CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS.

HC Deb 09 August 1881 vol 264 cc1388-461

[FIRST NIGHT.]

Order for Consideration of Lords' Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Amendments made by The Lords to the Land Law (Ireland) Bill be now considered,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)—put, and agreed to.

Lords' Amendments considered.

The following Amendments read a second time, and, on the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, agreed to:—In line 21, leave out ("has agreed") and insert ("shall agree"); and in line 23, after ("State") insert ("in writing").

The next Amendment, in line 26, leave out from ("Court") to ("declare") in line 28, and insert ("shall") read a second time.

On Question, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

moved to disagree with the Amendment. One effect of the Amendment was shortly this—Certain requirements were inserted in a former part of the clause, obliging the tenant to give the prescribed notice to the landlord of his intention to sell, and also certain information. Supposing, then, that a particular number of days' notice was required by the landlord, and that the tenant was an hour or a day late, though not affecting the merits of the case in the smallest degree, the Court, according to this Amendment, would be bound, without any discretion whatever, and at the bidding of the landlord, to declare the sale void. It would be most unreasonable to exact that, and he therefore asked the House to disagree with the Amendment. The clause, as it originally stood, gave the Court perfect power to declare a sale void if the interests of the landlord and the justice of the case required.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment,"—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland,)—put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the next Amendment, inline 28, after ("void") insert ("if the landlord shall so require,") disagreed to.

Page 2, line 5, after the word "Court," insert the words— Provided, That the landlord's objection shall be conclusive in the case of any tenancy in a holding where the permanent improvements in respect of which, if made by the tenant or his predecessors in title, the tenant would have been entitled to be compensated under the provisions of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' as amended by this Act, have been made by the landlord or his predecessors in title, and not by the tenant or his predecessors in title, —the next Amendment, read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the Amendment was one of which the House would perceive the effect to be that it placed it absolutely in the power of the landlord, under certain circumstances, to exclude any particular person proposed to him as tenant from the tenancy, and by a succession of such objections it, of course, placed it in the power of the landlord, as there was no limit to such objections, to exclude that particular tenant from the benefit of the sale of the tenant right. As the Amendment stood, it was inadmissible; but having considered it, he found it might be amended in such a way as to bring it in a certain sense into conformity with the principle of the Bill. By the Bill, as it stood, they were not unwilling to recognize, under given circumstances, that in certain cases where the permanent improvements on the holding had been created and substantially maintained by the landlord and his predecessors in title a difference might be recognized. In that spirit, therefore, he proposed to ask the House to agree to the Amendment, with several Amendments, and the substantial Amendment of inserting after the word "made" the words "and substantially maintained." He was bound to say they asked the House to do this distinctly as a concession to the other House of Parliament, and not because they believed it to be an improve- ment in the Bill. There was no doubt, in a case of this kind, they freely admitted, that where the improvements had been made and permanently maintained by the landlord, the tenant, unless he had made other improvements himself, had nothing to sell except his right of occupancy; but they saw no reason why he should not sell that right of occupancy; on the contrary, they thought it better he should. At the same time, the question was one with regard to which two things might be said. On the one hand, a very strong desire had been manifested in favour of the Amendment by a large minority of that House, and certainly by the other House of Parliament; and, on the other hand, although the Government thought it a deterioration of the Bill, it was not such a deterioration as to make them think it necessary to invite the House to take its stand and decline to admit it. He need not say that if it were an alteration of the Bill of that character, they could not ask the House to agree to it. He would now propose, in the first place, to amend the Amendment in a verbal manner, by altering the words "to be compensated" to the words "to compensation," then in the seventh line to insert after the word "made," the words, "and substantially maintained," and in the eighth line to strike out "or," and insert "and."

Amendment proposed to said Amendment, in line 4, to strike out the words "be compensated," and insert "compensation" in line 7, after the word "made," to insert the words "and substantially maintained" and in line 8, to strike out the word "or," and insert "and"—(Mr. Gladstone.)

MR. HEALY

asked Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order, whether it was not open to a Member to move the absolute rejection of the whole of the Lords' Amendments?

MR. SPEAKER

said, it would be competent for the hon. Member, after the proposed Amendments on the said Amendment had been disposed of, to make a Motion in regard to the said Amendment itself, on the proposed Amendment to the Amendment to leave out, in line 5, the word "compensated," and insert "compensation."

MR. PARNELL

wished to say, that he must not, by being silent, be taken as agreeing to the course proposed by the Prime Minister of agreeing to the Lords' Amendment with the Amendments proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, it was right on the part of the Government to amend the Amendment as they desired, and then they should be able to take the opinion of the House as regarded the Amendment itself; but they could not do so at present. When the proper time arrived he should move a further Amendment.

MR. HEALY

asked the Prime Minister whether it was not the fact that the acceptance of the Lords' Amendment did not amount to a practical admission that the tenant had no interest in the holding except the improvement he had made himself?

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the acceptance of the Amendment did not amount to such an admission in all cases, because such an admission was contradicted by a number of substantial enactments in the Bill; but he would fully admit that the Amendment as amended undoubtedly did say that a class of tenants, in very rare cases where the improvements had been made and "substantially maintained by the landlord," had no interest in the holding except in respect of the improvements made by themselves.

MR. GIBSON

said, the Amendments which the Prime Minister had just announced proposed an alteration of the Lords' Amendment, which was one of importance. It dealt with a class of Amendments which proposed to reserve the right to landlords to manage their estates on the English system, and this Amendment only proposed to preserve to landlords one of the principles which was recognized in England—that was, to enable the landlord who had made permanent improvements on his property the privilege of selecting his tenant. That was really all that was given by the Lords' Amendment. The Prime Minister had said that he had agreed to the Amendment with the proposed alterations as a concession. He was bound to say that the proposed alterations reduced the concession to extremely narrow limits, because it would be the invariable experience that, if a landlord had made a permanent improvement on his property, and if, in addition to proving that he had made those improvements, he had to prove he had sub- stantially maintained them, there would be very little protection to English-managed estates.

MR. H. R. BRAND

said, that, as he understood the Lords' Amendment, it would possibly take effect after a sale. He wished, therefore, to ask the Government whether it would not be necessary further to amend the clause by excluding a case where the tenant might have purchased the improvements of the landlord under the 8th sub-section of the 1st clause?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the suggestion was well founded, and that the Amendment would require the addition of other words, these being "made or acquired."

Amendments to said Amendment agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. GLADSTONE, said Amendment further amended, by inserting in line 8, after the word "not," the words "made or acquired."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment as amended."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

MR. PARNELL

moved to insert, at the end of the said Amendment, these words— Provided, That in the opinion of the Court the landlord shall not have been compensated for such improvements by increase of rent or otherwise. That, he thought, was a reasonable proposition. The Lords' Amendment was based on the supposition that the landlord had made the improvement, that the landlord, therefore, owned the improvement, and that the tenant did not own it. But if the tenant had paid for the improvement, in the opinion of the Court, by increased rent or otherwise in such a way as to disentitle the landlord to the full benefit of the Amendment, he thought it was a matter the Court should be entitled to take into account if it was desirous to do so.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the said Amendment, as amended, to insert the words "and Provided, That in the opinion of the Court the landlord shall not have been compensated for such improvements by increased rent or otherwise."—(Mr. Parnell.)

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

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, the Amendments which had been already made to the Lords' Amendment had, as his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) pointed out, very materially reduced the value of the provision, and if they were to adopt the words which were suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) he (Sir Stafford Northcote) thought the value of the provision would be destroyed altogether. In point of fact, they would be thrown back upon the uncertainty which existed previously with regard to that particular clause. The uncertainty was admitted before, and should not be revived now that it had been removed. The proposition in the Amendment as it stood was to save the uncertainties which might attend the operations of the Court in regard to a certain class of holdings, which were a comparatively rare number, but which were of an important character. In order to provide for those cases, it was provided, not that the question should be decided by the Court taking evidence and treating the whole matter as an open question, but upon the principle that the landlord's objection should be conclusive in case of his having made and maintained certain improvements. He presumed that one of the great objects aimed at by the Proviso was that an inducement should be given to the landlord to make and maintain his improvements, in order that he might stand in the better position he would in that event occupy under the Bill. He trusted the Government would not accept the words now proposed.

MR. GLADSTONE

I am obliged to decline the proposed addition of the words of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) on this ground—In the Act of 1870 we did, in respect to the tenant, recognize the principle that he might be compensated by a reasonable lapse of time in respect of improvements he had made, and that the use and profit of those improvements for a certain time might be considered as compensation; but we do not recognize that principle in the present Act. None of the enactments of the present Bill are founded on that principle; and, not acknowledging it as respects the tenant, I do not think it would be quite equitable in our view that we should acknowledge it as respects the landlord. It is also difficult to see how the landlord could receive compensation for his improvements in the shape of rent under the system which the Bill will establish; because, under the Bill, every tenant will be entitled to obtain from the Court the adjudication of a fair rent. Now, fair rent upon improvements would be a rent, undoubtedly, allowing liberally for the interest upon the cost of those improvements; but it would hardly be a rent which would repay the landlord in respect of his whole capital outlay. But the main ground on which I should stand is, that we do not introduce that principle of compensation by engagement for a certain length of time, either as regards landlord or tenant. It is much better, I think, that those who make improvements should have the whole benefit of the improvements.

MR. HEALY

said, it was a somewhat remarkable thing that the Government were unable to recognize the equitable principle of the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell). If that principle was inequitable, why did not the Government bring in a clause in the present Bill to repeal the principle in the Act of 1870? The principle was in that Act, and his hon. Friend simply proposed to import it into the present Bill and apply it to the landlord. But the Government did not think what was sauce for the gander was also sauce for the goose. He had never heard such a piece of special pleading as that they had just heard from the Prime Minister in refusing the Amendment of his hon. Friend. ["Oh, oh!"] They knew what this would lead to. That refusal would lead to a great deal of dissatisfaction in future. It seemed, however, that the Government had made up their minds not to settle the Land Question in Ireland, but to pass their Bill. They were prepared to swallow as many of the Amendments of the Lords as they thought the House would stomach, and send the Bill back to the Lords with the wheels greased by that acceptance, and thus pass the Bill anyhow. By giving way to the Lords' Amendment in this respect, however, they were only laying up a store of uneasiness for themselves at a future time. He had hoped they had learnt a lesson, for they should have remembered what was the result of the acceptance of the Lords' Amendments to the Act of 1870. He and his hon. Friends who acted with him would on those grounds go to a division, not merely upon that Amendment, but as against the clause as amended by the Government.

MR. LEAMY

said, he was afraid there were many hon. Members willing to accept the Lords' Amendment, because they thought it would not affect many tenants. He, however, thought it would affect a great many tenancies in which the tenancy had been broken by eviction or other causes within recent years. It would enable the landlord, in every case in which he had made any substantial improvements on a holding, to refuse to allow the tenant to sell at all. It would also very much, he was afraid, operate in the case of death intestacy. In case a tenant died intestate, the landlord would be entitled under the section to come in and refuse to accept the son of the deceased tenant, or, in fact, anyone belonging to his family. When a man died it was also uncertain under the section whether the landlord would allow the farm to go to the next of kin:

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that the apprehensions of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Leamy) were entirely without foundation. If there were no permanent improvements on the farm to the landlord's credit, then he would have none. With reference to the arguments of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), he contended that it was impossible to suppose that the landlord's property was to be bought out by the rent. He could not see, for instance, how a landlord who had built a house on the land could be said to have been compensated for it by the rent which he fairly received for the use of it; and so, also, with other improvements.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

quite agreed with the view that substantial and permanent improvements made on the land by either landlord or tenant should be the property of the landlord or tenant for all time, provided he has not paid them. But when the landlord imposed an increased rent, the question was whether the landlord was not in the course of a certain time thoroughly compensated. He maintained that the landlord sold his improvements when he charged an increased rent; for he was really paid for them in the course of a few years, and they should then become the property of the tenant. If a tenant built a house, why should he not be allowed to sell it? It was the same with the landlord. There was no necessity to assent to the Amendment which the Government proposed to accept. It need not be assented to by any hon. Member in the House, for it was utterly unjust.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he hoped a division would be taken against the clause, and not upon the Amendment, as he would willingly vote against the clause, but could not assent to what had been moved by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). Would anyone, he asked, tell him in how many years a landlord would be compensated for having expended, say £1,000, on a farm building on which he was receiving 6 per cent interest? The case was exactly the same as that of money being invested in the funds and earning good interest; and no one could say that in such investment the State ought, after a certain number of years, to become possessed of the capital of the investor.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, that no landlord would be recouped in any reasonable number of years for the capital invested in improvements at 4 or 5 per cent.

MR. MARUM

protested against the assumption that there were many English-managed estates in Ireland. Therefore, he did not believe that, practically, any Irish tenancies would be affected by the Amendment; but he could not help thinking it was inserted as a hole of escape in case of the consideration of an English Land Bill.

MR. PARNELL

said, that as it did not seem to be the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite that two divisions should be taken, he should allow the Amendment to be negatived. He would, however, raise a strong protest in the matter.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question proposed.

MR. PARNELL

said, he regretted exceedingly that the Government, at the very threshold of the consideration of the Lords' Amendments, should have yielded on that important matter. The number of holdings that would be affected by the proposed Amendment might seem to some hon. Members to be very limited; but it was not so. In every case where the title of the tenant had been recently broken, and a new tenancy was created, all the past improvements effected by the original tenant would be shut out from consideration by the Court, and the Court would have to refuse to allow such a tenant to sell his tenant right. That discretion was taken away from the Court. The number of tenants' titles that had been so broken through in Ireland was very numerous, and he believed only a small minority could prove the continuity of their titles. A great deal of the power of the Court with reference to the free sale would be taken away. The Amendment would have a large and extensive application, and would shut out a number of the very best tenants in Ireland. Many titles had been broken about 1850, and if the landlord could show that a farm which had been greatly improved by the tenant up to 1850 had not been much improved by the tenant since the breach of title, and that the landlord had effected some single improvement on the farm himself, the Court would have to forbid the tenant exercising his right of free sale.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, it was not necessary for him to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) into the merits of the Amendment; for, after all, he believed there was not much real difference of opinion between them. The Amendment had no real connection with breaches of tenancy at all, and he should be sorry if the idea went forth as having the authority of the House that wherever there had been a breach in the tenancy the Court would have to consider the making of permanent improvements only from the date of the last breach. That would give the Amendment quite a different character from that which it rightly bore, and he wished to disabuse the House of the idea. In the view of the Government, the Amendment had no connection with breaches of tenancy at all. Whenever there was a breach of tenancy, it would be necessary for the landlord to show that he had maintained the permanent improvements. [Mr. PARNELL: Since the breach?] No, not at all—whatever improvements were on the farm.

