COMMITTEE. [Progress 2nd May.]

HC Deb 05 May 1870 vol 201 cc281-322

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 3 (Compensation in absence of custom).

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he wished to make an appeal to the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray). The hon. Member, by the Amendment of which he had given Notice, had raised a question of very great interest and importance; but the addition he proposed to make by way of "rider" to the 3rd clause was an addition which, in point of fact, contained within itself—very evidently considered and expressed with much care—the provisions of a very important Act of Parliament. He did not urge that as a reason why they should not adopt a clause to that effect; but he would say that the addition which the hon. Gentleman proposed to make by way of alter- native to the 3rd clause was really not an alternative to the 3rd clause, but to the whole of that portion of the Bill; and, consequently, it had no proper place in that clause. It was not another mode of proceeding in lieu of the 3rd clause; but another mode of proceeding in lieu of that clause and the other clauses which followed it. Under those circumstances, he thought it was plain that, consistently with the usual practice of the Committee, and with the obvious dictates of good sense, it was hardly desirable that any decisive issue should be taken on the hon. Member's proposal as an addition to the 3rd clause. Even those who might approve it would scarcely wish to add it to that clause. The Government would give the hon. Gentleman's proposal a perfectly impartial and dispassionate consideration when they were able to deal with it in its proper place, but not as a mere appendage to the 3rd clause.

SIR JOHN GRAY

moved his Amendment pro formâ but after some discussion, withdrew it, on the promise on the part of the Government that they would at an appropriate time afford all facilities, so that it might be brought on at a convenient hour and thoroughly discussed.

Amendment moved, in line 29, after "void," insert— Except in case of a tenant who has executed a lease or an agreement for a lease in accordance with any of the leasing provisions of this Act."—(Mr. Bruen.)

After a few words from the SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND—

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

DR. BALL

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the wisdom and propriety of introducing some statement to guide the Judges, who would have to administer the law, as to the principles on which they were to proceed. His Amendment proposed to declare that— The Court in awarding compensation under this section shall have regard to the terms and conditions subject to which the tenant originally obtained possession of his holding, to the period of actual enjoyment by the tenant, to the rent payable by the tenant, during such his period of enjoyment, as proportioned to the fair letting value of the holding, and to any special circumstances connected either with the cultivation of the holding or with the mode or incidents of the termination of the tenure. It seemed to him that unless the Bill contained some explanation of the subjects to be considered by the Judge as elements in forming his decision upon the claim of the tenant in cases within the 3rd section, great difficulty would be experienced in working the provisions of that section in the Courts. In every other description of legislation some indication was given of the view the Court was to take. There was no case which would arise under the clause of which two different views might not be taken. He would give one instance. The expression used at the commencement of the clause was "compensation for loss sustained by the tenant on quitting his holding." Now, in the case of some estates in Ireland, the land was let to tenants from year to year considerably under its value; and what he wanted to know was, whether if the tenant in that case was brought under this section, he was to get a larger amount of compensation, because his loss was the greater on account of the goodness and kindness of his landlord? Two views might in argument be presented to the Court. One, that the tenant's loss was to be measured by the value of what he lost; the other, the tenant having had the land extremely cheap had made a great deal of money out of it, and that, therefore, he ought not to be compensated. Surely some fixed standard in the matter was required, otherwise they might have 32 chairmen starting different interpretations of the law, and there would be a state of things produced which would parallel that once described in this country, when it was said that "equity varied according to the length of the Chancellor's foot." He admitted that some of the difficulties likely to arise might be obviated if the drawing of the Equity Clause was improved; and until they saw the exact words in which that clause was framed, it was impossible to say what would be the condition of the Bill. For that reason he did not mean to press his Amendment now.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

asked whether a tenant would be at liberty to contract with his landlord at the time of receiving notice to quit, as to the amount of compensation which should be given; and whether, if a tenant then agreed to receive a specified sum, such a contract could be pleaded in bar to any action which the tenant might afterwards bring? He also asked whether, as a landlord who was a limited owner would have the power of agreeing with, his tenants as to the amount of compensation which should be payable to them, an owner in fee would have a similar power?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, in his opinion there was nothing to prevent the landlord, who was an owner in fee, and tenant agreeing as to the amount of compensation, and that this agreement would be final and binding on both parties, as at present advised; but if there was likely to be any difficulty the matter should be considered. He thought there could be no doubt that a contract as to the amount of compensation could be entered into at any time. He thought his right hon. and learned Friend (Dr. Ball) was acting wisely in withdrawing his Amendment, which, could be properly considered when the Committee came to the 14th section; but, in his opinion, it would be well to leave the matter to be met by the rules of law and the common sense of the Judges.

MR. G. B. GREGORY

agreed that this matter should be considered in discussing the 14th clause, and hoped his right hon. and learned Friend would then press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

moved, in line 30, to leave out from "The Court in awarding, &c." to end of clause, both inclusive.

Motion agreed to.

MR. DUDLEY FORTESCUE

moved to insert in page 4, line 36— Provided always, That whensoever any landlord shall require a portion of land for a site for a school, church, chapel, or place of religious worship, or for a court house, police barrack, or building to be used for any such public purpose, if the site so required should not be more than half-an-acre in extent, or not more in any case than one-fifteenth part of the holding of any one tenant, it shall be lawful for the landlord, after due notice, to resume possession of the land to be devoted to any one of the purposes aforesaid without the payment of any sum for the disturbance of the tenant in occupation, beyond a proportionate abatement of rent, and such resumption of land shall not be deemed a disturbance of the tenant in his holding within the meaning of this Act. Provided also, That it shall be lawful for a landlord in like manner to resume possession of so much land, in no case to exceed one twenty-fifth part of any one holding, as may be required for the purpose of erecting thereon one or more labourers' cottages, with or without gardens attached, and subject to the provisions of 'The Cottier Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1856,' and such resumption of land shall not be deemed a disturbance of the tenant within the meaning of this Act. He regretted the rejection of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh), than whom no one was better entitled to be heard on this subject. He thought it desirable to give every facility to landlords for erecting suitable dwellings for the humblest and most dependent class of labourers on their estates. It was not likely that tenants, who were themselves ill-lodged, would make proper provision for their labourers. The clauses intended to be inserted by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory) only applied to cases where tenants took the initiative, and did not apply to cases where landlords took the initiative. He thought it very desirable, when the principle of the Bill was not infringed, that the discretion of landlords with respect to their estates should be left as free and unfettered as possible. He earnestly pressed on the Government the favourable consideration of this Amendment.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, he thought there was considerable complication in the proposals of his hon. Friend, and it would be better to bring them up in a separate shape. He greatly doubted whether the danger against which he desired to guard was one of any importance. What his hon. Friend feared was that in case a landlord took from a yearly tenant a very small portion of his holding for any of the very useful purposes enumerated, the operation of Clause 3 would be so tremendous as either to deter the landlord from attempting to make the improvements, or to enable and induce the tenant to impose some grievous penalty on the landlord. He thought the danger was imaginary, and the evil results apprehended would not follow. If the tenant were fool enough to hold out against a reasonable proposal, what would they think of the Court that would give damages in such a case? He did not believe that any damages would be given at all; but if any damages were given, they would be of the most insignificant kind. He hoped his hon. Friend would separate his propositions, if he thought it necessary to press them.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

observed, that landlords and tenants in Ireland would have numerous opportunities of getting into Court under the most favourable circumstances, and that it was undesirable to permit anything to pass likely to give rise to such appeals. The proposition was directly in the interest of labourers, and this class the House was especially desirous to legislate for in a beneficent spirit. He therefore felt the Amendment of the hon. Member was necessary, especially as it was well known the Irish peasant would prefer to rent his cottage from the landlord rather than from the tenant.

VISCOUNT ST. LAWRENCE

believed that giving power to landlords to erect cottages would be very beneficial to the labourers, and after the interests of the tenants had been satisfied, the principle should be to allow landlords the opportunity of managing their estates in the interests of the labourers around them.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, for it was hardly suitable in its present shape. He suggested that the 8th clause was the proper place for it; but he wished to ask hon. Members with what chance a tenant would go into Court, if his only grievance was a refusal to grant a reasonable request for a piece of land on which to build a church or a labourer's cottage? In his opinion the matter might be fairly left to the discretion of the Court to determine, and the Amendment would encumber the clause with provisions which were foreign to its purpose.

