body of the Irish tenants, he had no hesitation in saying that yearly tenants were as independent as leaseholders, and very often much more so. It was not infrequent in Ireland to see two adjoining farms held by tenants similarly circumstanced and similarly rented, with no other difference between them except that one held by parole agreement and the other by lease. Take the case of two farms rented at £50 a-year, and suppose both of the farms to be rack-rented, he would ask the Committee was it possible to give any satisfactory reason for the passing of a law which would enable one of these tenants to come forward and obtain relief from this rack-rent, and deny the right to the other, who was precisely similarly circumstanced, except that he was a leaseholder? In principle, there was no difference between a parole agreement to pay rent and a written agreement to the same effect. It was impossible to give a satisfactory reason why a man who had contracted, under certain circumstances, to pay rack-rent for a year should be released from the payment of that rent, whilst the man who had been compelled to contract to pay the rack-rent for 30 years was not relieved. It appeared to him that far stronger persons could be adduced for releasing the man who was compelled to pay the rack-rent for the longer period of 30 years. So far as his experience went, he could say that a leaseholder, as a general rule, paid a higher rent than an annual tenant. Formerly, the obtaining of a lease was the only means by which a tenant could, even temporarily, escape from the control of his landlord; and, in order to do that, he took a lease and had to pay heavily for the security he obtained. What was said to him was this—"You are going to be put into a position where for some years your rent cannot be raised, and you must pay for that protection," and an exorbitant rent was charged. In every county of Ireland there were innumerable cases where tenants had been compelled to take leases before 1870, and had been obliged to pay rack-rents, and he failed to see any reason in the world why they should not be allowed to come into the Court and have their rents revised.

MR. P. MARTIN

said, the extent and nature of the Amendment had been somewhat exaggerated and mis-stated. It appeared to him to lay down no such novel or extraordinary and unprecedented principles as had been stated. It was proposed to confer upon the Land Commission in Ireland, in many respects, similar powers to those at present enjoyed by every Court of Equity in the Kingdom. The proposal was to give to the Land Commission power to do in a simple, expeditious, and cheap fashion that which, he believed, could be done by any Court of Equity in Ireland. What must be proved by the tenant before he could ask the Land Commission to quash a lease? He must prove that the terms, in the opinion of the Court at the time of the acceptance of the lease, were unreasonable and unfair to the occupier, having regard to the provisions of the Act of Parliament. Nay, he must go further and say that the lease was procured by the landlord under a threat of eviction or duress, which in Equity would amount to undue influence. He would ask any hon. Gentleman acquainted with legal matters whether, where a threat of eviction was used, not for a bonâ fide purpose, but as a means of exacting the tenant's signature to an unfair lease, and where the landlord thus unfairly and unduly used such powers as the law vested in him, would not a Court of Equity, on its being proved that the landlord had thus taken advantage of the tenant's necessities to force a contract, at once grant relief? And let him remind the Committee of this—that, in point of fact, in the celebrated case of Lord Aylesford, it was shown that where unfair pressure was used by a money-lender the agreement could be quashed. Under such circumstances, why was the Committee to limit the application of this clause to tenants holding under leases granted since the passing of the Act of 1870? It could not be contended that tenants were free to contract before the passing of the Act of 1870. No Member who had a seat in the House before the passing of the Act of 1870 could stultify himself by saying any such thing. What was the raison d'être of the Act of 1870? It was that the landlords and tenants were not free to contract. Let the Committee look at the past history of Ireland, and at the Evidence produced before the Royal Commissions—the Commissions of Lord Bessborough and the Duke of Richmond. It would be found that it was proved in evidence that what were called "doctored rentals" were prepared for the purpose of sales in the Landed Estates Court. Men were set down as paying a higher rent than that which, in point of fact, the landlord was in the habit of receiving. The hon. and gallant Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst) had, over and over again, brought forward an instance of that character. Considering, then, the true nature and effect of this clause, Her Majesty's Government ought not to insist upon any limitation of that character. They had already listened to the remarkable speech of the Prime Minister, in which he so eloquently and clearly stated his reasons for conferring on those tenants who now hold by lease the privilege, at its termination, of becoming present tenants with the rights incident to that class of tenancy. Under those circumstances, why limit this clause as proposed? All tenants ought to be entitled to invoke the aid of the equitable powers conferred by this clause on the Land Commission. Why should they, by any words, limit these to cases since the passing of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1870? Evidence had been given before both the Bessborough and the Richmond Commissions, giving instances of the greatest hardships perpetrated upon the tenant before the passing of the Land Act of 1870. Let them see whether the case of the tenants of the Land Act of 1870 was not rather stronger than the case of the tenants since the Land Act of 1870. Some hon. Members had spoken as if all leases in Ireland had been solemn contracts entered into under seal after due preparation and consideration on the part of the tenant. But let him remind the Committee that a great distinction existed in this matter between England and Ireland. Under the Act of 1860, any agreement in writing constituted a lease, so that if a bailiff went and used pressure on a tenant, and the tenant was induced to put his hand unawares to any document prepared by the bailiff, that constituted a lease just as good as if it were prepared by an eminent solicitor and explained to, and understood by, the tenant, and signed and sealed by him. The Act of 1860 declared expressly that any agreement in writing was to be held to have the force and effect of a lease. Those were the express provisions of the Act. Viewing how easily leases might be procured in Ireland, he rather thought that that matter was cleared away by the wonderful speech with which the Prime Minister had favoured them that day. The mere attaching the name to any informal document constituted a contract in the nature of a lease under the Act of 1860, and became binding. That, in itself, opened the door to fraud and abuses. The ignorance and helpless condition of the tenants left them very liable to the exercise of undue influence on the part of landlords. It might be said the recommendation in the Bessborough Commission was only in respect of laws made since 1870. But if they looked at the meaning, at the intent, which was not very accurately expressed through portions of the Bessborough Commission in respect of the matter, they would see that the Commissioners, if they intended to give the full meaning to the words, which he had no doubt they did, conveyed the impression that all leaseholders should be released from leases that had been obtained by unfair means. He must say that the very dissentient Member of the Bessborough Commission—The O'Conor Don—admitted the principle that, in point of fact, where they conceded the rights of the tenant from year to year, they ought to concede the same rights to the leaseholder. The O'Conor Don showed that the contract from year to year was to surrender the holding on getting notice to quit; and he pointed out that the same right ought to be conceded to the leaseholder as to the tenant from year to year. He trusted that the Committee would adopt this Amendment.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, the hon. and learned Member (Mr. P. Martin) had once or twice said that every legal Member of the Committee would agree with his exposition of the law, when he laid down that any Court of Equity would do all that was proposed by this section, in respect of the power which it was proposed to confer upon the Commission. He ventured to challenge that position at once. There was no power, so far as he was aware, in any Court of Law or Equity in England or Ireland to set aside a lease that had been executed as between landlord and tenant, on the ground that it had been signed by the tenant under a threat of the landlord in the exercise of his legal rights. That was the test of the matter. If a threat of eviction were to prevent the exercise of the legal right of the landlord, then the lease was against those legal rights. If a lease was a thing which any Court of Law in England or Ireland could set aside, and if it were true that a Court of Equity could do that, then there was no occasion to burden the Commissioners, who were charged with many duties, with this, when it could be done by any Law Court in the Kingdom. He was glad to see that this mischievous proposal was to be limited upon the lines that the Government laid down. There was no ground for saying that any hardship would exist, as had been stated by the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down.

