CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 26 May 1870)

HC Deb 26 May 1870 vol 201 cc1412-42 1412

§ Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)

§ SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATE
rose to move— That the Bill be re-committed for the purpose of introducing a Clause fixing the increased amount of the additional salaries to be paid to the judges and officers of the Civil Bill Courts in Ireland for the additional duties by this Act imposed upon them. He said, his object was not to intercept the Bill in its course through the House. He would have moved in Committee an Amendment such as that which he desired to see introduced, only for the accidental circumstance that the clause in which it ought to have been inserted was, among others, passed hurriedly through Committee at a time when most of the Opposition were absent from the House. On the evening of that occurrence those hon. Members who took an interest in the Land Bill were in the House for nine hours, and it was during the absence of many of them for a space of about 20 minutes the clauses to which he alluded were ordered to stand part of the Bill. A more honourable body of men than the Chairmen of the Irish Civil Bill Courts did not exist. They must be men of considerable attainments and barristers of 10 years' standing. It was for the interest both of landlord and tenant that those learned gentlemen should be men of the highest character. He thought that the additional remuneration which it was proposed to give them for the duties which this Bill would impose on them ought to be fixed by the Bill. He was told that there might be some objection by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he would remind the 1413 right hon. Gentleman that the amount of fees paid into the Exchequer from the Irish Quarter Sessions Courts, which last year amounted to £14,000, would be largely increased by this Bill. Again, after a short time the Regium Donum and the Maynooth Grant would cease to be paid. He did not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman would look at the question in a narrow way; and, therefore, he preferred to rest his Amendment on the ground that its adoption would be an act of justice to the Chairmen, and one which would commend itself to all classes in Ireland.

§ Amendment proposed, To leave out from the words "Bill be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "re-committed for the purpose of considering a Clause fixing the increased amount of the additional salaries to be paid to the judges and officers of the Civil Bill Courts in Ireland for the additional duties by this Act imposed upon them,"—(Sir Frederick Heygate,) —instead thereof.

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

§ MR. MURPHY
pointed out the impolicy of permitting the Government to fix, from time to time, the amount of the salaries to be paid to the Chairmen of counties under this Bill, as such a course would be calculated to cast suspicion upon the decisions arrived at by the Land Courts. The Chairmen of counties would be content with whatever sum was fixed as remuneration for the additional duties they would be called upon to discharge under the provisions of the Bill; but they were most anxious that the amount should be determined by Parliament, and not left to the discretion of the Government for the time being. He had given Notice of his intention to move that, in the event of the scale of remuneration fixed upon being found to be higher than was justified by the amount of work performed within the first five years after the passing of the Act, the Lord Lieutenant should have power to reduce the amount of the salaries.

§ MR. VANCE
drew attention to the case of the clerks of the peace for the different counties in Ireland, who would also have extra duties cast upon them under this Bill. These gentlemen would also prefer that the amount of additional remuneration they were to receive should 1414 be settled by Parliament, and that they should be paid by salaries and not by fees.

§ MR. BRODRICK
said, he did not rise to offer any opposition to the Motion of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir Frederick Heygate), because he felt that if Parliament in its wisdom should determine to impose the duty of carrying this Bill into effect upon the Chairmen of counties in Ireland, the latter would be entitled to additional remuneration. He did not know precisely at what amount it was proposed to fix those salaries; but the lowest sum he had heard mentioned out-of-doors was £500 per annum, which would amount to an aggregate sum of £17,000 per annum for the whole 34 Chairmen of counties in Ireland. He thought that a far better tribunal might be secured at a cheaper rate, by the appointment of two or three additional Judges, who would be competent to regulate the new practice which would spring up under the Bill. How could uniformity of practice be secured if there were 34 officers before whom those questions were to be stated? If his proposition was adopted, formal rules might readily be laid down, and much doubt and confusion would be avoided.

§ COLONEL FRENCH
had trusted that, after the long debates they had had, they would be allowed to go on with the Report without any Amendments; and he hoped that the Government would not assent to any material alteration being made in the Bill. If they raised the salaries of assistant barristers, they would have also to raise the salaries of all other persons engaged in the administration of justice. It would be ample time to increase salaries when the Government had experience as to the increase in the duties to be performed. He feared that the Amendment had been advocated on professional grounds only.

§ MR. OSBORNE
said, that no doubt that was a most important Amendment, but he could not say whether they were in a position to fix the amount of the salaries at present, for there might be an enormous addition to the business, or the addition might be so very slight, that a very little addition should be made to the incomes. But, whatever they did, it was most important that they should pay the Judges well, in order that they might procure the services of the best men; and, above all, 1415 in order that the greatest confidence might be reposed in them.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that as they had at length parted—no doubt with many pangs—from the consideration of this Bill in Committee, the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry (Sir Frederick W. Heygate) ought to bring forward very strong arguments indeed to induce us to return to that blissful state in which we have been living for the last two months. He did not think that the hon. Baronet arguments entirely satisfied that condition. The hon. Baronet made two points—first, that the increased salaries of these gentlemen ought to be charged on the Consolidated Fund; and, secondly, that the House should settle at the present time what increase should be made. Now, he was not prepared to dispute either of those propositions. In order to carry out the first there was no occasion to re-commit the Bill, because they could introduce an Amendment in the 58th clause to make the salaries payable out of the Consolidated Fund, instead of providing that they should be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament from time to time. Then the hon. Member asked them to go into Committee to fix the salaries at once; but the problem which he proposed was a very difficult one. The point was—given a certain amount of service, which was unknown, what should be the amount of remuneration? Nothing could be more uncertain at the present moment than the amount of additional duties which the Bill would impose upon these gentlemen. Some hon. Members thought the amount would be very large indeed; while others, including himself, were of opinion that, as the Bill defined the complications which might arise between landlord and tenant, and was a sort of guide as to the questions which might be brought forward, it would facilitate agreements being made between the parties without the intervention of a Court. Still, nobody knew what might be the result, and it was very objectionable to fix the salaries of these gentlemen without having the necessary data. If the salaries were fixed now, it might happen that they would turn out to be lower than they ought to be; in which event these gentlemen would very naturally apply for an increase, and would thus be liable to the suspicion of being 1416 biased by the Government of which they asked the favour. If, on the other hand, the salaries were fixed too high, no one could be credulous enough to suppose that any power on earth could reduce them to the proper level. They, therefore, asked the House not to ask them to make a definite proposal on this subject now, but to allow the matter to stand over till next Session, when they would have some little experience to guide them. The Government would undertake to bring the matter forward next Session for the consideration of the House. He could not help hoping the hon. Baronet, seeing that the Government did not oppose either of the principles he advocated, would not press his Motion to a Division.