DR. BALL

said, he thought that there should be some declaration in the Bill, that if a landlord wanted a small portion of land for these purposes it should not be deemed a disturbance of the tenancy. It would be very objectionable if the House were to legislate upon the principle that landlords and tenants could never know how they stood without going to the Court. There were 32 Courts in Ireland, and it was absurd to suppose the decisions would be unanimous. He himself knew a case where a considerable sum had to be paid for the site of a church, because the tenant was not in favour of its being built. He suggested that it should be clearly stated in the Bill that taking portions of holdings for the bonâ fide purpose of building churches or cottages should not be deemed disturbance of possession.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would postpone his Amendment until the 8th clause, and in the meantime reconsider it, as in its present form it would override all leases.

SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATE

observed that it would be hardly just to take away a portion of a man's holding without giving him any compensation. It would be better to leave the clause as it stood.

MR. SYNAN

said, he hoped the hon Gentleman would not persevere with his proposition, as it would in effect destroy the lease between a landlord and tenant.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON

said, he hoped the hon. Member would move some provision of the kind at a later stage of the Bill.

MR. DUDLEY FORTESCUE

said, he had no desire to delay the progress of the Bill, and he would not press the Amendment, but would bring it up at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"

LORD ELCHO

said, that he had no intention of detaining the Committee for any length of time, but it was mainly to this clause that he took exception on the second reading of the Bill. He had sat in the House on an average from 5 o'clock till 1 since the Bill had been under discussion, listening to the arguments brought forward by Her Majesty's Government in support of the very novel principles contained, in this clause, and, as far as he himself was concerned, he was bound to say that he had heard nothing in the shape of argument, either from the Government or from Members on the Ministerial side of the House, that had not confirmed him in the view he took at the commencement of the Session. There had been only one sound argument used by the Government—that of numbers; but that was one which he was bound to acknowledge was effective and irresistible. He would refrain from going into the arguments em- ployed by the Government, though he was strongly tempted to do so, but he had no desire to interfere with the progress of the Bill. All that he desired to o was to resist certain principles contained in the Bill and in this particular clause. He wished he could adopt the view of the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry (Sir Frederick Heygate), who approved the principle of compensation in this Bill, which he said was one of the most statesmanlike measures ever introduced into the House of Commons. What he (Lord Elcho) felt was that those Gentlemen who came from Ulster, where they held property which this clause did not touch at all, and where they already had a fixed rate of compensation between them and their tenants, should undertake the settlement of a matter which affected not their own, but other properties in Ireland. This new principle of compensation amounted simply to the confiscation of property without any compensation whatever, and he thought that it was the first time in the history of our legislation that private property had been confiscated without awarding compensation. He was not going at that moment to engage in any discussion on this question. He should reserve that until he came to a later stage, when it was his intention to propose an Amendment which he believed would bring this principle more in harmony with legislation as it at present existed on the statute book. If that were adopted it would, he believed, be an enormous stride in the direction in which they were going, and he hoped that the House would consider it seriously, with a view to the adoption of a principle which, if not absolutely just, would, at all events, not be unjust. Although his voice would probably stand alone, he should distinctly say "No" to the adoption of this clause.

SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATE

said, he only rose for the purpose of distinctly contradicting what had fallen from the noble Lord. He had never stated that he approved the principle of the Bill; for he had stated distinctly on the second reading that he did not think the principle good. He stated, however, that that principle had been distinctly affirmed over and over again by large majorities in that House, and that it was useless and a mere waste of time to contend against those decisions. His object from that time forth was to make the best of the position in which he found himself, while he was not insensible to the fact that much might be said on the other side of the question. When the noble Lord, however, said that Ulster Members had no right to give their opinions because their properties would not be affected—

LORD ELCHO

stated that what he had said was, that on this point the opinion of Ulster Members was not entitled to so much weight as it would be if their properties were likely to be affected by the proposals in the Bill.

SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATE

said, the noble Lord had apparently forgotten that if they did not fall under Clause 1 they would under Clause 3; and if it were said by the proprietors in the South of Ireland that those in the North had no right to interfere, the latter were entitled to reply that it was owing to the unsettled relations between landlord and tenant in the South and West that this Bill was ever brought in.

MR. MAGUIRE

observed that the noble Lord who rebuked landlords from the North of Ireland for taking part in matters which more particularly affected the South was a representative of neither portion of that country, but came from that romantic district called Scotland.

LORD ELCHO

replied that, as a Member of an Imperial Parliament, he was entitled to take part in the discussion of an Imperial question, while the question of game showed that Irish Members did not scruple to meddle with Scotland.

MR. M. CHAMBERS,

as an Englishman, protested against the doctrine that those who lived in a happy community had no right to interfere for the purpose of benefiting their neighbours who were less fortunately situated.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, he had only one word to say in confirmation of the principles contained in the 3rd clause. It was this clause which prevented him from voting for the second reading of the Bill. The principles to which he objected had been affirmed by large majorities; and, therefore, while believing that these principles were not sound, and that hereafter they would be acknowledged to be unsound, unless they effected the pacification of Ireland, which he doubted, he would content himself in saying, with his noble Friend "No" to the clause.

MR. W. FOWLER

merely rose to say that, as Her Majesty's Government had adopted the principle of the Amendment which he had proposed the other day, he had framed that Amendment as one of their loyal supporters.

MR. BRUEN

objected to the clause in the interest of the tenant. He had shown the other day that the landlord who had his estate divided among small tenants was in a far worse position than if the land were held by large farmers, and, therefore, it would be his interest to get rid of the small occupiers. The Government had, therefore, placed, the small tenants at a great disadvantage. The principles of the clause were altogether opposed to political economy, by which the action of that House ought to be guided.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Compensation in case of improvements).

MR. DISRAELI

moved to leave out in sub-section (a) the words "before the passing of this Act," in page 5, line 6, in order to insert the words "before the making of the claim." The Committee would observe that the object of subsection (a) was to secure to those who had made miscellaneous improvements, other than permanent buildings, for the reclamation of land 20 years' enjoyment of them, or an equivalent of their value as compensation. In the event of the claim not being made until 10 or even 20 years after the passing of the Act, as the clause stood the tenant would be entitled to 30 or even 40 years' enjoyment of such improvements. If the Amendment he proposed were adopted the original intention of the clause would be carried into effect.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said the right hon. Gentleman opposite had misapprehended the intention of that sub-section, which was meant to apply solely to the retrospective question, and to nothing else. It was simply intended to give a claim retrospectively for improvements, and to limit that claim to improvements made within 20 years before the passing of the Bill. Even if they wished to lay down the limit of 20 years for all improvements past and future, that would not be the proper place to do it; and, moreover, it would be contrary to the principles of their Bill, which did not contain any provision for establishing compensation periods, or any arbitrary mode of cutting short the claim for improvements.

MR. SYNAN

reminded the right hon. Gentleman opposite that in the Bill brought in by a Conservative Government, in 1858, there was an analogous provision to the present, giving retrospective compensation.

DR. BALL

said, he understood the 4th section to be a general section, giving all tenants, in respect to improvements made both before and after the passing of the Act, the right to demand compensation from their landlords; and he conceived that the exceptions marked A, B, C, D, and E were intended to take out of the operation of the section certain classes of improvements. Well, he understood the meaning of the words— In respect of any improvement made 20 years before the passing of this Act, except permanent buildings and reclamation of land, was to put a limit of 20 years upon minor improvements, and that after they were 20 years old they should cease to give any claim. Whether, however, that was the intention or not, it would be a wise thing to do; and all the arguments founded on justice and reason went to show that 20 years was a large and liberal period to allow for such claims. All the evidence tended to confirm that view. Even the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire), in his evidence before Lord Clanricarde's Committee, fixed on 31 years as a period that would compensate the tenant for almost any improvement except a house. He submitted, therefore, that there should be adopted the limit of 20 years before making the claim, in respect to improvements other than permanent buildings and the reclamation of land. If the claim was to be for ever, he said that was a very alarming matter in the Bill. Was there to be no period at which the right to demand compensation for those improvements should terminate? Was it to be as fresh as ever at the end of 100 years, although the tenant had had the whole benefit of the improvement during the entire term?

