CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS' AMENDMENTS.

HL Deb 11 August 1887 vol 319 cc3-42

Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons' Amendments, read.

Moved, "That the said Amendments be now considered."—(The Lord Privy Seal, Earl Cadogan.)

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, he hoped that their Lordships would allow him to say a few words with reference to the position in which they were placed by the changes that had been made in the Bill. They were now at the 11th of August, when Members of both Houses of Parliament, to use the language of grouse shooting, began to "pack," and it was impossible to get a largo number of Members to give their attention even to changes of this kind. Under these circumstances, and under the belief that the changes now proposed to their Lordships were, for the most part, matters of compromise between the two, or rather the three or four, different Parties, it was very difficult for them to act together, or even upon their own individual judgment, without involving political consequences which none of them wished to bring about; and, therefore, he could not help feeling that they were not in a position to consider these Amendments on their own merits. On that account, he wished to say a few words as to the general aspect of the Bill as it came before them. In the first place, no one could fail to see in the Amendments now before them from the Commons what an immense development they were of the principles of the Act of 1881. That Act was accepted at the time by the Irish Party, not as perfect, but as merely containing valuable "germs;" and he thought he need hardly point out how great had been the growth and development of those germs. The Bill, as now altered, made most extensive changes on the Act of 1881; and he would point out that, with two exceptions, all those changes were in the direction of greater concessions to the majority of the voting power in Ireland — now the tenants. There were only two that he believed would be of value to the landowners, though what that value might amount to be had some doubt—one, the reform of method of procedure in the case of bankrupt tenants, which he believed would be of real value; and the other was something like the establishment of a principle that rent was to be considered as just a debt as a debt to traders or other creditors. That immense development of the Act of 1881 led to important considerations. Both of these were valuable concessions in principle; but all the other Amendments were in the direction of greater concessions to the tenants. Some of them were of the most extensive kind. There was no doubt whatever that the Act of 1881 had been passed in the belief in the permanence of certain limitations contained in it; and Members of Parliament had been persuaded to believe, as they were now, that those limitations would be permanent and would be sustained. The faith of contracts had been pleaded for the exclusion of leaseholders from the Act; but almost all the limitations imposed by Mr. Gladstone, and on the faith of which that Act had been passed, had now been swept away. He thought that these facts taught them very clearly the important lesson that when a Minister came down to Parliament with very large proposals involving new principles concerning the interests of large classes of men, they could never trust to the limitations under which, those proposals were made. The Minister might be perfectly sincere; and, for his own part, he (the Duke of Argyll) believed that Mr. Gladstone had been sincere in the limitations which he had placed on the Act of 1881; but the sincerity of the Minister had nothing to do with it. The personal interests of large bodies of voters had an inevitable tendency to extend themselves against all limitations which Ministers imposed. He trusted that it would be remembered in the future — the near future before them—that great general proposals involving interests of that kind were to be tested by their inevitable tendency, and not by a reference to the professed limitations which a Minister might impose. His noble Friend, on a former occasion, complained that he (the Duke of Argyll) had expended all his efforts on the political situation instead of on the Bill before them. He could not admit the justice of that remark, for no one knew better than his noble Friend that the Bill was a consequence of the political situation, and nothing else; and that when they spoke of the political situation they were speaking really of the cause and the origin of the Bill. Mr. Gladstone had lately publicly announced that he had withdrawn his Bills about Home Rule in Ireland; and a large portion of the country would believe that the further propositions Mr. Gladstone would make would be so safeguarded as to secure the safety of the Union. He could not help pointing out to the House that they were in this position—that in a limited number of years they would probably have other proposals made with regard to the government of Ireland and the interests of property in that country, and he trusted that Parliament and the country would remember that those must be judged by themselves, and without reference to any fair and specious promises of limitation. They must beware of these promises of limitation; in such circumstances they were never worth the breath with which they were uttered. They should look to the permanent motives in the minds of a large portion of the people, and they might be quite sure that any specious promises of limitations made at the time were certain to give way before the pressure which would be used against them. That was the lesson to be drawn from the change in the form this Bill had taken in the other House. Another point to which he wished to call attention was the enormous development given by this Bill to the worst fallacies of the Protective system. He was himself a thoroughly convinced Free Trader, with regard to the belief that all Protective Duties for the protection of native produce must increase their cost to the consumer; but he was not one of those who believed that under no circumstance might it be worth while for the consumer to pay an increased price for produce, and that he believed would be found to be the opinion of the people of Ireland, if ever they had a Parliament of their own. The Bill before their Lordships was not a measure for the protection of native industry, but a measure for the protection of native idleness and unthrift. He admitted that it was possible to stimulate industry in a young country by Protective Duties. Some years ago, for example, the Canadian Parliament determined to impose duty on imported agricultural implements, and the result had been to stimulate effectually the implement- making industry of Canada. Manufactories had been extended successfully, and the Canadians now paid less than of old for their agricultural implements. That was an example of the successful encouragement of a native industry by a system of Protection. But this Bill, taken in conjunction with the Land Bill of 1881, which it developed, would not stimulate any native industry in Ireland, but would be a great measure for the protection of native laziness, idleness, unthrift, and moral blindness that prevailed in that country. Fair rent had now come to mean eleemosynary rent, or rent below that which men were ready to give. The rent of the farm which a man occupied was, in future, to be fixed below the price which others would willingly give. The course the Land Commission were taking, he believed, was to make what they called the fair rent so low that the existing tenant, however idle and unthrifty, should continue to live upon his holding. Thus they prevented others, who did not hold tenancies, however more thrifty and industrious they might be, of getting any chance; and so from the tenantry of Ireland was being withheld the healthy stimulus of competition, which we believed to be essential for the advance of all industries in this country. Out of 500,000 tenants in Ireland, a large proportion, probably not less than 200,000, paid less than £4 a-year in rent. A reduction of 25 per cent upon a £4 holding was only a reduction of 20s. a-year, and he need hardly point out that the gain which the tenant derived from such reduction was far less than would be the gain resulting from the improvement of his industry and the system of cultivation. The reduction, therefore, was nothing but an encouragement of laziness and of idle habits. There was another remarkable change which had been made in the Bill by the House of Commons, and he trusted that it would not be acceded to by their Lordships. One of the limitations placed by Mr. Gladstone on the sweeping measure of 1881 was the removal from its purview of certain kinds of land, among others of land which had a special and artificial value through its immediate proximity to a town. The present Government, on the recommendation of the Cowper Commission, had determined to effect some change in the legislation of 1881 in this respect, and had embodied their views in the Bill. The Amendment to the proposal of the Government that had now come up from the other House would virtually abolish the special value which belonged to all accommodation land in villages or towns under a population of 2,000 persons. This provision would be very unjust. Let their Lordships remember that many of the landowners in Ireland were much poorer than their tenants; but many of them had been able to derive hope from the knowledge that an additional value attached to property close to a town. So far as the value of their property had diminished from natural causes, they had no more to complain of than others; but those who had property near towns were entitled to look for the additional value thereby attaching to it untouched. But this Amendment would sweep away from a large number of the Irish landowners that additional value; and, considering that as a matter not of politics, but as one of their personal honour, he trusted that such an Amendment as had come from the other House would never be agreed to by their Lordships, until some stronger reason of public policy could be shown for depriving the Irish proprietors of that which was undoubtedly their property than any that had been given in the House of Commons. At present, every consideration, of public policy pointed in the other direction. If the Amendment were passed, and if the holders of all the plots of land in the neighbourhood of a small thriving town were given tenant-right under the Bill of 1881, the town would inevitably be deprived of all power of expansion. Then, another novelty was furnished by the Commons' Amendment attempting to regulate cotter rents. It had always seemed to him to be a great anomaly that attempts should be made to regulate the rents of tenants, and that the Legislature should shrink from regulating the rents of sub-tenants. In this Amendment an attempt—a very feeble one, it was true—was