Commons Sitting of 10 August 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—
Report—Patriotic Fund * [240].
Withdrawn—Employers' Liability Act (1880) Amendment* [71].

QUESTION.

  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND— UNIVERSITY WORK.
  MR. DAWSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the Report of the President of Galway College and to the strong advocacy therein contained of the retention of teaching as a part of University work; and, whether the New Royal University, making no provision for teaching, leaves the great mass of the Irish people without any provision for academic training, whilst a minority will have the Queen's Colleges and Trinity College to supply to them that great advantage?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the Report was, no doubt, most interesting, and the President did put strongly the advantages of University teaching and training, as well as of examination, and he showed that the Queen's Colleges continued to give that advantage. But, interesting as the question was, it was not a practical one, since the House had decided it in establishing the new Uni-
  1466
  versity, for which an Act was passed a year or two ago.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, that in consequence of the answer he had received he should, early in next Session, bring forward a Motion declaring—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient that the vast majority of the people of Ireland should be without academical teaching, while the minority had the advantage of the Queen's Colleges and of Trinity College in Dublin."

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
    [SECOND NIGHT.]
    Lords Amendments further considered.
    Page 8, line 23, after the word "rent," insert the words—
    "Provided always, That where application is made to the Court under this section in respect of any tenancy, and the Court is of opinion that the tenant of the holding in which such tenancy subsists, or his predecessors in title, has or have caused or suffered such holding to become deteriorated, contrary to the express or implied conditions constituting the contract of tenancy, the Court may refuse the application, or may postpone the further hearing of the same until after the performance by the tenant of such conditions as the Court may think proper,"
    —the next Amendment, read a second time.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the Amendment was one which he should ask the House to disagree with. It was an Amendment which had already been considered, discussed, and rejected by the House. The truth was that it was one of the old Land Committee Amendments, which had been amply discussed there, and the answer given to it he had only to repeat. Everything which would properly be a fair basis for opposing an application for a judicial rent was provided for under the 8th clause, which gave the Court full power to reject an application whenever the conduct of the applicant had been unreasonable. No conduct could be more unreasonable on the part of the tenant than to cause or suffer his holding to become deteriorated, and then apply to fix a fair rent for it. It had frequently been held, under similar words in the 18th clause of the Land Act, that such conduct was "unreasonable," and disentitled the tenant to relief.

    1467
    That applied to mere permissive waste; but if there was deterioration of the holding with the object of getting a lower rent, that would be fraudulent, and if they had any confidence in the Court at all they might leave such conduct to be dealt with by it. Apart from that, however, there was a manifest mistake—at least, he presumed it was a mistake in the Amendment—for it could hardly have been intended—but it provided against deterioration, caused or permitted not only by the tenant, but by his predecessors in title, so that the present tenant might be refused a fair rent because of something which had been done by his predecessor 50 years ago.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that if the Court would proceed upon the lines set forth by the Attorney General for Ireland he was satisfied. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman had gone somewhat further. He had sneered both at the structure of the Amendment and at the source from which it had come. The object of the Amendment was to prevent the tenant seizing the opportunity, when the farm was at its worst by Ms own fault, to get a judicial rent fixed. Although the Amendment might not be agreed to, he trusted that the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have some effect on the Court.
    Motion agreed to.
    Page 8, line 35, leave out from the word "landlord," to the end of subsection 3, the next Amendment, read a second time.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he need not acquaint the House that this Amendment was one to which the Government could not ask the House to agree. The third paragraph of the clause provided that—
    "Where the judicial rent of any present tenancy has been fixed by the Court, then, until the expiration of a term of fifteen years from the rent day next succeeding the day on which the determination of the Court has been given (in this Act referred to as a statutory term), such present tenancy shall (if it so long continue to subsist) be deemed to be a tenancy subject to statutory conditions, and having the
    1468
    same incidents as a tenancy subject to statutory conditions consequent on an increase of rent by a landlord."
    The House of Lords had struck out the words which follow—namely,
    "With this modification, that, during the statutory term in a present tenancy consequent on the first determination of a judicial rent of that tenancy by the Court, application by the landlord to authorise the resumption of the holding or part thereof by him for some purpose having relation to the good of the holding or of the estate, shall not be entertained by the Court, subject nevertheless to the provisions in this Act contained for the benefit of labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments."
    It had been stated the previous night that there was no opportunity whatever of drawing a distinction between the first statutory term and subsequent statutory terms. There was one case in which he was disposed to admit that the first statutory term need not be distinguished from subsequent statutory terms, and that was where the tenant at the end of the lease came in as a present tenant. He did not think there was any reason why at the end of a lease, say, of 40 or 50 years, a tenant, in virtue of his present tenancy, should take a further term of 15 years absolutely exempt from the statutory resumption. The Government would endeavour to provide in a subsequent Amendment that in the case of leases the lease itself should count as the first statutory term.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. HEALYconsidered the proposal to be made by the Attorney General for Ireland an equitable one; but he wished to point out that the Amendment made in this House with regard to judicial leases had placed the future tenant in a worse condition than he would have been had the Bill passed in its original shape. A future tenant would be liable at the end of his lease to be turned out without a day's notice. He trusted the Government would see that future tenants should not be debarred from the benefit of the Act of 1870.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEconfessed that, in reality, this question, with the exception of resumption, was a much larger question than appeared on the face of it. He did not believe that if they deprived the landlord of the

