HC Deb 09 May 1870 vol 201 cc395-430

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 6 (Compensation in respect of payment to incoming tenant).

DR. BALL

said, that the clause provided for the cases where a person had not claimed under Clauses 1, 2, and 3, and where he had, to obtain possession of his holding, paid money, or money's worth, and where he had the expressed or implied consent of the landlord to his coming into the holding. The clause was just, so far as it related to the case of tenants from year to year; because, if such a tenant had the expressed or implied consent of his landlord, it amounted to an assurance that he should continue in possession unless he did something objectionable. Where, however, a man purchased a lease for a certain term of years he paid for nothing more than the lease, and had no right to expect to hold on or receive compensation. With a view, therefore, to limit the operation of the clause to yearly tenants he moved in line 41, after the word "tenant," to insert the words "from year to year."

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, he saw no objection to the proposal.

MR. SYNAN

said, he must oppose the Amendment.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he hoped his right hon. Friend (Dr. Ball) would withdraw his Amendment for the present, on the understanding that the matter would be considered by the Government.

DR. BALL

said, he was very reluctant to persevere after receiving such an assurance; but he feared he must press his Amendment, because the difficulty that might arise was very much felt.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that though very desirous to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman, he must ask him to afford sometime. With respect to the past, leases entered into in Ireland were for a term of years, at the close of which the interest of the tenant would have expired. Consequently, if the tenant had given any money to an outgoing tenant it was only fair to assume that the interest which he had purchased had died out. But, looking at the matter prospectively, the character of leases shorter than 31 years would now be altered, for at the end of a lease for seven or 14 years a certain interest would remain, provided for in the 3rd clause, with respect to which the tenant ought to be protected.

DR. BALL

said, with respect to the future it was not so material; he had spoken with reference to the past.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, there would be no difficulty as to the past.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made.

Other Amendments moved, and negatived.

MR. PIM

said, he would beg to move, in Clause 6, page 7, line 21, at end, to add—"Provided always, That this section shall apply not only to farm and agricultural holdings, but also to town parks and holdings in towns and villages." The object of his Amendment, in accordance with the intentions of the clause, was to afford the same protection to the rights of tenants in respect to town plots as was given in respect to agricultural holdings.

MR. W. JOHNSTON

said, he must urge on the Government the propriety of considering that proposal. He had received communications from persons in towns in Ulster who were afraid they would suffer if the Bill passed without some such Amendment as that now before them.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, he could not admit that the Amendment was in accordance with the intention and the principle of the Bill. The Government did not undertake in that Bill to deal with town property in any way. It was the intention of the Bill to exclude all questions of town property, and once they began to deal with town property they could not possibly stop with that clause, but must deal with it throughout.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed, in Clause 6, page 7, at end of clause, to add— Provided, That out of any moneys payable to the tenant under this section, all sums due to the landlord from the tenant in respect of rent, or of any deterioration of the holding, arising from non-observance on the part of the tenant of any express or implied covenant or agreement, shall be paid to the landlord, and also any sums payable by the tenant for taxes due in respect of the holding and not recoverable from the landlord, may, if not deducted under the provisions of section of this Act, be deducted by the landlord."—(Mr. Bruen.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. CORRANCE

said, he thought he was justified in his opinion that the effect of this clause would be to create a tenant-right throughout Ireland. He repeated that he had no doubt that the compensation would be paid by the tenants themselves.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Compensation in respect of crops).

Amendments made.

MR. C. S. READ

said, the clause provided that the tenant of every holding which is not proved to be subject to Ulster tenant-right custom or such usage as aforesaid should, on quitting his holding, be entitled to all his away-going crops, or, at the option of the landlord, to be paid the value of the same. The custom in Ireland was that the outgoing tenant sold off his straw, &c.; but on some of the best-managed estates the English custom had been introduced, and the incoming tenant, upon agreeing to certain covenants, had his straw given him gratis. Would a tenant coming in under this clause be entitled to all his away-going crops even if there had been an agreement to the contrary?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he thought words should be introduced to meet the case put by the hon., and lie thought he might add learned, Member for South; Norfolk (Mr. C. S. Read). He proposed to introduce the words "in the absence of any agreement to the contrary."

MR. SYNAN

said, he would suggest that the words "in writing" ought to be added after "agreement."

Amendment altered and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 (Limitation as to disturbance in holding).

DR. BALL

said, he proposed in page 7, line 31, after "rent," to insert "or for breach of any condition which the Judge before whom the action is tried shall consider reasonable." It was only reasonable that the landlord should be allowed to re-enter when the tenant either assigned without licence, or became bankrupt or insolvent. All ordinary leases contained a covenant, empowering the landlord to enter in any of these specified cases.

Amendment proposed, In page 7, line 31, after the word "rent," to insert the words "or for breach of any condition which the Judge before whom the action is tried shall consider reasonable."—(Dr. Ball.)

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, he trusted that the Government would not assent to the proposed Amendment, which, if adopted, would give rise to endless litigation.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, this question had been already disposed of on the 3rd clause, and the Amendment, if carried, would amount to an absolute forfeiture of an important privilege which the House had conferred on the tenant. Of course, the Court would be entitled to take into consideration all matters of the character referred to by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. Under these circumstances, it was impossible for the Government to agree to the Amendment.

MR. SYNAN

said, he must oppose the Amendment, which was a proposal to permit the landlord to take advantage of his tenant's misfortune.

DR. BALL

explained that he merely proposed to give the landlord the benefit of the covenants usually inserted in all leases. The question was, whether the landlord should be deemed a disturber, because he enforced a positive contract. An enormous load had already been imposed on the Equities Clause—the 14th—by the number of questions held over to be solved by it. With all respect, therefore, to his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the arguments he had used, he must press his Amendment. It would do no injustice to that large class for whom the Bill was principally framed—tenants from year to year.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he could assure his right hon. and learned Friend (Dr. Ball) that the Equities Clause would be well able to bear all the burden that was laid upon it. He hoped the Committee would not sanction the Amendment. There was a provision in the Bankruptcy Act which would meet one case provided for by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. When a tenant became bankrupt the landlord had the power to serve notice, calling upon the assignees to elect whether they would continue the tenancy or not. If they considered it would be to the advantage of the creditors they accepted the burden of the lease; but if they did not elect to become tenants within a certain time then all benefit from the lease was lost, and the land reverted to the landlord. There would be no disturbance in a case of that kind, for the tenancy would be simply put an end to. Any number of conditions might be inserted in the lease, and if the landlord put them in force fairly, that would be taken into consideration by the Court in awarding compensation to the tenant.

MR. WEST

said, he thought it would be hardly fair in the event of a tenant leaving his farm through bankruptcy, that the landlord should receive the benefit of the lease, and not the tenant or his creditors. He hoped the Committee would not assent to this Amendment.

DR. BALL

said, he would beg the Committee to remember that the Amendment would only relieve the landlord from the damages for eviction, not from liability for improvements.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 113; Noes 194: Majority 81.