at last made to regulate those rents; but the change was to be confined to the rents of farm labourers, and they all knew that in a great part of Ireland no labourers were employed upon the holdings. The Amendment, therefore, would leave unassisted the great majority of the sub-tenants of Ireland. This Amendment was utterly nugatory as regarded the protection of the labouring population, for the attempt to regulate cotters' rents took no account of conacre. Those who, like himself, were in the habit of reading the Irish papers, especially those of the North of Ireland, would know that letting by conacre was sub-letting to all intents and purposes. Individual fields were often sub-let in this way at rents varying from £2 to £6 per acre; while the tenants were crying out that for the same land a rent of 15s. or £1 was monstrous and exorbitant. This system prevailed all over the North of Ireland, and no attempt was made to give the poor conacre tenants any protection whatever. This, however, was simply the beginning of a new principle, which, also, no doubt, would be carried further; and the cry would soon be raised for the protection of sub-tenants all over Ireland. Having given that, then they would be asked to protect house rent as well. When was this legislation to end, and upon what principle was it to be guided? The fact was that there was no attempt at principle—a universal slipshod prevailed in Irish legislation. Then, again, certain powers had been given to revise judicial rents, and he knew that the political situation was involved therein, and that if the House rejected the compromise with respect to the revisal of those rents, the Bill would probably be lost, and political complications of a grave character would arise, and he was not inclined to advise the House to take that course; but it was his duty to ask their Lordships to look at the absurdity of the principle upon which this revision had been made. Its author was obviously a man of benevolent intentions, who knew nothing about the management of land. There was a Statutory Order of the Land Court to revise rents according to a scale of prices. That would be reasonable, if the judicial rents had been settled on a uniform principle. But the Courts had been guided by no principle, because Parliament gave them no principle. Parliament originally intended to do so, and when the Bill was introduced a principle was laid down. In the Bill of 1881 a principle of valuation was laid down, and Mr. Gladstone, in his first speech on the Bill, said it was the duty of Parliament to lay down that prin- ciple; but that duty had disappeared, and they had heard nothing of it since; in. fact, the Land Courts had acted on purely arbitrary principles. The Courts had gone about the country fixing rents according to their own judgments, and according to what they might have seen. Moreover, as regarded all produce and wheat, of which, after all, little was grown in Ireland, the fall in prices had not been so great as was alleged, and the prices of the store cattle raised by the small farmers of Ireland had not fallen so much as other things. Thirty years ago—soon after the abolition of the Corn Laws—prices were lower than they were at the present moment. It might fairly be assumed that the Land Courts had fixed a fair average of rents, and he protested against their being revised. Such a revision would destroy the confidence of people in the legislation of Parliament, and in the permanence of their arrangements. In the next place, how could Courts possibly tell whether a man's inability to pay, when application was made to stay process against a tenant, arose from his own fault or not? Was idleness or ignorance, or want of skill or thrift, such a fault as would disentitle a tenant to relief? No; the Courts would bring down the rents to the level of the idleness of these people. He hoped their Lordships had all read the Blue Book produced by Mr. Balfour, and especially the evidence about the bankrupt Unions of the West of Ireland. There was not a man found to resist the grossest jobberies of public money; and the feeble protest of a few ex officio Guardians was of no avail to prevent the wholesale pauperizing of the population. In some Unions the whole population was in receipt of outdoor relief, and, in one case, the number scheduled, in true Irish fashion, actually exceeded the population. It was only when this state of things came to the ears of Dublin Castle that large numbers were struck off the rates. The whole of that part of Ireland was deeply in debt to the Government. In short, it was a perfect farce to legislate on this subject and to attempt to root these miserable people in holdings which would not support them. The Court would have to hear the evidence, see the rags which would probably be put on for the occasion, and lower the rent to the level of the idleness of the person to be protected in the holding, proceeding, on the poverty of the applicant being proved, to reduce the rent. He wished to make an appeal to his noble Friends who led the Opposition in that House. It seemed to him that there was a competition among Parties in England at the present moment as to who could best bribe the poor voters in Ireland. Where was the virtue which once belonged to the Liberal Party in regard to economic questions? One of the greatest triumphs of the Liberal Party immediately after the passing of the first Reform Bill was the amendment of the English Poor Laws. The evidence given before the Commission appointed to inquire into those laws described a state of things in many parts of England closely analogous to the state of things now existing in Ireland. They pointed out that the increasing poverty of the people was due to the system of the Poor Law and to the rates in aid. The whole of our legislation was now nothing but rates in aid paid out of one class of property— not paid out of the Public Exchequer, not paid by the whole of the ratepayers, but paid out of the rental of the soil. The proprietors were a small minority, and could be attacked without fear; the poor majority were the voters, and they could not be attacked without fear. He asked his noble Friends to show some of the old virtues of the Liberal Party, and to stick to the doctrines which they held for so many years in favour of economic principles. Probably they would shrug their shoulders, and say—"The thing is inevitable; you cannot help it." Do not let them be mistaken. The whole of this was essentially vicious legislation. It would increase the poverty of the Irish people and discourage their industry. Perhaps his noble Friends would say—"We must leave that to the Irish people themselves." Did they think that the local self-government that was shown by the existing Unions and other bodies in Ireland was a good presage for the local self-government of that county? He knew that his noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant (Earl Spencer) was very sanguine on that point. His noble Friend said that these evils would be remedied by the Irish people if they were left to themselves; but his noble Friend had never given them any argu- ment on the matter. They must accept the Bill which was now before them from the necessities of the political situation. There were, however, one or two Amendments which, he trusted that House would insist upon, particularly that relating to accommodation land. But the measure as a whole they must swallow. Although they must do that, he, for one, protested against the principles which it involved, and he ventured to predict that it would not be the last of the attempts they would see—that it would not be the last flounder in this Serbonian bog of Gladstonian legislation.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he was willing to admit that their Lordships were placed in a position of difficulty in regard to the proceedings that evening. The very fact that they would have to consider Amendments which were circulated only an hour and a half before the House met was a sufficient proof of that. However, he did not think that they would be assisted by going into a discussion on Homo Rule, which was not before their Lordships, or by discussing the social, political, and economical questions which had been referred to by the noble Duke in a speech which would doubtless have been admirable had the second reading of the Bill been before their Lordships. He was quite sure that they would not advance very much if they embarked upon a discussion of such subjects as had been touched upon by the noble Duke in the course of his vigorous assault upon those Amendments which the Marquess of Hartington, with the assent of his Friends in the House of Commons, and, he presumed, in the House of Lords also, rather forced than otherwise on the Government. Many of those Amendments had been suggested by his (Earl Granville's) noble and learned Friends (Lords Herschell and Fitzgerald), who in offering them had been called officious; but now that they were before their Lordships with the full recommendation of Her Majesty's Government, they on that side of the House would most heartily support them. He thought there was some ground for saying that it was something of a hardship on the whole House, in consequence of the fact that during the animated debates in that House on the Bill, the course which the Government intended to pursue, with or without consultation with the Liberal Unionists, had been absolutely concealed from them. It was a complete farce to have debate on the second reading in Committee, and on the Report, and to delude the Irish Peers by Amendments in favour of the landlords being accepted by Her Majesty's Government, if that conduct was to be followed up by an entire reversal of policy, and by Amendments of an entirely opposite kind being forced upon the House of Commons and accepted by the Government. He really thought they had some ground to complain of the manner in which the question had been treated in that respect. The noble Duke thought the germ of this measure was to be found in the Act of 1881. He (Earl Granville) believed that that Act and the Statute which preceded it, the Act of 1870, were absolutely necessary, and that if they had not been passed things would have been absolutely worse in Ireland than they were at the present time. But the germ did not appear for the first time in 1881, but was very much stronger in 1870, when the then Government had the noble Duke entirely agreeing with them. He had really thought it right to protest against the manner in which the House had been treated, and having done that, he wished to say that he thought they had better at once proceed to work and discuss the different Amendments before them. The Bill had come back to them a very much improved measure, and he would gladly promise, for those with whom he acted, that he was ready to give the Government all the support he could in getting the Bill through.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)

