LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.

HC Deb 01 July 1881 vol 262 cc1874-913

Progress resumed.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

moved, in page 7, line 44, to leave out the word "for" to the second "or," page 8, line 1, in order to insert the word "except," so that the clause would read— Application by the landlord to authorise the resumption of the holding by him except for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments, shall not entertained by the Court. That he believed to have been the decision arrived at before the Committee adjourned.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 44, to leave out the word "for" to the second "or," in page 8, line 1.—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, it would be necessary to insert after "holding" the words "or part thereof." He begged to move the insertion of these words in the Amendment.

Question, "That the words 'or part thereof' be inserted after the word holding,'" put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the Amendment, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. PARNELL

understood that the Government were assenting to this Amendment. Well, he was very sorry that this question about the labourers should so continually be in the Bill, and he regretted it, because he thought it would have facilitated matters very much if the Government had placed their proposed Amendment with regard to the labourer on the Paper. He thought that the power given to the landlords to resume the land of their tenants for the benefit of their labourers was a most objectionable one, and, as he stated earlier in the day, one which was calculated to give rise to conflicts between two classes—the labourers and the tenants—in Ireland. What he would suggest as an alternative would be that power should be given to some independent body—neither landlords nor tenants—to resume land under the provisions of this section, to except land from the statutory term, so that if it was found in one district that there was not sufficient accommodation for the labourers it might be possible to take from the tenant a sufficiency of land for the purpose of providing accommodation; and with that view he handed in to the Chairman, at the close of the Sitting, when he knew that the question of the labourers was to come up again, an Amendment, which he proposed to move at the end of sub-section 7, after the word "Court," to add these words— Subject to the provisions hereinafter enacted in that behalf for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments. The adoption of such a provision would leave it open to the Committee to consider hereafter whether power should be given to the landlords, or some other body, to resume the land under the provisions of this section. The difficulty that he saw in enacting the section without some Amendment was this—that it gave the tenant an absolute statutory term and right in his holding, free from disturbance for any purpose whatever; and if they, without inserting some such provision as that at a future stage of the Bill, decided upon giving some independent body, such as the Commission or the local sanitary authorities of the rural districts, the power of purchasing or resuming possession of land for the benefit of the labourers, it might be held to be a contradiction of the provisions of the sub-section which gave the tenant an absolute right to his holding during the statutory term, free from all interference. He was, by all means, in favour of retaining the power to resume from the tenant whatever land might be found necessary for the benefit of the labourers in any particular district. But he would ask the Committee not to come to a hasty decision as to the authority to be intrusted with this power. By the adoption of the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock they would declare that they gave this power to the landlord. They were not precluded, hereafter in a separate clause, from giving that power to the landlord, if, when the whole subject came to be discussed, and after they had examined alternative schemes, the Committee should decide that it would be best to do so. But they were now in this position—that before they came to the period of the Bill when it was possible to nave such alternative propositions as he had suggested—namely, the placing of the power of resumption in some other independent body out of the hands of the landlords, they bound themselves, before they could examine the merits of the proposal, to this plan of giving the landlords the right of this resumption. Of course, they did not preclude themselves from adopting another proposal; but it was exceedingly objectionable to give this power to the landlords. In the past it had been shown to be a very useless power, for the landlords had not used it. They had not resumed it to any extent; and if they did it now it would be for the purpose of annoying the tenants. They would use the labourer as a separate interest against the tenants, and they would be very likely to create a war of classes. In objecting to the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, he did not object to the power of resuming the land for the labourers; in fact, he was thoroughly in favour of it. But he wished it to be done by some independent tribunal which would be independent of both landlord and tenant, and which would protect the tenant alike from those two classes so far as his little cottage, allotment, and garden went. Let them recollect the nature of the power which they were going to give. At any time the landlord might ask the Court to resume a portion of the ground for the benefit of the labourers in the district; and this resumption might take place under circumstances of great inconvenience to the tenant in a most unusual way. He objected to this Amendment as being, in the present state of the Bill, premature, and as an attempt to settle the labourers' question on wrong lines, which would lead to future dispute between two very important classes in Ireland.

MR. WARTON

observed, that when the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) spoke of this question being brought in prematurely, and relegating it to some future clause, he seemed to have forgotten that under the 4th clause they had already passed a provision in which land would, be resumed for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, and allotments; and when he spoke of another tribunal, an independent tribunal, he had forgotten that they had already selected a tribunal in this Court as provided by the 4th clause. When they had provided for the labourers in such statutory term, why not provide for the present?

