COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 28 April 1870)

MR. HEADLAM
said, his Amendment had been the subject of so much misrepresentation that probably the Committee would allow him to express clearly its precise meaning, and what the misrepresentation was of which he complained. In all the various criticisms on the Amendment, which might be found in the public papers, he had observed that the words of the Amendment were carefully kept out of sight, and representations were made of its purport in effect inconsistent with the words of the Amendment itself, but convenient enough for the observations made upon it. The Committee had already passed one paragraph of the clause embodying a scale of compensation to be paid to tenants upon eviction. Now, that scale was contingent upon two circumstances. In the first place, it related only to contracts made after the passing of the Act; and, secondly, it only applied to the case of tenants who were disturbed in their holdings by the act of their landlord. The question, therefore, arose what was the meaning of the disturbance of the tenant by the landlord. The construction he put upon the words was the common, ordinary, legal interpretation—namely, that they referred to an act done by the landlord, and that the words "disturbing a tenant" did not apply to a landlord resuming possession of his land at the termination of a lease. That was the ordinary and natural meaning of the words; and if the Committee applied the words of the paragraph they had passed to the case of leases, they would be straining the words, and putting a forced and unnatural construction upon them. Now, the effect of his Amendment was this—namely, that if the Committee adopted it, they would make it perfectly clear that the paragraph did not apply to leases, and they would limit its effect simply and solely to the cases clearly provided for by the words 1970 of the paragraph—that was, cases of continuing tenancies, which went on not only from year to year, but from generation to generation, and were only terminated by an act of the landlord disturbing the tenant. His Amendment would confine the paragraph they had passed to those tenancies, and would prevent the application of it to leases which did not come within the language, and which, in fact and in substance, rested upon different considerations. But, having thus limited the paragraph to its strict and natural meaning, the Amendment would leave it perfectly open to the Government and the Committee afterwards to legislate in what manner they pleased in respect to leases. All that the Amendment would do would be to render it necessary, when they legislated in respect to leases, that they should not strain the words so as to bring leases into a paragraph to which leases did not naturally belong. The Government said, in effect, that with regard to all leases for a period under 31 years, that the scale of compensation already adopted for disturbing a tenant should be made applicable to such leases. Well, it would be perfectly competent for the Government, if it thought fit, to adhere to that proposal, to continue it, and to abide by it; and there was nothing in his Amendment which would prevent them making such a proposal. The same was true in respect to the various proposals of which notice had been given by private Members for reducing the period from 31 years to 21 years, 14 years, or some point below that fixed by the Government, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. S. Read), for example, who thought the limit should be 14 years, and that upon the termination of leases for a term of not more than 14 years, the tenants should be entitled to compensation on an entry by the landlord; he would be at liberty to make a proposal to that effect if the Committee were to adopt the Amendment now under consideration. He himself (Mr. Headlam) had suggested that, in the case of leases for terms of seven years and under, where the rent was not more than £50, the landlord should, if he entered at the end of the term, pay compensation. It might be asked why he had not suggested that addition when he made his first proposal. His answer to that was clear and distinct; he had not thought it his 1971 duty or business to do so. He did not wish to place himself prominently before the House by suggesting various Amendments. He had simply proposed the Amendment now under consideration in the first paragraph, limiting the effect of that paragraph, and then leaving it for the Government, or the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), or others, to suggest, if they thought fit, in what precise form they should legislate in regard to leases. He had made his meaning quite clear from the first; and when the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government said that his proposed Amendment was contrary to the principle of the Bill, he had expressly declared that he did not say that leases were not to be considered and dealt with by the Bill, but what he did say was that, if they were to be considered and dealt with, it should be done by precise terms applicable to the cases. The report of what he had said would be found in the ordinary records, showing distinctly that, from the very first, he had made the same statement which he did at the present time. He maintained deliberately that there could not be a greater misrepresentation than to say his proposal was contrary to the principle of the Bill. He did not impute to the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown any intention of misrepresenting the case—[Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!]—but he certainly regretted that, upon the first mention of the matter, the right hon. Gentleman should have gone out of his way to state that the Amendment was contrary to the principle of the Bill before he had an opportunity of considering the nature of the proposal. He could not, however, let off so easily his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General), because he must have understood the subject. The Attorney General had not answered one single argument which he (Mr. Headlam) had addressed to the Committee. He confined himself simply to a strong assertion that the Amendment was contrary to the principle of the Bill, and would, if passed, make the Bill perfectly useless. Now, it could not be truly said that the Amendment would affect the principle of the Bill. As the Bill stood at this moment, all tenants under lease were intended to be brought within the first paragraph of the clause, and then the Bill proceeded to take the tenants of 1972 certain leases out of the first paragraph by special exceptions. If his proposal were adopted, tenants under lease would not be brought within the first paragraph at all, but they would be legislated for substantially afterwards, by words adapted to their particular case. He repeated that there never was a greater misrepresentation than to say that his proposal was contrary to the principle of the Bill. The Attorney General then contended that there was not the slightest difference between a continuous tenancy determined by the act of the landlord and a lease which came to an end by effluxion of time, and that the words "disturbing a tenant" were equally applicable to the one case as to the other. There could be no more monstrous proposition. He asked the Committee to affirm— That nothing in this Act contained shall exonerate a tenant under lease from the duty of giving up peaceable possession of the demised land at the end of the term. Did the Government really intend to exonerate a tenant from this primary and elementary duty? If they did intend to exonerate him from a duty which the law now cast upon him, the Government would, perhaps, answer this further question—whether they had considered to what extent such a change in the law would shake the whole relations of landlord and tenant? He would also ask them whether the assertion of such a proposition was likely to make the landlord inclined to grant leases? If, however, the Government did not intend to assert the proposition that the Act should exonerate a tenant under lease from the duty of giving up peaceable possession of the demised land at the end of the term, then he asked what harm was there in putting upon record the words he had suggested? There were infinite advantages in these words, because they made it clear to the tenant that, although he might have a money claim upon his landlord at the end of his lease, he was not to be exonerated from the duty of giving up the land. In the present state of Ireland it was very desirable to put that fact clearly upon record. If the law on a subject of this kind were left doubtful, hopes of all kinds would be encouraged, and Parliament would give rise to interminable litigation and to incorrect ideas concerning the duties of landlord and tenant.
1973 From all points of view, therefore, it was desirable to clear up uncertainty, so that there should be no misunderstanding upon this subject. If the Government really intended to exonerate the tenant from this duty, let them say so distinctly. If, on the other hand, they agreed with him that the tenant, although he might have a money claim on his landlord at the end of his lease, should not be exonerated from giving up peaceable possession, there was no reason why the Government should not consent to the words he had proposed. Take the other part of his Amendment— Nor shall a landlord resuming possession at the termination of a lease be deemed to be disturbing a tenant within the meaning of this Act. Did the Government really mean that a landlord so acting should be considered as disturbing a tenant? If that was their intention, they were straining language and violating principles of Jaw quite unnecessarily, and with no object that could be conceived. It was not necessary, in order to give the tenant of certain leases some pecuniary compensation should his landlord enter upon the land at the end of a term, that the landlord so entering upon the land should be called a disturber. The instant they had got the landlord within the first paragraph by calling him a disturber they proceeded to take a very large proportion of leases out of the paragraph by way of exception. He did not see what good could be done by such a form of legislation. The Committee should state, in clear and precise language, under what leases landlords were to be liable to pay compensation to their tenants, and what was the amount of compensation they should pay—matters which, he contended, ought to be the subject of substantive legislation. The fact was that this Bill was intended to apply to circumstances of a very different nature, requiring in each case suitable language in calling for different considerations. There were four cases requiring to be separately considered—first, there was the case of continuous tenancies from year to year created before the passing of the Act; second, the case of continuous tenancies from year to year beginning after the passing of the Act; third, the case of leases made before the passing of the Act; and lastly, the case of leases to be 1974 made after the passing of the Act. Those cases should all be treated separately, and suitable words should be applied to each. The section, however, dealt with them all in such a manner that it was impossible to say what was the law with regard to any of them, for the clause left the whole matter in such a state of uncertainty that no Member, after having read it, could decide as to any particular case. His right hon. Friend the chief Secretary for Ireland, who was conversant with the subject, might be able to state what was intended to be the law; but he appealed to both sides of the House as to whether any other hon. Member could do so. How was this intended to affect cases in which tenants had been in possession of land for 40 or 50 years before its passing? The Committee had been clearly told by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that the paragraph which had been passed applied only to prospective contracts; and yet, if tenants of this description were to be brought within the meaning of the first paragraph, the Bill would be retrospective in the highest degree. He must complain—and not without reason—of the manner in which he had been met with regard to this Amendment. He could positively state that when he placed his Notice upon the Paper he had not the slightest intention of obstructing the progress or altering the principle of the Bill. He thought, in fact, that he was doing a service in making clear words as to which there ought to be no doubt. He believed he was assisting the Government by suggesting that they should in their Bill insert a proviso to the effect that nothing contained in the Act should exonerate the tenant from the duty of giving up possession of the land when the term of his tenancy expired; but it had been suddenly discovered that that was contrary to the principle of the Bill. Before giving notice of this Amendment he had heard this language used by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government when introducing the Bill— We have toiled hard in the construction of this measure, but we are far from believing it to be perfect; and we invite, in unreserved good faith, the co-operation of all parties and of all Members of this House."—[3 Hansard, cxcix. 382.] He believed those words when he heard them, and when he looked at the Bill, finding that it was far from being per- 1975 feet, he accepted that invitation, and gave notice of an Amendment in good faith, without the slightest idea of interfering with the principle of the Bill, but rather with the view of facilitating the progress of the measure. His Amendment came on for discussion at a late hour of the Sitting; and, as he did not wish to embarrass the Government, he asked whether they would prefer to go on with unopposed clauses, offering to postpone his Motion until after Easter. That offer was declined, so that he had no alternative but to proceed. He would put it to the Committee whether, in bringing forward his Amendment on that occasion, he unduly trespassed on their time. He believed he was almost too short, and there was not the least ground for imputing to him that he had spoken against time. After the question had been debated for a short time, he rose to reply, for the express purpose of bringing the debate to an end, and having the matter settled before Easter. So far as he was personally concerned, it was not pleasant to have it hanging over through the whole of the Vacation. It was true that a noble Lord opposite (Lord Claud Hamilton) addressed the House with a power of eloquence that he listened to with admiration; but his effort was unnecessary, as several Members were desirous of joining in the discussion, which would have been continued even had the noble Lord resumed his seat at an earlier period. However, he felt now that it was better that the debate had been prolonged, so that the proposition might be fully considered. Having thus reminded the Committee of what really occurred, he would bring under their notice a statement of what took place, as made by an independent Member of the House, who said he was an eye-witness, and saw and heard everything which he described— The policy of the Conservatives was to talk the Bill to death—in fact, to talk everything to death, including the Prime Minister. Most ably have they been seconded by the deserters from the Liberal ranks. Foremost among them is Mr. Headlam—a fact of which the electors of Newcastle-on-Tyne would do well to take note. There are some facts, too, connected with this case which are not patent in the newspaper reports which it is as well should be made public. This is what happened on the last day of the Land Bill debate—First of all it may be premised that Mr. Headlam was once in office under a Liberal Government, but is not in office now. He placed an Amendment on the Paper to the effect that the 1976 granting of a lease should be a bar to the operation of the Bill. If he succeeds in passing it the Bill will be at an end. He knows that perfectly well; he is not fool enough to be ignorant that the Bill will not be worth printing if it be thus emasculated. Not only did he propose that Amendment, but he prevented a Division being taken upon it. He therefore played the game of the Opposition, and he did it intentionally. It sounds hard to say so, but I sat and listened to his intolerably wearisome speech. All this while the hands of the clock were slowly moving round to the inevitable hour when the Chairman must leave the Chair. It was enough to make self-command a very difficult task—all the more difficult because a Liberal Member for one of our most Liberal constituencies did the deed. Mr. Cowen, than whom a more faithful ally of Mr. Gladstone does not exist, is Mr. Headlam's Colleague; surely the electors of Newcastle-on-Tyne are not going to let all Mr. Cowen does be more than neutralized by Mr. Headlam's treason? [Cries of "Name!"] The Gentleman by whom that account was written to The Birmingham Daily Post signed himself "An Independent M. P.," and was no doubt now present, as well as having been an eye-witness of the scene which he described. In lieu of his criticism on himself he would give the hon. Gentleman one piece of advice, and that was that he should not exercise his self-command on the present occasion, but should rise in his place and make the statement which he had communicated to a newspaper. It was better that he should do that than write to The Birmingham Daily Post a tissue of—he knew not what to call them—of statements the accuracy of everyone of which he utterly and entirely denied. Nor could he altogether acquit his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government of something like misrepresentation. He found that on the day when the House adjourned for the Easter Recess, his right hon. Friend used the following words:— After, I must say, one of the most thoroughly unprofitable discussions of five hours' duration to which it has ever been my fate to listen in this House, on Friday last we reported Progress on the Irish Land Bill. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] If his right hon. Friend denied the accuracy of the report which attributed to him those words, he should not, of course, press the matter any further. He would only say that when he sat down, after proposing his Amendment on the occasion in question, he entertained the strongest conviction that nearly every hon. Member present—at any rate every Member who had taken any part in the discussion 1977 of the Bill—was in favour of his proposal. He might be wrong; but that was his impression. He arrived at this conclusion from the amount of assent that he received. Taking into account, he might add, that the discussion lasted only an hour and three-quarters, he did not think that there was any necessity for making complaints of the unnecessary consumption of the time of that House. He could not understand, too, why his name should have been selected for animadversion out of some 300 Members who had given notice of Amendments on various clauses of the Bill. With respect to his particular Amendment, he could with truth assert that neither in that House, nor in the newspaper criticisms out of it, had he heard or seen anything in the nature of legitimate argument against it; but, in lieu of legitimate argument, he had heard violent assertions that it was against the principle of the Bill, and he had seen attempts made to impute to him in coarse and vulgar language mean motives, because he happened to sit on the Bench on which he did, instead of that immediately below him. Having said thus much in reference to the past, he should, while he was very unwilling to delay the Committee, add a few words with respect to the future. If it were the wish of the Committee, as it was certainly his, that all the separate cases dealt with in the clause before them should be provided for separately, and that the first paragraph should be limited to the cases to which it was made applicable by the words contained in it, he could not see why Her Majesty's Government should not assent to that view, and adopt his language. There was nothing in the adoption of that course which would prejudice them with regard to the after-parts of the Bill. So far as he was concerned, his desire was to go as far as possible to meet the objects of the Government. He had made a suggestion as to the length of the leases which should make the landlord liable to pay compensation, should he avail himself of his legal right, and enter at the end of the term; but, if the Government came forward with any proposal on the subject, which he thought fair and reasonable, he would be ready to withdraw his own in its favour. There was, he might add, the question of retrospective tenancies, which ought also to be dealt with by 1978 separate words, as well as the question of leases given after the passing of the Act. It was, in his opinion, of great consequence that these cases so entirely distinct as that of the landlord disturbing the tenant by an act of his own and a landlord entering into possession of his land on the natural expiration of a lease should not be mixed up together. He had endeavoured to do his part in putting the matter clearly before the Committee. He would simply observe, in conclusion, that his sincere desire was to assist the Government in passing the Bill. He had nothing to regret in the Amendments he had proposed, nor, so far as he recollected, in the manner in which he had introduced them; but if he had used any expression of which any hon. Member had reason to complain, it was unintentional on his part, and he should be ready to express his regret.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he, for one, had never for a moment thought of imputing anything like mala fides or factious conduct to his right hon. Friend; nor had he ever in the slightest degree questioned the purity of his motives, or accused him of having unduly occupied the time of the Committee. He fully admitted that the speech of his right hon. Friend on the occasion which had been referred to went very much to the point, and he was perfectly ready to acquit his right hon. Friend of the accusation, which he thought might fairly be adduced against the noble Lord opposite (Lord Claud Hamilton), who had taken a prominent part in a former debate, and who seemed to attack the common crimes of all rather than any one of them in particular. He should not, under those circumstances, have deemed it necessary to trespass on the attention of the Committee had not his right hon. Friend charged him with something like intentional misrepresentation, a charge which obliged him to say that he adhered to every syllable which he had uttered on the occasion in question, and that if his right hon. Friend had been misunderstood or misrepresented by him, the misunderstanding was one which was shared by a vast number of persons both within and out of the House, including a large portion of the Press. That misunderstanding, he might further observe, seemed to him to be referable to the fact that, not being gifted with a 1979 prophetic instinct, he was unaware that the right hon. Gentleman meant to pro-propose an Amendment of which he had given notice only the night before, and which would give an entirely different aspect to the whole question. [Mr. HEADLAM: No, no!] His right hon. Friend might cry "No, no!" as long as he liked. At all events, no notice whatever had been given of this proviso at the time he addressed the Committee, and therefore all that could be said against him was that he did not possess the gift of prophecy. The proviso put an entirely different interpretation on the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, which he had taken in its natural sense, not anticipating that it would be neutralized by some other Amendment. He desired to remind the House for a moment how the case stood. The scheme of the clause was, that with respect to all future tenancies from year to year, and all leases for terms less than 31 years, the landlord should, on resuming possession, pay a certain sum which might be called damages for the eviction or disturbance of the tenant. As an Amendment to that his right hon. Friend proposed that nothing should exonerate a tenant holding under a lease from the duty of giving up peaceable possession. His right hon. Friend at great length endeavoured to prove that it was the duty of the tenant under a lease to give up possession at the end of the term, but that it was not his duty in the same sense if he held the land from year to year, and received a notice to quit. He maintained, however, that no such distinction could be drawn. Compare the two cases. In the one the landlord said to the tenant—"I let you this land for 12 months from this day," or for some longer period, at the expiration of which he was bound to go out. In the other case the landlord said—"I let you the land for 12 months, and for so much longer time as may elapse, before I give you a six months' notice to quit." Now, surely the tenant would be just as much bound to go out at the end of the time mentioned in the notice as he would be in the former case. Therefore he maintained now what he maintained on the previous occasion, that the distinction which his right hon. Friend sought to draw between giving up possession in one case and in the other was illusory, without foundation in law, and alto- 1980 gether idle. The assertion which he now made, and which he believed no lawyer would controvert, was designated by his right hon. Friend as the most monstrous proposition he had ever heard. His remarks on the former occasion were directed to the original Amendment of his hon. Friend. As the Bill stood the compensation for eviction was to apply to leases under 30 years, and also to tenancies from year to year; but his right hon. Friend proposed an Amendment which would have enabled a landlord, by converting his tenancies from year to year into tenancies for a year certain, to evade the provisions of the Bill. He reasserted his belief that that Amendment, if carried would be fatal to the principle of the 3rd clause. His right hon. Friend had, however, entirely shifted his ground since then, and now admitted not only that a tenant from year to year, but that also a tenant for a certain term—such as seven years, for instance—ought to receive damages on eviction. This question was raised by the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball), who proposed a 21 years' lease, and the proposal was one which the Committee might fairly discuss. The present discussion was premature as the whole subject might be much more fully debated on the Motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin. In point of fact, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Headlam) had raised a premature—he would not say an irrelevant—discussion, and had entirely abandoned the position he assumed the other night. Not wishing to interfere with his right hon. Friend, who desired to retreat with honour, he would conclude by saying that the Government was quite disposed to accept his last proposition. The subject now reduced itself to a mere question of drafting. He trusted, therefore, that the discussion would now terminate, and that when the Committee came to the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, the question of a 21 years' lease, or of a 31 years' lease would be debated, for that was the real question at issue.

§ SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATE
said, he thought that the Committee had now arrived at an important crisis in the history of the Bill. During the Recess hon. Members had been blamed for hav- 1981 ing taken up so much time in discussing the principles of the Bill; but on the part of the Irish Members he wished to remark that they had only taken a very moderate period of time in discussing principles which were as new and as surprising to them as they were to Scotch and English Members. He confessed he thought at first that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle was unanswerable; but on reconsidering the matter he was obliged to admit the force of the objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. If that Amendment were carried the Bill would fail to attain one of its principal objects. He was not saying whether he approved that object or not; but the Committee ought, at all events, to be much obliged to the right hon. Member for Newcastle for bringing the Amendment forward, and thus laying the question generally before the House of Commons and the country. It was not surprising that English and Scotch Members should take time to consider carefully the principles of this measure, because they feared they might be eventually extended to their own countries. ["No, no!"] That might, indeed, be denied; but he would remind the House that the same argument was used on the introduction of the Irish Church Bill last year. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government then said the circumstances of Ireland were altogether different from those of England. He ventured, however, to point out at that time that no long period would elapse before a similar measure would be passed for England, and he believed no one would venture to assert that the Church question in England, Wales, and Scotland, stood now on the same footing it did then. He would only point out to the Committee that they should take time to consider this question. Speaking as an Irish Member, he must confess he was struck by the great and overpowering necessity that there should be as little delay as possible in passing this Bill. Instead of endeavouring to alter the principles of the Bill, hon. Members ought to try to make the Bill work in the best manner possible. The abolition of free contract between landlord and tenant appeared to be one great object aimed at by the Bill, and that object could not be attained if the Amendment of the right 1982 hon. Member for Newcastle were agreed to. The Government had taken great credit for making great concessions to those who were interested in the ownership of landed property. Those concessions were three in number. First, the compensation to be granted to the tenant was limited to £250; secondly, the period for which the abolition of free contract was to last was limited to 20 years; and, thirdly, in the case of farms over £50 valuation, there was to be entire freedom of contract. These were not, in his opinion, concessions at all. The first amounted to nothing, because of the vast preponderance of small holdings in Ireland, and, as to the second, he must be a sanguine man, indeed, who could imagine that at the end of 20 years it would be possible to revert to the present state of things. The restrictions proposed by the Government of a 31 years' lease, by the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Dr. Ball) of a 21 years' lease, and by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) of a 14 years' lease, would, he thought, be useless. The bargain between landlord and tenant varied in almost every case, and it was impossible to lay down any rule to meet the innumerable cases in which the two parties might be able of themselves to judge what was conducive to the respective interests. The intention of the Government was to set up in the future a third party, who was to be the guardian of the tenant. If Irish landlords and tenants could not be trusted to contract together, and really did not know what was for their own benefit, and if the House of Commons was about to lay down principles for the management of the property, it appeared to him indispensable that there should be some persons to whom they could apply, and whose sanction might be asked to any proceeding advantageous to both parties. It might be argued that the Government, in this Bill, had been anxious to avoid anything like a valuation of rents; but there were a hundred different points connected with property in land and its management that it was impossible to settle without having regard to the rent which was paid. With regard to a 31 years' lease, he ventured to ask whether any person had seriously thought of the real nature of such a document. A 31 years' lease represented the life of a man, 1983 and if the only way out of a contract was the granting of such a lease, that would put an end to all improvements during that term. He disclaimed, for himself and his Friends, the notion that there had been any intention of raising unfair obstacles to the progress of this measure; but it was not to be supposed that Irishmen could abstain from discussing a measure fraught with such grave consequences to their future, dealing freely as it did with principles that had hitherto been regarded as anxious of truth. For himself, he could say that he did not intend to utter a word further upon the measure save by way of suggesting any improvement that might occur to him. He should accept what he regarded as the principles of the Bill, trusting that in the time to come it might be productive of a good understanding between landlords and tenants, a matter more important to all classes of the country than any pecuniary gain or loss which might accrue under the provisions of the measure.