said, the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) had asked their Lordships to go immediately into the consideration of the Amendments. He (the Marquess of Salisbury), however, thought that it would hardly be treating the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), or even the noble Earl himself, with courtesy, if he did not make a few remarks. He would not go through the speech of the noble Duke, but would venture to point out that when once the germ of an evil principle was introduced into legislation, it was impossible to get rid of it. Somehow or other, the fabric of social order had to be maintained. Somehow or other, an effort had to be made to adjudge to each man his fair rights. If departure was made from the sound system on which those results were formerly obtained, and they entered upon an unsound one, it would be necessary to develop and push on that unsound principle, in order to obtain the elementary objects for which all society existed. That could not be done with a structure once broken. They must persevere in the path on which they had unfortunately entered, and do their utmost to obtain the best and most expedient and just results that might be forthcoming. In 1881 he confessed, and in 1870 also, the then Government had entered upon what, in his judgment, was the very unwise plan of trying to place upon the State the responsibility of insuring that the relations and contracts between landlords and tenants were in conformity with equity. They departed from the principle of free contract that then existed, and made what was, in his judgment, the very great mistake of giving fixity of tenure. When they had once done that, it then became the responsibility of the State to see that those two persons, the landlord and tenant, should bear relations which were in themselves just towards each other. They had absolutely renounced the existence of free contract, and, having renounced it, they could not allow unjust and impossible relations to grow up. His answer to the noble Earl opposite was clear. It was only to repeat what he said of this Bill more than once during its passage through the House. There was a great evil to be met, a great danger to be averted. It was necessary that the land war in Ireland should cease, and the Government believed that the healthiest and best way of interfering on behalf of those who were reduced to inability to fulfil their contracts, by events which were outside their own power, was an application of the law of bankruptcy to the relations between landlord and tenant. That was the remedy which the Government, after very deep consideration, had decided to recommend, and they exhausted every effort at their command to impress that doctrine upon the House. The noble Earl asked—he did not think he had any right to do so—whether the application of that remedy was resolved upon with the knowledge and concurrence of Lord Hartington. In answer to the question he could at once say that that remedy was agreed to in concert with him, but the Government had absolutely failed to carry it. They had absolutely failed in their Lordships' House, to say nothing of the House of Commons. They had been obliged to alter the Bill again and again, because they could not induce the landlords to accept the application of the bankruptcy principle, and so much was forced upon the Government in their Lordships' House, that when the Bill came into the other House of Parliament it became evident that the application of the Bankruptcy Law which they had recommended was not a measure which they could induce the House of Commons to adopt. That being the case, they had to find some other mode by which the pressure of economical events upon the tenants could be lightened, at least during the interval which separated them from those further land measures to which the Government were pledged, and in which they believed the final solution of the Land Question in Ireland was possible. Had the Bankruptcy Clauses been accepted, the Government believed they would not only have relieved the insolvent tenant, but would also have furnished a motive to the landlord to treat with liberality and equity those to whom agricultural changes had made the rent so severe. The Bankruptcy Clauses having become impossible, it was inevitable that they should fall back upon some change of the kind recommended by the Cowper Commission, and that was the principal change now submitted to their Lordships. What the Government had recommended was, he need not say, not a revision of rents, but the substitution of a produce rent for a money rent. It was not exactly in the form recommended by the Commission; but it was much more transient, and, in his judgment, in a much more simple and salutary form. But he did not for a moment say that he preferred it to the Bill the Government submitted to the House. He would gladly have passed the Bankruptcy Clauses if the Government had had the power; but they had not the power. The Government informed their Lordships that they intended to pass a Bill which would have the effect of putting an end to evictions which we thought dangerous to the peace of Ireland. They earnestly pressed on their Lordships, and on the other House of Parliament, the mode of doing so which they thought expedient; but they certainly did not think themselves justified in abandoning a Bill which had the object he had stated in view, because they were unable to obtain the particular means of doing it which they thought most convenient. It would have been contrary to the pledges they had made. It would, have led to political events, which he need not further enter upon, as they had been dwelt upon by the noble Duke in his speech; but sooner or later, at a longer or shorter interval, it would also have had this deplorable effect, that if the Government had abandoned the Bill and made no effort to lighten the burdens of the Irish tenants, which now, by extraneous circumstances, lay upon them, they would have had to face this political contingency—that some time or other a Dissolution would have taken place and an Election would have been made, in which, owing to the overwhelming pressure of a secondary controversy, the votes of the loyal people of Ulster might, for a time, have seemed to be upon the side which the Government believed to be absolutely fatal to the interests of the Empire. He had thought it best to speak out his mind upon this subject, as it seemed to him that that was the best way to meet the ordinary dangers with which politicians had to deal, and he bad not heard anything to convince him that in the circumstances of extreme difficulty in which the Government had been placed they had taken other than the course which was indicated by patriotism and right in the interests of the Empire.

THE EARL OF ERNE

said, he agreed to a great extent with what had been said by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) as to the manner in which they had been treated, and he could not follow the defence offered by the noble Marquess. He believed, however, that the Bankruptcy Clauses, as amended by their Lordships, would have been a great benefit to the Irish tenants. He desired to enter his protest—because anything beyond protest was impossible—against the manner in which the Bill would, by its changes, treat a large body of men in Ireland. There was, unfortunately, a large class of small proprietors with heavily encumbered estates who would be almost ruined by the clause for the revision of the judicial rents. To them Parliament had almost been guilty of a breach of faith. By the Land Act of 1881 they were called upon to make considerable sacrifices, and their incomes were greatly reduced until, in many cases, hardly any margin was left over the charges upon their estates. He had always held that the Act of 1881, although it did not contain any statutory guarantee, yet it gave a moral guarantee to those men that that margin would be retained to them, and the judicial rents paid; but that guarantee was altogether destroyed by the Bill, for by its means the greater portion of what was left to them would be cut away. By passing the Bill, the Government had, he believed, thrown away any chance of success they might have had for the Purchase Bill; for, until they gave the Irish tenants the idea that there was some Quality in their legislation, and that no more concessions could be looked for, no purchase scheme was likely to succeed, and Parliament would only be wasting time. He certainly believed the line of conduct recommended by Parliament and the Government would not be conducive to the interests of Ireland, or to the credit of this country.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, that he had no desire to stand for any long time between the House and the discussion which was about to take place, but he thought that he ought to take that opportunity of thanking the noble Marquess opposite for the manly and frank explanation of his action in this matter which he had given to the House. He certainly had agreed in principle with the original scheme of the Bill, and he had also agreed with the noble Marquess in thinking it was desirable, during the interval which must elapse before the larger measure which all parties agreed was necessary could be brought forward to do no more than the exigencies of the case made absolutely necessary, and in hoping that it would be sufficient for that purpose to deal with the cases of tenants unable to pay their rents, without fault of their own, and on whom the powers of eviction might otherwise be exercised. He had hoped that such a measure might be sufficient, and he agreed with the noble Marquess that it was not desirable to introduce into this Bill matters which could be dealt with, more conveneniently in the larger measure which Her Majesty's Government intended to introduce as soon as they could do so. He had entirely agreed with the noble Marquess upon these two points— first, that the supremacy of the law should be restored in Ireland by means of another measure which had now become law; and, secondly, that an Act must be passed which would limit the right of landlords to evict, and would prevent an abuse of that power for the purpose of enforcing the payment of impossible rents, which was dangerous to the State, and calculated to strengthen disaffection, and to extend the power of the disaffection already existing. With that patriotism which Irish landlords had often displayed, they, on this occasion, mitigated their tone of objection to the Bill; but, at the same time, there could be no doubt that the manner in which they originally received the Bankruptcy Clauses was calculated to defeat that part of the scheme of the Government; and it could hardly have surprised them to find that those clauses were given up. He confessed he was strongly impressed with the force of some of the arguments against these clauses. But having failed, what was the alternative for those clauses? Were they simply to enlarge the Equitable Clause, and give power of an unlimited kind to Courts to deal with arrears? In his opinion, merely to give time for the payment of arrears would not be effectual, because the arrears would go on accumulating year by year. The Cowper Commission had arrived at the conclusion that the rents of holdings in a great part of Ireland were such that at the present prices of produce many of the tenants could not pay them; and, looking at all the circumstances of the case, he thought the plan now adopted by the Government was as just as any that could have been proposed to bridge over the interval until the larger measure of the Government was introduced and passed; for, with a rise in prices, the landlords would have the benefit, and with a fall in prices the tenants would have the benefit. The general manner in which the change was to be made freed the scheme from the objections justly urged against individual applications for a revision of rent; and the Go- vernment would have been extremely wanting to their duty if they had thrown up the Bill when they found that a larger measure of relief than they at first contemplated was desired by the loyal tenants in Ireland, because they had not been able to carry the Bankruptcy Clauses. He was as sensible as anyone of the solid grounds which there were for saying that if there had been no such legislation as that of 1870 and 1881 they might possibly have been in a worse position than that in which they now found themselves. He agreed that the legislation of 1870 had been the starting point, but if he might venture to say so, the germ of the measure of 1870, which had carried with it these later consequences, was not that which was contested at the time— namely, the question of compensation for disturbance, but that upon which everyone was agreed—the legalization of the Ulster custom. Not only Mr. Sharman-Crawford, but also Lord Mayo, in the House of Commons had continually urged the principle of that measure. When they had gone so far as to turn the statutory principle of contract into a law of tenure in accordance with customs, which in practice combined, in a manner scarcely intelligible, those two conflicting principles, it was difficult to avoid going further. Although he was very sensible of these considerations, still he would rather have cut off his hand than be a party to that measure of 1881, giving the House the reasons and assurances which he then gave, if he had known that within five years after its passing it would have been thrown over by its authors, and that the course they had now taken would be entered upon; for such action on their part made its permanent success, or whatever degree of success might otherwise have been hoped for, absolutely impossible. But that course having been entered upon by them, there was nothing now left but to make the best of the situation, and, for his part, he thought the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, under the circumstances, had done his duty bravely and patriotically in the matter.

