TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.

HC Deb 21 November 1906 vol 165 cc846-940

As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (City of London)

in moving to leave out of Clause 2 the words "with the right to the tenant to dispose of his interest therein," said he believed that the majority of leases granted contained the provision that the tenant might dispose of his interest-provided he obtained the consent of his landlord, that consent not to be unreasonably withheld. That seemed to him to be a very reasonable provision, and he did not see why the House of Commons should depart from it—an arrangement made between two grown men—and lay down the manner in which the landlord should make the offer of a lease to his tenant. If once the House admitted the words, and the right of their insertion in the Bill, then they would have gone a long way towards establishing tenant right and dual ownership. As far as he could ascertain, there had hardly ever, if ever, been a case of hardship under the law as it stood, nor had the State had to interfere between landlord and tenant in this particular matter. Under this section, however, a landlord could not safeguard his interest. A tenant might dispose of his interest without any reference to the landlord in the matter at all. He might dispose of it to a man engaged in speculative business, with the 3hance that in a short time he would be unable to fulfil the condition; or, on the other hand, to an insolvent. There was no reason for the words, nor were they likely to do any good. A tenant who wished to dispose of his interest must do so to someone who was solvent and prepared to maintain the conditions of the lease. If the words were put in the result would be to make more difficult instead of facilitating lettings. All on the Opposition side of the House were against anything which would go to establish dual ownership and tenant right. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could say that the Amendment would endanger the principle of the measure. Its principle was to give compensation for improvements and disturbance, and not to give the tenant the right to dispose of his lease regardless of any agreement to the contrary with the landlord, or any agreement the landlord might desire to make. He felt inclined to think that for the first time he was moving an Amendment which would be acceptable to the Minister in charge of the Bill.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.)

seconded the Amendment, and said its introduction would not interfere with the primary object of the Bill. There were in Ireland three classes of leases: (1) the se containing a condition against alienation; (2) the se containing a provisional condition against alienation, which provided that where a tenant desired to sell his interest he must require the landlord to give his consent to the new tenant; and (3) the se containing a total prohibition against alienation. Everybody agreed that it was a reasonable thing that the landlord should have the right to say whether he accepted a new tenant or not, and it seemed to him that the inclusion of these words, while putting the tenant in a better position, would put the landlord in a worse, by depriving him of the right to say who was to be his tenant-They were told that the Bill was framed solely for the purpose of improving the position of the tenant, but he supposed it would be admitted that the object of the Government was not to hurt the position of the landlord unnecessarily.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 3, to leave out the words 'with the right to the tenant to dispose of his interest therein.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)

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

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

asked whether there was to be any limit to the right of the tenant to dispose of his interest in the holding, as otherwise it was conceivable that he might dispose of his interest in the house for the purpose of setting up a public-house, or for the purposes of some noisy trade which would be injurious to the rest of the property of the landlord, and also injurious to the public interest and welfare of the neighbourhood and of the property in the neighbourhood. If these words gave to the tenant a limitless or practically limitless right to dispose of his interest in his holding for any such purpose, it seemed to him that it would be manifestly unjust to the owner and unjust to the public weal. He could not see the advantage of introducing the words, which seemed to him to open up a prospect of considerable injustice and danger to the landlord. Therefore, without wishing to press the question at any length, he thought those who saw some danger in these words should receive an assurance that their fears were groundless, and that the tenant would not have the power to make use of his position to force upon the owners so-called improvements which were useless and contrary to the public interest.

* MR. JAMES CAMPBELL (Dublin University)

quite agreed that a new tenancy should be subject to new conditions, and that any condition that a man was not to dispose of his interest in his holding would be unfair and unjust; but, on the other hand, was it not perfectly clear that any Court before whom, the question might come would say that any lease containing such a condition was unjust and unreasonable? On the other hand, was it not equally unjust and unreasonable to put in general powers of alienation against the will of the landlord and without his being consulted? The tenant might assign his interest to a pauper, and would it not be unjust that the landlord should have no power to intervene? The tenant who had made improvements, instead of seeking for compensation might make other arrangements with his landlord. The landlord might offer a reasonable lease for an extended term, and if the Court was of opinion that the lease was reasonable it would be taken as the equivalent of compensation, but no Court would hold that a lease was reasonable which provided that the tenant should not be allowed to dispose of his property. A Court would, however, hold it reasonable that a landlord should put in a clause that in the event of the tenant wanting to dispose of it he should do so to a solvent purchaser or that the landlord might pre-empt at a particular price. That would be reasonable. As the clause now stood it would confer upon the tenant holding under a new lease the inalienable right to dispose of his interest as he liked without consultation with his landlord or reference to him in any shape or form. He did not think the words were required, because the Court would protect both the tenant and the landlord and say what was reasonable. No Court would hold a lease to be reasonable which contained an unqualified restriction of the tenant's right to sell, but they would hold it reasonable that he should be at liberty to sell to a person approved by the landlord, and if the latter did not approve the Court would determine whether he was reasonable in the matter.

* THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,) Liverpool, Exchange

said that the speeches in support of the Amendment dealt with three entirely different subject matters which were brought forward on the last stage of the Bill in the House.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)

At what earlier stage could they be brought forward?

* MR. CHERRY

said they could have been brought forward in the Grand Committee. He had been asked, in the course of the discussion, whether there was in law any limitation in regard to the use of a house if a man took it. There was a very well known limitation in law. A man who had taken premises could not divert them, from the use for which they were intended. If he took the premises as a dwelling house he must use them as such, and if he took them for business purposes he must use them in accordance with the agreement. He could not transform them without his landlord's consent, and if he proposed to do so the landlord might restrain him. Of course, if the landlord did not restrain him it might be assumed after a few years that he had consented to the alteration. That was the way the ordinary law stood quite apart from this or any other Bill. There was ample protection under the law as it was at present administered, and there was no risk to the landlord in regard to a new tenant coming in.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

And that law will not be over-ridden by this law?

* MR. CHERRY

No, Sir; it will not be over-ridden. With regard to the Amendment, perhaps the hon. Baronet was not aware that under the Land Act every tenant of an agricultural holding had the right of what was called "free sale," whether or not there was a covenant to that effect in his lease nr his agreement of tenancy.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

did not think that had anything to do with a town holding.

* MR. CHERRY

said he admitted that at present it had nothing to do with town holdings, but they were seeking by the Bill to extend it to town holdings. He could see no difference in this regard between agricultural holdings and town holdings. They stood on the same footing as regarded the land-lord's control over the right of sale. The object of the Government was to put in a clause to prevent a landlord unreasonably depriving a tenant of his right of compensation. If the Amendment was accepted a landlord, by refusing his sanction to a sale, might altogether deprive a tenant of compensation. He would take the case of a man who carried on a business which required skill. He had a house on a short tenure, and died suddenly, leaving no widow, perhaps, but five or six children, who, it was obvious, could not carry on the business. It would be necessary, therefore, for the house to be sold or surrendered to the landlord. If they surrendered it, they would be entitled to compensation under this Bill. But an unreasonable landlord might say, if this Amendment were carried, that he would not give compensation, but would grant a new lease, which would be of no use to the children.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

The Court would not decide that that was reasonable. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not read his own Bill.

* MR. CHERRY

said he did not know what the Court might consider, but it was likely that they would think it reasonable, in which case the children would be deprived altogether of their compensation. He could not see that any harm would be done to landlords by allowing this provision to remain.

MR. J. F. MASON (Windsor)

said the right hon. Gentleman had told them that it was the intention to introduce into town tenancies in Ireland the condition that now applied to agricultural tenancies, and if this Bill was ultimately to be applied to England there would be a condition applied to town tenancies in England which did not apply to agricultural tenancies in England. Therefore, while trying to reduce the two kinds of tenancies in Ireland to one kind they would be introducing confusion in regard 1o the two sorts of tenancies in England. It seemed to him very desirable that the landlord should have some control over the tenant who occupied his property, and at the same time he admitted it was useless to give to the tenant a long lease if he could not dispose of it in ca e of need. It was quite necessary that he should have power to sell his interest, but the introduction of words such as were, he believed, frequently put into leases in England, and certainly in Scotland, namely, "Subject to the aproval of the landlord which shall not be unreasonably withheld," would easily meet the case.

VISCOUNT TURNOUR (Sussex, Horsham)

desired to emphasise the right they had on the Opposition side of the House to move and discuss any Amendment, having regard to the fact that the Bill had not been properly discussed at a previous stage.

MR. FELL. (Great Yarmouth)

said there appeared to have been some mistake made in the alterations effected in this clause in Committee. According to the clause, if the tenant refused to renew the tenancy, should the offer of renewal be held to be reasonable, there would be no compensation in respect of any improvement. With regard to the case of a man's dying during a short tenancy mentioned by the Attorney-General for Ireland, the executors would continue to hold the lease until it expired, or else dispose of it. The tenant must die either on the day of his quitting the holding or on the day in which the lease expired, otherwise it would be for the executors to elect whether they should take the lease or not. He thought that the clause needed some reconstruction by reason of the alterations that had been made, because if the tenant were quitting the holding he was no longer the tenant, in which case he could not understand who the tenant was that had the right to dispose of the interest mentioned.

Amendment negatived

* MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

, in moving the addition of the words— Or that the landlord has given the tenant permission to dispose of hs interest therein to an incoming tenant, said the object of the Amendment was, if possible, to check what might be an extraordinary mass of litigation which would necessarily occur if the clause was allowed to stand in its present form. He would suggest to the Chief Secretary a case where the tenant was going out and the landlord's valuer said the improvements were worth only £200, while the tenant said he would not take less than £500. Supposing the Court afterwards said that £200 was a generous offer, why in such a case should the landlord have been troubled with litigation? There was another case he proposed to cover by the Amendment. A landlord might say that he did not want to buy the improvements, but that he would allow the tenant to sell them, and that, he had a new tenant who was prepared to pay for the improvements and give a fair price. Supposing he said a fair value was £200, but the tenant said they were worth £500 and dragged the landlord into Court, and the Court held that £2(M) was enough, why should a tenant be entitled to expose his landlord to the expense, worry, and annoyance of litigation? He suggested this was a reasonable Amendment which the Government ought to accept. If, however, the Government would accept the second half of the Amendment he would be prepared to waive the first part.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 4, at the end to insert the words "or that the landlord has upon such terms as the Court may deem reasonable, either offered to purchase the interest of the outgoing tenant in such improvement or has given him permission to dispose of his interest the rein to an incoming tenant."—(Mr. James Campbell.)

Question proposed, "That the se words be there inserted in the Bill."

* MR. CHERRY

said he did not understand what the object of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in moving these words. They were in the Bill already— A tenant of a holding who is quitting it shall not be entitled to any compensation in respect of any improvement when it appears to the Court that the landlord has made an offer which in the opinion of the Court is reasonable, of a new tenancy or of the continuance or renewal of the tenancy with the right to the tenant to dispose of his interest therein. What more did he want than that?

* MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said what was in the Bill already was that an alter- native to compensation was the offer of a new lease under a new tenancy, but the alternative his Amendment aimed at was not covered by the Bill.

* MR. CHERRY

said he still failed to see it. The landlord could pay compensation at once to get the tenant out. If the landlord still wanted the tenant he could grant him a new lease, but if the tenant wanted to go away altogether then the landlord could offer him a new lease which the tenant could put up for auction, so that the landlord had every possible option under this Bill, and the Amendment was absolutely unnecessary.

SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)

said he really found a difficulty in believing that the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the Amendment, particularly the latter portion, because the words were taken from the Act of 1870. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that every case was provided for. Might he once more go over the different alternatives? There was the alternative of giving a new tenancy, and the alternative of giving a renewal to the old tenant, which was very much the same thing. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman must see that there was another alternative, namely, that the landlord might not give a new tenancy, and the tenant might not want it, but he might let the tenancy to someone at hand, who was willing to take it. What this Amendment said was that in such a case as that, if he gave permission to the old tenant to arrange with the new tenant to purchase the improvements that should be the same as giving him the money for them. The words were exactly the same as in the Act of 1870. He had known the right hon. and learned Gentleman long enough to know that he had plenty of ability to understand a simple matter of this kind. Indeed, if his memory served him rightly, he believed the right hon. and learned Gentleman had written a book on this matter which was an excellent book and had a large circulation. No doubt one of the matters that that book dealt with was the right that a tenant had after the Act of 1870, of disposing of his improvements to the incoming tenant. Now the right hon. Gentleman said that that was absolutely indefensible, and threw over the Act of 1870, the one argument he had been advancing through these debates. There could be no hard-

ship on the incoming tenant if this Amendment were carried.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 77; Noes, 336. (Division List No. 428.)

AYES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Ashley, W. W.	Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)	Parkes, Ebenezer
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Fardell, Sir T. George	Percy, Earl
Balcarres, Lord	Fell, Arthur	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Baldwin, Alfred	Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey	Ropner Colonel Sir Robert
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)	Forster, Henry William	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Haddock, George R.	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hamilton, Marquess of	Starkey, John R.
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Stafish.)
Bull, Sir William James	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury, S Edm'ds)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hunt, Rowland	Thornton, Percy K.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Castlereagh, Viscount	Kimber, Sir Henry	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham)	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Liddell, Henry	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.)	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Younger, George
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.	Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Craik, Sir Henry	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Cross, Alexander	Morpeth, Viscount
Dalrymple, Viscount	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Birrell, Rt.-Hon. Augustine	Cleland, J. W.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Boland, John	Clough, William
Acland, Francis Dyke	Brace, William	Clynes, J. R.
Agnew, George William	Branch, James	Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Brigg, John	Cobbold, Felix Thornley)
Alden, Percy	Bright, J. A.	Cogan, Denis J.
Ambrose, Robert	Brocklehurst, W. B.	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Armitage, R.	Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Condon, Thomas Joseph
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)	Cooper, J. G.
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)	Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E Grinst'd)
Atherley-Jones, L.	Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)	Cox, Harold
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Burke, E. Haviland-	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Crean, Eugenee
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Cremer, William Randal
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Crombie, John William
Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)	Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.	Crooks, William
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Byles, William Pollard	Crossley, William J.
Barnard, E. B.	Cairns, Thomas	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Cameron, Robert	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
Beaumont, Hn. H. (Eastbourne)	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B (Hexham)	Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Delany, William
Beck, A. Cecil	Cawley, Sir Frederick	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)
Bell, Richard	Chance, Frederick William	Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N)
Bellairs, Carlyon	Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.	Cheetham, John Frederick	Dillon, John
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Dolan, Charles Joseph
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)	Churchill, Winston Spencer	Donelan, Captain A.
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Clancy, John Joseph	Duffy, William J.
Billson, Alfred	Clarke, C. Goddard	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Kearley, Hudson E.	Parker, James (Halifax)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Kekewich, Sir George	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Perks, Robert William
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Laidlaw, Robert	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Elibank, Master of	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)	Pollard, Dr.
Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Erskine, David C.	Lamont, Norman	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Langley, Batty	Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)
Essex, R. W.	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Everett, R. Lacey	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradf'rd, E.
Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.	Rainy, A. Rolland
Farrell, James Patrick	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Raphael, Herbert H.
Fenwick, Charles	Lehmann, R. C.	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Ferens, T. R.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Ffrench, Peter	Lough, Thomas	Redmond, William (Clare)
Field, William	Lundon, W.	Rees, J. D.
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Lyell, Charles Henry	Rendall, Athelstan
Findlay, Alexander	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs	Richards, Thos. (W. Monmouth
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Maclean, Donald	Richardson, A.
Fuller, John Michael F.	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Rickett, J. Compton
Fullerton, Hugh	Macpherson, J. T.	Ridsdale, E. A.
Gibb, James (Harrow)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Gilhooly, James	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Gill, A. H.	M'Callum, John M.	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)
Ginnell, L.	M'Crae, George	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	M'Mugh, Patrick A.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Glendinning, R. G.	M'Kenna, Reginald	Robinson, S.
Glover, Thomas	M'Killop, W.	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Roe, Sir Thomas
Gooch, George Peabody	M'Micking, Major G.	Rowlands, J.
Gulland, John W.	Maddison, Frederick	Runciman, Walter
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Mallet, Charles E.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)
Hall, Frederick	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Halpin, J.	Marnham, F. J.	Seaverns, J. H.
Hammond, John	Massie, J.	Seddon, J.
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Masterman, C. F. G.	Seely, Major J. B.
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Meagher, Michael	Shackleton, David James
Harwood, George	Meehan, Patrick A.	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Menzies, Walter	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Molteno, Percy Alport	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Haworth, Arthur A.	Mond, A.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Hayden, John Patrick	Montagu, E. S.	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Mooney, J. J.	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Heaton, John Henniker	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Helme, Norval Watson	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Snowden, P.
Henry, Charles S.	Morrell, Philip	Soares, Ernest J.
Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)	Morse, L. L.	Spicer, Sir Albert
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Stanger, H. Y.
Higham, John Sharp	Murnaghan, George	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Hobart, Sir Robert	Murphy, John	Steadman, W. C.
Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Murray, James	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Hogan, Michael	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Hooper, A. G.	Napier, T. B.	Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)	Sullivan, Donal
Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)	Nolan, Joseph	Summerbell, T.
Horniman, Emslie John	Norman, Sir Henry	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Hudson, Walter	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Hutton, Alfred Eddison	Nuttall, Harry	Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury)
Idris, T. H. W.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Jardine, Sir J.	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Jenkins, J.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N)	Thomasson, Franklin
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	O'Donne'l, John (Mayo, S.)	Tomkinson, James
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea	O'Grady, J.	Toulmin, George
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo. N.)	Verney, F. W.
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)	Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Jowett, F. W.	O'Malley, William	Wadsworth, J.
Joyce, Michael	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Wallace, Robert	White, Patrick (Meath, North)	Winfrey, R.
Walsh, Stephen	Whitley, H. (Halifax)	Wodehouse, Lord
Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S)	Wiles, Thomas	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)	Young, Samuel
Wardle, George J.	Williamson, A.	Yoxall, James Henry
Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Watt, H. Anderson	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley, and Mr. Herbert Lewis.
Wedgwood, Josiah C.	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
White, George (Norfolk)	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
White, Luke (York, E. R.)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY moved to leave out sub-section (2), in order to give the Attorney-General an opportunity of explaining the proposal of the Government. He would like to know what the tenant was to receive compensation for, because the improvement would not have been made. The provision only applied in cases where the landlord had failed to fulfil his undertaking. How could the tenant receive compensation for something which had never been done? If the clause had meant that where a tenant suffered a loss because an improvement had not been made and his business or comfort suffered in consequence, compensation was to be given, that would have been another matter. The hon. Member for North Dublin who drafted this Bill had a Motion down to leave out this clause, and perhaps he would inform the House how a man could be entitled to compensation for an improvement which had not been made.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

seconded.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2. line 5, to leave out sub-section (2) of Clause 2.'"—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)

