§ As amended (by the Standing Committee) further considered.
§ MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans) moved to leave out from Clause 1 the words, "or his predecessors in title," and to insert the words, "or in which ho has, with the assent of the landlord, acquired the interest." The hon. Member pointed out that there was no time limit mentioned in the Bill with respect to improvements alleged to have been made 634 in the past. Alleged improvements might have been made a hundred years ago, and the difficulty of obtaining anything like reliable evidence as to the nature of such improvements made it highly desirable that the existing tenant should not have the power to revive such alleged improvements and make a claim for them. By the alteration proposed in his Amendment he hoped that difficulty might be overcome. Where such claims were made, there would be overwhelming difficulties in the matter of reliable evidence. The original owner of the property had perhaps long since died, and the original tenant would probably have also passed away years ago. Then, again, in a vast number of cases, it would be necessary to protect the poor against those who were poorer than themselves. Many of the owners of property who would be affected by the Bill were, as a matter of fact, poorer than their tenants; therefore it was only just and right that it should be made impossible for a tenant to revive ancient alleged improvements in which he had taken no part, but for which he was allowed to claim under the provisions of a most improper and unsuitable measure.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 1, line 10, to leave out the words 'or his predecessors in title' and insert the words 'or in which he has with the assent of the landlord acquired the interest.'"—(Mr. Carlile.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,) Liverpool, Exchangesaid the words in the Bill were taken from the Land Act of 1870, and had a definite meaning in the Irish Courts founded on a long series of judicial decisions.
§ MR. CARLILEAnd what is the meaning?
§ MR. CHERRYsaid it would take him a very long time to go into the answer to that question. The effect of adopting the Amendment would be that where a man made an improvement and died in the following year, leaving the tenancy to his son, that son would have 635 no claim to be compensated for the improvement made by his "predecessor in title" within the meaning of the Act of 1870. The question of a time-limit would arise upon later Amendments.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (City of London)said the learned Attorney-General for Ireland had contended that the Irish Land Act of 1870, and the Acts of 1880 and 1887 had worked well. They on the Opposition side of the House did not consider that those Acts had worked well. They had led up to an expenditure of £120,000,000 of the British taxpayers' money, and perhaps this Bill would lead up to the expenditure of another £120,000,000. The words in the clause were susceptible of two meanings, and he maintained that they were not necessary, and ought to be omitted. What might happen in the event of the words "predecessors in title" being retained?" He himself held a house, the lease of which had forty-five years to run, and which he bought from the executors of the previous lessee. After making due calculation as to what the result would be after buying the lease, he spent £800 on improvements; and if these words were left in the Bill he might make a claim on the ground landlord for £800 at the end of his tenancy—so being paid twice over. He did not consider that that was just. Supposing he had made the improvement with the object of reselling the house, and had sold it at a profit, the purchaser, if these words were left in, would be entitled to go to the unfortunate landlord and say, "My predecessor in title spent £800 on improvements, and therefore I demand that sum from you." Then, a surveyor would have to be employed to assess what the probable cost of the improvement was. He himself was fortunate enough to make his improvement very cheaply. One estimate was £1,500, while it only cost £800. The right hon. Gentleman would see that his remarks were apposite, and illustrated a state of things which he could hardly believe any right-minded a man could desire to see perpetuated. The case showed what result might follow from the haphazard legislation of the Government. To take another case, the house next to his belonged to a lady who spent money in improving it. She died, and her executors sold the lease 636 at 190 years purchase. What that 190 years purchase would develop into if this Bill passed before the landlord got possession of his property he did not know. The Bill as it stood opened a long vista of lawsuits. Any number of skilled witnesses would have to be called in to say what the cost of the improvements had been, when the improvements were made, and under what circumstances, and the result would be that the person who had invested his money on the faith of what was ordinary right and fair dealing, would find that the bulk of the money he received for the house had gone in law expenses. In a commercial country like this the result of passing such a Bill would be confusion; rents would rise; and capital would be driven out of the country. [An Hon. Member on the MINISTERIAL Benches: No.] Was the hon. Gentleman prepared to let his property and at the end of a certain number of years pay compensation for all alleged improvements made on it? His experience of the, House, which was that of some years, was that hon. Gentlemen opposite were only anxious for this kind of legislation when they were quite certain that it would not affect themselves. He did not think that the words proposed to be inserted were very good words, because they would probably lead to litigation. A landlord might have given his consent years ago to the making of improvements, but that would be done in the ordinary way, and on the understanding that at the end of the tenancy the intention of both parties to the contract would have to be carried out. In the Grand Committee on 18th July last the right hon. and learned Gentleman moved an Amendment to limit the compensation for improvements made by tenants to the previous ten years. That Amendment was negatived, he believed without a division; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wished to be consistent he would vote for this Amendment now before the House.
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)said that his objection to the clause was that the Government insisted on making it retrospective. He would illustrate the point from his own personal experience. He took a house from a gentleman who was 637 the executor of a previous tenant who had spent a very large sum in improvements. He had given a certain sum of money for the lease of the house, and he did not imagine that he should receive from the landlord at the end of his lease a large sum of money for improvements upon which he had not spent any money, but upon which his predecessor had spent a large sum of money. The actual tenant who would receive the benefit would not in many cases have carried out the improvements; they would have been carried out by a previous tenant, and it would be impossible for the landlord to check any claim made upon him. The difficulty arose from the determination of the Government to make the Bill retrospective. They had not, how ever, advanced one single argument in favour of doing so. What they had done was to refer to the land legislation of 1870 and following years. That argument appeared to him to be irrelevant. He thought it was one of the rhetorical tricks of the orator who, having no good argument, relied upon one that sounded plausible. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland had repeated the argument, it appeared that he thought that this Bill was justified by the Act of 1870. The right hon. Gentleman was bound to support his proposal upon two grounds, first, that town property was similar to agricultural land, and, secondly, that the legislation of 1870 was a success. As to the first proposition it seemed to him that the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman broke down hopelessly, as town property did not seem to have any similarity to agricultural property. As to the second, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was on weaker ground still. He had the audacity to get up on the Treasury Bench and tell thorn that the Irish land legislation had been a success. [NATIONALIST MEMBERS: Very successful for the landlords.] If hon. Gentlemen said that they meant, in other words, that it was a failure. He gathered from the Members for Ulster that they also did not approve of it, and as a humble inhabitant of the sister island he had always regarded the land legislation of Ireland as a triumph of mismanaged legislation. The Act of 1870 had led to dual ownership, with the 638 ultimate result that Parliament had been forced to pass a measure, not because they thought they were right but because the land law had got into such a mess that something had to be done. That was the Act of 1887, which pledged the credit of this country to an enormous amount to buy out the landlord and put the land in a single hand. In face of overwhelming arguments against this clause he would ask the House to reject it unless some better argument than that of the Act of 1870 could be brought forward.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,) Aberdeen, S.said the noble Lord who had just spoken was very indignant with his right hon. friend the Attorney-General for having referred to the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881 as being precedents for the proposals contained in this Bill. The noble Lord forgot that those Acts were the law in Ireland. Then the noble Lord said that the Acts had not succeeded, but he would ask anyone who knew Ireland before 1870 and 1881 to go through the country now and tell them his experiences. Such a visitor would be struck by the enormous benefit which those Acts had conferred upon the country. They had wrought an entire transformation in the condition of the tenantry, and this must be admitted by anyone who knew their condition before the legislation was passed. Anybody who contrasted the conditions then and now would feel an endless debt of gratitude to the statesman who passed those Acts. Thirty-six years had passed since the Act of 1870 became law, but it had not become a precedent for English legislation, although these Acts might become precedents in regard to England, if it turned out that the circumstances were such as required such a course.
§ LORD R. CECILinquired if the right hon. Gentleman suggested that there was anything special about town tenants in Ireland which was not common to England?
§ MR. BRYCEreplied in the affirmative, and said he had already explained it. The House would, however, pardon him if he did not in every speech repeat what he had said in his previous utterances. 639 The arguments which they were now listening to were advanced over and over again in 1870, in 1881, in 1887, and in 1891 when the land question was under consideration. It was said then, as it was said now, "If you pass this for Ireland, later on you will have to pass it for England" That argument, seemed to appeal especially to the noble Lord, and nowhere was felt more strongly than in the mind of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London who apparently did not desire to see any state of society or any other relation existing between people than those with which he was familiar in the City. But Ireland was not London, and they were now legislating for Ireland and trying to meet the cases which it was necessary to deal with in that country. They were not going to be deterred from doing so because some hon. Gentleman got up and said, "If you apply this to Ireland it must in the end be extended to England."
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he was sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman but he only wanted to quote one passage from his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid he was willing to give way to the hon. Baronet for the purpose of enabling him to make any explanation, but he could not do so in order to enable the hon. Baronet to inaugurate a new debate.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid all he wished to say was that in that speech the right hon. Gentleman stated that he wished to see this legislation extended to England.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid he had stated so in regard to one particular provision, but the point which the hon. Baronet had taken was quite irrelevant to the argument they were now conducting. He thought there were some very excellent provisions in the Bill which might be extended to England, but he should not support them merely because they were applied to Ireland, and he should only do so in case he thought there was good reason for applying them to England. The noble Lord the Member for Maryle- 640 bone seemed to think that the compensation to be awarded would be given in regard to improvements made by the predecessor in title of the tenants, but that was not the plan of the Bill, because nothing was to be given as compensation for improvements except such improvements as added to the letting value of the holding. That was the basis on which the compensation would be fixed, and when the noble Lord suggested a case in which he would obtain compensation without having spent any money he must point out to him that in order to obtain possession of a house he must have paid an increased sum because of the increased value which the improvement gave to the house.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid he expressly stated that he did not pay an increased sum of money; that was the whole point of his argument.
§ MR. BRYCEreplied that it stood to common sense that if one was buying a house, and the improvements had made it more valuable, one would pay more in consequence of those improvements. If more was paid for the house it was only fair that compensation should be paid, it being always understood that the landlord did not pay for anything which did not increase the letting value of the house. That was a very solid reason for resisting an Amendment which would lead to gross injustice.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)said the right hon. Gentleman began his speech with a very eloquent tribute to the virtues of the Irish Land legislation of 1870 and 1881. In doing so the right hon. Gentleman opened a wide field of controversy—wider than he would like if it were discussed at length, having regard to the arrangement arrived at at Question time. He was not going to discuss the question whether the land legislation of 1870 or 1881 was or was not good for the Irish people, nor was he going to expose the patent fallacy that because the Irish tenantry were better off now than they were thirty years ago that could be regarded as an ample justification of the Acts of 1870 and 1881, which had had to be supplemented by the Land Purchase Acts. When the right hon. 641 Gentleman paid an eloquent tribute to the authors of the Act of 1870 he wondered if he reflected upon the horror which would have been in Mr. Gladstone's mind if he could have foreseen that the legislation which he regarded as special legislation for Irish agricultural land was going to be extended to Irish urban property. Mr. Gladstone would have been the first to say that there was no fundamental difference between Irish and British town tenants. If the Chief Secretary would refresh his mind by referring to the speeches of Mr. Gladstone on the Irish land question he would see that Mr. Gladstone explicitly stated that the legislation he was passing for Ireland was utterly unsuited for English or Scottish holdings, and ho denounced it in principle though he excused it in the particular state of things which he found in Ireland. If Mr. Gladstone were here now he would be filled with horror at taking the precedent of his Act of 1870 and applying it to town tenants. Mr. Gladstone would say that the first duty of a Government bringing in this Bill was to show that the condition of the urban tenants was analogous to the conditions of the agricultural tenants and to the fundamental condition of the urban tenants in England and Scotland. That had not been done. The right hon. Gentleman had now referred them to some speech which he said he made yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman might have intended to make such a speech yesterday, but ho never did make it. If he would refer to Hansard or if he would send for a copy of The Times now he would agree that that speech was never made. The right hon. Gentleman had never attempted to grapple with the main principle. He had never attempted to show any fundamental difference between a tenant in Merrion-square and a tenant in Grosvenor-square or a shopkeeper in Belfast and a shopkeeper in Bond street. Had the right hon. Gentleman sent for a copy of The Times?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe right hon. is well advised.
§ MR. BRYCEThe right hon. Gentleman refers me to The Times. But I distinctly remember referring to the fact that there were habits of usage with 642 regard to houses in Ireland which were not analogous to England.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not deny the right hon. Gentleman might have let fall a phrase of that kind, but did he give a catalogue of the habits of usage in Ireland? If the right hon. Gentleman was asked the essential distinctions between agricultural holdings in Ireland and in England he would have no hesitation in making a catalogue. The agricultural tenant in Ireland made all the improvements, he fenced the land, he drained it, he built the walls, and, in fact, did the whole thing. In England and Scotland all these conditions were different, and therefore different land legislation was required in Ireland. But could the right hon. Gentleman say in what way the system of the urban holdings in Ireland differed from that of England. As regarded town tenants, not one single peculiarity had been pointed out to differentiate the case of an inhabitant of London from an inhabitant of Dublin, a resident in Belfast from a resident in Manchester. Was it not folly, then, for him to claim that yesterday he made a speech explaining why this Bill was appropriate to Ireland, and that there was good ground for saying it would not be extended to England?
§ MR. BRYCEI have never said anything about its being extended to England except what I said just now.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that was just what ho was commenting upon. The right hon. Gentleman had just said he had given the House reasons why this legislation was justified in the case of Irish tenants, and therefore there was no occasion for anticipating that it would be extended to England.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURpointed out that the House was asked to legislate now for Ireland, and it was said there was some explicit difference between Irish town tenants and English town tenants. When asked to name one single point of difference the right hon. Gentleman could not do so. The vice of this first clause was that it dealt with the past and the future in the same words. It dealt with the tenants who had been going on for many 643 years and the tenants who would begin after this law came into force. Under this clause how were they to discover what improvements were done some eighty years ago? There was no record kept of the state of a house eighty years ago, and a landlord, although he knew a wrong claim was being made, would have no information to controvert it. In going back to a shadowy and indefinite past, with regard to which no authentic information could be forthcoming, the Government were certain of causing many injustices and much unnecessary litigation by their somewhat reckless method of legislation.
§ * MR. MOONEY (Newry)said the right hon. Gentleman would not have troubled the House with the speech to which they had just listened if he had consulted the right hon. Member for South Dublin. He knew that the Member for South Dublin was not in the habit of consulting the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City before he made speeches, especially speeches on Irish affairs. But still the right hon. Gentleman would have had the benefit of the advice of his late colleague, and he would not have stated that he looked with horror upon this Bill not because it was wrong, but because it contained the germ of something that might hereafter be extended to England. Had the right hon. Gentleman consulted the right hon. Member for South Dublin he might have been referred to a speech made in January last in Dublin where this was a burning question. The right hon. Member for South Dublin on that occasion took up a very different attitude from that which he had now adopted. He was then defending his action in not voting for a similar Bill last year, and he defended himself by suggesting that the Bill was brought in so late in the session that he could not see his way to ask the Government to star it. But the right hon. Gentleman went further, and said—
We want this in England quite as much as you want it in Ireland. The case is just as strong in England as in Ireland;and he went on to say—I have got a house which I hold from a great landlord and I have spent money on the house and I should like to get compensation, therefore the whole of my spirit is in favour of the Bill.644 The right hon. Gentleman went even further and said he did not vote for the Bill last year because it did not extend to England.
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid that upon the occasion in question he was referring to the action he had taken in this House when Chief Secretary for Ireland. He was practically quoting the speech he made when Chief Secretary, and he was pointing out the reason for the action he took.
§ * MR. MOONEYsaid the only difference between this Bill and that which the right hon. Gentleman was referring to was that compensation for disturbance was not in this Bill.
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid all he was complaining of was the statement that the language he used was different from that which he had used in this House. The language was the same.