MR. CORRANCE

proposed, in page 7, line 32, after "landlord," to leave out to the end of the clause, and insert— And any person who is ejected for non-payment of rent shall, if the Court so decide, stand in the same position in all respects as if he were quitting his holding voluntarily. In moving his Resolution, the hon. Gentleman said: It would seem to be the object of this clause to define, with some amount of precision, the limits elsewhere set to the power of the landlord to recover his right of property. No one can doubt the propriety of such a clause, nor do I think that in terms it should leave any doubt upon such a matter. The base of all such contracts obviously depends upon the due discharge of such an obligation, and so long as society is governed by law instead of by force, you are bound, to give its full protection to the injured party. This certainly will be the landlord, in this case, and so long as ownership in such property is permitted at all, or its transfer for valuable consideration, so long you are bound to provide the means and machinery through which a landlord may recover possession. It is not merely a question of debt, but subjects such an one to far greater injury. I need scarcely, indeed, argue this point—it has never been questioned; nor am I aware of a single instance in which it has been challenged. Even those who advocate fixity of tenure make the payment of the rent a condition. It is possible that the execution of the law in recovery may have been harsh, or that, in exceptional instances, it may have been exercised with severity; but there are things which public opinion will limit, and. that, too, in proportion to the security you give to society for its just exercise. It is the absence of such security that will lead to severity. If I say that this is the least you can do, I do not say so alone for the landlord. Throughout this whole discussion my first object avowedly, and, in fact, has been, the tenant; and assuming him to be an honest and thrifty man, I do not believe we can confer a greater boon upon the landlord than to assure his position. I believe this Bill has not always dealt wisely with such interests. In this instance it will not be so if you introduce any element of uncertainty. What will be the procedure of the landlord if you do so? Why, he will exact every possible security. He will grant no time, extend no grace—perhaps require deposits. The right he gives to the tenant over his property is an act of confidence which you ought not to weaken. Now, in this clause, the words I propose to leave out are of this objectionable nature, they raise an uncertainty. Not, perhaps, in the mind of the excellent but overburdened barrister who is to decide whether the rent has been fairly set; this is a matter he will probably decide according to his judgment and knowledge of land questions, not purely legal. I will not question that judgment or practice; though it seems to me about as reasonable as if a jury of landlords or some typical agriculturist I were to tax lawyers' bills at their own estimate of value. But the question is, what construction will be put upon it by the tenant? Not, indeed, the deserving man, who, under the provisions of the Amendment I am anxious to introduce, would receive far larger amount of compensation in the power conferred upon him, to claim his full rights as a tenant voluntarily dispossessed—who would as such receive the full amount of any improvements and the power of selling even his good-will to another tenant—no inconsiderable boons, one would think. But by the tenant, deeply indebted, with everything forestalled, to whom no compensation would do good, I say, to such an one —sliding down into the gulf of misery, perhaps the victim of dissipation and vice—you will convey hopes which mock. He will seek to avoid a present evil, and, to his fancied purpose, he will seek; the refuge of your Court, sanctioned by the ambiguities of your Act. Is this your wish? For such an one we may feel pity or compassion; but it must not mislead our judgment in this case. A great wrong is being committed against society by such an one, and no less than the bad landlord. Such an one brings evil upon his class. Ultimately the law will no doubt enforce justice, and the man driven to desperation will have played his last stake. Will you pacify Ireland by such means as this? Now, if by airy indirectness of language you produce such circumstances, you will inflict upon the agrarian interests the gravest ills. You will destroy credit—you will shake confidence. Between landlords and tenants you will encourage mistrust, for no man will place his property in the hands of another without, at least, the full protection of the law to enable him to receive it back under such circumstances as these. It is under this strong conviction that I ask the consideration of Her Majesty's Government to this point—to withdraw an ambiguity of language, and even seeming inconsistency, to avoid an apparent want of confidence in admitted principles which this Bill too often betrays, and for the real advantage of improving landlords and deserving tenants, to leave upon record, upon this most important point, no stamp of hesitation or of doubt.

Amendment proposed, In line 32, to leave out from the word "landlord" to the end of the Clause, in order to add the words "and any person who is ejected for non-payment of rent shall, if the Court so decide, stand in the same position in all respects as if he were quitting his holding voluntarily."—(Mr. Corrance.)

MR. CHICHESTER, FORTESCUE

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corrance) that the Government had already carefully considered the Amendment. He presumed that the hon. Gentleman was under the misapprehension that the present clause applied to all tenancies. The clause, however, had no reference to tenancies created after the passing of the Act, but was entirely confined to the past. The Government had resolved to leave the question of rent for the future to the arrangement or contract entered into by the parties themselves; but, on looking back to the past, an unwholesome and unsatisfactory state of things was found to exist, under which many Irish tenants, being entirely without protection by law or custom, had submitted to exorbitant rents, those rents being very often based on improvements executed by themselves. Therefore, the Bill proposed, leaving out the question as regarded the future, that the Court should not be debarred from considering any case of that kind with respect to the past; but should have power to award compensation for disturbance, even though the tenant had been evicted for non-payment of rent, provided the Court was satisfied that the rent was such as the tenant could hardly be expected to pay. Independently of the question of ejectment for non-payment of the immediate rent, arrears, dating as far back as the year of the Famine, were in some cases held over the heads of the tenants; and if ejected for the non-payment of arrears it would be impossible for the tenants to receive compensation under Clause 3 if the Government had not framed this provision for their protection. The Government thought it right to meet such cases as those.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had raised a tremendous question, for he said that because there were some exceptional cases in Ireland of excessive rents—some cases of tenants having arrears of rent held over their heads, therefore every landlord was to be liable to be taken into a Court of Law if he evicted his tenant for non-payment of rent. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that, with respect to the future, ejectment for nonpayment of rent would not be a disturbance, and why, then, should it be proposed to interfere with all existing engagements? He did not think this was a question in which a Court should be called upon to interfere at all; there was nothing for a Court to decide. It had been admitted that the question of what was or was not a fair rent was not one for a Court to solve, but was one which should be left to the two persons concerned; and why compel a landlord to enter into a new contract or arrangement with his tenant in order to free himself from the liabilities of the clause? If any one was to suffer it ought to be the person who had made a contract against himself. It might be he had done so without freedom, yet the arrangement existed, and we were taking things as they were. He hoped, however, his hon. Friend (Mr. Corrance) would not press his Amendment in the form in which it had been brought forward, because he thought that the object aimed at would be better attained by an Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Surrey (Mr. Brodrick).