    1469
    right of resumption after the first 15 years they would ever be able to restore it. He was certain that if at the beginning of a second term of 15 years an attempt was made to reserve the landlord rights, a new and formidable agitation would arise. Practically, they were depriving the landlord of the right of resumption for ever, and in a short time they would see a short Act introduced assimilating the two statutory terms. He had no wish to divide the House; but he was anxious that this question should not be determined without his entering his protest in regard to it.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the remarks in regard to leases which fell from the Prime Minister raised an important point which would have to be discussed on a subsequent Amendment. The Prime Minister argued that a distinction might be made between the position of the tenant at the end of a lease and other present tenants. He supposed they would have further information on that point when they came to discuss it. With regard to the present proposal on the Lords' Amendment, one would have thought a year ago that it was natural that the landlord should have the power of resuming a portion of his land for the general benefit of his estate; but they were now so entirely divorced from the old position of the landlords that he hardly knew how the Government were to deal with a question of this sort. Sometimes the Opposition were led to suppose that the intention of this measure was to get rid of landlordism altogether. But in that matter the Government did not go quite the length of the Land League. The Government said they ought to keep the landlords, but ought to regulate their relations with their tenants. That was the scheme on which the Bill was supposed to be based; but they were constantly coming across instances where the landlords were refused their clear rights. He was afraid that if they took away the legal rights of the landlord for 15 years it would be very difficult to restore them. It did not require much knowledge of Irish affairs to say that if the legal right of the landlord to resume possession for good reasons during the first tenancy was taken away, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to reestablish it. The treatment of this question distinguished the spirit with
    1470
    which all Amendments in which the right of the landlord was implicated were dealt with.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERdiffered entirely from the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms. It was merely a question of yearly tenants obtaining a 15 years' lease. The object of the Government was not in any degree to abolish landlordism. The House, no doubt, would feel that, having thoroughly debated the matter previously, they could hardly be expected to go into the arguments again.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 96: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 370.)
    Amendment proposed to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 9, line 3, to leave out from the word "subject," to the word "satisfied," in line 7, both inclusive, and insert the words—
    "Unless (a) such present tenancy has arisen at the expiration of a judicial lease, or of a lease existing at the time of the passing of this Act, and originally made for a term of not less than thirty-one years; or (b) it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court,"—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said words so restored to the Bill."
    MR. GIBSON MR. GIBSON, on a point of Order, inquired of the Speaker whether a decision on this point would not prejudge a similar question in a succeeding clause? He did not wish the question as to the termination of the lease, which would require to be hereafter discussed, to be got rid of on a side issue now.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT, also on a point of Order, inquired whether it was competent for the Government to amend words which had been passed by this House and sent up to the Lords, and which the Lords rejected; the Lords' Amendment being rejected here, was it competent for the House now to amend the former words which were provisionally inserted in the Bill?
    MR. SPEAKERreplied that a similar question to that asked by the hon. and gallant Baronet was raised on the previous day during the consideration of the hon. Member's (Mr. Brand's) Amendment. In his opinion, it was competent for the House to amend words

    1471
    restored to the Bill in consequence of the omission of certain words involved by the rejection of an Amendment by the Lords. That was the course which the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to take. With regard to the other question raised, he had not informed himself sufficiently to give a clear decision on the matter.
    After Mr. GIBSON had consulted the Speaker for a few minutes,
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, it appeared to him that the House would not be precluded from entertaining the point adverted to by the right hon. and learned Member when they reached the future clause of the Bill.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he did not wish to discuss the merits of the Attorney General for Ireland's proposal; but he must point out the inconvenience of the course now being taken, and the remarkable conduct of the Government. They were now called upon to assent to words which they had not previously seen, and which the Government itself had apparently not contemplated a few minutes ago. He agreed with his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) that it was very difficult to judge the effect of a decision on this point now upon a subsequent clause which would have to be discussed. The Speaker had expressed his opinion that the Amendment would not preclude the future discussion of the question of leases; but that was a decision rapidly arrived at, and without a full consideration of the bearing of the Amendment. It was the duty of the Government to give a full explanation. Some intimation had been given, but it was so obscure that the House was not able to make out what it meant. In rejecting the Lords' Amendment there was an impression that the original words should be restored; but the substitution of other words without Notice might be in Order, but clearly was most inconvenient, and made proper consideration impossible.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, if they were to conduct these conversations in a querulous tone and to listen to complaints without any ground whatever, it was quite idle to talk of limiting the discussion of this Bill. The complaint was that they had been obscure in the declarations of their intentions; but for what purpose was this Amendment pro-
    1472
    posed? Why, to meet the views of Gentlemen opposite. He proposed an Amendment which had for its object the making of the lease a statutory term. He wanted to know whether that was obscure or not? Then they were told that there had been no notice. It was totally impossible for the Government, who were bound to review the whole of these Amendments, to prepare beforehand the Amendments which it might be their duty to propose on the Lords' Amendments, and that was the ground upon which he said that the complaints of the right hon. Gentleman were querulous—a disposition to make complaints for which there was no sufficient cause. It must be remembered that these words now proposed would be reviewed elsewhere; but if hon. Gentlemen opposite could suggest a better mode of proceeding, the Government were quite ready to consider it. He did not see how this Amendment would preclude the discussion to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, especially when they considered that they had the ruling of the Chair, a ruling unaccompanied with any doubt on the part of the Speaker, and with regard to which they were safe in relying upon.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsuggested they had better get on with Business; but he could not forbear saying that no one, throughout the whole debates on the Bill, could take the slightest exception to the conduct of his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford North-cote). His right hon. Friend's observations were perfectly fair and just; and he heard with some surprise and disappointment the Prime Minister apply to them an epithet which was quite undeserved, and which he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) felt sure the Prime Minister would be the first to regret. They had come to the conclusion that as the Government had made up their mind last night to move the Amendment in question, it might have been placed on the Notice Paper.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the difficulty was that if they had done so others would have required other Amendments to be placed on the Paper also.
    MR. W. H. SMITHobserved, that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen near him could not accept the responsibility of this Amendment. It had come upon them by surprise, and they were quite