MR. LEAMY

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Edward Clarke) had just stated that a Court of Equity would not interfere with the contract of a tenant under a lease simply because the tenant was forced into the contract under a threat of eviction—or, in other words, in exercising his legal rights. That was quite true; but were they to be told that any yearly contract tenancy could be set aside because the tenant was forced into that contract by a threat of eviction? Was not it because the tenants had been compelled to enter into a yearly contract under a threat of eviction, and because they had raised their rents enormously, that the Government came forward with this Bill? They were told that the justification for it was that it set aside freedom of contract. But there was no freedom of contract between landlord and tenant in Ireland; and for that reason the contract should be set aside. The Prime Minister had told them that it would not be prudent to legislate upon past transactions. That was very well. The contract that was made 50 years ago was said to be a continuous contract, although it was made before the now state of things had arisen under the Land Act of 1870, or under the Bill now before the Committee. Therefore, the defence was simply that this contract under a deed was more solemn than an ordinary tenancy. But if a tenant contracted verbally to pay £40 for a holding, and to go out on receipt of six months' notice, surely he was as much bound by it as if he had entered into a contract under seal. They did not say that the leaseholder should go into a Court to fix his rent; but what they asked was this—that since they were now going to enable a yearly tenant, notwithstanding his contract, to pay a certain rent, to go into the Court to pay a very much lower rent than he contracted to pay, they should allow the leaseholder, if he could show to the satisfaction of the Court that he was forced into the contract in the same way as the yearly tenant was, he thought it would be inequitable and unjust not to allow him to have the judgment of the Court. They did not propose that every leaseholder should go in and claim; but if a leaseholder could show that the lease was forced upon him, and that during the time he had the lease inequitable and unjust terms were imposed upon him, he (Mr. Leamy) submitted that such a one was entitled to receive the judgment of the Commission.

MR. JOHN BRIGHT

I was a good deal surprised that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had moved this Amendment, especially after the very favourable opinion he had expressed on the Amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, and I was still more surprised that hon. Members from Ireland should think it necessary to continue the discussion in favour of the Amendment on the Amendment after the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It was known to hon. Members opposite, and to the hon. and learned Member (Mr. P. Martin), who had made rather a long speech on this matter, that there had been many suggestions from hon. Members from Ireland during this discussion with respect to this very question; and they themselves had proposed that what was done should be limited by the year 1870. Now, when we look into those Amendments, we find that there is an Amendment by the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) in which he speaks of leaseholders holding lands since 1870, and they may apply to the Court. Then we come down the same column, and the hon. Member for Kilkenny County (Mr. Marum), who is a great friend of this Bill, also there speaks of existing leases which shall have been executed after the passing of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1870. Then, over a leaf, my worthy and hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor) also proposes an Amendment— Provided the Court, on being applied to by the tenant, shall not have reason to judge that the tenant of such a tenancy, if created after the passing of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act of 1870. Now, besides these Amendments, if I am not mistaken, there have been references made by several hon. Members on that side of the Committee; and, therefore, it is quite clear that what was dwelling in the minds of hon. Members before this Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland was put on the Paper was that the Government should do that which my right hon. and learned Friend now proposes to do. Having made that proposition, surely it is a very unwise thing to continue a discussion upon a proposition which they must know was based upon their former proposition; and after the speech of the Prime Minister they must know also that it cannot possibly be accepted. Further, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) is here ready to deliver, no doubt, a strong speech against this clause altogether. He is not going to trifle with it; but he is going to deliver a very powerful charge against this clause altogether. Would it not be better, then, if the Irish Members, who are friends of this Amendment, did not obstruct—if they did not discuss what they know to be impossible, and prevent the coming on of the attack, to which the clause itself must be subjected, and then they will have great liberty to answer the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Now, I am only making this proposition as a matter of tactics. If I were an Irish Member, and in favour of this clause, I should blame my fellow-Members if they took up the time of the Committee in discussing what they knew would be defeated, and what they themselves did not originally propose, and wasted their strength and the time of the House upon it, instead of allowing the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to come on with his speech, and then take the opportunity of absolutely crushing him, which, no doubt, they will, with the assistance of the Government and the hon. Gentlemen on the other side. And then, in the course of the evening, we should divide upon this Amendment. That is the way really for the Business to get on. I will only make one observation more, and that is, that it appears to me that I do not know whether the progress of the Bill, in the course of this discussion, has been hindered more by its friends than by its enemies. When its friends see a good thing in their grasp, if they would take it and not talk so much about it, we should get on better.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I think that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Bright) is rather hard upon his Friends, when he says that they refuse it when they see a good thing within their grasp. That is exactly what it means. They, however, did not see their way in this direction, and they put down moderate Amendments in order to get what could be got in the way of opening leases made since 1870. But then, when the Government have come forward, and taken up the whole ground, the natural consequence has followed that the Irish Members, or some of them, have opened their mouths a little wider, and they have said that "when good things are going we will see what we can get of them." And the Government have put their foot down and said—"No; we will not go any further," because in matters of this sort they legislated only for the present and future, with the sole exception of the Act of 1870. All I can make out is, that the Act of 1870 was a child of their own; and, therefore, they thought they could take great liberties with it, and on that ground they proposed an Amendment which, when we come to discuss it as a whole, we shall point out to them that if they are at liberty with regard to what has taken place since 1870, why it would be im- moral in previous times, when, perhaps, such a plausible case could not be made as at present. I hope that this discussion will not go any further after the plain language used by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