MR. CORRANCE

said, the Amendment did not propose that the Court should exercise any such function as was contemplated by the clause; it was not the question of ejectment, but simply the amount to be paid, which he proposed to submit to the Court.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the objection taken by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) was very broad; but, to a certain extent, it did not conflict with the view of the Government. They were desirous to bring about a strict observance of the conditions of contracts in Ireland, and in order to get it they thought it requisite to have a fresh starting point. The state of things in Ireland was one for which the Legislature and the owners of property were mainly responsible, for competition among tenants had been promoted and stimulated in the most reckless manner, and rents had been agreed to out of proportion to the tenants' probable means of payment. In addition, a number of new purchasers had gone into Ireland and had raised the rents of the tenants, often upon their own improvements, to such an extent that it would be impossible for them to meet their engagements. This was the state of things to be dealt with; and the question was, whether it was to be met by any legislation? They would on no account propose anything that should apply to the future; and, with respect to the past they desired to put words into the clause that should show that what was proposed should be applied only under circumstances of a very exceptional character, and that the Court could allow no excuse in case of non-payment of rent. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corrance) said the only offence of the landlord would be re-entering upon property for which he was getting no rent. That would not be the case at all; nor would it be one which the Court would be justified in taking notice of, though, of course, if rent were due it would be deducted from the damages for eviction. If a man were subjected to an exorbitant rent, wholly out of rational relation to the value of the land, he would have to mate the offer of a reasonable rent. If any re-adjustment of the terms of a tenancy had been made after the passing of the Act, that fact would take it out of the category of the cases contemplated, for it was intended to give warning that hence forward every man must enter into such covenants as he could fulfil; and to meet the objection which had boon raised, he would suggest the insertion of words to render the clause applicable only to tenancies which existed at the time of the passing of the Act, and which had continued without any alteration of their terms and conditions.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, such an Amendment as that proposed by the First Minister of the Crown would no doubt mitigate considerably the force of the objections which had been taken to the clause, Nevertheless, he would point out that the introduction of such words would offer a premium to landlords to disturb all existing tenancies, and thereby to increase annoyance and vexation.

MR. W. H. GREGORY

said, that whilst agreeing with the Prime Minister in thinking that something ought to be done to reach the cases of exorbitant and monstrous rents which were exacted in some instances in Ireland, he was of opinion that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was open to the objection made to it by the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) that discontent and suspicion would be created by new arrangements: there was nothing which Irish tenants disliked so much as new arrangements made by their landlords. What he feared from reading this clause in conjunction with Clause 17 (Restriction on eviction of tenant) was, that the result would be fixity of tenure without any payment of rent.

MR. SYNAN

said, he did not think the Amendment suggested by the Prime Minister would improve the clause. He thought that the Bill should be so framed as to affect the bad as well as the good landlord.

MR. BRODRICK

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Suffolk?(Mr. Corrance) included that which stood in his (Mr. Brodrick's) name, and the question he wished to raise was, whether the Court was to act in the matter of rent as an arbitrator or not. He understood from the Prime Minister's statement in introducing the Bill that he wished the Court to be exonerated from that unpleasant duty. It appeared to him that the words "special grounds" would place on the Judge the duty of deciding whether the rent was excessive. He thought that in the interests of the landlord, of the tenant, and of the Court itself, it was undesirable that the Court should act as an arbitrator on the question whether rent was excessive or not. Rent was not frequently excessive in Ireland. Rent was not necessarily unfair because it was high; and, looking at the question broadly, having some practical acquaintance with the letting of land both in England and Ireland, he believed that Ireland was not so highly rented as the corresponding area of soil, with, corresponding agricultural conditions, in England. It was doubtful kindness to continue a tenant in occupation after the rent had fallen permanently into arrear. He did not say that allowance should not be made for bad seasons; but when a tenant had fallen into a state of impecuniosity, he first got rid of his stock, he could, afford to buy no manure, the land became over-cropped, and it was true kindness to say to him—"You have failed in this occupation; you must seek some other." To say that there was no choice between farming and the workhouse was rather a strong statement. He himself knew instances in which men who had ceased to be tenants had become prosperous, thriving agricultural labourers, or, being able to retain a horse and cart, had obtained profitable employment as carman. He ventured, therefore, to say that in the interest both of the tenant and the landlord, it was not desirable that the tenant should be encouraged by any uncertainty to raise questions whether the contract was a fair one, or whether the rent was, or was not excessive, when he had ceased to pay it; nor was it desirable that so onerous a duty should be imposed on the Court as constituted under this Bill. The question as to the value of the land under peculiar circumstances and at a particular time was not one which could be submitted with advantage even to what Sydney Smith called "that favourite animal of the Whigs"—a barrister of seven years' standing. There were in Ireland assistant barristers of learning and ability whose opinions commanded great respect; but others owed their appointments to purely political considerations, and their decisions carried no weight. They must be assisted by assessors, and he doubted whether, in Ireland, the supply of competent men would equal the demand. At all events, his opinion was, that to raise questions whether there were not special circumstances making the rent excessive, and special circumstances which raised a bar to the ejectment, would be to do an injury to all concerned, and impose on the Courts duties which they were wholly incapable of fulfilling to the satisfaction of the parties and of the country. He was afraid the result would be to drive landlords to short cuts, and the Committee might depend upon it that there were short cuts in the Bill; and in driving them to have recourse to commercial principles as their guide Parliament would destroy the last semblance of confidence between these classes, the principal sufferer being, not the landlord, but the tenant.

LORD ELCHO

said, he wished it to be clearly understood that the Government of this country were now for the first time proposing to fix the prices of an article. ["No. no!"] Land was an article, and rent was its price. Hitherto rent had been regulated by the laws of supply and demand; but the Government proposed by this clause that the Courts in Ireland should lay down the price at which it was to be held; and that was the question distinctly at issue.