    1473
    incapable of expressing any judgment upon it. He would, therefore, advise his Friends not to divide against it.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Words inserted.
    Page 9, line 14, leave out ("may, if it think fit,") and insert ("shall, "if the landlord so requires,") the next Amendment, read a second time.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the clause originally provided that the Court "may, if it think fit, "disallow such application; but the Lords changed that to "the Court shall, if the landlord so requires." He thought the discretion originally given to the Court should be retained, and moved to disagree with the Lords' Amendment.
    Motion agreed to.
    Page 9, line 16, leave out from the first ("the") to the end of the sub-section, and insert—
    ("Permanent improvements in respect of which, if made by the tenant or his predecessors in title, the tenant would have been entitled to compensation 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.
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Amendment amended, by inserting, in line 6, after the word "made," the words "and substantially maintained."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)moved to insert, in line 7 of the Amendment, "and" for "or."
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he was not sure that the Amendment might not be attended with serious results. His objection to the Amendment was that under it the landlord would not be able to get the moderate benefit of the provision unless he could prove that the improvements in question were made by himself and his predecessor in title.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, it was intended to provide that the maintenance should be continuous, and the difficulty was that the words "the landlord" or "his predecessor" did not involve continuous maintenance.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, if the improvements had been made 50 years ago, and if they had been substantially maintained by the landlord and his successor in title, that would be sufficient.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, it might be sufficient for right hon. Gentlemen opposite; but the question was, whether it would be sufficient for the Courts? It would be a. great pity that the present opportunity for making it clear should be lost. He understood the Government wished it to be enacted that the improvements should be made by the landlord or his predecessor in title, and maintained by the landlord and his successor; why not, then, insert the necessary words to express that intention?
    Amendment agreed to.
    Lords' Amendment, as amended, agreed to
    Page 9, line 33, after the word "fixed," insert the words—
    "(6.) Subject to rules made under this Act, the landlord and tenant of any present tenancy to which this Act applies may, at any time, if such, tenancy is not subject to a statutory term, or, if the tenancy is subject to a statutory term, then may, during the last twelve months of such term, by writing under their hands, agree and declare what is then the fair rent of the holding; and such agreement and declaration, on being filed in Court in the prescribed manner, shall have the same effect and consequences in all respects as if the rent so agreed on were a judicial rent fixed by the Court under the provisions of this Act,"
    —the next Amendment, read a second time.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the Government thought this new sub-section was an improvement, and would ask the House to accept it. They expected the Court would lay down rules which would secure the perfect freedom of the parties to come to an agreement of this kind.
    MR. HEALYmoved an Amendment to omit the word "present" before tenancy. He did not see why the Government should stand in the way of the landlord, and a future tenancy having the same rights as a landlord of the present tenancy.
    Amendment proposed to the said Amendment, in line 2, to leave out the word "present."—(Mr. Mealy.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'present' stand part of the said Amendment."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Member had carefully considered the effect of his Amendment; but it seemed to the Government to be really a circuitous mode of making a clear distinction between the present and future tenancies; and if that was so, of course they could not accept it.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that was his intention.
    Amendment to the said Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Page 9, line 39, sub-section 8, leave out from the word "term," to the word "in," in line 41, and insert the words "and on any such application no rent shall be made payable," the next Amendment, read a second time.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)moved to disagree with the Amendment. He said, he should propose, subsequently, to add words defining the improvements on which no rent was to be paid as such as the tenant would be entitled to be compensated for under the Land Act of 1870.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    MR. GIBSONsaid, the way the matter was now proposed to be left by the Government was this—they proposed that no rent should be paid under any circumstances upon any improvement made by the tenant at any time, or by his predecessor in title. The sole restriction which his right hon. and learned Friend desired the House to accept was that improvements in respect of which the tenant had received compensation should be omitted from the proposal of the Government. He apprehended that the Land Act of 1870 would show that even under that restriction grievous injustice might be done to the landlord. He did not say it would be done in many cases; but he would indicate how it might work. Under the Land Act of 1870 it was quite true that there was no restriction of time with respect to permanent improvements. The Land Act of 1870 said, and this Bill said, that a tenant, at the end of a statutory term,
    1476
    might apply to the Court to determine what would be a fair rent for the next statutory term, and the tenant might say that no rent should be payable in respect of any tenants' improvements, whether buildings or reclamation of waste lands. The Amendment introduced by the Lords was introduced to effect the object of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), and to do so by words almost the same as those of his Amendment. The Prime Minister was trying, by the Amendment moved by the Attorney General for Ireland, practically to cut down all restriction, and to unduly lower the landlord's interest.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the words moved by his right hon. and learned Friend were, as appeared by the Notice Paper of the House of Lords, the same words as the Marquess of Salisbury intended to move, although he afterwards receded from them. The Government certainly did not think that rent ought to be charged on improvements for which the tenant was entitled to be paid.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought the Government were seized with great admiration for the Amendment of the Marquess of Salisbury, especially when he did not move it. The words of Viscount Monck, which were adopted by the Marquess of Salisbury, were much better than those originally set down in the Notice Paper; and he could not see why the Government should prefer vague words rather than those which were clear and precise. At the beginning of a statutory term the rent was fixed, and it was fixed in view of improvements made by the tenant. When, at the end of a statutory term, the tenant again came into Court and asked that the rent should be adjusted, it was perfectly proper that the landlord should not allow any improvements to be considered which were made before the first rent was fixed. The effect of the Lords' Amendment would be to carry out that object, and he hoped the House would adhere to the Lords' Amendment.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he thought it would be a cruel thing for landlords to be allowed to charge rent on account of improvements made by tenants, the result of the sweat flying out of them for many long years. Viscount Monck, who wanted to make the tenants pay rent on

    1477
    their own improvements, it should be remembered, was a Member of the Bessborough Commission.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 256; Noes 147: Majority 109.—(Div. List, No. 371.)
    Consequential Amendment proposed to the said sub-section in page 9, line 42, after the word "title," insert the words—
    "And for which the tenant would be entitled to compensation under the provisions of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' as amended by this Act."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GIBSONregarded this Amendment as a most important one; but he did not propose to repeat observations he had already made. He desired, however, to ask the Government a question. Did they propose that, if any tenant was able to show that improvements had been made on his holding of a permanent character, or that waste lands had been reclaimed any number of years ago, he should be entitled to a diminution of rent, and that the landlord should have no power of showing that the rent had been moderate and that the tenant had received the benefit of his improvements? Under the Bill as it stood there was nothing to intimate to the Court that those facts should be taken into account.
    MR. W. H. SMITHwished to ask the Government one question on this matter. In the event of an agreement having been made with the tenant, under which the tenant was bound to reclaim land and make other improvements, in consideration of which agreement a low rent was charged, and made payable for a long period of time, after which the land would come into the landlord's possession, he wanted to know how the landlord's right was preserved under this Act, as he saw no provision which would secure to the landlord the increased value of the property he was entitled to have, looking at the fair arrangements made between the landlord and tenant.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, if the tenant had been already paid for his improvements he would not be entitled to
    1478
    have the rent kept low because of the improvements, which could no longer be considered his.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the House of Lords lost nothing whatever by inserting as many hostile Amendments as they could, and the Government now seemed disposed to give them a great deal of what they asked. The Whigs and Tories were allowed to hammer the Ministry upon the anvil as much as they liked; but the Radical supporters of the Government, who agreed with the Irish Members in thinking that the Irish tenants should be relieved from their difficulties, did not seem to have a tongue amongst them, for they allowed the Bill to be cut to pieces like a corpse on the dissecting table. The words the Government now proposed to interfere with gave more satisfaction to the Irish tenants than almost any other part of the Bill; and now, at the last moment, the Government dissipated the hopes they raised by giving in to the House of Lords. Home Rule Members had been told that they not merely fostered, but lived by agitation. Well, if they lived by agitation, the Government were now supplying them with the breath of their nostrils. The fact was the Bill was but a patchwork and compromising measure; and the tinkering of the House of Lords to which the Government were about to give countenance would leave behind reminiscences which would not soon be forgotten.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he did not admire the style of argument by which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Healy) tried to obtain advantages for the Irish tenant. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) remembered that when the words referred to were inserted he got up and said to the right hon. Gentleman that there were no words in the whole Bill which would convey so much comfort to the Irish tenant as those which were now going to be tampered with. The raising of rents in consequence of improvements made by tenants was the very basis of all agitation in Ireland. The great principle in the words in question could be comprehended by the whole of the tenantry of Ireland; but the rest could not be comprehended even by the most intelligent. The words in question were going to be altered, for what purpose it was impossible to say. He asked the Prime Minister, who, he