§ DR. BALL
said, that after the declaration just made on the part of the Government, there would be little use in pressing the Motion. He wished, however, to impress upon the Government that parsimony in judicial matters was very bad economy, and that the first object in a case of this kind was to obtain the services of persons who had a large amount of experience and legal knowledge.

§ MR. G. B. GREGORY
said, he hoped the interests of subordinate officials would not be lost sight of. The success of a Court always depended very much on the manner in which the subordinates were treated; and in the present case it was peculiarly important that they should receive adequate salaries, because they would be brought into contact with the peasantry, and might exercise great influence either for good or evil.

MR. GLADSTONE
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball) says that parsimony in increasing judicial salaries is a very bad policy; but I think it must be admitted that that is not an error into which this House has often fallen. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, need not entertain any apprehension on that head. As respects the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am afraid it is not possible at the present stage of the Bill to modify the clause relating to the salaries of the Judges in precise correspondence with the intentions of the Government. This subject was not brought under our notice until after that clause had been passed Committee, and we shall not have 1417 any further opportunity of altering that clause. However, no practical result will follow from that circumstance, because we are pledged to propose next Session a Bill for the purpose of making a proper addition to these salaries.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE
regretted that the Government had not seen their way to fixing the salaries in the Bill. He hoped Government would relieve the minds of those gentlemen, and not wait till the first six months was over before they fixed their salaries. He made these observations in no hostile spirit, but solely from a desire that the Bill should work well.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
said, he concurred with the hon. Baronet (Sir Hervey Bruce) in his regret that the salaries of the Judges had not been fixed. The County Court Judges in England got an increase of £300 a year to their salaries under the Bill giving them equity jurisdiction. He could not see, therefore, why that which was done in their case should not be done in the case of the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions in Ireland in the present instance. The Chairman of Quarter Sessions was the criminal judge in Ireland, and guided the magistrates in all criminal business there.

§ MR. BRUEN
said, he did not think any good reason had been given why the Amendment should not be agreed to. The House, he contended, would next year be in no better position to form an opinion as to the average duties of the Judges than it was at present. As to the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions themselves, his experience in the North of Ireland led him to place in them the most implicit confidence.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Main Question put, and agreed to.

§ Bill, as amended, considered.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, the Government were of opinion that the Amendment which had been suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Andover (Mr. D. Fortescue) might, slightly modified, be with advantage introduced into the Bill. The effect of that proposal, which had been put in the shape of a clause, would be to render it easier for the landlord to obtain land for the building of labourers' cottages, which was, he thought, a better way of dealing with the question than to leave them to be provided by the tenant. With 1418 that view he should move the insertion after Clause 8 of the following clause:— (Exception in case of lands required for labourers' cottages.) Any landlord may, after six months' notice in writing, to be served upon the tenant, or left at his house, resume possession from a yearly tenant of so much land (in no case to exceed one twenty-fifth part of any individual holding), as he may require for the bonâ fide purpose of erecting thereon one or more labourers' cottages, with or without gardens attached, and such resumption of land shall not, unless the Court shall be of opinion that same was unreasonable, be deemed a disturbance of the tenant within the meaning of this Act, and shall not subject the landlord to any claim for compensation, except in respect of improvements, beyond a proportionate abatement of rent.

§ Clause brought up, and read a first and second time.

§ MR. SYNAN
said, he could not concur in the principle of the Amendment. He hoped that this power would only be given to landlords in the event of the tenants declining or neglecting to build those cottages.

§ SIR JOHN GRAY
said, he thought the clause ought to be so modified that it should be in the power of the landlord to allocate a certain portion of land, for the purpose of building labourers' cottages, only when the tenant neglected to do so.

§ MR. D. FORTESCUE
protested against the labourer being left dependent on the tenant for the necessary accommodation.

§ DR. BALL
said, he thought it would be very much for the advantage of the labouring class in Ireland that they should be the immediate tenants of the landlord rather than of a middleman.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND
(Mr. DOWSE) proposed to amend the clause by omitting the words "in no case to exceed," and substituting the words "not to exceed in the whole" one twenty-fifth part of the holding. The hon. and learned Gentleman explained that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Andover was to meet the case of a landlord who was desirous of obtaining a portion of ground for the purpose of erecting cottages, which he could not do now without determining the tenancy for the whole of the land paid by the tenant.

§ SIR JOHN GRAY
suggested that the power should be confined to building cottages for labourers employed on the holding, and not on the domain of the landlord.

1419

§ MR. COGAN
said, lie thought great amelioration would accrue to the labourers of Ireland from, this clause, and in no respect did their condition require amelioration more than with regard to their houses.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. SYNAN
moved to amend the clause by limiting it to cottages required "for the cultivation of the farm" on which they were erected.

§ Amendment proposed to the Clause, in line 5, after the word "attached," to insert the words "for the cultivation, of the farm."—(Mr. Synan.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
said, he thought the clause objectionable, inasmuch as it would give extraordinary powers to the landlord to go upon another man's land.

§ COLONEL WILSON - PATTEN
said, there was scarcely a provision in the clause that was not in favour of the tenant, and as this clause had been proposed in the interest and independence of the labourers he should support it.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, it was not the object of the Government to introduce any positive enactment in favour of the labourers; but to take care that the provisions of the Bill should not have the effect of making the condition of the Irish labourer worse than it now was.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause, as amended, added.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
moved to insert, after Clause 62, a new clause (Exception as to county cess levied in certain cases). The object of the clause was to supply an omission to which his attention had been called by many hon. Members, especially by his noble Friend the Member for Donegal (the Marquess of Hamilton). As the Bill stood, the county cess would in future be divided between landlord and tenant; but in the case of extraordinary imposition of that rate for penal purposes, such, for instance, as under the provisions of the Peace Preservation Act, it would be defeating the object of Parliament to divide it between landlord and tenant; and, therefore, the clause spe- 1420 dally excepted such impositions from the operation of the Bill.