SIR JOHN ESMONDE

said, he would point to the case of a poor woman on his own property. A middleman had raised the rent of her holding from 23s. an acre to 40s., the Government valuation being only 16s. Now, if the proviso under the notice of the Committee were left out of the clause, a case of that kind would be left completely untouched.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, no doubt the clause required attention and consideration, but in reply to the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), he must maintain that the Go- vernment were not proposing by the Bill to undertake anything like a regulation of prices. Even if they did so, it would not be the first time that such a thing had been done in this country. The clause as it stood was very simple in its wording. It provided that— For the purposes of this Act ejectment for non-payment of rent shall not be deemed disturbance of the tenant by act of the landlord, unless the Court decides that it ought on special grounds to be so deemed in the case of a person claiming compensation on the determination of a tenancy existing at the time of the passing of this Act. If it were not for that provision the determination of a tenancy by an ejectment, founded on non-payment of rent, might be a disturbance by the act of the landlord, which the clause declared it should not be, except in particular cases; and there were cases which even the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire would, he was sure, admit ought to be considered by the Court as cases of disturbance, though the proceeding happened to be a question of ejectment for non-payment of rent. There were many tenancies in Ireland in which there was what was called "the hanging half-year's" rent, and tenants who did not hold on estates where "the hanging half-year" was known were spoken of as English tenants—that is to say, tenants who were made to pay their rent up to the last gale day. In the cases of "the hanging half-year," when the rent was paid on the 1st of May this year, that was the rent not for the half year ending that date, but for the half year ending 1st November, 1869. Some landlords gave a receipt accordingly, but others gave it in general terms leaving it to the tenant to find out up to what date it was given. Then there were the "hanging gales," or rents, due from the famine time. In some cases the arrears had been written off by the landlord, but in others they were kept in reserve, and the result was, that a tenant might be evicted technically in the eye of the law for non-payment of rent when, in accordance with justice, such really would not be the case. Such instances were, he admitted, few in number, but it should be recollected that the Committee was engaged in making a law to meet hard cases of that kind. Now, it was said that hard cases made bad law but one of the most distinguished Judges who ever sat in Westminster Hall had given it as his opinion that bad law very often made hard cases. The hon. Member for Mid-Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) had passed a deserved eulogium on the Civil Bill Judges in Ireland, who were, he believed, without exception, most competent men, those being not the least so who had been appointed by the late Government. Those Judges would not be over-burdened with work, and they would, he had no doubt, discharge their duties well. They would have no difficulty in deciding what constituted "special grounds," and the clause, modified in the way suggested by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government by the insertion of the words, "and continuing to exist, without any alteration of rent, to the time of their determination," would work satisfactorily. The result of the whole clause thus amended would be that an ejectment for nonpayment of rent would not be deemed a disturbance of the tenant, unless in the case of a person claiming compensation on the determination of a tenancy existing at the time of the passing of the Act, and continuing to exist up to the time of its determination without any alteration of rent. In that shape the clause would apply only to a limited class of cases, and to those only in the event of special grounds being shown.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, that he knew large estates on which a year's rent was always left in arrears, and he would put it to the Committee whether a tenant so situated was not very much in the power of his landlord. His objection to the clause was, that not one of the Judges of the Civil Bill Court, if the clause was passed, would consider himself at liberty to enter into the question whether the rent was excessive or not, though there might be many cases where it could be clearly proved. He knew of a case where the Government valuation of the holding was 11s., but the tenant was charged 30s. In such cases a Judge ought to have power to interfere.

MR. BRUEN

said, the "hanging gale" was deemed a great privilege in the part of Ireland from which he came, and the tenants were doing all they could to retain it. It might not be desirable to establish such a custom in new tenancies; but with regard to the old ones great dissatisfaction would be expressed if the "hanging half-year's" rent were abolished. In point of fact, the landlord allowed the tenant to remain in possession during the first half-year for nothing at all, in order that he might have some capital left in his hands.

Question put, "That the words 'unless the Court decides that it ought on special grounds to be so deemed' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 55: Majority 77.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, the words which the Solicitor General for Ireland was about to introduce would, to a great extent, meet his objection to the clause, and he would, therefore, not press the Amendment which stood in his name.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he would now move, in page 7, line 35, after the word "Act" to insert the words,—"and continuing to exist without any alteration of rent up to the time of such determination."

DR. BALL

said, that until now he had not been able to understand the phrase "on the determination of the tenancy" as moaning "by the ejectment for non-payment of rent. No person, on first reading those words, would imagine that they referred to an ejectment. When he first read them they conveyed to his mind a totally different impression. Therefore, it would be better to make the meaning plainer.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, that the clause throughout referred to the ejectment. He confessed that the meaning attributed to it by the right hon. Gentleman had not occurred to him; but then, he had only a simple mind.

MR. C. S. READ

asked whether an increase of rent by the landlord would be deemed an alteration or a determination of the tenancy?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he might answer to that question—Emphatically, no.

MR. SYNAN

said, he feared that the words would offer an inducement to landlords, in some cases, to increase their rents, and so to get from under the operation of the clause. But in another point of view he approved the clause, for it met the point about which the Member for Cork County (Mr. Downing) was anxious.

Words inserted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Derivative title of tenant).

Clause agreed to, with Amendments.

Clause 10 (Partial exemption of certain tenancies).

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESOUE

said, it was unnecessary to ask the Committee to discuss the first part of the clause, as the Government intended to give perfect freedom of contract to parties above the line of £50 valuation. To all tenants below that line the protection which the Act gave would be extended; but above that line parties would be at liberty to make contracts, no matter in what respects these contracts might differ from the basis of the Act. It was, accordingly, unnecessary to enact special provisions relating to tenancies above the line of £50. He proposed to omit the first part of the clause, down to the words "landlord. And" inclusive.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 (Exemption of certain lands).

COLONEL BARTTELOT

proposed in page 8, line 29, after "or" to insert, "any holding commonly known as town parks." These town parks had existed for centuries, and they consisted essentially of land used by people living in a town, the extent being from one to five acres, and the occupancy changing excessively often.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, it was never intended that town parks should be included under the general provisions of the Bill; but he proposed, in place of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Barttelot), to insert words taken from the Bill brought in by Mr. Napier in 1852— Any holdings ordinarily termed town parks adjoining or near to any city or town which shall bear an increased value as accommodation land over and above the ordinary letting value of land occupied as a farm, and which shall be in the occupation of any person residing in such city or town or the suburbs thereof.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, this Amendment would affect a large number of persons living in small towns, or rather agricultural villages, whose farms of 10, 15, or 20 acres lay just outside. He would rather leave it open to the Court to decide what was a town park.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

pointed out that, according to the Amendment, these must be town parks, with the further condition that they should be above the common agricultural value, and should be accommodation land used by persons resident in the town.

DR. BALL

said, he would suggest that the words "shall bear an increased value as accommodation land, &c." might be omitted. The words "town parks" carried all that was wanted.

MR. SYNAN

said, he did not understand the exception of these holdings, unless the land at some time or other were wanted for building purposes, and with a view to make the Amendment more definite, he would propose to introduce after "accommodation land" the words "for building purposes."

MR. SHERLOCK

said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Synan) seemed to think that what was meant by "accommodation" land was land for building purposes; but almost every one knew that butchers used these lands for feeding their cattle, and that dairymen also rented fields for their own purposes. But these lands were used rather with a view to temporary accommodation than as regular holdings.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, what were called "town parks" were not used for building purposes; but often for growing cabbages or providing grass for cows. They were almost always attached to houses in the adjoining town, and when the houses changed their occupiers the lands changed them too.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 29, after "or," to insert— Any holdings ordinarily termed town parks, and adjoining or near to any city or town which shall bear an increased value as accommodation land over and above the ordinary letting value of land occupied as a farm, and which shall be in the occupation of any person residing in such city or town or the suburbs thereof."—(Mr. Chichester Fortescue.)

MR. SYNAN

proposed after the words "accommodation land" to insert "for building purposes."

MR. MAGUIRE

appealed to the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) agreed to.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESOUE

said, an addition must be made to this exemption clause to meet the case of grass farms. He would, therefore, propose to insert the following words:— Or any holding used for purposes of pasture only, provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent the tenant of such holding from making any such claim as he would otherwise be entitled to make under section 4 of this Act.

DR. BALL

said, that where a farm was substantially a pasture holding, but by permission of the landlord a few acres were devoted to tillage, there was no reason why they should take it out of the exemption.