MR. ERRINGTON

said, he wished to point out to the Attorney General for Ireland that this very important question arose. The words were very wide, and no direction was given to the Court as to what labourers' resumption was to be made for. Was the resumption made for labourers on the holding alone? Of course, they would be told that the I discretion was left to the Court; but he would particularly impress upon the Government that this was one of the points upon which the Court would require a specific direction as to the meaning of the Committee in the present adoption of that power, because it was quite clear that a landlord might apply for power to resume land on a small holding for the benefit of labourers upon other holdings. It was perfectly possible that it might be a convenient thing for the whole estate, and a very convenient thing for the labourers generally, and it might be a very injurious thing for the tenant of the particular holding. He begged, therefore, to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the intention was that this power of resumption should be generally for the labourers in the district or for the labourers on the estate or upon the neighbouring holding, or—as he thought it ought to be—only upon the particular holding from which the land was proposed to be taken? If that were so the words ought to be inserted, so as to make it applicable only to the labourers of the particular holding.

MR. CARTWRIGHT

remarked, that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had stated that he objected to this particular Amendment, because it would place in the hands of the landlords the power of resuming, at his own option, the land for the benefit of labourers; but that he had no objection to the alternative scheme of intrusting to what he called an impartial tribunal the decision as to the power of exercising such resumption, and that impartial tribunal the called the Commission. Now, the Commission was the Court, and the Court was the very power, according to the sub-section which they were now discussing, which sat in judgment on any application for resumption on the part of the landlord for a piece of land for the labourer's cottage, garden, or allotment. The hon. Member for the City of Cork would see that he had entirely mistaken the conditions of a statutory term and the provisions of the sub-section under consideration.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

observed, that if this power of resumption were handed over to the landlords the Government would find themselves in a very considerable difficulty, because the landlords might not act upon it. The labourers' grievance admittedly existed. The Government felt that it would have to deal with it; and if this power of resuming were confided to the landlords the way of the Government was stopped. The landlords had done nothing heretofore, and he did not believe that they were about to do anything under this measure. He did not understand that the landlord class was evincing any interest in this question. If he really thought that the landlords were about to do this benevolence, and if their new-born zeal was real and sincere, if they were very anxious to improve the position of the labourers of Ireland, he would see no objection to this Amendment. But he saw nothing in their history and nothing in their action heretofore to cause him to believe that they had any such intention; and if they got that power and did not act upon it, he did not see how the Government were going to settle this labourers' question.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he really thought that the hon. Member who had just spoken had taken away any objection to this section in saying that the landlords would not act upon it. If they did not act upon it there could be no resumption, and there would not be any danger arising from it. The hon. Member also seemed to suppose that the Government thought that the labourers' question would be settled by the adpotion of this clause. The Government did not think so at all. He did not imagine that any Gentleman in the Committee had that idea. Was it to be said that in all other statutory tenancies except this there was to be a power to resume for the good of the labourers? The question was whether they should not reserve the same power here. The Committee would be very glad indeed to reserve fixity of tenure for all the other purposes, and it certainly would be wrong to take away from the labourer the opportunity of the landlord doing something for him by resuming the land for that particular purpose. They had been told that it had that power under Section 4; but still it could not be wrong to make this Bill perfect by making it sure that the landlord had his power. The hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) could not object to it, because his argument went to this—that the landlords would not do anything; and if they did nothing there would be no harm done.