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he thought it evident that the Amendment had been framed under a total misconception of the purport of the clause, and he did not think the Government were responsible for that misconception. The view of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) was, that the tenant, if he made a bad improvement, must bear the loss. They were all agreed on that; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last said the tenant was to be compensated for his improvements, as a general rule, by the usufruct for a certain time. [Dr. BALL: Hear, hear!] But that was not the principle of the Bill. The language of the Bill was perfectly clear. As to prospective improvements, the principle the Government had adopted was, thatt hey were to be the property of the tenant without any other limitations than those expressly contained in the Act, and that on the tenant quitting his holding, those improvements were to be sold to the landlord. With regard to retrospective improvements, they proposed a different principle, fixing a limit of 20 years, and also providing that the Court should take into consideration the period of time during which the tenant had enjoyed the benefit of them—because he was not entitled to more than would replace his capital, with a proper reward for himself.

MR. CORRANCE

said, he thought those on his side of the House also had reason to regret that a misapprehension should exist on that subject, because they had a right to expect that if that limitation was deemed good for the past it might also be deemed good for the future.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, that in the 66th clause the term "improvements" was defined to mean, in relation to any holding— Any work which, being executed, adds to the letting value of the holding on which it is executed, and is suitable to such holding. He would suggest that the wording of that definition might be improved. They were not to understand that, at the time of being executed, the improvements added to the letting value of the holding, but that at the time of the tenancy becoming vacant they added to its letting value. He confessed it seemed to him that the objects of justice were substantially provided for by the clause.

LORD ELCHO

said, he was unable to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken. If a tenant were in possession for 20 or 30 years, it might be presumed that he had the usufruct of his improvements. This was the presumption in England and Scotland. He should like to hear from the Prime Minister why, in respect of this matter, there was to be an exceptional rule in Ireland.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he would answer the noble Lord by saying that he considered the law as to improvements in England and Scotland to be, in the abstract, wrong. He considered that the general rule ought to be that which was established in the Bill—namely, that improvements created by the tenant should be the property of the tenant, and that he should receive the value of them when he quitted the holding; and that the modifications of that rule, such as are common in England and Scotland, should be introduced by special contract, where they were introduced at all. In the present peculiar state of Ireland it was, however, necessary to limit the application of special contracts.

MR. CORRANCE

said, he did not think that the ultimate effect of the clause would be injurious to either the landlord or the tenant, but it would increase rents.

DR. BALL

said, it appeared, from the explanation given from the Treasury Bench of the object of the sub-section, that this was not the proper place for the Amendment. The principle of the Amendment ought, however, to be considered at the proper time; because, as the Bill stood, the tenant might claim compensation for improvements made ages before he had become tenant, if they had been by any person from whom, either directly or by accident, he could claim a title to those improvements. He considered that the conclusion to which the Government had arrived was in direct opposition to the evidence taken before Lord Clanricarde's Committee.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. KAVANAGH

moved, in page 5, line 6, to leave out from "except" to "reclamation of land" in line 7, both inclusive. His reason for moving the omission of these words was that he considered that, when taken in connection with Clause 5, their unlimited retrospective bearing was a very glaring injustice, and likely to be most dangerous in its results, as being directly calculated to give rise to endless and irritating litigation. He was bound to say, however, that the Amendment to Clause 5 placed upon the Paper by the Chief Se- cretary for Ireland, limiting the presumption for improvements to 20 years, removed in a certain degree his objection to a part of them, as in the absence of a tenant being able to produce proof that 20 years before he or his predecessors in title had made the improvements referred to, they must merge in the land, and consequently become the property of the landlord. If, on the other hand, the tenant could prove that those improvements were made either by him or his predecessors in title, it was only right that he should obtain, upon quitting his holding, fair compensation for them, due regard being had to the length of time which he had enjoyed them. These considerations, however, only applied to permanent buildings; and, with the permission of the Committee, he would alter his Amendment by moving only to omit the words "and reclamation of land." These words opened a far larger and more intricate question—the fair solution of which was, in his opinion, far from easy. Before the Easter Recess this subject was for a short time under discussion; and then, as hon. Members would remember, some very grave considerations which it involved were raised but not decided. It required to be clearly denned what was the nature of the reclamation which, made 20 years ago, was to be regarded now as conferring a right to claim compensation for it. Draining, he knew, to his own cost should not, for he was now paying £200 a year under what was termed "Labouchere's Letter," for a sum that was expended in draining on his property, the whole of which he had had to do over again at his own expense. Reclaiming mountain or waste land, unless the improvement had been sustained, should be another exception. He had known land, which was made arable at considerable expense, after less than 10 years, from careless husbandry, relapse into the wilderness it was before. On the other hand, clearing land of stones was a fair case for compensation, for that was unquestionably a permanent improvement. The erection of boundary fences in a substantial, permanent manner appeared to him to be another, whereas the well-known love that Irish tenants had for subdividing their farms and covering them with a network of fences could only be regarded in the very opposite light from improvement. The question was a very large and a very intricate one, and one with which his knowledge of agricultural matters was not enough to make him competent to deal. He hoped, therefore, by moving the omission of these words the question would be raised, and that they would not be retained without some proper, clear, and definite qualification.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 7, to leave out the words "and reclamation of land."—(Mr. Kavanagh.)

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, that if under this Bill a claim was made for the cost of making drainage which was good for nothing when made it would be treated in a very summary manner; because, as it would not be an improvement within the meaning of the Bill, it would at once be dismissed from consideration by the Court. The Government were not able to agree to the Amendment, as they thought that to limit to 20 years claims for improvements of such a permanent nature as the reclamation of land would not be in accordance with the principles of the Bill. In many cases a long period must elapse before the cost of reclaiming land could be recouped, and tenants in such cases would never have undertaken the work had they dreamed of being limited to 20 years. To leave such a matter to the discretion of the Court—as was provided by the latter part of the clause—was, the Government thought, a fair way to meet the justice of such cases; while he was inclined to think that Courts would I not experience any difficulty in interpreting the words "reclamation of land," that phrase being one which was well understood in Ireland. If, however, it should be thought safer to define the term, the Government would take the matter into consideration.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not given an answer to the Amendment, which related to a serious matter, owing to the great quantity of land in Ireland that I might and could be reclaimed, such land at present not being enclosed, drained, or applied to the purposes of agriculture. He knew cases in which land in Ireland had been let on leases for 20 years, at rentals varying from 1s. 6d. to 5s. per Irish acre, for the distinct purpose of being reclaimed by the tenants to whose interest and convenience it was that such reclamation should take place. Such tenants had been satisfied to accept leases for 20 years, and it would be monstrous to prevent landlords from getting the proper value of their land on the expiration of that term. In Scotland tenants were willing, on being granted leases for 19 years, to reclaim land and to give it up to the owner in a good state of cultivation, or to continue in the occupation of it at a considerably increased rent; and surely the Government would not contend that an Irishman could not do likewise when a lease for 31 years was granted to him. He therefore hoped that the words "reclamation of land" would be struck out of the section.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, he always felt depressed when the word. Scotland was mentioned in the discussion on this Bill, for its mention did not tend to the solution of the difficulties which were raised. It was not for him to define a particular word, and he had, therefore, simply expressed his belief that the Courts would find very little difficulty in applying the language of the Bill to any particular case that might come before them. He would point out that improvements made under leases were expressly provided for in the Bill, as they would be made under a contract for valuable consideration. All that the hon. Member had in view in proposing the Amendment would be met by what was within the Bill.

MR. SYNAN

said, that, in his opinion, all permanent improvements ought to be excepted, just as much as reclamation of land.

MR. BRUEN,

in reference to the necessity for a definition of the reclamation of land, said, he had effected a real reclamation by draining and subsoiling a formerly worthless peat, which the tenant carefully fenced round to keep his cattle off it, lest they should eat anything that was poisonous. The cost of draining was £3 2s. 6d. an acre, and of subsoiling £5 an acre; so that the total cost of reclamation was £8 2s. 6d. an acre; and a year or two afterwards the land produced a crop of barley which he sold for £19 an acre. He admitted that in some places where there were rocks and stones, a larger expense would have to be incurred; but in an ordinary case of reclaiming the surface of land from a state of nature, the expense incurred might be easily recouped in a few years; and 20 years was the outside term which ought to be allowed to a tenant to recoup himself. He believed that the words "reclamation of land" were quite unnecessary here to moot the ends of justice.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

reminded the Committee that on a former evening he referred to the 27 & 28 Viet. c. 114, s. 9, the Improvement of Lands Act, 1864, which applied to England and Ireland, and the 9th clause of which contained a subdivision which spoke of the reclamation of land and all operations necessary thereto. Many hon. Members said that the reclamation of land under that statute was perfectly well understood, and, that being so, there was no difficulty in interpreting the phrase under this Bill. Having consulted the best authorities, the Government came to the conclusion that the reclamation, as so understood, could not generally be paid for in 20 years, although there might be instances in which it would, and if there were the Court would deal with them. If a tenant said it was 30 years since he reclaimed land, the Court would say he had been abundantly repaid. The only thing the clause provided for was that a tenant should not be debarred from making a claim.