§ COLONEL FRENCH
objected to the clause in the Bill exempting tenants under £4 from the payment of the county cess. All tenants, whether great or small, had an interest in the formation of roads, and in the economical management of the funds raised by the county cess; and he hoped that the clause to which he referred would be struck out of the Bill by the House of Lords.

§ MR. KIRK
said, it would be very easy to separate the general from the special cess. It would be a great benefit to the tenants.

§ MR. STACPOOLE
supported the clause. It would be received with satisfaction by the people of Ireland.

§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

§ New Clause (Non-liability for rent for land covered by public roads) added.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, the next clause related to the Law of Distress. It would be remembered that the Government had promised to give the proposal of the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) full consideration; and what they were now prepared to recommend was, that the Law of Distress should not be held applicable to any holding under a tenancy created after the passing of the Act, unless made so by a written agreement between the landlord and tenant. Any landlord who did not choose to let his holding to a tenant without retaining the power of distress might do so if he pleased; but it would be necessary that there should be a written agreement to that effect. He therefore proposed, after Clause 63, to insert the following clause:— (Distress.) It shall not be lawful for any landlord to make any distress for rent due out of any holding held under a tenancy created after the passing of this Act, unless such holding shall be so held under a lease or written agreement regulating the terms of such tenancy and giving a right of distress to the landlord.

§ MR. PIM
expressed a hope that before long the Law of Distress would be entirely abolished.

§ MR. G. B. GREGORY
said, he was opposed to the clause. He thought the expediency of altering the Law of Distress very questionable. Certainly, no sufficient grounds for altering it had been alleged on the other side. The Law of Distress had frequently operated bene- 1421 ficially even to the tenant, for it enabled the landlord to grant indulgences for payment of rent which would not be given but for the existence of that security.

§ DR. BALL
said, he could not help thinking there was great force in the objections which had been urged to the abolition of the Law of Distress. The landlord would endeavour to fortify himself by some other security. He did not see why a landlord should be driven into the position of having an elaborate written instrument every time he let a tenancy under this Act from year to year.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND
(Mr. DOWSE) said, he did not think the clause open to the objections which had been stated. He had always understood that the great objection to the Bill on the other side was that it did not leave to parties freedom of contract; but the new clause was not open to that objection.

§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

SIR TOLLEMACHE SINCLAIR
moved the insertion of the following clause after Clause 3:— (Landlord not to be liable to payment for disturbance when caused by refusal of tenant to pay increased rent approved by Court.) In case the landlord of any existing holding valued at less than one hundred pounds, or of any holding let after the passing of this Act, valued at less than fifty pounds, should demand an increase of rent for the following year from the tenant, to which the latter on receiving one month's written notice before the date of his yearly occupancy, refuses or delays to give his written consent within one month, it shall be lawful for the said landlord to summon the said tenant to appear in the Court constituted by this Act, in order that the judge may determine whether such increase of rent is reasonable or not. In the event of the judge deciding that the demand for such increased rent was not reasonable, and that the landlord does not intimate in writing, within one month, his willingness to accept the former rent, but proceeds to evict the tenant, he shall be liable to payment for disturbance, but if the judge decides that the demand of the landlord was reasonable, and if the tenant refuses or neglects to give his written consent to pay such increased rent within one mouth after such decision, the landlord may evict such tenant without any right on the part of the latter to compensation for disturbance, and on payment of the value of his improvements. The process suggested in the Amendment simply anticipated the natural course of some of the events which would inevitably arise under the operation of the Bill. The Amendment did not pro- 1422 pose that the Court should determine the precise annual value of the holding; but that it should decide whether the demand of the landlord was reasonable or not, and that was precisely the question that must be settled under the clause as it now stood. If the clause remained in its present shape, a landlord, who was advised by competent valuers that he was entitled to a rise of rent, would be obliged, in the event of a refusal on the part of the tenant, to serve him with a notice to quit, or renounce his just rights. On the removal taking place, the tenant would be entitled to claim compensation for disturbance if the Court should be of opinion, rightly or wrongly, that the additional rent demanded was excessive; and if the landlord, on finding, unexpectedly, that his demand was considered unreasonable, was to offer to allow the tenant to remain at the old rent, he might refuse to do so, alleging that he had arranged to emigrate, or to engage in some other business, and was now neither able nor willing to stay, and it would be obviously impossible to expect him to remain at the eleventh hour—in fact, when in the original Bill the landlord was allowed to escape the compensation for disturbance on tendering a 31 years' lease, it was considered unfair towards the tenant, and this proviso was expunged. To obviate that undesirable result, he proposed that a year before the time at which the tenant could be removed from his holding the landlord should give his tenant notice of his demand, and if it was not agreed to, he should have the power to bring the tenant into Court, and obtain a decision on its reasonableness or unreasonableness. If reasonable, the tenant would have to pay it, or go without compensation for disturbance; if unreasonable, the landlord would have to abandon it, or be liable to pay the compensation. It would be observed that his Amendment was simply permissive; and that whilst the prudent landlord would probably have recourse to it, and thus avoid altogether the costly and irritating process of serving a notice to quit where he only wanted a reasonable rise of rent, there would be nothing to prevent any bolder landlord from taking his risk under the clause as it stood. Without his Amendment no judicious landlord would venture to raise the rent on a £10 holding by £1, though the best valuers in Ire- 1423 land might advise him that he might fairly add £3, as in the event of a Judge deciding that his demand was, to however small an extent, unreasonable, he would be liable to a penalty of £70, or more than three times the fee-simple value of the rise demanded. It could not be fairly objected to his proposal that it would give to the landlord an undue advantage, by enabling him alone to test the opinion of the Court on an augmentation of rent, without the risk of having to pay compensation for disturbance, as, under Clause 8, any tenant in Ireland by refusing to pay his rent, and on being served with notice of ejectment for non-payment, could equally obtain the opinion of the Court, whether his rent was too high or not—if it was considered too high, he could obtain compensation for disturbance; if it was thought reasonable, he had only to pay the amount in time, and he was entitled to remain in his holding; whilst, as to the legal expenses which he might incur, there were plenty of low attorneys who would conduct his case on the no cure no pay principle—in short, Clause 3, as it stood, would be fixity of tenure in fact, though not in name, without, however, the periodical revisions of rent which the advocates of that tenure always approved and recommended, and which was unaccompanied by any liability to compensation for disturbance.