THE EARL OF HOWTH

said, he i thought the Irish landlords had taken a I very patriotic course in regard to the i Bill. As far as the Liberal Unionists were concerned, they approved of the two main principles of the policy of Her Majesty's Government — namely, the Purchase Bill and the secondary Bill dealing with the removal of the evils which had become the bane of the Irish tenantry, and repairing the blots in the Bill of 1881. He feared, however, that the development which was shown by the alterations made in the Bill pointed, to the fact that Her Majesty's Government had yielded to the pressure brought upon them by the National League, for they seemed to have been proposed with a desire to make the rents as low as possible before the purchase scheme was prepared. That was a great injustice to the landlords. Another fear which he had was that Her Majesty's Government was greatly in want of money to carry out their Purchase Bill. One of the chief points to which he wished to allude was the manner in which valuation with respect to the landlords' property was carried out under the Act of 1881 in Ireland. At first, there had been no difficulty; but then had come the crash caused by the fall in prices, and the whole machinery of valuation was thrown out of gear. What had been a modus vivendi in 1881 ceased to be so in 1886, and the consequence was that valuators came to totally different conclusions. There were the landlords' valuators, then the Judges of the Law Courts, who had estates under their supervision, and there was also the tenants' valuators, who very naturally valued in anticipation of a still greater fall in prices. The valuer of the Land Court also exercised his valuation in anticipation of a further fall. There was thus great confusion existing, and he thought that the Government might lay down some medium of valuation, for a most unjust system of valuation had been pursued. He further hoped the Government would consider the condition of the landlords of Ireland at the present time, and that after the very great concessions which had been made to the tenant, something would be done to relieve landlords of some of the heavy burdens which at present were thrown upon them, and which they were unable to bear.

LORD INCHIQUIN

said, he thought it only fair that the Irish Representatives should be allowed to enter their protest against the course pursued in reference to the Bill. The measure now before the House was a totally and entirely different measure from that which had left them. The Bill was three months in that House, and they had reason to complain that during the whole of the time the Bill was before their Lordships the Government gave them no idea of what has since taken place in the Commons. He, as one of the Representatives of Ireland, was negotiating with the Government with reference to the provisions of the Bill, and they understood that the Government were carrying on negotiations with the Liberal Unionists in the same way as with Irish landlords in that House. The Bill, as it left that House, was the result of a compromise, and if there had been no such compromise, many more Amendments would have been moved. But what was his surprise when the Bill went down to the House of Commons, in the very first speech made by a Member of the Government—he believed it was Mr. Smith—it was stated that the Government would be delighted to consider any Amendments from whatever quarter of the House they might proceed. The Government, in fact, had a perfectly open mind on the subject. There was, therefore, just cause of complaint against the Government. If this was the course which the Government intended to adopt, and if they thought the Bill could not be fairly treated in that House, it would have been far better to introduce the measure in the other House. But that was not the only fault he had to find with the Government. The Bill came up on Monday last. He had anxiously waited for it; but it was only yesterday that the Bill was sent to him with the Commons' Amendments. But the omissions in the Bill as it left their Lordships were not pointed out, and it was not till to-day that he was able to compare the two Bills. With such short notice, it was not reasonable to expect the House to discuss the Amendments on the Paper. In the House of Commons a clause had been introduced for altering judicial rents, a proposal to which, over and over again, the Government said they would not consent. The Bill as it stood admitted leaseholders to the benefit of the Act of 1881, and now in the House of Commons it was declared that judicial rents fixed five years ago were unfair. In such a state of things the leaseholders ought only to be tenants from year to year, and he thought it was very unfair that leaseholders should be admitted to the Act of 1881 at a time when prices were at their lowest, without any provision that if prices rose the landlords should be entitled to some benefit in the better prices. He hoped the Government would make some modification in that direction, for otherwise they would be doing an injustice to owners of property. He would suggest that if judicial rents were reduced, the reduction should be made contingent on payment within a reasonable time. He wished, as an Irishman, to protest against the course pursued by the Government in regard to the Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Commons' Amendments considered accordingly.

VISCOUNT DE VESCI moved an Amendment rejecting the Commons' Amendment which provided that the option of applying to have a lease broken should be limited to the tenant, and providing that the option should be extended to the landlord as well as the tenant, as it stood originally in the Bill.

Amendment moved, at end of Clause 1, to add ("an application to break a lease may be made to the Court by the lessor as well as by the lessee").—(The Viscount De Vesci.)

LORD CASTLETOWN

supported the Amendment.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN)

said, that the proposal of the noble Viscount was that an Amendment passed in the other House should be disagreed with and that lessors as well as lessees should be given the power of applying to the Land Court under Clause 1. That clause had for its object to extend to leaseholders the benefits of the Land Act of 1881. He feared that if his noble Friend's Amendment were agreed to, and the option were given to the landlord as well as the tenant, some landlords would strive to got their tenants' leases broken, with a view to raise the rent. He trusted that their Lordships would reject the Amendment.

On Question? Resolved in the negative.

On the Motion of The LORD PRIVY SEAL, consequential Amendments made to the Commons' Amendment to Clause 1.

On the Motion of The Viscount DE VESCI, the following Amendment made, at end of Clause C, add— ("This section shall not apply to a subletting made by a tenant dining a statutory term, nor to a sub-letting made after the passing of this Act.")

Commons' Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

, in moving an Amendment, requiring the Land Commission, in fixing fair rents, to attach to their judgment a scale of prices of agricultural produce affecting the holding in regard to which the rent was fixed, said, it was quite possible that the Act might continue in operation for a longer period of time than was at present anticipated. If the rents which were now about to be revised had had, in the first instance, such a scale attached to the judgment, it would be a great convenience. He believed that under the Act the rents about to be fixed on easier terms might, next year or the year after, be again revised, if there were a further fall in prices, and it would be very desirable in that event to know the prices upon which the rents were fixed.