MR. W. H. GREGORY

said, his right hon. and learned Friend (Dr. Ball) was quite correct. In almost every one of these grass farms a portion of the land was given to the herdsman for the express purpose of tillage. It would, therefore, be well to introduce some qualifying words into the Amendment.

DR. BALL

said, he thought the words "pasture farm" might be used.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, he thought if the Amendment ran thus, "any holding used wholly or mainly for purposes of pasture," it would be unobjectionable.

MR. SYNAN

said, he understood that the great complaint was about the large graziers who paid, perhaps, £10,000 a year rent. Would the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland state what was the extent of the farm to which his proposal would apply? He represented a county—Limerick—in which an occupier might have 20 acres for cows and only one acre for tillage, and, therefore, he protested against this Amendment, unless it was qualified by a statement as to the extent of tillage.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, the intention of the Government was to exclude pasture lands from the effect of the operation of the 3rd clause, and when the First Minister of the Crown made an announcement to that effect there was a general expression of assent from both sides of the House. Many hon. Members who had put no Amendments at all on the Paper were exceedingly anxious to have an Amendment of this kind proposed. His hon. Friend (Mr. Syrian) spoke of small pasture farms of 20 acres; but, for his part, he did not see where the line could be drawn. Would his hon. Friend suggest where it could?

MR. SYNAN

said, he accepted the challenge, and he would suggest as a limit 100 acres of bonâ fide pasture. The occupier of such a farm was as much entitled to compensation as any other class of agriculturists, for he and his predecessors might have laid out their money in improving it.

MR. C. S. READ

said, if a tenant had expended capital in the improvement of pasture land, he would under another clause receive back every penny to which he was entitled. He would suggest a valuation of £50 as the limit.

MR. W. H. GREGORY

said, there was certainly a difficulty in the matter. There was no doubt in the world that in Limerick, and some other counties, there were small pasture farms such as his hon. Friend (Mr. Synan) had described, which it would be a hardship to include among the exemptions. He would propose, as an exception, that these words should be inserted, "where the tenant does not actually reside on such holding."

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, he thought the limit proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. C. S. Read)—namely, £50 valuation—if there was to be a limitation at all, would be the best to adopt. If they took residence as a test, they would be involved in very considerable difficulty.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, he also believed the best guide they could adopt would be a valuation not exceeding £50. He did not think the large graziers were much entitled to be considered; they had done a vast amount of injury, and were of little use in the country in giving employment.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, the large graziers in Meath and some other counties, who had swallowed up the small farmers, had no claim whatever; and it would be the best policy to except them from the operation of the Bill. The small men ought to have the advantage of the measure.

MR. SYNAN

said, the Amendment he wished to have inserted was to this effect—"Where the holding is not less than one hundred acres, on which the tenant resides."

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, it would be utterly impossible to adopt the limitation of a certain number of acres, because 100 acres in the county of Limerick might represent a very high rental, while in the county of Cork it would represent a very low rental. The only equitable way of doing what they desired was by fixing upon a certain valuation.

MR. SYNAN

said, he would move to amend the Government Amendment, embodying the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. C. S. Read), and instead of "£50" to insert "£200, and on which the tenant does not reside." This would meet the case of those extensive graziers who had got together a great many acres of land in a manner involving a great sacrifice on the part of the smaller occupiers. It would be a perfect protection to those who required protection, and would do justice to all parties.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he hoped that the hon. Member (Mr. Synan) would not press his Amendment. It was well known that the valuation was not a correct index to the rent, and the Amendment just moved would require a rental of £300. The Government were willing to accede to the proposal made by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. S. Read), and to insert £50, and that would meet all the justice and equity of the case. The residential test was quite illusory.

Amendment (Mr. Synan) negatived.

Amendment (Mr. C. Fortescue) agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 (Proceedings by tenant).

MR. HEADLAM

said, that, in consequence of the withdrawal of the Amendments which he had proposed to introduce in previous clauses, and the object of which was to facilitate the purchase by the landlord of the tenant-right on his land, he felt bound to withdraw the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name on the present clause. He wished, however, to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland to be kind enough to define clearly the Ulster tenant-right, and the powers which would be given to the tenant under the clause. He would move his Amendment pro formâ in order to give the hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity of answering his question.

Amendment proposed, in Clause 12, page 8, line 39, after "entitled" leave out to end of Clause, and insert— To the payment of any sum under any of the usages mentioned in the first section of this Act, and about to quit his holding, may within the prescribed time make a requisition in writing on his landlord for the payment of the sum he claims under the usage applicable to the land he is about to quit, and thereupon the landlord, if there is no dispute as to the amount, may either pay the same to the tenant, and thereupon the land shall be freed and discharged for ever, or the landlord, without raising the rent, may allow the tenant to sell his occupation to any solvent tenant, to whom the landlord shall not make reasonable objection, and thereupon the land shall continue liable to such usage, but all claims of the outgoing tenant shall be deemed satisfied."—(Mr. Headlam.)

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Headlam) had refrained from pressing his Amendment, because it appeared to be open to every objection which could possibly be made. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, he had to reply that the Ulster tenant from year to year would have an estate equivalent to an estate in fee-farm in his occupancy, which he would be entitled to sell to an incoming tenant and to convey by deed. The Bill proposed to legalize, but it did not propose to define the Ulster custom; and it also legalized all the incidents of that custom. If the Ulster landlord chose to break through the Ulster custom and evict his tenant, the Ulster tenant would be able to bring him into Court under the provisions of this clause, where he would be compelled to pay such compensation as the Court might think fit, after a careful consideration of all the circumstances attending the individual case. If the landlord allowed his tenant to sell to some incoming tenant, there would be no occasion to come into the Court at all, and he believed that would be the way in which matters would usually be settled; but if they did come into Court, this clause provided the machinery for proceeding, not only with regard, to compensation under the Ulster custom, but for compensation in all other cases whatever where compensation was provided for in this Bill.

SIR JOHN GRAY

said, he objected to the clause, because by its provisions no man could make a claim until he was about to quit his holding. Now, the Ulster tenant-right did not mean that a man was to be compensated for being evicted from his holding; but that he was to have a right of continuous occupation, with power to sell his interest therein whenever he pleased. There was no such provision in this clause, which did not contemplate either fixity, security, or stability of tenure, or the practice of Ulster, which was not to evict, but to obtain from the tenant such an improved rent as the circumstances I of the case might warrant. That custom was legalized by the 1st clause of the Bill; but this clause did not provide for that continuity of occupation which was the essence of the Ulster tenant-right.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, he would not criticize the hon. Member's (Sir John Gray's) definition of tenant-right, it not being his business to do so at this stage of the proceedings; but he maintained that there was nothing in the Bill which would diminish the Ulster custom by one hair's breadth. The Bill would enforce that custom, neither adding to it nor detracting from it. This clause was not confined to cases of eviction, but would apply to all cases in which there was a change of tenancy. It merely related to procedure—to the form by which the other clauses of the Bill were to be put into force.

