HC Deb 28 June 1855 vol 139 cc278-92

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

Clause 5 (A notice of intended Improvements to be served on landlord).

SIR JOHN WALSH

said, he would now beg to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. The principle of the right to compensation, in his opinion, ought to be that the tenant should place himself in curiâ recti, and that the Bill ought only to be resorted to by good and solvent tenants. As the clause now stood it afforded an opportunity to insolvent and litigious tenants to harass their landlords. He knew of no better test of the honesty of a tenant and of the justice of his claim for compensation than the fact of his having paid his rent. He had heard a great deal of bad landlords in Ireland, but he must confess he had seen a great deal of bad tenants. Another reason which ought to induce the Committee to adopt his Amendment was, that a tenant who claimed compensation for improvements ought at least to make those improvements out of his own capital, and not out of the capital of his landlord, which he clearly would be doing if he effected those improvements, and, at the same time, run two or three years in arrears with his rent. He regarded the application of the Bill in favour of such a proceeding to be contrary to the plainest principles of equity, and would, if it were sanctioned by the Committee, be striking a blow at the security of all property.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 15, to add at the end of the Clause the words— Provided always, That no such notice shall be valid, nor shall such Tenant be entitled to any compensation under this Act for Improvements made in pursuance thereof, in any case wherein such Tenant shall owe an arrear of rent exceeding one year for his holding at the time of serving the said notice.

MR. HORSMAN

said, that, if the hon. Baronet had looked to a subsequent clause in the Bill (Clause 10), he would have seen that it rendered his own Amendment unnecessary. It was not, however, just to assume that because a tenant was in arrear of rent, he was therefore insolvent. The probability was that a great majority of solvent tenants would at the expiration of their term be more or less in arrear, though not, as the hon. Baronet had supposed, to the extent of two or three years. But even in that case the landlord had his remedy by ejectment, and the Bill provided that if the landlord was driven to evict his tenant for non-payment of rent the tenant forfeited by such eviction all right to compensation.

MR. MAGAN

said he did not think the fact of a tenant owing an arrear of rent, should preclude him from compensation for improvements.

MR. FRENCH

said, he should oppose the Amendment, because he did not think that, as a test of the solvency of the tenant, it was worth anything.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, he did not think there would be so much hardship in the proposition of the hon. Baronet as there would be in that of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland.

SIR JOHN WALSH

said, he thought his proviso would be an excellent substitute for that of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, and would be an additional security to the landlord against abuses of the Act. At the same time he thought the question of the "hanging gale" should be considered, and there he was willing to modify his proviso by the addition, after the word "rent," of the words "exceeding one year."

MR. MAGUIRE

said, he should oppose the proviso, for he believed that there was no property in Ireland upon which there were not arrears of rent.

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

The Committee divided:— Ayes 60; Noes; 89: Majority 29.

Clause agreed to, as were also clauses 6, 7, 8 & 9.

Clause 10 (Recovery of compensation in case of eviction).

MR. HORSMAN

said, he proposed to insert the words, "except for non-payment of rent," after the word "otherwise" in page 8 line 43.

MR. DEASY

said, he objected to the insertion of the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, which he thought would be productive of injustice to the tenant, and were not necessary for the security of the landlord. He should feel it his duty to take the sense of the Committee on the Amendment.

MR. HORSMAN

said, that, unless the Amendment were adopted, a tenant would have the power of telling his landlord that he had made certain improvements, and that he called upon him there and then to give him compensation for those improvements. It might not be convenient at that moment for the landlord to comply with the request, and then, if the tenant refused to pay any more rent, the landlord would be compelled to evict the tenant for nonpayment of rent.

MR. MAGAN

said, he would beg to inform the Government that he was getting very unpopular in Ireland for being so enthusiastic a supporter of the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston). He warned them, however, that if this Amendment were persisted in, he should withdraw his countenance from the Bill altogether. The Amendment went to deprive tenants in arrear with their rent of all compensation for improvements. Now the very class of all others that required compensation were the class of tenants in arrears, for that very fact showed they were in needy circumstances.