§ MR. CORRANCE
said, he wished to detain the Committee for a few moments, in the hope of preventing a Division. He had hitherto supported the Amendment of the right hon. Member (Mr. Headlam); but it appeared in the course of the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) that there was really a very important objection to it, and one that had not been foreseen by the Mover of the Amendment. This was shown by the fact that he now brought up a new proviso, which to a certain extent mot the objection. As this question impinged upon Clause 10, which related to leasing, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would postpone the consideration of it, and bring it forward in another form and upon a more convenient occasion.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
moved after "land," in line 35, to insert— Provided that where the landlord has purchased from the tenant the Ulster tenant-right custom, or customs other than the tenant-right custom to which his holding is subject, such holding shall thenceforth cease to be subject to compensation under this section. He said that the Committee would observe that the 3rd clause, which granted compensation for the disturbance of oc- 1984 cupancy, applied to every farm where tenant-right or the other customs were not in force. The converse—namely, payment for tenant as well as a payment for disturbance of occupancy—would be unjust, because tenant-right consisted partly in a payment for goodwill or occupancy; and if the 3rd clause were to apply to such farms, the landlord would have to pay for the occupancy twice over. Yet if the landlord bought up the tenant-right, so that the farm, in accordance with Clause 1, became no longer subject to it, there also the present clause would apply. It was, therefore, correct to assert that the payment for disturbance of occupancy, or else the payment for tenant-right, applied to the whole of Ireland. In other words, the occupancy or goodwill was everywhere something belonging to the tenant, which had to be paid for by the landlord. The tenants were thus declared to be part owners of the soil. It might be said that this was the foreign métayer system under another form. If any one desired to learn more on that subject he might road a chapter upon it in Mr. J. S. Mill's Political Economy. Yet it was not exactly the métayer system. It would more correct to say that it was in accordance with the Irish idea that a holding in land was a subject of tenure, and not, as the English regarded it, a subject of contract. For in England the land was regarded as belonging absolutely to the landlord. This distinction seemed to him the only just or reasonable ground for applying the Bill to Ireland only, and not to England also. England was the only country in the world where the land was regarded as subject to contract. In all foreign countries to this day, and in England until lately, land was the subject of tenure. It was only in modern times, since 1688 he believed he might say, that the modern English view really obtained. In feudal times the landlord held the land by a tenure of service under the trinoda necessitas—or three-fold obligation to maintain the bridges, to maintain the highways, and to supply military defences. The tenant also held under his lord by a similar tenure of service. The land, therefore, belonged absolutely to neither; but to both, on condition of service done to the State, or service for the good of all. Let them consider foreign countries. We had carried our 1985 peculiar modern notions to India, where land had been held by tenure, for ages past. In India we persisted in regarding the Zemindars as landlords and the ryots as occupiers; and when disturbances arose in consequence, an Act was passed in the same modern English spirit, and the disturbances became worse. The origin of the Maori wars in New Zealand was this—the English persisted in ignoring tribal rights, and in supposing that land belonged absolutely to the apparent owner, and that he might sell it. He therefore did not deny the difference between tenure or contract, which he thought was the only principle on which they should deal with the Irish land question. Now this was his objection to the clause—when a landlord had bought up the tenure, with the consent of the occupier, it was fair that the land should afterwards be the subject of contract, and not of tenure. It was very unfair that Lord Dufferin, for example, should find that after having expended many thousands of pounds in extinguishing the tenant-right he should immediately become liable to payments under Clause 3. If such a proceeding was according to law, and agreed to by the tenant, it seemed to him that the land should then belong absolutely to the landlord, and be there-after subject to contract. On those grounds he moved his Amendment.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, he was glad to hear from the noble Lord admissions which showed that he was well aware that the conditions under which Irish tenants from year to year held their farms in the greater part of Ireland were very different from those under which English tenants, nominally holding under similar terms, really held their land. He trusted that he should be able to convince the noble Lord in a very few words that, under this settlement, the tenants with whom his Amendment proposed to deal in the North of Ireland would really in the case supposed be in precisely the came condition as the ordinary tenants in any other Province in Ireland. What the noble Lord desired to enact was that, where the tenant of a holding in Ulster had entered upon his farm without making any payment under the Ulster custom, he should not be entitled to take any benefit under the provisions of Clause 3 of the Bill. He, however, should contend that the tenant 1986 entering upon a farm in Ulster, without making any payment under the Ulster custom, stood in precisely the same position as a tenant entering into possession of land without payment in any other part of Ireland. The question whether any payment had been made by the tenant on entering upon his farm would be taken into consideration by the Court in determining the claims of tenants holding, not only in Ulster, but in other parts of Ireland, and this was provided for in Clause 14; but he put it to the noble Lord whether, where the Ulster tenant had come into possession of his farm under ordinary circumstances, there was any reason why, merely because he held a farm in Ulster, he should be differently dealt with in this Bill from the tenant holding under the same conditions in other parts of Ireland.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
explained that his Amendment relating to tenancies created after the passing of the Act did not refer to tenancies from year to year; because he understood that the Prime Minister had declared that "tenancies created after the passing of the Act" would not mean tenancies from year to year, but tenancies under lease.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, that the noble Lord had entirely misunderstood him upon that point.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
said, he had drawn up his Amendment under the impression that such was the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman. His Amendment, however, merely proposed that, where the land had passed absolutely into the hands of the landlord, he should be at liberty to let it under contract, instead of under tenure.

§ MR. GOLDNEY
said, he thought that when the noble Lord came to re-consider his Amendment he would not press it, because the question it raised had been already disposed of when Clause 1 was under discussion. When once the landlord had purchased the tenant's right the land would cease to be subject to the Ulster custom.

§ SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATE
moved, in page 3, line 35, after "land," to insert— Nothing in this Act shall prevent any landlord and tenant contracting together by lease on such terms as they may agree upon, provided the assent of the Court to such contract is first obtained. 1987 The hon. Baronet said, there were many cases in which it would be desirable that the landlord and tenant should have power to contract, and if such powers were not given there would be instances in which land, in consequence, would remain unlet.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)
said, he hoped the hon. Baronet, who had met the Bill very fairly throughout, and did not wish to impede its progress, would not press his Amendment, because it appeared to him to be inconsistent with the main scope of the measure. There appeared to be a great deal of misconception in the minds of many hon. Members with regard to this clause, which, after all, was not very difficult of comprehension, when taken in conjunction with the Definition Clauses at the end of the Bill. The first part of the clause related to tenancies created after the passing of the Act; while the second part related to tenancies from year to year, existing at the time of the passing of the Act, and a little further on it contained the proviso— Any contract made by a tenant by virtue of which he is deprived of his right to make any claim which he would otherwise be entitled to make under this section, shall, so far as relates to such claim, be void. That proviso had been inserted by the Government because, after due consideration, they recognized the fact that in the present state of Irish society the Irish tenant was not in a position to make a free contract. An Amendment which would be proposed by the Government in Clause 11 would provide for freedom of contract in cases where the valuation was over £50. But in the cases of small farms the tenants would require the protection which the Bill as it now stood would afford them. It had been urged, as an objection against the Bill, that there was too much "Court" in it. He admitted that appealing to a Court in matters of this kind was an evil; but it was a necessary one to the extent the Bill carried it. To have further interference by a Court was another thing. In his opinion there was no occasion for it. Another reason why the Amendment of the hon. Baronet should not be adopted was that if a landlord could get a small tenant-farmer to agree to a bargain outside the Court, the same moral or immoral influence which had effected 1988 that result would induce the tenant to express his approval of it inside the Court. The Government appreciated the spirit in which the hon. Baronet had met this Bill, and he trusted that the Amendment would be withdrawn.

§ SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATE
said, there was such an inequality in Irish valuation that a £50 valuation in one part of Ireland might be equivalent to a valuation of £80 in another part of that country. He apprehended the clause would prevent landlords from making improvements, because they could not know what claims would be made against them.

§ MR. BRUEN
observed that, unless the landlord and tenant agreed to the lease, they would not come into Court; and unless the lease was a good one, the Court need not ratify it.

MR. GLADSTONE
asked whether the Court would remodel a lease to which the landlord and tenant had agreed.

§ SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATE
proposed that the Court should have power to refuse a ratification of the lease.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he did not think it would be possible for the Court to say that a lease was an improper one which the two parties had just agreed to. He was convinced of the perfect good faith of the hon. Baronet; but he did not think his Amendment would be an improvement. As to the inequalities of valuation alluded to by the hon. Baronet, a measure to remove those inequalities must be one of the very first adopted after the Bill became law.

§ MR. CORRANCE
said, if his hon. Friend omitted "provided, the consent of the Court is first obtained," the words that remained would be wholly unnecessary. He recommended the withdrawal of the Amendment.

§ MR. G. B. GREGORY
said, he thought it desirable to enable the Court to act in the case of a contract made for the benefit of the tenant, acting upon the same principle as that recognized in the case of a married woman, where the Court enabled her to enter into a contract, provided it was found to be one for her benefit.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
objected to the Amendment, especially with the omission of the words respecting the consent of the Court, inasmuch 1989 as it would in effect renew the proposition made by the right hon. Gentleman for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam), and which the Committee had just negatived.

§ DR. BALL
said, he thought it would be well not to press the Amendment, because the necessity for some such provision might be altogether taken away or much diminished by other Amendments of which Notice had been given.

§ MR. KAVANAGH
moved, in line 39, to leave out the words "arrears of," his object being to include the whole of the rent that might be due in regard to each particular holding in the provisions of the clause.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR, IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)
said, rent, unlike daily accruing interest, was not due until the gale day, and an hour after it was due it was arrears; so that nothing would be gained, on the one hand, by striking out the words, as, of course, nothing would be gained on the other by retaining them.

§ DR. BALL
confessed he was in favour of the addition proposed. In popular language it was customary to apply the words arrears of rent to all rent that was due prior to the last gale.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)
said, as it would come to the same thing whether the words were retained or struck out, he would assent to the Amendment.

§ MR. W. H. GREGORY
moved, in page 3, line 39, after "arrears of rent," to insert "or otherwise." His object was to cover advances such as might be made, say for the purchase of slates for building purposes.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
objected that the Amendment would open a very wide door indeed.

§ MR. BRUEN
said, the effect of rejecting it would be to stop advances by making them irrecoverable.

§ MR. KAVANAGH
moved, in page 3, line 39, after "rent," insert "and taxes;" his object being to include any taxes that might be due upon the holding, with the amount of rent unpaid, in considering the question of deductions from the compensation claimed.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)
said, his objection to the Amendment was that it would open the door to much litigation. Questions would arise as to what was the exact meaning of the words. How were taxes due to the landlord in ordinary course? The object which seemed to be aimed at would have to be attained by some other Amendment. The meaning, no doubt, was, that when the tenant quitted the holding there should be deducted from the compensation paid to him not only the rent accrued due, but any taxes which were due on the land, and which he would have had to pay had he remained in possession. That, however, would not be accomplished by the present Amendment.

§ DR. BALL
said, that what the hon. Member for Carlow aimed at appeared to be just in itself; but, owing to the construction of the proviso, the necessary Amendment could not be moved at this stage. With the permission of the hon. Member he would move an Amendment at a future stage.

§ MR. PELL
moved an Amendment to include deterioration of holding arising from "a departure from a due course of husbandry," which the words of the proviso were not sufficient to cover. As we were about to create in Ireland a compound instrument—a Court which was to have the supreme control of the land, it would be better to lay down the limits within which it was to move; and if a tenant, who pursued an unusual practice, and depreciated the value of the soil by severe cropping, went into Court with his landlord, it should be the duty of the Court to consider the condition in which the land was left, and, if it thought fit, to make a deduction from the compensation on that account.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, the words were not only not required, but, if adopted, would go too far. This kind of claim stood on a different footing to the deductions already sanctioned. This deduction would be a mere matter of estimate by the Court, which ought not to have so loose a discretion. The Amendment seemed to be founded upon certain ideas of English practice, which were not applicable to Ireland. The Bill provided for any 1991 such deterioration arising from the non-observance of any express or implied contract, and that the Government considered was enough to be done.

§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMER
said, not only was the Amendment unnecessary, but, if adopted, it would work absolute injustice. In ascertaining what was payable to the tenant the nature and condition of his farm would be properly considered, and, if it was not left in proper condition, it must be assumed that a suitable deduction would be made from the amount of his claim. That having been done, nothing would be more unjust than to make the deduction a second time.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
proposed an Amendment to omit the words "or implied," in line 41 of the clause. According to the words as they stood in the Bill, the landlord might make a deduction from the money payable to the tenant in respect of deterioration of the holding from non-observance of any express or implied covenant. He believed that the retention of the word "implied" would give rise to a great deal of litigation, because it would be difficult to say what an implied covenant was. If the Committee agreed to his Amendment, he would propose to add to the end of the clause what was defined by 23 & 24 Vict. c. 154, to be an implied contract.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)
trusted the Amendment would not be pressed. There were two kinds of implied covenants. One, implied by common law, was that the land should be cultivated in due course of husbandry, according to the custom of the country; and the other kind of implied covenants was created by the statute known as Mr. Cardwell's Act, so that there was no difficulty in understanding the meaning of implied covenants.

§ MR. G. B. GREGORY
said, the omission of the words would not confer much benefit upon the tenants. Implied covenants was a term well understood, and, without its retention in the Bill, tenants would be harassed by the insertion in their leases of vexatious covenants.

§ MR. PELL
asked if the Act referred to applied to written contracts only.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)
Yes.

§ MR. PELL
said, that being so, it showed how necessary it was to retain the words. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn. He ventured to think that this Amendment went as far in the wrong direction as his (Mr. Pell's) Amendment went in the right direction.

§ DR. BALL
opposed the Amendment. It was a common practice in Ireland to evade the stamp duty or dispense with the assistance of an attorney, by the landlord and tenant entering into an equitable agreement, which was drawn up on a sheet of letter paper, and which a Court of Equity would enforce. The adoption of the Amendment would put an end to that course of proceeding.

§ MR. M'MAHON
supported the Amendment. If implied covenants were meant to be the same as those in the Act of 1860 there should be no objection to their being embodied in the clause.

§ MR. BOURKE
said, implied covenants were well understood. They were all distinctly laid down in every legal book on landlord and tenant.

§ DR. BALL
proposed, after the word "landlord," in line 42, to insert the words "and also any taxes payable by the tenant due in respect of the holding." The Amendment was merely verbal, and was instead of that given Notice of by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh).

§ MR. SYNAN
said, he hoped the Government would not accede to this Amendment, now hastily proposed to the Committee. The Amendment on the Paper was one by the hon. Member for Carlow; but this was altogether a new Amendment, and in the form in which it stood would work an injustice. The poor rate was payable by the tenant; but he was entitled to a deduction from his rent to the extent of one-half. The grand jury cess, there was every reason to believe, would soon be placed on the same footing; but being now payable by the tenant, who was entitled to no deduction in respect of that payment, the entire tax would be deducted from the tenant's compensation.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
opposed the clause on account of the great facility it would afford for the commission of fraud.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)
said, he had suggested an Amendment on this Amendment, to which his right hon. and learned Friend had acceded. He proposed that the words should run as follows:— Also any taxes due by the tenant in respect of the holding, and not recoverable by him from the landlord. Words, as amended, inserted.

§ MR. G. B. GREGORY
moved, in page 4, line 1, after "Act" insert "assigns."

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, the Government could not consent to the proposal, as a mere assignment stood on a very different footing from subdividing or subletting, against which, as a matter of policy, the penalty of forfeiture of the benefits arising under the clause was properly directed. Assignment should be regarded with favour rather than with disfavour; for, out of 10 transactions of this character nine substituted a solvent tenant for an insolvent one. The Amendment was, therefore, quite alien to the clause itself.

§ MR. BRUEN
said, that in the portion of the country with which he was best acquainted, assignments of holdings were contrary to the rule of the estate. If, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite intimated, the object of the clause was to encourage transfers, the clause would have the effect of extending something like the custom of tenant-right to other parts of the country, to the prejudice of good agriculture.

§ MR. SHERLOCK
hold that the adoption of the Amendment would introduce a novel principle into the tenure of land in Ireland, and one advantageous neither to landlords nor tenants.

§ MR. G. B. GREGORY
said, that in England nothing was more common than to insert provisions against unlimited assignments, and it would be utterly intolerable if landlords were to have assignees of the tenants thrust upon them against their will.

§ MR. BOURKE
pointed out that one consequence of an unlimited power of assignment would be that an assignee might be brought in from any part of Ireland, even from one of the most disturbed districts. Persons, for instance, such as those who had fired at Mr. Radcliffe the other day—persons who were perfectly well known all over the 1994 district, and, he was sorry to say, persons who, not improbably, were very popular—might be thrust upon a landlord in the county Heath as the assignees of outgoing tenants. Surely that was an evil of a possible and a very practical nature, which the Government ought to guard against.

§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMER
said, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gregory) had jumped to an erroneous conclusion, attributable probably to a hasty reading of the clause. The clause did not say that a tenant, who by his contract, was restrained from assigning, should be at liberty to do so, or that the assignee, under such circumstances should be forced upon the landlord. All it did was to leave the matter to the free contract of the parties, and he certainly was not disposed to place any further restrictions upon this liberty of free contract than had been already done by the Government.

§ DR. BALL
asked for an explanation of the moaning of the word "forbidden," as used in the clause. Did it mean that subletting or subdividing must be forbidden in the original agreement, or, as he should read it, that the landlord might at any time step forward for that purpose?

§ MR. BRUEN
desired to explain that what he meant was, that in the case of yearly tenancy a tenant should not, without the consent of his landlord, have the right to assign more than the 12 or the six months' right which he had in his tenancy.