MR. PARNELL

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was surprised because his (Mr. Parnell's) hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) approved as he did of the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and wished to have it extended to leases entered into before the passing of the Act of 1870. Well, he (Mr. Parnell) thought that it was very natural that his hon. Friend approving of the Amendment in regard to leases which had been entered into since 1870 should wish still further to improve it, and apply it to previous leases. He did not think that there was any matter of surprise, from that point of view, that the hon. Member should desire to have this extension. And then the right hon. Gentleman rather chided the Irish Members because the Amendments which had been put on the Paper some two months ago with regard to the leases were, with only one exception, confined to leases which had been executed since 1870, and he intimated that it was very unreasonable of the Irish Members to change their minds. But he (Mr. Parnell) thought in politics, if a politician set out with the principle that he was never going to change his mind, he would not find himself a very successful one. The reason they had changed their minds was not because the Government had given them what they originally asked for; but rather because, in the interval that had been allowed to elapse, they had got such overwhelming evidence of the injustice of the leases previous to 1870, that they thought it right to lay the case before the Government, and to ask them to extend their beneficial provisions to such cases. What were the facts of the case? He did not think that the leases executed before 1870 were, on the whole, as bad as those executed since 1870; but there could be no doubt at all that they were very bad. He had taken the trouble to collect 41 leases which had been executed previous to 1870, and he had had them tabulated, and he found that the average rental amounted to £1,591, or £1,600 in round numbers, and the average Poor Law valuation amounted to £1,000, showing an average rental in these 41 cases of 62 per cent over the Poor Law valuation. Everybody who was conversant with agricultural matters in Ireland would admit that, as a rule—and those cases were selected at haphazard from all parts of Ireland, and were not in any way picked out—50 per cent over the Poor Law valuation was undoubtedly a rack rent, and an extreme rent; and they should hope that the Bill of the Government, and the 7th clause of the Government, would reduce the rents of the tenants occupying holdings to considerably below that figure. In that case, if this hardship existed, what reason was there why these people should continue to pay this excessive rack rent? The Prime Minister, with that wonderful ingenuity which so distinguished him, said that this was owing to the Land Act of 1870 being passed. But it seemed to him (Mr. Parnell) that the Land Act of 1870, having been passed meanwhile, was rather an argument in their favour; because those tenants who were forced into these leases before the Land Act of 1870 had not even the protection of that Land Act to enable them to withstand the exorbitant demands made by the landlord. Now, let him give very shortly—because he recognized the desirability of shortening the discussion—instances of the way in which those leases were forced upon the tenants. In 1875 he found that there were 11 cases in which the leases were forced upon the tenants, and accepted by them under a threat of eviction in four days. Then, again, in 1876, there were two leases which were forced upon tenants under a threat of eviction; and again, in 1877, he had cases of leases which were forced upon the tenant to deprive him of the expected benefits of the Land Act of 1870. People at that time were talking about some legislation in hopes and expectation of the agitation in Ireland being successful, and the landlord took advantage of it and forced those cases on. Then, again, he had three cases of leases which were accepted under the penalty of having the rent doubled, the rent in these cases being raised 50 per cent higher because they took leases. He did not say for a moment that the cases of hardship were very numerous previous to the Act of 1870. [Mr. CARTWRIGHT: For what terms were these cases?] They were for 31 years, and there was a considerable penalty attached to them. He did not mean to contend that there had been so many cases before 1870 as there had been since. In saying that, he admitted that he was making an admission which went, to some extent, againt the case he was desirous of making clear to the Committee. He had received returns relating to something like as many as 350 other leases which were forced upon tenants since the Act of 1870, and he had found that there were 41 cases in which leases had been forced upon tenants before the passing of the Act of 1870, and 350 since that Act came into force. He would therefore ask the Prime Minister whether, as the matter involved was not of very large importance, the number of leases being comparatively few, there was any reason for opposing the Amendment before the Committee? He saw no reason why tenants who held leases which were dated before the year 1870 should be debarred from the beneficial provisions accorded, or proposed to be accorded, by the present Bill, which would, in a large degree, remedy the grievance of which they now complained as having suffered since the passing of the Land Bill of 1870. He thought it would be a politic act on the part of the Government to have mercy on those tenants who, owing to no fault of their own, when they were unprotected by the law, and when no measure of justice or mercy had been extended to them by that House, were compelled to take leases on the terms of which he was then complaining. He could not help thinking—and he was sorry to be compelled to the thought—that there were in the Committee a considerable section of hon. Members who would oppose the Amendment that had been proposed, notwithstanding the fact that it would, if passed, remove from the minds of many among the Irish tenants a burning and rankling sense of injustice.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

said, he had hailed with pleasure the fact that the Notice Paper bore the Notice of Amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, which went as far as ever he anti- cipated the Government would see their way to go. Let him say, however, that he wished his hon. Friend's (Mr. Healy's) words in reference to this particular branch of the question were not to be misunderstood, in that they were wishing to push back a little further the date of leases which should be affected by the Act. The course of action which had been taken reminded him somewhat of the observation of Charles II., who, speaking of one of his courtiers, said that if he had presented to him the whole of Ireland as an estate, he would want the Isle of Man as a cabbage garden. There was, he must confess, an appearance of something of the kind in some of the proposals which had been made by his hon. Friends; but behind that action on the part of his hon. Friends there was the daily receipt by hon. Members at the Post Office in the Lobby of the House of bundles of leases sent by tenants who wished to show the harshness of the treatment to which they were subjected prior to the passing of the Act of 1870, and he must confess that he had been simply astounded by the revelations contained in those documents. It was impossible for hon. Members who took an interest in the subject to hear of these cases without a desire to induce the Government to throw a shield over the men who had suffered the injustice to which he referred. At the same time, he could understand the Government asking themselves whether there were sufficient reasons for looking for a signal post behind the year 1870. There was nothing, as far as he could see, to give a reason for marking the period of a starting point anterior to the passing of the Act of 1870, unless it was contended that if they were to go back behind the year 1870 they should stop at any particular period, and not subject all the leases in Ireland to review. He had reasoned the matter out for himself, and had come to the conclusion that to submit all leases in Ireland—good and bad alike—would only have the effect of causing a great outcry among the leaseholders themselves. Therefore, while he was sorry to differ on this or any other subject from the Friends with whom he generally acted, he could only say that, in his view, the Government had met them very fairly. The only definite opinion to which he came on the occasion of the first reading of the Bill was that the Government would defeat the equities of the Land Act of 1870; and the substance of the present proposal was that the present Bill should not go behind the leases granted since the passing of that Act, but should include them. This was an intelligible proposal, and one which, with an ardent desire to promote in every way the interests of the Irish tenants, he could not but hope would find acceptance in the eyes of his hon. Friends. Of course, while saying this, he wished for more than the Bill proposed to give; and he would, therefore, suggest that if the Government would not give all that his hon. Friends demanded, they should be content with a revision of the leases which were forced upon the tenants by their landlords just before, and in view of, the passing of the Land Act of 1870, so as to defeat and checkmate its beneficent proposals.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

wished the Committee to reflect upon what would be the effect of this proposal on the action that might be taken in "another place" in the event of its being carried. He feared that if the Amendment were accepted the clause would be struck out altogether when the Bill reached the House of Lords.

MR. CALLAN

said, as no such proposal had been made as that all-existing leases in Ireland should be broken or revised, he saw no force or foundation in fact in the suggestion of the quondam tenant farmers' Friend who had just addressed the Committee. The Committee had already departed from the only stand-point on which could be based any valid objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). In an eloquent speech, the Prime Minister had, practically, conferred upon existing leaseholders the right, as far as future tenancies were concerned, to avail themselves of the benefits of this Act; and all that the hon. Member for Wexford asked was that if injustice perpetrated after the year 1870 was to be redressed, the injustice inflicted before that year should also be similarly treated. He (Mr. Callan) had seen a letter from a tenant, and also a copy of the lease under which that tenant held before the passing of the Act of 1870. In his letter, the tenant said that before the Act came into operation he had a new lease forced upon him, and the threat held out to him to induce or compel him to accept such lease was, that if he did not so accept his tenancy would be terminated at the end of the one then running. The majority of tenants in the best parts of Ireland were leaseholders before the year 1870; and why, he asked, were they to be shut out from the benefits of this Act? It was all very well to say that the Act should only be used for the purpose—as far as this branch of the subject was concerned—of repairing injustice committed since 1870; but, surely, if the injustice had been inflicted earlier than that year, the injured person had primâ facie a stronger ground for reparation in some form or another.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

, in supporting the Amendment, said, he had himself received copies of a number of leases forced upon tenants by their landlords, in each of which there was a covenant to the effect that at the termination of the tenancy no claim was to be set up for any improvements made on the holding, and that such improvements, if any, were to become the property of the landlord.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. E. STANHOPE

proposed in the same Amendment, before the word "procured," the insertion of the word "unfairly," and said, he only proposed the Amendment in order to make more clear what he took to be the obvious intention of the Government.

Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, in line 6, before the word "procured," to insert the word "unfairly."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'unfairly' be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he could not agree to the Amendment, in that it was unnecessary, because a lease obtained unfairly could not be included in the provisions of the Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. GIBSON

moved, in the same Amendment, in line 6, to leave out the words "or undue influence," in order to insert the words "and under circumstances which a Court of Equity would hold to be sufficient to set aside a deed." The right hon. and learned Gentleman said his proposal ran on all fours with a statement made by the Prime Minister, on the 30th of June, to the effect that in cases where tenants had presented to them the alternatives of lease or eviction— The question may arise whether relief ought not to be afforded to those leaseholders justly and upon the strictest principles of equity by enabling them to go into Court and have a fair rent fixed—by enabling them to have the lease quashed, as it would be quashed in a Court of Law. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] He (Mr. Gibson) could only say that it was The Times report which he held in his hand. If the Government declined to accept his Amendment, they were in the position of seeking to set aside leases in circumstances which a Court of Equity would not hold sufficient for the setting aside of a deed. He thought it right to guard himself by saying that his Amendment would only improve the drafting, and would not relieve the clause from its original vice.

Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, In line 6, leave out "or undue influence," and insert "and under circumstances which a court of equity would hold to be sufficient to set aside a deed."—(Mr. Gibson.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'or undue influence' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the Government could not accept this Amendment, and for these reasons. The jurisdiction proposed to be set up differed from that of a Court of Equity, and was, at the same time, more extensive. If this had not been so the clause would have been useless.

Question put, and negatived.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the Committee had just heard a very remarkable declaration on behalf of the Government to the effect that the Court created under the Bill would have power to interfere between landlords and tenants in cases where the ordinary Courts of Equity would have no power. This was a rather startling doctrine, and he thought the Committee had a right to ask by what rules, if any, the Court was to be governed. As it seemed to him, this Court was to be armed with new powers, undirected by any principles of law, or, for that matter, equity either, but commissioned to do a sort of rough justice between the parties coming before it. In order that the question might be considered, he would move to insert words providing that the Land Commission "may make such order as a court of equity would make in the like circumstances." He was not in the least tied to any particular form of words, and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would be able to suggest other words fitter for the purpose.

Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, In line 6, leave out all from after the word "may," to end, in order to insert the words "make such order as a court of equity would make in the like circumstances."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he could not see any difference between the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman and the one which the Committee had just negatived.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

asked what prospect there was that when the new equity was got it would be administered upon known principles?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, that if a new equity was created, it must be administered according to the old principles.

MR. PLUNKET

explained that the object of the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was to provide that the order should be made in accordance with the known rules of equity. The Amendment was intended to deal with the circumstances under which the order was to be made; and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General argued that it must be administered according to the old rules of equity, while his right hon. Friend proposed that judgment should be given according to existing rules.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the construction put upon the Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was that it admitted the fact that there was a new equity created and a new power conferred on the Court; but that the Court must exercise it according to the known rules. The words were that the Court should "make such order as a court of equity," and not that they should exercise their powers according to the old principles.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

What I stated in my opening remarks on the proposal was, that I was not in the least anxious about the words, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland might, perhaps, suggest other words. The hon. and learned Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) says you have created new equity. We grant that, and if it was to be administered by a known Court of Equity there would be nothing more to be said upon it; but this is a new procedure, and a new Court altogether. They have certain powers of equitable jurisdiction; but they are a new Court, and will have to administer law and equity upon some new and undefined principles. That is precisely the point I wish to guard against; but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General says the Court will administer this equity according to known equity principles. If that be so I am content; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland stated that that was not necessary. I have done my best to insist that the Government shall provide that this now jurisdiction shall be administered by the Court according to the known rules of equity, and not according to expediency. It is a matter of broad principle, and we cannot insist upon broad principles too much. This Court is not composed of lawyers, and what I want to insure is that the Court shall administer this new equity according to the known rules. The hon. and learned Solicitor General says I am right; but I want to be certain of that.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the Government believed the Court would manage its affairs like all other Courts, according to definite principles, and by the adoption of such rules of procedure as were best suited for the exercise of their powers.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he should not press his Amendment, but should like to have it negatived rather than withdrawn. [Cries of "Withdraw!"] Then he would withdraw it.

Mr. WARTON

asked for a definition of this new equity from the Solicitor General.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he considered the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) too narrow, because it did not provide that the Court should proceed on all matters according to the known rules of equity, and the fair construction was that the Court would not so proceed. He feared there would be a great deal of misunderstanding amongst Irish tenants holding leases, unless some words such as he proposed to move were inserted. On the very day when the Prime Minister consented to make this concession with regard to leases, the hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue) presented a Petition from 50 leaseholders, praying the House to cause their leases to be set aside. If 50 leaseholders from Castle Island, which was a small part of Ireland, took that course, how many leases did the Prime Minister think were likely to be brought into Court? Unless some such Amendment as his (Lord Randolph Churchill's) was adopted, almost every lease would be submitted to the Court on the chance that it might be set aside. His object was to provide that the Court should make rules under which the tenants should know perfectly well whether they had any chance of carrying their leases into Court or not. One rule might be that a tenant applying to the Court should produce his last receipt for rent, and by another the Court might require the tenant to show that he had fulfilled the conditions of the lease which he wished to have set aside; to produce some evidence that he had fulfilled all the covenants, and had kept the buildings and fences in repair.

Amendment proposed, In line 8 of said proposed Amendment, after the word "act," to insert "and on compliance by the tenant with the prescribed conditions."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the said proposed Amendment."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

objected to the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he had heard with some surprise certain pro- positions which had been adopted by the Committee with regard to the position of the tenant on the conclusion of his lease. It seemed to him that all the propositions were based on very incorrect ideas; and the Government appeared to be considering, not what the leases were, but what they might be. It was proposed to give the Court power to break through leases at a time when the tenants had the complete advantage of the lease, and to take away from the landlord any advantage that he might claim. Under the present proposal, if unreasonable conditions were put before a tenant, he might either refuse them, or accept them under a protest of undue pressure. The Government proposed to empower the Court to set aside leases, and on conditions which went far beyond anything that the tenant was entitled to ask. The utmost a tenant was entitled to ask was to be put back in the same position as if the lease had not been forced upon him, and the Government made that proposal upon the understanding that it would meet cases which did not quite amount to fraud; but if there was fraud, the existing Courts of Law would cancel the lease; but now, in a case which was less than fraud, the Court were to be empowered to cancel the lease, and to put the tenant in a position very much more advantageous than he would have been placed in if fraud had been proved. The tenant would, therefore, go into Court with everything in his favour. If he failed in his obligations, he could fall back on the lease which previously existed, with the additional advantage that on the conclusion of the lease he would be placed in the position of the present tenant. If he could show that in one single instance something unreasonable had been demanded by the landlord, he could repudiate the instrument he had made, and be placed in a much better position than if he had originally repudiated the lease, or if the lease had been set aside as having been obtained by fraud.