§ * MR. MOONEYcontended that the language was completely different. The right hon. Gentleman said he objected to compensation for disturbance. That question was not now before the House. The question now before the House was compensation for improvements and the retrospective action of the Bill. How was it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the language he had used in his speech at Kingstown, and that which he had used in this House were the same? Here he had attacked the compensation clause, and more especially the retrospective portion of it. In Kingstown he gave as his reason for voting against the Bill, the lateness of the session, and the impossibility of getting the Government to star the measure. He was then clearly in favour of retrospection, or else what did he mean by saying—
I have spent money on that house and I should like to get this compensation, and therefore the whole of my spirit is in favour of the principle of the Bill.To make sure that his attitude on the matter was perfectly plain the right hon. Gentleman made a long speech in which he said that it was a session when it was absolutely impossible that the Bill could pass into law unless it had the support of the Government, and if he had given 645 his approval as a member of the Government to the Second Reading it would not only have involved his approval of its general principle but, as a matter of general procedure, that he should have done his best to get it starred by the Government; he knew that was impossible because it was too late in the session. The only reason that the right hon. Gentleman held out to his constituents in Dublin was that it was too late in the session for the Government to make a Government Bill of the very measure which the right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition were now opposing in such an obstructionist manner.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether the hon. Gentleman was in order.
§ * MR. SPEAKERthought discussion had got rather far from the subject, and he trusted the hon. Gentleman would now approach the Amendment.
§ * MR. MOONEYsaid of course he bowed to the ruling of the Chair, but if he had seemed to be irrelevant, it was only because he had been led to follow the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, and it seemed to him a most illogical proceeding that they should have one Member on the Front Bench supporting this Bill and approving of its principles when it was not before the House and opposing it when it came before the House, and another saying that he and his Party looked upon the Bill with horror.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)said the right hon. Gentleman had appeared to misunderstand the point taken up by his hon. friend the Member for Marylebone. He would give a concrete case to show the unfairness of this clause. Assuming a person bought a house in London with a ninety-nine years lease, of which only seven years remained to run, this Bill would force the landlord at the end of those seven years to pay to the tenant the whole value of any improvements which added to the letting value of the premises. That proposition merely required to be stated to show there was a gross omission in the section. It was sought to put off the argument 646 by saying that it did not apply to Ireland. Labour Members, however, met this much more straightly yesterday and said boldly that this was a precedent which should be made to apply to England as well as to Ireland. The Chief Secretary tried to get out of that, and the Attorney-General for Ireland had declared that there was a great difference between English tenancies and Irish tenancies, because in Ireland people very frequently built houses on the land which they leased. But practically the whole of the houses in the West End of London were built upon those terms.
§ MR. CHERRYWhat I said on the Second Reading was that in Ireland the houses were frequently built by persons who had only a tenancy from year to year.
§ MR. RAWLINSONsaid the whole wrong and injustice of this clause was the introduction of its retrospective provision. On the Second Reading of the Bill no one on the Opposition side had any idea that the Government were going to support retrospective legislation in respect of compensation for tenants' improvements. If they were to have retrospection, however, it ought to be limited to the tenant out of whose pocket the improvements had come.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELL (Dublin University)suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and a division taken upon the Amendment standing in his name, which raised the entire question.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ *MR. JAMES CAMPBELL moved an Amendment to confine the operation of the clause to improvements made "subsequent to the date of the passing of this Act." He said the Amendment raised in a concise and acute form the question they had been discussing for some time, and in a more advantageous way than the Amendment just disposed of, because if his Amendment were carried it would get rid of all the difficulties that were sought to be removed by the previous Amendment. The Bill as it stood was retrospective in two ways; 647 it applied to existing contracts, and also to improvements under those contracts made before the date of the passing of the Act. The House had come to a conclusion upon the question of existing contracts, but there was involved in the second question dealt with by his Amendment a principle which was just as important, and that was whether they were going to the extreme length of extending the application of the Bill to improvements made under existing contracts prior to the date of the passing of the Act. He should like to hear some defence of that principle, because it was prima facie unjust, and required to be defended. The promoters of this Bill had in the clearest way shown in subsequent sections that they themselves felt the unfairness and injustice of it, because they had made elaborate arrangements in regard to future improvements which compelled the tenantto serve notice on his landlord of his intention to make such improvements. Therefore the landlord would get full notice when any improvement was to be made which might ultimately saddle him with the liability to pay money. The Bill also provided means by which the landlord could protect himself, and enabled him to say to the tenant, "That improvement is not a suitable one, it will damage my property, and so I object to it." Under those circumstances if a tenant persisted in making improvements, the landlord could bring him before the Court and have the matter settled. Upon what principle were they going to apply this Bill to improvements made many years ago when the landlord had no protection? There was protection in regard to future improvements, under which the landlord could say to his tenant, "I will carry out this improvement myself on my own lines, and in a way which is convenient and consistent with the rest of my property" He had no such right in regard to improvements made before the passing of this Act, and he got no notice of improvements which had been made up to the present. On what principle of fair play, therefore, could anyone defend the retrospective application of the Bill to improvements made prior to the date of the Act? He was not now attacking the application of the Bill to 648 existing contracts, but he wanted to know upon what principle of fair play they proposed to go one step further and apply the Act retrospectively to past improvements made under such contracts of tenancy, and made with the full knowledge on both sides of the existing state of the law? The tenant knew that he could only look to the duration of his lease to get compensation for his outlay, and therefore the landlord took no step to prevent his tenant making the outlay, because he knew he was protected under his lease. "Why, under those circumstances, should the landlord be deprived of that protection by retrospective legislation.? Why was the House to be asked to extend this unjust principle to such a case? If this Bill was to apply to improvements made prior to the date of the passing of the Act there was no limit to it, and a man might claim for an improvement made 100 years ago. In that case what position would the successor in title of the landlord be in? A house built 100 years ago might have been put up by a tenant with money provided by his landlord under some bargain by which the tenant got a valuable consideration for it. The rights of the parties were then regulated by a different law, and why in the name of fair play and common justice was that position to be altered now to the detriment of one party and to the benefit of the other? He was in favour of the principle of compensation to the tenant for improvements, and. speaking generally, he believed that Irish Unionist members were practically unanimous that as regarded future improvements a tenant on quitting his holding should get compensation in so far as they had increased the letting value of the holding. That was a just principle, but it did not justify them in extending the same principle to improvements made under a totally different state of the law. He appealed to the Attorney-General to consider this matter. They had already settled the question of the retrospective application of the Bill to existing contracts of tenancy. That, to some extent, was unjust, but it was not so grossly unjust as the present proposal. If the right hon. Gentleman could not accept this Amendment, at any rate he should 649 give them some reason consistent with common sense and the elementary principles of honesty and fair play between man and man for applying the principle to contracts made between A and B, when the state of the law was that B knew he had no right to be paid for improvements and A knew he was under no liability to pay for them. That was a cardinal point in this Bill. Those matters did not affect the principle of the Bill so far as the compensation for improvements were concerned. That principle they were in favour of when applied fairly, but they were not in favour of utilising that principle for confiscating another man's property and handing it over to the person who made the expenditure knowing what the law was, and that the improvements he made would revert to his landlord. He strongly appealed to the Government to reconsider this matter. He did not believe that if a proposal was made that English town tenants should be paid for past improvements at the expense of their landlord that hon. Members opposite would be prepared to support it. If they would not support such a principle for this country, upon what ground of fair play could they apply it to Ireland? With regard to the analogy of the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881, the people dealt with under those Acts were the small farmers of Ireland, many of whom had not the advantage of education, but had many disadvantages which placed them in an unfair position in competition with their landlords. This Bill embraced the professional men, such as barristers, solicitors, doctors, bankers, wealthy merchants, and traders, and all these people included would be able to get, at the expense of their landlords, payment for improvements made prior to the date of the passing of the Act. He would like to know why such a privilege was to be conferred on those tenants at the expense of their landlords? This portion of the measure was not germane to the Bill or vital to its principle. If they overloaded the Bill with this retrospective application, they would brand it with a dishonest principle on the face of it, and make it a measure which directly confiscated another man's property and transferred it to a third party who had no right to it. Nobody in Ireland had 650 asked for the retrospective application of the Bill.
§ MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)Some of the Trinity College tenants want it.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that many Irish tenants wanted protection for improvements made in their holdings, but he had never known any representative class in Ireland who demanded that the Bill should be retrospective. | [NATIONALIST cries of "Oh, oh."] Such a demand might exist, but he was not aware of it. He knew that if a man by an Act of Parliament could get hold of another man's property, and have it transferred to him, he would acquiesce in the situation, but to say that there had been any demand in Ireland for legislation which would have a retrospective effect and transfer to tenants the money which they had expended upon improvements in the past was a slander upon his countrymen. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Newry, his right hon. friend beside him had never said out of this House anything he was not prepared to repeat in the House itself. But that was a mere personal issue, and he passed from it. If he could not reach the conscience of his right hon. friend opposite, he appealed to the sound sense and good heart of English Members to take the trouble to read the clause. If they had done him the favour of listening to the point he was making, and if they were satisfied he was right that the effect of the Bill in its present shape would be to apply not merely to future contracts, but to all improvements made under existing contracts, no matter how many years ago, he believed their sense of fair play and of what was just would induce them to support the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 10, after the word 'title' to insert the words 'subsequent to the date of the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. James Campbell.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ * MR. CHERRYsaid Members on the Ministerial side of the House were very much pleased to hear the right 651 hon. Gentleman say that he was in favour of the principle of compensation for improvements both for agricultural and non-agricultural tenants. Nobody who listened to him in the debates yesterday and again to-day would have supposed that he was in favour of any such principle. If his memory served him right, the Leader of the Opposition, speaking yesterday on the Motion for the adjournment of the consideration of the Bill, used the words "highway robbery" not only in regard to the proposal to make this clause retrospective, but to the Bill generally.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLThe right hon. Gentleman was referring to the retrospective clause and the proposal to give compensation for disturbance.
§ * MR. CHERRYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of false pretences. It was in the recollection of the House what took place on the Second Reading when the retrospective clause was in the Bill as at present. Speaking for the Government he distinctly stated that they were in favour of the whole clause as to compensation for improvements.
§ MR. RAWLINSONA distinct question was asked of the Government, after the Second Reading in the debate on whether the Bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on Law or to the Standing Committee on Trade. The question was whether the Government were in favour of the retrospective action of the clause. The question was not answered, and finally the Speaker ruled that the question could not be pressed, and that it could be discussed in Committee.
§ * MR. CHERRYsaid he was speaking of what took place on the Second Reading. The Chief Secretary, who followed him, adopted everything he said. After all that, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the County of Dublin, who was in his place and heard the whole discussion, and saw the Bill with the retrospective clause in it, did not vote against the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was apparently rather in favour of this highway robbery, If there were any highway robbery it was the act of the landlord who took the 652 improvements made by the tenant and gave nothing for them. In some cases in Ireland at the present moment good landlords would consider that unjust, but there were other landlords who took advantage of the law and got possession of the buildings the tenants had put up, though in doing so they were doing morally a very wrong thing, and he hoped that when the Bill pissed that would be an illegal act. He could state many reasons in favour of this clause.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLI ask the right hon. Gentleman to give one good reason.
§ * MR. CHERRYsaid the Land Act of 1870 was retrospective. It applied to improvements made before the Act was passed. The House had determined this matter thirty-six years ago in legislation on the subject of compensation for improvements. That legislation was applied to England by the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883. That Act also was retrospective. Could anyone suggest any difference between town tenants and country tenants? In nine cases out of ten where compensation for improvements was claimed and awarded in Ireland under the Act of 1870 the claim was in respect of buildings, and generally for dwelling houses. What was the difference between a building on an agricultural holding and one on a non-agricultural holding? There was no reason why a man who improved an agricultural holding should be compensated, and one who improved a town holding should not. There was no difference in principle that he could ascertain. He could not see why in regard to compensation for improvements there should be any difference between a building put up on a farm and a building put up in a town or on the roadside. His right hon. friend had said that the Acts of 1880 and 1887 only affected small tenants.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLI said that the bulk of the persons affected were small farmers.
§ MR. CHERRYsaid the bulk of the people who would be affected by this Bill were small householders. The question was, "Whose money has been spent?" 653 If the tenants' money had been spent it was just and reasonable that the landlord should pay for what he had done. The right hon. Gentleman said that the landlord should not be expected to pay for an old improvement. If an old improvement had deteriorated in value the landlord would only be asked to pay the diminished value, and if the improvement had lost all its value the landlord would not be expected to pay anything. The landlord would only be asked to pay the value at the time he got possession. The Government wished to keep the Bill within the limits of justice and fair play. They attempted no highway robbery. On the contrary, they wanted to prevent highway robbery, and they believed that if the Bill passed they would be able to prevent highway robbery with Respect to past and future improvements.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not given one good reason for the clause.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)thought all who had heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman would have been struck by the way in which he used the word "holding." They were all at one with the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the spirit of the clause where it referred to the future. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had so far made a very good defence of the retrospective part of the clause. It seemed to him that the clause contained two distinct issues, and the right hon. Gentleman had treated them together, under what he called a "holding." On that point they required some elucidation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland. He understood that the object of this Bill, in the first instance, was to apply it more to the villages and small towns of Ireland than to large centres of population like Dublin and Belfast. But in approaching the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman they were faced constantly with the fact that in the small towns and villages the shops and houses were owned by the same man who owned the land round about. They on the Opposition side of the House were united in the idea that where, in a small town or village 654 or at a cross-road, a landlord let a small piece of ground to a tenant who built a shop upon it and improved the ground out of all recognition, the tenant at the end of his tenancy should receive just compensation for his improvements. But it was a different thing to make the clause retrospective when they came to deal with large centres of population like Dublin and Belfast. There they were face to face with different conditions, different tenures, and different principles. In these large cities there were a very large number of streets in which the ground and the houses were let and sublet; and he believed that as a rule, ladies chiefly invested their money in those houses. If this clause were made retrospective it would bear very hardly upon them. How could such ladies who had been deriving an income of £40 or £50 from such houses, pay compensation amounting to £150 or £250 for improvements which they never expected or desired should be made? He was quite sure that nobody in Ireland wished that this clause should be made retrospective unless they thought that they could make something out of it. This was more or less a lawyer's Bill; but mere laymen, who took a real interest in the welfare of the country and wanted to see fairplay all round, were particularly desirous that the clause should not be made retrospective.
§ * MR. T. HART-DAVIES (Hackney, N.)said that he called this Bill a remedial measure. It was intended to remedy what was recognised as an unjust state of things in Ireland at the present moment. It was said that landlords and tenants were grown men, understanding what their rights and duties were; but his contention was that they were not on terms of equality and never had been. There never could be terms of equality between the man who held the monopoly of the land and the man who wanted to make use of it; and so the landlord had always been able to put what conditions he liked on the tenant. [OPPOSITION cries of "Nonsense."] He did not think that that argument was nonsense. The monopolists' position was this: that, under the present state of things, at the end of a tenancy the tenant was obliged to hand over to the landlord 655 all the improvements that he had made on his holding without compensation. That, in his opinion, was unjust, and this remedial Act was intended to give the tenant compensation for the additional value he had given to the landlord's property. He confessed that he would like to see the provisions of this Bill extended to England. He held that if it was unjust not to give compensation for improvements in the future, it was equally unjust that it should not apply to improvements made in the past.
§ MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)said that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had given reasons for this legislation which the Government had hitherto withheld. The hon. Gentleman had said that its retrospective character was justified because landlords and tenants, although grown men, could not enter into contracts on equal terms. But the tendency of all such ex post facto legislation would be to increase the inability of grown-up men to enter into contracts as grown men should. Even if every word which the hon. Member had said were true, he could not accept the view that if tenants were incapable of making bargains with their landlords it was necessary to have this ex post facto legislation. It might, of course, be said that the people of this country were so little able to take care of themselves and so little possessed of manly worth that the State should take care that they did not make contracts to their own detriment. He did not say that that would be a good law, but, at all events, it would be advocated upon an intelligible basis, which this Bill was not. This measure would involve an immense change, and it was one which could only be brought forward in the Legislature of the country. Such legislation was prohibited under the constitution of every country which enjoyed a rigid constitution. It was part of the irony of fate that the measure was associated with the name of the Chief Secretary, because it was the right hon. Gentleman's fate to have written a monumental work called The American Commonwealth. In that book the right hon. Gentleman explained that it was laid down by the American constitution that no state should pass any ex post facto law, or any law impairing the validity of 656 contracts, and that provision the right. hon. Gentleman said was so salutary that the American people had not seen any reason to change their minds upon the point. They believed, the right hon. Gentleman further said, that the constitution of their country did something not only to obtain justice between man and man, but to secure the manhood of the nation. He thought the Chief Secretary for Ireland was also of the same opinion when he wrote that book. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman stated some of the objections to a rigid constitution, but he also found some merits in the rigidity of the American constitution, because he said it rendered service in forming the mind and temper of the people and trained them to habits of legality. In that House, however, they had the Attorney-General for Ireland explaining that a man who held his property by process of law was comparable to a highway robber, and that the habits of their countrymen were to be so trained that they might break past contracts. Such a policy would, he thought, only train the people in habits of illegality, tempered by expensive litigation.
§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH (Maidstone)was sorry that the discussion on this clause had been so prolonged, because they were all agreed upon the policy, but differed upon the question of whether it should or should not be retrospective. The Attorney-General for Ireland had indulged in violent invective against the landlords, but what he would like to ask was whether a tenant when he built a house on the property of the landlord was compelled to do so. The retrospective character of the Bill would create great injustice in the case of the wealthy landlord, a fact which might not appeal to hon. Members. He would therefore appeal to them on the ground that it would injure the poor landlord, Let them take the position of a poor landlord who had a wealthy tenant. It was possible that the wealthy tenant might so improve—if it could be called improving—the dwelling house belonging to the poor landlord, that if it was in a poor locality it would be impossible in future for the landlord to let it, and yet he would be called upon to 657 pay for that improvement, and the landlord would find that the much improved dwelling left on his hands was in the nature of a white elephant. What was he to do in such a case? They had heard a great deal about the injustices which the Bill would remedy, but there were several injustices which the Bill created. They were, however, very anxious to know from the right hon. Gentleman what were the injustices which this Bill would remedy. It certainly was the practice of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway to transfer property belonging to A to B, but he sincerely hoped that that was not the policy of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. If the Bill were made retrospective it would be a direct interference with contracts between man and man, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman was paying a poor tribute to the intellect of his countrymen if he thought that the tenants had been deluded by the landlords into making improvements on their property. He could only urge the right hon. Gentleman to give them some adequate reason, or indeed any reason, why this Bill should have retrospective application.
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid he only interposed for a moment in consequence of the challenge of the Attorney-General for Ireland. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been longer in the House he would find that it did not conduce to the rapid or smooth passage of legislation that Ministers should by their language offer strong inducements to opposition on the part of those who were opposed to them. If it had not been for the happier arrangement made earlier in the evening he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have had cause to regret the animadversions which he had made upon those who sat on the Opposition side of the House and especially upon the Ulster Members. His right hon. friend the Member for Dublin University had stated quite accurately the position of Irish Unionists in regard to this question, and it was a very strong order for the Attorney-General to suggest across the floor of the House that they were endeavouring to defeat the Bill because they were trying to carry Amendments which they indicated during Second Reading debate.
§ MR. CHERRYstated that all he had said was that, although hon. Members opposite had expressed themselves in favour of the principle of the Bill, no one who had listened to the debate would have suspected it.
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid that that was exactly the statement that he was referring to, this point being that for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make such statements did not conduce to the rapid passing of the measure, as it only led to replies from their side of the House. He repeated his view that compensation for improvements to town tenants was a desirable and necessary reform of the law, and when the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was something new for Unionists to express themselves in favour of compensation, they having been responsible for a measure which gave agricultural tenants compensation for unexhausted improvements it was a little late in the day to say that they had for the first time expressed their sympathy with the principle.
§ MR. CHERRYI never said anything of the kind.
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid it was, however, an entirely different thing to apply the Bill to existing contracts made before the psssing of the Act. That was an invasion of a serious principle, and the Bill ought not to apply to improvements made before it passed. It was conceded that it was to apply to existing contracts, but they held very strongly that it was a mere matter of justice to exclude those improvements which were executed before the Act passed, and which neither landlord nor tenant contemplated any Act would apply to.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYcould not agree that there was a monopoly in house property as there was in a sense in land because the quantity was limited. In Ireland he believed that at the present time a certain number of houses were vacant. He did not think that any argument that he used would affect the right hon. Gentleman, but surely the arguments of his own leaders would have some effect upon him. On 24th February 659 1876, long after the legislation of 1871, the present Secretary of State for India on the introduction of the Tenancy of Town Houses (Ireland) Bill said that houses were not like land, because they were not limited or fixed in number. In other words, house accommodation, to use the words of the hated political economist, was made simply to supply the demand. Those were the words of one of the most eminent men who ever sat on the Treasury Bench, and they completely answered the argument of the only hon. Member who had risen from the Government side of the House to support the Bill. The Attorney-General had reiterated the old arguments that the Act of 1870 was retrospective, that there was no difference between an agricultural holding and a town holding, and that he did not see that it made any difference whether a man built a farm house or a town residence. Yet Mr. Gladstone, who passed the Land Acts of 1870 and 1880, and who therefore must have known the reason for introducing those measures, was opposed to the alteration of the tenure of town houses. The Secretary of State for India at that time gave the answer as to the difference between town and agricultural holdings which the Opposition had asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to explain. All the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was that the Act of 1870 was a good Act and that it ought to have applied to town holdings. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India said—
The manifest reason why contracts not to claim for improvements were declared null and void under the Act of 1870 was because the tenant was supposed and justly supposed to have no freedom. If that was true with regard to agricultural holdings, it was only true in a modified degree of houses in the town, because if a man was turned out of a house in a town he would have a fair chance of getting another house. He was told that in Dublin there were too many houses.Now that he had shown what right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench thought, and what those who were actually interested in the Acts of 1870 and 1880 felt in regard to this matter, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would either accept this Amendment or give some good reason why he differed from the opinions which he had quoted to the House.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid in this House they were accustomed to spend a great deal of time in referring to what hon. Members and former Members had said in past times, and he did not believe that any assembly ever embarked on a more unfruitful course. He had never known anyone to be converted by what some one else had said many years before. Even the words of Mr. Gladstone, spoken many years ago, should not be taken as the highest authority, because it must be recollected that he, like all great men, sometimes changed his opinions. He regretted that the hon. Baronet should have devoted so much time to these citations. He had not heard a single argument advanced upon this Amendment that had not been advanced at a previous stage. The House had practically discussed the whole question of retrospection upon the Motion to leave out the clause, yet that argument had been persisted in, and nearly every speaker upon this Amendment had returned to it. The noble Lord the Member for Maidstone asked what ground of justice there was in this Bill, and he (Mr. Bryce) had endeavoured to explain that the ground of justice was that, the tenant having increased the value of the landlord's property, it was only fair that the landlord should pay for it, but that he should not be obliged to pay more than the amount he was proved to be benefited, and that amount would be settled by the amount that he could charge for the holding. He could only say, in reply to the statement that he had made an attack on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, that he had no such intention. But he certainly believed that allusions to what was said in former years did not carry this question much further. Re hoped the Louse would now come to a decision upon the Amendment.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid it was quite true to say that if any new light was thrown upon a question it was the duty of a man to change his opinion. But the right hon. Gentleman had thrown no new light whatever upon this question. What new light had been thrown on the condition of town tenancies since 1886? The town tenancies of Ireland and of England were in the same 661 position to-day as they were ten or even fifty years ago. It was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House what were the circumstances which had altered the condition of town tenancies. The right hon. Gentleman said they had altered, but he could not say how. The only hon. Member who had spoken in support of this Bill had made an extraordinary defence. He had expressed the opinion that whatever was fair as regarded the future must be fair as regarded the past; but had he considered the subject for a moment he would have seen that that was not a true inference. It was proposed to enact in the future a Provision that had not been enforceable in the past. It had not been competent for a tenant in the past to claim compensation for improvements. One of the strongest arguments against the retrospective clause of the Bill was to be found in the fact that the framers of the Bill themselves put into it serious limitations with regard to obtaining compensation for improvements made in the future. Past improvements were made by the tenant without any idea of ever obtaining compensation for them, and with the certain knowledge on the part of the landlord that he would not be called upon to pay. That was the broad ground upon which those with whom he sat objected to this retrospective section. He quite agreed that in the main the theory of compensation for improvements which increased the letting value of the holding was a fair theory. But compensation for improvements which were made thirty or fifty years before, under totally different circumstances to those which were set up by this Bill, was neither logical nor just. One of the things which made him a little anxious for the future tenants was that the right hon. Gentleman left out all the great towns of Ireland. He admitted that in the small towns the landlords had a monopoly. There were towns, no doubt, where the landlords had not acted justly from the tenants' point of view, and in so doing had acted to their own detriment. They had put obstructions in the way of the tenants' improving their property, and it was in those towns where the landlords had acted improperly that the tenants had raised this agitation. When they came to deal with the large towns in Ire- 662 land, where a monopoly in houses did not exist, the case was different. In Belfast there were, he should think, from 40,000 to 50,000 houses, and he knew as a fact that a very considerable number had, for the last few years, been lying idle. In Belfast, therefore, by reason of the fact that the supply of houses was very largely in excess of the demand, not only was there no necessity for the retrospective part of the Bill, but the other parts also were not required.
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Gentleman was anticipating an Amendment of his own to come on later.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the Government, in adopting this Bill, were not giving proper weight to the case of the larger towns. A number of the smaller towns, no doubt, needed the provisions of the Bill, but they were not needed in the larger towns, and would produce a considerable amount of unnecessary litigation and friction between landlords and tenants. If one landlord would not give proper terms the tenant could go to another, and natural competition would ensure him better terms. The Bill was never intended to apply to such cases as those. It was called into being by reason of the unfair conditions which prevailed in a number of small country towns in Ireland, and to pass the Bill as it stood would do an immense amount of harm in the large towns. Whether it actually caused loss to the landlords or not, it was bound to set up a state of friction between landlord and tenant, creating a bad feeling between them which had not hitherto existed. The arguments against making the Bill retrospective were mostly arguments of principle. He hoped, however, that hon. Members opposite would realise what would happen if such a Bill were to pass for England to-morrow. In the English Bill of last session there was a provision that nothing in the Bill should apply to improvements made before the passing of the Act. He hoped the hon. Members whose names were on the back of that Bill would take the action they thought a year ago was the proper course in this matter. He trusted that hon. Members would for once in a way exercise their judgment, 663 and not be led by the nose by the Chief Secretary for Ireland and his two lieutenants. He believed the Bill, it passed in its present form, would do infinitely more harm than good. It would discourage the erection of small houses, and tend to set up a monopoly in houses which
§ would be infinitely worse for the tenants than their present position.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 89; Noes, 329. (Division List No. 420.)
667| AYES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Fardell, Sir T. George | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Fell, Arthur | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Ashley, W. W. | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Finch. Rt. Hon. George H. | Rothshcild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Balcarres, Lord | Forster, Henry William | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Haddock, George R. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamilton, Marquess of | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton |
| Bertram, Julius | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Helmsley, Viscount | Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds) | Starkey, John R. |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hunt, Rowland | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Kimber, Sir Henry | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Liddell, Henry | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C, W | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R. |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) | Morpeth, Viscount | Younger, George |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | |
| Cross, Alexander | Parkes, Ebenezer | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n) | |
| Du Cros, Harvey | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Viscount Valentia. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Chance, Frederick William |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Boland, John | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland, D. | Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) | Churchill, Winston Spencer |
| Alden, Percy | Brace, William | Clancy, John Joseph |
| Ambrose, Robert | Bramsdon, T. A. | Clough, William |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Branch, James | Clynes, J. R. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Brigg, John | Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) |
| Astbury, John Meir | Bright, J. A. | Cobbold, Felix Thornley |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Brodie, H. C. | Cogan, Denis J. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J T (Chesh.) | Condon, Thomas Joseph |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight | Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen | Corbett, C. H (Susesx, E. Grinst'd |
| Barker, John | Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. |
| Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset | Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Cowan, W. H. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Burke, E. Haviland- | Cox, Harold |
| Barnes, G. N. | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Crean, Eugene |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Cremer, William Randal |
| Beale, W. P. | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Crombie, John William |
| Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexh'm) | Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. | Crooks, William |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Byles, William Pollard | Crossley, William J. |
| Bell, Richard | Cameron, Robert | Dalmeny, Lord |
| Bennett, E. N. | Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd) | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) |
| Billson, Alfred | Cawley, Sir Frederick | Delany, William |
| Dillon, John | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) |
| Dolan, Charles Joseph | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | O'Grady, J. |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | O'Hare, Patrick |
| Duffy, William J. | Jowett, F. W. | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Joyce, Michael | O'Malley, William |
| Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley,) | Kearley, Hudson E. | O'Mara, James |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Kekewich, Sir George | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | O'Shee, James John |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James | Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) |
| Elibank, Master of | Laidlaw, Robert | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Ellis, Rt. Hon. George Edward | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) |
| Erskine, David C. | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Lambert, George | Philippe, Owen C. (Pembroke) |
| Essex, R. W. | Lamont, Norman | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Evans, Samuel T. | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Pollard, Dr. |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Fancras, E.) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) |
| Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Levy, Maurice | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Lewis, John Herbert | Radford, G. H. |
| Ferens, T. R. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Ffrench, Peter | Lough, Thomas | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro') |
| Field, Alexander | Lundon, W. | Redmond, John K. (Waterford) |
| Findlay, Alexander | Lyell, Charles Henry | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk, B'ghs) | Rees, J. D. |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Kendall, Athelstan |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Maclean, Donald | Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn) |
| Fullerton, Hugh | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Richardson, A. |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Gilhooly, James | MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Gill, A. H. | M'Callum, John M. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Ginnell, L. | M'Crae, George | Robertson John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee) |
| Glendinning, R. G. | M'Kenna, Reginald | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd) |
| Glover, Thomas | M'Killop, W, | Robinson, S. |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Gooch, George Peabody | M'Micking, Major G. | Rowlands, J. |
| Grant, Corrie | Maddison, Frederick | Runciman, Walter |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Gulland, John W. | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Massie, J. | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Masterman, C. F. G. | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Hall, Frederick | Meagher, Michael | Seddon, J. |
| Halpin, J. | Meehan, Patrick A. | Seely, Major J. B. |
| Hammond, John | Menzies, Walter | Shackleton, David James |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Micklem, Nathaniel | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Harwood, George | Montagu, E, S. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Mooney, J. J. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Snowden, P. |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Morley, Rt. Hon. John | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Morse, L. L. | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Steadman, W. C. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Murnaghan, George | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Henry, Charles S. | Murphy, John | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) | Murray, James | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Myer, Horatio | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Stuart, James (Sunderland) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Napier, T. B. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Hogan, Michael | Nichols, George | Summerbell, T. |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Nolan, Joseph | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Hudson, Walter | Nuttall, Harry | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Hyde, Clarendon | O'Brien, Kendal Tipperary Mid | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Idris, T. H. W. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Jardine, Sir J. | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. |
| Jenkins, J. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Thorne, William |
| Torrance, Sir A. M. | Wardle, George J. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Toulmin, George | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Ure, Alexander | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.) |
| Villiers, Ernest Amherst | White, George (Norfolk) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Vivian, Henry | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) | Winfrey, R. |
| Wallace, Robert | White, Patrick (Meath, North) | Young, Samuel |
| Walsh, Stephen | Whitehead, Rowland | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Walters, John Tudor | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) | |
| Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn) | |
| Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
§ VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) moved to insert the words "which he shall have paid for on his entry." It was absurd that a man should be expected to pay a tenant for improvements made by that tenant's predecessor, and not paid for by the tenant. Such an Amendment seemed absolutely necessary, otherwise the man who reaped the advantage of the Bill would not be the man who had made the improvements. It seemed to him very unjust that a person should pay compensation to a man who had himself not paid anything for the improvements. He thought the Chief Secretary would realise that the Amendment was reasonable, and he begged to move.