Bill 218, Clause 5, page 3, line 31, Amendment moved, to add, as a new paragraph, at the end of words inserted by the Commons— The Court shall, in making an order for the fixing of a judicial rent under this section, attach thereto a scale of the prices of agricultural produce affecting the holding in regard to which such order is made, which the Court has taken into consideration, in fixing such judicial rent." —(The Earl of Dunraven.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)

said, the Government could not accept the Amendment, which would throw an undue burden on the Commission. There were a great many elements to be taken into account, and it was not desirable to take out one element—namely, the element of price, and require that element to be stated. He did not think it reasonable to ask the Commissioners to state one of their grounds for fixing a fair rent, for he was convinced that it would only excite a feeling of rivalry and jealousy.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

urged that if the scale were fixed and prices happened at any time to be lower than that scale, the effect of the Amendment would be to create discontent and agitation among tenants, and if prices were at any time higher than the scale fixed the scale would be detrimental to the landlords; because if the tenants in future times saw that existing prices were lower than those stated in the scale accompanying the judgment, they would agitate to have the rents lowered. The Amendment would multiply discontent and encourage litigation.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, he felt that there was very much force in what had been said by the noble Marquess, and he would oppose the Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

withdrew the Amendment.

Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

LORD FITZGERALD

, in moving to leave out of the eviction by registered letter clause the words "a copy of the said notice shall be published in a newspaper circulating in the district," said, the clause was complete without the sentence, which was unnecessary, and might be dangerous. He would not venture to predict what would occur where there were two papers circulating in a district; but suppose there was only one paper, and it was favourable to the tenant, they would be at the mercy of the newspaper proprietor, who might refuse to publish save at a prohibitory cost. The due publication of the notice would form a part of the landlord's title to be put into possession, and without strict proof of the statutable requirements in this respect he could not eventually recover the holding.

Amendment moved,

To disagree to the Commons' Amendment (Bill No. 308) in page 3, line 8, after ("lane"), to insert ("in all such cases, a copy of the said notice shall be published in a newspaper circulating in the district, and a copy shall be sent in a registered letter addressed to the tenant ").—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)

EARL CADOGAN

said, he would accept the Amendment on behalf of the Government.

Motion agreed to.

Commons' Amendment disagreed to.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN moved an Amendment to the Town Park Clause, striking out the provisions by which a town for the purposes of the clause was defined to be a town of over 2,000 inhabitants.

Bill No. 218, Clause 9, page 8, line 21, moved ("to disagree with the words inserted by the Commons.")—(The Earl of Dunraven.)

LORD MACNAGHTEN

joined in opposing the Commons' Amendment. He had been much disappointed when the Bill came back to find how much this clause had been mangled and patched; so much so, indeed, that he was ashamed to own any connection with it. He could not even understand it. It was now contradictory and absurd; because, after stating that town parks were an accommodation to towns, it yet proceeded to deny that accommodation to the class of towns which most desired it, for the towns which most needed them were just the towns which would be deprived of them by the clause as it loft the Commons. A town park was land in the vicinity of a town which was in the occupation of shopkeepers or other residents of the town, and there were certain peculiarities in regard to its tenure. Tenant-right had never been an incident of town parks; but the tenant had always been entitled to be paid compensation for his improvements. Out of the 300 witnesses examined before the Cowper Commission, only 15 alluded to the subject, and of those 15 only one would name any limit, and that limit was 20,000. Yet the Commissioners recommended a limit of 5,000. Heaven knows where they got that. The effect of the clause, as it left the Commons, would be that shopkeepers or doctors in small towns who held accommodation land could have the rent revised, and could have holdings for £100, £200, or £300, in which, at the present moment, they had no saleable interest whatever, and in which they never expected to have any saleable interest. Tenant-right did not, as he had said, exist in the case of town parks, and though the rent was a little higher than that for purely agricultural land, still the tenant had not to pay the fabulously large sums to the outgoing tenant which prevailed in regard to ordinary holdings. Mr. Litton, one of the Chief Commissioners of the Land Court, said in his evidence before the Royal Commission that he thought the holdings known as town parks were of "enormous advantage to small towns," and by small towns places with a population of from 500 to 2,000 were just those which were meant. Yet the Amendment made in the House of Commons would destroy town parks just in these very towns. Another effect of this Amendment would he to confer on the present tenants of town parks a tenant-right which they had never possessed, and which they would, in many cases, be able to sell for some hundreds of pounds. The only people who wished to abolish these town parks were those whoso object was the spoliation of the landlord. He was not advocating the cause of the Irish landlords; but he might take the liberty of doubting whether the spoliation of the landlords was in itself so admirable and excellent a thing that it was worthwhile, in order to attain that object, to inflict this very serious injury upon Irish, country towns.

VISCOUNT DE VESCI

said, he wished to point out that owners of land near towns often let land to agricultural labourers on easy terms, and that the labourers, in default of such provision, would be compelled to live in the towns themselves. The result was that many towns contained less than 2,000 inhabitants when, but for the liberality of the landlords to the labourers, they would contain more. It was hard in such circumstances that the rights of the owners of town parks should be diminished. Had they not acted liberally towards the labourers, the latter must have swelled the town population, with the result of excluding the occupation land from the operation of this measure.

LORD FITZGERALD

hoped that the Government would yield upon this question. If the clause, as it left the Commons, were agreed to, it would place an iron band around about 240 small towns in Ireland, including Lismore, Coote-hill, Castleblayney, Belturbet, Ballybay, and Antrim, and would prevent the expansion and improvement of those towns.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, that these town parks were not only an advantage to the landowner, but to the community. He was in favour of supporting the rights derived from custom, as from written contract; but, in the case of town parks, there never had been asserted on the part of the tenant any custom or right to the holding. They were, in fact, allotments given out for the benefit of the people, and very often rich people competed for them in the open market. By the Amendment under consideration, the Land Court would be empowered to deprive landowners of the value of their accommodation land, in favour of the men who might happen to be in possession of it at a particular time. These men would be able to sell their rights in open market, not for the advantage of the Irish people, but for their own advantage, and to realize the additional value which attached to land near a town. There was no great public interest to be served by agreeing to this clause; indeed, there was a great public interest adverse to it—namely, that the growth of the towns would be checked by the clause. In a particular case in the neighbourhood of Belfast, the Act of 1881 was having that effect; for he had a letter from a landed proprietor in the neighbourhood of Belfast, who stated that that town could not be increased in his direction because some small tenants under the Act of 1881 would not allow their interests to be bought. Public interest demanded that the Amendment should be expunged.

EARL SPENCER

supported the Commons' Amendment, which he should be sorry to see disagreed to without something being said in its favour. This was a matter upon which the holders of town parks felt very strongly, and there was an urgent demand for their inclusion within the Act of 1881. Even long before he left Ireland, that had made itself felt, and there had been bitter complaints against their exclusion. At one time, Mr. Gladstone's Government contemplated the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the subject. It was unjust to charge an exorbitant rent for these holdings, and this clause would enable a fair rent to be fixed. It would not be supposed that the Land Commissioners would fix a purely agricultural value on these farms; but the tenants on these farms should have the opportunity of having the present rents revised, and, no doubt, the Land Court would consider what the proper accommodation rent ought to be. He quite agreed that if the land was likely to be valuable for building, in consequence of its nearness to a large town, that ought to be taken into consideration; but in the Act of 1881 there was power to resume land for building purposes. The Amendment in "another place" was a compromise on the part of the Government. Under all the circumstances, he hoped that the Government would consider carefully before they assented to the Commons' Amendment being expunged. He did not think it would do injustice lo the landowners, or he would not agree to it; but his belief was that it would only give the Court a power of fixing a proper rent for accommodation land; and if the land was building land, it gave power to allow it to be used for the public good.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, that it seemed to be assumed by his noble Friend that the solo operation of the Land Act of 1881 was the fixing of a fair rent, whereas there were other statutory conditions—fixity of tenure and free sale—conditions inapplicable to this kind of land. These town parks were accommodation land, let for the convenience of the occupiers of houses in towns; and to place them on a footing applicable to agricultural land unconnected with those houses was manifestly unreasonable. The clause as it now stood did not abolish town parks altogether; it made a distinction between towns under and towns over 2,000 inhabitants, according to the last Parliamentary Census, so that the limit of 2,000 would be a fluctuating one, and a town which had now more than 2,000 inhabitants was to be treated as if it had less, because it had less six years ago. Was it not desirable that the number of considerable towns in Ireland, at present so small, should be increased? But the limit now placed in the Bill would tend to discourage the growth of towns just under the 2,000. It was because it was desirable to develop towns that, by the clause as it stood, the Land Act was prevented from applying to town parks when the population exceeded 2,000, unless it were made clear that no obstacle to the improvement of the town or inconvenience to the inhabitants would result from so applying it. This was on the face of the clause, as it now stood; and yet it was proposed to disregard all those considerations in the case of the smaller towns, in which they might often be of more importance than in the larger. As for the argument from the recommendation of the Commission, he could attach no weight to that, when it was not supported either by evidence or by reason. That recommendation, was not law; but the House was enacting a law, and it was their duty to do what was just and consistent and reasonable in the matter.