Amendment proposed, In line 11 of said proposed Amendment, to leave out all after the word "deemed," in order to insert the words, "to have voluntarily surrendered his tenancy, and the Court shall, if necessary, put the landlord in possession thereof by injunction."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he did not think the hon. Member (Mr. E. Stanhope) really comprehended the true meaning of his Amendment. What was proposed was that an application to set aside a lease should be made by a person who had been a tenant from year to year, but upon whom a lease had been forced. It must be proved—first, that he was a tenant from year to year; and, secondly, that the lease, at the time of its acceptance, was unreasonable and unfair; and, finally, that he had been forced or defrauded into taking it. But the hon. Member seemed to suppose that the first part was very favourable to the tenant, and the last part more favourable to the landlord. The extraordinary part of the Amendment, however, was that in which the hon. Member would set aside a lease, and the tenant would be placed in the same position as if the lease had been obtained by fraud. He agreed with the hon. Member in his object; but how was it to be carried out? The Bill would undo a wrong, and leave the man as he would be if the wrong had not been done; but the hon. Member proposed that the man should surrender his tenancy to the landlord with all his improvements on it, and seemed to think that that was restoring the parties to their original position.

MR. E. STANHOPE

replied, that the tenant would not be put in the same position. If the Bill would make him a future tenant, he could understand that; but what it would do was to put him in the position of the present tenant, with all the advantages which this Act conferred.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

moved to introduce at the end of the section a Proviso that any persons aggrieved by any order made under the section might take the same, by way of appeal, to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland, in the same manner as if it was an order made by Her Majesty's High Court of Chancery. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that in another part of the Bill the Committee had agreed that, on all questions of law, art appeal should be allowed from the order of the Commissioners to the Court of Appeal; and if there was one part of the Bill at which it was essential that there should be an appeal to the High Court, it was in this section. Assuming the addition proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to be appended to the clause, that would provide that the Court should have power to set aside agreements between landlord and tenant on grounds which, at all events, were different in their definition from those at present known to the law; and it was most essential that in a case of that kind, which gave to the new Court considerable powers, its decisions, in the first instance, should be regulated by a right of appeal to the High Court.

Amendment proposed, At end of section, to add "Any person aggrieved by any order made under this section may take the same, by way of appeal, to Her Majesty's High Court of Appeal in Ireland, in the same manner as if it was an order made by the Chancery Division of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in Ireland."—(Mr. Edward Clarke.)

Question proposed, "That these words be there added."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he could not agree with the Amendment, for he considered it needless, as the rights which the hon. and learned Member wished to see conferred upon aggrieved suitors was already conferred upon them by another part of the Bill.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he could understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman assumed that the proposal came within the general power given by another part of the Bill; but he (Mr. Edward Clarke) thought there would be some doubt as to that. He was, however, satisfied with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance of his intention with regard to the clause, and would not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

moved to add at the and of the said proposed Amendment the following Proviso:— That the lease of any holding held at a rent of over fifty pounds should not be subjected to revision by the Court. He would remind the Committee that when the Prime Minister introduced the Land Act of 1870, he provided that persons holding tenancies of over £50 should not be subject to that Act. He did not understand that the Prime Minister admitted having made any mistake about the Act of 1870, or that the Act was not suited to the circumstances of the time. It must be admitted that leases of large holdings stood on a totally different footing from that of leases of holdings of less value than £50 a-year; and the Land Act of 1870 had made a considerable distinction between them. He did not suppose for a moment that the Prime Minister would deny the necessity of having some limit to the clause. Was it intended, for instance, that leases of £500 a-year should be taken into Court? Surely, it would never be contended that leases of £10 a-year for 30 years, and leases of £500 a-year for 30 years, were in the same position and required the same protection? All that he (Lord Randolph Churchill) asked was that the 19th section of the Land Act of 1870 should be adhered to, and that this enormous concession should, at any rate, be limited to those tenants who, at the time of the passing of the Act of 1870, were admitted by Parliament to require protection. He thought the Amendment was a fair one, and he hoped the Government would accept it.

Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, to insert at end the words— Provided always, That the lease of any holding let at a rent of over fifty pounds shall not be subject to revision by the Court."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the said proposed Amendment."

MR. GLADSTONE

It is an error on the part of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) to suppose that this Amendment coincides with the line laid down in the Act of 1870. The line then laid down was £50 of annual valuation, not £50 of rent. But I rise to oppose the Amendment on another ground. He says we have always stood upon the sufficiency of the Act of 1870, so far as it went. But that is not so. The Act of 1870 was in several respects insufficient, and we have shown our sense of its insufficiency by largely altering the line above which what is called freedom of contract is restored. Consequently, if any line is to be drawn it must be a line conformable to the spirit of this Bill, and not to the Act of 1870. There is no question whatever that the majority of the leases which will come under the operation of these Amendments will be leases of comparatively small holdings; but my opinion is that many of them are above the line of £50 rent, and even above the line of £50 valuation. I do not think it is worth while to introduce the present Amendment; but if any Amendment is to be accepted by us, without inconsistency on our part, it must be an Amendment which shall be based on the spirit of this Bill, and not on that of the Act of 1870.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the position of hon. Members on the Conservative side of the House. They had not met this clause with anything like an obstinate opposition, and they had assented to the views of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. After what the Prime Minister had said, it would be a concession of an appreciable nature if he would consent to an Amendment limiting the Act to leases of less than £150 a-year. That would show that, in the opinion of Parliament, there were some tenants who, under no consideration whatever, should come under this clause. He would propose to amend his own Amendment by substituting "£150" for "£50."

On Motion of Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, Amendment to said proposed Amendment amended, by leaving out the words "fifty pounds," and inserting "one hundred and fifty pounds;" and leaving out the words "at a rent," in order to substitute the words "annual value" after the word "pounds."

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, To insert at end the words "Provided always, That the lease of any holding of over one hundred and fifty pounds annual value shall not be subject to revision by the Court."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the said proposed Amendment."

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, it seemed to him that there was no proper way of distinguishing between large and small tenants, and no reason whatever why the large tenant should be left out of the Bill.

MR. GLADSTONE

again pointed out that there was really no necessity for the Amendment at all.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

expressed his willingness to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GIBSON