MR. MARUM

said, he would direct the attention of the Attorney General for Ireland to this. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had an Amendment to leave out certain words which would include the subject-matter now before them.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had not sufficiently appreciated the main objection of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork. They had quite enough of division between classes already, without adding one more. The effect of this clause would be that it would enable the landlords to exploit the labourers against the tenants. He did not know whether that was the object of the Government. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: No.] Well, if that were not the object, might he ask whether that would be the effect of it? What would the landlord do? The landlord would say—"I want this piece of land. I have so many tenants, and I want so many labourers, and I must have cottages for them. Under this clause I demand that the Court may turn you out in order to put labourers in." The tenants might refuse to obey the Court. What would be the consequence? Between that tenant and all the tenants of the neighbourhood belonging to his class, and having the sympathies of his class, there would arise a feeling of bitterness and hostility. That was the first objection of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The hon. Member (Mr. Cart-wright), who had just returned to the House, had said that the hon. Member for the City of of Cork had laid it down that he would be quite willing to have it dealt with by an impartial authority, and the hon. Member went on to say that it was the Court which was the impartial authority. But his hon. Friend forgot this underlying fact—that the initiative of taking the land from the farmer in order to give it to the labourer rested not with the Court, but with the landlord who set the Court in motion. This made a serious difference in the case. Now, finally, this was his objection to the proposal. After all, the main object—the underlying purpose of this clause—was to give stability of tenure—stability and confidence in the tenant that for a space of 15 years at least he was perfectly secure from any interference on the part of the landlord. The possible interference of the landlord was, in many cases, as bad as the actual interference, and the landlord would have the power to turn out any men who did not do as he wished, and put in their places men who were waiting outside for employment. By giving the landlord this power of interference they destroyed that stability which this clause professed to give. There was plenty of land in Ireland by which the congestion of labour might be relieved for the benefit of the tenant as well as the landlord; but in this as in the other clauses of the Bill the Government shrank from what required earnest labour, and chose a perilous way of escape from the agrarian problem in Ireland. Every clause like this was an additional temptation to seeking for an artificial instead of a natural remedy for the agrarian question. The remedy was to put a large portion of the 2,000,000 of labourers on to improvable land in Ireland. He did not say that was an exhaustive remedy, but it was one of the remedies for the congestion of the agricultural labourers; and if they put on the shoulders of the landlords instead of upon the Commission the duty of putting labour on to the land requiring it, that labour would never be put there. Therefore, he protested against the change made by the Government.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

thought the hon. Member somewhat misconceived the effect and object of the clause. The anticipation of conflict between landlords and tenants was entirely an imaginary danger, so far as this clause was concerned. The landlord had to apply to the Court, assigning some sufficient purpose for resuming possession of a particular holding in relation to the labourers in connection with that particular holding. This was not for the purpose of placing the labourers in any place where they were required, but to provide decent houses for the labourers required on the particular holding. He thought this clause made the Bill uniform. The object of the noble Lord was, while there should be a statutory term securing 15 years absolute enjoyment, undisturbed, that the Court might. yet authorize the landlord to resume the whole or part of it if it was satisfied that he wanted it for some really beneficial purpose connected with the labourers; and it seemed to him, notwithstanding the hon. Member's fear of class warfare, there was not the slightest ground for fear, because it was not intended that the landlord should be placed against the labourer, but simply that the landlord should be able to resume possession for the benefit of the labourer.

MR. M'COAN

said, he heartily approved of the Amendment, because it virtually embodied one which he had placed on the Table some hours earlier. His Amendment proposed to retain the word which the noble Lord would strike out, and simply change "or" for "except." The result was substantially the same; but perhaps it was more neatly arrived at by the noble Lord's Amendment. He thought his proposal would, by some sort of compromise, meet the wishes of both sides of the House, and by which the firmness of the Prime Minister as to interference by the landlord might be maintained, and the newborn philanthropy of the other side of the House fulfilled in regard to the labourers. He therefore supported the Amendment; but to make sure that the concession should not be abused, he would move to add to the clause— Every grant of resumption for such purpose shall be conditional on his giving satisfaction to the Court that the improvement shall be carried out.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

explained that, in order to complete the clause, the words "upon such conditions as the Court thinks fit "were inserted.

MR. M'COAN

said, he was not sure those words would constitute a guarantee from the landlord, and he thought the Court ought to exact a guarantee.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman is at present discussing an Amendment which is not before us.

MR. M'COAN

replied, that he would move his Amendment as a substantive Amendment.

MR. CALLAN

doubted whether the Chief Secretary's mind was clear as to what was necessary and judicious at the present moment. The labourers' question could not be settled in one clause, and he reminded the Government of the advice he had previously given them to draft a special Bill on that question. Under the Act of 1870 a landlord had power to resume l-25th of the holding; but in this Bill there was no limitation, nor was there any restriction on the landlord that if he resumed possession he should only do so for the benefit of the labourers on the particular holding. He might resume for the benefit of the labourers on the estate, and in the case of an improper tenant the landlord might make use of this power to get rid of him. It would be much better to restrict the power to the particular holding for the benefit of the labourers on that holding. The Act of 1870 gave the landlord power to resume possession for the benefit of the labourers; but where had one single landlord resumed possession, paid compensation, and erected labourers' cottages? He did not believe much in the professions on one side or the other, for the zeal among his own countrymen for the interest of the labourer was just as new-born as that of the Tories and the Whigs. He regretted that so much time had been wasted; but more would be wasted unless the Government introduced a separate Bill on the subject.