§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, he was unable to accept the clause, because it was quite inconsistent with one of the principles of the Bill, inasmuch as it would provoke controversies, previous to the time at which any question of a change of tenancy arose, on the subject of the amount of rent. Questions which would arise on a change of tenancy were provided for by an Amendment, of which Notice had been given by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer).

§ Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE
moved to insert, after Clause 11, the following clause:— (Lettings in conacre.) For the purposes of this Act the letting by conacre shall be deemed a subletting where the 1424 same land is let oftener than once in four years, or is let for the planting of any crop but potatoes or other green crop. The hon. Baronet said, his reason for again calling attention to this subject was that, in his opinion, it was not raised on a right principle when it came before the House on the former occasion. At the same time, he gave Notice that he did not intend to press an Amendment relating to Chairmen of counties, adding that the salaries he had proposed were named by himself, without communication with those gentlemen.

§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
assumed that this proposal was literally within the forms of the House, or it would have been stopped by the Speaker; but it was unusual, as it would be inconvenient, for the House to reconsider its decision on a particular subject; and he could only refer the House to the decision already come to in Committee.

§ Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.

§ MR. W. H. GREGORY
rose to propose the insertion, after Clause 11, of a clause prescribing— Conditions under which labourers' cottages may be erected upon any holding, without being deemed a subdivision or subletting of the land. In proof of the strong feeling which prevailed on the subject of improved dwellings for labourers in Ireland, the hon. Gentleman stated that it was one of several subjects considered at an important meeting of Liberal Members held in the early part of the Session, at which it was resolved unanimously that some Amendment of a character similar to that should be brought forward. The terms of the clause he moved to insert were not in exact accordance with the resolution to which he had referred; but every hon. Member present at the meeting concurred in the opinion that the clause was not satisfactory as it stood. When the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government introduced the Bill, his speech embraced in earnestness and sincerity the consideration of an improvement in the condition of the labourers of Ireland, and not long ago a Report had been issued by the Poor Law Commissioners on the same subject. 1425 This Report he had read. It gave a sad picture of the condition of that class of his countrymen, showing how miserable and reckless they were, and how discontented with their present position. It said the Irish labourer had two objects laid before him—either to obtain some small portion of land, or to make his way to the great Republic of the West. He feared there was much truth in what the Commissioners reported. There was, however, another side to the picture. He had witnessed the most remarkable change take place through the labourers being transferred from the wretched hovels in which they generally lived to comfortable dwellings where these were provided by the owner of the land; and the result invariably followed that the labourers rewarded the landlord for this accommodation with the best return they could make him—namely, a fair day's work for their wages. In his opinion sub-Section 2 of Clause 3 would have a contrary effect to that which was aimed at by the Bill. One great object of the Bill was to discourage subdivision; but under this sub-section no landlord, even if he had the eyes of Argus, would be able to prevent the subdivision of farms. Cottages would be run up under the pretext that they were for labourers, whereas they would be for sons, and sons' sons; and no remonstrance would have the slightest effect, for the tenant would flourish sub-Section 2 of Clause 3 in the landlord's face and bid him defiance. There was no desire on the part of the farmers to build for the accommodation of their labourers; but he earnestly asked the Committee to help to improve the condition of those persons, and provide them with tenements fit for human beings to inhabit. Hon. Gentlemen, unacquainted personally with Ireland, were scarcely aware of the wretchedness connected with the hovels in which labourers were generally placed; some of them were unfit to house a beast much less a human being. In one small village alone, in his neighbourhood, some 18 persons were recently down in fever hovels of the description he referred to. As Chairman of the Board of Guardians of the Union, he sent a relieving officer to make inquiries. Five of the 18 persons died in dwellings without any roofs whatever, the rain having poured in on to the straw beds of the patients. 1426 These hovels were virtually those of labourers. The inhabitants gained their livelihood by work during a portion of the year. In order that this state of things might be effectually remedied, he brought forward for the consideration of the House a clause in which he would gladly accept any Amendment the Government or hon. Members might offer. His great object was to have some regulation for the proper structural arrangement of cottages. He agreed that the labourer should, hold, if possible, from the landlord, and not from the tenant, for in the latter case he would be the mere bond-slave of the tenant. Tenants were very hard taskmasters, and they would ask the maximum of rent and give the minimum of wages. He might be told that this was not the time or the Bill for such a provision as he proposed; but the question was raised by the subsection, and it was absolutely necessary to take care that the tenements which were sanctioned by the Bill were fit for habitation. The hon. Member concluded by moving, after Clause 11, to insert the following clause:— (Conditions for erection of labourers' cottages.) The following shall be the conditions under which labourers' cottages may be erected upon any holding, without being deemed a subdivision or subletting of the land:—

"(a.) No tenant of any holding shall erect any labourer's cottage on his holding without first applying to the landlord or his known agent for liberty so to do;

"(b.) In case the landlord shall consent to erect the cottage at his own expense, the tenant shall not be at liberty to erect the same;

"(c.) In case the landlord shall decline to erect the cottage, the tenant may do so, provided the total of such cottages on such holding shall in no case exceed more than one cottage for every twenty-five acres of tillage land thereof, and provided also that no cottage shall be erected on any holding less than twenty-five acres of tillage land;

"(d.) All cottages erected for labourers either by the tenant or landlord shall be held directly from the landlord, and shall be subject to the provisions of 'The Cottier Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1856,' and in case the tenant shall have erected the cottage, he shall be allowed out of his rent the amount paid to the landlord, or such other sum as the Coint shall think fit in case of dispute;

"(e.) To every cottage erected in pursuance of this Act a garden not exceeding one acre may be attached by the tenant of said holding, and in such case such garden shall be held direct from the landlord, and such allowance therefor shall be made to the tenant as, in case of disagreement, the Court shall award;

"(f.) In case of disturbance of any tenant in his holding, any labourer's cottage erected by the tenant under these regulations shall be deemed to 1427 be an improvement, and the tenant shall be entitled to compensation therefor;

"(g.) The Court may, if it think fit, modify the structural requirements of labourers' cottages, as laid down in Clause eleven of 'The Cottier Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1856,' on the application of the person erecting the same, whether landlord or tenant."

§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.