said, that before the original Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland was finally decided upon, he wished to make one or two remarks, for this legislation was so strong, and such strong Amendments were proposed to it, that they almost lost sight sometimes of the extreme importance of what they were doing. He therefore did not think it unreasonable to ask the Committee to remember exactly what was the clause that they were upon, what it was as originally introduced, and what it was now, even before this final Amendment was added to it. As the clause was originally introduced by the Prime Minister, and as it stood in the Bill, it was a clause without qualification, absolutely protecting all existing leases, with all their clauses and conditions. That afternoon the Committee were induced, in a House composed of half its real strength, but still composed of a very substantial number, considering the time of year and the weather, to introduce into the clause a most important qualification, largely doing away with the effect of one of the most important clauses and covenants to be found in all existing leases; and the clause now provided that all existing leases should be deemed to have added to them this qualification—that at their termination the tenant, instead of being bound to give up possession and to comply with his covenant to give up his holding in good order and condition to his landlord, might, if he pleased, remain on in the very beneficial status of a present tenant, with the right of having his rent assessed at what he might conceive to be a fair rent, and with the absolute right of holding on for 15 years, and with the power of again applying, if lie thought proper, at the end of that term of 15 years, for an additional term. They were now considering the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland to a clause which practically said that there might be no termination to a lease at all—that at the technical termination of a lease there might be such an addition that there might be practically no end to it. What, then, was the Amendment which was now proposed to be added? One might have thought that the most extreme ambition to have a strong clause would have been satisfied with what was done that afternoon, without now seeking to make a more striking departure from sound principles, as a good many people would think it. For the present Amendment sought, not to add on a large and substantial qualification at the end of a lease, but to interfere with an existing lease, and to give power to the Court to break it under certain circumstances—circumstances duly set forth in the Amendment, and circumstances which invited the tenant to go into Court "on velvet," to use a phrase which was well known in Ireland, though he did not know whether it was in similar use in this country, or, in other words, to go into Court with a full knowledge that he might win, but could not possibly lose. If the tenant went into Court to have his lease broken, he might succeed, and then he could at once be sure of having the rent revised, if he pleased, by the Court, with the certainty of a term of 15 years, and the possibility of renewal. If he failed he was no worse off; for he had his existing lease, and there was nothing whatever to discourage the tenant from going into Court. He (Mr. Gibson) had a right to ask where was the justification for presenting this Amendment for the adoption of the Committee—an Amendment of so startling and exceptional a character? If there were any justification for it, he supposed it would be found—if found it could be at all—in the Land Act of 1870; and if it could be found there, it must be found in three of the clauses of that Act—the 3rd, the 4th, and the 12th clauses. He was not going to weary the Committee by going through all the details of those clauses; but he must say a few words upon each. The 3rd clause of that Act—and he was not now dealing with an Amendment to that clause inserted either in that House or in "another place," he was dealing with the framing of the clause as originally intended by the Government in 1870—the 3rd clause gave a right to the tenant, on the termination of his tenancy, to demand that the Court should assess for him, if he thought proper, a compensation for disturbance, but that the granting or acceptance of a lease for 31 years should bar that claim to compensation for disturbance. That was not put in at the instance of the landlord; it was the deliberate proposal of the Government, and was a distinct statement to landlords and tenants that it was fair and reasonable, and according to the policy and intention of Parliament, that where a lease of 31 years was given it should bar that claim to compensation for disturbance. The mere acceptance of the lease was to be sufficient to bar the claim. He asked again, where was the justification for the new power now proposed, higher than any power now possessed by any Court of Equity, higher than the power possessed by the Court of Chancery either in England or in Ireland? It certainly could not be found in the 3rd clause of the Land Act of 1870. The Committee should bear in mind that the 3rd clause expressly stated, when it gave this power, and held out this invitation to landlords to grant leases for 31 years, that any leases for shorter periods should not affect, take away, or qualify the tenant's claim to compensation for disturbance. They should remember also that they had already, practically, destroyed the right to release, even if it logically existed at all, by the Amendment accepted this afternoon, because the claim to compensation for disturbance could only be made when the tenant had completed the term of his holding, and they had taken care that the tenant should never be asked to quit, unless he desired to go, or desired to break the statutory conditions; so that he (Mr. Gibson) was entirely within the argument to be drawn from the Land Act of 1870, and entirely within the argument to be drawn from the present clause as now defended, when he said that no reliance could be placed upon the 3rd clause of the Land Act as a justification for the present Amendment. As to the 4th clause of that Act, that was one of such minor and petty application, so far as this leasehold point was concerned, that it could only be relied upon technically, because the acceptance of a lease for 31 years could not stop a claim to compensation for improvements of a permanent character. The 4th clause, then, was out of the case, even if not removed by the Amendment adopted this afternoon, which practi- cally placed it at the option of the tenant whether he would quit his holding or not; and he could not take compensation for improvements until he did quit his holding. He came now to the only other section of the Act of 1870 which could be relied on in support of an Amendment which he would only characterize as extraordinary, and that was the 12th section. It was very startling—that was a moderate and fair word, and, therefore, he should use it in preference to any other—it was very startling to find that the 12th section of the Act of 1870 was to be relied on in defence of the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend. They were all familiar with the 12th section of the Land Act of 1870. It provided clearly and distinctly that the landlord and tenant of any holding, the value of which exceeded £50 a-year, were to be at liberty to contract with one another. They were to be absolutely free to contract with each other as they thought fit; for it was assumed—and this was the foundation of the limitation of the clause—that the tenant of a holding valued at a higher rent than £50 of Poor Law valuation was quite able to look after himself, without the intervention of any Land Act or Court of Law or Equity. That was the whole policy and justification of the clause, and if it had not had that policy and justification, there never would have been such a clause. But the Amendment now moved practically proceeded upon this—that the 12th section of the Act of 1870, which provided for good contracts, and which had prevailed for the last 11 years, should not only be repealed for the future, but that a Court—not a Court of Equity, but a Court specially and peculiarly framed to administer some peculiar kind of bastard equity—should be at liberty to upset that freedom of contract which the Government themselves had declared legitimate by the 12th section of their Act of 1870. Where, then, was their justification for so slandering their own work of 1870? If they did not care to repeal that 12th section, why were they going to make it worthless? But they were doing still worse. They were going back, and giving powers to this Court—not a Law Court, but a partly lay Court, for he declined to recognize the accident of any member of it being a lawyer—["Oh, oh!"]—this was not a Law Court—nothing of the kind—they were giving powers to this Court which were not, at present, possessed by any Court of Equity—the power of administering an equity unknown, at present, to any Court in the Kingdom. Where was the justification for that? His right hon. and learned Friend, whose opinion he respected as much as that of any member of the Profession, had rested some justification for it upon their old friend—one of the Bessborough Commissioners' Reports. His right hon. and learned Friend rested his case on the Bessborough. Report, and also, he believed, on the unfortunate Index to that Report. He was sure the hon. Member for County Cork (Mr. Shaw) was not the author of that Index. His right hon. and learned Friend rested his case, then, on the Bessborough Report, and on its Index. But that Report was before the Government long before they framed this 47th clause, and they knew the opinion of the Prime Minister in reference to it and its modifications; and the Cabinet, in all their meetings, necessarily numerous, and in all their considerations, necessarily elaborate, in reference to this Bill, never drafted the present Amendment upon that Bessborough Report, or upon the paragraph in that Report—cautious and qualified as that paragraph was—which bore upon this point. With the Commission and its Evidence before them, the Cabinet deliberately elected to pass this matter by, and they brought in a clause which was substantially inconsistent with the Amendment now proposed by his right hon. and learned Friend. It was only recently that this change was introduced, for, so lately as the 29th of June, the Prime Minister said that the Government were not prepared, either with regard to present leases, or with regard to future leases, to lay down the principle that those who assented to the terms of a lease should be at liberty to question them before the Court during the period of the lease. And the right hon. Gentleman added that where a lease was entered into, it should be a real one and not illusory, and, above all, it should not be binding upon one side only. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, by his Amendment, drove a most disrespectful coach-and-four through that very clear statement of the Prime Minister, because he said that leases made since 1870 should be binding on one side only. The Amendment, in fact, gave the tenant power to go into Court to void the lease; and if he succeeded, instead of having to give up possession, he remained in possession with all the new benefits and equities established under the Bill. The opinion expressed by the Prime Minister on the 29th of June was expressed not so very long ago. After the good-humoured expression on the phrase "change of front," which had occurred that afternoon, he would not use the phrase again now; but he thought he was entitled to say that the Prime Minister had somewhat reconsidered his position since the 29th of June, and he was not sure, indeed, that the right hon. Gentleman did not do so on the following day, because on the 1st of July he made another speech of a not entirely satisfactory character, though he would not call it a "change of front." He only wished the Government had seen their way, in their wisdom and with their majority, to stand to the clause in the form in which they introduced it. This was a very important question—there could be no doubt about that—and it was a question which was quite entitled to a prolonged debate. But he did not think that even the most bitter enemies of the Conservative Party could accuse them of raising too long or exaggerated a discussion upon these points. He had touched as shortly as he could upon some of the points which had struck his mind as most strong; and, though he did not intend to grapple with them further, he should feel it his duty to divide the Committee against the Amendment moved by his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