    1479
    feared, had been altogether misled upon the subject, to take the course which he took yesterday, to retract the alterations proposed by the Attorney General for Ireland, and to stick to these words and require them to become law. If he did that it would do more to insure a favourable reception for the Bill in Ireland than any other thing that could be done. It would do more than anything else could to insure the success of the Bill and to prevent our having a new agitation in Ireland.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Amendment moved by his right hon. and learned Friend was in complete conformity with the intention with which the original words were adopted. He was afraid, however, the original words were wider in scope, and that if they were totally unqualified the tenant might be entitled not only to claim compensation for certain improvements in the shape of buildings, and the reclamation of land which might have been made at a remote day, but likewise he would be able to claim compensation for improvements for which he had already been paid, such, for example, as had been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith)—namely, for improvements which had been made under a positive covenant requiring the tenant to make them, and for which payment was made to him in the shape of a low rent. Under these circumstances, the Government could not recede from the Amendment, which was intended to give roundness and completeness to the enactment they proposed. The Amendment stood on a perfectly clear and intelligible principle—namely, that the tenant should be liable to be charged rent upon improvements for which he was not entitled to be paid, and that he should not be charged rent upon improvements for which he was entitled to be paid.
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, the Amendment was not on the Paper, and Members had great difficulty in following the exact intention of the Amendment. The apprehension in his mind had not been removed entirely by the statement of the Prime Minister, and he would tell the House why. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) and with the Prime Minister
    1480
    that it would be, of course, absurd in a case where a tenant had been paid for improvements, and these had become the property of the landlord, to allow the tenant to claim the right to pay only a low rent because of improvements he had made. But, as he read the clause, he understood it would stand thus—that no rent should be allowed or be made payable in any proceedings under the Bill in respect of a certain class of improvements—that meant in respect of other improvements—not limiting itself to improvements for which the tenant had been paid, and which had become the property of the landlord, but left at large.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought the discussion illustrated the extreme difficulty they were placed in in endeavouring to regulate these matters, and he thought the difficulty had been increased by the attempt which the Government had made in their Bill to lay down directions, which were, after all, but imperfect directions, as to the mode in which different cases were to be dealt with. With regard to this particular case, he thought they were all agreed that they should protect the tenant against any rent being charged in respect of improvements he had made. But then the words proposed might, without any guard, render it impossible for a landlord to raise the rent with reference to improvements for which the tenant had been already paid. The Government had so far felt that, that they were desirous of introducing words which by reference to the Act of 1870 might show that the preserving a tenant from rent charged for his improvements did not apply to cases of that sort. A clear definition was desirable, and he would make the suggestion that instead of the words proposed referring to the Act of 1870 some other words should be added in the form of a proviso at the end of the words now proposed, and the words he would suggest were—
    "Provided that the Court shall take into consideration the time during which such tenant may have enjoyed the advantage of those improvements, and also the rent at which such holding has been held, and any benefits which such tenant may have received from the landlord in consideration, expressly or impliedly, of the improvements so made."
    The hon. Member for Wexford cheered that ironically.
    MR. HEALY: Because the Government refused that to the hon. Member for Cork yesterday.
    SIR. STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought he had not been mistaken in the Gentleman who cheered. Those words were themselves taken from the Act of 1870 with reference to the cases in which the Court was to award compensation to the tenant for improvements made by him. Under that Act the Court was to take into consideration the time during which the improvements had been enjoyed, and so forth. But that section was confined to the case of improvements made before the passing of the Act of 1870 on a holding held by the tenant under a tenancy existing at the passing of the Act. The original sin of the present Bill was that it attempted to deal with those matters by a Court, and that had been made more difficult by the particular way in which they had chosen to deal with the directions to be given to the Court. However, they had accepted that principle of the Bill which involved the intervention of the Court, and they were obliged to give it such directions as might make the matter clear. He submitted the words which he had read to the House as, perhaps, indicating the only way in which they could satisfactorily get out of their difficulty.
    MR. SHAWagreed with those who thought that the change proposed in that clause would act very injuriously on the public mind in Ireland. The words of the sub-section were of too wide and general a character, and, if left as they were now, they might lead to serious misunderstanding. If those words were adopted without any qualification such as the Government proposed, it would be possible in many districts in the North of Ireland to raise the rents 50 per cent on the improvements of the tenants. The improvements for which the tenant could obtain compensation under the Act of 1870 or under the Bill were permanent buildings and reclamations of waste land; but for those gradual improvements made by the tenant year by year, until an almost barren region now looked like a garden, the tenant might under that clause have to pay an increased rent. He did not think that was the wish or the intention either of the Government or of right hon. Gentlemen opposite; but it would lead to
    1482
    agitation and unpleasantness such as they had heard nothing of. The North of Ireland was a peculiar place, its people were a peculiar people; and he did not desire to see that part of the country whipped into an agitation on that or on any other subject, because there would be a great deal more than words in such an agitation. Probably some words might be inserted in the Bill by which the Court might have under its review fertilizations and other improvements on which the tenants of the North of Ireland would consider it a very heavy grievance to be charged additional rent. That was one of the most serious questions which had yet come before the House upon those Amendments, and he hoped that the Government would see some way out of the difficulty.
    MR. GIVANbelieved that no change made in the Bill since it left the House had caused more bitter disappointment in Ulster than the one now under consideration. He was also much surprised that the Government should think for a moment of making the proposed addition to the sub-section. It was inconceivable that the Court would give the tenant compensation for improvements which he had already been actually paid for. If they looked at the Act of 1870 they would see distinctly the limited nature of the power given to the Court to award compensation for improvements, because the tenant was excluded by that Act from all improvements made 20 years before the claim, except permanent buildings and the reclamation of waste lands. He need scarcely remind the House that a great many of the improvements which were made by the tenant farmers in the North of Ireland were improvements which could not come under the head of reclamation of waste lands. For instance, improvements—such as planting trees, levelling fences, making roads, and a hundred other things which had been accomplished by the tenants of the North, of Ireland, and rendered their holdings much more valuable than they were before, and which did not come under the exception of sub-section A, Clause 4, of the Land Act of 1870. Consequently, his experience had been—and he knew also the experience of many of the County Court Judges was exactly the same—that, owing to the wording of the sub-