§ MR. W. H. GREGORY
said, he had an Amendment to move which would make the clause more in conformity with the intention of its framers. He proposed, in page 4, line 2, after the word "sub-divides" to add the words "such holding, or sub-lets the same or any part thereof." He drew a distinction between subdividing and subletting. The clause spoke of subletting the whole holding, but not a portion of the holding.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, that he also had an Amendment against subdividing and subletting, and the deteriorating consequences which were the result of subletting the land. The clause was originally qualified by the provision that a tenant should be able to let not more than half-an-acre of land to an agricul 1995 tural labourer in connection with his cottage. It had appeared to him that the effect of this qualification would be to destroy the original purpose of the clause, and, therefore, on first going into Committee he gave notice of his intention to move the omission of this qualification. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had since then met his views to a considerable extent by agreeing to the omission of this qualification, and suggesting that it should be limited in this sense, that no land should be let for the erection of cottages unless an amount of 25 acres were apportioned, thus establishing a certain relation between the cottages and the soil. This certainly, to a very great degree, removed the objection which he had entertained to the original qualification. Still there was a vagueness in the words of the Chief Secretary. If the 25 acres were fair, good land, it might be a good qualification; but it might be land of a different character—marshy, boggy, unreclaimed land.

§ MR. SYNAN
rose to Order. There were three Amendments before that of the right hon. Gentleman.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Galway raised the question of subdividing land, and the right hon. Gentleman was consequently in Order.

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, that in consequence of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Galway it was necessary that he should recall his original Amendment, which the later suggestion of the Government had met to a considerable degree. He should have preferred his own Amendment; but he could not help feeling that, after the suggestion made on the part of the Government, the Committee might now arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on the matter. When the Government were disposed to meet the Committee fairly, he, remembering the responsibility under which they acted, was willing to meet them half-way, although he might not obtain all he wanted.

§ SIR JOHN GRAY
said, that no provision could be too strong to prevent subletting and the subdivision of holdings. Such practices were a great evil to the country and a great detriment to the landlord. He did not wish, there- 1996 fore, to interfere with the clause prohibiting subdivisions, except as it would affect the letting of a portion of the land on con-acre. The practice of con-acre used to be injurious and mischievous to the land; but the modern practice, on the contrary, was beneficial. Men who were not able to provide manure for the whole of a farm let a small portion of land, on condition that a labourer who had more manure than he wanted for his garden manured it. In return for doing so he was allowed to take a crop from it. Many of the large farmers were able to buy sufficient manure for their land; but it was often a great advantage to the smaller farmers to have the land well manured for them, and to have the manure brought to the land to enrich it. He had spoken to many farmers, who said it would be very injurious to prevent this con-acre. It was of great advantage to the labourers as well as the farmers. Indeed, many of the agricultural labourers would be driven into crime if this clause were passed as it stood, and if con-acre were put an end to. He begged to move in page 4, line 2, leave out from "without" to "con-acre," in line 3, inclusive.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, he had just now resisted a Motion from the other side to include the subject of assignment among the forfeitures in this clause, on the ground that the extreme penalty of forfeiture was far too heavy for the questionable evil that might arise from assignment. Upon the same ground the Government had come to the conclusion, upon full consideration, that the penalty of forfeiture was not one that ought to be applied to letting in con-acre. Though the system of letting in con-acre was open to abuse, yet it was very often found to be useful, and when entered into bonâ fide was no more subletting in fact than it was in law. It was undoubtedly the case that in the neighbourhood of the Irish towns a great deal of the agrarian crime we had to deplore during the last few months had been connected with the impossibility of labouring men and others obtaining land in con-acre; and if Parliament by their present legislation were to impose a severe penalty upon the system when it was fair and bonâ fide, they would be acting in a manner opposed to the wants and feelings of the Irish people.

§ COLONEL BARTTELOT
said, it seemed very extraordinary that the Government, having considered this Bill most carefully, and having placed con-acre, which was admitted by most people to be mischievous, among the subjects of forfeiture in the Bill, now, because they wished to regain the support of their Friends, which to a certain extent they had lost, proposed that con-acre should be struck out of the Bill. He would venture to say that, taken as a whole, con-acre was a very mischievous system. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen said "No;" but he knew by experience, and he had been at the trouble to inquire into the practice, that it was a mischievous system. If this Bill was a just and righteous measure there was no reason why con-acre should continue. A man who let by con-acre got, perhaps, £10, or a great deal more, per acre. ["No!"] He affirmed that it was so in many instances, and sometimes even double £10. That money did not go into the landlord's pocket, but into the pocket of the tenant, and therefore it was the interest of the man who took the land to get as much out of it as he could. But now they were legislating against those landlords who were anxious to let their lands for a term of years to larger tenants; and if Parliament allowed this con-acre system to remain it would enable persons to let grass lands on con-acre, and that the hon. Member for Kilkenny himself admitted to be a great nuisance. He was exceedingly sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had given way on this point.

§ MR. W. H. GREGORY
said, the observations made by his hon. and gallant Friend were partly true, but his conclusion was incorrect. Con-acre was sometimes mischievous, but frequently it was quite harmless, and, therefore, to apply so stringent a penalty as that proposed in this clause would be a very serious matter. He was not likely to advocate anything which would interfere with the prosperity of the country or his own property; but, in his opinion, they might omit altogether this stringent provision. As the Bill now stood they would forbid any tenant from giving by any possibility any land whatsoever to the labourer. In fact, they would simply and solely starve out every labourer in Ireland, except the few who had some land of their own. In the neighbourhood of the towns the labourers 1998 who dwelt there, many of whom had been evicted from estates in the neighbourhood, kept a pig, and collected manure on the roads, with which they manured the land they took in con-acre for a potato crop, and any person who had experience of the potty sessions in Ireland must know something about the quarrels which often arose, especially among the fair sex, about the manure heaps. The land was in this way greatly enriched, and the farmer got the benefit of it next year in the shape of white crops. It would be most dangerous to retain the penalty. He was, therefore, glad the Government had acceded to withdraw this clause from the Bill.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, that the clause as it stood would by no means put an end to con-acre altogether. The hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had admitted that the system was in many instances bad, though sometimes it was good. But all that the clause said was that if the tenant, against the prohibition of his landlord, proceeded to let by con-acre, he should not obtain the compensation to which he would otherwise be entitled. But the tenant might let by con-acre where there was no prohibition, and where the landlord thought it might safely be done, and, therefore, the clause was not open to the objection that the hon. Gentleman had made to it. The security which the clause contained was very reasonable and just, and, therefore, he regretted extremely that the Chief Secretary, in order to meet the divergent views of hon. Members from Ireland, had consented to expunge a provision which no doubt was inserted originally after due consideration by the Government.

§ MR. O'REILLY
supported the Amendment on the ground that if the clause were retained in its present shape it would furnish bad landlords in Ireland with a great temptation to endorse on every agreement or lease a general prohibition of con-acre, not with the view of absolutely putting an end to the system, but to enable them to deprive their tenants of the right of compensation under the Bill. Con-acre was injurious as far as it was applied to corn; but that could be prevented, as it was prevented now, by penalties in the lease. He did not consider himself a bad farmer; but he had again and again given land to the labourers for a year 1999 for nothing that they might raise a green crop upon it, and the land was always greatly enriched by the manure. He rejoiced sincerely that the Government had assented to the Amendment.

§ MR. BRUEN
believed the quantity of land let under con-acre in Ireland for purposes that were beneficial to the land bore a very small proportion to that so let for purposes that were injurious. The landlord would not be so foolish as to prohibit the system where it was beneficial to the land; but he ought to have power to forbid it where it was prejudicial. They had been told by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that many outrages had been committed in the neighbourhood in consequence of the people wanting to get land upon con-acre, and that that was the reason why he withdrew a portion of the Bill which he had previously introduced. He could not imagine a greater encouragement to increased outrages than was thus given by a Minister. He could confirm the statement made by his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Barttelot) that land let in con-acre often brought £10 an acre to the tenant. Where good grass land was broken up—as it sometimes was—for the purpose, it would bring double that sum, and nothing could be worse than to have land broken up in that way.

§ MR. SYNAN
said, the system of con-acre was very general and perfectly legal in Ireland, and the custom was not held to be a violation of the covenant against subletting, nor of any other covenant whatever. The Devon Commission, in their Report, stated that, although much had been said against the system of con-acre, some practice of that nature was essential to the comfort, and almost to the existence of the Irish peasant. Why, then, he asked, were English Members to set up their knowledge of Irish con-acre, which often amounted to no knowledge at all, against that solemn verdict of the Devon Commission?

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON
said, that when Parliament was legislating on matters connected with Irish agriculture, and introducing a term of which there was no definition, it would be most unwise to pass the measure without letting the Committee understand what the term "con-acre" meant, and to what it might lead. It had been admitted by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray), and the Chief Secretary for Ire- 2000 land, that practices were carried on in Ireland, under the name of con-acre, which were mischievous and ought to be checked. Why, then, should they so legislate as to encourage what was acknowledged to be so injurious. If they could permit con-acre only in the neighbourhood of towns where there was an accumulation of manure, he should be happy to see it done; but they ought not to open the door to the extension of the mischievous system in rural districts, under which men took land for speculative purposes, often leading to their own ruin.

§ MR. CARNEGIE
interposed in that discussion with some diffidence; but wished to say that in Scotland it was a very common thing in the neighbourhood of towns for farmers, who were prohibited by their leases from subletting, to give small parts of their land to the people in the towns to grow their crops upon. Without expressing any very decided opinion on the matter, he would suggest whether it might not be possible, on the Report, to frame such a definition as would make the custom perfectly legal in regard to green crops, such as potatoes and turnips, and illegal as regarded corn crops.

§ MR. GORDON
said, he thought it would be wrong to legalize a system of con-acre, which was proper and beneficial in some instances, but one which was likely to be productive of injurious results if adopted generally. He would suggest, in case this Amendment should not be carried, the insertion of the following words:—"or lets the same or any part thereof in con-acre, except for green crops."

SIR JOHN HANMER
said, the word "con-acre" was not exclusively an Irish word. It simply meant that a farmer, for the sake of doing a friendly act, allowed his labourer to get some manure together, and plant potatoes, or any other crop which he might please. It did not amount to a subletting, and if there was anything injurious to the land, that was the landlord's affair.