EARL FORTESCUE

said, that, in his opinion, the reasons urged by the noble Earl (Earl Spencer) in support of this change introduced in "another place" were inconsistent with each other. The special characteristic of leases was duration for a term of years, that of town parks was their being for the most part let annually. The process of resumption of land for building purposes under the Act was notoriously a troublesome one.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he was not at all learned in the law of town parks; but he was sure that if the House went to a Division, there could be little doubt that there would be a largo majority in favour of adhering to the clause as it originally left the House of Lords. He did not think, so far as he could judge, that there was very much to be said for this numerical limit. He was much struck by an observation of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Macnaghten), that any authority derived from the Cowper Commission in this regard was not to be esteemed of great value, because it was merely evolved from their own internal consciousness, and did not depend upon any evidence that they received. He fancied that the idea of a numerical limit proceeded entirely from the Cowper Commission, that it was recommended to the House of Commons on that ground, and the Government undoubtedly did in debate accept as a compromise the limit of 2,000 inhabitants. He did not, however, think, on consideration, that that precise limit could be adhered to, as the number was to be drawn from the last Parliamentary Census — he imagined that that would mean the last Parliamentary Census before the time when the matter was submitted to the judgment of the Commissioners. If that was the case, of course a town would be liable to go in and out of the restriction as town parks according as its population altered with each succeeding Census, and people who had made their arrangements on the basis of one population might find themselves remitted to another rule of law for another popula- tion. Besides, in towns of the limits named, it might be very difficult to decide where the town ended. These towns ran out into suburbs and villas, and the fixing of a numerical limit would tend to agitation and considerable litigation. Under all the circumstances, he would accept the Motion of his noble Friend behind him, that the words should be struck out.

Motion agreed to; Commons' Amendment disagreed to.

EARL CADOGAN moved to amend a Commons' Amendment to Clause 19, to take from a High Court the power of making a temporary prospective abatement of rent.

Bill No. 218, page 14, line 7, moved in Clause D, to leave out from the first ("rent") to (" due ") in the next line, and insert instead thereof (" for the time being.")— (The Lord Privy Seal.)

LORD ASHBOURNE

said, that the sole object of the Government was to confine the jurisdiction of the Court in dealing with arrears; but as the words of the clause were not particularly clear, he hoped that the Amendment would not be opposed.

Amendment agreed to.

EARL CADOGAN moved, that the Commons' Amendments as far as the New Clause dealing with the temporary adjustment of judicial rents be agreed to.

Moved, "That the Amendments made by the Commons, as far as Clause E (Temporary adjustment of judicial rents) be agreed to."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)

LORD EMLY

said, he must protest against the provisions of the clause, and would urge that some Proviso ought to be brought into the clause, stating that any judicial rent fixed during a time of exceptionally low prices should not continue for more than three years. The principle involved in the clause showed that a gross injustice might be done to the landlord. He protested against fixing rents in these uncertain times for 15 years.

EARL CADOGAN

said, that a temporary remission of judicial rents during a period of three years, as proposed by the Bill, was a different thing from a permanent provision for a periodical revision of those rents according to a scale of prices, as was proposed by the noble Lord, and Her Majesty's Government could not accept the noble Lord's proposal.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that the Bill as it now stood provided for the alteration of the judicial rents during the next three years. That appeared to him to be a very important germ which had been introduced for the first time into the law of landlord and tenant by this Bill, and before long that germ would develop into a full-grown tree. No one could believe that when the three years had expired, the old rents would be revived, and indeed, as au English landlord, he was of opinion that rents in the future would fall still further instead of rising, no did not blame the Government for making the provisions of this Bill temporary; on the contrary, when an experiment of this kind was attempted to be made, it was better that it should be of a tentative character. He, however, wished to express his opinion most emphatically that by consenting to this provision being introduced into this Bill, Parliament would have laid down the permanent principle that in the future there must be a periodical revision of rents. He was glad the Government had listened to the representations which had been made on this subject in the House of Commons. It was his firm conviction that the principle of produce rents, having been once adopted, it would be impossible hereafter to resist its further application.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, the proposal was an alternative to the better plan of the Bankruptcy Clauses, and the consequences which must flow from the adoption of the principle of a periodical revision of rents was fully in the minds of the Government when they agreed to the proposal. It was a harmless germ because it was not unexampled. It had been tried in England and in Scotland under circumstances which, with respect to the changeability of prices, differed not very largely from those in which they now found themselves. It amounted practically to a return to the old practice of paying rent, not in money, but in produce. If it should eventually become the rule that money rents should become produce rents, variable from year to year according to a sliding scale of produce prices, he did not think that it would be inju- rious to the community or unjust either to the landlord or the tenant; and, indeed, upon the whole, that would be the sounder principle. Therefore he did not think they were committing themselves to any germ of whose ultimate growth they would have any reason to complain. As to the yearly valuation, that was an inevitable necessity when the State was made a determining power in the relations between landlords and tenants. Dealing with a landlord so weak as the State, and tenants so utterly without capital as the Irish tenants, there was something absolutely absurd in fixing a 15 years' term for the rents, which at any moment might be disturbed by an unexpected accident arising out of the variable circumstances of the case. Therefore he could not admit that they were running any dangerous risk in substituting a produce for a coin rent, and he utterly disclaimed the idea that the clause committed them to any germ whose growth there was reason to fear.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

said, that they were told that this Act would be practically superseded by some large measure of land purchase. That might be so; but that scheme might not be passed as soon as seemed to be hoped. The condition of present tenants was that they would be liable to have their rents looked into in 1888 and 1889; and he could not see why all classes should not be put on the same terms.

THE EARL OF HOWTH

said, he thought that owners of leasehold property were entitled to the consideration of the Legislature. It was well known that before 1870, leases had been considered the greatest boon that a tenant could seek for, and the owners of leasehold property were held up as examples.

LORD FITZGERALD

said, he thought that the matter which the noble Lord (Lord Emly) had specially noticed was one from which hardship and injustice might arise, and that it ought to be taken into consideration. He understood the noble Lord to point out that the 130,000 leaseholders now brought under the Act would in great part have their rents now settled at a time of the lowest depression and for a term of 15 years. This was hard indeed on the lessors. It had hitherto escaped notice, and he entreated the consideration of the Government.

Motion agreed to.

LORD CASTLETOWN moved an Amendment providing that the tenants whose rents had been fixed by mutual agreement between landlord and tenant should not be subject to abatement under this clause, said, he thought it most unfair that where a landlord had come to some amicable arrangement with his tenant, this arrangement should be subject to abatement under this Bill merely because such arrangement happened to have been ratified by the Land Court.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said, that rents were judicial rents whether they had been fixed by the Court or ratified by the Court after agreement between landlord and tenant. On many properties these agreements had been arrived at upon the basis of reductions made and rents fixed by the Land Courts on neighbouring estates, or on part of the same estate; and since these latter were to be subject to abatement, it would not be logically defensible to exclude the former.

Amendment negatived.