§ VISCOUNT ST. LAWRENCE
supported the clause. He feared that five or 10 years hence there would be found an insufficient supply of labourers to meet the agricultural requirements of Ireland, and this clause gave the labourers some inducement to remain at home. The Bill gave great opportunities for making improvements on estates and for the reclamation of land; and he hoped a considerable portion of the £16,000,000 or £20,000,000 belonging to the tenant-farmers would, if opportunities be given, go towards the making of these improvements and reclamation. If, however, when the time came, there was an insufficiency of labour in Ireland, how could these works be carried out? From year to year, for some time past, there had been a gradual rise of wages in Ireland; but in the county of Dublin there was now actually in some localities a dearth of labour, and in other counties there was a difficulty in obtaining it, while only in a few was there anything like a balance between demand and supply. If emigration continued as rapidly as heretofore, this difficulty would be increased, and the clause now proposed ought, therefore, to receive favour from the Committee.

§ MR. WHITWELL
trusted that the Bill would not pass through the House without another most important ingredient in connection with the subject. It seemed that there were at least 479,000 agricultural labourers in Ireland; 386,000 other labourers who occupied cottages and, in some cases, small gardens; and no fewer than 80,000 living with their families in one room. In fact, in the country districts of Ireland, where land was worth only 35s. an acre, the same system of crowding existed as was found in London and our large towns. In a small town in the county of Cork there was a cottage intended for one family, in which four families, consisting of 27 individuals, were housed. Scores of houses, cot- 1428 tages, and tenements in that same town had been pulled down in order that settlements might not take place in the parish. The noble Lord (Viscount St. Lawrence) had told the House that labour in Ireland was now paid a higher rate of wages than a few years back; but he must have forgotten that the wages were so small that labour was paid very badly indeed. Labourers could, in fact, be hired at 4s. 6d. a week, with milk and potatoes; and out of these miserable wages rent had to be paid and the family supported. If labour was better paid than it used to be, the price of living had materially increased. Thus, it had been shown that, while the cost of maintaining paupers in an Irish workhouse a few years ago was 1s. 3½d. for food and 3d. for clothing, the present cost was 2s. 6¾d. for food and 6¼d. for clothing, so that the total cost was double what it used to be. It followed, therefore, that while wages might have increased 70 or 80 per cent, the actual cost of living had increased by 100 per cent. If the physical condition of the labourers had improved, their morale was not what it used to be; there was no longer in the Irish peasant the heartiness and cheerfulness which enabled a man to struggle with difficulty; but in their place you could not help observing a saddened expression of countenance, and a lack of the apparent happiness and contentment which once existed. And no wonder, because we were sending out of the country every year the cream of the labouring people. In 1868, 72,000 emigrants had left Ireland: of these, 23,000 men, between 20 and 25 years of age, emigrated, and 13,000 between 25 and 30; so that 36,000 men, between 20 and 30, had left the country, that being the period of life when they were most valuable to the country. Legislation had been tried with a view to provide better accommodation for the labourers in Ireland. In 1856 an Act was passed declaring that no cottage should in future be built of less than two rooms, or without casements, and there was to be a place at the end of the house for the pig and the muck. In 1860 another Act was passed, which expired in the present year, empowering landlords to borrow money from the State for the building of cottages. Although, however, a large sum of money 1429 had been advanced for land improvements in Ireland, only £51,000 had been taken up by owners of property for the purpose of building cottages, and only £414 of this had been borrowed last year. Any person who had travelled in Ireland was aware of the degraded condition in which the dwellings were allowed to remain. He trusted that the House would receive from the Government an assurance that something would be done in the matter. The extension of chargeability over the whole Unions would, he thought, accomplish the object. The question called for the interference of the House. In 1866 the net rental of lands sold in the Landed Estates Court was £68,350. They sold for 19 6–7th years' purchase, yielding £1,258,585. Then, in 1867, came disturbance, and lands of the net rental of £89,953 were thrown into the market, and they sold at only 16 8–9th years' purchase, yielding £1,578,307, or, in fact, £257,900 less in proportion than they would have done the year before. With a more quiet state of things in 1868, lands of the value of £72,689 net rental were sold, rising to 18 1–3rd years' purchase, and producing £1,382,108, or an increase of £125,000 on the market price of 1867. In the past year, for which Return he was indebted to the Registrar of the Court in Dublin, the sales were of land of a net rental of £67,968, and the proceeds were £1,168,857, or 17 1–5th years' rental, being £180,793 less than when land, in 1866, was sold under a more settled condition of Ireland. The sales in the Landed Estates Court might, therefore, be regarded as so many market quotations of the value of land, and of the sense of security in Ireland. During the last four years land to the value of £5,327,837 was sold, and had it realized 20 years' purchase, as in 1866, upwards of £750,000 would have been added to the total amount realized. He considered it of great importance that the condition of the labouring population should be, as far as possible, ameliorated, so that their eyes might be turned to this country, instead of to their "home across the water," as it was called. He had, therefore, great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory).

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, he strongly sympathized, and the 1430 Government strongly sympathized, with the object which his hon. Friend who had just sat down and his hon. Friend the Member for Galway had in view; and if the Government were unable to agree to the Motion it was simply because they did not believe that in this Bill it would produce the effect which was expected. The clause would not benefit the class they desired to benefit, and it would be a serious danger to tenant-farmers. What he had to put to his hon. Friend and to the House was, that these elaborate and carefully-constructed provisions for the benefit of the labourer had been built upon a foundation which was totally unable to bear them; for, at the point where it was proposed to introduce them, they were merely so many exceptions to an act of forfeiture which was altogether absolute, and without the slightest discretion left to the Judge. The Government, therefore, could not agree to the proposal, inasmuch as it would be a provision not for the benefit of the labourer, but a trap and snare for the tenant, into which, if he fell, he would lose the benefit of all claims under Clause 3. If his hon. Friend thought that by this proposition he would induce the Irish tenant-farmers to erect cottages for labourers and give the cottagers a garden, he submitted that the clause would have a directly contrary effect. Legislation upon this subject ought to be positive; and there were various ways, outside the present Bill, in which the condition of the labourer might be improved. The rigid requirements, for instance, of the Cottier Tenant Act, hitherto almost null and void, might be simplified, and something might be done as to the question of Union rating, upon which it was well known to many Members that he himself felt very strongly. Questions such as these ought to receive and would receive the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and he knew no way, both in England and in Ireland, in which the condition of the labouring classes could be advanced with better promise of ultimate success than by studying these questions with a view to effectual legislation. He hoped his hon. Friend would rest satisfied with this assurance, and would not put the House to the trouble of dividing.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
regarded this as one of the most important 1431 Amendments that could be introduced into the Bill, and regretted that, as on too many occasions when important provisions were proposed, the Government should decline to allow it to be introduced. The necessity for such an Amendment was clear from the fact that, though Parliament some years ago had agreed to advance at reasonable interest about £250,000 for the purpose of building labourers' cottages, but little of that money had been applied for, although in one place as many as three families were compelled to live in a single room. If the landlords would not build these cottages, facility for building them should be afforded to the tenant, and he, therefore, approved the principle embodied in the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Galway.