MR. HEALY

said, that the Amendment possessed one great advantage, in that it would, by its operation, affect a substantial body of tenants, the higher class tenant farmers, who were not supposed now to be in sympathy with the Land League, and it was likely to have important results in the future, as it would show them the complete impossibility of that House, or the other House, or the present Government ever doing them anything like justice.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 258; Noes 100: Majority 158.—(Div. List, No. 361.)

Line 16, after ("improvements"), insert (" on a holding "), the next Amendment, agreed to.

Lines 16 and 17, leave out ("on a holding") and insert ("or paid for"), the next Amendment, agreed to as far as leaving out the words "on a holding;" but disagreed to as regards inserting "or paid for."

Page 2, line 28, after the word "tenancy," insert the words— Where before the passing of this Act the landlord or any of his predecessors in title has purchased or acquired the Ulster tenant right custom, or the benefit of a usage corresponding to the Ulster tenant right custom, to which any holding was subject, and such holding has, in pursuance of section one or section two of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' ceased to be subject to such custom or usage; or Where before the passing of this Act the landlord or any of his predecessors in title has purchased or acquired the right of sale of the tenant's interest in such holding, and where the tenant or any of his predecessors in title have been paid the consideration for such purchase or acquisition either by payment of a sum of money, or by a corresponding abatement of rent, or where the tenant or any of his predecessors since such purchase or acquisition is or are not proved to have paid money or given money's worth, with the express or implied consent of the landlord or any of his predecessors in title, on account of becoming the tenant of such holding; and The tenancy in such holding is sold for the first time after the passing of this Act, the landlord shall be entitled to apply to the Court to have paid to him out of the purchase moneys of the tenancy the sum which he can prove to the satisfaction of the Court to have been paid by him or his predecessors in title by way of consideration for the purchase or acquisition of the Ulster tenant right custom, or of the benefit of such usage, or of any right of sale of the tenant's interest in such holding; subject nevertheless to any deduction which the Court may deem just in respect of any money received by the landlord or his predecessors in title by way of fine, increased rent, or otherwise on account of the sum so paid as aforesaid, —the next Amendment, read a second time.

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, this is an Amendment of considerable sweep, and it is one which it is quite impossible for us to ask the House to agree with. I am bound to say that I think it is, unfortunately, framed for the purpose of giving effect to the views of those who supported it. There are verbal inaccuracies in it which are gross, and it requires to be altered very considerably in order to make it intelligible. That, however, is only a grammatical criticism; the purpose of the Amendment is perfectly clear quite independent of these inaccuracies. I will not, in order to briefly describe it, go back upon the lengthy argument we had in Committee on the question of the cases where the landlord had purchased up the Ulster tenant right, and where, in consequence of that purchase, the tenant was remitted to the general law as defined by the Act of 1870, or as expanded and enlarged by the Bill now under consideration which we sent to the House of Lords a short time ago. I will assume that that argument is fresh in the recollection of the House. I will, however, point out how it is that the Amendment proposes to deal with the case. It aims at embracing all the cases in which the landlord has acquired by purchase the tenant right, admitted or supposed to exist upon his farms, either under the Ulster Custom, or under any custom analogous to the Ulster Custom; or anywhere, in fact, where such transaction has taken place. How does it propose to deal with the tenants in these cases? It deals with them in this way. It makes a certain provision applying to the first occasion on which the tenancy shall be sold after the passing of this Act; and it provides that, on that occasion, the landlord may recoup himself, out of the purchase money of the tenancy, any sum which he may prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he has paid in respect of the tenant right upon that holding. Now, Sir, without entering into the general argument, it is sufficient for my purpose to mention the one, as we think, absolutely fundamental and conclusive objection to this transaction. The argument is this—that even supposing—which I admit only for argument's sake, and by no means as a proposition by which I abide—even supposing the landlord entitled to compensation, he is to be compensated under the Amendment by the wrong man. The landlord has paid a sum of money to tenant A in order to purchase the tenant right upon his holding. He then lets it to tenant B, who, by the terms of this agreement, shall have acquired no benefit whatever from the purchase, by the landlord. According to the terms of the Amendment tenant B takes no benefit whatever from the transaction; and yet it is provided that when tenant B, under the general provisions of the Bill, proceeds, for the first time, to sell his tenant right, the landlord may recoup himself out of moneys paid to tenant B for the price paid to tenant A, there being no continuity of interest between them, and it not being required by the same Amendment that tenant B shall have taken the smallest interest from the transaction. Under these circumstances, as there is no possibility of amending it, there can be no question that the Amendment ought not to be accepted, and I must ask the House to disagree to it entirely.

MR. GIBSON

said, that he had heard the statement of the Prime Minister, that the Government could not assent to the Amendment, even with alterations, with regret. The Amendment was obviously one of importance, and it was one of substance; but it did not interfere in the slightest degree with the main provisions of the Bill. The Amendment sought to grapple with a state of facts which, if left unamended and unchanged, might work an injustice to a substantial class of landholders in Ireland—to be found in Ulster and in other parts of Ireland. They all knew that some landowners in Ulster had given considerable sums of money to purchase up the tenant right custom. If the clause was left as it was in the Bill as it left that House, and if those cases were not in some way dealt with by some special legislation, they would have put themselves in a distinctly worse position by buying up the tenant right. These unfortunate persons would not only lose what other Irish landlords would lose, but would also lose the sums they had expended in the purchase of the tenant right. If there were verbal inaccuracies the Prime Minister could easily remedy them, for no one was more capable to do so; and there were other hon. Members of the House who had paid particular attention to grammar. Whether the Amendment dealt with the subject in the best way was another thing, and might be well open to question; but surely such facts called for some special legislation and special treatment. He knew of a case where a landlord had paid £16,000 for the tenants' interest in the hope of getting the control over the sales of his farms, and the future tenants of the farms freed from that form of tenant right. Unless the Amendment was agreed to, that money would have been thrown away; and that landlord under the Bill would be, to say the least, in a position highly inequitable and very exceptional. Surely in that and similar cases the landlords were entitled to some relief, even if not the precise relief afforded by the clause as it stood. How did the Amendment propose to deal with the existing state of facts? It did not allow the landlord to keep his claim suspended over the tenant's head for ever. On the contrary, it compelled him to act almost immediately the Act had passed, and to substantiate it on the first sale of the tenant right; and it did not allow him to receive compensation, unless he could satisfy the Court that he or his predecessors in title had, as a matter of fact, made these money payments, and that they had not been repaid, by increase of rent or any other way. He must repeat his regret at the decision of the Government, and ask as many who agreed with him to enter a protest against the unreasonable attitude of the Government in declining to accept the Amendment in any shape or form.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW), in moving to disagree with the Amendment, said, that in the £16,000 case referred to by his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Gibson), and which was well known to him (the Attorney General for Ireland), the object of the landlord buying up the tenancy was for the express purpose of preventing the outgoing tenant having any dealings with the incoming tenant, so that there should be no transmission of interest from the one to the other. If that landlord was a wise man he had got something for his purchase, and if he had not charged an increased rent he could do so under the Bill. But why, because the landlord might have made an improvident purchase from A, should he go to B when he sold his tenant right and say—"Go me, now, pay me back what I gave for the tenant right?" Why on earth should that be? Why should the landlord be indemnified for a foolish bargain, by the incoming tenant, who might never even have seen his predecessor, and, at all events, got nothing from him?

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

MR. BRAND

said, he should follow the Government into the lobby, because he thought the Amendment dealt with the case in a most unjust way. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had said, if the landlord paid an unfair price for the tenant right, it was monstrous that he should be able to call on the present tenant to pay him again.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland forgot that it was left to the Court to say what the landlord was to have. ["No, no!"] He (Captain Aylmer) maintained that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not acting equitably. It seemed to him (Captain Aylmer) that the incoming tenant was the right person to pay, because, if by the Act he got the right to sell, surely he had the right to pay the money. The Bill, moreover, gave him fixity of tenure for 15 years. He was very sorry the Government would not accept the Amendment, because it would have the effect of removing that damning word "confiscation," which was partly applicable to the Bill as it left the House. He thought the matter ought to be left entirely in the hands of the Court, and that the landlords ought to be left in a position to bring in question the amount which had been paid by the outgoing tenants, subject, of course, to the deductions which might be deemed just, having reference to increased rent.

MR. NEWDEGATE

Sir, the issue of this Bill is at length clear. The Party which used to be the Party of Progress has become extensively retrograde. The principle of this Land Bill, it is now clear, is the establishment of feudalism in Ireland. This principle is not absolutely new among the Liberal Party; for it was contemplated and indicated in this House by the late Mr. John Stuart Mill, and was probably the fruit of his Indian training. What is this principle of compensation for disturbance? It is recognizing in the tenant what the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) has just described as a title, a valuable interest in the land, which is to be saleable, totally apart from all interests in improvements which he may have made upon his holding, for his interest in these improvements has been otherwise recognized and dealt with. That which the House is now dealing with is an interest supposed to exist in the tenant, arising out of the mere fact of occupation apart from all improvements. This Bill will convert all that is now freehold in the ownership of Irish land into copyhold, and that is a feudal tenure; but apart, as you propose to create it, from all obligation to military service. You Liberals are in the habit of taunting me with being antiquated in my opinions. My principles are modern, compared with those on which you Liberals are now acting, for you have gone back 200 years to find the system you have now adopted. Feudal tenures were abolished in this country by the 12 Charles II.; you are reversing the principle of that Act, yet you still call yourselves the Party of Progress.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

felt that a very monstrous and gross injustice would be perpetrated on the landlords of Ireland if the Amendment were not passed, because the Bill would enable the tenant to sell that which he had already been paid for. ["Oh, oh!"] It was no use mincing matters. With regard to the question, he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether the landlords of Ulster had not purchased the tenant right of tenants mainly and principally in their interest? It would, therefore, be an act of gross injustice to the landlord to deprive him of the tenant right, after having paid hard cash for it.

MR. FITZPATRICK

said, that the system of allowing landlords to buy out the tenants was a new one; and he regretted that the Government could not accept the Amendment in some shape or other, and thus endeavour to do justice to the landlords of Ireland. In his idea, Parliament ought to give all the encouragement possible to that class of landlords who had done their best to make prosperous the country in which they lived.

MR. WARTON (speaking amid great interruption)

said, the fallacy which underlay the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was that the landlord had paid a preposterous price for the tenant right. He (Mr. Warton) need not remind so distinguished a lawyer that men, as a rule, acted more reasonably than that; but even if they paid a fair price efforts were made to take their property away.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, he was sorry to intervene between the House and the division; but the House was asked to perform an act of such gross and glaring injustice, an act supported by arguments so disingenuous as those which had come from the Front Bench, that he could not keep silent. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland put a case where a landlord had bought up the tenant right, and assumed that in consequence he charged an increased rent. The right hon. and learned Gentleman assumed that he had given a preposterous price for it, which he made the tenant recoup him in addition to the rent put on, although he knew perfectly well that at the end of the clause were the words—" But whatever sum the landlord may be entitled to is to be subject to deduction for any money which he receives by way of fine or increased rent." If the landlord had received compensation by way of increased rent, how could the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland say that, under this clause, he had a right, in addition, to ask for all the sum he had paid? Suppose two tenants came into two tenancies, side by side; in the one, tenant right existed, and the incoming tenant paid £500 for the right; in the other, the tenant right had been acquired and bought up by the landlord, he (Lord George Hamilton) would assume, for the same sum, £500. It was now proposed that the man who had paid absolutely nothing for the tenant right should be able to sell the tenant right in exactly the same way as the man who had paid £500 for it. ["No, no!"] That was what the Government proposed, and he defied anyone to contradict him. The Prime Minister had admitted it, and had altered Clause 7 in consequence of that admission. If you divide the interest on any holding between the tenant right and rent, the tenant right and the rent combined would exceed the value of the holding—that is, it would exceed the amount any tenant would pay in the shape of rent; and now the Government said that when the landlord had both interests, though he could not compensate himself in the shape of increased rent, he was to be mulcted of that which they had previously encouraged him to obtain. The Prime Minister, on the occasion of moving the second reading of the Bill, had made an eloquent peroration, in which he had said that he was walking by the light of justice, and that, therefore, he could not go astray; but he (Lord George Hamilton) wished they heard a little less of it in his words and saw a little more of it in his acts.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, if the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) would read the clause carefully, and reflect a little, he would see that although there was a possible injustice in some few cases to the landlords if the Amendment were not accepted, there was a certain and greater injustice to the tenant if it were. The Ulster tenant right consisted of a number of elements of which the improvements made was one. Let them suppose that the tenant whose tenant right was purchased had made a large number of improvements; in that case it was obvious that for the tenant right he would get a considerable sum of money. Suppose that the price the landlord paid for the tenant right was £1,000, the rent of the holding being £100 a-year. All the improvements became the landlords. The incoming tenant had no further claim to these improvements. The landlord let to a new tenant, say at a rent of £150 a-year, which was supposed to be a fair rent, and the rent which would be fixed by the Court. The Court, in fixing the rent at that sum, would take into consideration the fact that the landlord was the sole person who had made the improvements, and that the tenant had nothing but the bare right of occupancy. The tenant proceeded to sell his tenancy next year, having paid £150 rent for a single year. Of course, all that the landlord had received, and all that it was right to deduct, was £50, so the £950, according to the clause, still remained due to the landlord out of the purchase money. But what had the tenant to sell? He had got to sell the tenancy only, with the rent fixed at £150 a-year, because the landlord had purchased up the improvements. Suppose the tenant sold for £300, whatever he got was to go to the landlord, and the landlord was to be entitled to every bit of it. Even although the tenant sold for £300 or £400, because he had made improvements, the whole of the money which he received for his improvements was to go to the landlord in payment of £950. That was the proposal of this clause. ["No, no!"] He (the Solicitor General) said that was the proposal of the clause, and that was the proposal they were asked to accept in the solemn name of justice.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 272; Noes 145: Majority 127.—(Div. "List, No. 362.)