    1483
    section in question, they had been tied down from giving sufficient compensation for improvements to tenants, and were not able to decide in favour of many just and equitable claims. He respectfully suggested to the Government that they should not accept these words, and thus avoid imposing a very harsh limitation upon the tenant.
    MR. PLUNKETfelt sure that no one in the House wished that either in Ulster or in any other part of Ireland there should be a confiscation of the improvements of the tenant by the action of the Court or by a capricious addition to rent. His right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) had proposed words which he thought the majority of the House would be prepared to adopt in their substantial sense, if not in their precise form, if any direction was to be given to the Court. Those words were taken from the 4th section of the Land Act of 1870. He would ask the Government to make a provision which was clearly contemplated in the Act of 1870, and which, by applying the 4th section of that Act to the process of fixing the fair rent, might not be wholly unsatisfactory.
    MR. LAINGsaid, he did not wish to take up the time of the House; but he thought the difficulty might be got over if the Government would add these words to the sub-section—
    "For which the tenant or his predecessors in title shall not have been paid or compensated by the landlord or his predecessors."
    This, he thought, did not interfere with the prohibition against raising rent for tenant's improvements, but took out the cases which had been pointed at in the course of the discussion.
    MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he thought the suggestion worthy of consideration, and he had intended to make a similar suggestion—namely, to add the words—
    "For which the tenant shall not have already received payment or compensation from the landlord."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought that if the Government adhered to their proposal the clause had better be left out altogether, because it would take away concessions to the tenant which had already been made and would transform a been into an injury.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he hoped the Lords' Amendment would be accepted by the House, as he believed it
    1484
    would give general satisfaction to the North of Ireland.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he did not think that the House could well accept the proposal of the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote). To select one provision of the Land Act in Clause 4 and reproduce it there in the Bill would rather suggest that the rest of Clause 4 was not to be incorporated, and would thus only create confusion and perplexity. The clause of the Act of 1870 to which the right hon. Baronet referred was made to apply only to tenancies existing at the passing of the Act, because it was intended that future tenancies should be contracts made by persons with their eyes open. The principle now to be kept in view was that the tenant was not to be charged rent for what was his own property. There were, he feared, practical difficulties in the way of adopting the suggestion of the hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing). It might do very well if they were only dealing with recent events; but it would not be easy, in cases where they had to go back a great many years, to show that improvements made by the predecessor of the tenant had been paid for by the predecessor of the landlord. He did not see his way at this moment to accept the words suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk. The Government were, however, not so wedded to their own proposal as to be unwilling to adopt any other which would operate fairly both to landlord and tenant. He was afraid that the object they all had in view could not be effected with mathematical accuracy and precision, but they might attain substantial justice; and he hoped to discover some mode of meeting the fair requirements of the case.
    At this point the SPEAKER left the Chair for 10 minutes.
    When the Chair was again taken,
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEcommented upon the state of indecision which the Attorney General for Ireland appeared to be in on the subject under discussion, and thought it would be a much safer course for the House to abide by the Amendment originally proposed than adopt the result of the consultation which had just taken place while the Speaker was absent.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that what the Government desired to do was to deal justly with the claims of both landlord and tenant; and he thought it was only a man who had an absurdly good opinion of himself who would refuse to consider all suggestions made for improvement of so important and intricate a measure as the present. The Government, not being particularly wedded to their own Amendment, had, on consideration, decided to adopt words which he thought were substantially the same as what had been proposed by the hon. Members for Dundalk, Orkney, and Cambridge. He had found, on further consideration, that the Land Act of 1870 furnished a corrective for the difficulty which he chiefly feared. Where a tenant could prove by witnesses that he had made improvements, of course he would be allowed for them. Again, if there were no living witnesses, the tenant must of necessity resort to the presumption enacted by the 5th section of the Act of 1870. But that presumption was itself restricted to improvements made by the tenant within 20 years before the passing of the Act. The landlord would therefore, he thought, be perfectly safe under the circumstances; and, accordingly, the Government were willing to accept these words in substitution for their own proposal in respect of improvements made by the tenant or his predecessors in title—
    "And for which, in the opinion of the Court, the tenant or his predecessors in title shall not have been paid or compensated by the landlord or his predecessors in title."
    He asked leave to withdraw the original Amendment proposed by him in favour of the one he had now read.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, this was not the first time the Attorney General for Ireland had placed Amendments on the Paper, and then, after they had led to a certain amount of discussion, asked permission to withdraw them. He had now made a complete change during the short time the Speaker was absent for luncheon. In the first instance, the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke strongly in favour of his own Motion, and then he found in the Land Act a provision which relieved him of all his difficulties. Under these circumstances, the proposal of the Attorney General for Ireland to withdraw
    1486
    his Amendment would be resisted from that (the Opposition) side of the House.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Aves 138; Noes 272: Majority 134.—(Div. List, No. 372.)
    Consequential Amendment proposed to the Bill, in page 9, line 42, after the word "title," to insert the words—
    "And for which, in the opinion of the Court, the tenant or his predecessors in title shall not have been paid or compensated by the landlord or his predecessors in title."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that if any time had been lost at that stage of the Bill the Government alone was to blame. They had had ample time to consider the Bill in all its various stages, and here was the result. They came down to the House with a distinct proposal, which was introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a speech of 10 minutes, and which was presented from the Chair for the acceptance of the House. Afterwards, however, the right hon. and learned Gentleman announced that the Government had so far modified their views that they advised the House to accept suggestions which had been made by some other hon. Members. The result of all this was that they had just divided on the Government proposal, and the Government had voted against their own Amendment. Now, the proposal against which the Government had just divided was one which had had the sanction of Mr. Butt and of the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), when he proposed a Bill. The Amendment differed from the present one in some important particulars. The present proposal had been drawn up at a moment's notice, he believed, by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), and it was now suggested for the acceptance of the House. For one thing, the present Amendment had no express limit as to time, and the only qualification stated was that the tenant must show that he had not been paid or compensated. The argument in favour of this extremely vague and loose qualification was, no doubt, strengthened a little by the fact that there was some period of time in respect of which the presumption would not be