MR. POLLARD-URQUHART

said, he thought the Amendment would press very hard upon farming classes in Ireland, should any unforeseen circumstances bring about a fall in the value of agricultural produce.

COLONEL GREVILLE

said, he thought if the Bill was to be brought back to its original shape in one point, by parity of reasoning it ought to be similarly remodelled in every other respect.

MR. COGAN

said, he should oppose the Amendment on the ground that if it were adopted it would make the Bill illusory, and of little practical effect. He hoped, therefore, the Government would reconsider the matter.

MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN

said, these Amendments would render the measure totally unworthy the attention of Irish Members, because they would have the effect rather of advancing the landlords' interest than giving the tenant some prospect that he would obtain compensation for his improvements.

MR. LLOYD DAVIS

said, he fully concurred in the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, and would support the Amendment upon the simple ground of justice to all parties. He had frequently heard a desire expressed by the hon. Members from Ireland that the laws of England should be assimilated to that country. The Amendment proposed carried out that principle, for there was not a lease granted in England that did not contain a covenant by which the tenant lost the benefit of his improvements if he failed in paying his rent.

MR. M'MAHON

said, he should certainly vote against the Amendment, as being unjust and oppressive upon the tenant. In Ireland it was not an uncommon practice to allow tenants to run in arrear of rent while they were making improvements upon their farms, and when the landlord found that they had expended all their capital in that way he came down upon them for his rent, in order to reap the advantage of the improvements without paying anything for them.

MR. SERJEANT O'BRIEN

said, that a distinction ought to be drawn between the tenant who wilfully and designedly neglected to pay his rent and the tenant who was prevented from doing so from some unavoidable cause, over which he had no control whatever. Now, the Amendment recognised no such distinction, while as for the evil which it proposed to re- medy, it was already sufficiently guarded against by the existing law. If an Amendment of that nature were allowed to pass as an act of justice, the Committee ought to insert another to prevent the unjust landlord from taking advantage of his honest but necessitous tenant.

MR. I. BUTT

said, it must be admitted by all parties that the question was attended with great difficulties. Everything he had heard said on the subject had, however, confirmed him in the opinion that he ought to vote against the proposed Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. When discussing that question it was useless to speak of the analogy of England. If they were to act upon the anology of England they ought not to have such a Bill as that before them. The principle, however, upon which they should proceed was that of compensation for improvements, which was admitted to be its object. They should not, therefore, be endeavouring to cut down as much as possible its advantages to the tenant, but rather to extend them as far as they were consistent with the just rights of the landlord. For the one case in which the Amendment would shield the landlord from the unjust claims of a dishonest tenant, he believed there would be twenty cases in which it would inflict the most crying grievance upon the honest tenant. He recollected hearing a distinguished Judge say that Solomon was a wise man and Samson was a strong man; but neither Solomon nor Samson could pay their rent if they had not the money. Now there was much wisdom in the observation—for an honest tenant with all his wisdom and strength, by unforeseen circumstances might be unable to pay his rent. Was it just then, under the circumstances, to say to him that he should not receive any compensation for his improvements on the land, although the value of such improvements might be considerably more than the rent that he owed? Was it at all likely that a tenant who had built houses, made roads, or erected fences, would expose himself to ruin by wilfully subjecting himself to eviction for non-payment of rent?

MR. FORTESCUE

said, the Amendment was not consistent with the main principle of the Bill, viz., compensation to the tenant. Supposing a tenant fell into arrear with his rent, he was surely entitled to have credit for his improvements.

MR. G. BUTT

said the Bill was not intended merely for the tenant; it dealt also with the rights and duties of the landlord. Was it not only fair then that when a tenant neglected to keep his contract he should be excluded from reaping the benefit of this measure? For his part, he thought the Amendment was founded upon equity and justice, and if it were rejected the Bill might be well denounced as a species of one-sided legislation.

MR. BOWYER

said, that the 13th clause of the Bill appeared to him to be an answer to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, for it provided that a landlord would be entitled to set off the arrears of rent against any claim of the tenant for compensation. The facts of Ireland were altogether different from those of England. Although an Irish representative he was an English landlord, and as such he could have no objection to the extension of the principle of the Bill to England, for it would, he believed, be practically inoperative in that country; because, as he said before, the facts were totally different in England and Ireland. He had had occasion two years ago to evict a tenant, but as it was proved to him that that tenant's father had erected certain buildings upon the land, he felt himself bound, as an honest man, to pay the tenant 300l., being the value of such buildings.