On Motion of Mr. GLADSTONE, the next Amendment, in page 2, line 34, after ("tenancy,") to insert— ("Or for moneys payable to the landlord under the preceding sub-section in respect of the purchase or acquisition by the landlord or his predecessors in title of the Ulster tenant right custom or the benefit of such usage, or of any right of sale of the tenant's interest in such holding,") —agreed to.

Page 3, line 30, after the word "usage," insert the words— (15.) Where a sale of a tenancy is made under a judgment or other process of law against the tenant, or for the payment of the debts of the deceased tenant, the sale shall be deemed to be made by the tenant, and shall be made in the prescribed manner, subject to the conditions of this section, so far as the same are applicable. (16.) Any sum payable to the landlord out of the purchase moneys of the tenancy under this section shall be a first charge upon the purchase moneys. (17.) A landlord, on receiving notice of an intended sale of the tenancy may, if he is not desirous of purchasing the tenancy otherwise than as a means of securing the payment of any sums due to him for arrears of rent or other breaches of the contract or conditions of tenancy, give notice within the prescribed time of the sum claimed by him in respect of such arrears and breaches, such sum failing agreement between the landlord and tenant to be determined by the Court, and should the tenant determine to proceed with the sale may claim to purchase the tenancy for such sum, if no purchaser is found to give the same or a greater sum; and the landlord, if no purchaser be found within the prescribed time to give the same or a greater sum, shall be adjudged the purchaser of the tenancy at that sum, —the next Amendment, read a second time.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, though the Government did not see the necessity for the Amendment, they would ask the House to accept it, subject to the omission of the words "shall be deemed to be made by the tenant," which would enable the Court to meet a difficulty of procedure which occurred to him. He would move the omission of these words accordingly. The effect would be that the sale should be made simply in the prescribed manner subject to the conditions of the section. That would enable the Court to make rules to carry out the provision of the section, so far as might be, in conformity with the ordinary legal system.

Amendment proposed to said Amendment, in line 3, to leave out the words "shall be deemed to be made by the tenant."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

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

MR. HEALY

said, he did not see how the conditions prescribed in the 1st clause could be complied with. Who was to give all the notices that were to be prescribed, because they could hardly expect the sheriff to do so, and it would not be to the interest of the tenant to do so?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

replied, that the matter would have to be settled by the Court.

MR. LEAMY

asked if, under the Amendment, a landlord not instituting proceedings to eject a tenant for nonpayment, could proceed against him by way of summons; and, also, if he would have the right of pre-emption where he proceeded by writ of summons against the tenant for the recovery of his rent?

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

asked whether, after the landlord had become the purchaser of the tenant right, and a new tenant had been put upon the farm, the new tenant would be enabled to sell the tenant right of the farm which the landlord had been adjudged to have bought?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

I cannot speak again.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

Yes, Sir; he would be able to sell his interest, whatever it is.

MR. PARNELL

thought it would be desirable to have an answer to the question which had been put to the Government by an hon. Member sitting on his side of the House (Mr. Leamy), as to whether the effect of the Amendment would be to take the sale out of the category of sales made by the tenant, and, if so, under what class of sales it would come; and, further, whether the landlord would have the right of pre-emption or not under Clause 1?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

rose to answer the question, but—

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

rose to a point of Order, demanding of the Speaker whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman could answer these questions, after having refused to reply to a question put by him (Viscount Folkestone)?

MR. O'KELLY

For the purpose of enabling the right hon. and learned Gentleman—["Order, order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

I have to point out that it is customary to allow considerable latitude in answering questions to a right hon. Member having charge of a Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the matter would be remitted by the clause to the Court to prescribe the rules. His belief was that the Court would not rule that any right of pre-emption existed for the landlord.

Question put, and agreed to; words struck out accordingly.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

MR. HEALY

said, this sub-section (15) had been put in at the instance of Lord Cairns. Under the Amendment, the landlord could not only exercise his right of pre-emption and evade the sale, but could have the sale take place 10 times over.

Question put.

MR. PARNELL

asked whether subsections 16 and 17 were before the House at present, or only sub-section 15?

MR. SPEAKER

said, that sub-sections 15, 16, and 17 were before the House.

MR. PARNELL

wished to move the omission of sub-section 16.

MR. SPEAKER

said, it was too late to do so, the Question having been put. The House had now to decide on subsections 15, 16, and 17 together. The one could not be isolated from the others.

MR. HEALY

rose to a point of Order. Hon. Members in his part of the House thought the Question before the House was sub-section 15, and were not aware that the other sub-sections were put. He asked whether the Amendment could not be amended?

MR. SPEAKER

said, the sub-sections were dealt with, and one of them had been amended. It was not in Order now to move to omit any particular subsection, as he had put the Question that the House agree with the Lords' Amendment, as amended.

MR. PARNELL

said, he was sorry to learn it was now too late to move the omission of sub-section 16, and a part of sub-section 17, for he believed he could have induced the House to refuse to agree to that sub-section. He should be obliged, in consequence, to take a division against the whole of the Amendment. Sub-section 16, which provided that any sum payable to the landlord out of the purchase moneys of the tenancy under the section should be a first charge upon the purchase moneys, gave an entirely new right of a valuable character to the landlord. It gave the landlord a preferential claim against the tenant, and that, he submitted, was a most unfair provision. He could either proceed by ejectment for non-payment, or he could compel the tenant to sell his interest in the holding. The landlord thus had a preferential claim for the whole of his rent, and was exceptionally protected over other creditors as regarded one year's rent. Up to the present time the landlord had no such preferential claim. Some valid reason should be given by the Government for affording landlords this double chance. He thought that the Government had not acted fairly in agreeing to the Amendment on such slight examination, and that they ought to have given some strong reasons for the course they had taken in the matter.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he also regretted very much that, owing to the form in which the Amendment was before the House, they could not deal with this 16th sub-section. As that sub-section stood, it might work such a gross injustice to the creditors of tenants in Ireland that he could not vote for the Amendment. It might so happen that when a permanent improvement was made, the landlord might come and sweep in the whole of the money. It was quite plain, and if any person chanced to visit the earth from another sphere, he would see at once that these Amendments had been made by a House of Landowners. He should certainly vote with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell).

MR. DAWSON

said, he was surprised that this matter should have escaped the attention of the Government, for the question, which was closely allied to the Law of Distress, had already been discussed. It was a very retrograde step for that House to take. It was now impossible for them to retrieve their error.

MR. GIBSON

said, he wished to point out to hon. Members that those sub-sections only applied when there was a sale of the actual tenancy on which the rent accrued, and it would be absurd, he thought, when the tenancy was sold, not to make some provision that the rent should be paid out of the proceeds.

The House divided:—Ayes 347; Noes 87: Majority 260.—(Div. List, No. 363.)

Insert Clause A (Prohibition of subdividing and sub-letting), the next Amendment, read a second time.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the proposed clause ran as follows:— The tenant from year to year of a tenancy to which this Act applies shall not, without the consent of the landlord in writing, sub-divide his holding, or sub-let the same or any part thereof. Any act done by the tenant in contravention of this provision shall be absolutely void. By the Bill, as it stood, a tenant from year to year was prohibited during a statutory term from sub-letting or subdividing without the consent of the landlord; but if the same tenant had no statutory term, there was no prohibition or direction as to whether he might sublet or not. The difficulty was one which chiefly affected the tenant, having regard to the frame of the Bill. As hon. Members were aware, the only tenant who was a tenant within the meaning of the Bill was a tenant in occupation of his holding, and the necessary result of that was that if the tenant was tempted to sub-let, even although he broke no statutory condition, because none existed, he would at once put himself outside the scope of the Bill. Therefore, it was of enormous importance to the tenants that their obligations in respect of sub-letting should be made uniformly applicable, and that they should know that if they did these acts they put themselves entirely outside the Bill, and rendered themselves incapable of going to the Court to have a fair rent fixed. The clause proposed was, therefore, inserted so as to warn the tenants, and render it impossible that they should damage themselves by sub-letting or sub-division. The Government, however, proposed to omit the last sentence of the clause added in the House of Lords, declaring that any act done in contravention of this provision should be absolutely void, because it was unnecessary, as an illegal act was necessarily void, and to insert words providing that letting on conacre, agistment, or temporary pasturage should not be deemed a sub-letting within the meaning of the Act.

Amendment proposed to said Amendment, to leave out, at end, the words— Any act done by the tenant in contravention of this provision shall be absolutely void," and insert "agistment or the letting of land for the purpose of temporary depasturage, or the letting in conacre of land for the purpose of its being solely used, and which shall be solely used, for the growing of potatoes or other green crops, the land being properly manured, shall not be deemed a sub-letting for the purposes of this Act.

MR. HEALY

said, after the statement by the Government that they thought it desirable for the protection of the tenants that this sub-letting provision should be inserted, it would be useless for the Irish Members to raise any objection; but it was one of the extraordinary things about the Bill that what they gave with one hand they took away with the other. The Bill was one of the most ingenious legislative instruments ever produced by Parliament. They were told that to give a tenant the benefit of this Bill they must take away the right he at present possessed—the right of sub-letting. ["No, no!"] The House, by repealing the 13th section of the Act of 1870, took away the power of the landlord to veto the right of assignment; but they now proposed to neutralize that by taking away the power of sub-letting. He considered it a most unfortunate thing that the Government found it necessary to insert the clause.

MR. LEAMY

said, one of the objections to the Amendment was that it would prevent a tenant building a labourer's cottage and attaching it to a piece of land. He must, however, say candidly that, with that exception, he had no objection to see the power of sub-letting taken away.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, he thought the words inserted by the Lords at the end of the clause were quite necessary, and that the noble Lord who proposed them knew more of the state of things in Ireland than the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. Seeing how difficult it was to turn out an Irish squatter, he was not sure that the far wiser plan would not be to put it on record that any act done in contravention of the provision would be regarded as absolutely void.

MR. PARNELL

thought the Government might make some qualification of the proposed Amendment, which would give to the tenant under the Act of 1870 the right which the repeal of the 13 the section gave him—namely, the right of sub-division by assignment to more than one person. The result of the present proposal was that the Government took away, by the clause, the right which they had previously given the tenant, Would it not be fairer, he asked, to modify that clause so as to secure him against danger, and leave to him his right of sub-letting, and at the same time giving him the right of applying to the Court to fix a judicial rent and a statutory term?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FAREER HERSCHELL)

pointed out that the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) was under a misapprehension, because assignment was one thing and sub-letting and subdivision another. The 13th section of the Land Act of 1870 dealt only with assignment, and it provided, in the case of assignment without the consent of the landlord, that there should be no compensation for disturbance. But the provision they were now considering dealt only with the case of sub-letting or subdivision, and what the Government had done in framing the clause was entirely consistent with the provisions of the Land Act.

MR. DAWSON

hoped that the Amendment would not interfere with the right of occupiers to let land for labourers' dwellings.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted, accordingly.

Said Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments as far as Amendment in page 5, line 15, read a second time.

On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the first five agreed to, as follows:—In page 3, line 37, leave out from ("intestate") to ("then") in line 39; in line 40, leave out ("next of kin"), and insert ("persons entitled under the Statutes of Distribution to his personal estate"); in page 4, line 2, leave out ("his"), and insert ("the"); in lines 7 and 8, leave out ("next of kin"), and insert ("leaving any person entitled to his personal estate or any part thereof"); and in line 9, leave out from ("tenant") to the end of the clause.

On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, in page 4, line 25, after ("tenancy") insert ("after giving to the landlord the prescribed notice"); and in page 5, line 10, leave out from ("soil") to the end of the paragraph; the remaining Amendments disagreed to.

Page 5, line 15, leave out the words "subdivide or sublet his holding," and insert the words— In writing, subdivide his holding or sublet the same, or any part thereof, or erect or suffer to be erected thereon, save as in this Act provided, any dwelling-house, in addition to those already upon the holding at the time of the passing of this Act, nor suffer to be used as a dwelling-house any building which, at the time of the passing of this Act, was not so used, with the knowledge and consent of the landlord, —the next Amendment, read a second time.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the Government did not think the Amendment could be assented to as it stood, although at the same time it had a reasonable purpose in it. The multiplication of dwelling-houses on a holding was not an act fairly within the province of the tenant, and might prove very injurious to the holding. He divided, however, the Amendment into two parts, that which related to the erection of any new dwelling-houses; and, secondly, that which related to the use of any building for the purposes of habitation which at the time of the passing of the Act was not so used. With regard to the first, the Government thought that the words were objectionable on the grounds of ambiguity. He need hardly say that the Government were quite opposed to the multiplication of dwelling-houses on a holding; but it was quite evident that in some parts of the country it would be a common and very useful thing that where a tenant had gone upon the holding, living in a poor hut not well situated for the purposes of a dwelling-house, it might happen that, improving in his circumstances and means, he would erect a decent dwelling-house, and cease to occupy that hut as a dwelling-house, and convert it into an outhouse. It would be, he thought, a great pity to allow any words to go into the Bill to discourage that proceeding. He therefore proposed to strike out the words standing in the Amendment, "in addition to," for the purpose of inserting "otherwise than in substitution for." That, he thought, would prevent the arbitrary multiplication of dwelling-houses. With regard to the second part of the Amendment, the Government proposed to omit it altogether, because, after all, how did the case stand? They had still a large portion of the population of Ireland very indifferently lodged. The man occupied a small hut, which was tolerable for himself and wife; but, as his children multiplied, he might require additional accommodation which might be enough for him, however poor, and he might add to the comfort of his family by occupying some out-buildings attached to the house. Or, again, he was not prepared to say that if a daughter or son of the man married, it should be absolutely forbidden to him by the law to find accommodation for them on the holding, when, by adapting some building which might possibly be on the holding, and not required for any other purpose, this could be done. The Government, however, proposed to concede to the House of Lords and hon. Gentlemen opposite the proposal that the permission to sub-let or sub-divide should be a permission in writing.