§ MR. HICKS BEACH (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)seconded.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill.
In page 1, line 10, after the word 'title,' to insert the words 'which he shall have paid for on his entry.'"—(Viscount Helmsley.)
§ Question proposed "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ * MR. CHERRYsaid he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment. He was rather inclined to think that the hon. Member did not quite realise its effect, for it would deprive of compensation the son of the man who had made the improvements. In the case of a man who had made a valuable improvement and his son became his successor in title, under this Amendment that son could not get any compensation. What difference did it make to the landlord whether the man in possession made the improvements or inherited them? Surely that made no difference to the landlord. The landlord acquired the 668 additional value of the property, and the Bill required that he should pay for it.
§ SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)admitted that there was a good deal in what the Attorney-General had said, but his observations were not germane to existing contracts, where claims arose in reference to improvements made before the passing of the Bill. If a man had made improvements upon a holding and proceeded to assign his tenancy, he would assign it to the assignee on the assumption that there was nothing to be paid for the improvements at the expiration of the tenancy. If a man took over a three years tenancy, giving nothing whatever for the assignment, but taking it over at the old rent, was it fair that that tenant should make a claim for improvements made thirty or forty years ago? They were simply conferring on the tenant a free gift for improvements which he had never made. The whole difficulty arose from the fact that the draughtsman had drawn no distinction as regarded two cases which were absolutely different. If the Chief Secretary had been responsible for the drafting of the Bill, he would have seen that some clear distinction was drawn between contracts made before and those made after the passing of the Act. He thought that the Amendment of the noble Lord was necessary in consequence of the way in which the Bill was drawn, and that its acceptance was necessary to prevent injustice.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid the Amendment would destroy the claim of the tenant altogether in a great many cases where the property passed from one member of a family to another. In a great many cases the tenancy would be purchased as it stood, and the purchaser would give more for it on account of the value added 669 to it by the improvements. Under all the circumstances he asked the House not to accept the Amendment.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not met the point. The point was in regard to a tenant who came in under the existing system knowing that he would not get compensation from the landlord. That was the point which the right hon. Gentleman did not see, or discreetly did not answer, for he did not think there was any answer. He hoped that the Government would at some future stage introduce words to meet the undoubted hardship and injustice which had been pointed out in connection with this clause.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)submitted that there was no case of hardship or injustice in the matter. Every single argument used by the noble Lord had been used against the Land Bill. The Ulster holdings were bought and sold dozens of times under exactly the same circumstances. Houses which were built by one set of tenants were sold to other tenants, but that did not prevent this House from giving to the tenants the full benefit of the improvements which had been made before they bought the houses. The very same argument which was used by the noble Lord against giving compensation to a tenant who had bought a house in a town was used in. 1880 against giving compensation to the tenants in Ulster. It was exactly the same case, and the attempts made by the noble Lord to set up a distinction between a man who built a house in a town or on the roadside and a man who built a house on his little farm in Ireland was in point of equity absurd.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he quite agreed that the Chief Secretary was right in not accepting the Amendment, because it would undoubtedly apply to a case of devolution under a will or to a case of intestacy, or next of kin, or the heir at law as the case might be. But the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the grievance pointed out by his hon. and learned friend regarding the injustice which would necessarily arise as to 670 compensation for past improvements in certain oases. The injustice was that a man who had bought the interest under an existing lease three years ago would be able to claim compensation in respect of an improvement which had cost perhaps £1,000. though the man who sold the house to him knew that as the law stood he could get nothing from the landlord anybody else. The assignee in purchasing would not give value in respect of that improvement, because he knew that he would have to give it up at the end of the lease. But under this Bill a man who was lucky enough to make an investment of that kind would get compensation for the increased letting value given to the holding by his predecessor in title. Was it not perfectly plain that that was a case which ought to be guarded against? The analogy quoted by the hon. Member for East Mayo had no application whatever. The Ulster tenants before there was any legislation got full value, by virtue of the custom known as the "Ulster custom." To use that argument as an answer to the injustice which must necessarily arise in the case of some past improvements by town tenants was no answer at all. Under this Bill the purchaser of a house who had not expended a shilling himself on the improvements or given his predecessor a shilling in respect of improvements which he had made, would be entitled to make his landlord pay whatever sum the Court thought represented the improved letting value. That was grossly in just, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would give some promise of an Amendment to deal with such exceptional cases. He admitted that this Amendment went too far, but he thought an assurance might be given that an Amendment would be introduced to obviate the injustice which he had indicated.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that what happened under the Land Act of 1880 was a totally different thing from what was proposed under this Bill. The arguments in favour of compensation under the Land Act of 1880 were that the tenants in Ireland were rack-rented, that that had gone on from year to year, and that they had done certain things for the holdings. In the case of a town holding the tenant was not rack-rented, and 671 when he made an improvement he never expected to receive anything from the landlord. The tenant had been compensated by holding the land at an inadequate rental, agreed upon when it was understood that no compensation would be paid by the landlord for improvements. Unless this Amend-
| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F. | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Fardell, Sir T. George | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Ashley, W. W. | Fell, Arthur | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Balcarres, Lord | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Forster, Henry William | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (CityLond.) | Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Haddock, George R. | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hamilton, Marquess of | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool. Walton) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Helmsley, Viscount | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds) | Starkey, John R. |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hills, J. W. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hunt, Rowland | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cave, George | Keswick, William | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor, C.W. | Kimber, Sir Henry | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Cecil Lord John P. Joicey- | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore. | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt. -Col. A. R. | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) | Lowe, Sir Francis William | |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Magnus, Sir Philip | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Viscount Castlereagh and Sir Frederick Banbury. |
| Cross, Alexander | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) | Clancy, John Joseph |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Brace, William | Clough, William |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Bramsdon, T. A. | Clynes, J. R. |
| Alden, Percy | Branch, James | Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Brigg, John | Cobbold, Felix Thornley |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Bright, J. A. | Cogan, Denis J. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Brodie, H. C | Condon, Thomas Joseph |
| Astbury, John Meir | Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh.) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) | Cowan, W- H. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Cox, Harold |
| Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset) | Burke, E. Haviland- | Crean, Eugene |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Cremer, William Randal |
| Barnes, G. N. | Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Crombie, John William |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Crooks, William |
| Beale, W. P. | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Chas. | Crossley, William J. |
| Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexhm) | Byles, William Pollard | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Cairns, Thomas | Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) |
| Bell, Richard | Cameron, Robert | Delany, William |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Dillon, John |
| Bertram, Julius | Cawley, Sir Frederick | Dolan, Charles Joseph |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd) | Chance, Frederick William | Donelan, Captain A. |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Cheetham, John Frederick | Duffy, William J. |
| Billson, Alfred | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness |
| Boland, John | Churchill, Winston Spencer | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) |
§ ment was accepted many landlords would be penalised because they had trusted the Legislature.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Aves, 83; Noes, 321. (Division List No. 421.)
675| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Joyce, Michael | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Kearley, Hudson E. | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Kekewich, Sir George | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke |
| Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) |
| Elibank, Master of | Kitson, Rt. Hon Sir James | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Laidlaw, Robert | Pollard, Dr. |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Essex, R. W. | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Price, C. E. (Kdinb'gh, Central) |
| Evans, Samuel T. | Lambert, George | Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.) |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | Lamont, Norman | Radford, G. H. |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro') |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Levy, Maurice | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Lewis, John Herbert | Rees, J. D. |
| Ffrench, Peter | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Field, William | Lough, Thomas | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th) |
| Findlay, Alexander | Lundon, W. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Lyell, Charles Henry | Richardson, A. |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Lynch, H. B. | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Maclean, Donald | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Gilhooly, James | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee) |
| Gill, A. H. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd) |
| Ginnell, L. | MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) | Robinson, S. |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | M'Callum, John M. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Glendinning, R. G. | M'Crae, George | Rowlands, J. |
| Glover, Thomas | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | M'Kenna, Reginald | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Gooch, George Peabody | M'Killop, W. | Samuel, S. M. (White chapel) |
| Grant, Corrie | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Maddison, Frederick | Seddon, J. |
| Gulland, John W. | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Seely, Major J. B. |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Shackleton, David James |
| Hall, Frederick | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Halpin, J. | Massie, J. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Hammond, John | Masterman, C. F. G. | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Meagher, Michael | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Meehan, Patrick A. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Harvey, A. G. C.(Rochdale) | Menzies, Walter | Snowden, P. |
| Harwood, George | Molteno, Percy Alport | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Mooney, J. J. | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Steadman, W. C. |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Morse, L. L. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Murnaghan, George | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Murphy, John | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Murray, James | Stuart, James (Sunderland) |
| Henry, Charles S. | Myer, Horatio | Sullivan, Donal |
| Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Summerbell, T. |
| Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Napier, T. B. | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Higham, John Sharp | Nicholls, George | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Hogan, Michael | Nolan, Joseph | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Hooper, A. G. | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid) | Thomas David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset E) |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. | O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.) | Thorne, William |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Hudson, Walter | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | Toulmin, George |
| Hyde, Clarendon | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Idris, T. H. W. | O'Grady, J. | Ure, Alexander |
| Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | O'Hare, Patrick | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Jardine, Sir J. | O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) | Vivian, Henry |
| Jenkins, J. | O'Malley, William | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | O'Mara, James | Wallace, Robert |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | O'Shee, James John | Walters, John Tudor |
| Jowett, F. W. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) | Whitehead, Rowland | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) | Winfrey, R. |
| Wardle, George J. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) | Young, Samuel |
| Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn) | |
| Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| White, George (Norfolk,) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) | |
| White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) | |
| White, Luke (York, E. R.) | Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh., N.) | |
| White, Patrick (Meath, North) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University) moved to insert the words "with the consent of the landlord," so that the clause should read "compensation to be paid by the landlord in respect of all improvements on his holding made by him or his predecessors in title with the previous consent of the landlord." He submitted that the Government should accept the spirit, if not the words, of the Amendment, unless they intended not to accept any Amendment at all. The clause dealt with cases where the tenant had made improvements, not only without the consent of the landlord, but against his express wish, and yet at the end of the tenancy the tenant might come down on the poor landlord and demand compensation for the improvements.
§ * MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hants, Basingstoke)seconded the Amendment, and he expressed the hope that with a verbal alteration it might receive the sanction of the Attorney-General for Ireland. He should propose to add after "landlord" the words "or the sanction of the Court." That would make the clause consistent with the principle of the Bill, and it would remove in some degree the admitted hardship which would be caused to landlords by the operation of the clause. The Amendment would carry out the principle of the Bill, and he urged its acceptance.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 10, after the word 'title' to insert the words ' with the consent of the landlord.'
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ * MR. CHERRYsaid it was a little inconvenient on the Report stage for an Amendment to be moved which was not on the Paper.
§ MR. RAWLINSONsaid his Amendment was on the Paper at a different place.
§ * MR. CHERRYsaid that might be so, but he was going to say that it was still more inconvenient to consider an Amendment when one was told by the proposer and seconder that it could not be accepted in the form in which it was drawn, and one was called upon to redraft, at a moment's notice, an Amendment proposed by two bon. Members opposite, both of whom he understood were legal luminaries. As regards the Amendment as originally proposed, he did not know whether the hon. and learned Member had noticed that his proposal would contract the whole scope of the Bill with respect to future improvements. He presumed the intention was that the Amendment should apply to both past and future improvements.
§ MR. RAWLINSONsaid his hon. and learned friend had suggested the insertion of the words "or the sanction of the Court." He himself was dealing with past improvements, but his hon. and learned friend suggested the addition of those words, which would meet the technical point of the Attorney-General for Ireland.
§ * MR. CHERRYinquired if the hon. and learned Gentleman did not see that that would increase the difficulty. It would make the Amendment far more ludicrous in view of the provisions of Clause 3. Nobody would go to the Court if the landlord consented, and it seemed to him that the two Amendments were mutually destructive. This was another attempt by a side wind to get out of the effects of the clause. Everybody knew that there never was any formal consent given to an improvement. The landlord said nothing and stood by. A landlord living in London, who owned a small village in Ireland, did not think about the improvements his tenants were making and did not care about them. Under the Amendment the onus would lie upon the tenant to show active consent, which no tenant could show. The effect 677 would be to exclude every past improvement from the benefit of the Act, and render future improvements impossible. He knew perfectly well from what took place in Ireland that that would be the effect both in the case of an agricultural holding and a non-agricultural holding. Unless there was a clause in the lease requiring it, no landlord ever gave consent, and the tenant, knowing that he was improving his landlord's property, did not take the trouble to inform him what he was doing.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)said he spoke with great diffidence when the question was the exact practice in regard to Ireland, but did the right hon. Gentleman tell him that in the case of the great houses in Dublin and Belfast the tenants holding on long leases were in the habit of making what alterations they pleased, without in any way consulting their landlords?
§ * MR. CHERRYsaid he was speaking not of tenants of large houses in great cities, but of the tenants of small houses in country towns.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that that was one of his complaints about the right hon. Gentleman's promotion of this Bill. He was always thinking of one class, and ignoring all other classes. He would take the case of the tenant holding a lease for ninety years in Dublin or Belfast who spent an amount upon his residence which improved its letting value to the extent of £50 a year. Supposing the character of the quarter of the town in which he lived changed; although the value of the house if it was to continue as a residence would be increased by £50 a year, if it was not used as residential property every penny spent on improvement would be wasted at the end of the lease because it was not necessary for the purpose for which the house would then be used.
§ MR. CHERRYsaid that in that case no compensation would be payable.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had consulted his two learned friends near him upon the construction of the Bill, and they were quite clear that under it the tenant would receive compensation for changes which did not add a shilling 678 a year to the amount which the landlord would receive under the circumstances he had mentioned. It was greatly to the advantage of big towns that landlords should be free to use their buildings for the purposes best suited to the needs of the town, and if the Government were going to penalise a landlord because he had to change the purpose for which his house was used they would inflict a gross injury not only upon him but upon the neighbourhood.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLdid not think that the right hon. Gentleman in stating that the tenant would not get compensation under the circumstances which his right hon. friend detailed had had regard to the clauses of the Bill He did not suggest that every question that arose in this way was capable of immediate solution, and the right hon. Gentleman might have spoken without considering what was the legal effect of certain passages in the Bill. The case which his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition had put was that of a man who had a lease of a very valuable dwelling house, and in the course of his occupation under the lease had spent £2,000 in remodelling the house, with the result that, although he only paid £100 a year himself, at the end of the lease that same house, if let as a dwelling house, would fetch £150. In the ordinary case the outgoing tenant would be entitled to get compensation for the improvements which represented that increased rental value of £50 a year. But supposing the character of the locality changed in such a way that to let the house as a dwelling house would be a very uneconomic and very improper use of it: it might be that the landlord would decide that the building should cease to be used as a dwelling house and use it for some other purpose. Did the right hon. Gentleman say that under those circumstances the outgoing tenant would not be entitled to compensation?
§ MR. CHERRYsaid the tenant would not be entitled because he had not increased the letting value.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that in that case the right hon. Gentleman was giving away his whole Bill, because that might be held to be unfair to the 679 tenant, as the property might let for considerably more than £150 a year, but not in consequence of the improvements which the tenant had made. It was a conceivable case that the landlord, having got his residence hack, might without reaping anything from the tenants' improvement bona fide change the use of the holding and, applying it to another purpose, obtain an increased letting value which was in no way attributable to the tenant's improvements. Why should the tenant get the benefit of improvements out of which the landlord was not going to get a shilling, and which so far from benefiting his house had injured it, because the improvements were not suited to the new purposes to which the landlord intended to apply it? He thought therefore the right hon. Gentleman would see that he was very rash and hasty in saying in answer to the question of his right hon. friend that in the case he mentioned the tenant would not get any compensation. He contended that under the clause the tenant would get compensation. What were the conditions which entitled the tenant to compensation? First, that the improvement had added to the letting value of the holding. In this ease he would have added £50 a year. The second condition was that the improvements should be suitable, and in this case they were suitable for a dwelling house, and it seemed to him that the tenant would have fulfilled every condition under the Bill to entitle him to compensation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite struck by the injustice of the case said that under those circumstances the tenant would get nothing.