§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMER
said, he thought the Government were right in the course they had taken, and it was a mistake to suppose that con-acre would thereby be legalized. The case seemed to be on all fours with that of assignments, which were sometimes prohibited, and sometimes allowed by the terms of 2001 the lease. By omitting all mention of con-acre from the Bill, they would not make that legal which was otherwise, but would leave it to free contract, upon which he was not disposed to put fetters. It was no part of the objects of this Bill to regulate the course of agriculture in Ireland; and if the tenant should deteriorate the land by improper con-acring, that would be taken into account in estimating the value of any claims preferred.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
said, he wished to thank the Government for their concession on this, which was one of the most important points in the Bill. There was a strong feeling throughout the country in favour of the change now made in the Bill, for con-acre was a vast benefit not only to the labourer, but the farmer.

§ COLONEL BARTTELOT
said, the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) had denied the accuracy of his reference to the Devon Commission on this point. Now, the Commissioners expressly stated that the price of con-acre varied much in different districts, being usually about £10 a year where the land and manure were good, and sometimes as much as £12, £14, or £17 per Irish acre, while on the poorer qualities of land it was £6 an acre, or even less.

§ MR. SYNAN
said, that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman went into the evidence on which this Report was based, he would find that, in these cases, the manure was supplied by the owner of the land.

§ MR. M'MAHON
said, it appeared, from the wording of the Landlord and Tenant Bill of 1852, that the framers of that Bill were entirely in favour of the con-acre system.

§ DR. BALL
said, the Government proposed that the leases should be for 31 years, and he had given Notice of an Amendment to reduce the term to 21 years; but whatever the limit might be, there would be a term of lease. As to the existing tenancies, the 3rd section did not include leases at all. It was confined to tenancies from year to year, and the operation of the clause, excepting a particular term of years, would be that practically in Ireland there would be no leases that would come under the clause. He was not disposed to give the power of con-acring to tenants from year to year, because it would be exerted to ruin 2002 the land at the particular moment when the tenant was about to abandon it. The original framers of the Bill appeared to be of that opinion. The con-acring which, in his experience, had always given rise to disputes, was when tenants handed over their land to other persons who had money to till it, and abandoned the occupation to those who were put in possession. He thought that this clause, as originally framed, was framed by some person who was well acquainted with Ireland and with its habits and customs.

MR. SAMUELSON
said, that for every instance in which con-acring was prejudicial, 10, 20, or even 100 cases could be found in which it was beneficial. He entirely agreed with the Amendment. If they did not agree to it, he thought that a spirit of dissatisfaction would be engendered among the agricultural labourers, and there would be perpetual agitation.

§ SIR JOHN OGILVY
moved to insert in Clause 3, page 4, line 2, after "consent," the words "in writing," and explained that his object was to remove all ambiguity in the dealings between landlords and tenants.

§ MR. KAVANAGH
moved the omission of these words— With this qualification, that the letting by a tenant of a portion of land to agricultural labourers bonâ fide required for the cultivation of the holding for cottages or gardens, not exceeding half-an-acre in each case, shall not be deemed to be a sub-division or sub-letting of land for the purposes of this section. He moved this Amendment, because he considered that the words contained one of the most baneful interferences with the rights of landlords in the management of their properties involved in this measure—baneful to the landlord, to the labourer, and to the community at large. In legalizing sub letting, those words sanctioned one of the greatest evils to which, in his opinion, Ireland could be exposed. On the second reading of this Bill he protested strongly against their injustice, clearly foreseeing the evil consequences which they would involve. He asked the Committee impartially to consider what their effect would be. By this clause a penalty was imposed on the landlord, if he evicted a tenant for any other reasons than non- 2003 payment of rent. Hitherto the power of eviction had been the only direct check a landlord had to prevent his tenant from subletting his holding, and as the Bill was drawn originally it was evidently intended that he should still retain that check; but by the insertion of those words he was deprived of that most essential restraint, and of the power of either selecting or rejecting those who for the future were to be located upon him, and for whose welfare he would be responsible. He could not imagine anything more unjust; and so strongly did he feel on the subject, that if the words were retained he should consider himself quite warranted in voting for the omission of this clause from the Bill. It would deprive a landlord of the power of protecting himself against an evil which had been universally deprecated in all ages. It was directly encouraging the revival of that class of under-tenants which it had been the endeavour of every right-thinking man who had had anything to do with the management of land in Ireland to do away with—not by ejecting the unfortunate people, but by making them direct tenants, and removing them from under the thraldom of the middleman. It surely could not be necessary for him to revert to the past history of Ireland to prove that the system of subletting had been most injurious? The scenes in the famine, and even in more recent years of comparative scarcity and want, must be fresh in the memories of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The condition of some districts at the present time, where the unexpired term of some old lease showed the country as it was, swarming with a pauper population, for whose support the land they lived on was totally inadequate, driven by starvation and want to theft and other crimes, filling the poorhouses, the hospitals, and the gaols will prove that. Was that a state of things which they would wish to see revived? He could with confidence appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House to bear him out in the assertion, that if these words were retained not many years would elapse before the country would be in the same condition. Before the Easter Recess he received a letter from an extensive landed proprietor in the counties of Kilkenny, Carlow, and Wexford, and who was justly regarded by all who knew him 2004 as a kind and indulgent landlord, and who was also a consistent supporter of Her Majesty's Government, and if the Committee allowed he would read it to them. The writer said— I see by the papers that you intend to propose an Amendment in the Land Bill relative to labourers' cottages. I hope you will require three sleeping rooms—one for the parents, one for boys, and one for girls, not less than 12 feet square, besides the living room. I think Mr. C. Fortescue's Amendment, which appears to allow a cabin to be built upon a farm for every 25 acres, would, before long, swamp the country with paupers; if allowed at all, one for every 50 acres or 60 acres would be quite enough. In some Act, I forget which now, a proper kind of cottage is described, from which for non-payment of rent the landlords may eject, the same as weekly tenants in towns. That would probably be the proper kind to require in the Land Bill. Now the right hon. Gentleman, referring to the Amendment placed upon the Paper by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and which the Committee would bear in mind was intended to qualify and render less mischievous the proviso contained in the words to which he objected, implied, and quite justly, too, that even with this Amendment the effect would be that the country would before long be "swamped with paupers." He had selected that letter from among many because it came from a supporter of the Government, and would prove, if such proof were necessary, that in opposing this proviso he was actuated by no party spirit. He failed altogether to see how it could be made a party question. There was no vital principle of the Bill involved; it was a question of simple judgment, and in its true solution he believed they were all honestly and sincerely interested. He frankly and freely admitted that he believed the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in inserting this proviso in the clause, had been actuated by the sole object of benefiting the Irish labourer; but with every respect for him, on that plea alone, leaving out all other considerations, he could not too strongly condemn it. Again, appealing to hon. Members on both sides of the House, he could with confidence assert that the condition of the Irish peasant holding under a middleman was a wretched and deplorable one, kept in a position of the most abject dependence, charged an exorbitant rent for a miserable hovel, with the floor, perhaps, inches deep in filth and mud—perhaps no chimney, perhaps 2005 no window; the walls—if they deserved the name, propped up with sticks, looking as if each gust of wind would blow them down; the roof only sufficient to keep out the sun; and for the privilege of claiming this as a home, the labourer, besides, as he had said, paying a high rent, was bound to give his labour to his landlord in the busy time of year for less than half the wages he could obtain in the market, and in the slack time of year, when it was difficult to obtain employment, he might find it where he could or else starve. If the Committee would allow him he would read to them a few extracts from Reports of Poor Law Inspectors on the condition of agricultural labourers in Ireland. Dr. King, in his Report, said— The wretched miserable cabins they have to live in, and for which occasionally they have to pay high rents, considering the accommodation afforded, were one of the causes of the discontent of the agricultural labourers, while another was— The expectations raised in their minds by popular writers and speakers which never can be realized. Mr. Robinson said— Different causes have been assigned for this discontent, but the two principal reasons appear to be the uncertainty of work in winter and the manner in which these people are housed. Those who work for owners cultivating their own lands, and for some of the tenant-farmers who hold extensive farms are often provided with suitable well-built cottages and are regularly employed, and labourers so circumstanced are, as far as I can learn, contented, and have no sufficient cause to be otherwise; but this is not so with a large proportion of the population. Mr. O'Brien's Report contained the following passage:— The replies I have received from various districts, and from the most unquestionable sources, coincide to a striking degree in describing the house and lodging accommodation of the agricultural labourers as being in the great majority of instances extremely wretched in every way. Now, all these Reports went to prove that where discontent prevailed bad dwellings and want of regular employment were the chief causes. Mr. Bourke, in his Report, stated that there was little community between the farmer and the labourer—a constant struggle between them about wages. He had been now 17 years resident on his own property in Ireland, during which time he had taken a very active part in the management of it. His great object had been to improve 2006 the condition of the labouring classes, and he had found that the most effectual way to do that was to render them independent of the farmers. The most frequent cases of dispute that had been brought before him to settle had been between middlemen and their tenants, the farmer wanting to turn a man and his family out on the road because he would not work for him for nothing; the tenant coming to complain that he held a wretched but at an exorbitant rent, and that the farmer would not even give him a wisp of straw to repair the roof. By degrees he was happy to say he had got the greater portion of the labourers now on his property as direct tenants; but to do this he had to build 86 new cottages at a cost of considerably over £4,000, besides repairing innumerable others, to each of which he had attached a piece of ground. On almost everyone of the adjoining estates he found the same course pursued. Captain Beresford, whose property adjoined his, had within the last six or eight years built 27 new cottages at a cost of over £1,500. His hon. Colleague, the Earl of Bessborough, the right hon. Colonel Tighe—the writer of the letter which he read to the Committee—and many others, were working in the same direction, and neatly built slated cottages, cleanly kept, with every appearance of comfort, were now yearly springing up in all parts, taking the place of the squalid hovel—the hotbed of disease. Sanitary committees had been at work throughout the land, giving their time gratuitously, to enforce and encourage cleanliness, and so to remove the causes of fever and those other epidemics which, in former days, used to come like a scourge among the poor. But now all their efforts, all their pain, were to be rendered useless, and the door must be opened again to flood their properties with a pauper population. Every vagrant that could persuade a tenant to let him half-an-acre of land whereon to squat might come, no matter what his character, and throw up a shed against a ditch, where, with a precarious living, with theft to help the half-acre which could not possibly support him, he would eke out a miserable existence a prey to pestilence and want. It might be urged is a defence that such a state of affairs would be prevented by the words "bonâ fide required for the cultivation of the holding." But he wanted to know who 2007 was to be the judge of this fact? Did ever anyone know of an Irish tenant-farmer holding only 25 acres of land giving permanent employment to a labourer? So far as his knowledge went, it was exactly the reverse, and throughout the whole year he never gave one day's employment to a labourer. If his own family was not sufficient to carry on the work of the farm, he employed a servant boy who lived with him at a low rate of wages because he was lodged and boarded. A day labourer required ready money payment, and that was the very commodity which a 25-acre holder was often scarce in. In the busy times of year—seed-time and harvest—he helped his neighbours and his neighbours helped him in turn; so that he managed to get along without a cash expenditure, by giving his own labour as an equivalent for the extra help which he required. With that class of farmer it was much more common for him to go out with his horse for hire than to be an employer of paid labour himself. The Amendment of the Chief Secretary, limiting the number of such cottages to not more than one in every 25 acres, was, no doubt, intended as a sort of check; but what did it do? It allowed every man who held an acre of land to sub let half of it. He was not obliged to build the cottage. Any wanderer he chose to let it to might do that for himself, of any sort or description he liked. If that was to be permitted, we should soon have pestilence and famine again staring us in the face, and a far more discontented, because a starving population, affording willing tools to forward the views of the political agitator, who, so long as he had such a harvest to reap, would never cease out of the land. The condition of the Irish labourer afforded an ample field for beneficial legislation quite distinct from this Bill, and towards that object no one would more gladly help than himself. He hoped, presumptuous as it might appear to think that any plea he could use would have much weight, that Her Majesty's Government would consent to omit this provision from their Bill.