Question proposed, "That subsection (2) of Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

* MR. CHERRY

thought the only way to explain the clause was to read it, as he could not explain it in clearer language. Supposing in 1870 the tenant of a house wanted a new story put on, and the landlord said, "I would rather build it for you and I will do it within the next six months;" and if, after waiting, say, a year and a half, the land lord had not done it but instead made a further promise that he would do it within the next five years, the tenant would be justified in saying that he could not wait any longer and he might build it himself. In that case the tenant would be entitled to compensation from the landlord.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.) moved to insert the words "made before the passing of this Act" in sub-section (3). The sub-section was one of the limiting and peddling Amendments originally contained in the Land Act of 1870, which so far as they had any effect at all had had the effect of robbing the tenant of some of his property. The right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University had pretended the other night not to know the meaning of sub-section (3).

* MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

The hon. and learned Gentleman is not doing me justice. What I said was that I did not understand the meaning of it if put side by side with Clause 9 of the Bill.

MR. CLANCY

said it was very strange if the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not understand is for he was jointly responsible with the late Attorney General, now Lord Atkinson, for introducing it into the Bill of last year. It was taken from the Land Act of 1870 He thought it was a great injustice that the present Chief Secretary and the present Attorney-General had acccepted the sub-section. The limiting provisions in the Act of 1870 had cut down and destroyed the rights given to the tenants by the principal clauses, and the result had been to make the Act ineffective for its purpose, and to lead to increased agitation. He was afraid that he and his friends from Ireland had accepted this sub-section too readily in Grand Committee, but he was willing to stand to it if its operation was confined to the past. The effect of his Amendment would be so to confine it. If the sub-section was not confined to the past he did not understand how it would be possible to carry out any improvements in future at all. An hon. Member who had been opposing the Bill stated the other night that the words of sub-section (3) would become a common form in leases in the future—that was to say, that the landlord in order to prevent compensation being given for improvements done after the passing of this Act would put into the lease a condition that the tenant was not to make any improvements at all. he wanted by moving this Amendment to prevent such a condition being made. If a tenant in the past had made a contract not to make certain improvements he would allow it to prevail, but he held that in regard to the future they ought to allow Clause 3 of this Bill to regulate the proceedings between landlord and tenant. In all the debates on the Bill he did not recollect having heard a single word against the principle of Clause 3. Subsection (3) of Clause 2, unless amended in the way he proposed, might prevent any improvements being made at all. He thought that in the interest of the country at large it would be a most deplorable thing that tenants who were able to make needed improvements in their business houses should not be at liberty to make them. The Act of 1870 contained a provision which largely mitigated the injurious effects of sub-section (3) which had been imported from that Act, it being provided that, subject to certain exceptions, the landlord should not forbid a tenant from making improvements which were necessary to carry on his business. He thought the Attorney-General, when importing the sub-section, might have imported it in its entirety.

MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 14, after the word 'writing' to insert the words 'made before the passing of this Act'"—(Mr. Clancy.)

Question proposed, "That the se words be there inserted in the Bill.'

* MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hants, Basingstoke)

said that in his view this was the most important Amendment which the House had been called upon to consider on this clause. Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 was in no way inconsistent with Clause 9 of the Bill. Clause 9 provided that it should not be lawful to contract out of the obligation to give the tenant compensation for the improvements he had effected. It would be rendered unlawful if this Amendment was carried for any landlord to agree with any tenant, however willing both might be, that premises should remain or be repaired to keep them in their present condition, but that they should not be subject to alteration or improvement. It appeared to him that that would be a most serious thing to do. He trusted that the Government would adhere to the Bill on this point. he could not conceive anything more unjust than to say to a willing landlord dealing with a willing tenant that the premises should remain unaltered. He believed if the Bill passed this sub-section would be largely availed of by landlord and tenant, and that to a large extent they would be willing to contract on these terms. He earnestly hoped that the Government would be no party to making it impossible for landlord and tenant to contract to leave the premises in their present condition.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

said hon. Members above the gangway seemed to be unacquainted with the conditions of Irish life. They spoke of agreements between a willing landlord and a willing tenant. Were they unaware of the fact that there were in many parts of Ireland whole towns belonging to single landlords, so that the landlord was lord and master of the existence and means of livelihood of every individual in the town? He had himself known several instances where the landlord held the lease or endeavoured to impose unreasonable terms and the choice lay between exile from one's native town, to go out a beggar, or to accept the landlord's conditions. In face of these facts was it reasonable to talk about a willing landlord and a willing tenant? Re could mention hundreds of towns where this state of things existed, the ugh fortunately a system of transfer was now-going on which might to some extent prove a remedy. He did not pretend to understand English conditions the roughly, but under them prosperity had sprung up, and enterprise and expenditure of capital were going on, while the country towns of Ireland were falling into decay, and men, even with money in the bank made by commerce in the se towns, and anxious to spend it in the improvement of their holdings, had to deal with landlords who were absolutely indifferent to the prosperity of their tenants, and themselves lived at a distance, unaware of local conditions. What was the use of talking of a willing landlord and a willing tenant? Such towns as Loughrea and Arklow were owned by one landlord, who held the tenants at his mercy, and was in a position to say:—"If you do not accept these terms of occupancy you may go and wander over the face of the earth." One of the great objects of the Bill was to set loose the spirit of enterprise in these unfortunate towns, and to give some security to traders and the industrial population who were anxious to spend their money in improvements. If the Amendment was not accepted he feared the Bill would be useless, Already he was told that lawyers had been working in Dublin on behalf of the landlords in drafting a common clause for leases and agreements of tenancy that the tenant should not make any improvements, and if such a clause were legal all the virtue of the Bill, so far as the future was concerned, would be destroyed. He knew it would be pleaded that the Bill followed the Act of 1870, but already twenty-one amending Acts had been passed, many of which would have been unnecessary if the Irish Members of that time had been listened to. He appealed to the Government to accept the Amendment.

* MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said he would like to remind the House of an incident which occurred the previous evening when an hon. Member opposite supported an Amendment moved from the Opposition side of the House, the object of which was to protect a landlord in cases where improvements made by a tenant were of no value to the landlord. In the course of the discussion of that Amendment it was pointed out with great force that the landlords in that case would be protected, not merely by the Amendment put down on the paper, but also by this subsection (3) of Clause 2. He could only say that it would be a distinct breach of faith if the Amendment now before the House were accepted. The reasonable security given by the subsection to the landlord would be destroyed. The hon. Member for East Mayo had given a description of the condition of town tenants in certain parts of Ireland which, the ugh in some respects rather highly coloured, was in the main, he admitted, true as regarded about ten isolated village communities in Ireland. Surely the hon. Gentleman might have known that this legislation was intended for Dublin, Belfast, Cork, and other towns of Ireland, and that the great bulk of the persons who were to receive the benefit of this paternal legislation would be wealthy merchants. [Several NATIONALIST MEMBERS: No, no!] Certainly. There were more town tenants in Dublin, Cork and Belfast than in the whole of the rest of Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: How many of them are wealthy?] He maintained that the bulk of them were certainly of sufficient intelligence to be able to protect themselves in the matter of securing a town house. The amendment, he admitted, had an application to a certain percentage of towns, just as there was a certain percentage of towns in England the whole of which belonged to one landlord. If that landlord was a generous man and encouraged his tenants they would see in England as they would in Ireland that the town or village was a prosperous one. If on the other hand he was a niggardly and selfish landlord, they would see in England as in Ireland that the village was a decaying one. It was absurd, however, to make that the governing principle in a Bill extending to all the great towns of Ireland where such considerations did not apply. They had in Dublin alone more town tenants than in all the communities to which the hon. Member for Mayo had referred. The Amendment would affect Dundalk, Belfast, Cork, and all the prosperous towns in the north and south of Ireland; and it was ludicrous to suggest that, because there were cases where the landlord was in possession of the fee-simple of the entire town, that principle was to govern the whole Bill. They had to have regard to the position of the bulk of the town tenants. Where was the injustice of this clause? The landlord had on the property a house, a villa, or a shop, and he did not want the condition of the house, villa, or shop to be altered. The house, shop, or villa was suitable for the purpose for which he let it, and he thought that it required no improvement. Was he to have that improvement thrust upon him against his will? Why, in the name of common sense, should the landlord not be allowed to contract with his tenant as follows: "If you take this house from me, you are to undertake not to spend your money on your own fancy improvements and make me pay compensation for them at the end of your lease, when I do not want them." If an hon. Gentleman opposite had a house in perfect condition, and if the tenant wanted to put on an additional story, why should the landlord be saddled with the expense of that additional story at the end of the lease when it was built against his wish? The thing would not stand argument. The only bona-fide protection which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had put in the Bill for the protection of the landlord was in the two Amendments now standing his name.

* MR. CHERRY

said that the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment had stated that he was responsible for this clause. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in that. It was introduced by him in Grand Committee, and he thought the hon. Member was present and assented to it. He did not think it was treating the Government fairly for the hon. Member who was responsible for the preparation of the Bill to assent to the Amendment and afterwards make an attack upon the Government on the Report Stage. The Government still thought the proposal fair and reasonable. The case had been put the other day by an hon. Gentleman opposite of a man who, having a special objection to a particular change being made in his house, entered into an agreement that it should not be made. Would it not be most unreasonable after making an arrangement of that kind to turn round and make the change proposed? He had, during the last twenty-five years, read thousands of leases and he never yet came across a lease where there was a covenant not to make improvements.

MR. CLANCY

You get hundreds of them.

SIR E. CARSON

Does the right hon. Gentleman include in that statement contracts not to make structural alterations?

* MR. CHERRY

said he did not. It might be the common form in English leases but he did not think it was in Irish leases. He never saw a covenant not to make an improvement. Of course a complete alteration of the nature of the premises would be outside of any contract. At all events, as regarded existing improvements in Ireland, he did not think there was a single one which would be excluded by this clause. He had heard many cases of fixing fair rents in Ireland, but he had never heard of a case in which a clause of this kind was made use of. It was quite clear, therefore, that as regarded past improvements involving millions of pounds this clause would not injure tenants in the least. The tenants who held under existing leases could not be forced to take any then terms than those expressed n the existing covenants. Of course, if the tenant covenanted not to make any improvements the matter was different, and, that being so, the only cases to be dealt with were future lettings by landlords to tenants. They knew that tenants very often changed their minds, and although landlords were abused very much he did not think they were so unreasonable as the hon. Member for East Mayo supposed. He did not think that every landlord would insist that in letting a house a clause of this kind should be inserted. If the landlord did the tenant ought to be careful. He went into the bargain with his eyes open knowing that he was dealing with an unreasonable man, and he should say that he would not enter into it. (Mr. Clancy: "He could go to New York.") He need not go to New York. He could go to Dublin or Cork or other parts of Ireland where there were hundreds of landlords ready to receive him. They were not dealing with old tenants but with new tenants, and surely it would be an unreasonable thing to prevent landlords protecting themselves in this way. The hon. Member for East Mayo had dealt with the subject most thoroughly, and there was a clause in the Bill which provided that any contract by which the tenant contracted not to claim compensation was to be valid unless in the opinion of the Court it was unreasonable. Upon the discussion of that clause, if it was reached, which he feared it would not be, they could discuss the general subject. The hon. and learned Member for North Dublin had mentioned that he (the Attorney-General for Ireland) had copied this clause from the Act of 1870. The right hon. Gentleman opposite knew that he had a great affection for the Act of 1870.

SIR E. CARSON

At times.

* MR. CHERRY

said it was true that he had substantially copied it, with the omission of some words which were unsuitable. The Act of 1870 laid down a hard and fast rule that no tenant who had a holding under £50 rental could contract himself out; and that anybody with a rental of over £50 could do so in any way he pleased. The Government took a different line and said that there should be no unreasonable contracting out whether the holding was large or small, and no matter how small or how large it might be. They thought the limitation of valuation could not be applied in the case of house property as in the case of farms because the occupier of a small house might be a rich man, whereas the occupier of a small farm was usually a poor man. This was their justification for departing from the Act of 1870 in regard to contracting out.

ME. J. REDMOND (Waterford)

said he was not convinced by the speech of the Attorney-General. He thought that adequate protection of the landlord in all cases of future leases was afforded by Clause 3. He was surprised at the attitude of the Government, but in view of the arrangement come to yesterday to finish if possible by eleven o'clock, he thought it would be unfair if he and his' colleagues who discussed these matters in Grand Committee took up an unreasonable amount of time. They were anxious that the time should be left to hon. Gentlemen above the gangway who took a strong objection to the Bill. Under these circumstances he would advise his hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. CHERRY moved to insert as a new subsection— (4) 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.' The object, he explained, was to provide that a tenant was not to be paid twice over for improvements. If a tenant had entered into a bargain of any kind with his landlord to make an improvement, and if he had received valuable consideration, he was not to turn round at the expiration of a number of years and ask for something further. This was already the law as regarded agricultural holdings in Ireland and the law, not only as regards questions of compensation, but also as regards the fixing of fair rents. It was an original provision of the Act of 1870 which was given effect to by the Act of 1881 when rents came to be fixed between landlords and tenants. The terms of tenant's rights as regards improvements were varied and considerably extended by the Act of the late Government in 1896, but the landlords' rights as to improvements made for valuable consideration were left untouched. That was a very important matter for the House to remember as the tenant's lights with regard to improvements were very much extended by that Act. He thought this was a reasonable Amendment. The most common case was that of a building lease where a man got a lease for ninety-nine years either in pursuance of an agreement to build a house or containing a covenant that he would build a house within five years or some term of years. In such cases as those the agreement was expressed on the face of the lease, but this Amendment would also prevent a tenant at any future time seeking to get compensation for the house which he put up in consideration of having received valuable consideration of any kind.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, after line 15, to insert the words. '(4) A tenant shall not be entitled to any compensation in respect of any improvement made before or after the parsing of this Act in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration.'"—(Mr. Cherry.)