MR. LAING

said, he understood the words "the labourers" to mean the labourers on the particular holding. He did not think further discussion on the Amendment was necessary, for it would not prevent or interfere with any future general legislation.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

thought any proposal made for the benefit of the Irish labourer deserved sympathy, and he should be slow to reject it; but the Committee were not, he assumed, to anticipate in this discussion the general plan of the Government for dealing with the agricultural labourers presently; and if they were to preserve to the landlord some chance of dealing with the labourers, this did not seem to him the place to do it. The main object, of the Bill was to give a sense of security to the tenant for 15 years after getting a fixed rent; and, undoubtedly, by not restricting the area of resumption in regard to a particular holding they did break in, to some extent, upon that security, and if they accepted the Amendment, they ought to do so in such a way as to diminish as little as possible the security to be offered to the farmer. He would suggest something of this kind. They were going to give security for 15 years, but subject to the danger of resumption. How could the tenant know when during that period resumption might be applied for? But it was not unreasonable to suppose that when the judicial rent was fixed the Judge would be able to see whether it was likely that within some time resumption would be necessary; and he would suggest that when a landlord should have a reservation of this power when the rent was being fixed, and that warning should be given to the tenant. In that way the danger of insecurity to which this clause gave rise would be very much lessened. Fifteen years was not a very long period; but, at all events, the Court could very well look forward seven years; and it was most important to relieve the tenant from the dread of being turned out, which haunted them and prevented them putting their capital into the land. It would not be any hardship to the landlord to require him to ask for a reservation of this power during the 15 years. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), for he thought there was an implied condition that the labourer was working on the holding for which the power was asked. He hoped the Committee would listen to his suggestion.

MR. CALLAN

said, what he had said was that it would be unfair to a tenant to resume possession from him on land for labourers' cottages to be erected elsewhere, and not for the benefit of his holding.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, he feared that when he spoke previously he must have failed to make his meaning clear to the Chief Secretary. His point was this. If the Irish landlords did not use this power of resumption, who was to provide the cottages for the labourers? He was inclined to think the landlords would not use their power, and that would interpose a difficulty in the way of settling this question. The right hon. Gentleman said, if the landlords did not use this power, no harm would be done; but that would be a sort of "Will-o'-the-wisp" to the Irish tenants.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that in the earlier part of the Bill we had before us the question of how far the tenant should be given power to sub-divide and sub-let, in order to have full power to put up cottages for the labourers. It was understood that that power was to be given; but the precise way in which it was to be given should be left to the clause I undertook to bring forward. Now we have the question of how the landlord is to do it. I cannot help thinking that the general feeling is that he should be allowed to do this; and we must remember that, after all, both the landlord and the tenant are interested. The landlord does not lose all duty in regard to the labourer because of this Bill. Our object is that he shall be able to put the labourers in a better position if they are badly housed, and in such a way as not to injure anybody else. We think we have prevented the possibility of that by putting in a clause for the purpose. It appears to me that the hon. Member for Limerick stated a difficulty we might fall into under the noble Lord's Amendment; but I dare say the noble Lord would be quite willing to get his object in any other way. The hon. Gentleman says it would not do to limit the power to any particular holding; and I think he is quite right. I think you could not limit the power to the labourers on a particular holding; but I think that difficulty might be got rid of if we took the Amendment I should have proposed, which was that we should keep in the words the noble Lord proposes to strike out, and then omit the words "or for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments," which would refer the power of resumption to the 4th clause, which would then read with this qualification— Application of the landlord to authorize resumption for some purposes having relation to the good of the holding or estate will not be entertained by the Court. That would put back the landlord, the tenant, and the labourer in the same position under this sub-section as they are under the 4th clause.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