§ MR. CHERRYsaid he was not struck by the injustice of the case; he was dealing with the language of the Bill.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid it might be thought ludicrous to deprive a tenant of compensation on any such principle as that, but certainly it was not to be found in the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman would consider Clause 1 he would see that his answer must be that the tenant would get compensation. He admitted the difficulty of, on the moment, answering a question of the kind, and if the Attorney-General was prepared to admit that in the case put by his right hon. friend the 680 tenant would get compensation, he ought to accept the Amendment which would prevent such an unjust result.
§ MR. DILLONadmired the dexterity with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for Dublin University had seized upon a preposterous point and had spent an inordinate length of time in worrying over it with some plausibility. It was doubtless a great Parliamentary achievement, but he was amazed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman when an arrangement had been arrived at should be engaged in an exercise, which, however meritorious it might be if they were going to sit and discuss the matter all night, was, under existing circumstances, a sheer waste of of time. His arguments had no significance or weight whatever. It was simply absurd to hear the right hon. Gentleman shedding tears over the prospective miseries of a landlord who had got from his tenant a house which had been improved to the extent of £50 a year in value by the expenditure of the tenant's own money, and who had then found out that, owing to circumstances over which he had not control, it would pay him better to pull the property down and build a much larger place that would fetch a larger rent. The right hon. Gentleman would get no sympathy from him (Mr. Dillon) or those who sat with him.
§ * SIR FRANCIS LOWE (Birmingham, Edgbaston)said he supported the Amendment not only on the grounds put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, but on other and more general grounds. The section as it stood seemed to be a most monstrous innovation of the law and custom of the British Isles, a law and custom which had been in operation for many years past. It had also to be borne in mind that this was not a Bill for the relief of poor persons. It was a Bill to enable persons of full age and understanding and wealthy persons to break contracts that they had entered into with others. If the Bill became law a man who had taken a lease of a house in Belfast for seven years, and had covenanted under that lease to do all the repairs, would be able to put up a billiard room and stables and other buildings, without the consent 681 of his landlord, and at the end of the seven years the landlord would have to compensate him for the improvements so made. He was surprised that any lawyer on the Government side of the House should countenance such a principle, and he did not believe that any hon. Gentleman sitting on the Ministerial Benches really approved of it. Although the present Bill only applied to Ireland it was—if it were allowed to pass—the thin end of the wedge, and it would very soon be made to apply to England as well. Then let hon. Members think what might happen. An hon. Gentleman might take a house in
§ London for the Parliamentary session make improvements in it without the consent of his landlord, and then claim compensation for the improvements so made. If it was to compensate poor tenants for improvements for which it was equitable that they should have compensation he would have nothing to say, but it was to compensate rich people who had no need of compensation. He supported the Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 66; Noes, 296. (Division List, No. 422.)
| Delany, William | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) |
| Dillon, John | Jowett, F. W. | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) |
| Dolan, Charles Joseph | Joyce, Michael | Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Kearley, Hudson E. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Duffy, William J. | Kekewich, Sir George | Pollard, Dr. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Power, Patrick (Joseph) |
| Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Laidlaw, Robert | Radford, G. H. |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro') |
| Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Lambert, George | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Elibank, Master of | Lamont, Norman | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Rees, J. D. |
| Essex, R. W. | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Evans, Samuel T. | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmth) |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | Levy, Maurice | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Richardson, A. |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Lundon, W. | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Fenwick, Charles | Lyell, Charles Henry | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Ferens, T. R. | Lynch, H. B. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Ffreneh, Peter | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) | Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee) |
| Field, William | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd) |
| Findlay, Alexander | Maclean, Donald | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Robinson, S. |
| Flynn, James Christopher | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Rowlands, J. |
| Fullerton, Hugh | MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) | Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland) |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | M'Callum, John M. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Gilhooly, James | M'Crae, George | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne) |
| Gill, A.H. | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Ginnell, L. | M'Kenna, Reginald | Seddon, J. |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | M'Killop, W. | Shackleton, David James |
| Glendinning, R. G. | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Glover, Thomas | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W) | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Maddison, Frederick | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Gooch, George Peabody | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Massie, J. | Snowden, P. |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Masterman, C. F. G. | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Meagher, Michael | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Hall, Frederick | Meehan, Patrick A. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Halpin, J. | Menzies Walter | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Hammond, John | Mooney, J. J. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Stuart, James (Sunderland) |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Morse, L. L. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Summerbell, T. |
| Harwood, George | Murnaghan, George | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Murphy, John | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Murray, James | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Myer, Horatio | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Napier, T. B. | Thorne, William |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Nicholls, George | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Nolan, Joseph | Ure, Alexander |
| Henry, Charles S. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Verney, F. W. |
| Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid) | Vivian, Henry |
| Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Higham, John Sharp | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N) | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S,) |
| Hogan, Michael | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | Walton, Joseph (Barneley) |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Hooper, A. G. | O'Grady, J. | Wardle, George J. |
| Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | O'Hare, Patrick | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N) | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Watt, H. Anderson |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) | White, Georges (Norfolk) |
| Hudson, Walter | O'Malley, William | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Hyde, Clarendon | O'Mara, James | White, Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Idris, T. H. W. | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | O'Shee, James John | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Jenkins, J. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Wiles, Thomas | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Williams, J. (Glamorgan) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) | |
| Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis. |
| Wills, Arthur Walters | Wood, T. M'Kinnon | |
| Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) | Young, Samuel |
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 10, after the word 'which,' to insert the words 'at the date of such claim.'"—(Mr. James Campbell.)
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill"—put, and agreed to.
§ LORD R. CECIL moved an Amendment to provide that the improvement for which compensation was to be paid should add to the letting value of the holding "for the purpose for which it is let, or proposed to be let, to any succeeding tenant." The Government, he said, ought to accept this Amendment, because the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General for Ireland had repeatedly stated that the principle on which the clause rested was that the landlord should not be allowed to take the benefit of what a tenant had done without paying for it. He would instance the case of a property of the poorer class on the outskirts of a town which had been let on a long lease. Subsequently the town had spread, and the landlord proposed on the falling in of the leases to erect buildings of a better class. In such a case no improvement which a tenant might have carried out would be of the slightest value to the landlord. That was a common case. Then there was the case in which the landlord, in order to meet the necessities of the population, decided to convert houses which had gardens round them into an entirely different class of residences. It might be that he would not receive a very much increased rent, possibly not at all, but the neighbourhood was so changed that it was essential from a public, as well as a private, point of view that the nature of the property should be changed and improved, and that the growth of the town should be fostered. In such cases the landlord would not receive a penny in value from any improvement the tenant might have carried out. The Amendment would carry out the principle laid down by the Chief Secretary, namely, that the landlord was not to receive any advantage from the tenant without paying for it. He therefore asked the Government to accept 686 the Amendment, not as in any way infringing or attacking the principle of the Bill, but as merely carrying it out and making it logically complete.
§ MR. HICKS BEACHseconded the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 11, after the word 'holding,' to insert the words 'for the purpose for which it is let, or proposed to be let, to any succeeding tenant.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. CHERRYsaid it appeared to him that if this Amendment meant anything, its effect would be to exclude from compensation altogether tenants who were leaving houses which the landlord did not propose to let again. If the noble Lord's Amendment dealt only with cases where the holding was going to be re-let these words were unnecessary.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid he would take the case of a cottage on the edge of a town. If the landlord proposed to turn it into a shop, any improvement executed by the tenant, though it would add to the letting value of the premises as a cottage, might diminish it if let as a shop.
§ MR. CHERRYsaid the Amendment was substantially the same as that of ' the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University. In his view the tenant in such a case, though it would be a very exceptional one, would not be entitled to compensation, because the improvement, to entitle the tenant to compensation, must add to the letting value.
§ SIR E. CARSONsaid the point appeared to be much more important than the Attorney-General would have them believe, and it might have a great effect on the development of towns in Ireland where there were small houses on the outskirts. The question was, supposing a landlord wanted to clear away a number of houses for the purpose 687 of erecting an entirely different class of houses or business premises, was the tenant entitled to compensation for improvements? Upon this matter his sympathies were not at all with the views of the Attorney-General for Ireland, who had said that in such a case the tenant would not get any compensation for improvements. He would have thought the tenant had just as good a Tight to compensation as in the other case. What ought to be made clear upon this Amendment was whether, if the landlord desired to put the holding to a different purpose, the tenant would be deprived of compensation. That was the view of the Attorney-General, but it was not his view.
§ MR. CHERRYsaid that where the landlord let the premises for business purposes at an increased rent and the letting value of the premises had been increased by the tenant's improvements compensation could be claimed.
§ SIR E. CARSONasked if the landlord turned a residential cottage into premises for business purposes and had not availed himself of the tenant's improvements, would the tenant be entitled to claim compensation in that case? Surely the Government ought to make their meaning perfectly clear.
§ * MR. CLAVELL SALTERgave as an illustration the case of a tenant who had made considerable improvements in his residential premises, and at the end of his lease the landlord let out the premises as offices and realised a much higher rent than he had previously obtained. The improvements which the tenant had made might not add one single shilling to the letting value of the premises as offices.
§ MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)He would get no compensation.
§ * MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid if that was the case the Government were bound to insert the Amendment to make the point perfectly clear. As the clause now stood he ventured to say that it would lead to extensive litigation, and there was an ambiguity in this clause which the House ought to be ashamed to leave in.
§ MR. CLANCYsaid this Amendment was supposed to provide for the case where a residence was turned into a business establishment, and he understood that the landlord was to be enabled to defeat the tenant's claim to compensation for this improvement by announcing his intention to turn the building into a residence again. If the Attorney-General had said that under those circumstances a tenant would not be entitled to compensation, he entirely disagreed with him.
§ MR. CHERRYI said nothing of the kind.
§ MR. CLANCYsaid there were streets in Dublin in which houses that were fine residences at the beginning of last century had been saved from ruin by conversion into places of business. The landlord might not have given his written consent to the change, but he had practically consented because he had received rent under the changed conditions, and he would not have received it if he had not consented. The tenant had made, without any sanction of law, structural changes and prevented the houses from being ruined. In the cases where the landlords had been wise enough to consent to these improvements being made, by converting residential premises into business establishments the street in many cases had maintained a rent-paying character. The landlord had gone on receiving rent for these business premises, and by this Amendment the tenant could be robbed of his property if the landlord chose to turn the premises to residential purposes again. He understood that the Attorney-General had said that under those circumstances the tenant would get no compensation for his improvements.
§ MR. CHERRYsaid he had never stated anything of the kind, and the hon. Member was under a complete misapprehension. The case which he had put was one in which the letting value of the holding had been increased by the tenant's improvements.
§ MR. CLANCYhoped the Chief Secretary would not suggest that they should meet in any way the possible case suggested by the Opposition. A good deal of talk had been indulged in about robbery and confiscation. This was one 689 of the cases in which real confiscation would take place.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid the Amendment would make the subject more difficult and obscure than it was now. In the view of the Government the clause was now plain and simple, but with the Amendment it would be a great deal more difficult to interpret, and for that reason they objected to the Amendment.
§ * MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)said there might be cases where improvements would add to the letting value of the property for some purposes, and where, nevertheless, it would be a hardship that the landlord should be compelled to pay for them. He put the case of an improvement made by a tenant for his own purpose, and for which purpose the improvement would have value. It might be, however, of no use to the landlord for the purpose for which he desired to use the property after the determination of the tenancy, yet he under the Bill would be required to pay for something which to him had no value. Was the tenant to lose the value of the money spent, or was the landlord to pay for what was of no value to him? That was a point which ought to be dealt with one way or another. The Government, were sitting on the fence.
§ * MR. CAVEsaid that was the effect of the clause as now interpreted. It was not a fair proposal, and he thought the only way to meet the case was to accept an Amendment of the kind proposed. If the Bill only applied to future improvements there would be very much less to be said for the Amendment, for in that case the landlord would have the right to object to a proposed improvement on the ground that he desired to use or let the property for some purpose for which the improvement would be of no use, and to bring the matter before the Court. That would be fair enough, or, 690 at all events, the landlord would have some remedy, but it would be extremely unfair that he should pay for that which had been already done without his having any opportunity of objecting to it.
§ MR. PARKER (Halifax)said it appeared to be clear that the tenant, on leaving premises on which he had made improvements with the consent of the landlord, would be entitled to compensation. But supposing that a tenant took a house and found that it did not suit his convenience, and that he carried out certain things which were essential, such as the building of wash-houses, to which he could not get the landlord's consent, was he, as the Amendment proposed, to get no compensation at all if the landlord decided to use the premises for a different purpose and pulled down the wash-house? He submitted that that would be an injustice to the tenant. On that ground he opposed the Amendment.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)said the debate so far had not drawn from the Minister in charge of the Bill that reply in regard to the interpretation of the clause which they would have been glad to hear. If the landlord of property in a poor residential neighbourhood decided to pull down at the earliest possible opportunity, houses which were in an insanitary condition, what would happen under this clause in regard to improvements which had been made by the tenants on the houses which were to be demolished? In the case mentioned by the hon. Member below the gangway the tenant might have expended £200 or £300 in building premises suitable for a laundry. According to the clause, that added to the letting value of the holding, but at the termination of the lease the landlord might decide to change the aspect of the whole district. Was the tenant not to get compensation for the laundry buildings which had added to the letting value of the property if used for that purpose, simply because the landlord decided not to continue the place as a laundry? Would the right hon. Gentleman say that the clause assured compensation to the tenant who had carried on the laundry business, no matter how at the end of the tenancy the landlord might desire to change the character of the place? He thought an 691 answer to that question would clear the air.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid he would tell the hon. Member what he thought the clause meant, and what he thought it ought to mean. The basis of a claim for compensation would be benefit accruing to the landlord, and the mere fact that a landlord did not wish to use the property for a similar purpose did not deprive the tenant of his claim. If the landlord, on the other hand, wanted to improve the property still further and swept away the whole existing improvements in carrying out his plans, the claim for compensation would not attach. But under the Amendment the Courts would be very much perplexed, and it would be better to leave it on the broad basis that the tenant should be compensated for his addition to the landlord's value. He hoped after the long discussion which had taken place the House would now allow the division to take place.
§ MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)thought that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman it was manifest that if the clause was left as it stood enormous confusion would inevitably arise. The right hon. Gentleman had
| AYES | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Pee |
| Balcaires, Lord | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Forster, Henry William | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Haddock, George R. | Starkey, John R. |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hill, Sir Clement, (Shrewsbury) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Houston, Robert Paterson | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kimber, Sir Henry | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Valentia, Viscount |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Magnus, Sir Philip | Walroud, Hon. Lionel |
| Cave, George | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Parkes, Ebenezer | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Charles Craig and Mr. Bowles. |
| Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | |
| Cross, Alexander | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E) | Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset) | Bertram, Julius |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Bethell, Sir J.H. (Essex, Romf'rd) |
| Alden, Percy | Barnard, E. B. | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Barnes, G. K. | Billson, Alfred |
| Ambrose, Robert | Barry, E. (Cork. S.) | Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexhm) | Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) |
| Astbury, John Meir | Beck, A. Cecil | Brace, William |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Bell, Richard | Bramsdon, T. A. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Bellairs, Carlyon | Branch, James |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. | Brigg, John |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Bennett, E. N. | Bright, J. A. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Berridge, T. H. D. | Brunner, J. L. F. (Lancs., Leigh) |
§ said that unless the letting value of the holding was increased no compensation would be due. He could not have apprehended the case put from the Opposition Benches during the last hour and a half. If a tenant made an improvement which at the end of the tenancy the landlord in his own interest thought it necessary to sweep away, it could not be said that that improvement had increased the letting value of the holding. That was a question which had not been made clear.