Amendment proposed to said Amendment, in line 5, to leave out the words "in addition to," and insert "otherwise than in substitution for."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he objected to the Amendment altogether, and considered it was a monstrous interference on the part of the Government with the rights and comforts of the Irish peasants. It was based upon that peddling and intrusive action of the landlords which should be put a stop to rather than encouraged, and the Amendment ought to be rejected altogether. The Prime Minister had admitted, as everyone would be prepared to admit, the wretched condition of the dwellings of the peasantry, and yet the proposal of the Government directly deprived a tenant who might have risen in the world of the privilege of passing from a hovel into a somewhat better house, and of the power to build a more commodious dwelling.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR, while agreeing that the Amendment was an extremely absurd one, did not consider that the Government should reject the whole of the Lords' Amendment, because the great evil of Ireland at the present time was its overcrowding. That was acknowledged by everyone; and it was also a fact that a man put his married daughters, sons, and, in many instances, his grandchildren, into wretched lodgings on his holding, and although that was not formally sub-letting, it was one of the evils of overcrowding that existed to some extent. At present the landlord had some check upon that system, and he had power to give his ten- ant notice to quit; but, according to the present proposal, the landlord would not be able to hold any threat over his head. He anticipated, therefore, that in the poorer parts of the South and West of Ireland overcrowding would be further increased among the agricultural population. The Government were not only encouraging the people to live in bad houses, but discouraging them from building good ones. Although the proposal of the Lords appeared stringent and harsh, he hoped the Government would not take it away without introducing some provision by which the evil of overcrowding might be avoided.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE

said, he regretted extremely that the Government had decided not to accept the Amendment of the Lords, which he considered was the most wholesome one that had been made by their Lordships. By rejecting the latter part of the Amendment the Government would tend to increase those wretched habitations, for all sorts of out-buildings and hovels, which were now used for cow-houses, cart-sheds, and stables, would be used as dwelling-houses for human beings, not only in the West and South of Ireland, but in his own Province, where the people lived in an unsanitary condition. He thought the Government should be glad of the provision of the House of Lords, that no out-house or building should be used as a dwelling without the consent of the landlord. Labourers sometimes were lodged in those out-houses, and the tenants charged them—in parts of Ulster—four or five times as much for those so-called dwellings as they paid for them themselves, or that would pay for a good dwelling-house.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

thought the last speakers were trying to guard against an evil that the Bill already guarded against. The danger of overcrowding was mainly as to the subdivision of the tenancy into a great many small divisions. The Government had prevented that; and if these words were not struck out, as proposed by the Prime Minister, they would be simply substituting one shape of the evil for another, for there would be more overcrowding of the families in the bad houses in which they were now living.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, it seemed to him that the Government were proceeding in this matter, as in other matters connected with the Bill, with a very extravagant suspicion and distrust of the landlords. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and others was that if the last words of the Amendment were not left out they would, in point of fact, be preventing any building which was not now in use as a dwelling-house from hereafter being used as a dwelling-house. But that was not the meaning of the Proviso at all. Why were they to suppose that the landlord would fail in that which was at once his duty and interest, seeing that the best arrangements were made for housing the people living on his estate? If it was desirable that any particular houses should be enlarged by taking in out-houses and converting them into a dwelling-house, the landlord would be the first man to promote it. There was no reason why he should object. On the other hand, they were going to take away the voice of the landlords in the matter, and, by the Amendment before the House as amended by the Prime Minister, they were encouraging the adoption of the principle that where places were not fit for habitation there should be more crowding of people into them, to the manifest disadvantage of those who were to be so overcrowded. He thought the objection which the Government had taken to the last portion of the clause was an unreasonable one. The Amendment did not prevent outhouses being used as dwellings, but said that they must not be so used without the consent of the landlord.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he had listened to this discussion with absolute dismay, because it seemed to him that taking any persons belonging to families who might have married, and putting them into small out-houses which were absolute pigsties, was certain to produce overcrowding and that disregard of sanitary laws which was one of the great causes of the misery that prevailed in Ireland. One of the greatest blessings to Ireland, he believed, would be if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would take care that the ordinary sanitary laws were enforced in rural districts, because the people were not yet alive to the dreadful evils which resulted from this overcrowding. In the interests of the tenants they ought to preserve them against this temptation. Instead of encouraging families to increase on one holding that was insufficient to maintain one family, what would be more natural than that some of them should go out into the world and provide for themselves elsewhere? The only cure which he looked forward to for the purposes of remedying this evil, and which he believed would be a national one, was the amalgamation of the smaller holdings into the larger ones, and the raising of the social status of the tenants in possession.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he thought the House must be under some misconception of the view of the Government. He could not believe that it was the intention of the Government, by their proposal, if a tenant farmer wished to provide extra accommodation for his increased family, that he must have recourse to a disused cow-house or shed. At least, if the farmer did so, he should be allowed to make the said cow-house fit for human habitation. What was the use of the Government maintaining the distinction that a man might only put members of his own family into out-houses, when the farmer had permission to make it into a dwelling-house? If the Government really intended that a farmer should have the right of providing decent accommodation for the members of his family, they ought to say so plainly in their Amendment. He was convinced that the plain meaning of the Government's Amendment was not its intended meaning.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, there were two distinct things in the Amendment—one part of it related to the subletting and sub-dividing of land, and the other to the erection of dwellings. As to the first, it might in some parts of Ireland be objectionable; but he could not see what objection could be raised to the substitution of a better class of buildings for small tenants than those which now existed. He had often heard of Conservative proposals; but the most wonderfully Conservative proposal that had ever come before his notice was that now before the House to conserve the mud hovels of Ireland, for that was what the Amendment came to. Though there were many objectionable Amendments on the Paper, he considered this the worst of all. It was a notorious fact that the peasantry of Ireland had been for generations past the worst-clad and the worst-housed in Europe, and yet these objectionable dwellings were to be conserved by the Government. Why should the House of Lords or the House of Commons object to give every possible encouragement to the erection not only of better, but larger dwellings on farms? He hoped that before the discussion closed the Government would think better of the course they had proposed.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

observed, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) said the Government seemed to be animated with a great fear of the landlords; but there was no need to cast reflections on the Irish landlords as a body in discussing that Amendment. In all preventive measures they had to deal with the one exceptional member of the community who might do wrong, rather than the 99 who of their own free will did right. That principle applied to the present Amendment, which he considered a most mischievous one, which it was to be regretted the Government had encouraged, because they were practically giving to the landlord a power of limiting the accommodation on the farms of Ireland. If Conservative Members were satisfied with the dwellings of Ireland as they at present stood, let them say so openly. He would refer hon. Members to the case of Lord Leitrim, as a well-authenticated illustration of the autocratic power wielded by the landlord. A tenant, dissatisfied with his thatched hovel, built a snug little cottage on the English model, and nicely slated. The hut which he left after the new dwelling was finished was converted into a cowhouse. The first time Lord Leitrim passed the spot, and saw the tenant had built a tidy house, he sent for the tenant and asked who gave him permission to build, and what he had done with the old house. The tenant answered that he had put the cows in it; whereupon Lord Leitrim ordered the tenant to leave the new house and return to the old hovel, which he accordingly did, while his cattle were placed in the newly-built dwelling. He believed that if the Lords' Amendment were modified in the manner proposed, the result would be that the industrious and well-disposed tenant farmer would be seriously hampered and embarrassed by the power which the landlord would still be enabled to exercise over him.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

explained that by striking out the words "in addition to" the tenant farmer would not be enabled to have two dwelling-houses upon his holding, retaining them both as dwelling-houses. It would exactly meet the case referred to by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), for there was nothing to prevent him building a new house, and using the other as a cow-house or for any similar purpose. The first part of the clause was not so objectionable; but it must be borne in mind that if the tenant brought a family, and put them into possession of a house on his holding, in point of law that would be a sub-division of the holding. It was better for the tenant that he should be warned. The landlord had no right to pry into the social life of the tenant, and try to find out how many rooms he had in his dwelling, or which building he used as a cowhouse. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) thought, however, he might fairly require that the number of dwellings should not be multiplied, because it probably would be that the only reason for building another dwelling was that there might be a sub-letting or subdivision when it was built.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, he understood that the Amendment, as proposed by the Government, amounted, to this—that a tenant might build himself a new dwelling-house in substitution of the old one, and turn the latter into a cow-house or pigstye; but if, after a time, he desired to provide for the accommodation of his married daughter or son, he might eject the pigs, and give their abandoned stye to his children for a dwelling, but he could not build a new house for them. It seemed to him that the Amendment was an encouragement and a fostering of the worst form of overcrowding they could possibly imagine.

MR. C. S. PARKER

observed, that to provide for the increase of a family by suffering to be used as human dwellings buildings which were not intended or fit for such a purpose, was a very bad arrangement. Surely, it would be a more natural and a better course to provide for the increase of the family by adding to the existing house. If, therefore, the Government would insert the words "or in enlargement of" in their own Amendment, he thought the desired end would be attained. The Amendment ran, as corrected by them— Erect, or suffer to be erected thereon, save as in this Act provided, any dwelling-house otherwise than in substitution for. There he would suggest that the words "or in enlargement of" should be inserted, and then the Amendment would continue thus—" those already on the holding."

MR. DAWSON

said, the law itself was sufficient to prevent overcrowding. It stipulated there should be 300 cubic feet of space to every person occupying a house; and if the Public Health Act were carried out properly, they never would hear of those atrocious crimes which arose from overcrowding in England as well as in Ireland. The House would be surprised when he said there was only one corporate body in Ireland who had carried, out the last Public Health Act in its integrity, and that was the Corporation of Dublin. If the Government would insist upon a proper observance of the law in that respect, a vast improvement would very speedily take place.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, he had listened with very great interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson), who was soon to occupy the highest civic position in Ireland, and hoped the happiest results would follow from his influence when he occupied it. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that in Ireland as well as in England the true remedy for the overcrowding which they desired to stop lay in the rigid application of the existing laws by the public authorities. The Government were willing to accept a certain portion of the Amendment, and he should give them his support, because he believed it would be useful so far as it went. He earnestly hoped, however, that the Local Government Board, aided and supported by the Irish Members, irrespective of Party, would firmly carry out the present law, because if they did that they would accomplish very good work. The landlords were placed in a very difficult position in this matter, because if they prohibited sub-letting and the evils which flowed from it, a greater cry was raised on the ground of their alleged tyrannical conduct; while, on the other hand, if they did not try to prevent that horrible system of sub-division, which was carried out very often by a man bringing in his own son as a lodger, then they were told that they were neglecting the interests of their tenants. Landlords were held up to public execration because they did not provide better accommodation for the people on their estates, although their efforts in that direction encountered the greatest difficulties. The only way in which a landlord could be supported was by the public sanitary authorities coming forward and insisting that the law should be carried out.

MR. BRODRICK

thought that the proposals of the Government had met with no approval from any quarter of the House; and if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Parker) was accepted, there would exist no reason for omitting the words in the House of Lords' Amendment which the Government proposed.

MR. CALLAN

also approved of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Parker), and said the people of Ireland well remembered the verdict of wilful murder passed in relation to an occurrence on the Lansdowne estate, and the terms in which Chief Justice Pigott denounced the inhuman regulations prevailing on the estate with respect to subletting. If this Amendment passed, the offences against humanity of 30 years ago would simply be perpetuated. If the clause were accepted without some material modification, it would legalize to some extent the inhuman practice which was so strongly denounced by Chief Justice Pigott.

LORD ELCHO

said, everyone must wish to see the people well-housed, and therefore he thought the view of the Prime Minister would not hold water. He (Lord Elcho) was glad to learn that these cabins and pigstyes could not be let, because that would be subletting, as forbidden by the Act. By way of showing how sub-letting was apt to grow up, he would ask the attention of the House to a case within his own knowledge where a tenant with a holding of 10 acres at £5, upon an. estate on which sub-letting was prohibited, did, without the knowledge of the landlord, let two portions of his holding for £5 10s. That was more than his own rent, and yet the man had paid no rent for two years. He (Lord Elcho) had always been told that the great evil of Ireland was overcrowding, and surely, therefore, it was of the utmost importance to take all possible means to prevent sub-letting and over-crowding. It was, no doubt, desirable that the dwellings should be commensurate with the size of families; but there was the well-known attachment to the holding which tended to the concentration of the whole members of the family in one place, and made it quite possible that a tenant, wishing to keep all his family at home, might add to the house and make it unsuitable to the holding; and therefore he thought it would be well to insert the words "provided always that the existing buildings are suitable to the holding."

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

Amendment proposed to the said Amendment in line 5, to leave out all the words after the word "Act," to the end of the said Amendment.—(Mr. Gladstone.)

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

SIR JOHN HAY, arguing in favour of the retention of the latter portion of the Lords' Amendment, said, that after they had built their improved cottages, there was great difficulty in getting rid of the old ones; and he could give an instance with respect to himself which had happened within the last 12 months. He built an improved cottage upon the farm and allowed the old one to remain, and he afterwards found that the tenant had let the old one for £5 a-year to persons who were not wanted upon the farm, and who were no credit to it. Fortunately, in Scotland, the landlords had powers which the Irish landlords had not—namely, that of unroofing the cottage and getting rid of the persons so brought in—and thus they were able to remedy the evil. For his part, he viewed the words inserted in the clause as an exceedingly advantageous Amendment. He agreed with what had been said about the surroundings and the amount of population; but if they were going to keep on the land an extra population, living in a state of wretchedness in buildings unfit for human habitation, they were legislating in a direction that would have still worse effects upon the population of the country. He submitted, therefore, that the last part of the provision ought to be retained, and so prevent the appropriation of buildings for dwelling-houses which were really not suitable for human habitation.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

denied that, by striking out the latter portion of the Lords' Amendment, the Government were giving encouragement to the use of out-houses for living in or to subletting. There was a provision against sub-letting already, and the question was this—were they to have words in the Amendment which would make it impossible, without the written consent of the landlord, that any sort of building, happening to be not previously used as a dwelling-house, should ever be allowed to be so used? It would be an interference with the tenants which could do no good. There might be something worse than a bad dwelling, and that was no house at all. The only way to obviate the evil was not by such Amendments as these, but by generally raising the standard of living in the country.