MR. M'LAGAN

said, it was important the Committee should understand the position they were in, and that there was I a difference between yearly tenancies and leases. If a man had a lease for 19 or for 31 years, he might recoup himself; and in Aberdeenshire, with a lease for 19 years, at a nominal rent of 1s. or 2s. 6d. an acre, a man gave up all improvements except buildings, as it was supposed he had repaid himself. A man's doing so of course depended upon there having been no increase of rent during the 19 years; but in Ireland he found that, with yearly tenancies, improvement was followed immediately by an advance of rent. In such cases a tenant ought to be paid, even though he had had the land for 30 years. In Ireland he found much land quite uncultivated, and the tenant in each case said—"I might improve it; but if I did, the rent would be raised at once." For these reasons he should treat leases separately from tenancies-at-will. As the Chief Secretary for Ireland said the Bill pro- vided for farms under leases, the Amendment was unnecessary, and they ought now to discuss the question only as it affected tenancies-at-will; and, unless it could be shown that it was not the custom to raise rents immediately after improvements, compensation must be allowed for permanent improvements.

LORD ELCHO

said, he was glad to hear from so staunch a supporter of the Government as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan) that leases ought to be excluded from the operation of the clause. It was not surprising that the Chief Secretary shuddered when he heard the names of England and Scotland, because principles of legislation were being introduced which would recoil upon this country, and which might operate immediately in Scotland; and he should be surprised if the result of this discussion was not to show some English and Scotch. Members the wild character of the legislation proposed. He had put a question to the Prime Minister, and had obtained a direct answer from him. In England and in Scotland the law was, that where tenants made improvements and were in possession long enough to have enjoyed the usufruct, the landlords received back the lands so improved without compensation to the tenant. He asked the Prime Minister whether there was any difference in the case of Ireland, and whether there was any sufficient reason for exceptional legislation? The right hon. Gentleman could not say there was, nor could anybody on the Treasury Bench say there was. But the right hon. Gentleman added that, in his opinion, the system in England and Scotland was wrong; and, if he thought so, it was his duty to press for a change in the law there. He (Lord Elcho) maintained, on the contrary, that, both in justice and in policy, the principle was a sound one. He held in his hand a Scotch lease granted in 1732 by Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat, who lost his head in 1745, and who reclaimed portions of his land by a system of cottier tenants. This was a lease granted to certain persons who were— To take as much land as they were able to take in and improve during the currency of their present tack, for the term of seven years— And seeing that the said place is nothing but a barren moor or hill, without the least improve- merit, therefore the said Lord Lovat obliges himself and his heirs to ask or demand no manner of duty or rent during the said seven years, and at the expiration thereof the said Lord Lovat obliges himself and his heirs to prefer the lessees as tenants of the land so improved by them, provided that they offer as much yearly rent as any other person for any term of years thereafter, finding security therefor. That was the system which, held good in Scotland 100 years ago. The hon. Member (Mr. M'Lagan) had been a tenant-farmer, was a proprietor of land in Scotland, had visited Ireland, and published an account of his visit, to which the Prime Minister said he was greatly indebted. The hon. Member was well acquainted with agriculture, and there could be no higher authority on this subject. Yet he, a supporter of the Government, said that in the matter of reclamation of land a lease of 20 years should cover everything, and that Scotch tenants cheerfully took land on this condition, not expecting at the end of the term to receive anything by way of compensation for reclaiming the land. He wished more Scotch Members would speak on this question, and among others he should like to hear the views of the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Robertson), than whom no man better fulfilled the traditional duty of a Lord of the Treasury—that of making a House, keeping a House, and cheering a Minister. When he used to meet the hon. Gentleman 20 years ago in the hunting-field, had they not ridden over hundreds of acres of moorland, some of which was now growing beautiful crops of turnips, oats, and, in many cases, of wheat? Had that land been reclaimed on the principle viewed with such favour by the Government—namely, that the tenant should be paid for the reclamation? No; it had been reclaimed on 19 years' leases, which had converted Scotland from a wilderness into a comparative garden. In Scotland it had always been the custom of the landlord to put up buildings, and where, as in Ireland, these were erected by the tenant, he should treat as to them on a different footing. Mr. Trench said that 21 years ought to cover all improvements except buildings, and a 30 years' lease ought to cover these. His hon. Friend (Mr. M'Lagan) had drawn a just distinction between reclamation with and reclamation without a lease. It was clear that where the rent had not been increased during a 19 years' occupation the position of the reclaiming occupier was the same as though he had had a lease. There could be no difficulty in introducing into the Bill words, as a guide to the Court, which would provide that where the rent had been gradually raised during the occupation the tenant should receive compensation; but that where the rent had not been raised, and the tenant had enjoyed the usufruct for 19 years, he should receive no compensation.

COLONEL FRENCH

said, he thought that a lease for 21 years ought to cover all improvements except a house. The whole question at issue turned upon whether the rent had been raised or not, and a provision might easily be introduced by the Government in accordance with that distinction instead of passing the clause as it stood.

MR. C. S. READ

said, he quite understood the main principle of the Bill was, that the Judges who tried these cases between the landlords and tenants should decide each case separately, and upon its own merits; but he thought there ought to be some limit to the power of these Judges, and that they would be very grateful if some rules were laid down for their guidance. Parliament ought not, in his opinion, to be content with briefly shadowing forth what is meant; but ought absolutely to define the object of a clause when it was possible to do so. The reclamation of land should, he maintained, be excluded from the operation of the Bill when the tenant had enjoyed his holding for 20 years after without any increase of rent. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said he always shuddered when he heard Scotland mentioned in those discussions, and, perhaps, he would view all reference to England with equal dislike. He must, nevertheless, ask how it came to pass that the sheep-walks and rabbit-warrens of Norfolk and the fens of Cambridgeshire were reclaimed under a 21 years' lease; or how the wolds of Lincolnshire were reclaimed without any lease whatsoever, but simply under a yearly agreement, protected by a liberal tenant-right. If, he might add, he was rightly informed, many Scotch farmers preferred taking mountain land to reclaim, and to be given up at the end of 19 years, to hiring the land which had been re- claimed during that period at an advanced rent. He was glad that the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh) had excluded permanent buildings from his Amendment. They stood upon quite a different footing, and it was quite right that, even at the end of 31 years, if the tenant had built a good house, he should receive some compensation for it. In leases made 20 years ago, it might not have been specified precisely that at the end of the term reclamation of land should not be paid for; but 20 years ago nobody dreamed that a Bill like the present would ever be introduced into Parliament. He entirely concurred with what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan). If it were the custom in Ireland—and he much doubted it—that the moment a man had reclaimed the land his rent was raised, he certainly was not allowed to enjoy his improvements, and he ought, in that case, to be entitled to compensation. If, however, a lease was made 20 years ago, and contained no special provision for such payment, the landlord ought, at the expiration of the time, to receive his own again, and be allowed to enter into a fresh agreement with the tenant. And, after the passing of this Act, if a man could not recoup himself in the course of 31 years, he had no business to expend his money on the reclamation of the land.