§ MR. BOWLESsaid that, as to the remarks of the hon. Member below the gangway, he would like to point out that as a matter of fact the tenant in almost every case would have made his improvement without the slightest expectation of getting any compensation, so that no injustice would be done to the tenant, whereas a very grave injustice would be done to the landlord if he were called upon to pay compensation for an improvement which was of no value to him.
§ Question put,
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 40; Noes,. 267. (Division List No. 423.)
| Brunner, Rt Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh) | Hemmerde, Edward George | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Henry, Charles S. | O'Malley, William |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) | O'Mara, James |
| Burnyeat, W. J. B. | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Higham John Sharp | O'Shee, James John |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hogan, Micahel | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Cairns, Thomas | Holland, Sir William Henry | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N | Philipps, J. Wynford,(Pembroke |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Horniman, Emslie John | Pollard, Dr. |
| Clarke, C. Goddard | Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Cleland, J. W. | Hudson, Walter | Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central) |
| Clough, William | Hyde, Clarendon | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford. E. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Idris, T. H. W. | Radford, G. H. |
| Cogan, Denis J. | Jenkins, J. | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro') |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E Grinst'd) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Redmond, John (E. Waterford) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Jowett, F. W. | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Cox, Harold | Joyce, Michael | Rees, J. D. |
| Crean, Eugene | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Cremer, William Randal | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Laidlaw, Robert | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) | Richardson, A. |
| Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Delany, William | Lambert, George | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N | Lamont, Norman | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Dillon, John | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee |
| Dolan, Charles Joseph | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Duffy, William J. | Levy, Maurice | Robinson, S. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Lough, Thomas | Rowlands, J. |
| Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Lundon, W. | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Lynch, H. B. | Samuel, S. M. (White chapel) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs) | Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne |
| Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Maclean, Donald | Seddon, J. |
| Elibank, Master of | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Shackleton, David James |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B. |
| Essex, R. W. | MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | M'Callum, John M. | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Everett, R. Lacey | M'Crae, George | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Faber, G. H. (Boston) | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | M'Kean, John | Snowden, P. |
| Fenwick, Charles | M'Killop, W. | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Ferens, T. R. | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Ffrench, Peter | M'Micking, Major G. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Field, William | Maddison, Frederick | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Findlay, Alexander | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Meagher, Michael | Stuart, James (Sunderland) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Meehan, Patrick A. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Menzies, Walter | Summerbell, T. |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Mooney, J. J. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Gilhooly, James | Morse, L. L. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Gill, A. H. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Ginnell, L. | Murnaghan, George | Thorne, William |
| Glendinning, R. G. | Murphy, John | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Glover, Thomas | Murray, James | Ure, Alexander |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Myer, Horatio | Verney, F. W. |
| Gooch, George Peabody | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Vivian, Henry |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Napier, T. B. | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Nicholls, George | Walsh, Stephen |
| Hall, Frederick | Nolan, Joseph | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Halpin, J. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent |
| Hammond, John | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid) | Wardle, George J. |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Morthyr Tydvil) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Hart-Davies, T. | O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.) | Watt H. Anderson |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Wedgwood Josiah C. |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | Wedgewood, Josiah C. |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | O'Donnell T (Kerry W) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Hayden. John Patrick | O'Grady, J. | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Helme, Norval Watson | O'Hare, Patrick | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Whitehead, Rowland | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesborough) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) | |
| Wiles, Thomas | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis. |
| Williams J. (Glamorgan) | Winfrey, R. | |
| Wills, Arthur Walters | Wood, T. M'Kinnon | |
| Wilson, John (Durham, Mid. | Young, Jamuel |
§ *MR. JAMES CAMPBELL moved an Amendment providing that in no case should the compensation payable exceed the cost of the improvements made. He thought that should commend itself to every hon. Member. [Laughter.] He was convinced that this was not a laughing matter at all, but a matter of substance and justice. What was proposed by the Amendment was to prevent the possibility of a tenant, who had spent, say, the sum of £1,000, coming into court and alleging that the result of his expenditure had been to increase the value of the landlord's property above and beyond the £l,000 which he had expended. It was possible that there would be such a case, and his contention was that the tenant would get ample justice if he got back his £1,000, although there might be circumstances in which the sum he received would be less than that expended, because the improvement might have been ill-advised, the work might not have been well done, or the change might not have improved the letting value of the holding. But if owing, to a change of fashion or to the fluctuating interests of industry and commerce, the particular locality in which he had expended that £1,000 became every day more suitable for buildings of the particular kind in which he had invested his money, with the result that the value did increase by more than the amount spent, surely ample justice was done if on quitting the property the amount which he had expended were regarded as the maximum of compensation payable.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 13, after the word 'landlord,' to insert the words 'but in no case shall the compensation payable exceed the cost of such improvements."'—(Mr. James Campbell.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. BRYCEsaid he could not assent to the Amendment. Assuming that it was, conceivable that a case of the kind mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman 696 might arise, it was intended that the basis of compensation should be not the amount which the tenant had spent, but the benefit the landlord had received. He did not believe that the tenant would get more than he spent, but he did not wish the House to say that the quantum which he was to be paid should be measured by the sum he had expended. In such a case the Court would not give the unearned increment to the tenant, because the greater popularity of the neighbourhood would not be due to his action, and therefore he would not be entitled to it. They could not assume that the Court would ignore the plain justice of the case. This was a plain matter of reading the Bill and nobody could read it otherwise. He thought it would injure the measure if they were to adopt the Amendment.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the right hon. Gentleman seemed to doubt whether the circumstances which were outlined by his right hon. friend could happen, but he knew of a case in Belfast in which they had occurred. The main street in that city at the present time was known as Donegal Street. This particular business thoroughfare in Belfast up to fifteen years ago was mainly composed of dwelling-houses, there being only two or three business houses out of fifty or sixty in the street. It was quite possible by the expenditure of £500 or £1,000 to convert those houses into business premises which would let for two or three times more rent than they would as private dwelling-houses. That was a case which happened in every town — London, Dublin, and elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman said that the basis on which the Bill was drafted was the benefit which the landlord received through the improvements of the tenant, so that the tenant might, in such cases as he had mentioned, receive twice or three times the amount of the money he had spent.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid that there was nothing in the Bill which would provide 697 that changes in the locality should have anything to do with the compensation to be awarded.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the right hon. Gentleman had himself told them that the compensation was to be assessed on the increased letting value to the landlord irrespective of what the tenant had paid. The Bill did not state what were to be the limitations of the amount to be awarded to the tenant, and he thought he had shown that there were plenty of cases in which the improvement affected by the tenant in converting a house from a dwelling-house into trading premises might represent a much larger sum than the tenant spent. Therefore it seemed desirable that such cases should be met by an Amendment of the sort proposed.
§ MR. J. F. MASON (Windsor)said that a tenant might during the course of his lease spend £500 on his house, and it might be that when the lease came to an end, owing to changes in the building trade, that the improvement could not be effected for anything like the same cost. Therefore the landlord might have to pay more than the original amount that the tenant spent. Was the tenant to get a net profit for doing nothing whatever in addition to his being refunded the money which he originally spent?
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYwas extremely glad that the right hon. Gentleman had refused to accept this Amendment, because by so doing he had thrown a strong light upon the motives of hon. Members who were supporting the Bill. They had been told over and over again that the Bill had been brought in to do an act of justice to tenants, so that when they had spent money on their houses they should receive it back again. The Amendment, which was an exceedingly simple one, suggested that compensation should be restricted to the amount spent, and he thought it ought to be accepted. When it was suggested that the compensation should be limited to the amount of money actually expended on the improvements, hon. Gentleman opposite laughed, and the right hon. Gentleman rose and said he could not accept the Amendment because the unearned increment did not belong to the tenant.
§ MR. BRYCEThat was not the answer I gave. I said it was an impossible case, and we could not cumber the Bill by providing for impossible cases.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYpointed out that if such a case did arise it would be no evidence in a Court of law to say that the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland had stated in his place in the House of Commons that no such case could arise. What had to be done was to avoid as far as possible unnecessary litigation. Even supposing that everything that had been said in favour of the Bill were true and that these words were superfluous, still it should be the object of the House to incorporate them so that every safeguard might be put in the Bill. It was the desire of every Member of the House to avoid unnecessary litigation, and that being so, there could be no objection to inserting words that went to prove that no possible action could possibly lie for compensation above the amount which the tenant had actually paid for the improvement. It seemed to him that the proposition was an unanswerable one. He was glad to see it was received with laughter by hon. Members opposite and that by the right hon. Gentleman it had been regarded as unnecessary, because that proved that the Bill had been brought in, not as an act of justice, not to do good to anybody, but to satisfy a section of the supporters of the Government who had demanded it.
§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHthought they were entitled to a reply from the Government on the very pertinent cases which had been put forward. He had always understood that the House legislated to meet possibilities as well as probabilities. Yet though they had put forward what might be the case they had had no answer. He felt sure the Attorney-General would give them a reply as convincing on this as on previous questions. If the Amendment was not accepted they would be adding to the chances of litigation under the Bill. As far as he could understand, the principle involved, and admitted by the Chief Secretary, was that the tenant should receive compensation for improvements which he had carried out. He meant by that that the tenant should not be the 699 loser for money expended on his holding. There was a possibility, however, that he might look upon his improvements as a speculation, and having invested a certain sum of money he might be able to claim a fraction over, or even double the amount he had expended. He sincerely hoped the Attorney-General would answer
| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne |
| Balcarres, Lord | Du Cros, Harvey | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfre, | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Starkey, John R. |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Forster, Henry William | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Haddock, George R. | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Thornton. Perey M. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hills, J. W. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Cave, George | Houston, Robert Paterson | |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Tellers for the Ayes— |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Viscount Castlereagh and Mr. |
| Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Magnus, Sir Philip | James Mason. |
| Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | |
| Cross, Alexander | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen | Evans, Samuel T. |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Eve, Harry Trelawney |
| Alden, Percy | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Everett, R. Lacey |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Faber, G. H. (Boston) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Farrell, James Patrick |
| Ambrose, Robert | Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. | Fenwick, Charles |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Byles, William Pollard | Ferens, T. R. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Cairns, Thomas | Ffrench, Peter |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Cameron, Robert | Field, William |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Cheetham, John Frederick | Findlay, Alexander |
| Baker Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Flavin, Michael Joseph |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Clancy, John Joseph | Flynn, James Christopher |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Clarke, C. Goddard | Fuller, John Michael F. |
| Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset | Cleland, J. W. | Fullerton, Hugh |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Clough, William | Gibb, James (Harrow) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Clynes, J. R. | Gilhooly, James |
| Barnes, G. N. | Cogan, Denis J. | Gill, A. H. |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Ginnell, L. |
| Beale, W. P. | Corbett, C. H.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Glendinning, R. G. |
| Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B (Hexham) | Cowan, W. H. | Glover, Thomas |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Cox, Harold | Goddard, Daniel Ford |
| Bell, Richard | Crean, Eugene | Gooch, George Peabody |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Cremer, William Randal | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hall, Frederick |
| Benn, W. (T'wr Hamlets, S. Geo.) | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Halpin, J. |
| Bennett, E. N. | Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hammond, John |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Delany, William | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Bertram, Julius | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Hart-Davies, T. |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd) | Dillon, John | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Dolan, Charles Joseph | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) |
| Billson, Alfred | Donelan, Captain A. | Haworth, Arthur A. |
| Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E. | Duffy, William J. | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Brace, William | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Hemmerde, Edward George |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham |
| Branch, James | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Henry, Charles S. |
| Brigg, John | Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.) |
| Bright, J. A. | Elibank, Master of | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) |
| Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh) | Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Higham, John Sharp |
| Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh,) | Essex, R. W. | Hobart, Sir Robert |
§ the questions put to him. He thought they were questions of great importance, certainly deserving a reply.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:— Ayes, 42; Noes, 274. (Division List No. 424)
| Hogan, Michael | Murphy, John | Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Murray, James | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.) | Myer, Horatio | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Simon, John Allsebrook |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Napier, T. B. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Hudson, Walter | Nicholls, George | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Nolan, Joseph | Snowdon, P. |
| Hyde, Clarendon | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Idris, T. H. W. | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid) | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Jenkins, J. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Steadman, W. C. |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Jowett, F. W. | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | Stuart, James (Sunderland) |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Grady, J. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Kearley, Hudson E. | O'Hare, Patrick | Summerbell, T. |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| King, Alfred John (Knustford) | O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Laidlaw, Robert | O'Malley, William | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) | O'Mara James | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Lambert, George | O'Shee, James John | Thorne, William |
| Lamont, Norman | Parker, James (Halifax) | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) | Ure, Alexander |
| Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Verney, F. W. |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke) | Vivian, Henry |
| Levy, Maurice | Pollard, Dr. | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Lough, Thomas | Power, Patrick Joseph | Walsh, Stephen |
| Lundon, W. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Lynch, H. B. | Priestley, W. E. B.(Bradford, E.) | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) | Radford, G. H. | Wardle, George J. |
| Maclean, Donald | Raphael, Herbert H. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' | Watt, H. Anderson |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) | Redmond, William (Clare) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| M'Callum, John M. | Rees, J. D. | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| M'Crae, George | Rendall, Athelstan | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| M'Kean, John | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| M'Killop, W. | Richardson, A. | Wiles, Thomas |
| M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Rickett, J. Compton | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| M'Micking, Major G | Ridsdale, E. A. | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Maddison, Frederick | Roberts, Charles H (Lincoln) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wilson, J. H (Middlesbrough) |
| Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee) | Wilson, W. T (Westhoughton) |
| Meagher, Michael | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd) | Winfrey, R. |
| Meehan, Patrick A. | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Menzies, Walter | Robinson, S. | Young, Samuel |
| Money, L. G. Chiozza | Rose, Charles Day | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Mooney, J. J. | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | |
| Morrell, Philip | Samuel, S. M. (White chapel) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis |
| Morse, L. L. | Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne) | |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Seddon, J. | |
| Murnaghan, George | Shackleton, David James |
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG moved to add a proviso to the effect that no claim for compensation shall lie where the improvement is of less value than £20. He said the object of his Amendment was to prevent unnecessary and frivolous litigation. But for the retrospective application of the Bill he would have been willing to make the sum £10 instead of £20. When, however, they considered the enormous amount of litigation which retrospective legislation would inevitably bring about, he thought the House would agree with him that it was necessary to make some 702 limit in this respect, and he hoped the Government would admit the justice of the principle. He thought quite sufficient friction would be brought about between landlord and tenant in the larger class of cases without bringing into Court the innumerable cases of what he might call two penny-halfpenny improvements made during the last fifty years.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYseconded the Amendment. He said it was patent to everybody in the House that they had to make the best of a bad bargain. He was afraid they would 703 have to submit to the Bill, and therefore it was their duty to endeavour to make it as workable as possible. Unless a minimum were put into the Bill as was suggested by the Amendment, the landlord would be open to constant claims upon him for so-called improvements. Unfortunately there existed what were called pettifogging attorneys.