DR. BALL

said, he was of opinion that by the Bill a landlord could only; interfere with the Ulster custom by; ejecting his tenant, which he would do subject to certain penalties. The Bill legalized the existing custom; but, in addition, gave to the tenant a remedy which he did not now possess.

SIR JOHN GRAY

said, he was afraid he had been misunderstood. He meant that the custom of Ulster was that of continuous occupancy; but giving a man compensation after eviction was not an enforcement of that custom by which a tenant had a right either to transmit his occupancy, or to transfer it to a third party for a money (or another) consideration.

SIR JOHN SINCLAIR

said, he thought that the Amendment would be entirely inoperative. It was not likely that the Ulster landlord would buy up his tenant's right, because if he did so he would only bring himself in relation to his tenants under the operation of the 3rd clause. He believed that any landlord, having regard to his own interest, would find it very much more to his interest to leave a tenant in possession than to evict him. But he wished to ask how the tenant-right was to be pre- served if a landlord chose to increase the rent? Suppose a tenant under the Ulster custom wished to go to America, and sold his right to a stranger, the landlord might say—"I have allowed you to hold your farm at a low rent, because you and your ancestors have held it for generations; but now you are about to bring in a perfect stranger, and I will, therefore, raise the rent to a fair and full value of the holding." Would the Court allow this increase of rent? He understood that tenant-right was proportionate to the rent, and therefore the increase of rent would decrease the value of the tenant-right.

MR. HINDE PALMER

said, the Committee were not discussing the principle of compensation, but merely directing by what mode a tenant who was entitled to compensation should enforce his claim before the proper tribunal. To return now to discuss the principle of compensation would be very inconvenient, as that had been settled by the previous section of the Bill.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, in answer to the question how it was proposed to deal with the Ulster custom when the landlord raised the rent and thereby made the custom of no avail, it was not proposed to legislate on that point at all. What the Bill proposed was to lake the facts of the Ulster custom as they existed and to make them legal—that was to say, to render that which was now morally binding on the Ulster landlord legally binding. As far as the custom allowed the tenant to sell his estate, there was no occasion for him to go into Court at all; but if the landlord by any proceeding deprived the tenant of any right, then the tenant could go to the Court and get compensation, or have fully carried into legal effect any right which the law gave him.

MR. SYNAN

said, that Section 12, as originally framed, was defective; but he considered that, as amended by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, it was much improved.

Amendment negatived.

MR. SPENCER WALPOLE

said, in reference to the present clause, taken in connection with Clauses 13 and 14, it was important that everything should be made as specific as possible, both in regard to the claim made by the tenant and in respect to the objections urged to it by the landlord, so that the Judge might be enabled to determine the point without going into collateral matter. He thought that the requisition to the landlord by the tenant for payment of the sum claimed by him should state the amount as well as the particulars in respect to which compensation was claimed.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, the object which the right hon. Gentleman had in view would be effected by Amendments about to be proposed.

Amendment proposed, in Clause 12, page 9, line 2, leave out, "in respect," "which," and "compensation is claimed," and insert— Claim, and where such claim or any part of his same is in respect of compensation under the provisions of section three of this Act, the number of years' rent claimed shall be specified."—(Mr. Chichester Fortescue.)

MR. SPENCER WALPOLE

said, he thought that the amount should be stated.

MR. SYNAN

said, the Ulster custom was a right to sell, and it would be impossible to state any amount.

MR. SPENCER WALPOLE

said, his object was to get the claim stated distinctly, so that the Judge should have something to determine.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he wished to do everything that possibly could be done to make the claim specific.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 (Proceedings by landlord) agreed to, with verbal Amendments.

Clause 14 (Equities between landlord and tenant).

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESOUE

proposed, in line 14, to leave out "in respect of compensation."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. G. B. GREGORY

said, he had placed on the Notice Paper an Amendment for including in the subjects of consideration by the Court the length of the tenant's occupation and the rent paid. He desired to substitute for this Amendment words proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Ball) upon Clause 3, but not pressed by him. The clause allowed either party to make any claim, urge any objection to the other's claim, or plead any set-off he might think fit— Including in the case of a landlord any moneys paid on account of the purchase of the right of the tenant under the Ulster tenant-right custom or such usage as aforesaid. The Amendment he desired to move would follow these words, running thus— And including the terms and conditions subject to which the tenant originally obtained possession of his holding, the period of actual enjoyment by the tenant, the rent payable by the tenant during such his period of enjoyment as proportioned to the fair letting value of the holding, and any special circumstances connected either with the cultivation of the holding or with the mode or incidents of the termination of the tenure. Having regard to the fact that this was the only provision upon which the landlord could, rely for the purpose of meeting his tenant's claim, the landlord might fairly ask that the Judge should be specially directed by the Act to take these points into consideration. The Amendment would, therefore, define the rights of the landlord more completely than the clause now did.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he must complain of the production of an Amendment of such importance without any Notice, and when it was almost impossible to give a decided opinion respecting it. He saw that one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration by the Court was the period of actual enjoyment by the tenant. Which way was this to tell? Was it to increase or reduce the damages? Again, with regard to the rent, was a low rent to increase or diminish the damages? He did not think that, upon the terms of this Amendment, the Committee were in a position to say "aye" or "no" to those questions. The clause was the result of much consideration. He did not say that it might not be improved; but he had hitherto heard no suggestion which seemed to him to be an improvement. The clause was so widely drawn that anything of real urgency might be considered by the Court, and if any specifications were introduced, the result might be to narrow the subjects of consideration instead of enlarging them.