pointed out that if the words "or for the benefit of the labourer in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments" were left out, it was clear that, so far as the improvement of the holding or estate went, the Court could not grant resumption. But by his Amendment there would be no question as to the meaning of the clause, for it expressed the matter positively. It was difficult to say by what rules the Court would be guided; but by his Amendment there would be no doubt that the landlord could not resume except for the benefit of the labourers on the estate. He also suggested that the words "under such conditions as the Court may think fit" should be put in after "allotments," as that would allay the apprehensions that had been created. With regard to the stigma cast upon Irish landlords as to their not using the power to be given them to build cottages, he had been in every county in Ireland, and had seen as good cottages on the estates as could be found on any English estate; and they were built by landlords in Ireland. He had seen four most beautiful cottages on the estate of Mr. Adam, in Queen's County; and he could multiply instances of efforts by landlords to improve their labourers.

MR. GLADSTONE

I will not follow the noble Lord in his general observations, because these generalizations are driving Members into a position, I am afraid, of the utmost inconvenience. On the question before us, it appears to me the argument is perfectly clear. In the first place, I cannot entertain a doubt that although we have precisely the same intention in view—and I hope we may come to some satisfactory conclusion—yet, incidentally, the Amendment of the noble Lord is open to this objection—that whereas under the Amendment there will be constituted a provision in this clause, as there is already a provision in the 4th clause, for the resumption of a holding with a view to the benefit of the labourers, those two provisions would be liable to different rules and interpretations, because in the 4th clause, as it stands, it is perfectly clear that resumption may take place for the good of the holding or estate, or of the labourers; but you will add doubt by the words "providing that the labourers are confined to the holding." It seems to me impossible to confine the resumption to the labourers on the holding, for in that case the labourers would be absolutely at the mercy of the tenant of the holding. On the other hand, with regard to the fear that the landlord might spite a tenant by erecting cottages near a particular place to be occupied by labourers from a distance, that would be a most absurd course for a landlord to pursue, for the great object of the landlord in building cottages must be to bring them as near as possible to the labour which the inhabitants of the cottages have to perform. But if you keep the words of the clause, you have a fair and rational construction as to the labourers. With the Amendment of the noble Lord, the clause would run thus—"For the resumption of the holding, or part thereof, by him for some purpose having relation"—[Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I have left that out.]—"Resumption of the holding except for the benefit of the labourers." Who are the labourers? There is nothing before to which the definition "the labourers" can refer except the holding. It would be a power to resume possession of the holding for the benefit of the labourers. Surely the noble Lord does not suppose we are to pass these powers of resumption subject to different conditions in the two clauses? [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I think it is generic] Generic! Perhaps the noble Lord will introduce the word "generic" into the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman proposed—and now I want to meet the view of the noble Lord—to meet this by omitting the words "or for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, and allotments;" and what he said was that the effect of that would be to throw the Court back on the 4th clause. That would give simplicity. The noble Lord thinks that will create ambiguity; but I think he will perceive that there is no possibility of the most ingenious lawyer or layman—and some of us laymen as lawyers—to insinuate the thin end of a doubt into this, because the clause will then run thus:— When a judicial rent has been fixed the tenancy shall be deemed to be a tenancy subject to statutory conditions, and having the same incidents as a tenancy subject to statutory conditions consequent on an increase of rent by the landlord. What are these incidents? One of the most important, the power of resumption, is completely set out and defined in the 4th clause. Then we come to Clause 5, and say, with this modification— An application for resumption shall not be entertained for any purpose having relation to the good of the holding or estate; so as to leave in full force the provision as to labourers as it stands in the clause. It is a perfectly clear matter.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

thought the right hon. Gentleman was quite right, and he would withdraw the Amendment; but he thought the Prime Minister ought not to be impatient if, when a violent and prolonged attack was made on the Irish landlords, there was one voice capable of defending them.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