§ MR. SYNAN
said, that he was unable to agree with the clause, though he hoped that to dissent from it was no evidence of want of friendliness for the Irish cottagers. He considered that the provisions of the clause would be prejudicial to the tenantry, and would enable the landlords to take undue advantage of them. They would also tend to encourage subletting, and to sow the seed of division between the labourers and tenants.

§ MR. O'REILLY
said, he thought the alternative scheme proposed by the hon. Member for Galway possessed great advantages; because, if the landlord refused to build the labourer's cottage, the power would be lodged in the hands of the tenant, upon whom pressure could be brought to bear with a view to make the structures more habitable than they usually were at the present time. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that if it were left to the tenant alone to build the labourer's cottage it would furnish a pretext for subletting, and be a trap for the tenant as well as the landlord. He hoped, therefore, the Chief Secretary would reconsider the matter.

§ COLONEL FRENCH
expressed the opinion that it would be anything but desirable to give encouragement to the setting up of a wretched class of cottages.

§ MR. COGAN
observed, that there was no necessity for introducing an element of opposition between labourer and tenant in this matter. He had not heard any good reason in the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland why an option should not be given in the first 1432 instance to the landlord. He feared that the system of cottage building for labourers would make the labourer the mere serf of the farmer upon whose land he lived.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, there were two questions very distinct indeed which had Been satisfactorily brought to issue, the one in relation to the whole clause as it stood, and the other to limited portions of the clause comprised in sub-sections (a) and (b). The apprehension of the Government was that the addition of the clause as it stood would simply paralyze what had already been inserted in Clause 3, with regard to the erection of labourers' cottages by tenants. It was not credible that any tenant—unless he had just come out of a lunatic asylum, or was about to go into one—would consent to build cottages under the provisions of this clause. But with respect to the option that would be given to the landlord in sub-sections (a) and (b), the Government did not see any such objection to it as would induce them to resist the appeal of gentlemen highly competent to pass a judgment on the subject. The idea that was in his mind was this—that it would be better for the labourer to have a cottage erected for him, bad as it might be, for why should he go into it if he could do better? However, he would be glad to bring the discussion to an end by accepting the substance of sub-sections (a) and (b).

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he had heard, with some satisfaction, the conclusion to which the right hon. Gentleman had come. The arguments, however, of the right hon. Gentleman against the proposal went to the root of the whole Bill, which was founded on an exception to the principles of political economy and of free agency. He regretted that the concession of the Government did not go far enough. It did not embrace two important points—namely, a provision to secure the ordinary decencies of life for the unfortunate peasants, who lived in miserable hovels, and some safeguard against the exaction of an exorbitant rent for the privilege of inhabiting them. No class in Ireland, he believed, was more deserving of the sympathy of the House than the peasantry; and he had watched with an almost painful attention that interesting discussion with respect to their dwellings, on the state of which their material, 1433 social, and moral welfare must so much depend. He rejoiced that at almost the last stage of the Bill that important question had been raised, and hoped it would be settled in a manner that would tend to ameliorate the condition of the Irish peasantry.

§ SIR JOHN GRAY
said, some modification would be necessary in the part of the clause accepted by the Government, in order to make it effectual in its working, and to empower the tenant, if the landlord refused him permission to erect a labourer's cottage on his holding, to erect it in that case himself. There ought, he thought, also to be some provision as to the character of the building to be erected—as for example, requiring it to consist of two rooms at least, and the like.

§ SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATE
expressed his gratitude to the hon. Member for Galway for his benevolent proposal. He was glad that the Government had acceded to sub-sections (a) and (b); but thought that concession would be useless unless accompanied by some provision regarding the structural ar the rangements of the cottages, and trusted hon. Member (Mr. W. H. Gregory) would take the sense of the House on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government said he was surprised the labourers should take bad cottages when they might go elsewhere. But the fact was they had nowhere else to go. There was a constant struggle on the part of the farmers—and he was not surprised at it, considering the small size of many of their holdings—to drive the labourer down to the lowest point that would keep soul and body together. He would remind the House that the labourers constituted half the labouring population of Ireland. The Fenian movement was confined to that class, which was not surprising, considering how badly they were housed.

§ MR. M'MAHON
said, he could not vote with the hon. Member for Galway, because his Amendment would restrict the power given to the tenant under the 3rd section of the Bill.

§ MR. BRUEN
said, he hoped the hon. Member for Galway would persevere with that part of his proposition which would provide that the cottages of labourers should be up to a certain standard.

§ DR. BALL
said, he could not allow 1434 this discussion to close without expressing a strong opinion in favour of the clause, especially of that sub-clause which had respect to the structural arrangements of the cottage. If there was no restriction put upon these erections, he was afraid they would see cottages run up like those in the north suburbs of Dublin, many of which, as he could state from his own knowledge, were not fit for the habitations of human beings. His belief was that these miserable residences tended to a lowering of the moral feeling of the people. The families became dead to all moral ideas and associations; while the men were to be found employing their Sundays in the public-houses, or playing at cards on the road sides. When he complained to the proprietors of this state of things, their answer invariably was—These are cottages over which we have no power; they do not belong to us, but to the tenant-farmers. He would say further that there was no use in leaving this question to the ordinary operation of supply and demand, for as Sir George Lewis said, there was a tendency in the Irish mind, the effect of which was that they would never improve unless an inspiration came from above.

§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

§ The House divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 59: Majority 17.

§ MR. M'MAHON
moved to insert the following clause after Clause 64:— (Compensation for improvements on eviction.) In all cases not herein before provided for, every occupier of land shall be entitled before eviction to recover from the owner thereof the present value of all improvements made thereon by such occupier or his predecessors in title, in good faith, or in ignorance of defects in the title under which the same was held. The object of his clause was, that if it should be found the landlord's title was unsound, his tenant should be compensated by his successor for improvements made in good faith.