§ MR. DILLONThere are no such people in Ireland.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid there might be, but if there were none in Ireland there were some in England, and, as had been already shown, the principle of the Bill, if agreed to in the case of Ireland, must be extended to England, and therefore the first thing they had to do was to prevent any unjust and unnecessary litigation. It was absolutely essential that a minimum should be in the Bill to prevent actions being brought at the instigation of pettifogging solicitors who would be prepared to allow the question of costs to depend on the result of the action. He should have preferred a larger minimum than £20; but he hoped as the Amendment was so modest it would be accepted. For £20 one could not make any improvement likely to add to the letting value of the holding. What one could buy for £20 in bricks and mortar in England at any rate was very little, and he presumed it was not intended that the landlord should pay for decoration.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 13, after the word 'landlord,' to insert the words, 'provided that no claim for compensation shall lie where the improvement is of a less value than twenty pounds."'—(Mr. Charles Craig.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. DILLONgave a concrete instance to illustrate the argument that a town tenant ought to be compensated for an improvement. Some time ago a friend of his erected a chimney on his house in place of a dilapidated one. He was shortly afterwards evicted, and not being allowed compensation for the chimney, as this Bill would give, being a man endowed with a strong sense of equity, ho pulled down the chimney, and restored 704 the house to the landlord in the condition in which it was originally. The result was that the man was brought before the Petty Sessions, but evidently the case was so strong that the magistrates- dismissed it, and the man had the satisfaction of leaving the house in a ruinous condition. A more unjust and monstrous proposal could not be made than that a poor man who expended his money and labour in improving the house in which he lived should not be compensated for the improvements he left behind, while the rich man who laid out a large sum on improvements was to be compensated. The effect of the Amendment was to discriminate against the poor man and in favour of the rich man. There was not a shred of justification for this or any of the other Amendments which had been advocated for hours past. The Amendment was an example of the true spirit and character of the Opposition to the Bill. Anything for the sake of consuming time was good enough for some Opposition Members above the gangway, but he thought the opposition had reached the lowest point when it was proposed to secure to the man of capital a full measure of compensation while denying justice to the poor man who effected his improvements with his humble means, or even by the labour of his own hands.
§ * MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that the illustration given by the hon. Member for East Mayo would be an ordinary repair which the tenant was bound to carry out under the usual obligations of his tenancy. The object of the Amendment was to prevent a tenant claiming as an improvement something which he had done under the ordinary obligations of his tenancy. The fact that some hon. Members were under the impression that by this Bill a man who simply repaired an injury to the premises caused by wind or severe weather was in a position to claim for that as an improvement which added to the letting value of the premises forcibly demonstrated the necessity for such an Amendment as was now proposed. Was the House going to let loose upon the whole town tenantry of Ireland a flood of litigation when quitting their holdings, for amounts varying from £2 to 705 £5 or £6 for expenditure incurred in the ordinary course of repairs? He denied that in Ireland they had any pettifogging attorneys, because the members of the Irish legal profession were a body of gentlemen animated by a desire to protect their clients, and they did it in a legitimate and proper way. Nevertheless, they were human beings, and they must live, and he asked the House not to expose them to the temptation of taking up small and speculative claims on behalf of small and improverished tenants. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman thought £20 was too high a limit, but in the interests of the tenants themselves there ought to be some reasonable limit to prevent unnecessary and wasteful litigation. He would be willing to accept a limitation of £10. It would be absurd to put the machinery of the Bill into operation for sums less than £10, because claims for smaller amounts never resulted in any good to anybody except solicitors. He suggested that the Chief Secretary should accept an Amendment limiting the amount to £10, because while it would not do injustice to anybody, it would prevent people prosecuting claims which would be no use to them, and only waste the time of the public Courts in Ireland.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid his answer to the Amendment was very simple. An improvement was not the less an improvement because it was small. He did not see any reason why they should leave out of consideration a man who had made improvements to the extent of £20,
| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F. | Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) | Houston, Robert Paterson |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) | Hunt, Rowland |
| Balcarres, Lord | Craik, Sir Henry | Kimber, Sir Henry |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Cross, Alexander | Lane-Fox, G. R. |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Alters- | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Du Cros, Harvey | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Faber, George Denison (York) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Bull, Sir William James | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Forster, Henry William | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Haddock, George R. | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne |
| Cave, George | Hamilton, Marquess of | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W. | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor | Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'd | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
§ which might mean a great deal to him. It was all very well for the hon. Baronet, who probably lived in marble halls, to support this limitation, but there were many small Irish tenants to whom £7 or £8 meant a great deal. He thought Irishmen would have sense enough to see whether the improvements they had made were such as would enable them to make out a strong case for compensation. He appealed to hon. Members not to occupy time with minor points, but to proceed to graver questions arising upon later clauses.
§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHthought the Chief Secretary had passed over what was certainly an important Amendment in a very brief speech in which ho bad scarcely entered into any details. It was obvious that if the Amendment were accepted it would obviate a great deal of litigation. The only voice that had been heard against the Amendment from below the gangway was that of the hon. Member for East Mayo, who had given the experience of a friend of his who was obviously a law-breaker, and was trying to claim compensation which he knew when he took the holding he was not entitled to. He was probably an elector of the hon. Member. He (Viscount Castlereagh) hoped that the Government would accept the Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 59; Noes,284. (Division List No. 425.)
| Salter, Arthur Clavell | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Charles Craig and Sir Frederick Banbury. |
| Starkey, John R. | Thornton, Percy M. | |
| Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Valentia, Viscount | |
| Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork N. E.) | Cowan, W. H. | Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.) |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Cox, Harold | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Alden, Percy | Crean, Eugene | Horridge, Thomas Gardner |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Cremer, William Randal | Hudson, Walter |
| Ambrose, Robert | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hyde, Clarendon |
| Armitage, R. | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Idris, T. H. W. |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Jenkins, J. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Delany, William | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Dillon, John | Jowett, F. W. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Dolan, Charles Joseph | Joyce, Michael |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Donelan, Captain A. | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Duffy, William J. | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset) | Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness) | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lambert, George |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Lamont, Norman |
| Beale, W. P. | Elibank, Master of | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) |
| Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexhm) | Erskine, David C. | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich) |
| Bell, Richard | Essex, R. W. | Levy, Maurice |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Evans, Samuel T. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt) | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Lough, Thomas |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.) | Farrell, James Patrick | Lundon, W. |
| Bennett, E. N. | Fenwick, Charles | Lynch, H. B. |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Ferens, T. R. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) |
| Bertram, Julius | Ffrench, Peter | Maclean, Donald |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Rom'rd) | Field, William | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Findlay, Alexander | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) |
| Billson, Alfred | Flavin, Michael Joseph | MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) |
| Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Flynn, James Christopher | M'Callum, John M. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) | Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Crae, George |
| Brace, William | Fullerton, Hugh | M'Hugh, Patrick A. |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Furness, Sir Christopher | M'Kean, John |
| Branch, James | Gibb, James (Harrow) | M'Killop, W. |
| Brigg, John | Gilhooly, James | M'Laren, Sir C. B.(Leicester) |
| Bright, J. A. | Gill, A. H. | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh) | Ginnell, L. | Maddison, Frederick |
| Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T.(Chesh.) | Glendinning, R. G. | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen) | Glover, Thomas | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Massie, J. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Gooch, George Peabody | Meagher, Michael |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Meehan, Patrick A. |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Menzies, Walter |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hall, Frederick | Money, L G. Chiozza |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Chas. | Halpin, J. | Mooney, J. J. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Hammond, John | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) |
| Cairns, Thomas | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Morrell, Philip |
| Cameron, Robert | Hart-Davies, T. | Morse, L. L. |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Murnaghan, George |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Murphy, John |
| Clarke, C. Goddard | Haworth, Arthur A. | Murray, James |
| Cleland, J. W. | Hayden, John Patrick | Myer, Horatio |
| Clough, William | Helme, Norval Watson | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Nicholls, George |
| Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W.) | Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Cogan, Denis J. | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Higham, John Sharp | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Hobart, Sir Robert | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd) | Hogan, Michael | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Toulmin, George |
| O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee) | Ure, Alexander |
| O'Grady, J. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd | Verney, F. W. |
| O'Hare, Patrick | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Vivian, Henry |
| O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Robinson, S. | Walker, H. de R. (Leicester) |
| O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Walsh, Stephen |
| O'Malley, William | Rose, Charles Day | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| O'Mara, James | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| O'Shee, James John | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne | Wardle, George J. |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Seddon, J. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Shackleton, David James | Watt, H. Anderson |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) | Shipman, Dr. John G. | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) | Silcock, Thomas Ball | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Pollard, Dr. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Snowden, P. | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Stanger, H. Y. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E. | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Radford, G. H. | Steadman, W. C. | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Raphael, Herbert H. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Stuart, James (Sunderland) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.) |
| Redmond, William (Clare) | Sullivan, Donal | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Rees, J. D. | Summerbell, T. | Winfrey, R. |
| Kendall, Athelstan | Sutherland, J. E. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) | Young, Samuel |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Richardson, A. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | |
| Rickett, J. Compton | Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis. |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Tomkinson, James | |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
§ MR. RAWLINSON moved to insert words at the end of the clause to provide that the granting of a lease for ninety-nine years and upwards should be considered as compensation for all improvements made before the granting of such lease. He said that this was an Amendment of considerable importance. Where the intention was to grant a ninety-nine years lease, a building agreement was first entered into, and that agreement recited that in consideration of the builder erecting buildings of certain value on the property a lease for ninety-nine years should be granted. That was the way in which practically all building leases had been granted in England. Unless an Amendment of this kind were made—and any practical surveyor would say that it was necessary—there would be the greatest difficulty in inquiring into arrangements which were made many years ago. The Amendment simply said that where there had been a lease granted for ninety-nine years it was to be presumed that the consideration for the granting of the lease was the building of the property. The Amendment involved a mere matter of machinery, and he hoped the Government would accept it.
710§ MR. HICKS BEACHseconded the Amendment
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 13, after the word 'landlord,' to insert the words, 'provided that the granting of a lease for ninety-nine years and upwards shall be considered as compensation for all improvements made before the granting of such lease.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. CLANCYhoped that the Government would not accept the Amendment. No doubt under certain circumstances a lease might be granted on conditions that might be regarded as ample consideration for the improvements, but the question depended on circumstances in each case. A lease for ninety-nine years at a very low rent might well be deemed a valuable consideration for the improvements made, but a lease for the same period at as high a rent as could be obtained would be no consideration at all. In one of the places in Ireland where the necessity had arisen for this Bill owing to rapacious conduct of the landlords, the practice, as he understood it, had been to double, treble, and quadruple the 711 rents for leases, and actually to make a tenant pay on his own improvements. In that case the lease would be no consideration at all. The second subsection of Clause 1 secured ample protection to the landlord. If this Amendment were carried the result would be that, no matter whether the rent was high or low, or whether or not it included the increased value added by the tenant, the mere granting of the lease would be held to be ample consideration.
§ * MR. BARRIE (Londonderry, N.)in supporting the Amendment said he did so with all the more confidence as hon. Members would credit him with having in Committee exhibited considerable sympathy with the principle of the Bill. He admitted that through the unwise action of certain landlords in recent years this question had been considerably advanced in Ireland. During the progress of the Bill through Committee he had repeatedly voted with the Government. Some landlords had abused their monopoly by refusing to grant the customary ninety-nine years leases. The leases they had granted were mostly for twenty-one or forty-four years, and in no case exceeding sixty-one years. The result would be that the tenant must keep the property in a good state of repair and hand it over without receiving any compensation. He was free to admit that this measure as originally introduced was one for which he could not have voted; but now that it was modified and when the expressed intention of the Government was to modify it further, he cherished the hope that it might leave the House in such a shape that it would do good rather than evil. A lease for ninety-nine years would cover the full lifetime of moderately well-built property, and he thought there would be no hardship on any tenant who had the exclusive right to the properly for ninety-nine years being called upon to surrender his lease without any compensation. He therefore urged the Government to accept the Amendment.
§ * MR. BUCKMASTER (Cambridge)said he would be glad to get a little further information in regard to what the Government proposed to do with this Amendment. From what had been said on the other side of the House there seemed to be misapprehension as to its effect. He himself must not be taken to be in favour of building leases for ninety-nine years. These, he believed, had caused a great deal of mischief, and in many cases great hardship in the London suburbs; but the question now was whether, when a man had accepted that form of tenure, and thereby received consideration for work done, he or his successor should also be entitled to compensation at the end of the lease. If so, he would be paid twice over for the same work. An hon. Member below the gangway said that the Amendment would impose hardship on the tenant because the landlord would double or even quadruple the rent.
§ MR. CLANCYsaid that what ho had stated was that at Kingstown when new leases were granted the rent stipulated for was six times greater than before.
§ * MR. BUCKMASTERsaid that that did not meet the case provided for by the Amendment, The hon. Member would see that the rent was not increased during the continuance of the term. He must say that the Amendment did not seem to him unreasonable. He was quite satisfied that everyone would admit that any improvement made before the exists once of a lease was fully compensated for by the lease being granted for ninety-nine years.
§ MR. DILLONsaid that the hon. Member did not seem to perceive the effect of the Amendment. If during the currency of a lease, or other tenancy, a man executed improvements on the house or building, the landlord at the expiry of the lease or tenancy, would come to him, if this Amendment were passed, and said: "Here is a lease for ninety-nine years," and reserve a rack rent on 713 the improvements. There was not a word in the Amendment as to the terms of the lease, and therefore it would be competent if it were passed for the landlord to come to an improving tenant either on an expiring lease or on a tenancy from year to year and say, "Here is a lease for ninety-nine years"—with regard to a new tenancy, fix a rack rent based on the tenant's improvements, and thus reserve a rent calculated on the tenant's own improvements, and wipe out all the effect of this Act, That was the effect of the Amendment, and he thought the hon. Member would see the grotesque injustice of it. The case the hon. Member alluded to was an entirely different one. It was that in which a man made a bargain and speculated in the rise and fall of land, and undertook to build a house provided he got a ninety-nine years lease of the land. That was covered under subsection (2), Section 1, and undoubtedly under that sub-section that would be held to be, as they understood it, an implied valuable consideration for an improvement. But this Amendment was another attempt — the seventh or eighth — by a flank movement to destroy and wipe away the Bill and place it in the power of the landlord, by preferring a lease for ninety-nine years, to do away with all claim for compensation for improvements.
§ SIR E. CARSONsaid the hon. Member for East Mayo was in some respects accurate in the view he put forward in regard to the Amendment and in some respects inaccurate. He seemed to think that by the mere offer made by the landlord the tenant could be deprived of compensation. In that the hon. Member was absolutely wrong, because they were only dealing with the case in which a lease for ninety-nine years had been granted—had been offered to and accepted fairly and squarely between the parties without any fraud. He did not suppose anyone could dispute that if a 714 man had undertaken to erect a building,' when he had that building erected, and got a ninety-nine years lease, that man was not perfectly competent to conduct the whole transaction. In consideration of his building a house and making a security for the landlord's rent, he had got the exact bargain that he wanted. He built the house and got undisturbed possession of it for ninety-nine years. Did anybody suppose that in such a case as that the House of Commons ought to indicate that, in addition to giving him a ninety-nine years lease, at the end of the ninety-nine years the landlord was to pay the man for the house which he had built in consideration of his getting a lease of the land? The mere statement of such a case showed the injustice of the Bill, unless they put in some such limiting words as those proposed. That was one case, but the hon. Member supposed that another set of circumstances might arise, and here again the Bill did not discriminate in any way between those circumstances. He thought the case which the hon. Member for East Mayo had in his mind was the case where a tenant, under an existing lease or tenancy, built a house, and that lease expiring, the landlord granted him a new lease of the same house. But that was not the case of a house being built in consideration of the lease being given. It was a house built under an old contract of tenancy, but prior to the time when the ninety-nine years lease was granted. He did not care what his successors had to pay in ninety-nine years for any house in which he was interested. He did not know whether in ninety-nine years, at the rate at which they were going, there would be any right in those premises, whether they would be even allowed to have successors, let alone to have property to give to these successors; but it was important to see, as desired by the hon. Member for Cambridge, that in the case of a building lease, compensation was not paid twice over. He would 715 leave his successors of ninety-nine years hence to look after themselves.
§ * MR. CHERRYsaid there appeared to be some mistake with regard to the meaning of this Amendment. If the scope of the Amendment were confined to the case of a lease for ninety-nine years made in consideration of the building of a house, either in pursuance of a contract made a year or two before, or actually when the lease was granted, he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman need trouble much about it, because the case would be met by an Amendment to Clause 2, of which he had given notice, to the effect that "a tenant shall not be entitled to any compensation in respect of any improvement made, whether before or after the passing of this Act, in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration." In the case of a lease being expressly made in consideration of the house having been improved recently, the lease itself was compensation for the tenant's improvements, and he could not get any further compensation.