§ MR. W. H. GREGORY
said, this question affected the condition of the most miserable, and consequently the most discontented, portion of Ireland—namely, the labouring classes. He believed that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow were both animated by the same motive in wishing to omit the latter portion of this sub-section. It appeared to him that the latter portion of the sub-section was inconsistent with its commencement. The commencement was directed against subdivision; but if the Committee passed the latter portion, he was afraid they would be sanctioning subdivision in a most dangerous manner. The whole question of legislating for the agricultural labourers of Ireland ought to be treated in a separate clause, with far greater minuteness, and he would vote for the present clause if the Government would consent to the addition of these words—"Provided the same be done in a manner hereinafter mentioned." This would permit a clause to be afterwards introduced, dealing with the whole question concerning agricultural labourers. If the Government were unwilling to assent to that, he would move that the clause which stood in his name, and which he had at first intended to move as a separate clause, should be introduced into the Bill in the shape of an addition to the clause now under discussion. He would not, however, bring forward that Motion until he had ascertained the intentions of the Government in reference to the subject.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
remarked that his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh) was quite right when he said that the Government were desirous, by adding words to this portion of the clause, to promote the interests of the agricultural labourers of Ireland. To speak more accurately, the Government wished to take precaution that the operation of this clause should not put the labourers in a worse position than they occupied at present. The Government were of opinion that if they were to place under the penalty of a forfeiture of the privileges conferred by this clause transactions for the benefit of the agricultural labourer, he would be worse off than he is now. His belief was that the clause, as he proposed to alter it by the Amendment which stood in his name, would prevent such a result without incurring any danger of reviving 2009 the system of subdivision or subletting, which, by the words at the commencement of the clause, were altogether prohibited. The hon. Member for Carlow had spoken as if it were the question of subletting which the Committee had to discuss over again. This was not, however, the view of the Government, who thought they had so guarded this proviso that the question at issue was not that of injurious subletting, but merely whether a tenant should be permitted to provide a dwelling and a garden on fair terms, and where they were bonâ fide required, for his agricultural labourer, without being subject to the penalty of forfeiture under this clause. He denied that by doing this the Government raised again the question of subletting, which had been already disposed of. His hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory) was very nervous with regard to this point of the clause, and desired to introduce a very elaborate set of provisions, which, after careful consideration, he confessed he did not think at all necessary. This part of the clause had been framed with great care, and he felt convinced it would not open the door to any injurious subletting, but would merely have the effect of permitting an Irish farmer to provide a dwelling and a garden for agricultural labourers bonâ fide employed on his farm. The limitation of one such labourer's house and garden to every 25 acres, which would be proposed in the Amendment that stood in his name, was a very important limitation, and would carry out the object of every Gentleman who entertained a great dislike to subletting. The Government did not propose to confer any new and special benefit on the agricultural labourers, but to prevent them from suffering any injury from a Bill which was mainly intended to benefit another class.

§ MR. W. ORMSBY-GORE
suggested that one cottage and garden should be allowed for every £25 value instead of every 25 acres. He had received a letter from Ireland, the writer of which said— Is Mr. Fortescue so foolish as not to know that acreage is no test of value, and that the only fair criterion is the Poor Law valuation. Thousands of tenants hold 40 acres, and do not pay 40s., or half of that amount.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, the amount of labour required on 2010 a farm did not depend on its valuation, but on its extent.

§ MR. W. ORMSBY-GORE
differed from the right hon. Gentleman. He had a farm of 380 acres, which was let at its full value—namely, £7 a year.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, the hon. Gentleman probably referred to grazing farms, which it was intended to exempt from the operation of this part of the Bill.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, the proviso would only have reference to labourers bonâ fide required for the cultivation of the land.

§ SIR GEORGE COLTHURST
asked, what security there would be that farmers should erect proper buildings for their labourers? The houses which Irish farmers at present built for their labourers were mere hovels, and the Bill provided no security against buildings hereafter to be erected being of the same description.

§ MR. J. S. HARDY
said, he thought that if the landlord was ready to provide a cottage for the labourer, the tenant should not be allowed to subdivide his land for the purpose.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, he did not believe the Irish tenant-farmer would be so enthusiastic as to build labourers' cottages at his own expense if he found the landlord would do it for him. If the landlord provided the houses of course the question would not arise at all.

§ MR. J. S. HARDY
said, he knew cases in England where the tenant-farmer was most anxious to have the holdings in his own hands, because he wanted to build a cheap class of cottages, to charge high rents for them, and thus to grind down the labourers. After listening to the hon. Member for Carlow, he had no doubt whatever that this would be much more the case in Ireland than in England, and therefore a clause ought to be inserted to the effect that where the landlord was willing to build labourers' cottages the tenant-farmer should not be allowed to subdivide.

§ MR. POLLARD-URQUHART
looked upon the clause as a very valuable one, and one that would prove an antidote to many evils.

MR. HENLEY
said, there was nothing in the clause as it stood to prevent these half-acre tenants from having tenant-right, and in that case he wished to know 2011 who was to compensate them in case of ejection, the superior landlord or the tenant-farmer.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
referred the right hon. Member to Clause 11, the 2nd sub-section of which prevented a hired labourer or servant of a landlord obtaining compensation, and to the Interpretation Clause, under which the tenant-farmer would in the case of such letting to his labourer be the landlord for the purposes of the Act.

§ MR. BRUEN
said, the point raised by the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. J. S. Hardy) was most important. Everybody who knew Ireland was aware that the class of cottages built by tenant-farmers for their labourers was very inferior, while the rent charged was very high. Landlords were building improved cottages; but if the sub-section under discussion were passed they would in future be prevented from doing so, because the tenant-farmer would rather have a low class of cottages with a high rent than good cottages with a moderate rent. He would like to see the scheme of the hon. Member for Galway adopted. The landlords of Ireland were sincerely anxious to see the position of their agricultural labourers improved; but this would never be the case as long as those labourers were made the under tenants of the farmers. He should like to know whether the labourers holdings' would be entitled to compensation?

MR. HENLEY
said, that if Clause 11 stood as it was at present tenant-right would exist in the case of the labourers' holdings, unless those holdings happened to be occupied by a man who worked for the tenant or the landlord.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, that the definition of the word landlord as given in the Bill would prevent such a thing. The holding must be bonâ fide for the purpose of the cultivation of the land, and there must only be one such for every 25 acres.

MR. HENLEY
, reverting to the point he had already raised, said that the landlord A might let B build a cottage on a half-acre of land, and let it to C; but C might work for D or E, who had nothing to do with A, the superior landlord, or B, who built the cottage. Although the labourer's cottage might be necessary for the particular holding, there was nothing in the clause to secure that the man who worked on the farm, 2012 and no other, should be the occupant of the cottage.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)
submitted that there was really no difficulty in the point. The Bill distinctly stated that in cases of subdivision or subletting without the consent of the landlord there would be no claim for compensation. If a tenant let half-an-acre to a labourer, he stood to the labourer in relation of landlord for that purpose. If there was any question of A and B in the matter, he thought the whole subject was an A B C question.

MR. HENLEY
observed, that there could be no mistake as to who was the landlord; but the question was, whether there was anything in either of the two clauses to insure that the person who laboured for the tenant should occupy the particular cottage on the holding, and to restrain the cottage from being occupied by any person who was not a hired labourer working for the tenant, and who, therefore, might setup a claim to compensation under the Bill.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
remarked, that as the Bill stood at present, no greater number of cottages were to be built than were actually required by labourers bonâ fide engaged in the cultivation of the farm. If any person inhabited a cottage upon a holding who was not required for the cultivation of the farm, he could be turned out. [Ironical cheers.] The cottages were intended for the use of the labourers on the particular holding, and the Government had no desire to prevent the farmer from changing his labourers when he thought fit, and from turning any labourer he chose out of his cottage. [Ironical cheers.] That statement appeared to amuse hon. Members opposite; but he saw nothing singular in it. The labourer's cottage and garden formed part of his remuneration, and when the farmer wished to change his labourer, of course the cottage and garden must go to the new labourer. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Stuart Knox) appeared to have become suddenly very much interested on behalf of the labourer; but he must recollect that it would not do to compel a farmer to retain a labourer to whom he might have some objection.