DR. BALL

said, that in discussing the 3rd clause he had stated the objections to his own Amendment, now proposed—namely, that, although it mentioned the subjects fit for judicial consideration, it did not indicate the direction in which the Court should proceed in considering them. But the objection to the mode in which, the Bill was framed by the Go- vernment was immeasurably stronger. The Bill neither indicated the subjects to be considered, nor the views to be entertained respecting them. He had understood it was the intention of the Government to introduce into the Equities Clause some more specific indication of the subjects for consideration by the Courts in administering the scale. If it were only to preserve uniformity of decision, this was needed. There would, in the first instance, be 32 Judges to carry out the Act. From them an appeal would lie to the Judges at Assizes, who, again, would reserve certain questions for the Central Court. If you allowed 32 different minds to decide, without any guide, from the Act itself, upon the questions they were to consider, how could you possibly have uniformity? One Judge would say to a tenant—"You have occupied the land for 50years; you have, therefore, had a long-continued enjoyment, and I shall only give you one year's compensation under the Disturbance Clause." Another Judge would say to a man in the same position—"You have occupied the land for many years, and are, therefore, deeply-rooted in the soil; I shall give you seven years' compensation." So, again, as to rent. One Judge would say—"You have been allowed to live on the land upon very favourable terms; you must, therefore, have had three times over the benefit to which you were entitled;" while another Judge would say—"The rent is so low that this is a really valuable holding, and you shall have seven years' compensation." He knew of no instance in which a matter of this importance was flung so entirely to the uncontrolled discretion of individuals; and we should probably have to say of this jurisdiction, what Selden said of equity—that it varied with the length of the Chancellor's foot. It was quite clear that it was highly objectionable that 32 different Judges should be left to adjudicate on matters of such delicacy and difficulty, unguided and uncontrolled; and in respect of which, therefore, their views would necessarily be discordant. He was in hopes that the Government would have introduced words by which this objection would be obviated; but no standard was offered in the matter, and it was left wide to be the subject of arbitrary decisions. He had put on the Paper certain words, which he thought would indicate, if adopted, to the Judges what were the intentions of the Legislature as to the subjects of consideration on which the fluctuating scale of damages was to be apportioned, and he must confess that, as things stood, he was quite at a loss to know on what grounds a Judge could justify his decisions to the public in cases of disturbance in giving the tenant in one instance three, in another seven, and in a third one year's compensation.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, he did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman supported the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman behind him (Mr. G. B. Gregory), and he was not surprised that he did not support it. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to compel the Court to take into consideration the length of the tenancy and the amount of the rent paid; but the Government were of opinion that they gave the Court sufficient discretion under the clause as it stood to take those and all other matters bearing on the question which they would have to decide into account. As to the time which a tenant might be in occupation of his holding, it involved considerations of a most difficult and ambiguous kind. The loss which he might sustain might not at all depend on the length of that occupation. A tenant who had been a long time in occupation of a holding might, for instance, not have so great a claim to compensation as one who had been for a shorter time. A tenant naturally looked forward with the expectation of unbroken occupancy, unless by some fault of his own he forfeited his tenure. The mere fact that a tenant was not long in occupation was not in itself a sufficient ground to ask Parliament to direct the Court to diminish or destroy the compensation due to the tenant; and the clause as it was framed being, in the opinion of the Government, calculated to give all that jurisdiction and discretion to the Court which it was advisable it should have, they could not agree to the Amendment.

MR. GORDON

said, he was surprised that no indication had been given on the part of the Government that they intended to introduce Amendments into the clause. During the discussions on previous clauses they had frequently stated that, when the Committee came to the Equities Clause, they would take into consideration the Amendments which had been placed in the names of several hon. Members on the Paper; but now they declined to make any Amendment, so that many on his side of the House had been somewhat misled by their declarations. He was reminded by their conduct of an anecdote of a young counsel, who asked his leader what he should do in his absence, in the event of some difficulty being started by the Lord Chancellor, the answer of the latter being—"Just say you are coming to that question, and then, perhaps, it will never be again taken up." In the same way, the Government, when any hon. Gentleman was about to propose an Amendment, said—"Wait till you seethe Equities Clause." But seeing that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland admitted that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, behind (Mr. G. B. Gregory) involved a difficult and ambiguous question, he could not understand why the matter should be left to the decision of 32 Judges and should not be settled by Parliament itself. He should suggest the postponement of the clause.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he believed that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gordon) had been misled, he had no one but himself to thank for it. He (Mr. Gladstone) admitted that the clause under discussion had been frequently referred to in the previous discussions of the Bill, on the Government side of the House, and that they had suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball) to postpone an Amendment of which he had given Notice on the 3rd clause, on the ground that the 14th clause was the place for it; but he must point out that the right hon. Gentleman had not thought fit to propose that Amendment; and the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had the boldness to find fault with the Government for not having adopted it and proposed it themselves. The Government approved the clause as it stood, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman disapproved it; yet he had no Amendment to propose while he blamed the Government for not proposing one. Though the Government had no modes of their own to suggest for improving the clause, they were perfectly ready to consider any Amendments in it which might be moved by others.

DR.BALL

said, he was certainly under the same impression as his hon. and learned Friend near him (Mr. Gordon), that it was the intention of the Government, when the Committee came to the 14th clause, to propose alterations in it so as to indicate more distinctly to the Judges what it was they were to take into account.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, when the question as to the length of a lease as connected with the claim for compensation was under discussion, to say that they would take some points relating to it into their consideration.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, it was quite true he had stated that, in his opinion, it would be impossible for the Court, in judging a claim for compensation for damages on eviction, not to take into account the length of the term for which the land had been held. Suppose a tenant were evicted at the end of a 14 years' lease, he should say that the Court would not give the same damages as to a tenant from year to year.

MR. GORDON

said, he thought he was not incorrect in saying that the Government promised some amendment in reference to this matter. He submitted that the clause ought not to be proceeded with at present, but reserved for discussion at a subsequent period.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he must object to the postponement of the clause, which was absolutely necessary for the purpose of consolidating this portion of the Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he wished to point out that the maxim—Expressio unius est exclusio alterius might operate in a manner not intended by those who wished the clause to be amended. The Government desired to do justice between both parties; and there was a danger lest, if a certain category of matters were specified, which were to be taken into consideration, the Courts might come to the conclusion that they were not at liberty to consider others. The Government thought it would be best to leave the clause as it stood; because, by enumerating all the particulars to which it should apply, they would be attempting a difficult if not an impossible task, while they would pro- bably omit something which might subsequently turn out to be very material.

MR. SPENCER WALPOLE

said, he had no doubt that the Government were right in vesting large powers somewhere for determining the equities between the parties. Still, unless there were some guidance given to the Judge, great difficulties would arise. Claim after claim would be adduced, the expenses would be enormously increased, and a proper decision would hardly ever be arrived at. This clause must be considered in conjunction with the two preceding ones. In his opinion, there ought to be a specific claim urged by the tenant and a specific answer made to it by the landlord, so that a clear issue might be presented to the Court. Indeed, he felt confident that unless something more specific was introduced into these three clauses, the measure would not be workable except at a great expense, a result which would clearly be for the benefit of the landlord.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Spencer Walpole) objected to the clause on the ground that it was too general in its terms. The words of the clause were as follows:— The Court shall take into consideration any such claim, objection, or set-off, also any such default or unreasonable conduct of either party as may appear to the Court to affect any matter in dispute between the parties. His right hon. Friend maintained that these terms were too vague, and that the subjects to be taken into consideration ought to be distinctly enumerated. Now, without arguing the point in the abstract, he would take a practical analogy. This was a question of finding damages, and damages were found in England not by the Judges to whom it was proposed to leave the assessment of them under this Bill, but by juries. Did anyone ever hear, however, of an Act of Parliament which tied up juries to deal only with certain matters? On the contrary, was it not notorious that the observation of juries ranged over the whole conduct and dealings of the parties, and that they took into consideration every circumstance they thought proper? It was admitted that the administration of justice by juries was found satisfactory in this country; but if an attempt were made to tie up juries by special enactments as to the circumstances they were to take into consideration, the institution of trial by jury would be deprived of all its value. The same observations applied to the County Court Judges. This, he thought, was a better answer than any abstract reasoning could be to the objection raised by his right hon. Friend.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that juries were strictly tied down in every species of action with regard to the measure of damages. If a jury gave excessive damages, their verdict might be set aside and a new trial granted. It was a rule that the damages must represent the money value of the plaintiff's right which had been infringed. His objection to the Bill was, that it conferred on the tenant no specific right or privilege, though it granted him the vague power of claiming compensation. Under the clause the tenant would either get a good deal or nothing at all.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) had, with an ingenuity he could not sufficiently admire, mixed up two wholly different things. His (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) remarks had reference, not to the quantum or amount of damages, but to the misconduct or default for which the damages were to be awarded. The amount of damages was already limited by the scale of compensation, and consequently the limit the hon. Gentleman desired was already provided by the Bill. This was a distinct question, however, from that of allowing the Judge to decide what circumstances ought to be admitted as bearing on a particular claim. He could not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that juries were strictly limited in the assessment of damages. Take, for example, the action at law, which was most similar to the case now under consideration. The Committee were considering the case of two persons who had entered into a contract which one of them put an end to, much to the disgust of the other. This was very much like a case of breach of promise of marriage. Could the hon. and learned Gentleman get up and define the exact scale of damages for such cases?