MR. NAPIER

said, he thought he was bound to support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. The principle involved in it was not new, for it underwent considerable discussion by the Select Committee in 1853. The tenant's right to compensation should arise whenever he was unjustly dispossessed by the landlord; but, on the other hand, if the tenant did not perform his part of the contract, it would be a strong thing to say that he created a title to compensation by his own default. According to his (Mr. Napier's) conviction of what was right and proper, then, he should support the Amendment.

MR. T. KENNEDY

said, he would ask hon. Members the following question, if A owed B 5l. rent, and had expended 50l. in improvements, was A, owing only 5l. to lose his title to 50l. because B had neglected to place his estate in a condition fit for cultivation? If the clause were passed he would resist the progress of the Bill in every way he could, unless good reasons were shown to the contrary. Instead of being an Act to give compensation to ten- ants, it would be an Act to enable landlords to take advantage of their own wrong. He would desire to hear the law officers of Ireland express their opinions on the subject. He wished they would let the right hon. Gentleman know how this clause was likely to be received in Ireland.

MR. GEORGE

said, if A had property worth 50l. owing his landlord 5l., he had only to pay 5l. and he would have 45l. for his own benefit. He earnestly entreated Her Majesty's Government to abide by this fair and righteous Amendment of the clause. If the tenant were to have the benefit of this clause, it ought to be on the condition that he had performed his contract with his landlord—namely, by the payment of his rent. If the tenant were empowered to set off his claim for compensation against his landlord's claim for rent it would actually amount to confiscation; for when the landlord demanded 100l. for rent, the tenant would immediately say—"I have a claim upon you for 400l. for improvements;" and thus the landlord would be deprived of his right to get possession of his estate. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would persevere with his Amendment.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, he wished to address a few words to the Committee on the Amendment now under consideration, although he confessed he saw but little use for the representatives of the popular constituencies in Ireland to give expression to their opinions, seeing how little was the impression those opinions made on the minds of those occupying the Ministerial benches. He was anxious, however, to ascertain what course of policy the Irish Members meant to pursue towards the Government, seeing that they really were determined to carry through this emasculated Bill, which had been rendered utterly worthless, and had better be thrown into the waste-paper basket. It was his belief that the responsibility of this ruinous Amendment rested not with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, who knew nothing whatever of that country, and who had been pitchforked into his present position for the mere convenience of his party, but that the whole responsibility of this ruinous exception, now insisted upon, rested on the Solicitor General and the Attorney General for Ireland. Those hon. and learned Gentlemen were bound to rise up and say whether they were satisfied with the Bill as it was proposed to be amended, and whether they felt themselves justified in presenting such a measure to their country. Would the House listen while he read a solemn pledge given by the Attorney General for Ireland to his countrymen on the subject? and if, after having read these words, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should rise and say that the provisions of the Bill absolved him from any further relation to that pledge, then he (Mr. Maguire) would say no more upon that question. In a pamphlet published by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, the opinions of several eminent men were given, and among others was a declaration made by the present Attorney General for Ireland. [Mr. Serjeant SHEE.—It was the Solicitor General.] That made it all the stronger. The two hon. and learned Gentlemen might, however, make their choice as to who should be deemed the author of the passage he was now about to quote. It ran thus:— I feel it to be my solemn duty to declare in the presence of this vast and influential assembly, that I shall never be found the supporter of any Government who will not consent to make it a Cabinet question, and give the fullest Ministerial aid and influence to a measure embodying provisions for the real and tangible relief of the outraged and injured land tenantry of this country—a real and permanent relief in its fullest meaning, acceptance, and extent. Whether those words were used by the present Solicitor General or the late Solicitor General for Ireland was of no great importance; for if it were the present Solicitor General who had made the statement, he knew that the Attorney General had made a much stronger statement. Had he (Mr. Maguire) not a right, then, as an Irish Member, to call upon those hon. and learned Gentlemen to get up and redeem their pledge, or, at least, to state why they wished to back out of it in defiance of the whole country? With regard to the proposed Amendment it was admited that the tenant might claim compensation for improvements to the amount of four years' rental. Now, suppose the rent were 100l. and the landlord evicted the tenant for non-payment of that sum, and the tenant had a claim to the amount of four years' rent for improvements, was the tenant to be robbed, by the mere act of eviction, of 300l.? All that he required was, that strict justice should be done, and the House of Commons was bound to consider the question in that light alone, and without reference to the other House of Parliament. He called upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney general for Ireland to tell the Committee the reasons which induced him to advise the Government to support an Amendment which would make the Bill itself a dead letter.