MR. LALOR

hoped that the words would be struck out, and pointed out that it would be necessary in certain cases to convert out-buildings into dwelling-houses. In the present state of Ireland, and taking into consideration the dwelling-houses of the people, he thought the Amendment was most unworthy the House from which it had come, and it would be most unworthy for this House to allow it to remain in the Bill.

SIR THOMAS ACLAND

appealed to the Government not to strike out that part of the clause, unless they put something better in its place. The custom of inhabiting unsuitable dwellings in Ireland was a disgrace to that country, and ought to be discouraged as far as possible.

MR. W. H. SMITH

agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Thomas Acland). He (Mr. W. H. Smith) would deplore any Amendment by which encouragement would be afforded to persons to live on the land in excess of the number it could properly accommodate, and in dwelling-houses which were unsuitable for habitation. The Amendment of the Prime Minister on the Lords' Amendment would leave unguarded the danger, that was too common, which arose from the fact that grown-up members of the family were, through feelings of kindness, al- lowed to remain on the farm, when, in point of fact, they ought to go away. He hoped the House would not insist on striking out those words.

MR. HEALY

said, he hoped the House would not yield to Whig pressure. He would remind the Government that it was not the opinion of North Devon, nor the opinion of Westminster, that they had to consider, but the opinion of the Irish people. What did the hon. Members for those places know about Ireland? They were told, indeed, that the Irish tenants were so much in the habit of building palatial residences that it was necessary to protect them against themselves by giving the unfortunate and powerless landlords the right of objecting to any building they wished. Had those who talked in that way seen the squalor in which the Irish people lived, had they seen the hundreds of habitations occupied by a dozen persons each, and did they want to prevent these unfortunate people from providing themselves with better houses? ["No, no!"] Hon. Members might say "No!" as long as they liked; but that was the meaning of the clause. The Irish did not live in those miserable dwellings of their own choice, and he thought it discreditable that hon. Members should try to prevent the Irish people from having better houses. He not only objected to the words proposed to be left out; but he objected to the whole clause, regarding it as a miserable prying provision into the private affairs of the tenant which ought not to be accepted.

MR. MACARTNEY

objected to the tenants having power provided to convert out-houses into dwellings, and said, that the multiplication of families on the same farm—which generally happened when a married son or daughter occupied an out-house or barn as a house—was a fruitful source of disputes and quarrels among the families themselves and annoyance to the landlord. The Amendment introduced into the Bill was a good one, and he maintained that all it did was to prevent more than one family being located upon one farm that was too small for them.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, that the effect of the omission of the words would be to enable tenants to build outhouses and then to use them as dwelling-houses.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that the position of the Government in regard to the Amendment was this—the more difficulties hon. Gentlemen opposite raised in reference to the omission of the latter portion of the clause, the more doubt they created in the minds of the Government as to whether they should retain the clause at all. They wished to retain the clause; but they could not with those words in it. If the objection to striking out the words proposed was so great, he must frankly admit that the only alternative the Government had was to strike out the clause altogether. They objected to the last part of the clause, because it would be an intolerable inquisition into the private affairs of the tenant to see whether he had used certain buildings on his farm for the accommodation, perhaps, of a growing family. The remarks of hon. Gentlemen about the necessity of comfortable houses for the Irish tenants to live in reminded him of the old story at the time of the abolition of the Corn Laws, when people replied to the allegation of the scarcity of bread, that the confectioners' shops were full of cakes and buns. It was a question between living and no living at all. Certain people crowded their families into these miserable places, and therefore they would prohibit them from putting them into out-houses where the adaptation might be perfectly easy and proper. By not prohibiting persons from converting out-houses into dwellings it was said they encouraged them to do something absurd; but the gentry of Scotland had overbuilt themselves, and had been compelled to sell their estates, He could name counties in Scotland where there was hardly a gentleman but had had to do this within the last two generations. Would it, therefore, be a wise thing to say that no gentleman should be allowed to build upon an estate more than a certain portion of the rental? They did not encourage the gentry of Scotland to build enormous houses beyond the means of their estates, merely because they did not prohibit them. And it was only a question here whether they should absolutely prohibit. The Government held that the matter with which the Amendment dealt was not one in which the Legislature ought to pry, or with which they ought to interfere. They declined to make the precise prudence of everything done by every tenant in Ireland an object of legislative enactment.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister should have recourse to so antiquated a joke in support of his argument, and still more that he should have made so egregious an historical blunder in quoting it. All the world, except the right hon. Gentleman, knew that the saying about the confectioners' shops dated, not from the era of Corn Law Repeal, but from that of the French Revolution, and was attributed, not to an English squire, but to an illustrious Princess. The hon. Member for County Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) ought to know something of the question, and he was in favour of the retention of the words. He (Lord John Manners) thought it would be an excellent thing that the Irish tenants should be discouraged from inhabiting the wretched abodes of which they seemed to be so fond. He was anxious, as far as possible, to meet the views of Her Majesty's Government, and such a case as that indicated by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. It might be possible to do that by introducing the word "separate," so that the words might run "nor suffer to be used as a separate dwelling-house." He begged to move that the Amendment be amended in that way.

Further Amendment proposed to said Amendment in line 7, after the words "as a," to insert the word "separate."—(Lord John Manners.)

Question proposed, "That that word be there inserted."

MR. PARNELL

said, that as the Government had not conciliated the Conservative opposition by agreeing to one part of the Lords' Amendment, it would be better to re-consider their position and see whether they would agree to any portion of it at all. It was a matter of a very small and petty character; but the power which had been used by landlords in that way had caused considerable irritation. He fully admitted that in ordinary circumstances it was not right that the tenant should be permitted to build a house and bring in people not at all connected with him. But in the case of a near relative—a mother, for example—a man might desire to provide a separate house; or, in the case of a young married couple, the old father or mother might desire to have them in a separate dwelling, and it seemed desirable that that should be permitted.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that the intention of the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) was to draw a distinction quite arbitrary, and for that reason he could not accept it. There might be two houses perfectly suitable, and one could be used because attached to the dwelling-house, and the other could not because detached from it.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

begged to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 219: Majority 126.—(Div. List, No. 364.)

Words struck out accordingly.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

The House divided:—Ayes 265; Noes 67: Majority 198.—(Div. List, No. 365.)

Amendments as far as page 5, line 34, read a second time.

On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, in page 5, line 28, after ("minerals,") to insert ("or digging or searching for minerals,") the first Amendment, agreed to; and, in line 32, after ("title,") insert ("and which the tenant, at the time of the passing of this Act, may be entitled by law to cut and remove,") the second Amendment, disagreed to.

Page 5, line 34, leave out the words "may be required," and insert the words— The tenant may be entitled to cut in exercise of any right enjoyed by him immediately before the commencement of the statutory term, —the next Amendment, read a second time.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he thought the House might accept this Amendment. It gave the landlord the right to cut turf on a holding save such as the— Tenant might be entitled to cut in exercise of any right enjoyed by him before the commencement of a statutory term. He did not see more than a verbal difference between the Lords' Amendment and the original provision in the Bill; but if the Lords wished to state the provision in a longer way he had no objection.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

MR. PARNELL

hoped the Amendment would not be hastily accepted. He thought the Government should first assure themselves that the change was not to the disadvantage of the tenant. There was a distinct difference between the Amendment and the provision which originally stood in the Bill. The original provision allowed the tenant to cut the turf that might be required for the use of the holding; but it did not go into the question whether the tenant was legally entitled to exercise the right of cutting the turf, and it was from that point of view that he thought the provision was of some value to the tenant. But under the new provision, and taking into consideration the effect of an Act passed in 1860, the tenant might be under the obligation of purchasing the turf required for his holding from the landlord to any amount that would be equal to the rent for the whole holding. The original provision also prevented the turf being cut by the landlord. He therefore considered that the amending words made an essential difference on the sub-section as it stood when it left the Commons, and hoped the House would disagree with the Lords' Amendment.

MR. GIVAN

said, as the Mover of the Amendment which was accepted in the Committee of that House, he objected to the alteration introduced by the Lords. At the same time, he believed that if it were agreed to there would be no restriction upon the right of the tenant to cut such turf as he was entitled to and as actually existed upon the holding. But it would open a door to the landlord to enter the holding and cut turf, which, although not immediately required for the holding, must be essential to its value hereafter. His (Mr. Givan's) intention was to save, not only the turf necessary for present use, but for future use. If the Lords' Amendment were accepted, that purpose would not be secured.

MR. HEALY

said, that if the clause were adhered to, it would deprive many poor people of their right to cut turf for fuel, and the consequence was that the poor people in various parts of Ireland, if deprived of their turbary rights, would starve from cold at different periods of the year. On the hon. Member for Leitrim's (Mr. Tottenham's) estate 50 heads of families had been sent to gaol (according to that evening's paper) for having insisted on their ancient right to cut turf. This showed that there was a strong feeling on the subject in Ireland. He hoped the Government would give way in this matter. Sometimes the landlord would exact for the turf an amount equal, perhaps, to the rent of the holding.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that when he expressed the opinion that the clause inserted by the Lords was practically the same as that which appeared in the sub-section when it left the Commons, he had only looked at the words cursorily, and understood that the Lords had only made a verbal Amendment, as represented by them at the time of its introduction; but as there seemed to be an impression that the Amendment was against the interest of the tenant, and likewise some doubt as to whether the words it contained meant the same as those originally in the Bill, it would, he thought, be better for them to keep to their own words, and strike out the Lords' Amendment. He would, therefore, request leave to withdraw his Motion agreeing to the Amendment in order to ask the House to disagree to it. ["Oh, oh!" and "No, no!"]

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, the Bill, as originally introduced, was not intended to give the tenants any rights they had not previously enjoyed; but an Amendment to the hon. Member for Monaghan's (Mr. Givan's) Motion, which was accepted by the Government, gave him a new right, and the object of the Amendment of the Lords was simply to put the right back to its original shape. He regretted to see a Minister accept in one breath an Amendment, and ask leave to with- draw it in another. It was a most singular instance of a Ministerial change of mind in a very short space of time. It was most extraordinary even in connection with this most extraordinary Bill, and he hoped the House would not allow the right hon. and learned Gentleman to do as he wished. He (Mr. Tottenham) would press the Amendment to a division.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 263: Majority 117.—(Div. List, No. 366.)

Amendments, as far as the Amendment in page 5, line 43, read a second time.

Page 5, line 35, after ("roads") insert ("fences"), and after ("watercourses") insert ("passing and repassing to and from the seashore with or without horses and carriages for exercising any right of property or royal franchise belonging to the landlord "), the first Amendment.

MR. HEALY

moved to insert "by any existing right of way."

Amendment proposed to said Amendment, in line 3, after the word "seashore," to insert "by any existing right of way."—(Mr. Healy.)

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Said Amendment agreed to.

Line 38, after ("game") insert ("as defined for the purposes of the Act twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth Victoria, chapter sixty-seven"); and line 41, after ("game") insert as defined for the purposes of the Act twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth Victoria, chapter sixty-seven"), the remaining Amendments.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

moved to disagree with the Amendments, which, he said, made certain birds game which had been included in no previous Game Act in England, and no Act in Ireland, until the year 1864, when they were made so by an Act passed then for a particular purpose. If the House resolved to disagree with the Amendments, he would consent, at a subsequent part of the sub-section, to insert the following definition of the animals and birds which should be included under the head of "Game":—Hares, rabbits, pheasants, partridges, quails, landrail, grouse, woodcocks, and snipe.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendments."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

MR. PLUNKET

said, his right hon. and learned Friend was not correct in the statement he had just made, as he would find in the older Irish statutes, now still in force, that the birds he was excluding from the list were included in the Game List. If only the animals and birds mentioned by his right hon. and learned Friend were included under the head of "Game," there would be a serious infringement of the present right of the landlord's property. These birds were included in the Statute of 1864, and he trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not exclude them from the Act. Without the suggested alteration, the rights of the landlords were already sufficiently curtailed. He regretted the decision of the Government, and all the more so because the reason given was that the wild ducks proposed to be excluded were migratory. He trusted his right hon. and learned Friend would be able to adopt the language deliberately chosen in the Act of 1864.

MR. H. R. BRAND

said, he also hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would re-consider his decision. By the Irish Game Act of 1864 wild duck were included as game; and if now taken out of the Bill, the result would seriously affect proprietary rights, for the people would pursue them, and, in so doing, injure other game. The tenant would be likely to lose more in powder and shot than he would gain by being allowed to shoot those birds.

MR. FITZPATRICK

supported the Amendments. In many parts of the South-West of Ireland those birds bred all through the year, and the best ornithological authorities regarded them as game birds of the best kind. Besides, there were such things as "decoys," which were worked on pecuniary principles, and gave a large return to the landlord, besides affording employment on a large scale—he knew one which brought in £300 a-year—and in them widgeon, teal, and wild duck were bred. The decoys would be ruined if the Amendments were disagreed to, because the farmers would shoot the ducks at night on their lands, and the employment now given to the people in watching them would be taken away. He hoped nothing would be done that would injuriously affect those interests.

COLONEL BARNE

said, that in the part of the country he came from more sport was spoilt by decoys than by anything he knew. He would like to see every decoy there done away with, and hoped the Government would have no mercy on them. His experience was that they caught all their neighbours' ducks, and wrung their necks.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he was in hopes that some hon. Member for Hampshire or Dorsetshire, where wild fowl most abounded, would have risen to give his views on this subject. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland made an excursion into those counties he would find that wild fowl added considerably to the food supply of the country. [" Question!"] That was the Question, for if those birds were taken out of the category of game they would sooner rather than later be all destroyed. The Lords' Amendment was, therefore, most wise, and was in the interests of the whole community.