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

MR. CLANCY

said that this was one of those niggling and unnecessary Amendments introduced into the Act of 1870, and it was supported in the Grand Committee by the Government on the ground that if it was not necessary it would be, at any rate, harmless. They had not, as represented, forgotten the case of a person who took land and undertook to build a house, getting the land at a low rent. They had already provided for that in the Bill under subsection (2) which in effect made a much more comprehensive provision for the protection of the landlords than this proposed provision of the Bill would ever do. It was there provided that the Court, in awarding compensation to the tenant in respect of such improvements, might in the reduction of the tenant's claim take into consideration the rental at which such holding had been let and any benefits which the tenant might have received from his landlord in consideration, expressly or impliedly, of improvements. He could imagine nothing wider than that. If a tenant had got a lease on consideration of his promising to build a house, that subsection would prevent him from getting compensation, and he could not understand what was to be gained by this addition to the Bill. He thought the Government were too timid and were impressed with the idea that every time an opponent of the Bill got up and put a plausible concession they should at once agree to it.

* MR. CHERRY

said he had moved this Amendment in Grand Committee himself, and not at the instigation of any hon. Member, but of his own Motion.

MR. CLANCY

said that after the views which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Waterford he would not press his objection to the Amendment, but would leave the time open for the real opponents of the Bill to criticise the measure.

* MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

proposed the following addition to the clause:—"A tenant shall not be entitled to claim compensation for any improvement, except permanent buildings, unless made within twenty years before the date of such claim." He said this Amendment was of great importance, but it was quite impossible to predict its fate. It complied with the provisions which were said to be so necessary in this Bill, and was taken verbatim from the Land Act of 1870. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had said again and again that they were charmed by the analogy between this Bill and the Act of 1870; that the analogy was very perfect, so perfect that this Bill should be kept on parallel lines and the whole legislation should run together. He hoped the analogy would not break down here, because to keep the analogy in this case would be to give some protection to the landlord against unreasonable demands by his tenants. The matter was considered in Grand Committee, and it was first suggested that the Act should only apply to permanent buildings; that nothing should be considered an improvement within the meaning of the Act unless it took the shape of a permanent building or a permanent addition to a building. But it was pointed out that many tenants of town houses had spent substantial sums in draining or restoring the drainage of their houses, and that probably it would be difficult to bring such an expenditure within the meaning of the definition of permanent buildings or additions to permanent buildings. Therefore in the Grand Committee any definition which would confine the improvements to anything in the nature of structural improvements was avoided. The amendment proposed that no improvement should be compensated for, if made more than twenty years prior to the bringing of the claim, unless it were in the nature of a permanent building or an addition to a permanent building. It was a perfectly fair and reasonable proposition; it would not exclude matters of drainage provided they had been made within twenty years of the bringing of the claim, and he thought if a tenant had had twenty years enjoyment of the improvement for his expenditure other than expenditure for permanent improvement or drains he had done very well. But if the drains had been made or laid for more then twenty years prior to the claim being made it was unfair that they should be made the subject of a claim upon the landlord. Every protection was given to the tenant when he was allowed to claim for permanent buildings, no matter how old they might be, provided that at the date of his claim they added to the letting value of the holding. But it would not be wise to leave the law in such a condition as to allow a tenant to claim for an improvement made 100 years before, in respect of matters that did not form a permanent improvement. The House might take it from him that a clause identical with this was; incorporated and passed in the Act of 1870 as applicable to agricultural land. The only distinction between the two was that in that clause in addition to permanent buildings there was the reclamation of waste lands. For every substantial purpose he had taken this clause from the Act of 1870 and he could not see why right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who had expressed themselves as having so much admiration for the Act of 1870, and who were so desirous of continuing the analogy between this Bill and that Act, should refuse to agree to this proposal. He hoped the Amendment would receive favourable consideration.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 15, at the end, to insert the words 'a tenant shall not be entitled to claim compensation for any improvement except permanent buildings unless made within twenty years before the date of such, claim.'"—(Mr. James Campbell.)

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

* MR. CHERRY

said the right hon. and learned Gentleman was apparently slightly in error in saying that he had literally copied this Amendment from the Act of 1870. The words of the Act of 1870 were— In respect of any improvement made before the passing of this Act. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree to amend it in that form he (Mr. Cherry) would accept it. He quite agreed that after twenty years most improvements not of a permanent character would be destroyed or worthless, and he should say that no records would have been kept with regard to improvements made before 1885. With regard to future improvements, they were amply protected by Clause 3, under which the landlord would have notice of the making of an improvement and he could go in and object if he liked. If he did, a strict record would be kept and the matter would be dealt with by the Court. To ask a landlord to pay for improvements which were made 100 years before and which were not in the nature of permanent buildings he agreed would be unfair.

* MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said he would accept the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and move his Amendment in that form.

Amendment to the Bill amended, by inserting, after the word 'improvement,' the words 'made before the passing of this Act.'"

Proposed words, as amended, them inserted in the Bill.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

, in the absence of the hon. Member for the Everton division of Liverpool, moved an Amendment disentitling the tenant to any compensation for improvements made within the last two years of his tenancy without the consent of the landlord. His principal reason for moving the Amendment was the possibility that a landlord of a considerable number of tenancies might have in his mind the desirability of making certain substantial improvements when the tenancies fell in. He might be considering the advisability of a total alteration of his property; he might desire to change small tenancies into large ones, or to alter the position of the tenancies in order to take advantage of a particular water supply or system of drainage. Such a matter was not a thing to be done in a moment. It was a matter to prepare for both in regard to plans and expenditure and other matters incidental to the management of a large estate. He thought if tenants were allowed within two years of the expiration of their lease to make improvements for which the landlord had to compensate them it might have the effect of lessening his ability to make those improvements and alterations which would be to the benefit of the people and the town in which his property was situated. Two years would not too long a period to allow a man for the contemplation of large alterations, and so far as the tenant was concerned it would be unreasonable to allow him to make improvements which would entail a liability on the part of the landlord to pay compensation in such a case. There was always a possibility of some bogus improvement being started in order to make good a claim for compensation, but his point was that the landlord should know within two years of the tenancy falling in exactly what his obligation for compensation would be when he took possession of his property.

CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)

, in seconding the Amendment, pointed out how absolutely necessary it was that some provision of this sort should be embodied in the Bill, so that those who were landlords, in the technical sense of the term, in large towns might know exactly how they stood with regard to their obligations when making preparations for re-letting the holding at the expiration of the tenancy. In no case was if so important as in that of the small proprietors who depended for their income upon the little property they possessed. There were, undoubtedly, a large number of people who would be absolutely unable to protect themselves from improvements made within the period of two years of the expiration of the tenancy—people who drew only £50 or £60 a year from their property. There were a large number of such landlords in the towns, and it was only fair that they should know exactly how they would stand at the expiration of the tenancy, and that they should not be compelled to pay heavy claims for compensation for improvements effected in the last two years of the tenancy. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would show the same conciliatory spirit that he had exhibited on a previous Amendment. The Ulster Members were not opposed to the spirit of the measure, but they were opposed to the many wrongs in the Bill. This was a point on which the right hon. Gentleman might reasonably give way.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 15, after the words last inserted, to insert the words 'or in respect of any improvements made without the consent of the landlord during the last two years of the tenancy."—(Col. Kenyon Slaney.)

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

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOE IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,) Aberdeen, S.

did not think this Amendment was necessary. It would not apply to future agreements, for if the Court thought a tenant had executed improvements unreasonably at the end of his tenancy with a view to getting compensation they would undoubtedly refuse such compensation. In the case of a lease, if a tenant towards its expiry executed improvements on the mere chance of making something out of the landlord, that he thought would be a too speculative undertaking, because the Court would, investigate the character of the claim and would not be likely to award compensation in such a case. In the case of yearly tenancies the Amendment could not apply, because it could not be known till the tenancy was determined which were the last two years. It was almost the regular custom both in small and large towns to renew yearly tenancies. If a tenant made improvements in the belief that the landlord would allow him to go on and the landlord suddenly turned round and refused to grant a renewal, that would be a hardship on the tenant, because if the Amendment were carried the improvements would have been executed within two years of the termination of the tenancy, and the tenant would get no compensation. That would be an injustice which he was sure the right hon. Members who brought forward this Amendment would not wish to bring about.

SIR E. CARSON

said that with a good deal of what the Chief Secretary said he was in agreement, and it might not be necessary to press the Amendment to a division. The Amendment would not be applicable to yearly tenants. There was, however, one matter which he was not sure he quite understood, namely, that after the passing of the Act the tenant could not make an improvement without the sanction of the Court. As he read the section it did not leave a general discretion to the Court. It merely laid down a special matter for the sanction of the Court. The Court had no power with regard to the last two years of the lease. There was another matter of considerable importance. Sub-section (3) of the first section said— A tenant shall not be entitled to any compensation in respect to any improvement made, whether before or after the passing of this Act, in contravention of a contract in writing not to make the improvement. He could see no reason why after the word "made" the Government could not put in the words "during the last two years of the tenancy." In that way he thought the object of his right hon. and gallant friend would be met. He understood that in the case of leases the landlord could stipulate in the agreement that no improvements were to be executed within two years of the termination of the lease.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SIR JOHN WALTON)

I think he could do that.

SIR E. CARSON

Then under the circumstances we need not press the Amendment.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said it seemed to him that under this section some hardship would be done to a landlord who was trying to sell his houses the leases of some of which were just about to terminate. No prospective buyer would dream of purchasing a house without knowing what he would have to pay in compensation for improvements when he bought them. The Amendment would meet such a case as that. As it was a buyer might say to the landlord, "I cannot give you for your house what I might otherwise do, because I have no idea what may be awarded against me as compensation for improvements." Thus the landlord would have a great loss inflicted on him.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said a new and important argument had just been adduced upon this Amendment, and he in the face of the argument did not see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

* MR. CLAVELL SALTER

agreed with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Court in a case of this kind would have a complete discretion. His right hon. friend did not, however, take that view. He confessed he thought this Amendment would not be necessary in the case put forward by the Chief Secretary. In the case of a claim for compensation for improvements made within the last two years of the tenancy coming before the Court the Court would be able to say, "We disapprove of this improvement because you have so little interest." But the word "may" was sometimes an empowering word, and, therefore, he suggested, if his right hon. and gallant friend withdrew this Amendment, that the Government should add after "may" the words "in its discretion."

MR. BRYCE

thought that would be going rather far. It would go further than the hon. Gentleman contemplated, because it would throw upon the Court a wider discretion than it was fair the Court should have.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

said he gathered the right hon. Gentleman's strong objection to this Amendment was its effect on the tenants' holding from year to year. He would in that case suggest to his right hon. and gallant friend that he should amend his Amendment by leaving out the word "tenancy" and putting in the word "lease." That would meet the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary because then it would not apply to yearly tenancies.

MR. BRYCE

said that was only one class of case that he dealt with. He thought it was unnecessary for other reasons which he had given.

COLONEL KENYON SLANEY

said if they would accept the Amendment in that form he would be glad so to amend it. He based his argument in favour of the Amendment entirely on one point, and that point had not received the slightest reply from right hon. Gentlemen opposite. His object in moving the Amendment was to prevent the extreme injury that the clause might inflict on any large scheme of development which the landlord might have in view.

* MR. CHERRY

said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin had already pointed out that the Amendment was rendered unnecessary by the clause which they had just passed. Therefore he thought it was unnecessary to discuss it further.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CARLISLE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans) moved after the word "improvements," to insert the words "and shall apply to the Court for directions as to what further notice of the proposed improvement shall be given and in what manner and to what persons." He thought it desirable that it should be clearly laid down to whom notice of improvements was to be given. A tenant desiring to make an improvement had under Clause 3 to give his landlord notice, and three months were allowed for objections, but there might be between the landlord and tenant quite a number of persons interested in the property. The tenant might give notice to his landlord, who, being an intermediate landlord, might not inform the superior landlord. Probably the intermediate landlord had only a short interest and he might be indifferent as to what happened to the property, He might be a man of straw who did not care. The superior landlord who had a permanent interest in the property might receive no notice of intended improvements, and therefore it was desirable that provision should be made for notice to be sent to him. Was it reasonable that notice should be sent to the intermediate landlord and not to the superior landlord? For these reasons he thought it was extremely desirable and reasonable that some such modification as that which he proposed should be accepted. The Bill might also require that under the direction of the Court the tenant might be called upon to advertise the fact that he proposed to make certain improvements, and copies of the notice might be attached to his premises. He begged to move.

LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

seconded. He thought the Government would realise that there must be some means of the persons who ultimately had to pay being given proper notice.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 20, after the word "improvements," to insert "and shall apply to the Court for directions as to what further notice of the proposed improvement shall be given and in what manner and to what persons."—(Mr. Carlile).

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

* MR. CHERRY

thought the hon. Member who moved and the noble Lord who seconded had not studied the Bill very carefully, because the clauses already provided for this case. The proposal contained in the Amendment was that my man who was going to make improvements must serve notice not only upon his own landlord but also upon all other landlords. If the tenant had to apply to the Court for directions that would increase the cost enormously. It was already provided for in the Bill that the tenant must serve notice upon his immediate landlord and they had also provided that that immediate landlord was to give notice to his landlord.

* MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said the position was that wherever the tenant proposed to make an improvement he had to serve notice upon his immediate landlord, but there was no provision by which the next succeeding landlord was to receive notice. The provision in Clause 4 only dealt with claims which provided for the documents once a claim had arisen. What was required was that the superior landlord should have the same opportunity to object as the middle landlord, who might be in collusion with the tenant, and having got notice of the intended improvement himself might take no notice of it. He would suggest that an Amendment to meet the difficulty should be inserted when they reached Clause 4 with the object of securing that not only should notice of the claim be served upon the middleman and the superior landlord, but also notice of the intention to make improvements.

* MR. CLAVELL SALTER

thought the proper time to discuss this question would be when they reached Clause 4. There was an Amendment standing in his name which would meet this case. The Bill only provided that the immediate landlord should be consulted; and those who would have to pay might not be consulted at all as to whether the improvements should be sanctioned. Consequently they might be called upon to pay for improvements which they might have successfully resisted if they had been consulted.

* MR. CHERRY

said the second part of Clause 4 could only refer to notices of intention to make improvements, because no other notices were mentioned. He thought the noble Lord who raised the point would see that he was right.

MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)

said there were great many ninety-nine years leases, and a great deal might happen in ninety-nine years. One large landowner owning the greater portion of the land of a town might let of a portion of it to other persons, and the tenants might know nothing whatever of the existence of the head landlord or the original building lease. Without any collusion and through legitimate ignorance the tenant might serve notice upon the man who to him was the landlord, but who under this Bill was under no obligation to give notice to the superior landlord.

* MR. CHERRY

suggested that the words of an Amendment of which notice had been given with regard to Clause 4 might be so altered as to admit of the-whole subject being considered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawal.

MR. CARLILE moved to insert after "three months," the words "or such further time as the Court shall prescribe." When they considered the number of questions that might arise between landlord and tenant he thought it was reasonable that if the Court saw fit the period of three months should be extended. He thought the discretion might very well lie with the Court. There were certain cases where the interests were multitudinous, and it was desirable that there should be power given to the Court to exercise this discretion, in order that difficulties of a complicated nature which were likely to arise in many cases might be dealt with.

LORD R. CECIL

seconded the Amendment. The difficulties pointed out by his learned friend would arise, and he thought there could be no harm in giving the Court discretion to extend the time. Unless this discretion was vested in somebody there would always be danger of considerable injustice being done.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 21, after the words 'three months,' to insert the words 'or such further time as the Court shall prescribe.'"—(Mr. Carlile.)

Question proposed, "That those words of there inserted in the Bill."

* MR. CHERRY

said it was absolutely necessary that there should be a fixed period of time in which the landlord should serve notice of objection. He thought in these days of telegraphs, telephones, and rapid transit, the period of three months would be sufficient for the purpose contemplated in the clause.

Question put, and negatived.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH (Maidstone)

proposed to insert words to provide that before sanctioning improvements referred to the Court, the Court should be satisfied that the addition to the letting value made by the improvement should be "commensurate with the proposed outlay." This was purely a drafting Amendment. At the present moment there was nothing in the Bill which would prevent the Court from allowing compensation for an improvement which would not in the letting value of the premises represent the outlay which the tenant had made.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

seconded the Amendment, which he thought would safeguard the right of the landlord if he had to find the money, for he might be able to recover some reasonable rate of interest. As the Bill stood the Court would be able to award to a tenant £500 which he had spent on improving his house, Although the improvement had not added £5 to the letting value of the house.