supported the Amendment, and declared that he had in his possession a number of cases which had occurred in Limerick, and on the estate of the Earl of Kenmare, and in other places where leaseholders had been very unfairly treated and had had to leave their holdings without any compensation. However, as the Committee were anxious for a division, he would not detain them by giving the details of these cases.

MR. GLADSTONE

It would not be consistent with the respect which we all on this side of the House feel for the ability and integrity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who has spoken so strongly on this subject, if I were to allow the Question to be put without saying one word upon it. Now, Sir, in the first place, I may say that a very large part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement appears to turn upon a matter which has been already settled; and, undoubtedly, the general tenour of his speech was not such as to bring in view that which we conceive to be the essence of this matter. Let it be understood that there is no question depending between us now as to the condition of a leaseholding tenant at the termination of his lease. That is completely settled, and would not be in the least degree affected by the Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend, which is now before us. The whole question before us now is this—Whether certain leases in Ireland are of such a character that the tenant ought not to be kept under the operation of those leases, but ought to be replaced in the position he would have held if he had never executed a lease at all? No doubt, it is the case that, whenever the lease terminates, he will be so replaced in that position; but the question is whether, in the case of such questionable leases, he ought to continue subject to the conditions of the lease until its specific term has run out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has made a reference, of which I cannot complain, to a speech made by me on the 30th of June, and to what he supposes to be a difference of opinion held by me between then and the 1st of July. I do not question the substantial accuracy of the words quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but the fact is that the point under discussion on the 30th of June was a point of rent in regard to existing leases, and it was in reference to that point of rent in regard to existing leases, and that point alone, that I said we were not prepared to interfere with existing covenants. On the 1st of July other points were raised—I speak from memory—and it was brought under the notice of the House that there were, in many of these leases, covenants which were totally contrary to the plain meaning and intent of the Act of 1870. The question, then, Sir, is this. Has there been an abuse of power by landlords in certain cases in consequence and by virtue of the provisions of the Act of 1870? Have the tenants suffered, down to the present time, by that abuse of power, and, if they have, is there any reason why they should continue to suffer until the termination of the lease? Now, it is admitted, I understand, that if these were cases of fraudulent leases, such leases might be set aside; and it has been said by some that this is a case much weaker than a case of fraud. Well, Sir, that it does not correspond to a case of fraud I readily admit; but I do not think it is in the least necessary to enter upon a moral comparison between an act of the kind aimed at by this Amendment and a case of legal fraud. The only act aimed at by this Amendment is where the landlord has done two things to a certain person. That certain person having been a tenant from year to year at the time when the lease was made, and a tenant who would, presumably, have continued to be a tenant from year to year, the landlord has, in the first place, got him to accept a lease containing unfair and unreasonable provisions, and not only that—for we do not seek to release the tenant from the consequences of his own imprudence—but the landlord has, in the second place, enforced that unfair lease by the threat of eviction. That is the case in which we interfere, and I do say that, as we are now a Legislative Assembly, it is our duty to look at rules and principles of equity which are larger than those committed to the ordinary administration of the Courts of Law. I say, these are equities which are sound and right, upon special occasions, to be contemplated by a Legislative Assembly, even though, as a general rule, it may not be desirable or politic to remit them to Courts of Law. This is the case of a lease containing unfair and unreasonable provisions enforced by a threat of eviction. Was it the intention of the Act of 1870 that that should be done? Is any man ready to suppose that that was the meaning and intention? The intention was perfectly plain upon the face of it. It was, that if parties of their own will chose to commute the claim to compensation for disturbance given under that Act, they are at liberty to do so; but the presumption of the Act was plainly this—that the lease was not to contain unfair and unreasonable provisions, and that it was not to be enforced by a threat of eviction. If a lease did contain such provisions, I say it was an abuse of the Act—I think I may even say, politically speaking, that it was a fraudulent abuse of the provisions of the Act—and it is within the high discretion of Parliament to give a remedy for such art abuse. We have no question here at all about the condition of the tenant at the termination of the lease; that is all settled. And the question now is, whether, when by legislation you have put the tenant into the position of having unjust provisions forced upon him by a threat of eviction, you cannot relieve him, and whether it is not your duty to relieve him from the operation of those covenants for the remainder of his lease by interposing the authority of Parliament.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