Question put, and agreed to.

Consequential Amendment proposed to be made in the Bill, to insert as a separate paragraph, page 5, line 43, the words— The word game, for the purpose of this subsection, means hares, rabbits, pheasants, partridges, quails, landrails, grouse, woodcocks, and snipe."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

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

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the word "means," to insert the word "deer."—(Viscount Folkstone.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'deer' be there inserted."

MR. PARNELL

objected to the Motion, and contended that it was an unreasonable thing to protect deer, which were not, so far' as he was aware, protected under any ordinary Game Act. These animals in Ireland did not range the mountainous country, but were, or should be, kept by proprietors in enclosed deer parks. If allowed to range beyond those parks into a cultivated country, deer were most mischievous animals, and farmers should have the right to destroy them as an unmitigated nuisance.

MR. HENEAGE

took exception to rabbits being included. He would like to know by what statute rabbits were game?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

explained that the reason for rabbits being included was in order to preserve the concurrent right that the landlord and tenant possessed.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

In line 43, after ("1880") insert— And the provisions of the Act twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth Victoria, chapter sixty-seven, shall extend where such rights of shooting and taking game belongs exclusively to the landlord as though such exclusive right were reserved by the landlord to himself by deed, —the next Amendment agreed to.

Amendments, as far as the Amendment in page 6, line 27, read a second time.

Page 6, line 1, leave out ("persistently"), the first Amendment, disagreed to.

Lines 3 and 4, after ("sub-section ") insert— ("During the continuance of a statutory term, all mines and minerals, coals, and coal pits, quarries of limestone and other stone and slate, gravel and sandpits, woods and underwoods, and all bogs and bog timber, turbaries for cutting turf, and rights of turbary, except such of the said rights as the tenant, under the contract of tenancy subsisting immediately before the commencement of the statutory term, was lawfully entitled to exercise, shall be deemed to be exclusively reserved to the landlord,") —the next Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he could not accept the Amendment, which was founded upon a misrepresentation of the law which governed these matters. It was superfluous, and, like all superfluities, was mischievous. All these things were absolutely the landlord's property, and all that he required was to get at them.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment,"—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland,)—put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GE-NERAL for IRELAND, page 6, line 6, after ("liquors") insert— ("Nothing contained in this section shall prejudice or affect any ejectment for non-payment of rent instituted by a landlord, whether before or after the commencement of a statutory term, in respect of rent accrued due for a holding before the commencement of such term,") —the next Amendment, agreed to.

Page 6, line 8, leave out ("consequent on an increase of rent by the landlord,") the next Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW),

in moving that the House disagree with the Amendment, said, there was no very important question involved in it, except by way of reference; but when they came to the proposed modification of the 7th clause a substantial issue would be raised.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

MR. GIBSON

said, that the Amendment was the first point at which attention could be drawn to an important question in connection with the power of resumption and statutory terms.

Question put, and agreed to.

Page 6, line 12, after ("estate") insert ("including the use of the ground as building ground,") the next Amendment, agreed to.

Page 6, line 27, leave out from the word "as" to the word "prohibits," in line 33, the next Amendment, read a second time.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, it was unnecessary to argue this Amendment. The provision which it was proposed to omit revived the whole question of compensation for disturbance which was adopted upon very full consideration in the House of Commons. The Government would distinctly adhere to the increased scale of compensation agreed upon in the Bill as it was sent to the other House. He moved that the House disagree with the Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

MR. HEALY

said, that, while opposed to the Amendment, he believed the old scale under the Land Act of 1870 was far better than the new scale for the smaller tenants under £10 valuation.

MR. W. H. SMITH

hoped the House would agree to the Lords' Amendment. The new scale was adopted in Committee; but, certainly, no ground was shown why the amount of compensation should be so large as was now proposed. Although, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, they had discussed the question at considerable length, yet he (Mr. W. H. Smith) ventured to think that the other House of Parliament had acted wisely in the matter, and that there was not sufficient ground for disagreeing to their Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 293; Noes 172: Majority 121.—(Div. List, No. 367.)

Amendments, as far as page 8, line 15, read a second time.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, page 6, line 37, leave out from ("land") to ("From") in page 7, line 27, the next Amendment, disagreed to.

Page 8, line 9, after ("mill") insert ("otherwise suitable to the holding on which it is erected,") the next Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

MR. J. N. RICHARDSON (who spoke amidst cries of "Agreed!")

said, this Amendment of their Lordships had affected a great number of tenants in the North of Ireland. The words as introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland in Committee protected the tenant fully, but the words in the Amendment made in "another place" were not only unnecessary, but mischievous.

MR. GIVAN

opposed the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to,

Page 8, line 15, leave out from the second word "landlord," to the word "may," in line 17, the next Amendment, read a second time.

MR. GLADSTONE, in moving that the House disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment, said, the Government could not agree to it. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, they were not likely to be brought to accept Amendments by such expressions, which had no influence whatever. Tenant and landlord were not in the same position, and they could not open the Court to the landlord without qualification. This was a matter on which the Opposition were very desirous that landlords should be admitted to the Court, and the Government accordingly had given the landlord the admission into Court after demanding an increase of rent from the tenant. To that principle the Government must adhere, and permanently adhere. After demanding that increase of rent and its being refused, they thought there should be an admission, as there must have been an attempt to settle with the tenant on the part of the landlord before invoking the intervention of the Court. That was a principle that was founded on reason. They did not see why the same rule should not be applied to the landlord; but, at the same time, they would sooner change the order, and rather than agree to the omission of the words they would make the principle applicable to the tenant, and compel him also to make application to the landlord in the first instance. In no kind of way could they be induced to agree to leave the words out.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

MR. GIBSON

said, that when the Bill was first introduced the Court was only open to one of the parties, and that was the tenant. That was so abhorrent to the decency and common sense of the House, that at once and very early, long before they came to Clause 7, the Prime Minister announced that the Court would be thrown open to the landlord. [Mr. GLADSTONE: In a particular mode.] The Prime Minister stated very early that he would indicate the way in which it would be opened when they came to Clause 7. How was that done, and how was it done now? He should have thought if the Courts were to be Courts of Justice, the doors should be open to both sides, which was the order in all the Queen's Courts throughout the world. There were two ways by which it might be open to the two parties. The proposition might have said that either party, landlord or tenant, might equally appeal to the Court to fix a fair rent. The Prime Minister in his wisdom, after consulting with his Colleagues, elected not to follow that course, but preferred to say to the landlord—"We will alter our original view, and allow you into Court; but we will not allow you in with the same freedom and the same absence of shackles that the tenant can enter the Court. We will compel you to put yourself in the invidious position of demanding a rise of rent before you can appeal to the intervention of the Court, and then you will come before the Court in the somewhat prejudiced position of a man who has not been satisfied with the existing rent, who has demanded an increase at such a figure that the tenant has been bound to refuse it." He could have understood that mode of argument if the Prime Minister had gone further, and said—"I will make each party tell his story before going into Court;" and that was what was intended by the Amendment proposed in Committee by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). He (Mr. Gibson) asked what principle of justice was it that actuated them in preventing equal measures being meted out to landlord and tenant, and not compelling the latter before going into Court to declare that he demanded a decrease and that the landlord refused it? He thought it was extremely advisable that the tenant should be equally compelled with the landlord to name his reduction. He contended that each party should go into Court unhampered, and if it was thought desirable to curb the landlord, exactly the same course of reasoning ought to apply to the tenant in making his claim to the Court.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, there was one important consideration which his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) did not seem to have noticed. The landlord and tenant were by no means in an equal position, altogether irrespective of the Court. ["Oh, oh!"] By the law of the land the landlord had the inherent power of increasing his rent, but the tenant had no power whatever to reduce it. They therefore thought, having regard to the power which the landlord possessed, that it was only right that this distinction should be here made. The obvious objection to the Lords' Amendment was that the two parties—the landlord and the tenant—did not stand in equal positions in reference the one to the other. A further reason why the Government objected to the striking out of the words "After having demanded from such tenant an increase of rent which the tenant had declined to accept," was that if the landlord made a reasonable proposition, the tenant would have an opportunity to close with it and get a statutory term without being taken into Court.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, that, in the same way, the landlord ought to have an opportunity of accepting a proposed decrease without being taken into Court by the tenant. If a tenant wanted a decrease, let him give notice to his landlord of the amount he sought, so that the landlord might have the option by granting it and avoiding the Court. The tenant might then, by an amendment of the clause, be allowed a statutory term. He would appeal to the Prime Minister whether he was not bound to accept the Amendment in consistency with what he had said in reference to an Amendment on this subject when the House was considering the Bill in Committee—namely, that the Government were anxious that the landlord and the tenant should have every encouragement to settle their differences out of Court? It had been urged against the Amendment that the Court would fix the rules which should be observed when the parties came before it. But there were many landlords who would not like to run the risk or bear the expense of going into Court. Why, therefore, should not the like rules be observed without the parties going into Court, thus enabling them to settle their differences without its intervention?

MR. SYNAN

thought the Amendment an unreasonable one, forcing the people to go into Court instead of keeping them out of it. The landlord had the remedy in his own hands if he desired to raise his rent, and need not go into Court. The tenant, however, could not reduce his rent, and ought to be at liberty to appeal to the Court for that purpose.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, the only advantage the landlord would derive from going into Court would be to show a rent-roll in case of his being obliged to borrow money, and it was absurd that he should be compelled to make an unreasonable demand for an increase of rent to entitle him to go to the Court for so reasonable a purpose.

MR. H. R. BRAND

thought the matter would admit of a compromise. From what he could gather from the speech of the Prime Minister, the Government did not have so much objection to the landlord and tenant having an equal right to go to the Court; therefore, he would suggest an Amendment to the Lords' Amendment. It seemed to him what hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to prevent was the forcing on the landlord the necessity of imposing upon the tenant an increase of rent before going to the Court; and their object, on his (Mr. Brand's) side of the House, was to get the landlord to make some agreement with his tenant without driving him to the absolute necessity of going to the Court. He would suggest, in order to satisfy both parties, the insertion of the words "after failure of agreement between landlord and tenant" in place of the words "demanded an increase of rent." Should this suggestion be adopted, the parties would equally have a right to appeal to the Court in the event of private negotiations failing.

MR. SPEAKER

ruled that it was too late to make the Amendment to the Amendment, unless the Motion to "disagree with the Lords" were withdrawn.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

expressed a hope that the Government would allow an opportunity to be given of taking the sense of the House upon the suggestion made. There were many cases where a landlord did not wish to increase the rental of his tenant, and where the rent might be a very reasonable and fair one; but yet where the tenant might be found to say—"I will not pay this rent any longer; I will only pay the Poor Law valuation." Surely the landlord in such a case, the difficulty having arisen from no fault of his, but from the fact of the tenant refusing to pay, where he thought the rent a fair one, and did not seek to raise it, ought to be able to go to the Court and have the question settled as to whether the rent was or was not a reasonable one.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he thought it desirable that there should be a compromise upon this matter. He, and those who were acting with him, could not help thinking that a very strong step had been taken by giving the Court power to regulate the dealings between landlord and tenant. This step was one of an anomalous and peculiar character, and it would, no doubt, encourage a great deal of undesirable litigation. Everyone must feel that it would be very desirable if they could establish some system of arbitration; but matters had gone beyond that, and, after all, their desire must be to preserve as much as possible the right of free contract. Two suggestions had been made. One was that they should take away the necessity which the Bill, as it stood, imposed upon the landlord, and which was not imposed upon the tenant; while the other was that the tenant should be rendered subject to a limitation similar to that which, was put upon the landlord. He understood that the Government were disposed to look with more favour on the second method than on the first. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) was, in his opinion, well worth consideration. There might be some technical difficulty in the way, but that might be easily got rid of; but if the Government could not accede to that suggestion, he might, perhaps, be allowed to suggest that it would be well to make the clause read as follows:— The tenant of any tenancy, or such tenant and the landlord jointly, or the landlord, after in the case of the landlord having demanded from such tenant an increase of rent which the tenant has declined to accept, and the tenant, after in the case of the tenant having claimed a reduction of rent which the landlord had declined to accept, may from time to time," &c. That would have the effect of putting the landlord and tenant on a similar footing; and he thought, though he would not move it, that the suggestion was likely to facilitate a settlement of the matter.

MR. CARTWRIGHT

hoped that some compromise which would be agreeable to all might be arrived at, seeing that there was little difference between the opinion on one side of the House and that on the other upon the subject. It seemed invidious to draw such a distinction between landlord and tenant.

MR. PARNELL

trusted the Government would not yield any more to the Conservative Opposition in regard to the question before the House. The Government had already done a great deal in extending facilities to enable the landlord to go into Court. In fact, it was one of the great blots pointed out when the measure was first introduced; but the Government had entirely disregarded the views of those who thought that the landlord should not have special privileges. They were now asked to go further in an attempt to permit the landlord to go into Court for the purpose, practically, of having a judicial stamp put upon the present rent, and compelling the tenant to submit to the statutory requirements incidental to a judicial tenancy, many of which were of a very disadvantageous character. It should be remembered that, under ordinary circumstances, it would be impossible for a tenant to obtain an abatement of rent, without a surrender of the interest in his holding, the protection given by the 7th clause being the only thing which would prevent the landlord from absorbing the tenant's interest. But the landlord was in no fear of losing his interest. If the tenant should refuse to pay his rent, the landlord could reject him, sell his interest by public auction, and distrain upon his stock. Both parties ought, in his (Mr. Parnell's) opinion, to be put upon an equal footing. The positions of the two parties were not similar, and they could not reason by analogy when they said the two parties should be put upon the same footing. He begged the House to remember that, after all, the landlord was in a different position to the tenant, and he had any one of four or five different remedies, whereas only one was open to the tenant; and if the proposal that had been made were agreed to, the clause would become an additional engine for enabling the landlord to recover his rent, a purpose for which it was never intended. Instead of settling matters, many landlords would take advantage of the Amendment to drag their tenants wholesale into Court, thus subjecting the tenants to expensive lawsuits.