MR. BRYCE

indicated dissent.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

said the right hon. Gentleman shook his head. He would be very glad if he was wrong in his conclusions, but if that was so he submitted to the Chief Secretary that there was no reason for refusing this Amendment. It was desirable to make the Bill as clear as it possibly could be made, so that landlords and tenants might be able to arrange matters without the assistance of lawyers.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 28, after the word 'holding, to insert the words 'to an extent commensurate with the proposed outlay.'"—(Viscount Castlereagh.)

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

MR. BRYCE

said this Amendment would not give relief to either landlord or tenant. It would be distinctly against the landlord. The measure of the additional letting value resulting from an improvement was not the amount of the tenant's outlay. The Government had said from the beginning that the landlord was to pay for the value added to the holding coming back into his hands The noble Lord's Amendment suggested that they were to shift the measure of the value from the benefit to the holding to the amount which the tenant had expended, and that might expose the landlord to be called upon to pay a much greater amount of money than he ought to pay. The question whether the tenant carried out an improvement economically or lavishly was not one with which the Court had anything to do. The Court had nothing to do except to estimate the benefit which the landlord had received. It would disturb the basis of the Bill if they were to take anything but the letting value of the holding. He hoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.

SIR E. CARSON

said the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the only sum which the tenant was to get was that which represented the addition to the letting value. He had not been able to find that anywhere in the Bill. He thought it was the intention, but it was not in the Bill. All that the Bill said was that the improvement should be something which added to the letting value of the holding. There was nothing in the Bill to show that the tenant should only get so much of the value of the improvement as added to the letting value.

MR. BRYCE

said it was obvious.

SIR E. CARSON

said there was nothing in the Bill to carry out what the Chief Secretary stated. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have it made clear in another place that the addition to the letting value resulting from the improvement was what would be awarded. He thought that the Amendment of the noble Lord was a great improvement.

MR. BRYCE

said he was unable to see that the basis could be other than he had stated. However, he would look at the matter again as the right hon. and learned Gentleman desired, and have the words further considered.

* MR. CLAVELL SALTER

said he had listened with some anxiety to the speech of the right hon. the Chief Secretary. Some of the apprehension he had had in regard to the first four clauses of the Bill was allayed by the thought that between the parties there was interposed the unfettered discretion of the Court. If there was that unfettered discretion the Amendment would be unnecessary. His own desire was that the Court should be absolutely free to disallow an improvement made by a tenant on the ground that the expenditure would be unwise and too profuse, that the end of the term of tenancy was too near for a large expenditure, or because it was the landlord's intention at the end of the tenancy to alter the whole character of the holding, and let it in some other way, and that therefore the improvement would be wasted. In these, and other such matters, the discretion of the Court should be made clear.

* MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said he hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment. He entirely agreed with the view of the right hon. the Chief Secretary, but the discussion had been useful in making the intention clear that the measure of compensation should be commensurate with the increased letting value. He was assured that the Amendment would not have the effect intended by the noble Lord.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said that it was quite conceivable that an improvement might be suitable to the character of the holding, and yet not be reasonable. In the case of a house in a terrace, an improvement on the house might interfere with the symmetry of the architecture of the whole terrace. He there- fore moved the insertion of the words "reasonable and."

Amendments proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 28, after 'is,' to insert the words 'reasonable and.'"—[Mr. Charles Craig.)

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 28, after the word 'thereof' to insert the words 'and will not diminish the letting value of any other property of the same landlord.'"—(Mr. James Campbell.) In page 2, line 34, to leave out the word 'may,' and insert the word 'shall.'"—(Mr. Clancy.) In page 2, line 35, after the second 'and' insert the word 'may.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)

Amendments agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 37, after the word 'or,' to insert the words 'at the election of the tenant.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)

thought that the House should have a brief explanation why this Amendment was to be accepted.

MR. CLANCY

said that there were two alternatives provided by this subsection for repaying the landlord for improvements which he had executed. The one was that the tenant should pay 5 per cent, per annum on the outlay incurred, and the other that a fixed sum should be paid for a period of twenty-five years. What he wanted by his Amendment was to give the tenant the option of adopting either of these alternatives.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. CLANCY

said he had another Amendment to propose. The sub-section as it stood said that the tenant was to pay such an annual sum for twenty-five years as would repay the cost of the improvement made by the landlord, with interest at the rate of 3 per cent, per annum. He thought it would not be fair to make the tenant pay interest on the whole sum, when the amount due to the landlord was being reduced every year. Surely what was intended was that the tenant should only pay interest on the sum which was actually due, and that was the object of his Amendment.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 40, after the word 'annum,' insert the words 'or on so much of the outlay as shall be from time to time due.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)

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

SIR E. CARSON

thought that the section as it stood was perfectly accurate, and that to insert the Amendment would be to upset the calculation as to what was to be paid by annual instalments.

* MR. CHERRY

thought the Amendment was unnecessary, but it did not alter the intention of the clause at all. This annuity at 5 per cent. per annum would be like the annuity payable under the Land Purchase Act and would be accompanied by the creation of a sinking fund. That was the intention of the clause, and he did not think it would be carried out more clearly by the words of the hon. Member than it was by the Bill. It was intended to be calculated on the amount originally advanced. He was quite willing, however, to accept the Amendment although he did not think it made any difference.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

said the Amendment did make a difference in this way. The Bill as it stood and the Amendment both aimed at the same object, namely, that the sum should be sufficient at the end of twenty-five years according to actuarial calculation to yield the sum required. If, however, the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman were accepted, a fresh calculation would have to be made every year and this would, cause both landlord and tenant considerable trouble. The clause as it stood, he could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman, was quite capable of being understood in business circles, and if it was adhered to it would save both landlord and tenant a considerable amount of calculation.

MR. CLANCY

said he understood that the Attorney-General for Ireland stated that the Bill carried out the intention which he had in his mind. He would therefore withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH moved to insert a new sub-section, which provided that a landlord might require a tenant to make any improvement in the holding which might seem calculated to enhance or necessary to maintain the character or letting value of the holding, and if the tenant did not within three months after the receipt of the notice undertake to make the proposed improvement himself the landlord might proceed to make the improvement and might charge the tenant an annual sum to cover the outlay on the improvement, with interest at the rate of 3 per cent, per annum. The Amendment also provided that if the tenant refused to make the proposed improvement or failed to execute the improvement within a reasonable time the landlord might apply to the Court for power to make the improvement. He explained that the Amendment was put down with a view of placing the landlord in the same position as the tenant. The Bill enabled the tenant having given certain prescribed notices to the landlord to make improvements whether the landlord approved of them or not, and at the end of the term the tenant was to be compensated for those improvements unless the landlord chose to make them himself. His Amendment embodied the converse of that and enabled the landlord to make the improvements himself and charge the tenant interest on the capital he invested. The clause as at present drawn was one-sided, but his Amendment would enable the landlord to prevent his holding from becoming deteriorated. The hon. Member for East Mayo had spoken of the deplorable condition of certain town property in Ireland. The reason for this decaying condition of the property was that it was let through a middleman and it was impossible for either the tenant or the middleman to spend money in carrying out improvements on the property, He wanted the landlords to have the power of entering upon their property and carrying out improvements for its benefit. They knew very well that large portions of the cities of Dublin, Belfast, and Cork were occupied by what were known as slum tenants, and it was impossible for the tenants who took the tenancies through a middleman, and had in consequence to pay a higher rent than they otherwise would do, to carry out improvements. It was obviously for the benefit of the landlord as well as of the tenant that the landlord should be in a position to keep his property in a good condition and to make the improvements which were needed without difficulty. If the words of his Amendment were not suitable he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would see his way in some manner to carry out the intention which he had in view. He was encouraged to move the Amendment by the kindly and appreciative words which the learned Attorney-General had spoken about landlords in one of the previous speeches he had made in the course of the evening.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 42, at the end, to insert the words, '(3) A landlord of a holding may, at any time during the continuance of a tenancy therein, send notice to the tenant, in the prescribed manner, requiring him to make any improvement in the holding which may seem to the land-lord calculated to enhance or necessary to maintain the character or letting value of the holding. The landlord shall send with such notice a specification or plan of the proposed improvement, and if the tenant does not within three months after the receipt of the notice send notice to the landlord, in the prescribed manner, undertaking to make the proposed improvement himself, the landlord may proceed to make the improvement, and may charge the tenant with a sum not exceeding five pounds per centum per annum on the outlay incurred in executing the improvement, or not exceeding such annual sum payable for a period of twenty-five years as will repay such outlay in the said period, with interest at the rate of three pounds per centum per annum, and such annual sum shall be recoverable as rent. But if the tenant sends notice to the landlord, in the prescribed manner, refusing to make the proposed improvement and objecting to same being made, or if, having undertaken to make same he fails to execute the improvement within a reasonable time, the landlord may in the prescribed manner apply to the Court, and the Court may, if satisfied that the improvement is calculated to en- hance or necessary to maintain the character or letting value of the holding, sanction the making of the proposed improvement by the landlord and may make any modifications in the specification or plan that the Court may think fit.'"—(Viscount Castlereagh.)

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

MR. BRYCE

said that at first he was captivated by this Amendment, and he admired the ingenuity which the noble Lord had displayed in framing it. It had the appearance of fairness, and he would have been inclined to view it with favour were it not that the position of the two parties in regard to the property was not the same. The noble Lord and his friends were much concerned about the amount of litigation which this Bill would necessitate; but he was afraid that if he accepted this Amendment another crop of litigation would be the result. He could not on reflection see any necessity for such a provision. The reason why the power of making improvements was given to the tenant was because he was in possession of the premises and knew what was needed. The tenant wanted to improve his business and develop it, and he found himself fettered and unable to do so because of the condition of the premises. He therefore asked his landlord to sanction certain improvements which would enable him to carry on his business in a better way. But that was not the case of the landlord. He was not in possession of the premises and, ex hypothesi, it was not he who was concerned in the alteration, although he might want to get the tenant out by asserting that an alteration was necessary. Therefore in the case of the landlord and tenant he did not think that the same considerations held good. The Amendment would inflict a great hardship on the tenant. He might be put under an obligation to make improvements which he had not the money to undertake, or to allow the landlord to execute the improvements and make a heavy addition to the rent. That would be unjust and unreasonable, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

SIR E. CARSON

said that if the right hon. Gentleman said he could not accept the Amendment, of course they could not carry it. But he thought it was a very great pity that this Amendment, put down with the view of encouraging landlords to improve; town dwellings, should have been met in such an unsympathetic spirit. What they were dealing with were dwellings which middlemen often took from landlords for speculative purposes, and were inhabited by a poor class of tenants. It was a class of house, on which it was exceedingly important that the landlord should receive some encouragement to lay out money on improvements. The objections put forward by the right hon. Gentleman were three or four in number. In the first place the right hon. Gentleman said it would be a great hardship upon the tenant, who might not want these improvements, to have to pay an increased rent. Considering the confidence shown by the right hon. Gentleman in the County Court, to whom this matter would be referred, he might at least have assumed that the Court was not likely to sanction any outlay which would put a tenant into an unfavourable position. In a Bill brought in ostensibly, at all events, with a view to improving these holdings, and to encourage the expenditure of money upon them, if it were fair in the one case that the tenant should call upon the landlord to make improvements, subject only to the interference of the Court, it was not unreasonable to ask that the landlord should have the correlative right, subject to the same conditions, of saying that improvements should be carried out. The next objection of the Chief Secretary was that the landlord could always manage to carry out the improvements because he could borrow the money, but that it was different with the tenant. Landlords were often described as millionaires, but if the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiries he would find that in the small towns throughout Ireland, and even in the large towns—he had no doubt it was exactly the same in England—there were many landlords who simply had to rely for their living upon the small rents they got from houses. The man the Government would smash by this Bill was the small retired pensioner or tradesman who had put the savings of a lifetime into a small house. If this class of landlord was able to borrow the money to carry out all the obligations that were to be put upon him, by this Bill he could not see why the tenant could not borrow the money to carry out improvements. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Oh, but the landlord will not have to pay for these improvements until the end of the lease." What difference did that make? Where then was he going to get the money for these improvements?

MR. BRYCE

The letting value will be increased.

SIR E. CARSON

said that might be, but the landlord would have to borrow the money. He would not be able to dole out the compensation from the improved letting value from year to year. No provision was made for that in the Bill. The moment the award was made execution would issue against the landlord, and the amount awarded would have no relation whatever to his means to pay. Very often the owner of a cottage had a mortgage on the property, and the interest he got out of it was very small. At all events it was an encouragement to a man who had money which he was prepared to lay out in improving his dwellings that he should be able to go to the tenant and say that such and such a thing ought to be done, and if the tenant did not agree the landlord should be able to take the opinion of the Court upon the matter. He supported the Amendment on the broad ground that if this Bill was to act at all fairly between landlord and tenant they should encourage, as far as they could, the man who was willing to spend his money on improving his houses.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

said the Chief Secretary feared the increase of business premises to the detriment of tenants, but business premises were only a small portion of the property with which this Bill would deal, and any attempt unnecessarily to increase business premises would be dealt with by the Court. He had a letter from, a gentleman who owned property in Dublin which formerly brought in a handsome income, but the depreciation of property in many parts of Dublin had rendered it of little value. The middleman had sprung up and tenement houses had become a curse to Dublin, the living conditions in those dwellings being abominable. Such cases would be met by the Amendment, because under such circumstances the landlord, with the consent of the Court, could either force the middleman to keep the property in order or make the improvements himself. He had much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

was sure all who had read the Amendment would share the feelings of the Chief Secretary that it was one which at first sight, at all events, deserved consideration, but he did not think they would follow the Chief Secretary's example, and, without giving the Amendment further consideration, come to the conclusion that it was either iniquitous or inexpedient. He understood that the justification for the highhanded proceeding of breaking leases in the way proposed by this Bill was the public interest. It was stated that the view of the Government was that under the existing system in Ireland, tenants who were ready to make improvements were discouraged from doing so, because the improvements ultimately fell into the hands of the landlord, and the enterprising tenant did not receive adequate profit for what he had done. If the rather high-handed proceedings proposed in the Bill were to be justified on the ground of public policy, ought they not to consider how public policy was affected by the whole system? They assumed a rich landlord and an enterprising tenant, but all landlords were not rich, and all tenants were not enterprising. The converse case occurred in Ireland, in which the tenant allowed property to fall into decay. It was to the interest of the landlord that the property should be improved, and was it not still more to the interest of the public? The case of slum property presented one of the most difficult and pressing problems connected with urban property, and it was constantly not the landlord, but a tenant—a tenant who was not himself the occupier—who was at fault. There could not be a greater public interest than to induce the tenant to make the improvements in this class of property, required not merely in the interests of the landlord, but still more in the interests of the occupants and of the community. If the condition of Ireland were such that these questions must be dealt with in the interest of the tenant, then the policy must be carried out in the converse way, and where the interest of the landlord required it, and that interest was the interest of the community, they must mete out to the landlord precisely the same measure of justice as in the other case was meted out to the tenant. That point had not yet been answered by the Government, and he would venture to ask the Attorney-General for Ireland whether he could not give more favourable consideration to the Amendment.

* MR. CHERRY

said the right hon. Gentleman had commenced his remarks by saying that he thought they could only justify this Bill on the ground of public policy, and that it required justification. Of course every Bill required justification, but if the right hon. Gentleman meant that it required anything in the nature of apology he could not say that he agreed with him. The Bill only carried out natural justice in requiring a landlord to pay for tenants' improvements. As regarded rights between landlord and tenant, of course everyone agreed that they ought to be mutual, and that whatever rights were given to one party should, as far as was possible, be given to the other. From that point of view the Amendment had a superficial appearance of fairness; but as a matter of fact, the circumstances in the landlord's case and the tenant's case were quite different. The tenant might urgently need improvements for his own comfort and convenience, but all the landlord wanted was an investment for his money, and all that this Amendment did was to give him an additional investment for his money over and above his other opportunities. It seemed to him there was only a mere superficial resemblance between the two cases, and that no argument could be based in favour of this proposition on the ground that a converse right was given in the Bill to the tenant. The Leader of the Opposition had not attempted to answer any of the objections made to the Amendment by his right hon. friend. There was an additional objection. The Amendment was dangerous to the peace of the country. If the landlord wanted to spend a large sum of money upon a house and the tenant objected, the landlord would be able to drag him before the Court. After litigation the feelings of parties were not very often of a friendly nature. Moreover, if after the irritation of litigation a landlord were to send workmen into the house to make improvements against the will of the tenant there would be considerable

danger of a breach of the peace. He confessed that when he read the Amendment on the Paper that morning, he thought it was a joke—a feeble attempt to show that the Bill was unreasonable. He never thought it would be seriously brought forward.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 55; Noes, 316. (Division List No. 429).