The right hon. Gentleman looks upon the clause as carried in the Act of 1870 in a very different character now from that in which he looked upon it before. When Parliament was asked to pass the Act of 1870 the matter was put in this way. At that time there were to be provisions made for granting to the tenant compensation for disturbance; but the right hon. Gentleman, in introducing his Bill, stated that there would be other methods by which it would be possible to give the tenant the same advantage—that is to say, that instead of leaving him to rely upon a provision granting compensation for disturbance, there should be the alternative power of giving him a lease. And the way in which it was put was this. The right hon. Gentleman said— Many landlords may say that they do not object to granting security or stability of tenure, but that they prefer to do it by the method of lease rather than in the shape of compensation for eviction from yearly or other short tenancies. Where a lease is of competent length, we consider the parties to it must be understood to be perfectly cognizant of the relations into which they enter; and we consider it to be found by experience that the more definite those relations the greater will be the exertion of the farmer, the more fully will he develop the agricultural resources of the country, and the more complete will be, as a general rule, the satisfaction of all concerned."—[3 Hansard, cxcix. 377.] That is a short extract from a speech from which I might make many others to the same effect; and only a little while ago the Prime Minister reverted almost to the position that he took up at that time to justify the proposal to confine this provision which is now before us to leases made since the passing of the Act of 1870. He has quoted that Act as being one by which Parliament has given special facilities and special inducements to landlords to give leases. But now we are told—"Oh, we see there may have been cases, and there have been cases, in which this power has been used in a way which was not in accordance with the intentions of the framers of the Act." Well, I really do not know where we are to stop. If the lease was obtained by anything in the nature of fraud, it is admitted that there are means, by going to the ordinary tribunals of the country, to set aside its provisions. But this is not a case of fraud—it is a case in which some undue influence is supposed to have been used, or a threat of eviction. But what is meant by "a threat of eviction?" I thought that compensation for disturbance was exactly the weapon by which a threat of eviction was to be parried, and that whenever the landlord, after the passing of the Act of 1870—for it is only of that that we are now speaking—threatened to evict the tenant, the tenant would be able to say—"If you turn me out you will have to give me a very large amount of compensation." Therefore, this threat of eviction is a very different thing from what it may have been in former times, before this compensation for disturbance was granted. Then I should like to know what is to be considered "undue influence?" We heard in one instance that a tenant was induced to take a lease because he was moved by the wish of his wife, who did not like to leave the holding. You may say that that was an undue influence. In fact, you may say that anything and everything except the mere consideration of how much money can be made by the business of a farmer is an undue influence; and if a man is induced, by any personal consideration whatever, to give a certain rent for a farm for a certain period, he may be said to have been actuated by some influence other than the mere commercial one, and it might be called "undue." We have no test or guide as to how the words would be construed; all we know is that they are not likely to be construed as a Court of Equity would construe them. But where are we to stop? The Prime Minister told us this afternoon that there is no use in using arguments which turn on the question of consistency or change of front, and I quite agree with him that those are arguments on which we should not lay excessive strength. But the real question is whether, in cases of this sort, what is proposed to be done is in itself equitable and is in itself expedient. Now, it appears to me that it is very questionable in equity to allow a contract deliberately entered into between persons of full competency to enter into contracts, and entered into with the deliberate consent of the Legislature, as in the case of these 31 years' leases, to be broken and set aside, because the tenant, on reflection, does not happen to like it. When one states a case in that way, it naturally limits the objection very materially. But the real question is—"What does this mean?" because you have a very undefined ground upon which you have to go. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) told us some time ago there was nothing sacred in parchment or sealing wax. Think what mischief you are doing by establishing precedents and rendering leases and contracts so insecure as you are about to make them. If you are going to lay down doctrines by which contracts in years to come may be set aside in the easy manner in which it is now proposed that these contracts should be set aside, or by which facilities should be given to destroy or greatly weaken the confidence between man and man which the system of contract is intended to build up, it seems you are doing a most unwise thing. I want to know whether, after the passing of this Act, we are to expect that there will be any more leases at all? Although a lease may be made much more in favour of the tenant than the landlord, the landlord is undoubtedly bound by it, and however the holding may increase in value he cannot raise the rent; whereas we know very well that if the profits fell off the tenant can give up the farm and the landlord cannot enforce the rents. Is there to be no equality in the treatment of the two parties? The hon. Member for Wexford, in a few sentences which had a very fair ring about them, said he wished to do equal justice to the landlord and tenant; but I do not see anything here which is to give the landlord any relief if he had the misfortune to enter into a bad bargain. Suppose a tenant has been induced by undue influences to enter into a bargain, and that for several years his profits have been much greater than he anticipated, when a bad time came he could break the lease. It would matter nothing if he had made a great deal on the farm previously; and although years might have elapsed since he entered into the agreement, he could break the lease if he could prove undue influence. But how are you going to prove undue influence? In a great many cases the evidence may not be forthcoming, the original parties may be dead, you may have to deal with representatives, and you will have great difficulty in giving effect to these matters, and, at the same time, you will run the risk of committing great injustice. The task which is assigned to your Commission to fix a fair rent even for existing tenancies is an extremely right task; but when, in addition, you throw upon them the duty of finding what would have been a fair rent 10 years ago—and they could only gather that from the imperfect evidence of some of the parties to the transaction—you put upon them a duty which it will be almost impossible for them to perform properly. I am quite aware the Committee must submit to whatever the Government may desire and press in this matter; but we must enter our protest against the adoption of a principle which appears to be fundamentally unsound and inexpedient, and which, if allowed to go unchallenged, must result in the development of principles still more dangerous.

MR. GLADSTONE

The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) has made an extract from my speech on this subject in 1870. I wish to assist in giving to the Committee and to hon. Gentlemen opposite a little more light as to what my view in 1870 was concerning the nature of leases; and I am very sorry that my right hon. Friend, owing to some inadvertence possibly, completely failed to read a material part of the passage in which I explained my view. I say in that speech, on page 48 of the corrected report— A landlord, then, may, according to the 16th clause, exempt his lands from being subject to any custom, except the Ulster Custom or from being subject to the scale of damages, provided he agrees to give the tenant a lease such as I will now describe. First, it must be for thirty-one years; and, secondly, it must leave to the tenant at the end of those thirty-one years a right to claim compensation under three heads—first, the head of tillages and manures,.… secondly, for permanent buildings; and, thirdly, for the reclamation of land. But besides this, the lease must be, in regard to rent and to covenants, approved by the Court."—[3 Hansard, cxcix. 377–8.] That, Sir, is the view upon which my right hon. Friend seeks to convict me and show me up for inconsistency, because we now say that the landlords who have inserted in leases covenants whereby the tenant renounces the claim to improvements at the end of the lease have acted contrary to the spirit and meaning of the Act. If hon. Gentlemen will turn to the first print of the Act of 1870 and to the 16th clause, they will see that it is there provided that a landlord may tender to a tenant a lease of a holding for a term certainly not less than 31 years, upon such terms as the Court may think fair. Such was the policy upon which the charge of inconsistency is now based.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he knew not how the right hon. Gentleman might stand with regard to consistency with what he said in 1870; but there appeared to be some slight inconsistency with what he had stated earlier in the evening. He had said that a lease, in the opinion of the tenants since 1870, meant the fixing of a settled rent and nothing else; and to-night he had pointed with triumph to his own description of a lease at that time which, so far from being a fixed rent, included tillage and manures, and covenants to be approved by the Court. What became of his arguments of a few hours ago? He (Mr. Chaplin) protested against the doctrines which had been advanced under the form of this Amendment. The Prime Minister would say to the leaseholder—"It is true that you have entered into solemn contracts and engagements, and my advice is, adhere to these engagements as long as they are profitable; but the day and the hour that you find them to your disadvantage, cast them to the winds." Why, he had asked, should the tenants in Ireland, if they had suffered up to now, continue to suffer any longer? He would give the right hon. Gentleman one answer. The right hon. Gentleman had himself said, when passing the Act of 1870— This Bill will proceed on the principle.… that from the moment the measure is passed every Irishman, small and great, must be absolutely responsible for every contract into which he enters."—[Ibid. 380.] Was it conceivable that that language proceeded from the same Minister who occupied the same position 11 years ago, and who now advised Irish tenants to break their leases?

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 201; Noes 109: Majority 92.—(Div. List, No. 315.)

THE CHAIRMAN

The acceptance of this Amendment rules out Amendments standing in the names of Mr. M'Coan, Mr. W. J. Corbet, Mr. Macfarlane, Mr. Shaw, Mr. J. N. Richardson, Mr. Marum, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Charles Russell, and Mr. Givan.

MR. MACFARLANE

moved an Amendment to provide that where a tenant had been induced to sign away his rights under the Ulster, or any other custom, the landlord should be able to prove that such resignation of those rights had been given for valuable consideration.

Amendment proposed, In page 27, line 29, at end of Clause, to add Provided such Ulster or other custom has been obtained for a valuable consideration."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he did not think the Amendment necessary, and could not accept it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48 (Saving in case of inability to make immediate application to Court); Clause 49 (Application of Act); and Clause 50 (Short title of Act), severally agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Forward to