MR. KEOGH

said, he was not disposed to shrink from any responsibility that might attach to him in reference to the Amendment now under the consideration of the Committee. The proposition of his right hon. Friend was to restore the Bill to the position in which it was when on a former occasion it left that House and went up to the other House of Parliament. In its then shape the exception was not confined to evictions for non-payment of rent, but went further, and said except for nonpayment of rent or breach of the conditions of covenant. Now those words were much more extensive than the proposition of his right hon. Friend, and infinitely more prejudicial to the tenant. But did the hon. Gentleman or any other Gentleman divide the House or strike out these words. [An hon. MEMBER: They did.] Certainly not. It was quite true that the hon. Member for Longford proposed that the word "wilful" should be inserted, not before the words "non-payment of rent," but before the word "default." The other Bill was rejected by the other House of Parliament, and did any man believe that the other House of Parliament would agree to leave out all exception whatever when they had already rejected a Bill with a more extended exception? He thought the Government were justified in seeking as they did loyally to carry the Bill this Session through the other House of Parliament, by proposing an exception not going so far as that which was contained in the former Bill, but going sufficiently far to justify a sincere hope on their part that the measure would pass the Legislature.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, he wished to explain that, although he had not divided the Committee on the provision referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he had nevertheless argued against it, and had only yielded from a desire to get a Bill passed which, though imperfect, might still be productive of benefit.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE

said, he was of opinion that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had made a slight mistake in his statement of what had occurred on a former occasion. When the Bill came before them on a former occasion, it contained the words "without the act or default of the tenant," and believing that by the introduction of those words it was not the intention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) to let that part of the Bill have a practical effect—that was to say, that he meant to give compensation to tenants not in arrear of rent, knowing well that there was not one tenant in a hundred in Ireland who was not in arrear with his rent, and that therefore that part of the Bill threw dust in the eyes of the people, and would be of no practical effect whatever—he (Mr. Serjeant Shee) and his hon. Friends near him did their best to get that defect amended by moving the insertion of the word "wilful." He would state the reasons why in the Bill which he introduced he had omitted those words. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) had spoken of the propriety of introducing those words, as being consistent with the civil law, but he found from the civil law that a tenant must owe two years' rent, or if he had effected improvements, three years' rent before he could be evicted. Then it was suggested that if those words were not introduced the tenant would improve with the landlord's capital; but that could not be, because tenants did not improve when in arrear of rent. Another reason assigned was that by the law of Ireland a tenant could always avoid the consequences of an ejectment, or even supersede a judgment, by redeeming. But that did not apply, except to tenants under lease. Thus, all the reasons adduced for introducing the words had failed. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the tenant did not improve with his landlord's capital, but with his own; therefore, this reason did not apply. He contended that the clause would be good neither for the landlord, the tenant, nor the community at large. A tenant would know perfectly well that if he fell into difficulties, the improvements would be of no value to him, because he was to be evicted at the very moment when he might reap the profit of them. Would it be wise or prudent, therefore, for him to attempt any improvement? Would it not be better for him, if he got or saved 600l., to place it in a bank or invest it otherwise, instead of spending it on improvements? No tenant would do so when he was liable to be evicted by his landlord for arrears of rent without compensation. The object of the Bill, which was to promote improvements, would thus be entirely defeated. Tenants, as- suredly would not improve if the Amendment were inserted in the clause. The Bills would be worth nothing at all if they did not aim at something beyond the benefit of the individual landlord and tenant, and tend to promote the welfare of the whole agricultural class—proprietors, tenants, and labourers. The result would be that the same wretched system of cultivation would be continued, and the same miserable hovels for the population to inhabit be maintained, and they would be obliged to resort to potato cultivation, in order to obtain the payment of rent at all. Ireland would then be threatened with a recurrence of the calamities which that system had brought upon her, and they would be obliged again to approach the question under much less favourable circumstances. At present the high prices diffused a feeling of general contentment and satisfaction, but there was no guarantee that this state of things would continue. He thought it greatly to be regretted that, when there existed in all quarters a disposition favourable to the settlement of the question, Government should have arrived at such a decision in reference to the matter before them. His decided conviction was that it would be better not to pass any measure at all than to pass the Bill in a mutilated and mangled shape.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 112; Noes 49: Majority 63.