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F	Cross, Alexander	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Dalrymple, Viscount	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Ashley, W. W.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Randles, Sir John Scruah
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Duncan, Robert (Lanark Govan)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Balcarres, Lord	Faber, George Denison (York)	Remnant, James Farquharson
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)	Fell, Arthur	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Forster, Henry William	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool Walton)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hamilton, Marquess of	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Bowles, G. Stewart	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Talbot, Lord L. (Chichester)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Carlile, E. Hildred	Kimber, Sir Henry	Valentia, Viscount
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cave, George	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.	Lowe, Sir Francis William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Viscount Castlereagh and Mr. Charles Craig.
Cecil, Eveyln (Aston Manor)	MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Boland, John	Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E Grinst'd)
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Cowan, W. H.
Agnew, George William	Brace, William	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Branch, James	Crean, Eugene
Alden, Percy	Brigg, John	Cremer, William Randal
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Brocklehurst, W. B.	Dalziel, James Henry
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh.)	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)
Astbury, John Meir	Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Atherley-Jones, L.	Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Delany, William
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Burke, E. Haviland	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Byles, William Pollard	Dillon, John
Barnard, E. B.	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Dobson, Thomas W.
Barnes, G. N.	Cawley, Frederick	Dolan, Charles Joseph
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Chance, Sir Frederick William	Donelan, Captain A.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Duffy, William J.
Beale, W. P.	Churchill, Winston Spencer	Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexhm)	Clancy, John Joseph	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Beck, A. Cecil	Cleland, J. W.	Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)
Bell, Richard	Clough, William	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)
Bellairs, Carlyon	Clynes, J. R.	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)	Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)	Elibank, Master of
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward
Bennett, E. N.	Cogan, Denis J.	Esmonde, Sir Thomas
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)	Collins, Stephen Lambeth	Essex, R. W.
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras W.)	Evans, Jamuel T.
Billson, Alfred	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Everett, R. Lacey
Faber, G. H. (Boston)	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Farrell, James Patrick	Lehmann, R. C.	Redmond, William (Clare)
Fenwick, Charles	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Bees, J. D.
Ferens, T. R.	Levy, Maurics	Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)
Ffrench, Peter	Lewis, John Herbert	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)
Field, William	Lough, Thomas	Richardson, A.
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Lundon, W.	Rickett, J. Compton
Findlay, Alexander	Lupton, Arnold	Ridsdale, E. A.
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lyell, Charles Henry	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Flynn, James Christopher	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk, B'ghs)	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman	Mackarness, Frederic C.	Roberts, John H. (Denibghs.)
Fuller, John Michael F.	Maclean, Donald	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)
Fullerton, Hugh	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Furness, Sir Christopher	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Robinson, S.
Gibb, James (Harrow)	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	Roe, Sir Thomas
Gilhooly, James	M'Callum, John M.	Rowlands, J.
Gill, A. H.	M'Crae, George	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Ginnell, L.	M'Hugh Patrick A.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	M'Kean, John	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Glendinning, Rt. G.	M'Kenna, Reginald	Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)
Glover, Thomas	M'Killop, W.	Seaverns, J. H.
Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)	Seddon, J.
Gooch, George Peabody	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)	Shackleton, David James
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Maddison, Frederick	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Griffith, Ellis J.	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Simon, John Allsebrook
Gulland, John W.	Marnham, F. J.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Massie, J.	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Masterman, C. F. G.	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S)
Halpin, J.	Meagher, Michael	Snowden, P.
Hammond, John	Meehan, Patrick A.	Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Menzies, Walter	Stanger, H. Y.
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Molteno, Percy Alport	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Hart-Davies, T.	Mond, A.	Steadman, W. C.
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Montagu, E. S.	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Mooney, J. J.	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Haworth, Arthur A.	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Sullivan, Donal
Hayden, John Patrick	Morrell, Philip	Summerbell, T.
Helme, Norval Watson	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Hammerde, Edward George	Murnaghan, George	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Myer, Horatio	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Henry, Charles S.	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)	Napier, T. B.	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Higham, John Sharp	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Hobart, Sir Robert	Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)	Toulmin, George
Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Nolan, Joseph	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hogan, Michael	Norman, Sir Henry	Vivian, Henry
Holland, Sir William Henry	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Wadsworth, J.
Hooper, A. G.	Nuttall, Harry	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)	Walsh, Stephen
Hops, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Walters, John Tudor
Horniman, Emslie John	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Hudson, Walter	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Hyde, Clarendon	O'Doherty, Philip	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)
Jenkins, J.	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)	Wardle, George J.
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	O'Hare, Patrick	Waterlow, D. S.
Jones, Leif (Appleby)	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Watt, H. Anderson
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Jowett, F. W.	O'Malley, William	White, George (Norfolk)
Joyce, Michael	O'Mara, James	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Kearley, Hudson E.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Kekewich, Sir George	Parker, James (Halifax)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Whitehead, Rowland
Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Pearce, William (Limehouse)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Laidlaw, Robert	Power, Patrick Joseph	Wiles, Thomas
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Lambert, George	Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Lamont, Norman	Raphael, Herbert H.	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesborough)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr Whiteldy and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh. N.)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, N.)	Young, Samuel

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill"—put, and agreed to.

Amendments proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 6, after the word 'Acts' to insert the words '1878 to 1800.'"—(Mr. Cherry) In page 3, line 7, to leave out the word 'Acts' and insert the words (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1900.'"—(Mr. Cherry.)

Amendments agreed to.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH moved an Amendment to provide that "the land-land of a holding, or any person authorised by him, may at all reasonable times enter on the holding, or any part of it, for the purpose of viewing the state of the holding." He said the words were taken verbatim from the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900, which applied to England and Scotland. It was in the interests of the community that the landlord should be able to visit his property, in order to see that it was not suffering injurious effects from the manner in which it was being inhabited by the lower class of tenants. He hoped the learned Attorney-General would see his way to accept the Amendment and allow the landlord or person authorised by him to visit his property in which he must always have a deep interest. It was certainly advisable that he should be able to see that his tenant was doing nothing to injure his property, and accordingly he moved the Amendment.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

seconded the Amendment. It seemed to him that when additional responsibility was being put on the landlord under this Bill it was only fair that he should be informed as to what was being done with his property. The proposal in the Amendment was a very modest and moderate request. It was right that the landlord who might be called upon to pay considerable compensation for improvements made on his property should be properly informed as to what was going on in all parts of that property. He hoped the Minister in charge of the Bill would accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 13, at the end, to insert the words 'the landlord of a holding, or any person authorised by him, may at all reasonable times enter on the holding, or any part of it, for the purpose of viewing the state, of the holding.'"—(Viscount Castlereagh.)

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

* MR. CHERRY

thought this was a very reasonable amendment, though it seemed to him to be rather too wide. He admitted that there were certain circumstances in which the landlord would find it absolutely necessary to enter on the holding. The landlord could not very well tell whether an improvement was a proper one or not without seeing the place, and if he came to the conclusion that it was hot a proper improvement to make and had to go to Court he would have to bring skilled witnesses to give evidence as to whether the improvement was or wad not necessary. If the noble Lord would leave out the words ''purpose" of viewing the state of the holding" and insert the words "for the purposes of this section" he would have no diffculty in accepting the Amendment on behalf of the Government.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said the right hon. Gentleman might accept the words "for the purposes of this Act."

MR. CHERRY

I do not think there is any objection to that.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

in compliance, with the suggestion of the' Attorney-General for Ireland, moved the Amendment in its altered form.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 13, at end, to add the words 'The landlord of a holding, or any person authorised by him, may at all reasonable times enter on the holding, or any part of it, for the purposes of this Act.'"—(Viscount Castle-reagh.)

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 24, at the end, to insert the words, 'or his agent.'"—(Mr. Charles Craig.)

*MR. CLAVELL SALTER moved to leave out the word "the," and to insert the words "proposed improvements or." He said he understood that this Amendment would be accepted by the Attorney-General for Ireland. He anticipated that there would be considerable practical difficulty when this Act came into operation in the common case where there were a series of landlords. It was obvious that all the landlords would be interested in the matter of improvements, because each one was liable for compensation. In common justice each of those persons ought to have an opportunity of being heard before the Court which had jurisdiction, not merely in regard to the assessment of claims at the end of a tenancy, but with regard to the question whether an improvement was to be sanctioned or not. As the Bill now stood the only person who would be consulted would be the immediate landlord.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 25, to leave out the word 'the,' and insert the words, 'proposed improvements or.'"—(Mr. Clavell Salter.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'the' stand part of the clause."

SIR E. CARSON

said he had not yet heard whether the Bill applied to Grown property. The right hon. Gentleman must see how important that question was, because if each mesne landlord had to go back he wished to know what would be the position of a man who held from the Crown and who had sub-let the property. Would he have any remedy at all? He had an Amendment on the Paper in regard to Clause 12 for the purpose of raising this question, but it was quite possible that they might never come to that clause at all.

* MR. CHERRY

said he was afraid he could not answer the right hon. Gentleman. If a great deal of time was taken up discussing matters again and again, and if for that reason they could not discuss the Amendment of which the right hon. Gentleman had given notice, he was really very sorry, but it was not his fault. The Chief Secretary was absent now. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to repeat the question at another time.

SIR E. CARSON

said he did not want to take the right hon. Gentleman at a disadvantage.

* MR. CHERRY

I would answer if I could, but really I cannot.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said the right hon. Gentleman had candidly admitted that he was not in a position to answer the most pertinent question of his right hon. friend. The Attorney-General had blamed hon. Members on that side of the House for the fact that they were now only at Clause 4. He must protest against that.

* MR. SPEAKER

That does not appear to be relevant.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said he was replying to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He wished to disclaim any responsibility for their only having reached the consideration of Clause 4.

* MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member will see that if he answers, somebody else will wish to answer him.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. CARLILE moved to insert words at the end of the clause conferring on the superior or any mesne landlord the right to make the improvement as if he were the immediate landlord of the occupying tenant in priority to any landlord standing between him and the tenant. It seemed to him desirable that the man who was most interested in the permanent welfare of the property should have priority over any other landlord who might intervene between him and the actual tenant, and therefore this safeguard should be accepted.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said that unless there was some technical difficulty to this Amendment he hoped the Attorney-General would have no objection to accept it. There were unfortunately in Ireland many cases where there were several landlords between the superior landlord and the tenant, and it was quite possible that inconvenience and injustice might result if the head landlord did not know what had been done by the tenant and the immediate landlord.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 32, at the end, to insert the words, 'The superior or any mesne landlord shall have the right to make the improvement as if lie were the immediate landlord of the occupying tenant in priority to any landlord standing between him and the tenant.'"—(Mr. Carlile.)

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

* MR. CHERRY

said he was sorry that he could not accept the Amendment, because he recognised that in some cases it was desirable that the superior landlord should make the improvements. But these cases would be very few indeed. He had never heard of a head landlord making any improvements. He would point out to the hon. Member that the acceptance of the Amendment would introduce great confusion into the clause. The Amendment ought, if it was to be pressed, to have been introduced when

Clause 3 was under discussion. He thought that the Government had gone a great way towards meeting the demands of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they could not agree to any further concession.

* MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given the very best reason why he should accept the Amendment when he stated that there might be certain very few cases in which the superior landlord, would exercise his power of making the improvements. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had never heard of any mesne landlord who was anxious to make an improvement on a tenant's holding, but he quite forgot that this Bill legislated for a landlord who was going to make improvements, because Clause 3 provided that before any improvements were made the landlord should get notice of the intention of the tenant to make such improvements, so that the responsibility was thrown on the landlord to make the improvements if he chose. If the landlord was to have the opportunity of making the improvements why should he pay the piper? He could not for the life of him understand why the right hon. Gentleman declined to accept the Amendment. It would do no harm to the tenant in any conceivable way.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 41; Noes, 272. (Division List No. 430.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Remnant, James Farquharson
Ashley, W. W.	Faber, George Denison (York)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Fell, Arthur	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Balcarres, Lord	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Forster, Henry William	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Hamilton, Marquess of	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hunt, Rowland	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Bowles, G. Stewart	Kimber, Sir Henry	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Bull, Sir William James	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Turnour, Viscount
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	Valentia, Viscount
Castlereagh, Viscount	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cave, George	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Carlile and Mr. Charles Craig.
Cross, Alexander	Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Dalrymple, Viscount	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Acland, Francis Dyke	Alden, Percy
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Agnew, George William	Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Fenwick, Charles	M'Kenna, Reginald
Astbury, John Meir	Ferens, T. R.	M'Killop, W.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Ffrench, Peter	Maddison, Frederick
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Field, William	Marnham, F. J.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Massie, J.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Findlay, Alexander	Masterman, C. F. G.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Meagher, Michael
Barnard, E. B.	Flynn, James Christopher	Meehan, Patrick A.
Barnes, G. N.	Fuller, John Michael F.	Menzies, Walter
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Fullerton, Hugh	Molteno, Percy Alport
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Furness, Sir Christopher	Mond, A.
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B (Hexham)	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Montagu, E. S.
Beck, A. Cecil	Gilhooly, James	Mooney, J. J.
Bell, Richard	Gill, A. H.	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Bellairs, Carlyon	Ginnell, L.	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Benn, Sir. J. Williams (Devonport)	Glendinning, R. G.	Murnaghan, George
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Glover, Thomas	Myer, Horatio
Bennett, E. N.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Gooch, George Peabody	Napier, T. B.
Billson, Alfred	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)
Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Gulland, John W.	Nicholson, Chas. N. (Donast'r)
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Hall, Frederick	Nolan, Joseph
Brace, William	Halpin, J.	Norman, Sir Henry
Branch, James	Hammond, John	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Brigg, John	Hardie, J. Kier (Merthyr Tydvil)	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.)
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Brunner, J. F. L (Lancs., Leigh)	Hart Davies, T.	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. T. (Chesh.)	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	O'Doherty, Philip
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs.)	Haworth, Arthur A.	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Burke, E. Haviland-	Helme, Norval Watson	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Hemmerde, Edward George	O'Hare, Patrick
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.	Henry, Charles S.	O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)
Byles, William Pollard	Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)	O'Malley, William
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Higham, John Sharp	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Hobart, Sir Robert	Parker, James (Halifax)
Clancy, John Joseph	Hogan, Michael	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Cloland, J. W.	Holland, Sir William Henry	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Clough, William	Hooper, A. G.	Power, Patrick Joseph
Clynes, J. R.	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central
Cogan, Denis J.	Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.	Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Horniman, Emslie John	Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Collins, Sir. Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W	Hudson, Walter	Radford, G. H.
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Hyde, Clarendon	Raphael, Herbert H.
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Jenkins, J.	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Cowan, W. H.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cox, Harold	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Redmond, William (Clare)
Crean, Eugene	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Rees, J. D.
Dalziel, James Henry	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Joyce, Michael	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Kekewich, Sir George	Richardson, A.
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Rickett, J. Compton
Delany, William	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Ridsdale, E. A.
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N	Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Dillon, John	Laidlaw, Robert	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Dobson, Thomas W.	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Dolan, Charles Joseph	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)	Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)
Donelan, Captain A.	Lehmann, R. C.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Duffy, William J.	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Robinson, S.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Levy, Maurice	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Lewis, John Herbert	Roe, Sir Thomas
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Lough, Thomas	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Lundon, W.	Rowlands, J.
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs.)	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Maclean, Donald	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Elibank, Master of	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Seddon, J.
Essex, R. W.	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)	Shackleton, David James
Evans, Samuel T.	M'Callum, John M.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Everett, R. Lacey	M'Crae, George	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Faber, G. H. (Boston)	M'Hugh, Patrick A.	Simon, John Allsebrook
Farrell, James Patrick	M'Kean, John	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim,)	Wadsworth, J.	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Snowden, P.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)	Wiles, Thomas
Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Walsh, Stephen	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Stanger, H. Y.	Walters, John Tudor	Wills, Arthur Walters
Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Steadman, W. C.	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	Wardle, George J.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Stuart, James (Sunderland)	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Sullivan, Donal	Waterlow, D. S.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Summerbell, T.	Watt, H. Anderson	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Wedgwood, Josiah C,	Young, Samuel
Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)	White, George (Norfolk)
Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Torrance, Sir A. M.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Toulmin, George	Whitehead, Rowland
Vivian, Henry	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

On Clause 5 (Compensation for unreasonable disturbance):—

* MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said they had now arrived at the clause which might be described as the most critical and the most important in the entire Bill. It was a clause which, if it was carried, would revolutionise—that was certainly not too strong an expression—the system of town tenancies throughout Ireland. Bearing in mind the expression of opinion of the Chief Secretary that he would wish to see this Bill or portions of it applied to England—[Cries of "No"]—it was still more important. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had often said that he wished to see this Bill applied to town tenancies in England.