MR. GLADSTONE

After what has fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell), I think there is very great force in his argument, as far as it goes, as to the difference existing in the position of the two parties. But I am bound, however, to say that there is a good deal of truth in what has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand); and if I am able to do so I should not object to give up my own point and re-open the matter on the basis of the suggestion of my hon. Friend. I understand him to suggest, not that the tenant and the landlord should be put upon the same footing, but to enable the landlord to obtain an advantage which he is supposed to value highly, and which, if he does value, we ought not to grudge to him if we can give it without hardship to the tenant—namely, the advantage of fixity. The proposal of my hon. Friend would have this effect—that the landlord must still make an endeavour to arrange with the tenant out of Court. That is a matter to which we adhere. He must still make that endeavour; but he might make it in accordance with the spirit of the proposal of my hon. Friend; and, therefore, so far as that point goes, I am quite ready to consider the words proposed by my hon. Friend. I am afraid, however, that we have already got beyond that point. I am willing to accede to the withdrawal of the Motion, if it be the pleasure of the House; but I am entirely in the hands of the House with respect to the matter, and if the Motion cannot be withdrawn we must adhere to our determination to disagree with the Lords' Amendment.

MR. SPEAKER

It is right I should explain to the House that the Question now before it is—"That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment." In the event of that Motion being pressed to a division and carried, the effect would be to restore the words struck out by the Lords; but, at the same time, those words themselves would be open to amendment.

MR. GLADSTONE

Am I to understand that after disagreeing with the Lords' Amendment we may amend our own words

MR. SPEAKER

Yes; the Question now is, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."

MR. GOSCHEN

wished to know if the House was to understand that the Government, while disagreeing with the Lords' Amendment, would amend the clause in the manner indicated by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand)? If that were so he should certainly vote with the Government; but, in the first instance, he wished clearly to understand if the right hon. Gentleman intended to entertain that proposal?

MR. GLADSTONE

I shall consider myself in exactly the same position if the House disagrees with the Lords' Amendment as that in which I would have been if the Motion had been withdrawn. It will then be open for the House to amend the original words of the clause.

MR. HEALY

wished to ask a question upon a point of Order. The Question was, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment." If that Question were carried, what Question would then be before the House? The Question before the House would have been decided; and he apprehended that it would not be in Order for anybody, after the Lords' Amendment had been decided, to re-open it again. Subject to the ruling of the Speaker, he denied that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would have the right, after the Lords' Amendment should have been decided and done with, to raise any other question until the next of the Lords' Amendments was reached. He asked for the ruling of the Speaker upon the point.

MR. SPEAKER

The words of the clause kept alive by disagreement with the Lords' Amendment will then be open to amendment.

Question, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment" put, and agreed to; said words accordingly restored to the Bill.

MR. H. R. BRAND

said, that after the word "accept," he proposed to insert the words—"or after failure of agreement between the landlord and tenant." In point of fact, his proposal was to leave out the words—"after having demanded from such tenant an increase of rent, which the tenant has declined to accept," and then to insert the words—"or after failure of agreement between the landlord and tenant."

MR. HEALY, as a point of Order, contended that the Amendment was irregular. The words proposed to be inserted were exactly the words which had just been refused by the House. [Cries of "No!"]

MR. PARNELL

desired to say a word on the point of Order. He wished to put it to the Speaker that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) was now moving precisely the same Amendment as that which the House had just negatived—namely, to leave out from the second word "landlord" to the word "may" in line 17. That was the Amendment already disposed of, and the hon. Member now proposed to move it again.

Amendment proposed to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 8, line 17, after the word "accept," to insert the words "or after failure of agreement between the landlord and tenant."—(Mr. H. R. Brand.)

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

MR. HEALY,

upon the point of Order, would again ask Mr. Speaker whether these words could be inserted? The House were engaged in considering the Lords' Amendments. The Amendment now proposed was not a Lords' Amendment. The Lords' Amendment had been disagreed to; and as the House was engaged in considering the Lords' Amendments, he would ask the Speaker what the insertion of these words had to do with the Lords' Amendments?

MR. PARNELL

denied that the Amendment had any reference to the words of the Bill which had been kept alive by the refusal of the House to agree with the Lords' Amendment. The Lords' Amendment omitted from the clause the words "after having demanded from such tenant an increase of rent which the tenant has declined to accept," and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) did not interfere with those words at all. It left those words precisely as they were, but introduced fresh words which were not affected by the Lords' Amendment. He would therefore submit that they did not come within the ruling of Mr. Speaker, that after having disagreed with an Amendment of the Lords, it would be competent for the House to alter the words of the clause which were kept alive by the refusal of the House to agree with the Lords' Amendment.

MR. SPEAKER

I may say upon the point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), that the Amendment is proposed in the form of an addition, and as it is relevant to the subject-matter sent down from the Lords, it is therefore in Order.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

asked if he would be in Order, in a case where the House disagreed with the Lords' Amendment, in moving any other addition to the Bill, as it left the House of Commons? Was he able to propose any Amendment of the Bill as it was sent up to the House of Lords, in any part which had been omitted by the Lords? There were many instances where the Lords had amended the Bill by omitting certain portions of it, and there were several cases in which he could propose useful Amendments to the Bill as it left the Commons. He wished, therefore, to know if he would be in Order in going into such questions?

MR. SPEAKER

I cannot decide the point until I have the hon. and learned Member's Amendments before me.

MR. GLADSTONE

I am glad, Sir, that you have ruled that an addition may be made to our own words when we have determined upon restoring such words to our Bill by disagreeing to the Lords' Amendment to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) has moved certain words which Her Majesty's Government think might be more clearly expressed than they are in my hon. Friend's Amendment by another Amendment coming in exactly at the same place as an addition. The words we would propose to substitute are these—"or after having otherwise failed to agree with the tenant as to what is a fair rent." That would let in other modes of procedure between the landlord and tenant in the same way as is proposed by the Amendment of my hon. Friend; but it would leave the matter more clear.

MR. H. R. BRAND

said, he was quite ready to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the one suggested by his right hon. Friend.

MR. GIBSON

said, he was bound to state, before the Amendment was withdrawn, that the proposal of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) was not at all the proposal he had understood that hon. Gentleman was going to make and had announced to the House. The inequality which was indicated to exist between the landlord and tenant was that the landlord was bound to formulate Ms demand; and when the question was under discussion, the hon. Member intimated his intention of proposing, immediately after the word "after," in line 15, to introduce the words, "the parties have failed to agree," or some similar words. The Amendment now presented by the hon. Gentleman, and even as presented by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in his (Mr. Gibson's) opinion, made no substantial change, good, bad, or indifferent, in the Bill, because it left the landlord saddled with the special and exceptional provision of having to go into Court after having demanded from the tenant an increased rent, which the tenant had refused, while the tenant could bring the landlord into Court, and ask the Court to measure whatever the Court might consider to be a fair rent. The sole effect the present Amendment would have was that it would anticipate another Amendment, which the Government had, lower down on the Paper, referring to the power of agreement between the parties. The words proposed by the hon. Member for Stroud would have, practically, no effect whatever. They would leave the words of the Bill as they were; and if the hon. Member would look at the bottom of page 5 of the Amendments, he would see that ample power had been given by the Lords. Indeed, the fullest possible power was given to the two parties, at the instigation of either, for the purpose of making an agreement between themselves. The Amendment suggested by the Prime Minister would, he thought, still leave the landlord in an unfair position.

MR. H. R. BRAND

hoped he would be allowed to explain. He should have been glad to move the words he had suggested after the word "after," and to cut out the words "such increase of rent; "but he was informed that, as a point of Order, there were difficulties in the way; and, therefore, he had adopted the course he had taken, and had substituted other words.

MR. GLADSTONE

With regard to the withdrawal of the Amendment, my view is that the words which we have suggested are identical in effect to those which I have sketched out, although in form they are slightly different. But it would be idle to move them unless they would be received by the House.

Question proposed, "That the Amendment be, by leave, withdrawn."

MR. HEALY

said, he objected to the withdrawal of the Amendment.

Amendment again proposed, to amend the Amendment by inserting, after the word "accept," in line 17, the following words, ''or after failure of agreement between landlord and tenant."—(Mr. H. R. Brand.)

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

MR. GLADSTONE

I beg to move to insert after "accept," the words, "or after having otherwise failed to agree with the tenant as to what is a fair rent." The Amendment is entirely to the same effect as that which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand). The matter is entirely in the hands of the House; and if, as a matter of form, the Amendment can be regularly moved, I am prepared to move it.

MR. SPEAKER

It is proposed to amend the Amendment by inserting after the word "accept" the following words, "or after having otherwise failed to agree with the tenant as to what is a fair rent."

MR. PARNELL

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had himself pointed out that these words were identical with those which had just been rejected by the House; and he would therefore respectfully ask whether, under the circumstances, it was competent for the right hon. Gentleman to move them. It appeared to him that the words, "or after failure of agreement between the landlord and tenant," were substantially the same as the words, "or after having otherwise failed to agree with the tenant as to what is a fair rent." Both Amendments meant precisely the same thing; and he would ask whether, under the circumstances, the second Amendment could be moved?

MR. HEALY

wished to be allowed to say, on the point of Order, that when an Irish Member in Committee proposed an Amendment similar in spirit, although not in general details, with, another Amendment which had been previously moved, he was always shut out from moving it. He would, therefore, put it to the Speaker whether, as the Amendment of the Prime Minister was substantially the same as that of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand), he was not similarly irregular now in moving it?

MR. MACFARLANE

said, he also desired to say a word on the point of Order. There could be no question that the present Amendment was the same as the last, because the Prime Minister distinctly moved it on the ground that it was identical. He would, therefore, ask Mr. Speaker if it were possible to put an Amendment which had been declared by the right hon. Gentleman who moved it to be identical with one which had just been negatived?

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, he did not see what use there was in continuing the discussion after the Prime Minister had admitted that the Amendment was substantially the same as that which had just been negatived. Personally, he could not see that the Amendment was of any use at all. The clause said— If the tenant, or the landlord and tenant jointly, or the landlord, after having demanded an increase of rent which the tenant declined to accept. Surely, that was a failure of agreement, and it was enough to have it inserted in the clause once, without submitting a further Amendment on the same point, and calling upon the House to negative it twice over.

MR. T. COLLINS

said, the Speaker had already proposed the Question; and having been proposed, hon. Members were out of Order in objecting to it.

MR. SPEAKER

I am bound to say that, on comparing the two Amendments, they appear to me to be substantially the same. Therefore, I do not think that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman can be put.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I am placed in a position of considerable difficulty by the proceeding which has just taken place. I do not wish to use unpleasant language on the subject; but I do not think that I have been hardly fairly treated. I rise now to ask if I shall be in Order in moving the Amendment which I read to the House just now, as a suggestion, seeing that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) has been shut out? Of course, I cannot move the first words of the Amendment I proposed to submit, because they come in at the beginning of the words which have been restored; but I would propose, at the end of the Amendment, after the word "accept," to add these words— And in the case of the tenant having claimed a reduction of rent, which the landlord has declined to concede. That would, as nearly as possible, put the two parties on an equality. In the case of the landlord, he must first have demanded an increase of rent, which the tenant has declined to accept; and then, in the corresponding case of the tenant, he must have claimed a reduction of rent, which the landlord declined to concede.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

wished to say a word upon a point of Order [Cries of "Order!"] It might be ruled that he was too late if he rose after the Question was put. He desired respectfully to say that if he had correctly heard the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), they were very much the same as the Amendment they had already dealt with, only more so.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

wished to ask a question—namely, whether the Amendment was in Order, as it dealt with a tenant's application, which was not touched by the Lords' Amendment? The first part of the clause only related to the tenant's application, and it had not been made a matter of dispute either there or in the House of Lords. Having passed that part of the clause, the right hon. Gentleman now proposed to go back and further to deal with the right of the tenant to make the application. The Lords had not touched that matter at all; and he would ask, as a point of Order, whether they could go back upon the question now and impose a new restriction and qualification on the tenant's application?

MR. SPEAKER

It appears to me that there is no objection to my putting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. The observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman raise matters of argument which are for the determination of the House. I see no grounds for proposing not to put the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 8, line 17, after the word "accept," to insert the words— And in the case of the tenant having claimed a reduction of rent, which the landlord has declined to concede."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)

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

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I think this proposal is a decidedly different one from that which was proposed by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand), and it seems to me to be much more objectionable. As we were unable to entertain the first proposal, I do not see how we can entertain this. It lays down the principle that the tenant should be put on the same footing as the landlord in regard to going into Court. I will not repeat the arguments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland that the tenant and the landlord are not in the same position; but I may say that the effect of adopting this Amendment would be to qualify the action and power of the tenant to go into the Court, which we have already declined to do. My objection to the Amendment is this—I do not think we can practically look upon the landlord and the tenant as being on the same footing in a matter of this kind. Take the case of a large number of small cattier tenants. The landlord knows precisely what rent he ought to get, if he knows his business; but, on the other hand, the small cottier has an idea of his own that he ought to have a lower rent. As a matter of form, we think it would be unwise to make him state the exact figure he thinks he ought to pay. If we were to do that, the probability would be that we should drive these small tenants into making extravagant demands, and they would get assistance from people altogether outside as to the nature of the demand they ought to make.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, that many hon. Members felt a difficulty in applying their minds to the consideration of this Amendment. The Amendment of the Lords affected the landlord; whereas the present Amendment affected the tenant. The Amendment sent down from the other House said nothing at all about the tenant; whereas the present Amendment dealt entirely with the tenant.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, it was his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister himself who proposed to submit an Amendment in the shape of a compromise if it were possible; and his right hon. Friend suggested that it might be more acceptable if the landlord and the tenant were put on the same footing. It was in consequence of that suggestion that his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. H. E. Brand) had endeavoured to find a solution which would be satisfactory to both sides of the House, and to the Lords as well as to the Commons. What had happened since appeared to be this—In the first place, there was a misunderstanding as to the withdrawal of the Amendment. Some hon. Members objected to the withdrawal of the Amendment, notwithstanding that the Prime Minister announced his intention, if it were withdrawn, of submitting another Amendment identical in substance. It was next understood that, if the Amendment were not withdrawn, no other Amendment to the same effect could be moved. The question was asked that the Amendment should be withdrawn; but the Amendment had been moved, and could not be withdrawn without the consent of the House. The House refused to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, and the Amendment was accordingly negatived. It was then found impossible to move the words which had been, offered by Her Majesty's Government in substitution of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stroud; and he thought it would be admitted that his hon. Friend, and the Government, and the House, had been placed in a difficult position by what had occurred. If the Government did not see their way to accept the proposal now submitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), which affected the tenant, perhaps they would be able to suggest some other means by which effect might be given to the proposal they had originally made, in order to give effect to the views of the hon. Member for Stroud.