MR. ROBERTSON,

in reference to an allusion of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Elcho), as to their hunting together many years ago, said, he was by no means sure they did not spend their time as usefully, and assuredly more agreeably, then than they did now. He had no intention of following the bad example set by some hon. Members from Scotland, who, in speaking upon an Irish question, wasted the time of the Committee in long irrelevant speeches drawing comparisons between England, Scotland, and Ireland instead of looking at the actual state of things in Ireland itself. The present was an exceptional case and exceptional legislation; but he must say it was stepping out of the record in every sense of the word, when they dragged the position of England and Scotland into that discussion. The noble Lord had challenged him to speak on the subject, and no man should ever give him a challenge, either in the House or out of it, that he would not accept. All he would do, however, in accepting that challenge, would be to request the noble Lord and Members from Scotland no longer to waste the time of the Committee in prolonging those endless and useless discussions. They had been at least two months engaged in discussing the Bill; and it was, therefore, surely time that they should cease to talk about Scotland, and should allow legislation to go on, and if possible pass the Bill. He entreated them for once to abandon their Scotch ideas, and try to legislate for Ireland in view of the actual state and wants of that country, and to make Ireland no longer in name, but part and parcel of a great United Kingdom.

MR. ORR EWING

said, he could not assent to the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Robertson), that Scotchmen and Englishmen were not entitled to take part in these discussions, for the general feeling of the House was that the laws of England, Scotland, and Ireland should be assimilated as far as possible, and that there should be no more exceptional legislation than was absolutely necessary. Hon. Members must not forget that, although the present measure had reference only to Ireland, it might hereafter be made a precedent for legislation for Scotland and England. If the law which it was now proposed to extend to Ireland had prevailed in Scotland, he doubted whether many thousands of acres of land which now yielded fine crops would have been yet reclaimed from a state of barrenness. The reclamation of land in Scotland had been accomplished by the frugality and industry of the people, though he admitted it had been encouraged by the liberal way in which the landlords had acted towards their tenants. In fact, the agreement was for the mutual advantage of both parties, a lease being granted to the tenant at a nominal rent for 19 years, in order that he might effect improvements, from which the landlord derived no benefit until after the expiration of the term. It would be well if, instead of introducing a bad system into Ireland, they were to adopt a system which had worked so successfully in Scotland. If the Committee did not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh), he hoped they would support the Amend- ment to a similar effect which, would be subsequently proposed by another hon. Member.

MR. SHERLOCK,

after remarking that he saw no objection to Members for England or Scotland taking part in the discussion, said, the proposal of the hon. Member for Carlow was that under no circumstances, whatever rent he might pay, was a tenant to be entitled to any compensation after 20 years for the reclamation of land; whereas the original clause, while not enacting that compensation must be given in every instance, allowed the Court to grant compensation for reclamation of land, if the tenant made out his case. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Read) had referred to large reclamations of land having been made in Lincolnshire by tenants from year to year; but surely he would never venture to propose the extension of such a system to Ireland. In the cases alluded to there must have been an honourable understanding that the tenant, though legally liable to eviction on six months' notice to quit, should be allowed to remain in possession until he had reaped the reward of his industry.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he was disappointed at the prolongation of this discussion. As far as he understood the matter, there was really no conflicting principle between the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite on this point. The principle for which the supporters of the Amendment were contending was, that the tenant should be repaid for his outlay in improvements by the usufruct of those improvements for a certain time. As to retrospective improvements, it was not proposed by this clause to give the tenant the full value of those improvements, whatever they might be. The words beginning at line 25 clearly provided that, in reduction of the tenant's claim, the Court was to take into consideration the time during which he had enjoyed the advantage of those improvements, the rent which he had paid, and any benefits derived by him expressly or impliedly from the landlord, in consideration of such improvements. Reclamation of land would also be included within the scope of these words. The Court would take all the circumstances into consideration, and only award such compensation to the tenant as was reasonable. As there was no real difference of opinion on the subject of this provision, he hoped hon. Members would not feel it necessary to discuss it at length.

DR. BALL

said, he thought there ought to be a period at which an improvement consisting of the reclamation of land might be deemed to have exhausted itself. It was admitted that a large class of improvements ought not to be paid for, if they were more than 20 years old. Why not treat reclamation in the same way? A great deal of agricultural experience had been brought to bear upon this subject, and it was certainly remarkable that the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Robertson), who understood matters of this kind as well as any Member of the House, while warmly supporting the Bill and the Government, never asserted that reclamation did not pay for itself within a certain period. This was obvious, for reclamation, immediately upon its accomplishment, increased the productiveness of the land. He did not pretend to be an agriculturist; but by those well acquainted with the subject he had been assured that five or six years' good crops repaid the whole cost of reclamation. A gentleman who had carried out operations of this kind very extensively, assured him that in eight or nine years he was well repaid for his outlay. The hon. Member who had brought forward this Motion (Mr. Kavanagh) was practically acquainted with the subject; he had given a cordial and direct support to most of the provisions of the Bill, and with regard to a proposition admittedly reasonable in itself, he had some claim to be met otherwise than with determined resistance by the Government.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Member for Carlow County consulted, as he had done, the highest authorities upon the reclamation of land, they would find that a limit of 20 years was totally inadequate. [Dr. BALL: Who are the authorities?] There were several who concurred in this view. Of these, one was Mr. Curling, who, speaking from the experience of Lord Devon's property, which he so admirably managed, declared that with respect to comparatively dry lands the period of 41 years was the least that could be laid down as remunerative, and with regard to wet lands a period of 61 ["Oh!"] He spoke with a full knowledge of what he was saying, and he must strongly oppose any attempt to fix an arbitrary limit such as was proposed.

MR. CORRANCE

asked whether the opinion which the right hon. Gentleman had quoted referred to the reclamations made by tenants, or to the larger reclamations made by the landlord?

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

replied that it had reference to improvements by tenants.

MR. CORRANCE

And upon what sized occupations?

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

observed that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball), instead of reading the evidence of Mr. Trench, had read to the Committee the evidence of the agent of the Earl of Devon, it would have carried much greater weight. Mr. Trench, when asked for his opinion as to the periods which would reimburse a tenant for his outlay, said that in the case of a house, 25 years would be sufficient; of substantial stables and barns, 15 years; of a house and stables combined, 20 years; of good boundary fences, five years; and of farm roads, five years. It had been said, over and over again, that the tenantry of Ireland would not be satisfied with 31 years' leases; but in some parts of Ireland the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) had found that land would not let for 5s. an acre, because the tenants did not know from day to day when they might be dispossessed of it. An hon. and gallant Member opposite (Col. Barttelot) had stated that 20 years' leases were common in Ireland, and that tenants could well recoup themselves within that time. He, on the contrary, had acted as a professional man for 35 years; he enjoyed the confidence of a large portion of the landlords of the County Cork, and, neither as a landlord nor as a professional man, had he ever seen or heard of such a lease within that county. On the contrary, he had frequently known cases where the rent was increased as the farm advanced in value. In his (Mr. M'Carthy Downing's) own district he knew a tenant whose rent had been raised no less than three times in the short space of 10 years in consequence of his improvement of the land, and when the tenant at last declined to pay the increased rent he was served with a notice to quit and an ejectment was brought against him. He could not object to Scotch and English Members taking part in the discussion; but he thought they ought not to take any adverse part in Divisions when the feeling of the Irish people, and of the great majority of the Irish representatives in that House, had been so often and so unmistakably expressed.

MR. HENLEY

remarked that the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. S. Read) was correct in stating that the principle of this Bill was to leave everything to be settled by the Judge, and he had wisely urged that some assistance should be given to that learned functionary in settling these various matters. The Prime Minister himself had stated that, under this clause, the Court was to take all the circumstances of each individual case, such as the time of occupancy and the rent, into consideration. What a pretty question it would be for a Court to determine as to the amount of rent which had been paid for a particular holding 20, or perhaps 40 years before the matter came before it. How was evidence upon such a point to be obtained? Were the tenants of Irish estates such excellent bookkeepers that they would be able to bring anything like written testimony to show what their expenses had been in reclaiming the land, and what weight would parole testimony on such a subject have with the Court? The result of this clause would be to sow ill-will between the landlords and the tenants, and care should be taken that such a door for incessant litigation as it presented should not be opened. It should not be forgotten that the question of costs under this Bill would be an important one, because the fees to counsel and agents would be the same, whether £5 or £100 were involved, and, therefore, in common charity, some limit should be placed upon litigation under the measure. He implored the Committee to give the Court some guide which would enable it to put a stop to unnecessary litigation, which would only have the effect of putting money into the lawyers' pockets without doing anybody else any good.

MR. H. A. HERBERT

felt bound to say, in defence of Mr. Trench, that the building of a house or even a farmstead in England or Scotland was a very dif- ferent thing to building what he called a very good house in Ireland.