§ DR. BALL
said, it was, no doubt, a very important point whether or not a labourer was to be enabled to claim com- 2013 pensation for disturbance under the 3rd clause of the Bill; but he had arrived at the same conclusion with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the labourer would have no such claim, although, curiously enough, for different reasons to those put forward by the right hon. Gentleman and by the Solicitor General for Ireland. The Interpretation Clause, in defining the meaning of the word "holding," proposed to enact that the term "holding" shall mean a farm or other holding of a tenant which is agricultural or pastoral in its character, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral. Now, it could never enter into any person's mind that a small cottage and half-an-acre of garden could be called an agricultural or pastoral holding, and it was only the tenant of such a holding that could claim compensation under the Bill. It was, however, easy to place the matter beyond dispute by adding words to the Interpretation Clause, which should exclude cottages and gardens from the operation of the Bill. In his opinion the terms of the 11th clause might be defeated by a man building a cottage for a labourer, and then placing his son in it, who, in the event of being disturbed in his possession, would have a claim for compensation. He thought it would be as well to adopt the carefully drawn Amendment of the hon. Member for Galway, which proposed to prevent the building of cottages upon holdings of less than 25 acres.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, that an Amendment would be proposed on behalf of the Government at a future stage, which would carry out that object.

§ DR. BALL
said, he was glad to hear that the Government were prepared to make such an important concession.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
reminded the right hon. and learned Member that such a restriction would only apply in cases where the consent of the landlord to the building of additional cottages had not been obtained. He thought that the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), with regard to farms of loss than 25 acres, was in accordance with the one of which he had given Notice on the part of the Government.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)
remarked that if a tenant let a cottage and quarter-of- 2014 an-acre to a person who was really required for the cultivation of the farm, there was no subdivision; but if he put into the cottage some one who was not a bonâ fide labourer, he thus sub divided his land, and if he did this without the consent of his landlord, he lost his claim for compensation.

§ COLONEL STUART KNOX
remarked that he had been taunted by the Chief Secretary for Ireland with having shown a sudden partiality for the labourer. In his opinion, the labourer required more protection than the tenant - farmer of Ireland. Although the avowed object of the scheme was to prevent evictions, the Government had just stated that the poor labourers were to be turned out of their small holdings at the caprice of their employers, and were to be sent through the country begging their bread. This was the great boon that the Government proposed to confer upon the poor occupiers of Ireland.

§ MR. W. H. GREGORY
said, he thought the hon. Gentlemen who opposed, his Amendment could not have seen the structures which were called cottages in Ireland, or they would have known that those places presented a picture of filth, squalor, and disease. He desired that this Bill should be a measure of progress, and not of retrogression. Fully one-half the crime committed in Ireland was committed by the labouring classes, and arose from the recklessness in that class owing to their miserable condition, which he would like this Bill to be a means of improving; but he knew what the effect of the clause would be as it stood, unless some provisions were made affecting the character of the houses which were to be raised. There would be miserable hovels of sticks raised up against a wall, and for such a miserable hovel, with half-an-acre of the worst land, a most exorbitant rent would be required. What he wanted was that the Committee should do something to secure that the dwelling built for the labourer should be one fit to be inhabited by a human being. He had given Notice of a clause which he thought would effect that object. He proposed that no tenant on any holding should erect any labourer's cottage on his holding without first applying to the landlord for liberty to do so. In case the landlord should decline to erect the cottage the tenant might do so, provided 2015 the total of such cottages on such holding should, in no case, exceed more than one cottage for every 25 acres, and provided that no cottage should be erected on a holding less than 25 acres. To every cottage erected in pursuance of this Act, a garden not exceeding one acre might be attached by the tenant, and in such case the garden should be held direct from the landlord. About the latter point he was indifferent; but he did think it important that the Court should have power to modify the structural requirements of labourers' cottages as laid down in the Cottier Tenant (Ireland) Act of 1856. If the clause were left as it stood, it would lead to the propagation of evils of which they now complained.

§ MR. WHITWELL
regretted that a discussion on the important subject just referred to by the hon. Member for Galway should have been raised on a prohibitory portion of the 3rd clause. He hoped, however, that every Member of that House would lend his aid to improve the condition of the Irish labourer. He thought that the introduction of a separate clause might best meet the justice of the case.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he could not but think there was some misapprehension on the subject they were discussing. His hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory) was dilating upon the wretched character of the cabins in which the Irish peasantry lived, and he was cheered as if the effect of the Amendment would be to secure the erection of excellent cottages for the Irish labourers. But the effect of the Amendment of his hon. Friend would not be to secure the erection of a single cottage. If his hon. Friend objected that these cottages would be, or might be, very bad or indifferent, at any rate, there was this to be said in reply, that they would be better for the labourers, all things taken together, than the cottages in which, but for them, they would have to live; because the labourers had no motive whatever to go into them except that they would be advantageous to them compared with those they would otherwise have at their command. But what he wished to point out to his hon. Friend was this—that there was no reason in the world why that question should not be separately raised. It was highly inconvenient to mix up the question of these cottages with that which 2016 the Committee were now considering—namely, whether the forfeiture incident to subletting should be applied to certain cases which might be defined afterwards.

§ Mr. C. S. READ
said, he understood the usual plan of building labourers' cottages on a farm in Ireland was, that the farmer assigned to his labourer half-an-acre of the worst land on the farm, which the labourer reclaimed; and then, perhaps, with the aid of a few sticks that the farmer gave him, the labourer built his cottage upon it. If he understood the matter rightly, a farmer would be at perfect liberty to turn a labourer out of one of these cottages without giving him any compensation for his reclamation of land, or building a cabin; whereas the farmer, under this Bill, would be entitled to claim compensation from the landlord for that reclamation, and for the building which had been erected at the expense of the labourer.

§ MR. BAGWELL
said, that this was a clause for "re-cottiering" Ireland. Under this clause, a very wretched description of cabins would be built; but there was another consideration. Supposing a farmer to have five sons, and that to each of four younger ones he gave a cottage, and supposing that at his death he left his farm to his eldest son, what would be the position of the son? He would find his four brothers holding under him. Under such circumstances, the farm would be no paradise to him. What the Government ought to do was—abolish the Union rating, and leave the building of cottages to the operation of free trade. There was no property that paid so well as well-built and fairly regulated cottage property. He had an enormous number of such cottages himself, and he knew that there was no better property. If the provision of the Bill with reference to the building of cottages passed without modification, the result, in many cases, would be that the labourer would have to depend for his life's breath on the farmer, who was not generally very tender-hearted. There was nothing but this one clause that could do any harm; and he, therefore, trusted the Government would listen to the appeal made to them, and supported by the experience of the hon. Member for Galway, and that they would postpone this matter until it could be considered on a broader 2017 proposition for the housing of the labouring classes.

§ MR. KAVANAGH
then moved to insert after "that," in page 4, line 7, the words "in the case of holdings exceeding 25 acres in extent of tillage land," his object being to limit the number of cottages on small holdings.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, that this was the Amendment of which the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had expressed his approval, and the Government were quite willing to agree to it.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he thought it better that the wording of the Amendment should be—"in the case of holdings of 25 acres and upwards of tillage land."

§ MR. KAVANAGH
assented.

§ MR. W. ORMSBY-GORE
concurred in the object of the Amendment; but, in order to provide that the land should be bonâ fide tillage land, he suggested the introduction of words declaring that the land must have been under tillage for not less than five years.

§ MR. SYNAN
objected to the insertion of the word "tillage," and suggested the substitution of the word "arable." In a farm of 100 acres, there might be only 25 acres of tillage land, because tillage land was actually land in tillage. He objected to drawing a line at 25 acres. The arrangement of the line ought to be left to the landlord and tenant.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
explained that they had agreed to the introduction of the words because grass land required a smaller number of labourers. Tillage land included land sometimes in grass, and on which the crops were taken in rotation.

§ MR. BRUEN
moved, in page 4, line 8, after "land," insert "other than town parks on which the occupier does not reside, and holdings in towns and villages."

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, the Amendment was totally unnecessary, town parks being already ex- 2018 cepted from the operation of the Bill. A holding was defined to be a farm.

§ MR. PELL
moved the insertion, after "bonâ fide required for," of the words "and employed in" the cultivation of the holding. As the clause stood a labourer, might after he had built a cottage and reclaimed land, be evicted without compensation. He proposed, by the introduction of the words, to throw a protection round the labourers.

§ MR. SYNAN
opposed the Amendment. The words imported that the labourer must be employed in the cultivation of the holding before the cottage was built.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, he did not think the words really added anything to the meaning of the clause, and it was possible they might, from their strict legal interpretation, have an injurious effect on the tenant-farmer, which was not intended.

§ MR. CHARLEY
moved that the Chairman report Progress.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in his Motion. The Committee had now come to within the narrowest possible point of settling this matter; and it could scarcely be expected that they should not come to a decision, when the only serious step to he taken was to add the Amendment proposed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. C. Fortescue), which would carry out the principle which had been adopted by the Committee in reference to the limitation of the power of granting allotment of 25 acres of tillage ground, and to which he believed there was no opposition.

§ LORD HENRY THYNNE
directed the Chairman's attention to the fact that Progress had been moved.

§ MR. DISRAELI
suggested that the Motion should be withdrawn, on the dear understanding that when this matter was concluded Progress should be reported.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE
rose to move an Amendment restricting the 25 acres to the building of cottages.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
The hon. Member has moved the Amendment of which I had given Notice on the Paper.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE
I have put the Amendment in the proper place.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
moved, in page 4, line 10, after "case," insert— And not being in number such as to raise the total of such cottages on the holding to more than one for every 25 acres thereof.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE
said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would at the end of his Amendment insert the words "of tillage land" instead of the word "thereof."

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
assented.

§ MR. KAVANAGH
proposed to insert words defining the kind of cottage that should be provided for the labourer, with the view that it should be fit to live in.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment, the effect of which would be to inflict the penalty of forfeiture on the tenant-farmer if the labourer's cottage had not a sufficient chimney, if the window did not open properly, and so on.

§ MR. RUSSELL GURNEY
said, as they had spent half-an-hour in discussing that on which they were stated to be all agreed, he should move that the Chairman report Progress.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, he hoped, as they had all but finished, the right hon. Gentleman would not persevere with the Motion.

MR. GLADSTONE
put it to the right hon. Gentleman that there was an understanding that the sub-section should be finished.

§ MR. RUSSELL GURNEY
said, that understanding was arrived at on the distinct intimation that they were all agreed.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, the understanding was that there was only one Amendment of the Chief Secretary to be 2020 proposed; but now it was found there were others. ["No!"]

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, that there were only two Amendments remaining, one of which he knew would be withdrawn.

§ MR. W. H. GREGORY
consented to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. GLADSTONE
, in consenting to have Progress reported, said, that seeing the Paper was very full for to-morrow night he proposed, to put the Bill down for Monday; but he hoped next Friday the Paper would not be so full, because in the case of a Bill of that importance it had always been the endeavour to obtain more than two nights in the week.