Mr. BRYCE

I said that there were parts of the Bill which would be very useful in England.

* MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman included Clause 5 as being amongst the useful parts. If he did not, why was there any difference or distinction between town tenancies in England and in Ireland. So far as he understood it up to the present no real or tangible distinction could be drawn. This Bill was applicable to large cities and towns as well as to small towns and villages, and it was not unfair to pay that the life in those towns and villages in Ireland was on a parallel with the system which prevailed in this count y. It was therefore important that English Members should understand what was the revolution which it was proposed by this Clause 5 to create in regard to town tenancies. He wished to call the attention of the House to the position in which this or a similar clause stood at the time when they were asked to give a Second Reading to the Bill. In the original Bill there was a Clause 5 in regard to compensation for unreasonable disturbance, and in regard to it a good deal of criticism of a hostile and unfavourable character fell from the lips of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland. In the end, however, as the result of a rather severe heckling from hon. Members below the gangway, the attitude taken up by the Government was that if a proposal was framed on similar lines to those of the Land Tenure Bill for England the Attorney-General would be prepared to consider it. That was the position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but of course, he had no authority to bind his Government or the Chief Secretary, who was supreme in this matter. But the Chief Secretary wound up the debate, and in his speech said that the principle of the clause as it then stood in the Bill involved the fixing of fair rents in the case of town property, and that was a proposal which, speaking for himself and his Government, they thought unjust and unworkable, and which, therefore, they could not accept. The House consented to the Second Reading of the Bill, having received the assurance that any such clause as Clause 5 involving the application to town houses of the principle of fixing fair rents the Government considered to be unjust and unworkable, and that they would not, and could not, support any such proposal. When the other night he quoted that passage from his speech the right hon. Gentleman interrupted him and said that the clause they had substituted for Clause 5 did not necessarily involve the fixing of fair rents, and was not open to the objection that they had found in the Bill as it stood originally. He said to the right hon. Gentleman— Then surely you have not read your Clause; and— Consult your colleague the Attorney-General for Ireland, and if after consulting him and after reading your own Clause you are prepared to get up and make that statement to the House, I am prepared to give way to you in order that you may do so. The right hon. Gentleman very wisely did not accept his challenge, and he could demonstrate that while the fixing of fair rents was not involved in the clause as it then stood, it was now made absolutely essential that in every case there should be a fixing of fair rents, and so, for the first time, they would have under English law in Ireland this principle started, and started under conditions which the right hon. Gentleman told them in a vague way he would like to see applied to England. They had now for the first time to see applied to town property the pernicious and vicious system of fixing fair rents. Let him call the attention of the House first of all to the clause in the Bill as it was introduced by the original promoters, and before it was taken up by His Majesty's Government— When a tenant of any holding held by him under a tenancy created before or after the passing of this Act is disturbed in his holding by the Act of his landlord, he shall be entitled in addition to compensation for improvements, to such compensation for the loss including loss of goodwill which the Court shall find to be sustained by him by reason of his quitting his holding. That clause as framed did not by any means involve the fixing or ascertainment of a fair rent, because it was applied in the case of every tenant quitting his holding. But what was the clause in the Bill as it now stood? He would ask the special attention of English Members to it because he could not conceive that if English Members, even on the opposite side, understood that such a provision was to be introduced into what the Prime Minister called a harmless and non-contentious Bill, they would assent to it. The clause which the Government had introduced into the Bill prescribed fixity of tenure for all the town tenants, and did that under a system of fixing fair rents which had hitherto been found unjust and vicious, and which the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself in the House had declared to be unworkable and unjust. The clause as it now stood read— Where the landlord unreasonably and without good and sufficient cause terminates or refuses to grant the renewal of a tenancy or unreasonably and without due and sufficient cause requires more onerous conditions as the terms for such renewal, then the Court would have power to give compensation for unreasonable disturbance. He said that that involved the arriving at a conclusion as to what was a fair rent. That would be the chief controversy which would arise. It was sure to be about the rent. [Cries of "Rack rent."] It was immaterial whether it was called rack rent or fair rent. That was the point which would be in controversy between landlord and tenant, and the Court in determining whether the terms of renewal offered were fair would have to find what was a fair rent. The right hon. Gentleman had himself denounced the principle, but by the clause he had made it absolutely essential that the first and principal inquiry should be what was a fair rent of the holding. There could be no dispute about that. [Cries of "Oh!"] He knew that hon. Members were prepared to dispute anything he said, but in his opinion no reasonable or intelligent man could dispute that proposition, particularly any body who knew anything about the people or the history of Ireland. The one thing that concerned the people of Ireland was the rent they had to pay, and the controversy must inevitably be about rent. The Court would probably find that neither the landlord nor the tenant was right in his estimate of what the rent should be and would probably find that the truth lay between the two. That would mean the ascertaining of a fair rent, and it would apply to town property the very vicious and unjust system which, after thirty years experience in Ireland, this House put an end to by a very liberal and generous measure of land purchase carried through in 1903. Under the guise of an innocent and non-contentious Bill, which the Prime Minister expressed surprise was not got through in a single night, they were going to introduce for the first time in the legislation of this country the principle of fixing a fair rent and giving fixity of tenure to all town tenants. There were many objections of an economic character that could be urged against giving fixity of tenure to town tenants with which he did not propose to deal. But he reminded the House that with regard to these town properties great damage could be done to the interest of the improvement of the towns and the interests of the working classes by this clause. If it became law it would stereotype for all time the existing tenant and his successors in a particular plot of land. So long as he was willing to take a renewal of his tenancy on favourable terms from his landlord so long would he, under this Bill, be able to get it, and no public or municipal improvement could be carried out if the tenant determined to stay on and demand a renewal at the end of the lease. That would be the operation of the clause. The House had heard ad nauseam in this debate of the great anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman to observe the parallel and analogy of the former legislation of 1870 in the case of agricultural holdings. Whenever a proposition in this Bill was incapable of defence, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague the Attorney-General always fell back upon that. "Oh!" they said "it might be bad, but it was in the Act of 1870 and it was good enough for them; what was good enough for agricultural land and agricultural tenants must also be good enough for the occupiers of town houses; there was no reason why an occupier of a plot of land in a town should not be put in the same position as the occupier of a farm in the country." That was the argument, but what had been done in this case? The clause was retrospective. It applied not only to tenancies dating from the passing of the Act, but to every existing tenancy in Ireland, although the tenancy might be a lease on lives, or for a term of years. That was not the case with the Act of 1870. The compensation for disturbance under the Act of 1870 applied to future lettings except in the case of tenancies from year to year. All existing leases were excluded, under the Act of 1870, from the benefit of compensation for disturbance. Why, when the right hon. Gentleman came for the first time to provide this revolutionary legislation, for town tenants had he departed from the example set by the Act of 1870? Why had he made this provision for compensation for disturbance apply to existing contracts of tenancy which were entered into without any reference to such a right? When the retrospective principle of the Bill was challenged the House was told, and with some force, that although it was an interference with existing contracts with regard to compensation for improvements, nevertheless the tenant had put up the improvements and the landlord if he had to pay for them could not complain, because he got the improvements. That was a fair argument from the moralist point of view, but there was no justification for making Clause 5 retrospective. Clause 5 conferred on existing tenants in Ireland a right in respect to which they had not paid ft single shilling, and which was absolutely inconsistent with their contracts, because under their contracts they were bound to surrender their tenancy on the expiration of the lease. Yet under this Bill they were not only to be compensated for improvements, but under this particular section were at liberty to remain on for ever, and if the landlord declined to renew the lease at any time they were at liberty to claim anything they liked subject to the approval of the Court. This principle, which was now found for the first time as applicable to town tenants, could not be defended on any ground or suggestion that there was any property of the tenant in respect to which the compensation was given. On what ground could it be defended? The right hon. Gentleman on the Second Beading said the provision was unworkable and one the Government could not accept. Although for many years past a Town Tenants Bill for Ireland had been introduced annually in this House, never while he had been a Member since 1898, had there been any attempt to introduce a section for the fixing of fair rents and for giving to the tenants compensation for disturbance. This was the first time that he had heard of or read in any Bill any suggestion that in giving the tenants compensation for improvements they should also be given fixity of tenure, which would inevitably lead to the establishment of courts in every town in Ireland for the fixing of fair rents. The right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading called attention to this point and expressed his amazement that the promoters of the Bill had not confined themselves to compensation for improvements, but had gone out of their way to introduce the difficult and controversial question of compensation for disturbance. No question more important for the consideration of the House had arisen for some time. The principle was to be found in other forms in the Land Tenure Bill and other measures but it now came before the House in this novel form for remedying an alleged grievance of the tenants. No doubt this section would be, if passed, of great benefit to the men now in possession because they would get a large slice of another man's property, but it would not be to the advantage of tenants in the future. Who was to pay the compensation? Not the State, but the landlord who, on the expiry of the lease, sought to take possession of his property and was prevented by his tenant who said— If you do not re-let it to me at a reasonable lent I will take you into Court and mulct you in heavy damages. The right hon. Gentleman's new clause was not only more revolutionary than the clause in the original Bill, in so far as it made, inevitable in every case the fixing of a fair rent, but it went in one respect to more extreme length. The original clause was subject to the limitation that the Court could only award an amount proportionate to the rent; but in the right hon. Gentleman's clause the limit was swept quite away, and there was no limit whatever, and no section in the clause gave any assistance to the Court as to the basis on which they were to go. The compensation for disturbance under the Bill might run into thousands of pounds for banks, for insurance companies, or for railway companies, in respect of what? In respect of a tenure they had entered into, a tenure of a limited character which they knew must terminate at a specific date. He thought, therefore, he was justified in saying the Bill would revolutionise terms on which property was held.

MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)

Quite right.

* MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said he knew the hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division had made this subject his hobby for years. He had been very enthusiastic about it. He was a very eager man, and when he devoted himself to anything of the kind he took it up with the greatest possible energy and ability. He was not quarrelling with him. The insertion of this principle in the Bill was a triumph of which he could never have dreamt. The last thing he could have expected was that he would have been able to induce a responsible Government to adopt such a revolutionary and confiscatory principle. The clause put a direct premium on litigation, for every tenant would take his case into Court on the chance of getting something for disturbance. But the iniquity of the clause did not stop there. As the Bill stood, it applied to weekly tenants, who would be entitled to come in and claim compensation for disturbance. He admitted that in Grand Committee an attempt was made—he believed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, with his assistance—to get a clause put in which would confine the operation of the Bill to tenancies that were not less than from year to year, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman had an Amendment to that effect later on in the Paper. He had a similar Amendment down, but whether he should be successful or not he could not say. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was probably more sanguine. He was dealing with the Bill as it left Grand Committee, and was taken up by the Government, containing this clause, which gave compensation for disturbance as a consequence of a precedent inquiry as to the amount of a fair rent, even in the case of a man who only occupied under a weekly tenancy. Even if the Amendment were passed, and it was confined to persons who had a tenure from year to year, it would embrace the majority of town tenancies in Ireland; and under those circumstances the result of the passing of the Bill with this clause in it would be a perfect torrent of litigation in Ireland. Every tenant, whether rich or poor, would take his chance under the Bill. There were in Ireland hundreds and thousands of men and women owning houses who, in wealth, circumstances, and intelligence, were far inferior to their own tenants. In the cities and larger towns house property was owned not by capitalists, but by such persons as widows, clergymen, and others, who were not anxious for a high interest, but who wanted a safe security. [An HON. MEMBER: They have it.] But what would become of it if this Bill became law? He admitted in the future landlords might be able to protect themselves against the injustice of the Bill, but how could existing landlords do it? The evil of the Bill was that it applied to existing contracts. People who now owned house property would not be able to protect themselves against the confiscation proposed. He did not think the Government were really sincere in endeavouring to force through the House a Bill containing this vicious principle. He believed that in adopting it the Government were deliberately riding for a fall, and he could not think that a Bill with such a clause would ever be allowed to disgrace the Statute Book.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3 to leave out Clause 5."—(Mr. James Campbell.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'where the landlord' stand part of the Bill."

MR. BRYCE

thought it would be better if he answered at once the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. It was characteristic of impassioned forensic orators that they were unable to see anything but their own view. He would not retort upon the right hon. Gentleman the charge of insincerity which he had levelled at the Government. He had utterly misrepresented the case to the House. The clause was not a large revolutionary measure, and did not affect the ordinary tenancy. It was intended to deal with the case, not very common, in which the landlord capriciously and vexatiously turned out his tenant. It sometimes happened in Ireland that a landlord allowed political feeling to influence him, and was the only person in the town who had a house to let at the time, and so if he turned his tenant out he might destroy all the tenant had. Surely such capricious conduct needed to be restrained. The Bill proposed to prevent that, and nothing could be further from the fact than that it was changing generally the tenure of houses in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had accused him of having changed his ground with regard to this clause because he had said that it would lead to fixity of tenure and fair rents. The two clauses were wholly different. The clause in the original Bill related to disturbance generally, and the governing words of this clause "unreasonably and vexatiously" were not in the original clause.

* MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

rose to speak amidst Ministerial cries of "Order! order!"

MR. BRYCE

The right hon. Gentleman has had three-quarters of an hour [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh!"] and I cannot give way to him to make another speech.

* MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

I rise to a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman said I misrepresented the effect of the clause in the Bill as it stood in its original form. He said that was a clause which provided for disturbance in the case of every tenant. In that I wish to remind him that he was entirely wrong.

MR. JOHN O'CONNOR (Kildare, N.)

And I rise to a point of order. [OPPOSITION cries of "Order!"] Is not a Member of the Government within his rights in refusing to give way to an hon. Member or right hon. Gentleman who wishes to interrupt him?

* MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

It is in the power of any Member to refuse to give way to another Member. In this case the right hon. Member for Dublin University does not seem to me to be speaking to a point of order, but to be making an explanation.

* MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

The right hon. Gentleman said I misrepresented—I was perfectly accurate. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order!']

MR. BRYCE

said he did not give way because the right hon. Gentleman opposite was in the habit of interrupting frequently and interposing another speech. Considering the length of time which the right hon. Gentleman took, and the hour of the evening, he thought he might be permitted to finish the few remarks he had to make without any further interruptions. The reason he objected to the original clause as introduced was that it contained a general provision with regard to every disturbance, whereas this Bill strictly limited compensation to vexatious and capricious cases. The cases to be dealt with were not normal, but abnormal, and rare cases which, speaking generally, only happened in these small towns. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had spoken as though this Bill was going to change the whole tenure of business places in Dublin and Belfast, but that was not the case, In those two cities it was perfectly easy for the evicted tenant to find other premises at which he could carry on his business, but this clause was intended to meet a totally different class of case, namely, the tenants in the small towns of Ireland where politics ran high, and where the landlord, sometimes intoxicated by a long period of despotic control misused his power and used it to oppress his tenants. It was against that class of case that this clause was specially directed, and nothing could be further from the real meaning of the clause than that which the right hon. Gentleman had put upon it. That practically was his answer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. In conclusion he wished to allude to one illustration given by the right hon. Gentleman just to show how fallacious his arguments were. He had taken the case of a landlord who let his house and wanted to come back to it at the end of the lease to live in it himself. That case was met by this Bill. That would not be an unreasonable disturbance, for a better reason could scarcely be imagined. He did not think it ought to be taken that they were laying down a precedent for England, although there might be similar cases in this country. He had known cases where persons after an election were turned out of their holdings for political reasons. If such cases occurred in England why should they not apply the same remedy? In the present session they had affirmed a Land Tenure Bill which contained these very words; in fact, it was from that measure that the words under discussion were drawn. He did not admit for a moment that the question of applicability or non-applicability to England of a Bill of this kind ought to determine this question; it ought to be settled on its merits. Although the proposal was intended to meet what was an exceptional case, it had happened so frequently as to make it necessary to apply the remedy which they were now proposing, and he hoped the House would adopt the principle contained in this clause by a substantial majority.