    1487
    against the landlord. But the qualification should have stated in terms some limit as to time, and some reference as to the value of the improvements. In his opinion, the Amendment was unsatisfactory, as being without express limit as to time—unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it did not take sufficient account of the value of the improvements at the date of claim, and most unsatisfactory as it did not adequately direct the attention of the Court to some of the most important elements which any Court should fairly take into account. These matters had been referred to in the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford North-cote); but they had been but lightly touched by the Attorney General for Ireland. The words now before the House, however, contained some limit which the Bill, as it stood, did not; and he would not, therefore, vote against them.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, so far as the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was an attack or a censure upon the Government he did not propose to deal with it. His duty—although it was quite within the licence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to use the time of the House in attacks of that kind—was to reply to the arguments so far as they admitted of an answer. The right hon. and learned Gentleman objected to this Amendment; he likewise had argued in favour of an Amendment not directly before the House. The first objection was that there was no limit of time within which the tenant might be compensated. There was no limit of time wherever the tenant was able to prove that the improvements were his; but there was a distinct limit of time where he could not prove that, and that limit was the limit of presumption under the Land Act of 1870. The presumption under that Act stopped at a certain point—except where, in rare cases, the tenant would be perfectly entitled to compensation—and beyond that point he had no presumption, and the improvements would be taken to be the property of the landlord, and part of the holding which the tenant took. With reference to there being no limit of value, that limit was this—improvements were to be tested by the addition they made to the letting value of the holding. Those were matters included in the Amendment before the House,
    1488
    particularly in the words "paid for or compensated by the landlord or his predecessors in title." The Government held that the Amendment was just and fair; and he did not believe that the practical difference between the Amendment of the Government and that which they had determined to abandon was great. But that was a matter upon which it was not necessary to enter. The Amendment covered the whole case laid down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought he should be in Order in moving the Amendment which he was about to move. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had taken objection to the Amendment because it was incorporating into the Bill the provisions of a certain section of the Act of 1870, and by so doing it might be held to exclude other parts of that Act. But he intended the words as substantive words, and not merely as a reference to the Act of 1870. All agreed that there should be a proper instruction to the Court to preserve the rights of the tenants, with a due consideration of the rights which they had already enjoyed. The words he proposed were deliberately adopted in an analogous case in the Act of 1870.
    Consequential Amendment proposed to the Bill, at the end of the foregoing Consequential Amendment, insert the words—
    "Provided, That the Court shall take into consideration, the time during which such tenant may have enjoyed the advantage of such improvements, also the rent at which such holding has been held, and any benefits which such tenant may have received from his landlord in consideration, expressly, or impliedly, of the improvements so made."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Government could not agree to the proposed words. So far as they laid legitimate ground for consideration, he had already shown that they were included in the words which had. already been admitted. A low rent or other material money benefits given by the landlord in respect of improvements was completely provided for. But there was another Amendment in the words in respect to

    1489
    which they were not prepared to give the same approbation. That was that—
    "The Court shall take into consideration the time during which such tenant may have enjoyed the advantages of such improvements."
    The doctrine accepted at the time of the Land Act of 1870, and which he certainly declined to accept the night before, was the doctrine that the enjoyment by the tenant for a certain time of his own improvements might have reimbursed him for the cost of those improvements, and by a natural process they passed over to the landlord. But that was not the basis upon which they proceeded now, and there was no occasion for it. The tenant's improvements were the tenant's own property, and he would not admit the principle that the time during which he had enjoyed those improvements was any reason for their passing away from him.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the words of the Prime Minister would lead to the inference that in no case under, for example, a building lease should the buildings put up by the lessee come into possession of the landlord. ["No!"] The principle laid down was that the person who took the property at a low rent from the landlord, and erected permanent buildings upon it, should for ever retain those buildings. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No!] He was glad the right hon. Gentleman disavowed that inference. But what was his objection to the words? Why should the tenant, already compensated by the lowness of the rent, be compensated again?
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 277: Majority 130.—(Div. List, No. 373.)
    Page 9, line 42, after the word "title," insert the words "during such statutory term;" and also insert, as a new subsection—
    "(9.) The rent of a holding shall not be reduced in any proceedings under this Act on account of any money or money's worth paid or given by the tenant or his predecessors in title, otherwise than to the landlord, on coming into the holding,"
    —the next Amendment, read a second time.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he should like to know if the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford North cote) intended to move to insert after the word "given," in the
    1490
    new sub-section, the words "during the statutory term."
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he would like to know the view of the Government on the matter.
    MR. GLADSTONE: That the Amendment of the Lords and the right hon. Baronet were both bad.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he would not propose the Amendment unless it would modify the objection of the Government to the Lords' Amendment. He should like to hear the objection to the clause as modified by the Lords.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, they decidedly objected to sub-section 9, because, as the Bill was originally drafted, it was alleged against the Government—although they did not admit it—that they had introduced into the 7th clause expressions which led to the belief that the value of the tenant's interest was to be deducted from the fair rent before the fair rent was fixed. That they always disclaimed—that they were not two parts, but one of an actual whole—and that the principle of deduction was one which ought not to be mentioned in connection with the fixing of fair rent. On that basis the Bill was sent up to the House of Lords. The principle of deduction was now being introduced in the form of positive enactment. The Government denied that any deduction was to be made. They believed that the tenant's interest should be fairly estimated on its own ground under the 1st clause, and the fair rent similarly estimated under the 7th clause. The Amendment would produce a mischievous effect upon the minds of the people of Ireland. It was quite impossible to introduce the notion of deduction. With respect to the Amendment of which Notice had been given on the previous night, he admitted that it took the poison out of the Lords' Amendment, providing, as it did, that rent should not be reduced in respect of the price given by the tenant during the statutory term. Certainly not. The tenant entered on the statutory term subject to a fixed rent, and would make his bargains with his eyes open. But if it were to be enacted that no deduction in respect of the price given by the tenant during the statutory term should be made, the inference would be raised that such deduction was to take place after the term. The Court