EARL CADOGAN moved an Amendment to insert in Clause E, in the second paragraph, the following words:— So that the rent fixed under the provisions of this section shall differ by the difference in prices as aforesaid in the respective years.

In Clause E (inserted by the Commons), after ("and eighty-six respectfully") in the second paragraph of the Clause, moved to insert— ("So that the rent fixed under the provisions of this section shall differ by the difference in prices as aforesaid in the respective years ").— (The Lord Pivy Seal.)

EARL SPENCER

believed that it would be unwise to confine the Land Commissioners within the rigid limits of this Amendment. He did not think it right to tie down the Land Commissioners by requiring them to make an alteration in rent exactly equal to the difference which had taken place in prices. He would illustrate his meaning by an example. Take a farm the gross produce of which at the higher prices was worth £500. The cost of production might also vary; but it would not vary to anything like the same degree as the value of the products, and it might remain unchanged. For the sake of argument he supposed the case where the cost of production remained the same; he put that at £300, when the gross produce came to £500. That left £200 to be divided between the landlord for rent and the tenant for profit. He would take in this case the rent at £100. A fall in prices equal to 20 per cent came; what was the effect of that? The gross produce would fall to £400, and, the cost of production remaining the same, that would leave £100 for rent, & c. If the Amendment of the noble Earl were carried into law, the Land Commissioners would have to reduce the rent by 20 per cent. That would give the landlord £80 for rent, and leave only £20 for the tenant. He thought that a most unjust operation, and he believed it was essential not to tie the Commissioners' hands so absolutely that they must deal with the rents under consideration in this way, and this way alone. He understood that the clause, as it originally stood, would work in the following way. There might be two farms of exactly the same size, quality, and condition side by side. Call one A, the other B. The rent of A was fixed in 1881 or 1882. The rent of B was fixed this year. According to his view, the Commissioners would alter for this year, the rent of farm A to the same as the rent they had just fixed for farm B. That would be a just and proper arrangement. He did not know whether the Commissioners had regard to the considerations to which he had referred as to the relative deduction to be made in the rent and the fall in prices; but if they took these into consideration in the one case, they ought not to apply a different rule in the second case.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he thought that the Amendment was one that was distinctly favourable to the tenant. It was his opinion that they ought to adhere to the strict principle of a produce rent.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that the Bill did not establish the principle of a produce rent. He looked upon the Amendment as being too restrictive.

EARL FORTESCUE

held that it was very desirable that the Land Commissioners should be supplied with a principle for their guidance when fixing rents. He had in vain protested against the Bill of 1881 not laying down any. The first Land Commissioners had announced none for the guidance of the Sub-Commissioners and the information of the public, so no one knew what to expect, and voluntary agreements were much less resorted to in consequence.

On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 39; Not-Contents 17: Majority 22.

Resolved in the affirmative.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN moved to add to the New Clause an additional sub-section— The Land Commission in publishing such orders shall also publish a scale of prices of agricultural produce in the area to which such order refers, showing the principle on which, having regard to such prices, they have made such order.

Bill 218, cl. 23, p. 16, line 16, moved, to insert a new sub-section.—(The Earl of Dunraven.)

LORD ASHBOURNE

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, for it made no improvement on the clause, and would simply raise elements of rivalry, jealousy, heart burnings, and disagree abilities.

THE EARL OF KILMOREY

said, he thought that where there was no appeal the publication asked for was not unreasonable.

Amendment negatived.

LORD CASTLETOWN moved to confine the abatement to any gale of rent "which shall be paid at the time when the same is ordinarily payable or within 30 days afterwards, but not further or otherwise."

In Clause E (inserted by the Commons), at the end of paragraph 2 of the Clause, after ("Land Commission") moved to insert ("in respect of any gale of such rent which shall be paid at the time when the same is ordinarily payable, or within thirty days afterwards, but not further or otherwise").—(The Lord Castletown.)

LORD ASHBOURNE

said, he could not accept the Amendment. The words "ordinarily payable" would lead to much confusion and contention, for the time of payment varied very much on different estates.

On Question? Their Lordships divided: —Contents 20; Not-Coutents 40: Majority 20.

Resolved in the negative.

EARL CADOGAN moved to add, after ("Land Commission") at the end of the second paragraph of the Clause the words— This section shall not apply to any rent 6xed or revised upon appeal or rehearing by the Land Commission subsequent to the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six.

Amendment moved,

Bill No. 218, page 16, line 2, in New Clause E after ("Land Commission") at the end of paragraph 2 of the Clause to add (" this section shall not apply to any rent fixed or revised upon appeal or rehearing by the Land Commission subsequent to the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six").— (The Lord Privy Seal.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

asked if, on an appeal, the Land Commission would not be ruled by the prices existing at the time the judicial rent was fixed, or at the time the appeal was heard?

LORD ASHBOURNE

said, that the Land Commission considered the prices at the time the appeal was heard.

Amendment agreed to.

LORD FITZGERALD

, in moving to add these words at the end of the Clause— The powers and duties conferred and imposed by this section shall be exercised by the three Commissioners, formerly the Land Commission, and shall not be delegated to or exercised by any Sub-Commission or Sub-Commissioner, or any other body or person, said, he wished to make it clear that the power could only be exorcised by the Land Commission.

Moved to add,

At the end of Clause E, Bill 218, page 16, line 25—("The powers and duties conferred and imposed by this section shall be exercised by the three Commissioners formerly the Land Commission, and shall not be delegated to or exercised by any Sub-Commission or Sub-Commissioner, or any other body or person"). —(The Lord Fitzgerald.)

LORD ASHBOURNE

said, he had no objection to make to the object which his noble and learned Friend had in view; but, in his opinion, it was altogether unnecessary, for it was already quite clear, by Section 43 of the Act of 1881, that the powers conferred by the section must be exercised by the Land Commissioners themselves, and could not be delegated to any other body. There was no possibility of any mistake in the matter.

LORD MACNAGHTEN

said, he was very glad to hear that strong expression of opinion, for he thought there was a great doubt in the matter. If the Amendment were inserted it would avert a great deal of alarm. What possible harm could arise from putting these words in the Bill? They would constitute a Parliamentary declaration on the point.

EARL CADOGAN

said, he had no objection to inserting the words. No better reason could be given for the adoption of the Amendment than the doubts of the two noble and learned Lords.

Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF KILMOREY

, in moving to disagree with the Commons in the omission of Clause 19, which contained special provisions as to the constitution of the Land Commission for the purposes of hearing appeals and rehearing cases, said, he contended that no good reason had been given in the House of Commons for the omission of this clause, and he begged to ask his noble Friends on the Front Bench whether they could give the House some good reason?

Moved, "To disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons, leaving out Clause 19."—(The Earl of Kilmorey.)

EARL CADOGAN

said, he was afraid that his noble Friend would not consider the reason he had to give a very good one. It was, however, that it would be absolutely impossible to pass this clause in the House of Commons, and therefore he could not recommend their Lordships to press it. At that period of the Session it would be impossible to re- open the question of the constitution of the Court of Appeal.

LORD EMLY

said, that by the omission of the clause a gross act of injustice would be done to the Irish landlords, and he thought that as the Government were inflicting heavy penalties upon them they ought not to refuse the restoration of this clause. It was but a common act of justice, and no valid reason had been given why the clause should not here-inserted. He protested against the argument of the Lord Privy Seal, in view of the fact that they were dealing with properties of enormous value in Ireland.

On Question? Their Lordships divided: —Contents 24; Not-Contents 31: Majority 7.

Resolved in the negative.

LORD CASTLETOWN

then moved to disagree with the Commons in the omission of Clause 20, which dealt with procedure on appeal.

Moved, "To disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons, leaving out Clause 20."—(The Lord Castletown.)

THE EARL OF KILMOREY

said, he did not know if the temper of the House of Commons would be the same tomorrow as it was when the clause was struck out.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that personally he had no objection to the Motion, but he could not answer for what the other House would do in the matter.

Motion agreed to; Clause, as amended, restored to the Bill.