was of opinion that the noble Lord had been too hasty in accepting the suggestion of the Government, for he considered the noble Lord's proposal was simpler than that of the Government. He also thought the Prime Minister's criticism had been unfair; and he wished to point out that whereas the clause as amended provided that the Court should not grant a resumption except for the benefit of the labourers, the clause would, if the words of the right hon. Gentleman were adopted, provide that an application for a resumption for the good of the holding, or the estate should not be entertained by the Court. But it was obvious that an application to resume a part of a holding for the purpose of building labourers' cottages was quite as much for the good of the estate as for the benefit of the labourers. The 4th clause said— The Court, upon being satisfied that he is desirous of resuming the holding, or part thereof, for some reasonable or sufficient purpose having relation to the good of the holding, or of the estate, or for the benefit of the labourers," &c. The proposal the Prime Minister was now supporting, instead of stating distinctly that the reasons which would entitle the Court to authorize resumption, only stated what would not entitle the Court to do so. It was a pity there should be a difference upon words which were intended by both sides to carry out the same object; but the words proposed by the noble Lord were accepted by the Attorney General before the Prime Minister entered, and, finding the noble Lord vindicating the landlords from the attacks made upon them, fell upon him violently, as if he had been obstructing the progress of the Bill. He hoped the Attorney General for Ireland would stand by his acceptance of the Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he thought the frame of the clause was such that the Prime Minister made it infinitely more simple. It began by saying that when a judicial rent had been settled, a statutory term should arise with such incidents as under the 4th clause, with this modification—that during the first 15 years there should be no application for a resumption. That, he thought, was infinitely simpler than the proposal of the noble Lord.

MR. MARUM

said, that the resumption mentioned referred back to the subject-matter of the 4th clause, and he thought that the words of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) would create doubt and difficulty.

MR. WARTON

said, the noble Lord's Amendment was clearly accepted by the right hon. Gentleman; but the Prime Minister, accustomed as he was to change his position again and again, sat down on his subordinates and changed his position again. He hoped the noble Lord would not withdraw, as he thought the language of the noble Lord was better than that of the Prime Minister.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

To carry out the arrangement which I think has the general concurrence of the Committee, and the noble Lord having facilitated our going on with Business by withdrawing his Amendment, I will move to strike out from "estate" down to "allotments."

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 1, after the word "estate," to leave out the words "or for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments."—(Mr. W. E. Forster.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. PARNELL

said, he had an Amendment to propose, which he trusted the Government would be able to accept, as affording an indication on their part that the power of granting resumption would be given to some authority for the benefit of the labourers. The clause at present gave the tenant, where a judicial rent had been fixed, security for 15 years; but no power of resumption was given to anybody but landlords in the case of tenancies subject to statutory conditions, and he therefore wished to leave it open to the Committee to give some power of resumption to some other authority by the Amendment he begged to move.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 3, after the word "Court," to insert the words "and shall he deemed to he subject to the provisions in this Act contained, for the benefit of labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments."—(Mr. Parnell.)

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

MR. GLADSTONE

thought it was obvious that the introduction of these words at this point would be inconvenient; but subsequently the Government would introduce words which would meet the point.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he did not altogether understand the line the Government had taken on this labourers' question. It was only a week since the Chief Secretary had withdrawn an Amendment he had placed on the Paper on this question, saying he would bring up another clause. Since then the labourers' question had recurred several times; but still the Government remained silent, and declined to produce their clause, or give the Committee any indication of their policy with respect to the labourers. Under these circumstances, he thought the Committee would be acting prudently if they put in some words of the kind proposed, which did not in the least interfere with the symmetry of the clause, but which pledged the Committee, independently of the Government, to provide that the landlords should do something for the labourers. This was not at all a question of Party; and he urged all parts of the Committee to unite upon it.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

suggested that the noble Lord should get the general concurrence of which he spoke to press upon the Government a certain matter, and then call upon the Government to state exactly what their clause would be. The question was one of the greatest importance; but it could not be brought in at this point.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

thought it would be imprudent for the Committee to accept the Amendment, as it was both inconvenient and injudicious to insert words in this place having relation to a subsequent and highly contentious proposition which was not at present before the Committee.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, he thought the Amendment ought to be adopted, for although he should propose an Amendment for giving power to Boards of Guardians to purchase land for the benefit of labourers, he was not sure he should not be ruled out on Clause 19. He therefore thought the hon. Member had wisely raised the question now, for the Government had not stated whether they were going to propose anything. If the Government would state that on Clause 19, which was a money clause, they would allow the question to be discussed, it might rest now; otherwise it could not be allowed to pass.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