* MR. GWYNN (Galway)

, in a maiden speech, said he knew it was not usual at this stage of a measure to argue upon general principles. This Bill, however, had been repeatedly opposed on general principles, and more particularly on two general principles. Two general statements had been made, both of which he submitted were false and misleading. He would like to inform the House the view they took of this question in Ireland, and how the Bill in their opinion was going to affect Ireland. The first general proposition which had been urged against the Bill was that it was only nominally Irish and was in reality establishing a precedent for England. For his own part, he would be very glad if that were so. He had listened since his arrival in that House to discussions on land tenure as a man listening to a fairy-tale. If principles of land tenure settled in Ireland thirty-six years ago were under discussion in England to-day, the explanation could only be that the need for their settlement had been greater in Ireland. They were now face to face with a second need of Ireland which was precisely opposite to the need of England. What England wanted was more country life; what Ireland required was a freer and fuller town life. Lord Clanricarde was no longer the despot of the countryside in the full measure of former days, but he was still the tyrant of the town and held Loughrea by the same inheritance of confiscation as he once held practically a great tract of Galway. He did not fairly represent the landlords of Ireland, but his case illustrated the power for mischief in their hands, and showed that they could no more be certain of action on the part of Irish town landlords than they were of action on the part of the Irish agricultural landlords of the past, in accordance with their own true interests. In the county of Galway they would see whole tracts of land lying derelict, and all because the landlord of the town was a man who had no kind of interest in the prosperity of his property. The fault he had to find with the Bill was that it did not enact half the things necessary if they were to have a strong and prosperous town life in Ireland. It was only the beginning of legislation on this subject. It might be finished here or somewhere else, but finished it would undoubtedly be, because the state of things could not be borne. They wanted peace in Ireland, not a cessation of hostilities. They resented the mere existence of the power of one landlord like Lord Clanricarde to disturb the whole peace of Ireland. They resented that kind of thing for the sake of that very institution of property which was so dear to those who sat on the Opposition side of the House. In the past they founded the institution of property in land upon a narrow and insecure basis and propped up by ancient confiscation. They had now lifted it off that insecure basis on to the surer foundation of occupying ownership. In the case of town tenants it was different, and there was not the same need, but the fact that this had been done in the one case would always be a temptation to men to move in the same direction, and that would be the effect of Lord Clanricarde's action at Loughrea. He had seen lately the two protagonists in the struggle which had given special character and emphasis to this Bill. He had seen Lord Clanricarde's agent who practically said to Mr. Ward, "You are a pattern to all the tenants; you have been prosperous and industrious and punctual with your rent, but you hold certain opinions and for that I feel bound to penalise you by the confiscation of the busness which you have created." Therefore that man was penalised for his political opinions. Mr. Martin Ward was a man who would always resist oppression, and if oppressed he would be a danger, not only to his oppressor, but to whatever power stood behind the oppressor. Those two types of men were to be found all over Ireland, and there was always danger of a collision between them. While they left the power that now existed in the hands of men like the agent to Lord Clanricarde, a stiff, obstinate, dominating man, a man who in a country like Ireland was a danger to the State, they would always have a kind of suppressed civil war in Ireland. He believed that the younger men who were growing up in the landlord class would welcome any measure which safeguarded the institution of property by curtailing the power that men like Lord Clanricarde had to abuse that institution.

SIR E. CARSON

congratulated the hon. Gentleman on the speech he had delivered to the House. He welcomed to the counsels of the House a gentleman whose sincerity nobody in Ireland had ever questioned. The hon. Member had made a speech which seemed to him to be extremely candid, and he at all events had made no secret of what was to be the ultimate result of the passing of this clause, for he had said that he wished to assimilate the tenure of the town tenants to that of the land tenure in Ireland.

MR. GWYNN

said he had expressed himself in precisely the opposite direction. What he said was that the fact that they had moved in the direction of occupying ownership would always be a temptation to town tenants to seek for the same thing, but he hoped by the enactment of this primary measure that no further disturbance of the institution of property would be needed or would be necessary.

SIR E. CARSON

said he might be wrong, but he understood the hon. Gentleman to say that this was only the beginning of a course of legislation affecting town holdings in Ireland, and that the inevitable result must be that that legislation would follow the course which had been taken in the case of land tenure in Ireland. By this section they would create a system of dual ownership; while the Land Purchase Act was defended solely on the ground that they could not have a system of dual ownership in Ireland, and it was to abolish that dual ownership that the credit of the British taxpayer had been pledged to the extent of £120,000,000. That would be equally true of town holdings. If they raised up this system of dual ownership they would be obliged ultimately to pledge the credit of the State to enable the tenants to acquire town holdings. If that was to be done at all it should be done after due consideration and not with a light hand. He was not saying if that were right or wrong. He knew that some people thought that the occupier of a particular holding which he had in his possession should be made the owner of it, but that was a very large venture to embark upon in a short discussion. He submitted that before the House embarked upon this matter which had been fraught with such disputes as had led to the serious condition of Ireland for many years they ought to pause, before they allowed a section of this kind to appear in an Act of Parliament. He looked upon this question of improvements as a small matter as compared with the important principle which the Government were now asking the House to put into this clause, although the Government had repeatedly declared within the last few days that the main principle of the Bill was to secure the improvements to the tenants. On the Second Reading of the Bill he understood the right hon. the Attorney-General for Ireland to say that the principle which was now accepted could not be admitted, because if it were adopted they would have to set up a rent-fixing tribunal for houses in towns, the expense of which would be enormous. That was what the clause, as it now stood, did.

MR. BRYCE

Not in the least.

SIR E. CARSON

said that he had often remarked that he had not had the least difficulty himself with his landlord, but he had never hesitated to declare that there was a great grievance where a landlord imposed upon his tenant onerous conditions. In London the conditions imposed were scandalous. All this pretext of the right hon. Gentleman as to the difference between the Bill as it was brought in and the Bill as it now stood on the Report stage was a sham—an utter and a hollow sham. In some respects, several of the conditions in the Bill as originally introduced were far easier than now, but they were now told by the Government that they would use their majority, notwithstanding promises and pledges given on the Second Reading, to force this clause through That was the condition in which the clause stood, and it would be impossible to find Parliamentary language to describe a deed of that kind. If the clause was passed many meanings would be put upon it owing to the ambiguity of the wording. For instance, he did not know what was meant by the landlord unreasonably and without sufficient cause refusing to grant a renewal. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not a question of rent, and he had determined to test that argument by putting down an Amendment to the effect that the demand for an increased rent should not bring the landlord within these words. Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that Amendment? Of course he would not, because rent was the thing which everybody cared about, and therefore they could not find out what was unreasonable and without sufficient cause until they had determined whether or not a fair rent was demanded. They had a somewhat similar discussion on a somewhat similar clause in the Land Tenure Bill, and what struck him was the different manner in which hon. Gentlemen opposite, or at all events a good many of them, received a Bill which dealt with the confiscation of Irish interests from that in which they had received a Bill involving the confiscation of English interests. Many of them noticed with considerable surprise and pleasure what a keen interest was taken by hon. Members opposite in order to try and mitigate the rigours of the Land Tenure Bill, Hon. Gentlemen got up over and over again, and talked as they themselves might talk from the Opposition Benches. Exactly the same principle which was involved in that Bill was involved in this. In that case it was a question of land, but in this it was a question of houses in towns and elsewhere. The truth of the matter was that hon. Gentlemen opposite took no interest so long as they were not affected, and they cared nothing for the principle, so long as it was applied to Irish estates, and only concerned themselves when it was sought to apply it to English property. He hoped that even at the eleventh hour the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to avoid all the terrible consequences which he himself had predicted would follow from the introduction of a principle of this kind, and that even if he had no regard to the rights of landlords and of private property-owners he would have some regard for the tax-payers of this country.

* MR. REES (Montgomery Boroughs)

said that in the course of the debate Lord Clanricarde's agent had been described as a man just and honest, but as the kind of man well suited to domineer over Asiatics. He did not think that language of that kind should be used in regard to a class of men who as a fact stood between landlords and tenants in the interests of the latter. When Lord Cornwallis unfortunately decided to convert the farmers of the revenues of Bengal into landlords after the British pattern, he created in fact what corresponded in many respects with what the hon. Member would describe as a garrison of landlords. Ever since the British Government and its agents had been protecting the tenants of Bengal from these State-created landlords, and his fellow-countryman, Sir Antony Macdonnell, had been one of the most distinguished of these friends of the people of the soil. Such a description, obviously levelled at our public servants in the east came with a very bad grace from hon. Members sitting on the Irish Benches, and indeed would be unjust and inappropriate coming from any quarter of the House. The men described as well suited to domineer over Asiatics were the best friends of the Asiatics, whoso voice was seldom heard, while that of those who misrepresented them, and represented a small high caste landlord section, was ever lifted up inside and outside Parliament.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said that they had come to the most important part of the Bill, and whatever various Members might think about the merits or demerits of the question, he thought that every one would consider that it was a large one and that the proposal was one which might even be called revolutionary. That being so, the outstanding and most notable fact which had happened that night was that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had the conduct of this Bill in his hands, and whom they must now assume to be responsible for its introduction, in discussing this clause had disposed of the whole matter in fifteen minutes by the clock. Yet this question of compensation for disturbance, however it might be modified in the Bill, raised the principle of dual ownership against which the Opposition had fought so long. The way in which the right hon. Gentleman, backed up by the Attorney-General, who had been a Member of this House for less than a session, had approached the matter was playing with the subject. For the great issues contained in the Bill to be treated in this offhand and perfunctory manner by the right hon. Gentleman was nothing short of a Parliamentary scandal. No other member of the Government had said a word upon the Bill—a measure which, if it were possible, was more important than the Land Tenure Bill which had recently been discussed by the House with so much interest. As had been pointed out, this Bill would be in its consequences quite as important as the Land Tenure Bill, but because it dealt with Ireland instead of England, hon. Members were prepared to follow the right hon. Gentleman into the lobby in favour of this most nefarious clause. He appealed to hon. Members to read the clause for themselves and to contrast the few scant words of the Chief Secretary with the reasoned arguments of the right hon. Member for Dublin University. If they did that and put aside Party feeling they would admit that there was no necessity for the introduction of this clause for compensation for disturbance. It was based wholly on the case of the town of Loughrea. If there were twenty such towns it would be no justification for changing the whole law of Ireland in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman having in mind only these few cases had given no attention to what was the position of all the other towns in Ireland where there was no demand whatever for this clause, which would do harm both to the landlord and the tenants. The right hon. Gentleman had characterised the statement of his right hon. and learned friend the Member for Dublin University as the most deluding statement that he had ever heard. The best friend of the Chief Secretary could not say that his speech contained anything at all. The right hon. Gentleman had denied that this was a revolutionary measure, but hon. Members who had read the Bill and been present during the discussions of the Land Tenure Bill would know that no measures could contain more revolutionary principles. The only possible reasons for bringing forward this clause were first Loughrea and secondly the desire on the part of the Government to send this Bill to another place in such a form that it could not possibly be accepted. He did not think that if the Bill ever reached another place this most objectionable clause would be allowed to remain. The Tight hon. Gentleman had said that probably very few people would resort to the Act. Those words were identically the same as were used by Mr. Gladstone on the passing of the Land Act in 1881. That was another revolutionary measure that was only passed through the House by their being persuaded that very few tenants would resort to its provisions But the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that when once this clause passed into law it would be the beginning of an operation precisely similar to that which took place with regard to agricultural land, and they would be face to face with a long and bitter war such as that which had been fought in the agricultural districts. Anybody who knew anything about Ireland would admit that rather than bring the possibilities of such a war into existence everything should be done to prevent it. The House was told that this clause was destined to meet the case of the small towns, but the question was what effect it would have in the large towns. In every town in Ireland there would be applications by tenants to the Court to say whether their disturbance was reasonable or unreasonable, and in every case the landlord and tenant would have to resort to the Court in order to ascertain what was a fair rent. The only result of this legislation would be that the bitter fight which had raged so long in the country districts would be now brought into the towns, and the friendly relations which now existed between landlord and tenant would be destroyed. It was untrue to say there was a desire for the Bill. There was no desire for it so far as he had heard, and he would have heard of the desire had there been one. There was on the other hand the gravest opposition to it on the ground that there was no demand for it and that it was not required. He admitted that there were many towns in Ireland where the principle of compensation for improvements ought to be established, but he had never admitted that there ought to be compensation for disturbance. The right hon. Gentleman was not in this measure legislating for those towns, but was attempting to legislate for a few isolated cases, and in that attempt he had refused to consider what the effect of the legislation would be on the rest of Ireland. It was not statesmanship, in his opinion, to undertake any legislation until there was a well defined demand for it.

MR. DOLAN (Leitrim, N.)

said he had followed with great interest the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for the Dublin University who had contended that this clause involved the fixing of fair rents, because he was prepared to admit that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had succeeded in proving his case he would have achieved a great triumph by his legal ingenuity. But in his opinion the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whose logic was brilliant, did not succeed in proving that this in any way involved the fixing of fair rents. If the tenant went into court and the Judge fixed a low rent, the landlord could refuse to let at that rent, and there was nothing in the Bill to compel the landlord to continue to allow the tenant to retain the house at the rent. Therefore, on that ground alone it was impossible to fix a "fair rent." On the other hand, if the rent which the tenant had been paying was increased, if the tenant did not choose to abide by that decision he had a course open to him which he could adopt, because he had a claim for compensation for disturbance. There was nothing in the nature of the fixing of a "fair rent" in the clause. It was contended that the conditions which governed town houses were different from those which governed agricultural buildings. But there again, if they looked at the facts, they would find that in Ireland the number of houses had varied very little in the last fifty years. Surely it was not too much to say that if a landlord unreasonably evicted from a house a tenant who had lived there during his lifetime, and where perhaps his ancestors had lived, some compensation should be provided.

* MR. CHERRY

said he only intended to intervene in the debate for a few minutes at this late hour, but he did not think it would be right to leave unanswered the two very powerful speeches made against this clause. He thought it was to be regretted that the senior Member for the University of Dublin had left his place. The right hon. Gentleman who seemed to think this clause of a very terrible nature walked into the House to make his speech and walked out immediately after he had made it. It did not look from that action that he thought it of such great consequence as he had suggested. The right hon. Gentleman had repeated again and again what had been said during the past three days in regard to the action of the Government on the Second Reading of the Bill—[Sir E. Carson here re-entered the House]—and their subsequent action in Grand Committee with reference to the compensation for disturbance clause. He took it that the theory which prevailed among right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite was that when the Second Reading of the Bill was taken the Government were opposed to the principle of compensation for disturbance in any shape whatsoever, and that subsequent to that debate events occurred in Galway which frightened the Government, and that, impelled by the daily terror in which they lived, they brought forward this clause which contradicted the statements made by himself and his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary on the Second Reading. That was substantially the case made against them, and he thought by the cheers of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they assented to that as being their view. He would tell the House in a few words what actually did take place. The Bill was moved by the hon. Member for South Armagh and either he or the hon. and learned Member for Waterford read out to the House a letter written by Lord Clanricarde's agent to Mr. Ward telling him that he was going to be evicted from his holding. Every Member who had spoken from the Irish Benches had referred to the question of the eviction of Mr. Ward as the main thing that justified the proposal of compensation for disturbance which they had in their Bill. He was obliged to speak on behalf of the Government and to state their position in regard to the matter. The clause in the Bill as it stood at that time was one giving the right of compensation for disturbance to every tenant of a non-agricultural holding in Ireland disturbed by any landlord no matter what the cause. He stated that the objection of the Government to the clause in that form was that they thought it unnecessary and inexpedient under the circumstances. He then read out the clause from the English Land Tenure Bill, which had only passed the Second Rending, providing for compensation for the tenant in an agricultural holding if turned out by the landlord unreasonably and without good and sufficient cause. He read that clause by way of contrast with the clause in the Bill. He stated that he entirely approved of the clause in the Land Tenure Bill. The hon. Member for North Dublin immediately rose in his place and asked "Will the right hon. Gentleman give us that clause?" and he replied that he had no objection to it himself. He thought it was a reasonable request, but it was a matter for the Government to consider. He was merely a law officer and no one occupying his humble position could on the spur of the moment commit the Government to the adoption of a new clause. He said as much as he could say when he stated that the Government would consider the matter and that he himself was in favour of taking that course. That was said in the hearing of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the matter was accentuated by the conversational nature of the intervention of the hon. Member for North Dublin. He brought the matter under the attention of Members of the Government, who had more control over matters of legislation than he could pretend to have before the meeting of the Grand Committee. With the assent of the Government he put down this clause in the Grand Committee and it was moved by him officially as representing the Government. As soon as the Committee came to Clause 5 he moved the omission of the original clause and brought up this clause which was a verbatim copy of the clause in the English Lond Tenure Bill. There was no truth or validity in the charge of false pretences. That was a serious charge and there was no justification whatever for it. The clause now in the Bill was brought up by the Government as their clause, and he hoped that the House in a few minutes would adopt it. He was sure that the House would not be misled by the mere violence of the language of the two right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken. This clause was much more reasonable and necessary for the good government of Ireland than the clause giving compensation for improvements. It would prevent unreasonable landlords from stirring up strife in the country. The Irish tenants did not want compensation—they wanted to remain in their holdings. I whether they were small farms or cottages' shops or houses. This clause would have a more beneficial effect than the clause for compensation; it would prevent landlords like Lord Clanricarde from evicting or disturbing their tenants without cause or reason. The Irish judges, the county court judges, and the judges of assize who would have the determination of questions arising under this clause, were not unduly prejudiced in favour of the tenants, at all events, as hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to imagine, and they would not hold any eviction to be unreasonable unless that could be established by strong evidence. He sincerely hoped that this clause would have very small operation indeed, for he did not believe that there were many landlords in Ireland like Lord Clanricarde or that it was their tendency to harass and annoy their tenants. They wanted to make the bad landlords behave as well as the good landlords did.