VISCOUNT DE VESCI moved that the Commons' Amendment striking out Clause 21 (Remission of Rates) be disagreed from.

Moved, "To disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons, leaving out Clause 21."—(The Viscount De Vesci.)

LORD ASHBOURNE

said, no doubt the circumstances commanded their sympathies; but he must point out that if the rates were remitted in respect of unlet farms, other farms belonging to the landlord would require to be more heavily rated in order to make up the amount of the local rates, so that no practical relief would be afforded. The subject dealt with by the clause was of a very controversial character, and its reinsertion would probably lead to prolonged debate and a great expenditure of time with small practical results.

EARL FORTESCUE

said, he thought that the Amendment of the Commons laid open a great temptation to giving extravagant relief to evicted tenants, as the whole rate levied on unoccupied land ex hypolhesi come from the landlord, in addition to all rates on holdings under £4. Land League Guardians would be encouraged vindictively to squander rates, hardly any of which in some Unions would be paid by tenants. Everything should not be conceded to the demoralizing and unpatriotic body which was so largely dominant in Ireland.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, he thought that the question was not merely one of abstract justice. If that were the question, he certainly did not think that a man who could not get rent for his land ought to be rated as if he could get it. But, as a clause as to rating was really a money clause, he thought, on the whole, that it would be better to acquiesce, as to reject the Amendment would necessarily lead to difficulties "elsewhere."

Motion negatived.

Clause 24 (Power of Court to stay eviction).

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN moved to omit the words, "any person" and insert "landlord." He thought that as this was a Land Bill it ought to be restricted to debts arising out of dealings connected with the land. By the Motion ordinary trade debts were excluded.

Bill 218, page 16, line 28, moved to leave out ("any person") and insert ("landlord").—(The Earl of Dunraven.)

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

opposed the Amendment; and said that the rent due to the landlord was quite as justly due as any other debt.

Amendment negatived.

LORD FITZGERALD moved an Amendment empowering the County Court to deal with arrears when landlord and tenant failed to come to an agreement.

Bill 218, page 16, line 38, after the words in Commons Amendment ("agreed on between the parties") moved to insert ("or in default of such agreement as shall be settled by the Court").—(The Lord Fitzgerald.)

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would give to the County Court powers which ought only to be exercised in the case of bankrupty.

EARL SPENCER

said, he hoped that the Amendment would be accepted. He held that if the County Court was capable of adjudicating with reference to the question of instalments, it was also capable of deciding what arrears should be paid. It was but fair that arrears which had accrued under a rent which was too high should be subjected to revision. He might point out that this Amendment was proposed and seconded in the other House by two Members of the Unionist Party. The Tellers for it on the Division were two Liberal Unionists, one of them being an eminent lawyer; and Lord Randolph Churchill had declared that failure to deal with the question of arrears might mean the failure of the Bill. He appealed to the Government, before it was too late, to accede to the Amendment. This was a Bill for dealing with excessive rents. There was no question of the other debts being unjust or unfair. Therefore he did not see the logic of the argument that because it was just to deal with the arrears of rents which were too high, it was necessary to deal with other debts as to which there was no complaint at all. The other debts might be loans from the bankers, or they might be butchers' bills—though as far as the small Irish farmers were concerned these would hardly exist—or bakers' bills, and there was no question at all of those prices being too high. With regard to the Bankruptcy Clauses, there had been no prospect of coming to any compromise; and, therefore, the only thing to do now was to press Her Majesty's Government to consider the Amendment moved by his noble and learned Friend. He believed that they would thereby be doing a great act of prudence on their part, and one which would be only an act of justice. If they did not do so, he feared that a large number of tenants in Ireland would not get the benefits which were expected to be given to them. He hoped, for the sake of the peace of Ireland, and for the success of their measure, that the Government would reconsider the matter, and accept the Amendment which had been moved by his noble and learned Friend.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper somewhat similar. He therefore trusted that the Government would consider whether they could not accept the whole of the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, and thus enable the Court to arrange some reasonable composition with regard to arrears in the event of the landlord and tenant not agreeing. If the Government did not accept it, he hoped the noble and learned Lord would press his Amendment to a Division. He felt perfectly convinced that the clause in its present form would operate very harshly to the tenants and injuriously to the landlords also.

LORD MACNAGHTEN

said, that in all the circumstances of the case, if his noble and learned Friend (Lord Fitzgerald) wont to a Division he would vote with him. He believed that without the Amendment injustice would be done to many tenants.

LORD ASHBOURNE

said, this was a question which was surrounded by considerable difficulty, and one which had already been very fully discussed. It was an Amendment which was not framed to do fair justice all round, and therefore it would not be accepted having reasonable regard to the interests affected. It was an attempt to provide not bankruptcy or composition, but merely to give the Court the power of freeing the tenant from his obligations to his landlord without dealing with the claims of other creditors.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Ashbourne) had objected to the Amendment, because it put the landlord on a different footing from other creditors. But that principle had been adopted in the crofters' case. He did not believe that any just landlord would be affected by the Amendment, as such a one would not allow the tenant to be crushed under his arrears when the rent had been partly remitted.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that there was one broad and very good reason why Her Majesty's Government should not dig up the past in the matter of these arrears, and that was the one that was afforded by the action of the noble Lords who now blamed the Government for following the example which they themselves had set in the previous Irish Land Bill. It was quite a mistake to suppose that they had yielded in the House of Commons what they had refused to yield to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell) and the noble Earl (Earl Granville) in the House of Lords—namely, to single out the landlord for special treatment to his disadvantage. It was absolute injustice that when a tenant owed a landlord, say, £200 arrears, a debt upon which the landlord counted, and which he had no reason to believe would be interfered with, to provide for the reduction of such rents, and thereby prevent the landlord from fulfilling his own obligations. They were proceeding upon the same principle with regard to arrears which the noble Lords opposite had acted on in 1881. When noble Lords opposite carried their Land Bill they never attempted to touch arrears of rent. In that case, they gave largely out of the surplus Church funds then at their disposal.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he would ask whether, having a practical object in view, and great sacrifices having been made, they were going to spoil and to destroy the Bill, and probably frustrate the whole of the good it would do, on account of this supposed injustice with regard to a particular set of arrears? The problem was there, and they had to face it as practical men, and if some such provision were not inserted, there was a grave danger that they would fail to carry out the object which they had in view in passing the Bill. He appealed to them not to allow the object of the Bill to be marred by omitting to deal with this question of arrears.

On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 18; Not-Contents 40: Majority 22.

CONTENTS.
St. Albans, D.	FitzGerald, L. [Teller.]
	Houghton, L.
Granville, E.	Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl) [Teller.]
Kimberley, E.
Morley, E.
Spencer, E.	Kinnaird, L.
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)	Macnaghten, L.
	Monkswell, L.
Oxenbridge, V.	Robartes, L.
Powerscourt, V.	Thring, L.
Acton, L.	Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Fortescue, E.
	Kilmorey, E.
Cranbrook, V. (L. President.)	Onslow, E.
	Orkney, E.
Cadogan, E. (L. Privy Seal.)	Selborne, E.
	Waldegrave, E.
Buckinghamand Chandos, D.	Cross, V.
	Ardilaun, L.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)	Ashbourne, L.
	Castletown, L.
Bristol, M.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)
Salisbury, M.
	De L'Isle and Dudley, L
Mount Edgcumbe, E. (L. Steward.)	de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci.)
Lathom, E. (L. Chamberlain.)	Foxford, L; (E. 'Limerick.) [Teller.]
Camperdown, E.
de Montalt, E.	Harris, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)
	Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) [Teller.]	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)	Sudeley, L. (E. Arran.)
Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)	Ventry, L.
	Wemyss, L (E. Wemyss.)
Rowton, L.
Stanley of Alderley, L	Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)
Stanley of Preston, L.

Resolved in the negative.

The rest of the Commons' Amendments agreed to, with Amendments, and with consequential Amendments to the Bill; and a Committee appointed to prepare reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to certain of their Amendments: The Committee to meet forthwith.