LORD ELCHO

observed, that when the Chief Secretary for Ireland had cited the authority of Mr. Curling in support of the assertion that 30, 40, or even 60 years' possession were necessary to enable the tenant to recover the cost of reclamation of land, he had not disputed the accuracy of that assertion. All that he had desired to do was to point out that in the opinion of the hon. Members who were regarded as authorities on such subjects, 20 years' occupation was amply sufficient to enable the tenant to recoup himself for the expense he had incurred in reclaiming the land. He thought it would be better if the Government would look at this question with the eyes of Englishmen and Scotchmen rather than with those of Irishmen. The hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Robertson), in consequence of his blind admiration of his leader, had got into a sort of moral molluscous state, in which he was ready to shut his eyes and open his mouth, and take whatever the Prime Minister chose to put into it. He knew how the hon. Member, as a Scotchman, must hate this proposed interference with the freedom of contract. The hon. Member was making a desperate effort to swallow the Bill and get rid of it once and for all, and wanted it to be buried out of sight as quickly as possible. The hon. Member had accused hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House of delaying the progress of the measure. Why, for every single Amendment and speech that had been made by English and Scotch Members, ten Amendments and ten speeches had been made by Irish Members! For his own part, he had only placed one Amendment on the Paper. The delay that had occurred in the progress of the measure must rest, not with those who were discussing its provisions, but with the Government, who had brought in a Bill which bristled with new principles of a most objectionable and offensive character. The Government had their battalions at their back, whereas the only weapon in the hands of the Opposition was discussion, and it was through discussion alone that a chance lay of making the country aware of the real character of the Bill. The hon. Member for Berwickshire had said that Scotchmen had no interest in the Bill because it was an exceptional measure; but the principles under which the Bill was passed, and which in the present instance it was proposed to apply to land in Ireland only, were exciting already considerable attention in Scotland. By abolishing freedom of contract they were overriding all accepted principles of political economy in this Bill. And what was their excuse for taking such a course? Because it was alleged that the demand for land was so great in Ireland that the tenant was entirely at the mercy of his landlord, and must accept any terms that were offered to him if freedom of contract were left unrestricted. To-day he had received a Petition from the Agricultural Club of East Lothian—men holding large farms for which they sometimes paid £5 an acre. That Petition was one against the Lord Advocate's I Game Law Bill, which proposed to make game the property of the tenant, and the petitioners objected to it on the ground that the competition for land was such that the occupiers were not in a position to retain the right to the game which the Bill proposed to give them. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, when this question of the freedom of contract was before the House in the matter of the Game Laws, got into a frightful state of excitement about it, and said it was monstrous to interfere in that way; but when they came to this Bill, the hon. Gentleman relapsed into his condition of moral molluscousness, and was prepared to accept anything that the Government chose to give him, at the same time forbidding everybody else to talk about the matter.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Elcho) was, of course, the best judge of the prudence of his own proceedings, and he (Mr. Gladstone) was the more anxious to impress the statement upon the noble Lord's mind, because he also had a very strong opinion upon the subject which it was equally lawful for him to entertain. When the noble Lord had quoted a passage from the Petition of the Farmers' Club at East Lothian, he thought he was going to give triumphant force to his argument, by showing that these farmers had founded their Petition upon the provisions of the Bill, in order to show that game ought to be excluded from freedom of contract. The noble Lord, however, had done nothing of the kind, and lie had utterly failed in establishing any connection between the Petition to which he referred and the present measure. Moreover, he believed that the claim for exempting game in Scotland from freedom of contract was anterior to the introduction of the present Bill, and consequently the Bill was not responsible for the origin of that claim. He must, for once and all, enter his protest—on the ground of prudence—against the course taken by his noble Friend. Those who belonged to the Government, and hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House generally, had, at every step of the discussion, and in relation to every provision of the Bill, endeavoured to explain strongly and clearly those undeniable circumstances in the history, the legislation, the tenure of land, and in the whole condition of Ireland, which, in their opinion, made the principles applicable to that country inapplicable to this country; but his noble Friend, and others with him, were constantly and steadily arguing that the Bill, when once applied to Ireland, must inevitably be extended to England and Scotland. The Government, however, did not wish to be responsible for such a consequence, and those who preached and promulgated that doctrine, who persistently closed their eyes to those broad distinctions in the condition of Ireland which made that country a separate case, and who insisted that the tenure of land in Scotland and England would eventually be identical with the tenure of land in Ireland, were the persons who should be responsible for it. An example of the effect of a course of proceeding like that had recently been presented in Wales. The people there were not unmindful of the statements made by many clergymen, Prelates, and a good number of Members in that House, to the effect that the principles of the Irish Church Bill would inevitably be applied to Wales, and the result was seen in the last elections. Hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House had not broached the doctrines put forward—that was the result of lessons coming from the other side. What they wished to stand upon was, that it was not so in the judgment of that side of the House. The Government had been enabled to establish the difference between the case of Ireland and that of England and Scotland, and he disclaimed whatever inconveniences might arise from the strained efforts which had been made to show an identity which did not exist. He was sorry that this question had been made a subject of so much contention; and, if all other points in the Bill were to be debated at as great a length in proportion to their importance as the present, he feared that the time required for their disposal would be immeasurable. According to the provisions of the Bill, whether they took the line of years for the reclamation of land or any other line, nothing could be given to the tenant except fair compensation for his outlay. That was the meaning of the clause with respect to retrospective improvements, and to strike out the reclamation of land would be a harsh course, and would unduly narrow the ground for giving compensation. He hoped that after that discussion the Committee would soon be enabled to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on the question.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON

earnestly controverted the argument which had been put forward by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that a term of 20 years would be totally inadequate to compensate persons for the reclamation of the land. His right hon. Friend had alluded to the evidence of Mr. Curling, given before the Committee which sat in 1860. Now, he (Lord C. Hamilton) admitted that Mr. Curling was a most respectable and upright man; but, having served on the Committee alluded to, he must say that Mr. Curling was also somewhat of an enthusiast, and had peculiar views of his own; and the reasons he gave for those long periods mentioned by him as affording time for a just compensation would not stand the test of examination. He could not, therefore, admit that they were to legislate for the whole of Ireland on the unsupported evidence of Mr. Curling. In Scotland enormous tracts had been converted from a state of nature into a highly cultivated condition, and no Scotchman would say that those lengthened periods of occupancy mentioned by Mr. Curling were necessary in order to insure compensation to the tenant. When it was stated that the whole system of agriculture in Ireland required improvement, was it not common sense, then, to advert to the magnificent result effected in Scotland under the system prevailing there; and how could it be said, under these circumstances, that Scotchmen had not a right to interfere in the discussion of this question? They ought to base their system on some intelligible principle. He thought it desirable that every intelligent man who understood the matter practically should define what he meant by the word reclamation. It was a process which had improved the land, and how could that be ascertained without reference to its original state? There must, therefore, be some limit to show the period to which they went back. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, in the multitude of the words he used, had held out a sort of menace to Gentlemen on that side of the House, and said he would not take the responsibility of their proceedings. He, on the other hand, felt they were bound to express their opinion, and, looking to the pages of Amendments on the Paper in the names of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it could not be said that opposition came chiefly from hon. Gentlemen around him. They must not proceed on the idea that Ireland's agriculture could be improved by a departure from all the dictates of common sense and political economy. Instead of precluding Scotch Gentlemen from giving the results of their experience, they should be glad to receive their assistance in the solution of this great question. Ministers might carry what they pleased by their majorities; but if they did not act on the dictates of common sense, sound principle, and experience, they must fail in the object they had in view. He had heard nothing to justify the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