MR. GLADSTONE

As far as I am concerned, I am not aware of any method that remains open to me of giving effect to the proposal of my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Brand), or I would willingly avail myself of it. I am not aware that any method is now open to me of giving effect to the suggestion of my hon. Friend to enable the landlord to obtain the fixity of rent which he supposes to be a real benefit to him, without the preliminary of proposing any increase of rent. There were two difficulties. Although I should have preferred putting this burden on the tenant in the way proposed by the Bill to the method proposed by the House of Lords, I never stated that it would take the form of an enactment that would be acceptable to the Government. I only maintained that it was less objectionable than the Amendment which had actually been made. But there is another objection, in which I see very great force—namely, the objection stated by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that the present Amendment does not attain the very great object stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross)—namely, the enabling of the landlord to obtain fixity, without going through the preliminary of demanding an increase of rent. That was the principal inducement, and the only inducement to me, to accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend, because it was one of those happy suggestions which offer a been and. an advantage to the landlord, without imposing the smallest burden upon the tenant. To the present Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite we could not agree. I hope, however, that it may be in the power of the House of Lords to vary the clause as suggested, by opening the door which is now closed.

MR. HEALY

said, he had never listened to a more extraordinary statement than that which the Prime Minister had just made—namely, that the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Brand) offered a been and advantage to the landlord, without giving a corresponding disadvantage to the tenant. How could a favour be bestowed on the landlord without being taken from the tenant? Was it no disadvantage to the tenant that the landlord should be able to force him, by means of a bogus arrangement, into the Court? Those words were certainly ger- mane to the Amendment of the hon. Member, because, after the failure of an agreement between the landlord and tenant, the landlord would be able to make an impracticable proposal to the tenant, which would drive the unfortunate wretch into Court. And that, they were told, was an undoubted been to the landlord, without being any disadvantage to the tenant. [Laughter.] An hon. Member opposite laughed; but probably hon. Members who sat on that (the Home Rule) side of the House had as much influence and power as the hon. Member in getting these things settled for the tenant. And perhaps they had succeeded to some slight extent. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) might have the confidence of the people of Ireland or he might not; at all events, the Government had not. He wished to inform the Government that, if proposals like this were accepted by them, Irish Members would hold their minds in a state of balance. He had given the Bill the closest and most conscientious attention possible, and what he should do when it came on for further consideration in Ireland with regard to its acceptance would depend a great deal on the working of the 7th clause. So important did he regard the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) that, if it was accepted by the Lords and sent down to that House, where it was accepted by the Government, his advice to the tenants would be to fight it out on Land League principles, and make the landlords skip.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 168; Noes 279: Majority 111.—(Div. List, No. 368.)

Page 8, line 20, leave out from the word "Parties" to the second word "and," in line 21, the next Amendment, read a second time.

MR. GLADSTONE

The House will remember that this Amendment was moved by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell). It did not form part of the original proposal of the Government, but it was accepted by them, not as altering in any way the substance and effect of the clause, but as meeting the desire of a great body of opinion, especially of Irish Members in the House, and likewise as conveying a certain assurance to the minds of the people of Ireland. The words of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk were—"And having regard to the interests of the landlord and the tenant respectively." These words having been struck out, I am compelled to look at them in conjunction with other changes which have been made in this clause dealing with the question of rent, and which, I am bound to say, gives to the present Amendment an importance and character, as it now stands in conjunction with other Amendments, such as it did not bear when under discussion amongst ourselves. For the sake of illustration, I will refer to an Amendment which I have particularly in view, and which I think extremely objectionable, and inadmissible on the part of the House. In page 7 of the Lords' Amendments as printed, in sub-section 9, these words occur— The rent of a holding shall not be reduced in any proceeding under this Act on account of any money or moneys' worth paid or given by the tenant or his predecessors in title otherwise than to the landlord, on coming into the holding. It is quite evident that these words have the most natural bearing on the words now immediately before us; and, viewing the very objectionable character of the words, I have no hesitation in saying that I must move to disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

The right hon. Gentleman has not confined his remarks to the particular words now in question'; but he has connected them with the general Amendments which have been made by the House of Lords in the 7th clause, and has specially pointed to the definition which was made in the form of the sub-section to which he has called the attention of the House. Well, under these circumstances, it is obvious that we are engaged in a really serious discussion, and one which touches very closely the most delicate and the most important points of the controversy which may still have to be waged upon this Bill. Sir, I am reluctant to trouble the House with anything like a general discussion—which I might almost do after the words which have been spoken—on this important principle, the question of fair rent. I will abstain from doing so, and I will only make use of very few words in order to explain my own view as to the position of the House with regard to the Amendments touching fair rents. There can be no doubt of this—that there has been continually brought before the attention of Parliament a complaint which has been made by the Irish tenant, to the effect that the raising of rent may eat up the tenant's interest; and, on the other hand, there is the danger to be guarded against, that the tenant's interest may eat up the rent, and it is very difficult indeed to arrive at a proper conclusion with regard to the principle upon which fair rent is to be assessed, so that it shall be free from danger on either of these two sides. Now, the first proposal of the Government was that there should be given in the clause which relates to fair rent some rather minute directions to the Court as to the principle upon which they are to assess the fair rent; and the definition which was to be given of the interest of the tenant, and which was to be taken into account when the fair rent was fixed, was considered to be a very complicated subject—a subject of a great deal of discussion and dispute. At length we seemed to come to this conclusion—that it would be better not to encumber the Court with directions of this kind, but to omit them, and leave it to the Court itself to decide what would be a fair rent between the two parties. I must say, when that was proposed, many of us thought it would, be the best and most satisfactory solution; and so far was I influenced by this consideration that I abstained from moving Amendments I had given Notice of, intending to give a reasonable definition, as we thought, of fair rent and of the tenant's interest as affecting fair rent, and which was substantially taken from the late Mr. Butt's attempted legislation. However, we withdrew all that, and the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) subsequently came forward and said—"You must put in the words 'having regard to the interests of the landlord and tenant respectively.'" Now, that does give a direction to the Court to some extent, and it revives the necessity for some sort of understanding, some kind of direction which may prevent a misconception as to the intention of Parliament. Undoubtedly, the words which are inserted in the 9th sub-section, as it has been drawn, would very materially mitigate the difficulties which still may arise. I will call the attention of the House to the general way in which the fair rent and the tenant's interest bear the one upon the other. We are constantly being told that the rent does not interfere with the tenant's interest, and that the tenant's interest does not interfere with the rent. That is not and cannot always be the case. A man is prepared to take a farm, but before he takes it he wishes to know two things; he wishes to know what charge he is to pay on coming into possession, and what the rent will be which he will have to pay in the course of his tenancy. It is, in fact, very much like the question a man asks himself when he is going to take a house, say in London, where he has to pay a certain premium for entering into possession, and where he has afterwards to pay a certain annual rent charge. If the rent charge is to be heavy, he, of course, expects to pay a lower premium; and if the premium is high he expects a lower rent. In the case I am supposing in London, a fine is paid to the landlord as well as the rent; but in Ireland the fine is not paid to the landlord, but to the outgoing tenant, and the rent to the landlord, and the question is, whether the fine is to eat up the rent, or the rent is to eat up the fine. Suppose a man has arrived at the conclusion that he can afford to pay five years' rent for the purpose of coming into a holding—for the purpose of buying up the interest of his predecessor. Supposing he is prepared to pay £250 to come in at a rent of £50 a-year. Those who complain of the rent eating up the tenant's interest will say that, after a time, the landlord may come forward and say—" I am not satisfied with this £50 a-year; I must have £60." The tenant would, say—" I cannot afford to pay £60 a-year, because of the amount I had to pay to come in; if I have to pay you £60, I should have paid less than £250 to the outgoing tenant." In this way there is supposed to be a danger of the rent eating up the tenant's interest. Well, precisely the converse will take place if the outgoing tenant, who is now to be allowed to sell his interest for the best price he can get, says—"You must give me not £250, but £300." In that case the tenant would be obliged to say to the landlord—" I cannot give you the full rent of £50 a-year; I must pay you a less sum." In this way the raising of the charge on the tenant's interest would fall, and fall entirely, on the rent of the landlord. As to the proposal which has been made in connection with the words we are now considering, it is a proposal, as I understand it, which is intended to have this effect. It is to say that when the rent of the holding is about to be settled—is about to be either increased or reduced by the Court—it shall not be reduced in respect of any money that may be paid by the tenant on his coming into the holding. It is not intended, as I understand it, to apply to past transactions; for instance, it is not intended to affect the Ulster Custom or the cases in which a certain sum has been paid before the passing of this Act by the predecessor of the tenant who is now in possession. But I understand it to apply to future cases, to those who may come in under this Bill, and may be induced, by the advantages and facilities offered to them, to sell their interest to the incoming tenant at a high price. The incoming tenant purchasing at this high price, as he is encouraged to do, will say—"I have had to pay so much for my predecessor's interest in the holding that I cannot afford to pay you (the landlord) the rent which you have been in the habit of receiving, and which, if it had not been for this high price, I should have been prepared to give." The intention of the House of Lords, as I understand the Amendment, is that the landlord ought to be protected against a proceeding of that kind, and I must say I think it a very reasonable proposal. I am told that the words of this Clause 9 go rather further than I have described. If that is so, it would be very easy to alter it; but we have not come to that yet. At the present time we have to bear in mind that we are going too far or not far enough in the words which have been struck out by the House of Lords, and which were put in on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk. If you trust the Court, if you think it competent to deal with, these delicate matters, why not leave it alone to exercise its functions—why not allow it to deal with these cases as they arise on general principles of equity, such as would guide any Court? If, on the other hand, you think it necessary to give instructions, give them in such a way that we can all agree to them. What seems to be the facts of the case are these. The Government thought it would not be right to give any guidance to the Court; but when they came to turn their hand to it they were obliged to abandon their first idea. Then came the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk and said—"This will not do. You must insert words which were not a part of your original proposal, and which are inconsistent with your original proposal. You must strike out the direction in your draft of the Bill." He comes forward and introduces these words—"Having regard to the interests of the landlord and tenant respectively;" and the House of Lords strikes them out as being inconsistent with the original intentions of the Government.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

hoped the House would not desire, at that stage of the Bill, to go over again that long discussion which they had had on this matter in Committee. Unless compelled to do so, he should decline to go into the general reasons in favour of the insertion of these words. He desired to point out to the House that, apart from the intrinsic merits of the words of the clause as it left that House, they had, from other circumstances, acquired an importance amongst those people for whom the Bill was intended. The special circumstances were these—In the Bill as originally drawn by the Government there were inserted words giving a direction to the Court that in fixing a fair rent it should have regard to the tenant's interest. It was quite true that afterwards, finding the precise definition or guide as to fixing the fair rent would not work and was not practicable, the Government were inclined to strike out the words, and leave the matter entirely at large. But they were met with this difficulty—that they had themselves first suggested this regard to the tenant's interest. They were further embarrassed, as a great many hon. Members in the House knew, by the testimony which reached them from all quarters representing Irish opinion on the matter. They found that this reference to the interest of the ten- ant was considered of great—nay, of vital—importance to the interests of the tenant. Finally, after a discussion in the House, the words as they now stood in the Bill were accepted, and accepted by a very large majority; and he well recollected that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote), in discussing this matter, was good enough to say, in referring to his (Mr. Russell's) Amendment, that he noted it, and was glad to recognize it as a proof of advanced opinion in the House on this matter. After a great deal of discussion, the words were inserted in the Bill, and the measure left the House with these words in it. Now, he (Mr. Russell) wished to state what the effect on the public mind would be if the Lords' Amendment were agreed to. No one had yet pointed out, either in that House or the other, how the original words accepted by the Committee could work injuriously to the interests of the landlord. He had read everything which had been said about it, and he had not been able to appreciate or realize any argument showing how the landlord's interests would suffer. What, then, would be said out-of-doors if, having put this reference to the landlord's and the tenant's interests in the Bill—having, after prolonged discussion in Committee, come, by a large majority, to the conclusion that the words should be inserted—if, in answer to the other House, who, to put it mildly, did not very strongly represent the tenant's point of view, these words, upon which so much store was placed by the Irish people, were struck out? During the progress of this Bill he had received a great many letters from a great many quarters, and from no part had there come so unanimous an expression of opinion as to the necessity of a provision of this kind as from the North of Ireland. Since the discussion in the House of Lords he had received, again and again, the strongest protest against the striking out of these words. It had been represented to him that men who did not at first attach so much importance to the words, intrinsically, as he did, now considered that, as they had once been in, to strike them out would have an injurious effect. He would earnestly urge upon the House that the omission of these words, which he conceived to be highly important, would be disastrous; and he trusted, therefore, that the Com- mons' Amendment would not be abandoned.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 270; Noes 154: Majority 116.—(Div. List, No. 369.)

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I think, at this hour of the night, the House will be willing to adjourn. There is a great deal of serious Business to be done, and I wish to give Notice that I shall move an Amendment on sub-section 5, to amend the Lords' Amendment at page 9, by adding in the 3rd line the words "during the statutory term." I move that the debate be adjourned.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he should much more cheerfully assent to an adjournment if he thought there was a strong inclination on the part of the House to close the debate to-morrow.

MR. HEALY

thought the question of closing to-morrow depended very much on the Government.

Question put, and agreed to.

Further Consideration of Lords' Amendments deferred till To-morrow.