MR. SERJEANT O'BRIEN

said, he would now move to insert in the same clause, after the words "non-payment of rent," the words "reserved by any subsisting lease."

MR. KEOGH

said, he did not see how the Committee could accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman after the decision at which it had arrived. It would be rather detrimental to the tenant than otherwise, and might lead to further reservations.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, he should support the Amendment, which would prevent the eviction of tenants by their landlords without compensation.

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

The Committee divided:— Ayes 52; Noes 124: Majority 72.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, he would beg to insert after the same words the following, "where the tenant has a power of alienation."

MR. HORSMAN

said, he could not agree to the Amendment, for which he could see no good ground, and the adoption of which might lead to other specific exemptions.

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

The Committee divided:— Ayes 44; Noes 142: Majority 98.

MR. SERJEANT SHEE

said, the clause, as it now stood, declared the tenant entitled to compensation for his improvements if evicted, unless the eviction was for nonpayment of rent. He would therefore now move an Amendment to insert, after "nonpayment of rent," the words "being not less than two years' rent of such holding." His object was to prevent the tenant from losing his compensation for a default of rent of merely a year or a year and a half.

MR. HORSMAN

said, he could not agree to the insertion of these words. The Committee having discussed at considerable length, and decided the principle on which compensation was to be given, he considered it useless to be proposing exceptions of the kind proposed by the Amendment, and fighting the question over again on small points.

MR. M'MAHON

said, he should support the Amendment, which he considered essential to place the Irish tenantry on as good a footing as their English brethren. An Irish tenant could now be evicted, where there was not a written contract or lease, for a single year's arrear of rent; whereas, in England a rule of law much more favourable to the tenant prevailed.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 158: Majority 109.

MR. GEORGE

said, he would beg to move the insertion after the words "except for non-payment of rent," the words, "or other breach of covenant, or on the surrender of the tenant." This Amendment was to carry out the principle already repeatedly affirmed, that the tenant was only to be entitled to compensation on eviction by the landlord or effluxion of the tenancy by time, provided he fulfilled the obligations of the tenancy. Eviction for nonpayment of rent was a penalty for breach of a condition, the tenant having forfeited his lease. There could be no difference between eviction for non-payment of rent and eviction for breach of any other covenant; for instance, a covenant to lay out money, or a covenant against alienation or sub-letting. The landlord was to pay for improvements in the event of his terminating the tenancy by his own voluntary act; but it would be unjust to make him pay when he did not desire to terminate the tenancy, but it was terminated by the act or default of the tenant. Therefore the Amendment included the case of surrender by the tenant.

MR. KEOGH

said, he did not see the necessity for the Amendment. There was a distinction between eviction for non-payment of rent and for any other cause. Upon a mere breach of covenant a landlord might take advantage of it to repossess himself of the land, and the act might be strict and technical.

MR. GEORGE

said, in the 56th clause the words he proposed were introduced.

MR. GROGAN

said, he thought this a decisive answer to the observations of the Attorney General for Ireland. The tenant who surrendered his tenancy surely ought not to have compensation.

MR. KEOGH

said, the clause only applied to cases of eviction.