MR. ROBERTSON

said, that having been personally attacked, he would beg to reply. The attack of the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) was utterly unjustifiable. He was perfectly ready to stake his political character against that of the noble Lord. They had both been many years in the House, and they had both entered it as Liberals. ["No!"] At any rate, he had always understood that the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire on his first entrance into Parliament supported the Liberal party. He (Mr. Robertson) had always sat on the Ministerial side of the House; the only thing that he regretted was that the noble Lord now sat on the other side. There could now be no mistake as to his political character. The thing which most distressed him—and he said it advisedly—was that some hon. Members who sat on the Ministerial side of the House were doing everything in their power to undermine the Government. Anyone could repel a straightforward attack; but a stab in the back was difficult to guard against. He did think that he had a right to complain of the personalities which had been bandied across the House by his noble Friend, and he appealed to hon. Members whether they ever knew a more unjustifiable attack. The noble Lord compared him to a Lord of the Treasury, and coming there to make and keep a House. Nothing could be more unfounded. He came into the House in 1859, after a desperate contest, and he had always supported Liberal measures, no matter who was at the head of the Government, because he was a warm supporter of Liberalism, and never had had greater pleasure during his Parliamentary career than in giving his cordial and constant support to his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government—their present Liberal Chief—not only because he was so, but because he was so well entitled to such support at the hands of every good Liberal. The Government wished to pacify Ireland and to do justice to every part of the United Kingdom. He hoped the noble Lord and others around him would take warning from what the Prime Minister had said. This measure was an exceptional one from beginning to end, but it was framed to meet the peculiar position of Ireland; but as a Scotch Member, he would be sorry to see it introduced into Scotland, because they did not require it there, having managed their matters so as not to require any such measure. But he believed the measure was the only means of pacifying Ireland. The Prime Minister had told them, again and again, that there was not the remotest intention of applying the measure to England and Scotland. He had never given a vote on an Irish question which he thought inimical to Ireland, or which was intended for anything but the benefit of that country. If hon. Members would talk less the House would get on with this great measure of peace to Ireland; they would have a chance of passing and of sending it to the Lords this Session, and the country would be gratified by seeing it receive the sign manual of Her Majesty.

SIR LAWRENCE PALK

said, he did not wish to obtrude himself upon the House on this question; but the speech of his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury demanded some answer from those who represented the agricultural interests of the country. The right hon. Gentleman, with a vehemence for which he was noted, said he was not answerable for any application of the principles of the Irish Bill to England or Scotland. No one in that House more admired the great powers of the right hon. Gentleman than himself; but there were some things he could not command. He could no more command public opinion on this question than he could move the sun or the moon. If I this Bill, which to his mind was confiscation and nothing else, was passed, they might depend upon it the tenants of England would discuss it, and consider the principles which the Premier had laid down. It was idle to say that in this country, which had but one Legislature, they should have one principle for England and another for Ireland. It was utterly impossible that the principles laid down for Ireland, where they were good, should not be applied to England. The principle for Ireland was to hand over the whole of the land to one vast sea of litigation. If the land of England were so treated the fee simple would be swallowed up in costs. Why was it the law which regulated land tenure in England and Scotland would not work well in Ireland? He believed he knew the reason. The Irish vote was always in request; it was for the Irish vote that the Church property was confiscated, and the Land Bill was owing to the same cause.

MR. OSBORNE

It seems to me that the Gentlemen who have come in here since 8 o'clock are under some misapprehension as to what we are debating, and I wish to reclaim the subject of the debate. I have no doubt a great many hon. Gentlemen are unaware that we have had that remarkable thing in this House, a Scotch row on an Irish debate. We have had, in fact, "Irish Measures and Scotch Reviewers." A noble Lord on the other side of the House (Lord Elcho) has represented a venerable Gentleman on this side as a "molluscous" sup- porter of the Government; and, on the other hand, we have had a chapter from Robertson's History of Scotland. I rise to reclaim the debate. And what is the debate? We have had a very simple proviso, moved by one who probably knows more about the subject than most of us—the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh)—to except the reclamation of land from this clause altogether, and we have been favoured by a series of discourses on the principle of the Bill imported into the discussion upon it. It is very much to be regretted that hon. Gentlemen who speak upon this subject do not take some little pains to understand what they are talking about. I regret—not being a "molluscous" animal myself—that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government throws, probably, a little too much earnestness into this debate; but if he would be content to allow the Irish Secretary to manage the Bill in his own quiet, unobtrusive way, we should stand some chance of getting through the Bill this Session. I very much wish to do so, and, therefore I will give a hint, which is not "molluscous," as to this reclamation of land— Nee Deus intersit, nisi dignus vindice nodua; and then we should not have these fervent harangues of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Devon (Sir Lawrence Palk), and other Gentlemen who come in late, and mistake the subject. Now, as to this reclamation of land, although I do not put myself forward as an intelligent agriculturist—God forbid—I have reclaimed some land in my time, and have spent some money over it, and I know well what reclamation of land means, and if I find any fault with this clause, it is this—that you define everything in the Bill, you state what improvements are, but you have not defined reclamation of land. There are two sorts of reclamation of land; one is merely removing the stones, the cost of which you may get back in six years undoubtedly if there is a good subsoil; the other is reclaiming land, for which you may not be repaid under 30 or 35 years. And there is some land in Ireland which a sensible man will leave alone. I lament that there is not some definition of what reclamation of land means. You may say—"The Judge will decide this;" but without some defi- nition you mil set the people all at sea. I do not accuse hon. Members opposite of wishing to stop the Bill. All who have the interests of Ireland at heart will wish to see this land question settled this Session. It is not a party question. I would say, by the way, that I regret the noble Lord (Lord Elcho), who is generally so courteous, and who has this evening made one of the best speeches on this side of the question, did, if I may say so, rub up the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Robertson) probably a little more harshly than the occasion warranted. However, I hope the Chief Secretary will give us some idea as to what he means by reclamation of land, and then I shall vote for the Bill with far more pleasure than I have.

MR. G. B. GREGORY

said, that there would be great difficulty in selling or mortgaging land, when claims of this kind might spring up and extend themselves over a great number of years, and such provisions would tend to prevent the flow of English capital into Ireland.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

promised, before the Committee came to the end of its labours, to consider very carefully in what way the word "reclamation" should be defined.

MR. PELL

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. While some land paid for reclamation in five years, other land took 41, and he objected to classing reclaimed land with permanent buildings. The case of a labourer who reclaimed a piece of coarse ground for growing potatoes should not be classed with the case of another who, after cutting bog for years and using it for fuel, worked the subsoil and grew potatoes like the other.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 230; Noes 134: Majority 96.

MR. SYNAN

moved to add the words, in line 7,— Permanent improvement by main and arterial drainage and embankments to prevent tidal waters and river floods, and said, that anybody who knew what such works were would at once see that the cost of making them could not be compensated during a 20 years' occupation.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

objected.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, he had hoped that the early discussion on the reclamation of land and the words which he was now about to propose might have been taken together and a decision come to upon them; but they had been separated by speeches from the Treasury Bench, which made it imperative on him either to elicit some satisfactory declaration from the Prime Minister, or to divide the Committee. It was said sometime since by the Chief Secretary that a lease for a money valuation was included in the Bill, and therefore his Amendment was unnecessary; but the Committee had since heard that 30, 40, 50, or 60 years were not sufficient to recoup a man for the money he might have laid out in the reclamation of land. That was a perfect delusion. The hon. Member for the county of Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) had said, in the most emphatic language, that he never heard of a lease for so short a term as 20 years being given in the South of Ireland in the case of a man reclaiming his farm. Now, he had at that moment in his possession leases of that character, and anyone who knew him would believe that what he stated about those leases was perfectly true. Indeed, he would be ready to show the leases to any hon. Gentleman. He had leases that were granted on an estate which the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) knew well, as it was in his neighbourhood 15 or 16 years ago, and would expire in 1874. They were granted at sums from 1s. 6d. up to 4s. or 6s., the tenants were perfectly satisfied, and it would be monstrous that any clause in this Bill should prevent the landlord from receiving that which was righteously his own. The tenants would be willing to pay a reasonable rent for the land; but whether they would be satisfied, after the extraordinary speech from the Prime Minister, which might alter the whole aspect of affairs, he did not know. He knew something about the Devon estate, for he had been quartered near it, and, notwithstanding Mr. Curling's evidence, he ventured to say that in nine cases out of ten, in any reclamation of land, a 31 years' lease would recoup a man, because in any lease for the future he would take the land at a nominal rent, and after 31 years he ought to pay the full value of I the land. Moreover, an hon. Member on the opposite side had distinctly stated that he had tenants, both Scotch and English, who would be glad to reclaim the land for a 19 years' lease; and, if that were so, a 31 years' lease would be a good bargain for the Irishman. He begged to move in page 5, line 7, after "or," to insert— In respect of any land reclaimed under any lease or agreement made before the passing of this Act for a term certain of not less than twenty years, or after the passing of this Act for a term of not less than thirty-one years.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, it would be infinitely better to separate retrospective from prospective improvements, because they were dealt with upon different principles. With regard to the former, more than the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment was provided for by the Bill as it stood. Sub-section c of the 4th clause provided that— In respect of any improvement made either before or after the passing of this Act in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration, a tenant should not be entitled to any compensation. According to the spirit in which the Bill was framed, if it were found in a lease that the tenant had undertaken by virtue of the terms of the lease, whether for 20 years or a shorter period, to execute certain improvements in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it would be taken for granted that the other terms would obtain valuable consideration on account of which he had undertaken to execute those improvements. Therefore, the object of the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be better gained by the Bill as it now stood than by the Amendment.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, he would not press his Amendment to a Division if he were quite satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman was right in his explanation. On looking back, however, to the 2nd clause of the Bill and to the sub-section which had been taken out, he noticed that the reclamation of land was to be taken into account, even though the lease were for 31 years.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

explained that the section referred to did not deal with reclamation at all either by contract or otherwise. If a lease were made for 31 years, in which nothing was said about reclamation, and in the absence of any contract between the landlord and tenant on the subject, then the tenant would be entitled to no compensation for reclamation.