    1491
    would be influenced in that direction with that enactment before it. In the interest of the landlord they could not agree to that proposed Amendment of the Lords' Amendment; nor, in the interest of the tenant, could he agree to the Amendment itself.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEadmitted that it was important to consider what inference might be drawn from the words proposed to be introduced. He only proposed to introduce those words—with respect to the price given during the statutory term—in the event of the clause being negatived by the Government. The object was to provide means of showing that the intention of the Lords was not to interfere with the existing rights of tenants in Ulster or elsewhere. The Government might say that the rent and the tenant's interest must be kept separate; but the saying so 50 times in the impressive manner the Prime Minister could say it would not alter the real condition of the case, which was this—that if a man had to give a large price for his holding, then he could only afford a low rent, or vice versâ. The question was, when it came to an adjustment of those two considerations, which was to give way? In introducing the principle of free sale, undoubtedly the competition, or the "land-hunger," would increase, and many would be induced to bid high prices for holdings they desired to get. Having paid that, it would not be possible to pay the rent the farm had hitherto paid; and then came the question, which should give way—the rent or the amount which should be paid for tenant's interest? Was the tenant to be allowed to go to the Court and say the rent was exorbitant because of the high price he paid for his holding? That was a point against which the Lords' Amendment was intended to guard. He admitted that the Amendment of the Lords was susceptible of being misunderstood so as to interfere with the tenant's rights on account of money paid by him. But the object of the Amendment had been clearly expressed by his noble Friend the Marquess of Salisbury, and he thought that it ought to be accepted. It ought to be taken into consideration
    1492
    that the Government were operated on by extrinsic influences—that was, the Land League; and the Amendment contained nothing unjust to the tenant.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it appeared to him that the adoption of the Amendment now before the House was essential if effect was to be given to the declaration of the First Lord of the Treasury, that it was not the purpose of the Bill that the payment by the incoming to the outgoing tenant should interfere with the landlord's rent. The House should remember that it was now giving a direction to the Land Court, which was to be established by the Bill, for the purpose of insuring that the rent to be paid by the incoming tenant should be a fair rent. Now, unless the House declared by some terms equivalent to the purport of this Amendment that the payment or price for the occupation to be paid by the incoming to the outgoing tenant should not be taken into account in assessing that which was to be the fair rent payable to the landlord, all English practice proved that that payment for entry would be a prime element in determining the amount of rent thereafter to be received by the landlord. If, therefore, the First Lord of the Treasury was sincere in his repeated declarations, that those payments on entry should not affect the future rent, it was manifest that he ought to adopt the principle and purport of the Amendment now before the House. He said that not without information and experience, for it was he who moved for and carried the Select Committee on the Agricultural Customs of this country in 1848. He had been for years the lord of manors in this country, and he took a somewhat active part in the debates which preceded the adoption of the Agricultural Holdings Act; and he fearlessly asserted that unless the future fair rent was declared in the Bill to be a matter separate and distinct from the payments which the Bill contemplated as to be necessarily incident to entry upon, or to admission to, Irish holdings, the amount of those payments on entry would inevitably determine the amount of the future rent; whereas, if the amount of the fair rent be declared by the Bill to be a matter—as the First Lord of the Treasury said it ought to be—distinct and apart from those payments, the amount of the future fair rent to be paid by the incoming

    1493
    tenant would limit and determine the amount of compensation, or whatever it might be, to be paid by the incoming to the outgoing tenant on entry upon, or admission to, the holding.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURunderstood that the Leader of the Opposition did not propose to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice last night, so that the House was not discussing the Lords' Amendment as it stood on the Paper. The Prime Minister said if the Amendment were accepted it would be misunderstood in Ireland. In plain words, then, if a clear definition of a principle, which the Government themselves admitted to be a right principle, were put into the Bill, a feeling of disappointment would spread throughout the whole of the Irish tenantry. This was an indication that this Bill was presented in a different colour to the House from what it was presented to the people of Ireland. It was to be a shield of gold on the one side, and of silver on the other. They were told that the Bill would only compel the landlord to do that which the good landlord had already done. The Irish tenants expected much more than that. They expected a substantial slice of the landlord's property. The Government, by their own admission, told them that was so. It was too late to prevent the Bill from violating all the recognized principles of legislation, and too late to prevent the whole of the agricultural property of Ireland from being put in the hands of a triumvirate. It was not too late, however, to prevent the income of Irish landlords from being unjustly reduced by the operation of this clause. This they could, accomplish by adopting the Amendment. If that Amendment should be rejected the Bill would be open to the charge of being a scheme of public plunder.
    MR. CHAPLINsupported the Amendment, not only as one of the most valuable among the Lords' Amendments, but also because it was in accordance with the repeated declarations of Members of the Government. He thought the House ought to accept the Amendment, and he hoped the Government would reconsider their decision. The Prime Minister disclaimed the idea of deducting tenant right from the rent. They had been repeatedly told it was not to be carved out of the rent; but
    1494
    the Prime Minister said he did not admit that in the construction of the Bill. But the Court, under the 7th clause, would be compelled to take into consideration the amount paid to the tenant. It was quite true there was a nominal safeguard placed in the hands of the landlord against the price given for the tenant right being excessive. The Court would be obliged to decide the price on the basis of the price obtainable in the open market. He could not understand how, in justice or good faith, it was possible for the Government to refuse to accept the Amendment. He trusted that it would be sternly adhered to by the House of Lords.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 268; Noes 133: Majority 135.—(Div. List, No. 374.)
    Page 10, line 31, after ("tenancy") insert ("and for a term not exceeding sixty years"), the next Amendment, read a second time.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)advised the House to accept the Amendment, which gave the lessee a run of 60 years.
    MR. HEALYasked the Attorney General for Ireland if he did not think that the future tenant was placed in a worse position by the changes in the clause than the present tenant? He thought the Government should do something to restore the future tenant to his former status.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. PARNELLasked, would he be in Order in moving the following addition to the sub-section referred to in the last Amendment?—
    "Provided that no refusal by the tenant to accept a lease under the provisions of this section from his landlord shall he deemed by the Court to be unreasonable conduct."
    MR. SPEAKERruled that the Amendment could not be put.
    Page 11, line 12, leave out from ("and") to ("considering") in line 14, the next Amendment, disagreed to.
    Page 11, line 29, leave out ("as if no") and insert ("notwithstanding"); line 30, leave out ("had been taken") the two next Amendments, agreed to.
    Page 13, line 13, after ("tenancy") insert—
    "(6.) A tenant compelled to quit his holding during the continuance of a statutory term in his tenancy, in consequence of the breach by the tenant of any statutory condition, shall not be entitled to compensation for disturbance,"
    —the next Amendment, read a second time.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)asked the House to accept the Amendment. The tenant was already precluded from claiming compensation in every case of a serious breach of statutory conditions; and there was, therefore, no harm in accepting the Amendment.
    MR. HEALTsaid, the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland was true, generally; but he did not mention that the acceptance of this Amendment would make more numerous and more stringent the statutory conditions which would render the tenant liable to eviction.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Page 13, line 27, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall,") the next Amendment, agreed to.
    Page 13, lines 31 and 32, leave out ("immediate landlord for the time being") and insert ("landlord being a limited owner,") the next Amendment, read a second time.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)moved to disagree with the Amendment.
    MR. GIBSONthought his right hon. and learned Friend had not represented to the House the unfair position in which several landlords would be placed if some modification was not made in the Bill as it left this House. The clause, as it originally stood, meted out rather rough justice to the landlord, and he could quite understand that the Peers should have made this change. He did not intend to comment at length on the question; but he could not allow the Amendment to be disagreed to without entering his protest.
    MR. MARUMthought that to allow the sub-tenants or occupying tenants to be displaced in the way the Amendment would bring about would be most unsatisfactory.
    Amendment negatived.
    Page 13, line 34, leave out ("next superior") and after ("being") insert ("succeeding to him in estate"), the next Amendment, disagreed to.
    Page 14, after Clause 15, insert Clause B—
    (Provision as to certain claims of pasturage and turbary.)
    "Where the tenant of a holding by virtue of his tenancy exercises over uninclosed land a right of pasturing or turning out cattle or other animals in common with other persons, or exercises a right of cutting and taking turf in common with other persons (which right is in this section referred to as a common right, and which other persons, together with the tenant, are in this section referred to as commoners), then if such holding becomes subject to a statutory term the court may, during the continuance of such term, on the application of the landlord, or of any commoner, by order restrain the tenant from exercising his right of pasture or cutting or taking turf in any manner other than that in which it may be proved to the court that he is, under the circumstances and according to the ordinary usage which has prevailed, with the consent of the landlord, amongst the commoners, reasonably entitled to exercise the same,"
    —the next Amendment, read a second time.
    MR. PARNELLthought the words "on the application of the landlord" might be struck out, and the right restricted to the tenants, who would have the power of arranging their own disputes.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, if there were a number of tenants it was much better for them that the application should be made by the landlord.
    On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the Amendment was amended as follows, and agreed to:—In line 2, after "exercises," insert "in common with other persons;" line 3, after "animals," leave out "in common with other persons;" lines 5 and 6, after "persons," leave out "which right is in this section referred to as a common right, and;" line 14, after "the" insert "express or implied."
    Page 14, line 6, after ("may") insert ("after service of the prescribed notice upon the landlord"); line 8, after ("land") insert ("in a situation to be approved by the landlord, or failing such approval to be determined by the Court"); line 12, after ("act") in-