§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND
(Mr. DOWSE) objected to the clause, thinking it would open too wide 1435 a field to enter upon at the present stage of the Bill. Even if the principle of the clause were agreed to, it would require considerable amendment in order to carry out the intention which the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view.

§ DR. BALL
said, that it would be very dangerous to insert into the clause the words proposed, which were rather vague and general. The class of cases to which the Amendment was designed to apply already came within the competency of the Bill, and it would be well to leave them to be dealt with by the Bill.

§ Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
proposed the insertion of the word "waste," after the word "of," in line 9.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 9, after the word "of," to insert the word "waste."—(Mr. Chichester Fortescue.)

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
said, that the effect of the introduction of the word would limit the claim for compensation to the reclamation of waste land only, whereas there was a very large portion of land in Ireland which was not strictly waste, such as tracts known as snipe-shooting land, which were quite wet and rocky. Now, the removal of rocks was the best method of reclaiming land, and very often more expensive than thorough drainage. He asked the Secretary for Ireland to put in the words "waste and other lands," and then it would be left to the Chairman of Quarter Sessions to decide whether other lands which were reclaimed came within the meaning of the section or not.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND
(Mr. DOWSE) said, his hon. Friend was in error in supposing that the proposed alteration would deprive the tenant of any right he might possess in regard to the reclamation of land other than waste land, because the improvements were defined at the end of the Bill as any improvements which added to the letting value of a holding. A distinction was, however, drawn between the reclamation of land and other improvements, and the object of the Amendment was merely to render more clear what had always been the intention of the Government in reference to this matter.

1436

§ MR. SYNAN
said, the reclamation of land meant something very different from the reclamation of waste land. The Amendment made a material change, not in favour of the tenant, but in abridging improvements. There were some lands which, though not waste lands, were very nearly so, and if they were reclaimed by the tenant he ought to be paid for their reclamation. For once he was unconvinced by the ability and ingenuity of his hon. and learned Friend and he should therefore give his cordial support to the Amendment.

§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMER
said, he thought the hon. Member for Limerick somewhat mistook, in the fervour of his eloquence, that which the Government proposed. It was not proposed to do away with compensation for improvements under the operation of the Improvements Clause, in the case of any species of reclamation; but that the reclamation of waste land should only be brought under that category of permanent improvements which stood on the same footing as permanent buildings. That, in his opinion, was a perfectly just proposal.

§ MR. PELL
thanked the Government for having introduced the word "waste." As the Bill stood before there was great confusion as to what was meant as between reclamation and general improvements.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
pointed out that the Government had more than once in the course of the discussions in Committee promised to introduce some definition of the word "reclamation," and that they never intended it to apply to anything but reclamation properly and strictly so called.

§ SIR JOHN GRAY
said, he had always understood that the reclamation for which the Government contended was, that which had been defined in the Acts of Parliament to which the Solicitor General for Ireland had so often referred when the Bill was in Committee. The reclamation of land, he maintained, meant something more than the draining of a bog or a morass. It meant, for instance, the removal of rocks as well as furze from ground which was not exactly waste, and which might have been used for the pasture of cattle. He knew a case in which some land, for which the tenants paid only from 4s. to 8s. per acre, was, by the expenditure of 1437 some £8 or £10 an acre upon it by the landlord, made worth £2 2s. an acre at the end of four or five years. Now, such reclamation as that would be excluded under the proposal of the Government.

SIR JOHN ESMONDE
pointed out that in such a case as that just mentioned, the tenant could recoup himself for his outlay in four or five years, while with a 31 years' lease he could do much more than recoup himself.

§ MR. KIRK
said, there was a difference between waste land and bog. Bog land was land where turf could be cut; but waste land was land where the turf had already been cut off.

§ MR. SHERLOCK
suggested that if the tenant actually reclaimed land, which would be useless without his labour, although it might not come under the description of waste land, he ought to be entitled to compensation.

§ MR. HINDE PALMER
said, he thought it desirable that the words "or other land" should be inserted, or that the words "waste lands" should be omitted. English Members might not be fully acquainted with the local considerations affecting the matter; but they could use their common sense with regard to the statements of Irish Members that there was some land which required reclamation, while it could not properly be said to be waste, and thus they would be led to the conclusion that the tenant should be compensated for the work which he bestowed on such land. He could not admit that the word "improvement," as explained in the Interpretation Clause, would apply to such cases as had been mentioned, for it was used almost in contradistinction to reclamation.

§ Question put, "That the word 'waste' be there inserted."

§ The House divided:—Ayes 155; Noes 17: Majority 138.

§ MR. M'MAHON
moved, in Clause 3, sub-Section 2, page 3, line 21, after "the consent of the landlord," to leaveout "in writing." He explained that the object of his Amendment was to enable the tenant to benefit by the 3rd section, even where he only received the verbal permission of the landlord, and to restore the Bill to the form in which it appeared when first introduced by the Government.

1438

§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 21, after the word "landlord," to leave out the words "in writing."—(Mr. M'Mahon.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

§ MR. SHERLOCK
opposed the Amendment, on the ground that verbal contracts led to litigation, and that a subletting was an important matter, which ought to be the subject of a written contract.

§ SIR JOHN GRAY
thought the words "in writing," had better be retained.

§ MR. M'MAHON
said, he would withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, Withdrawn.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
proposed to add, at the end of sub-Section 2, words to the same effect as the two first conditions in the rejected clause of the hon. Member for Galway, in relation to the erection of labourers' cottages. The Amendment was as follows:— Provided no tenant of any holding shall erect any labourer's cottage on his holding without first applying to the landlord, or his known agent, for liberty to do so; and in case the landlord shall, within 12 months of such application, consent to erect the cottage at his own expense, the tenant shall not he at liberty to erect a cottage.

§ SIR JOHN GRAY
proposed to amend the phrase, "by the act of his immediate landlord," by omitting "immediate" and inserting "the."

§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 1, to leave out the words "his immediate," and insert the word "the,"—(Sir John Gray,)—instead thereof.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, the reasons for retaining the word "immediate" had been stated in Committee. This was a retrospective clause, which did not affect future tenancies, and he did not think they could go further.