COLONEL DUNNE

said, he would admit that cases of surrender were included, but cases of breach of covenant were not so. A breach of covenant in over-cropping or not duly cultivating might be most injurious to the landlord. He had heard of fourteen crops being taken out of the land, and had known of five or six crops; and the difficulties of getting out a tenant in Ireland were such, that he might be able to ruin the land before he could be got rid of.

MR. MALINS

said, the Government ought to be consistent. They had conceded that if the tenant were evicted for a pecuniary demand, he should not have compensation; and the principle of the Amendment was, that a breach of covenant might be a pecuniary demand, as by way of penalty or increased rent for wrongful cultivation.

MR. CAIRNS

said, his hon. and learned Friend forgot the distinction, that a tenant could not be evicted for mere breach of covenant without special stipulation to that effect. And this clause only applied to cases of eviction. It would have been better to have retained the words of the original Bill—"breaches of condition." The question of mere breach of covenant was quite different. And as to surrender, it could not be at the option of the tenant, but must be accepted by the landlord.

MR. GEORGE

said, he would agree to those suggestions. He would omit the words "as to surrender," and alter the rest of the Amendment by using the words "breach of condition."

MR. CAIRNS

said, he should then vote for the Amendment.

MR. MALINS

said, he had only intended breaches of covenants, or where there was a condition for re-entry.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD

said, it was provided that in the case of any breach of covenants including non-payment of rent, the landlord was entitled to make such a demand as he might fairly ask as a set-off against the compensation required by the tenant; but when they came to deal with an eviction for breach of condition—a sublet for example—in which the landlord received no damnification, the case was materially altered. The non-payment of rent was essentially a money question, and the tenant could regain possession by paying the rent within six months. There were many breaches of conditions which would occasion no loss to the landlord. It would be hard to make them cases, and it would be extremely difficult to legislate for them. He thought that while on the one hand it would not be right to force a landlord unduly to buy the improvements that were made, so, on the other, it would be hard that, for a breach of condition without damnification to the landlord, the tenant should be forced out of his holding. He must, therefore, oppose the Amendment.

MR. NAPIER

said, he held it to be right in principle that, when a tenant was dispossessed without any default on his part, he was entitled to compensation for his improvements, but that, when he was in fault, he ought not to be made a profiler by his own wrong. On this principle he should support the Amendment.

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

said, he did not see why the same consequences should not follow any breach of condition that were made to follow non-payment of rent.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 117: Majority 6.

MR. I. BUTT

said, that as the clause now stood, an evicted tenant acquired a right of action against the landlord at any time within six years. In order to limit the time, he begged to propose as an Amendment in page 9, line 14, after the words "tenant shall," the words "not later than one month after the determination of his possession."

MR. HORSMAN

said, he would suggest that the period within which evicted tenants might bring actions should be extended to three months.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out "one," and insert "three."

Question put, "That 'one' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 181: Majority 129.

MR. BLAND

said, he would now move to insert at the end of the clause, the words of which he had given notice.

Amendment proposed, to add at the end of the Clause the words— Provided that in case any tenant shall be evicted for non-payment of rent, and shall be sued for any rent in respect of the lands from which he has been so evicted, he shall be at liberty to set off against such claim for rent the amount of the compensation to which he would have been entitled under this Act had his tenancy determined by effluxion of time.

MR. HORSMAN

said, he thought that the Amendment of his hon. Friend was a fair one, and was not inconsistent with the principle of the Bill.

MR. G. BUTT

said, that on the contrary, he looked upon the proviso as in direct violation of the principle of the Bill.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he was of opinion that the proviso was in perfect accordance, not only with the principle of the Bill, but with principles of justice. When a tenant was evicted for non-payment of rent, he did think the tenant was entitled to set off the compensation due to him against the rent, just as in the other case, the landlord was entitled to set off the arrears of rent against the compensation.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 90: Majority 37.

Clause as amended agreed to.

House resumed; Committee report progress.

MR. GROGAN

asked, when the consideration of the Bill would be resumed?

MR. HORSMAN

said, this day, after the other business.

LORD PALMERSTON

said, it would not be taken after half-past ten o'clock.

The House adjourned at half after One o'clock.