§ SIR E. CARSONsaid they had to deal with retrospective tenants, and unless it was expressed in the lease it would not count.
§ * MR. CHERRYsaid if it were expressed in the lease it was clear, but if not it was necessary for the landlord to show that the lease was given in consideration of the improvement, in which case he would succeed.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)said the Attorney-General for Ireland had committed 716 a mistake of a most astonishing character, because although it was true that the putting up of a house might be the consideration for a lease, it did not at all follow that the lease was a consideration for the putting up of a house. It seemed to him that the Amendment the right hon. and learned Gentleman was going to move at a later stage failed to meet the point, because he had put the cart before the horse in the method of expressing the transaction.
§ * SIR FRANCIS LOWEthought the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not at all meet the point that had been raised. A landlord who had granted a lease on condition that a certain sum (say £500) should be expended in building a house on the land which was leased would be called upon to pay to the lessee at the expiration of the lease any additional sum (say another £500) which the lessee might see fit to expend during the continuance of the lease in improving or adding to the house originally built on the land.
§ MR. GLENDINNING (Antrim, N.)thought this Amendment would do a great injustice to a great number of people in Ireland, and he sincerely hoped the Government would adhere to the original clause. He knew of cases in Belfast where good houses were derelict because of the rent that was demanded of the tenants who had occupied them until their leases expired. He himself was at a house on which the lease expired. The original rent was £31, and the ground landlord demanded £175, after improvements costing £1,500 had been made. He was quite ready to give £80, but the landlord refused, although ultimately he had to let it for £50.
§ MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would meet the difficulty raised by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge, but it would not cover the whole ground. It was quite true that the Amendment would cover the case of a man who, in consideration of a promised lease for ninety-nine years, built a house. There was, however, a case for which this Amendment was required. If a man expended a certain sum on a property and his lease expired, he could not have a new lease forced upon him, but he could refuse to take the lease and threaten to take the landlord into court and make him pay compensation not only for improvements, but also for being disturbed under Clause 5. The tenant, therefore, was in the position at the expiration of a lease of being able to say that if the landlord did not grant him a new lease on favourable and reasonable terms he would take him into court and obtain value for his improvements and compensation for disturbance. But if the tenant took a new lease for ninety-nine years, why should his successor at the end of that time be allowed to go back on the state of affairs existing before the new lease was granted? It would be grossly unjust and manifestly unfair. That case was not covered by the next Amendment. He thought the case mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge was covered by the Amendment of his right hon. friend, but he did not think that that Amendment covered the entire ground, and it would be possible, notwithstanding that Amendment, for a tenant, at the expiration of a new lease for ninety-nine years, to go before the Court and say, "Nothing was said about abandoning my claims in the 718 old case, and I am now entitled to go back to the relations which existed ninety-nine years ago, and demand compensation for the buildings which then existed." He could not for the life of him see what harm could be done by accepting the Amendment.
§ MR. BRYCEsaid the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be greatly concerned about something which could not happen before the year 2005. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's colleague said he was careless about what his successors in title would have to pay in ninety-nine years' time, and he thought they need not trouble themselves about anything which would not arise before that date. There would probably be many amending Acts upon this subject before that year was reached.
§ * SIR HENRY KIMBER (Wandsworth)said he thought they would do well to accept the Amendment proposed by the Attorney-General for Ireland, for it covered a point which was not covered by the Amendment now before the House. He had had hundreds of these building leases pass through his hands, and the preliminary agreement usually stated that in consideration of the building of the house by the lessee the lessor would grant a lease at a fixed rent for ninety-nine years, and it was generally a low rent. But the lease was usually granted as soon as the roof was on the house, and before completion, and the house was not finished until after the date of the lease. The terms of the Amendment proposed by his hon. and learned friend excluded from compensation any improvement which the lessee had done before the date of the lease, and therefore the Amendment would require the words "before the 719 granting of such lease, or in consideration of the granting of such lease." That was a point which the Attorney-General's Amendment covered, and it would come in at a better place in Clause 2. Might they take it the Attorney-General would insert his Amendment?
§ MR. CHERRYCertainly.
§ MR. RAWLINSON, on that undertaking, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment. If he had noticed the Amendment of the Attorney - General he would not have moved his own
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 312; Noes, 67. (Division List No. 426.)
| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) |
| Alden, Percy | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Edwards, Frank (Radnor) |
| Armitage, R. | Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas | Elibank, Master of |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Byles, William Pollard | Erskine, David C. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Cairns, Thomas | Esmonde, Sir Thomas |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Cameron, Robert | Essex, R. W. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Chance, Frederick William | Eve, Harry Trelawney |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Cheetham, John Frederick | Everett, R. Lacey |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Farrell, James Patrick |
| Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset) | Clancy, John Joseph | Fenwick, Charles |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Clarke, C. Goddard | Ferens, T. R. |
| Barnard, E. B. | Cleland, J. W. | Ffrench, Peter |
| Barnes, G. N. | Clough, William | Field, William |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Clynes, J. R. | Findlay, Alexander |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) | Flavin, Michael Joseph |
| Beale, W. P. | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Flynn, James Christopher |
| Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B.(Hexhm) | Cogan, Denis J. | Fuller, John Michael F. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Fullerton, Hugh |
| Bell, Richard | Cooper, G. J. | Furness, Sir Christopher |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Corbett, C. H.(Sussex, E. Grinstd) | Gibb, James (Harrow) |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Gilhooly, James |
| Benn, W. (T'wr Hamlets, S. Geo.) | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Gill, A. H. |
| Bennett, E. H. | Cowan, W. H. | Ginnell, L. |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Cox, Harold | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John |
| Bertram, Julius | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Glendinning, R. G. |
| Billson, Alfred | Crean, Eugene | Glover, Thomas |
| Boland, John | Cremer, William Randal | Goddard, Daniel Ford |
| Bolton, T. D.(Derbyshire, N. E.) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Gooch, George Peabody |
| Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) |
| Brace, William | Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Delany, William | Gulland, John W. |
| Branch, James | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton |
| Brigg, John | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius |
| Bright, J. A. | Dillon, John | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. |
| Brodie, H. C. | Dobson, Thomas W. | Hall, Frederick |
| Brunner, J. F. L.(Lanes., Leigh) | Dolan, Charles Joseph | Halpin, J. |
| Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T.(Chesh.) | Donelan, Captain A. | Hammond, John |
| Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen) | Duffy, William J. | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) |
§ Amendment. He was quite satisfied it had the same effect as his own Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. BRYCEclaimed to move, "That the Question 'That the words of the Bill to the word "tenancy" inclusive, in page 2, line 2, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question 'That the words of the Bill to the word "tenancy," inclusive, in page 2, line 2, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
| Hart-Davies, T. | Morse, L. L. | Shackleton, David James |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B) |
| Harwood, George | Murnaghan, George | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Murphy, John | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Murray, James | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Myer, Horatio | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Snowden, P. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Nicholls, George | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) | Nicholson, Chas, N. (Doncaster) | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Nolan, Joseph | Steadman, W. C. |
| Higham, John Sharp | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Nuttall, Harry | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Hogan, Michael | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Stuart, James (Sunderland) |
| Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N) | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Sullivan, Donal |
| Horniman, Emslie John | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Summerbell, T. |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Hudson, Walter | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Hyde, Clarendon | O'Grady, J. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Idris, T. H. W. | O'Hare, Patrick | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.) |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N) | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | O'Malley, William | Tomkinson, James |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | O'Mara, James | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Jowett, F. W. | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Toulmin, George |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Shee, James John | Ure, Alexander |
| Kearley, Hudson E. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Verney, F. W. |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) | Vivian, Henry |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster) | Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Lambert, George | Pollard, Dr. | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Lamont, Norman | Power, Patrick Joseph | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Wardle, George J. |
| Levy, Maurice | Radford, G. H. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Lough, Thomas | Rainy, A. Rolland | Watt, H. Anderson |
| Lundon, W. | Raphael, Herbert H. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Lupton, Arnold | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Redmond, William (Clare) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs) | Rees, J. D. | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Maclean, Donald | Rendall, Althelstan | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Riphards, Thos. (W. Monm'th) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Richardson, A. | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Rickett, J. Compton | Wiles, Thomas |
| M'Callum, John M. | Ridsdale, E. A. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| M'Crae, George | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Williamson, A. |
| M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| M'Kean, John | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| M'Kenna, Reginald | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| M'Killop, W. | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Robinson, S. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Maddison, Fred rick | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Winfrey, R. |
| Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Roe, Sir Thomas | Wood, T. (M'Kinnon) |
| Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Rose, Charles Day | Young, Samuel |
| Massie, J. | Runciman, Walter | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Meagher, Michael | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | |
| Meehan, Patrick A. | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | |
| Menzies, Walter | Samuel, S. M. (White chapel) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis. |
| Money, L. G. Chiozza | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne) | |
| Mooney, J. J. | Seaverns, J. | |
| Morrell, Philip | Seddon, J. |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H | Banbury, Sir Frederick George |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Balcarres, Lord | Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Balfour, Rt. Hn A. J. (City L'nd'n) | Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Faber, George Denison (York) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Fletcher, J. S. | Remnant, James (Farquharson) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Forster, Henry William | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Haddock, George R. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hamilton, Marquess of | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton) |
| Cave, George | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Starkey, John R. |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W. | Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ) |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Hills, J. W. | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) | Hunt, Rowland | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Younger, George |
| Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.) | |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lowe, Sir Francis William | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia. |
| Cross, Alexander | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon, A. Akers- | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | Morpeth, Viscount |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words of the Bill to the word 'tenancy' in page 2, line 2, stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD, speaking seated and with his hat on, called attention to a point of order. He said sub-section (2) of Standing Order 26 limited the closure to the clause under consideration at the time the closure was moved. This Motion was that they should jump from the middle of Clause 1 to the middle of Clause 2.
The words of the Standing Order were—
When the Motion that 'the Question be now put,' has been carried, and the question consequent thereon has been decided, any further Motion may be made (the assent of the Chair, as aforesaid, not having been withheld) which may be requisite to bring to a decision any question already proposed from the Chair;
| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt) |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset) | Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.) |
| Alden, Percy | Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Bennett, E. N. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Barnard, E. B. | Berridge, T. H. D. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Barnes, G. N. | Bertram, Julius |
| Ambrose, Robert | Barran, Rowland Hirst | Billson, Alfred |
| Armitage, R. | Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Boland, John |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Beale, W. P. | Bolton, T. D.(Derbyshire, N. E.) |
| Astbury, John Meir | Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexh'm) | Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Bock, A. Cecil | Brace, William |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Bell, Richard | Bramsdon, T. A. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Bellairs, Carlyon | Branch, James |
§ and also if a clause be then under consideration, a Motion may be made (the assent of the Chair, as aforesaid, not having been withheld) that the question, that certain words of the clause defined in the Motion stand part of the clause, or that the clause stand part of, or be added to, the Bill, be now put. Such Motions shall be put forthwith, and decided without Amendment or debate."
§ That did not enable a Motion to be moved to go from the middle of one clause right over into the middle of the next clause.
§ * MR. SPEAKERI think the Motion has been frequently accepted, and if I were to search I think I could find precedents for it.
§ The House divided: —Ayes, 316; Noes, 66. (Division List No. 427.)
| Brigg, John | Gibb, James (Harrow) | M'Kean, John |
| Bright, J. A. | Gilhooly, James | M'Kenna, Reginald |
| Brodie, H. C. | Gill, A. H. | M'Killop, W. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Ginnell, L. | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh.) | Gladstone Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Maddison, Frederick |
| Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen) | Glendinning, R. G. | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Bryee, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) | Glover, Thomas | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Massie, J. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Gooch, George Peabody | Meagher, Michael |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Meehan, Patrick A. |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Menzies, Walter |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Gulland, John W. | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Mooney, J. J. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Morrell, Philip |
| Cairns, Thomas | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Morse, L. L. |
| Cameron, Robert | Hall, Frederick | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Chance, Frederick William | Halpin, J. | Murnaghan, George |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Hammond, John | Murphy, John |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Murray, James |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hart-Davies, T. | Myer, Horatio |
| Clarke, C. Goddard | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Harwood, George | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Clough, William | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Nicholls, George |
| Clynes, J. R. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r) |
| Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) | Haworth, Arthur A. | Nolan, Joseph |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Hayden, John Patrick | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Cogan, Denis J. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Nuttall, Harry |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Helme, Norval Watson | O'Brien, Kondal (Tipperary Mid) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Corbett, CH. (Suessx, E. Grinst'd) | Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Cotton, Sir H J. S. | Higham, John Sharp | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Hobart, Sir Robert | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) |
| Cox, Harold | Hogan, Michael | O'Grady, J. |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | O'Hare, Patrick |
| Crean, Eugene | Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.) | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Cremer, William Randal | Horniman Emslie John | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Horridge, Thomas Gardnor | O'Malley, William |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Hudson, Walter | O'Mara, James |
| Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hyde, Clarendon | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |
| Delany, William | Idris, T. H. W. | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | O'Shee, James John |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Jardine, Sir J. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Dillon, John | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) |
| Dolan, Charles Joseph | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Jowett, F. W. | Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke) |
| Duffy, William J. | Joyce, Michael | Pollard, Dr. |
| Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness) | Kearley, Hudson E. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Priestley, W. E. B.(Bradford, E.) |
| Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Laidlaw, Robert | Radford, G. H. |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Lambert, George | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Elibank, Master of | Lamont, Norman | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Erskine, David C. | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Rees, J. D. |
| Essex, B. W. | Levy, Maurice | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Evans, Samuel T. | Lough, Thomas | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th) |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | Lundon, W. | Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Lupton, Arnold | Richardson, A. |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Lyell, Charles Henry | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Fenwick, Charles | Lynch, H. B. | Ridsale, E. A. |
| Ferens, T. R. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Maclean, Donald | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Field, William | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Findlay, Alexander | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) | Robinson, S. |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | M'Callum, John M. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Fullerton, Hugh | M'Crae, George | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Rose, Charles Day |
| Runciman, Walter | Summerbell, T. | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Sutherland, J. E. | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Samuel, S. M. (White chapel) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Seaverns, J. H. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Seddon, J. | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| Shackleton, David James | Tomkinson James | Wiles Thomas |
| Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.) | Torrance, Sir A. M. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Shipman, Dr. John G. | Toulmin, George | Williamson, A. |
| Silcock, Thomas Ball | Ure, Alexander | Wills, Arthur Walters |
| Sinclair, Rt. Hon John | Verney F. W. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Villiers, Ernest Amherst | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Vivian Henry | Wilson, J. W (Worcestersh, N.) |
| Snowden, P. | Walker, H De R (Leicester) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Stanger, H. Y. | Walsh, Stephen | Winfrey, R. |
| Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) | Walton, Sir John L (Leeds, S.) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Steadman, W. C. | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) | Young, Samuel |
| Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | |
| Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Wardle, George J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis. |
| Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | |
| Stuart, James (Sunderland) | Watt, H Anderson | |
| Sullivan, Donal | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir Wiliam Reynell | Craig, Capt. James (Down. E.) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Craik, Sir Henry | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Ashley W. W. | Cross, Alexander | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Randles, Sir John Seurrah |
| Balcarres, Lord | Duncan, Robert (Lanark-Govan) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) | Faber, George Denison (York) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Fletcher, J. S. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Forster, Henry William | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Haddock, George R. | Starkey, John R. |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hamilton, Marquess of | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxfd Univ.) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury, S. Edmd's) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Cave, George | Hills, J. W. | Younger, George |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W. | Houston, Robert Paterson | |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hunt, Rowland | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Sir Alexander Acland-Hood |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.) | and Viscount Valentia. |
| Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) | Lowe, Sir Francis William | |
| Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
§ And, it being after Eleven of the clock, Further Consideration of the Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), stood adjourned.
§ Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.
728§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
§ Adjourned at five minutes after Eleven o clock.