§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed, to.

§ MR. BRUEN
proposed in Clause 6, page 6, line 42, to insert after "tenant" the words "on quitting his holding," the object of the Amendment being to provide that a tenant should not be entitled to receive compensation under the clause unless he quitted his holding.

1439

§ Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 42, after the word "tenant," to insert the words "on quitting his holding."—(Mr. Bruen.)

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND
(Mr. DOWSE) explained that the words were unnecessary, as the fair meaning of the clause was that a tenant should not be entitled to receive compensation until he had given up possession to the landlord.

§ DR. BALL
said, the words were in one clause, and they ought to be in the other, or there would be danger of producing confusion.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, that the Compensation Clause was quite separate from Clause 3.

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

§ The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 160: Majority 97.

§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMER
proposed at the end of Clause 14 to add the following proviso— And, in any case in which compensation shall be claimed under section three of this Act, if it shall appear to the Court that the landlord has been willing to permit the tenant to continue in the occupation of his holding upon just and reasonable terms, and that such terms have been unreasonably refused by the tenant, the claim of the tenant to such compensation shall be disallowed. The words of the clause were somewhat vague, and open to some uncertainty; but with the proviso there would be no doubt as to the principle by which the Court would be regulated.

§ MR. JESSEL
said, he thought the proviso quite as vague and indefinite as the original clause. For instance, it provided "if it shall appear to the Court that the landlord has been willing" when? 10 years ago, or how long since?—"to permit the tenant to continue in the occupation of his holding"—for how long?—"upon just and reasonable terms,"—he was entirely at a loss to know the distinction between "just" and "reasonable;"—"and that such terms have been unreasonably refused"—how could the tenant reasonably refuse what was reasonable?—"the claim of the tenant to such compensation shall be disallowed." Why, if a tenant had been a little unreasonable, was the Court to deprive him of all compensation? He did not think the proviso would make the clause more easy of interpretation.

1440

§ DR. BALL
supported the proviso. It certainly would assist in the interpretation of this clause. It clearly pointed out one principal matter in which the Judge was to exercise his discretion against the tenant—where the landlord had offered him fair terms of continuance in his holding. If the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Jessel) had to construe the proviso as a Judge he would soon show there was no difficulty in it.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
said, he would have some hesitation in opposing the Amendment, coming, as it did, from so high a quarter; but for the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Jessel) had strengthened the objection which he entertained to it.

§ MR. O'REILLY
said, he thought there was no difficulty in understanding the wording of the proposed Amendment; but the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) was willing to consent to an alteration which would make it read, as to the landlord, "has been and is willing," and as to the tenant, "have been and are unreasonably refused."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND
(Mr. DOWSE), on the part of the Government, accepted the Amendment as amended.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 19 (Appeal from Civil Bill Court).

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, that the Bill, as it stood, required the hearing of every appeal to be before two Judges of Assize, which, upon reconsideration, was thought to be going too far. He accordingly proposed, in page 11, to leave out lines 23 and 24, and to insert these words— And every such appeal, so far as the same involves questions of fact, may be heard and determined by one of the said judges; but in case any question of law shall arise upon any such appeal, such question shall be heard and determined by both the said judges, who shall for such purpose sit together.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. WREN-HOSKYNS
, in proposing an Amendment in Clause 23, the object of which was to give the power to Irish landowners to grant to their tenants tenancies for life, expressed his belief that the insertion of such a provision would render the Bill more acceptable to the Irish tenant than it would be if 1441 it conferred solely the power of granting leases for 31 years, inasmuch as a tenant would usually prefer a lease for his own life to one for 31 years.

§ Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 6, after the word "periods," to insert the words "or for the life of the tenant."—(Mr. Wren-Hoskyns.)

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
observed that this Bill was not a leasing Bill, and that the object which the hon. Gentleman sought to attain—that of putting the tenant for life on the same footing as the holder of a lease for 31 years—could not now be done, inasmuch as the matter had already been settled in a. former portion of the Bill.

§ DR. BALL
said, he had supported the hon. Gentleman on a former occasion, when he had made a similar proposal, and believed still that a lease for life would be regarded as more valuable than a lease for 31 years. When a man holding a lease for 31 years died, the small remaining interest was subject to probate, succession, and legacy duties; and, to his knowledge, the whole of the assets had frequently been wasted in a contest among the children with reference to the division of the property. Every one of those inconveniences would be obviated by a lease for life, a tenancy which, he believed, would be preferred in most cases. All the Amendment asked was to give the landlord and tenant the alternative power of agreeing to a lease for life.

§ MR. C. S. READ
wished that the Government had originally adopted the very reasonable suggestion which was made by his hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Wren-Hoskyns). A life tenancy was not only a popular term in Ireland, but a good agricultural term, as at the end of even a 31 years' lease there was a great temptation to exhaust the soil; whereas that temptation would be removed in a tenancy for life, as the tenant, like every other individual, would consider all men mortal but himself.

§ MR. J. ORMSBY-GORE
trusted that the Government would not give way upon this point. He believed that, in the case of a tenancy for life, when the tenant became ill every endeavour would be made on the part of his relatives to get as much as possible out of the soil. The result of such a proposal as this being adopted would be bad for the 1442 landlord, bad for the tenant, and bad for the community.

§ Question, "That those words be there inserted" put, and negatived,.

§ Clause 62 (Where value of premises does not exceed £4, immediate lessor to pay Grand Jury cess).

§ MR. CHARLEY
, in moving that the clause be left out, said that Clauses 60 and 62 were both classed under the head of Miscellaneous; the reason being, in his opinion, that they were not germane to the subject-matter of the Bill. The latter clause operated most unfairly upon landlords of small tenancies valued at £4 and under, by throwing upon them the burden of the Grand Jury cess. No landlords were more to be pitied, as they had the least improving tenants, and they deserved great credit for not having exercised their power of ejectment. The Solicitor General for Ireland had stated that most of these small tenants were Roman Catholics, and as it was well known that the landlords were almost all Protestants, the fact that the power of ejectment had not been exercised showed the kindly fooling that existed. Instead of throwing a protection around the smaller tenants, this clause would expose them to the danger of eviction. He begged to move that the clause be omitted.

§ Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 62.—(Mr. Charley.)

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

§ The House divided:—Ayes 201; Noes 74: Majority 127.

§ Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 145.]