DR. BALL

agreed that it would be better to separate the retrospective from the prospective portion. It appeared to be the same question over again with respect to the past.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DISRAELI

referred to the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper—namely, after sub-section (a) to insert the following sub-section:— In respect of permanent buildings erected thirty-one years, and of reclamation of land made twenty years, before the making of the claim. The right hon. Gentleman said, after the Division which had taken place, and which virtually decided his proposition, he should not be prepared to ask the Committee to express an opinion on it then; but he would consider the whole question, and see whether he could not ask the decision of the Committee on the question in a wider form upon the Report.

MR. KAVANAGH

moved in sub-section (b), line 8, to omit after "improvement" the words "prohibited in writing by the landlord," the retention of which would have a very mischievous effect in enabling a tenant, no matter what the act done by him was, unless it had been forbidden by the landlord, to make a claim for it as an improvement. It was perfectly impossible for a landlord or his agent, however active, to know of every little thing that might be done by a tenant.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, his hon. Friend had mistaken the drift of that sub-section, which had been framed not in favour of the tenant, but in favour of the landlord. It was a provision of a temporary kind for the protection of the landlord's interest, and it would operate only during a short period after the passing of the Act, and during the remnant of a lease entered into before the passing of the Act. It would prevent the landlord from being saddled with improvements to which he might reasonably object during a period when he could not be able to use the ultima ratio of a notice to quit, and so not able to offer to the tenant the alternative of making a fair agreement as to improvements, or of quitting the farm. Any work done which did not increase the letting value of the holding was not to be deemed an improvement; but a work might be an improvement as far as the particular holding was concerned, and yet not an improvement in respect to other portions of the estate, and, therefore, the landlord might have good reason for wishing to prevent its execution.

Amendment negatived.

MR. E. TORRENS

said, sub-section (b) proposed to deal with the very exceptional case in which the landlord, having in writing prohibited the tenant from executing a certain work, the tenant, in direct defiance of such written notice, proceeded to execute a work which he chose to call an improvement. Under ordinary circumstances such an act would be a breach of the lease, and would constitute a good ground for turning the tenant out of the holding. According to the clause, if the work was done more than two years after the passing of the Act the landlord would nave to pay the tenant for it, even though the Court certified that it had actually damaged the general value of the estate. He proposed to amend the sub-section by leaving out all the words between "landlord" and "or," in line 14, and inserting— Unless it shall appear to the Court that such improvement has increased the general value of the landlord's estate.

Amendment proposed, In line 9, to leave out all the words from the word "as" to the word "Act," in line 14, both inclusive, in order to insert the words "unless it shall appear to the Court that such improvement has increased the general value of the landlord's estate."—(Mr. Torrens.)

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

assured the hon. Gentleman the subsection had nothing like the effect he supposed. It was merely a temporary provision, the result of much thought and consideration, and carefully adapted to guard the interest of the landlord; whereas what the hon. Gentleman wished to substitute was a permanent provision.

MR. CORRANCE

said, he would support the Amendment, for it was at least intelligible; but, as the clause stood at present, an omniscient Court would be required to understand its meaning.

Question put, "That the words 'as being and appearing to the Court' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 225; Noes 156: Majority 69.

MR. SYNAN

moved, in line 10, to leave out between "to" and "and," and insert "have diminished."

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

opposed the Amendment, and said the object of the clause was to enable a landlord to prevent the tenant doing anything that was calculated to diminish the general value of the estate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CHAPLIN

moved to omit the latter part of the sub-section, and said that if the words were allowed to remain in the clause its object would be completely negatived so far as improvements made within two years were concerned.

Amendment proposed, in line 11, to leave out from the word "and" to the word "Act," in line 14, both inclusive.—(Mr. Chaplin.)

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the Government had determined that improvements for which compensation was claimed must be not only suitable to the holding, and increase the letting value, but they must also be beneficial to the general value of the estate. It would be most unfair for a landlord to have absolute power of preventing compensation being given for improvements, and the Government had come to the conclusion that the proper method for the landlord was to defend himself by contract. In order that a landlord might use his power to contract it was necessary to provide for the period which must elapse before the contracts now in existence either determined of themselves or could be brought to a termination, and to provide for that two years were allowed. They also provided for the unexpired part of any existing lease, by giving the landlord a prohibitory power for a limited period, after which he would have the power of making a contract.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, that if the words were left in the clause a tenant would be able to claim compensation with respect to improvements which would diminish the general value of the estate.

MR. SPENCER WALPOLE

said, he thought his hon. Friend was right in the point he tad submitted to the Government. This sub-section dealt with cases in which there were no contracts, and in what position were landlords then placed? According to the clause, as it was now drawn, if the improvement did not add to the permanent value of the estate, no compensation was to be given. This matter ought to be dealt with on the general principles of the Bill.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, the next sub-section was intended to deal with the future; but if the Amendment were carried that sub-section ought to be struck out, because the Amendment would enable a landlord for all time to come to prevent any improvements on his estate. The Government did not hold that view; but were of opinion that, after a limited time, landlords and tenants should be at liberty to enter into contracts.

MR. SPENCER WALPOLE

said, that the sub-sections of the clause were based upon different principles. The effect of this Amendment would be to confine the prohibition of improvements to those which did not add to the value of the land.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the distinction between improvements which added to the value of a particular holding and those which added to the value of an estate was lost sight of; and improvements that did not add to the value of a particular holding could not be made the subject of compensation. This sub-section gave the landlord the power, under certain circumstances, of prohibiting an improvement which, although it might improve the value of the holding, would not add to the value of the general estate.

MR. BRUEN

called attention to the position of a landlord who did not choose to enter into a contract, and whose alternative would be to serve a notice to quit; and if it were a £10 holding he would have to pay a seven years' rental, which would be a great injustice.

LORD ELCHO,

reverting to the distinction drawn by the Government between improvements which added to the value of an estate and those which added to the value of a holding, asked for an example of an improvement which would increase the value of the holding without adding to the value of the estate.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he was not an agriculturist; but he could conceive that there might be an improvement which would add to the value of the holding and yet not benefit the estate.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

reminded the noble Lord that a farm might be admirably drained by a system which would lay the adjoining farm under water.

MR. AGAR-ELLIS

said, if he understood the effect of the Amendment, it would make this clause a permanent one, instead of a temporary one.

DR. BALL

said, there was more in this sub-section than mere prohibition, and it was not fair to speak merely of adding to the value of the estate, because the words used were—"calculated to diminish the general value of the estate."

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, there was a presumption in favour of any work that was an improvement.

LORD ELCHO

again asked for some information as to the distinction drawn between improvements that added to the value of the holding without adding to the value of the estate.

Question put, "That the words 'and made within two years after the passing of this Act' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 212; Noes 153: Majority 59.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, that as there was other important business before the House, he should move to report Progress.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the Government had been compelled to sacrifice a portion of the time due to this Bill on Monday in order to settle a matter with which they had no concern whatever. He would not contest the Motion; but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give them a little more latitude to-morrow night.

LORD ELCHO

suggested that the Bill should be re-printed as it originally stood, with the Amendments marked in red ink.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.