MR. J. F. MASON

said the word "unreasonable" would give rise to a great deal of misunderstanding. Earlier in the evening the Chief Secretary stated that in his opinion it would be unreasonable for a man to recover compensation if the owner of the property wished to live in it himself. It appeared to be the general opinion of the House that that would be so. From what the Attorney-General had said it appeared that such a case would be a reasonable cause for disturbing the tenancy or refusing to renew it. He called attention to a case which was reported on 20th June, 1896, in which the Court of Appeal decided that it was unreasonable of a landlord to refuse permission to a tenant to sign a lease when the landlord wanted to occupy the house himself. In view of that decision it would not be safe to assume that it would be hold to be reasonable for a man to recover the possession of his: own property because he wished to reside on it himself.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said he believed that those who listened to the Attorney-General were not so much interested in the history of the clause as in the clause as they found it now. The Government stated that they adopted the clause which they found in the Land Tenure Bill after the Second Reading. But what did the Government do in the case of the Land Tenure Bill? They repudiated the clause as they originally found it and accepted Amendments which materially altered its significance and bearing. Having done that he thought the Government were bound in all fairness and justice to alter the clause in the Bill they were now discussing in order to put it on all fours with that in the Land Tenure Bill. There was a possibility of the legislation which it was proposed to apply to Ireland being applied also to England. The logical outcome of the application of the Irish agricultural system to Irish town holdings, and then to English town holdings, would be its eventual extension to English agricultural holdings. They could not get away from that line of argument. They were in this position—they were going to introduce into English town holdings the system which prevailed in regard to Irish agricultural land. If he was right in his chain of reasoning they stood in this position, that if the Irish agricultural system were to be extended to Irish town holdings, then, on the principle that what was good for one country was equally good for another, the system would be extended to English town holdings, and eventually to English agricultural holdings. The state of things brought about in Ireland by the blunders of Liberal statesmen in 1870 had cost this country £120,000,000 of money to remedy. He believed that this clause would bring about an alienation between landlord and tenant, cause ill-blood, and increase litigation. It was because that was his earnest conviction that he ventured to make this straightforward protest against the clause, and he hoped that property owners on both rides of the House would stand by their principles without flinching.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

thought that the House would probably feel that, after the arrangement come to yesterday, they ought no longer to delay taking a decision upon this question. Of all the provisions of the Bill this was the one to which he thought the gravest exception could be taken; and of all the transactions connected with the passing of the measure, the introduction of this clause was the one which appeared to him the most discreditable to the Government. The Chief Secretary and the right hon. and learned Gentleman near him had both defended the action of the Government, but he did not think that any one who heard them would be at all inclined to mitigate their opinion of the policy pursued. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken with indignation of a compact supposed to have been made in connection with some proceedings at Loughrea.

* MR. CHERRY

said that he did not refer to any compact. What he said was that the account given of what occurred as to this clause was completely contradicted by what actually took place. He said that the Loughrea eviction was relied on as the basis for the Second Reading of the Bill and that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University had said the Government were frightened by it.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

was unable to make out what the object of the interruption was. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was indignant at the suggestion that the clause was connected with Loughrea.

* MR. CHERRY

No, no

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Then why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman refer to Loughrea at all? If he merely made an irrelevant excursus into contemporary Irish history—if the Tight hon. Gentleman said that he did not mean that, of course, he accepted his statement. The right hon. Gentleman would not deny that, whereas the large majority of Irish town landlords were working in harmony with Irish town tenants, this clause had been introduced to deal with a small minority, of Irish landlords, of whom Lord Clanricarde was the type. They had actually introduced a clause which established the principle of fair rents on town property, not because the majority of town landlords had anything to reproach themselves with, but because here and there were gentlemen who required special legislation to deal with them. That was not the way to deal with great interests and great causes in this country. It would be much better, if such views were to be entertained, that a Bill should be brought in to deal with Lord Clanricarde by name. [An IRISH NATIONALIST: Will you support such a Bill?] It was preposterous that the whole of the urban property in Ireland, and by implication and natural consequence, the whole system of urban property in England and Scotland, should be revolutionised, not because urban landlords in England were bad landlords, still less because Scottish urban landlords were bad landlords, but because here and there in Ireland they would find some, landlord whose proceedings were to be complained of. Were all Irish tenants immaculate? Was it not possible by microscopic investigation to find some Irish urban tenant who had wasted landlord property, who had misused the advantage the law gave him, and who might with advantage to the community be controlled; and would that be regarded as a ground for special legislation in Ireland as regarded the tenant? These novel principles were not those on which legislation should be founded, even with regard to Ireland—that great experimental ground of legislation. What was the allegation made against the two right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill, and what was the defence they had submitted to the judgment of the House? The allegation was that they permitted the House to accept the Second Reading on the understanding that they would not assent to the proposals of Clause 5 The Bill went up to Grand Committee and a new Clause 5 was introduced. The point in dispute was that, as the Government objected on principle to the old Clause 5 and induced the House to accept the Second Reading of the Bill on the understanding that the clause would be deleted, so this new clause was open to the same condemnation. In all essential principles the two clauses had been shown to be identical. Hail either of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench shown where the distinction was?

MR. BRYCE

I dealt fully with that particular question at a time when the right hon. Gentleman was not in the House.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he had had the advantage of hearing the Attorney- General, but not the Chief Secretary. Could any one who heard both speeches show what vital distinction there was between the two clauses? No one could make out that the first clause established fair rents, and that the second did not establish fair rents. In the first place the English Bill un-amended did establish fair rents. But the English Bill had been so amended, so fundamentally altered, that its enemies and friends would both admit that it had no resemblance now to its original form.

MR. DILLON

We do not intend the Irish Bill to be dealt with in that way.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he agreed that the hon. Member was master of the situation. They were not likely to find a Minister of the Crown with the courage, the desire, or even the smallest inclination to resist the lightest wish of their taskmasters from Ireland. They lived under a benevolent despotism from which even the most liberty-loving of them all would not desire for a moment to be released. He believed what the hon. Member for East Mayo said was true, that the Bill was likely to pass in the shape in which it was now before the House. But let them not suppose that there was any ground for the assertion that there was a strong body of public opinion in favour of the measure. They could get a strong body of opinion in any country when they suggested to a large number of people that by legislation they could get something out of the pockets of a small number of people. That was a dangerous kind of public opinion to go by. It might suit in a Session, or even in a Parliament, but no country could thrive on legislation supported by public opinion so created. That was the complaint he made with regard to the right hon. Gentlemen. The Government simply resigned themselves to the pressure of the hon. Member for East Mayo and those who agreed with him and of a great number of people in Ireland who thought they would get solid cash by this Bill. They were ignoring and neglecting what was one of the most important duties of the Government of this country, which was to hold the scales even between all classes, rich and poor, landlords and tenants, alike. He quite recognised that the time had come when under the arrangement which they adopted under duress, the debate must draw to a close. It was eminently impossible that, under that compact, the remainder of the Bill could be properly discussed. The plan adopted was far better, both for the dignity of the House and for the freedom of discussion, than an all-night sitting, which was the only alternative presented to them. But they thought that, even under that arrangement, the time had been utterly inadequate to discuss a measure fraught with dangerous possibilities in the future, and embodying principles of the gravest moment. The whole history of the Bill was discreditable to the Government that had adopted it, and, holding that view in the strongest manner, and recognising that a Parliamentary compact was a sacred thing which should not be broken under any circumstances or under any provocation whatsoever, he ventured to recommend his friends to content themselves by a division, with a protest against the adoption of the clause, and, thereafter, to take no further part in the discussions at this stage of the Bill.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 308; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 431.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Haworth, Arthur A.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Haydon, John Patrick
Acland, Francis Dyke	Cowan, W. H.	Helme, Norval Watson
Agnew, George William	Crean, Eugene	Hemmerde, Edward George
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Crosfield, A. H.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Alden, Percy	Crossley, William J.	Henry, Charles S.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Higham, John Sharp
Ambrose, Robert	Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Hobart, Sir Robert
Armitage, R.	Delany, William	Hogan, Michael
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N)	Hooper, A. G.
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Dillon, John	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Dobson, Thomas W.	Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)
Astbury, John Meir	Dolan, Charles Joseph	Horniman, Emslie John
Atherley-Jones, L.	Donelan, Captain A.	Hudson, Walter
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Duffy, William J.	Hyde, Clarendon
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.	Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Idris, T. H. W.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Jenkins, J.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)	Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Barnard, E. B.	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Barnes, G. N.	Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Elibank, Master of	Jowett, F. W.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Erskine, David C.	Joyce, Michael
Beale, W. P.	Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Kearley, Hudson E.
Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexh'm)	Essex, R. W.	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Beck, A. Cecil	Evans, Samuel T.	Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Bellairs, Carlyon	Eve, Harry Trelawney	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)	Everett, R. Lacey	Laidlaw, Robert
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)	Farrell, James Patrick	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)
Bennett, E. N.	Fenwick, Charles	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)	Ferens, T. R.	Lambert, George
Billson, Alfred	Ffrench, Peter	Lamont, Norman
Boland, John	Field, William	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Brace, William	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, B.)
Branch, James	Findlay, Alexander	Lehmann, R. C.
Brigg, John	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)
Bright, J. A.	Flynn, James Christopher	Levy, Maurice
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Fuller, John Michael F.	Lewis, John Herbert
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Fullerton, Hugh	Lough, Thomas
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh.)	Gibb, James (Harrow)	Lundon, W.
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)	Gilhooly, James	Lupton, Arnold
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)	Gill, A. H.	Lyell, Charles Henry
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Ginnell, L.	Maclean, Donald
Burke, E. Haviland-	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Glendinning, R. G.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal,
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Gooch, George Peabody	M'Callum, John M.
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M'Crae, George
Byles, William Pollard	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Gulland, John W.	M'Kean, John
Chance, Frederick William	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	M'Kenna, Reginald
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	M'Killop, W.
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Maddison, Frederick
Clancy, John Joseph	Hall, Frederick	Mallet, Charles E.
Clarke, C. Goddard	Halpin, J.	Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Clough, William	Hammond, John	Marks, G. Croydon (Launces,)
Clynes, J. R.	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Marnham, F. J.
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Massie, J.
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Hart-Davies, T.	Meagher, Michael
Cogan, Denis J.	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Meehan, Patrick A.
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W)	Harwood, George	Mond, A.
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Montagu, E. S.
Cooper, G. J.	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Mooney, J. J.
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Redmond, William (Clare)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Morrell, Phillip	Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Morse, L. L.	Rickett, J. Compton	Tomkinson, James
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Toulmin, George
Murnaghan, George	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Verney, F. W.
Murphy, John	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Wadsworth, J.
Nannetti, Joseph P.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Napier, T. B.	Robinson, S.	Walsh, Stephen
Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Walters, John Tudor
Nolan, Joseph	Roe, Sir Thomas	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Ward, W. Dudley (South'mpton)
Nuttall, Harry	Rose, Charles Day	Wardle, George J.
O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)	Runciman, Walter	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Waterlow, D. S.
O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)	Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)	Watt, H. Anderson
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Seaverns, J. H.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
O'Doherty, Philip	Seddon, J.	White, George (Norfolk)
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)	Shackleton, David James	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
O'Grady, J.	Shipman, Dr. John G.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
O'Hare, Patrick	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Whitehead, Rowland
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Simon, John Allsebrook	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Wiles, Thomas
O'Malley, William	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
O'Mara, James	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)	Wills, Arthur Walters
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Snowden, P.	Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)
Parker, James (Halifax)	Soames, Arthur Wellesley)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Stanger, H. Y.	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Pollard, Dr.	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Power, Patrick Joseph	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Stuart, James (Sunderland)	Winfrey, R.
Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)	Sullivan, Donal	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)	Summerbell, T.	Young, Samuel
Radford, G. H.	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Rainy, A. Rolland	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Raphael, Herbert H.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Craik, Sir Henry	Magnus, Sir Philip
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Cross, Alexander	Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Dalrymple, Viscount	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Ashley, W. W.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Morpeth, Viscount
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Balcarres, Lord	Faber, George Denison (York)	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)	Fell, Arthur	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Fletcher, J. S.	Ridsdale, E. A.
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Forster, Henry William	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Bowles, G. Stewart	Himilton, Marquess of	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bull, Sir William James	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Starkey, John R.
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.	Harvey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edmd's)	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staiff'sh.)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Hills, J. W.	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hunt, Rowland	Turnour, Viscount
Cave, George	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.	Keswick, William	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Younger, George
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Londsale, John Brownlee
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Amendments proposed to the Bill— In page 4, line 26, after the word 'contract,' to insert the words 'other than a contract either to make or not to make an improvement.'"—(Mr. Cherry.) In page 3, line 26, to leave out the words 'by a tenant.'"—(Mr. Cherry.) In page 4, line 27, to leave out the word 'he' and insert the words 'a tenant.'"—(Mr. Cherry.) In page 4, line 30, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'having regard to all the circumstances of the case.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)

Amendments agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 5, line 11, to leave out subsection (3), and insert the words, 'An appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal from the county court under this Act. Such appeal shall be brought within the time, in the manner, and in accordance with the conditions prescribed by Rules of the Supreme Court. Save as aforesaid every decision of the county court under this Act shall be final.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)

MR. CHERRY

said this was an alternative which had been suggested by himself and the point had been discussed before the Grand Committee. The Government had no objection to the Amendment provided that it was substituted for subsections (3) and (4).

Amendment agreed to.

Subsections (3) and (4) omitted.

Amendments proposed to the Bill In page 5, line 22, to leave out the word 'and.' In page 5, line 22, after the word 'twenty-three,' to insert the words 'twenty-six and twenty-seven.' In page 5, line 26, at the end, to insert the words' and the duty imposed upon the Court by the said section twenty-seven shall, on the application of a limited owner, be performed as well where compensation is awarded by the Court as where the amount of compensation is agreed upon.'"—(Mr. Cherry.) In page 5, line 18, after the word 'shops' to insert the words 'clubs for social or athletic purposes.'"—(Mr. Glendinning.) In page 6, line 2, to leave out the words 'lease or life lease or.'"—(Mr. Clancy.) In page 6, line 2, after the second 'or,' to insert the word 'other.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)

Amendments agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 6, line 3, after the word 'tenancy' to insert the words 'for a year or for any longer period.'"—(Mr. Cherry.)

Mr. JOHN REDMOND

said his Party felt bound by the understanding arrived at yesterday, and under the circumstances it would not be advisable to do anything more than enter his protest against the Amendment.

Amendment Agreed to.

Amendments proposed to the Bill— In page 6, line 5, to leave out from the word 'law' to end of subsection. In page 6, line 16, at the end, to add, 'the expression "predecessor in title" shall have the same meaning as in the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, as amended by section seven of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.'"—(Mr. Clancy.) In page 4, lines 23 and 24, to leave out the words 'passing thereof,' and insert 'first day of January nineteen hundred and seven.'"—(Mr. Cherry).

Amendments agreed to.

Bill to be read the third time to-morrow

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.

Adjourned at twenty minutes before Twelve o'clock.