    1497
    sert ("and notwithstanding such subletting the tenant shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be still in occupation of the holding"), the three next Amendments, read a second time, and agreed to.
    Page 14, line 13, leave out from the word "the," to the end of the Clause, and insert the words—
    "Portion of any holding so let does not exceed half an acre in each case, and that the total number of such lettings of portions of a holding does not exceed one for every twenty-five acres of tillage land contained in the holding,"
    —the next Amendment, read a second time, and disagreed to.
    MR. O'SULLIVANmoved to omit the word "tillage." The retention of the word would make the Amendment ridiculous, as applied to holdings in Ireland. No average farmer tilled 25 acres of land.
    MR. GIBSONasked what would a farmer having only 25 acres of pasture want a labourer's cottage for?
    MR. PARNELLhoped the Government would agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick, or to some substantial modification of the original clause.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member could not move an Amendment in the Bill which had not been touched by the Lords.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, his hon. Friend proposed to move an Amendment to the words which had been kept alive by the rejection of the Lords' Amendment. He asked the Government, following out the precedents which they had adopted all the way through this Bill, not to lay down a hard-and-fast line, and limit the discretion of the Court in this matter. The limitation was too severe. It would be difficult to find 25 acres under tillage even on very large farms. In their case, then, there would be a paucity of labour. It was a mistake to think that labour was not required upon pasture land. It had to be drained, fenced, top-dressed, &c.
    MR. O'SULLIVANproposed to leave out the word "tillage," so that a labourer's cottage might be erected for every 25 acres on a farm.
    Amendment proposed to the words so restored to the Bill in page 14, line 15,
    1498
    to leave out the word "tillage."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'tillage' stand part of the said words so restored to the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)explained that there was no hard-and-fast line laid down here at all. It was to remove the hard-and-fast line that the Lords' Amendment had been rejected. Where there were 26 acres there might be two cottages, if the Court so decided; and in the case of anything under 25 acres—with, say, five acres tillage and the rest pasturage—it would be possible for the Court to authorize one cottage to be built.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, under these circumstances, he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Page 14, line 36, leave out ("said Acts") and insert ("seventh section of the Act of the Session of the tenth and eleventh years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter thirty-two"), the next Amendment, read a second time, and agreed to.
    Page 15, line 15, leave out sub-section 3, the next Amendment, read a second time.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, this was an Amendment which it was impossible for them to accept. It was most important that where these pre-emption s were made, in the exercise of the special privileges of the landlords, there should not be an immediate creation of future tenancies in respect of them. It would tend to disturb that important provision of the Act which aimed at securing a certain period of tranquillity and stability in Ireland without any change at all other than might grow out of the failure on the part of the tenant to fulfil the conditions of his holding.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    LORD JOHN MANNERSthought the tranquillity which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to obtain would be procured by a provision essentially unjust and unfair; and he submitted that tranquillity in Ireland, or anywhere else,

    1499
    produced by such means was not the sort of tranquillity to which the House ought to be a party. The Amendment of the Lords gave vitality and effect to the 1st clause of the Bill, which suggested to the landlord that he should exercise his right of pre-emption. That right was rendered entirely valueless and useless by the words which the Prime Minister proposed to retain, and which the House of Lords asked them to reject. With these words in the Bill the right of pre-emption would be a mere empty formula and a delusion.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 242; Noes 124: Majority 118.—(Div. List, No. 375.)
    And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, Further Consideration of Lords Amendments stood adjourned till To-morrow.
    In reply to Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE,
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid: We propose to proceed with this Bill as the first Order to-morrow. I hope that we may dispose of it at an early hour, and, if so, we shall then proceed with the Navy Estimates. It is intended to propose a Sitting on Saturday, and if this Bill should come back from the Lords we shall propose to proceed with it. The Navy Estimates will not be taken after 9 o'clock.
    House adjourned at Six o'clock.