MR. WEST

said, he hoped the Government would not permit the insertion in the clause of any definition limiting the manner in which compensation was to be assessed. He thought that the fears of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), as to an increase in litigation, were illusory. It was said that there was no precedent for this legislation; but the Act known as Card-well's Act, which prevented railway companies from making contracts with carriers, was of an analogous character. It was predicted at the time that that Act would lead to endless litigation; but although there was some increase of litigation at first, that ceased, and the Act was generally acquiesced in, and had proved one of the most beneficent Acts which had been passed for many years.

SIR GEORGE COLTHURST

said, he understood the First Lord of the Treasury to say that if the landlord had offered the tenant a reasonable lease, he should be able to cite the fact in Court as an answer to a claim for compensation. He hoped that proposition would be embodied in the Bill.

MR. G. B. GREGORY

said, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that this clause would be further considered.

In reply to Lord St. LAWRENCE,

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, the Court would have power to enter into all questions respecting the position of the tenant, and all circumstances connected with his claim.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, he had given Notice of an addition at the end of the clause, and its object was simply this—Compensation under Clause 3 was intended to provide only for cases of improper and capricious eviction; and he considered that it would be desirable in the Equities Clause to fix that point, which was one of principle, in a manner clear and unmistakable. So far as the object he had in view was concerned, some encouragement had been given to him by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government; the principle was recognized, and favourable consideration was promised for the substance of the Amendment. His right hon. Friend, however, was not satisfied at present with the words of the Amendment, and was desirous that it should be postponed till a later stage, in the hope that in the meantime some words would be suggested which would avoid difference of opinion. He therefore felt it his duty to defer to the wish of his right hon. Friend; but unless some other words were moved, he should undertake to move upon the Report, a clause in the same words or to the same effect.

MR. GLADSTONE

begged to thank his hon. and learned Friend for postponing his Amendment. So far as he understood the object, they were completely at one; but whether it was best expressed in the clause as it stood, or in such words as might be devised, there would be great advantage in more prolonged consideration.

MR. SCOURFIELD

asked the Government to explain the meaning of the words "unreasonable conduct." If two tenants could not agree, and the landlord ejected one of them, would it be taken into account in the assessment of damages?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, if such "unreasonable conduct" had a prejudicial effect upon the estate, it would clearly come within the meaning of the words of the clause.

MR. BRUEN

said, he would withdraw the Amendment of which he had given Notice as to the judgment of the Court on a case of liability to a claim for compensation being a bar to all such claims arising before the date of such judgment. His intention was to move it on the Report.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he would now move to insert words having the effect of the Amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Dr. Ball) in an earlier part of the clause. He moved to add— The Court shall have jurisdiction at the hearing of such dispute to ascertain what sums, if any, are due by the tenant to the landlord under Sections 3, 4, and 6, or any set-off for unliquidated damages under the said sections or any of them.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. LOCH

said, he would beg to move at the end of the clause to add the following proviso:— Provided, That when a disturbance of occupation takes place by reason of the infraction or non-observance by the occupier of any rules or regulations established for the management of an estate, the Court may, in determining the amount of compensation, take the same into consideration in discharge or reduction of such claim: Provided always, That the Court shall deem such rules and regulations to be in themselves just and reasonable, that their observance is conducive to the well-being of the tenantry on such estate, that the existence of such rules and regulations is known generally to such tenantry, and that due notice has been given in the particular case to the tenant so refusing or neglecting to comply with them. The principal object of the Amendment was to prevent overcrowding, which was attended with the greatest possible mischief, and which ultimately reduced the people to the condition of pauperism.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, he did not think the Amendment was founded upon much knowledge of the ordinary system of land management in Ireland, or the relations of landlord and tenant in this country. With respect to the object in view, the Amendment added nothing to the power of the Court. That was complete without the Amendment. If a tenant deliberately violated some reasonable rule of an estate to which he had consented, that would unquestionably be unreasonable conduct within the meaning of the clause; and the Court would not fail to take it into account. But he did not think it necessary to impose these special considerations on the Court as being more deserving of its attention, or more imperative than others that might be suggested by the ingenuity of any hon. Member. He therefore hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR JOHN SINCLAIR

said, he wished to know if a landlord wished to increase his tenant's rent 60 per cent, and the Court considered it exorbitant, and the landlord afterwards withdrew his demand for increased rent, whether he would thereby escape the payment of compensation for eviction?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, that would not be an eviction or a disturbance. If, however, a landlord served his tenant with a notice to quit for refusing to pay an exorbitant rent, and proceeded to turn him out, he hoped the Court would impose the highest amount of damages that could be inflicted upon him.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 (Lease in lieu of compensation).

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

moved that the clause be omitted.

MR. BAGWELL

asked for an explanation of the course proposed by the Government?

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, he should have thought that his hon. Friend (Mr. Bagwell), after all that had passed, would have been sufficiently enlightened on the subject. The Government withdrew this clause, because they did not think it right to impose on one party at the will of the other the alternative tenure which was contemplated by its provisions. If the landlord chose to propose a lease containing such terms as the tenant would accept, then the alternative tenure would have effect. But the Government had made up their minds that simply to enable a landlord, by the mere offer of a lease, to set aside the provisions of this Bill, would be going too far, and would not be carrying out cither their own views or the views of Parliament.

DR. BALL

said, he thought that the bonâ fide offer of a lease by the landlord should go, at least, in reduction of damages; and if it did not operate as a bar, it ought, at any rate, to place the landlord in an advantageous position before the Court.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

said, the right hon. Gentleman was overlooking the Equities Clause which had just been passed.

DR. BALL

There is not a word about a lease in it.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

The lease is referred to in the proper part of the Bill—one of the earlier clauses that the Committee have passed. If a tenant were unreasonably to refuse a lease, that would be conduct upon his part which would be taken into account. But the Government feel that the clause under discussion is not necessary, and accordingly move its withdrawal.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

As the Government are about to withdraw their own proposal, it would be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman would now state the reason why this clause was originally inserted in the Bill.

Question put, "That Clause 16 stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 148; Noes 250: Majority 102.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.