There was rather a curious point raised by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), who seemed to suggest that the words "for some purpose having relation to the good of the holding or the estate" might be held to include the case of the labourers, and that anything that was done for the labourers might be held to be for the good of the holding or the estate. Therefore, if you are excluded by these words from making any provision for the good of the holding, it might be held that you were excluded from doing anything for the good of the labourers. It is very difficult in these cases to know what the legal construction of the words may be; and it does seem to me that it would be only reasonable that we should take care that some words should be in the clause to cover the possible case of the labourers, and the apprehensions of my hon. Friend. Then, with reference to that, it seems to me that the words suggested by the hon. Member for Cork are not at all unreasonable words, although there are, perhaps, two words—"hereinafter contained"—which might be altered. We do not quite know in what clause the provisions will be—whether they will be in some clause we have already passed, or in some future clause. I would suggest that the hon. Member should say "in this Act contained," instead.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

thought the words suggested would not at all carry out the object aimed at, because the sub-section provided that the judicial tenancy should have the same conditions as a statutory tenancy. Then came the qualification that in certain cases the Court should not allow resumption by the landlord. The words "subject to the conditions hereinafter contained," in relation to labourers' cottages, would only operate if there were subsequent conditions with reference to the Court. Whatever might be put in to show that there was to be some limitation as to cottages, the proposed words would not effect that, because they would only have sense if there were some provisions dealing with the landlord's right of resumption.

MR. GREGORY

complained that the Committee had been placed in an awkward position by the conduct of the Government in connection with the Amendment under discussion, of which no Notice had been given, and which they could not fully consider. Some further provision was now required in consequence of the changes that had been made; and, some sort of protection being necessary, the words of the hon. Member for Cork were better than nothing.

MR. CHAPLIN

wished to support the Amendment, with the hope of still extracting some information from the Government. With regard to what the hon. Member for Salford had said, he had not the least doubt that it would be very imprudent, so far as the interests of the Government were concerned, to discuss the Amendment at this part of the Bill; but he had observed that when a question arose which it was in the least awkward for the Government to deal with, it was invariably postponed to some clause at the end of the Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question before the Committee is— Subject to the provisions hereinafter enacted for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments; and that question does not raise the other points to which the hon. Member is referring.

MR. CHAPLIN

explained that he was replying to a remark by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) which the Chairman had admitted as in Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for Salford pointed out the inconvenience of discussing a question which did not include the Question before the Committee. I thought the objection a very proper one, because the question was not before the Committee.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, the hon. Member was discussing the propriety of discussing this subject now; and he himself was pointing out that although it might be imprudent for the Government it would not be imprudent for the Committee. The question was, the propriety of the landlord resuming a holding—

THE CHAIRMAN

That subject is already passed, and we have come to line 3, on which an Amendment has been moved.

MR. CHAPLIN

explained that he was endeavouring to extract from the Government what their provisions were to be; and he asked how it was possible that he could give a vote upon this question, the question raised being the propriety of the landlord resuming subject to certain conditions, without knowing what those provisions were which the Government proposed to enact? It was not right that these questions, which were of vital importance, should be postponed to the end of the Bill, when the Committee were now engaged in discussing what was universally acknowledged to be the pith and cardinal portion of the Bill. His vote upon this and other questions would turn upon the answers the Government gave; and he did not think the Committee had been, treated in a right way

MR. GLADSTONE

The remarks of the hon. Member raise a question of considerable importance—the question of this Committee postponing the consideration of the elementary rules by which the Court is to be guided. He is not at liberty to discuss now the proposals to be made by the Government as to labourers, allotments, and arrears. The hon. Member said we postponed these questions, and then rises and discusses them in whatever order he pleases. I want to know whether we are to discuss all points on this Amendment or take them one after another; and I must tell the hon. Member that in all the time I have sat in this House I do not think I have ever known a single occasion before when it was not the universal practice of a Committee to allow the order of the great topics contained in a Bill to be presented on the responsibility of the framers of the Bill and to take them one by one. To do otherwise would create perfect chaos. I will frankly answer the hon. Member. We will not say, on the present occasion, what we intend to propose with regard to the labourers; and for this reason—he considers it a monstrous proposal that we should not allow him to discuss the questions of arrears and leases all at once. The purpose of this clause is most specific and important. It is that of regulating the conditions of a judicial rent, and in order to have a satisfactory decision upon that we must deal with it apart from the other important portions of the Bill and not allow them to be mixed up. Therefore, it is an absolute duty with us not to enter upon the discussion of our intentions with regard to other portions of the subject, because, if we did, a long debate would immediately arise on the conditions of what we intended to propose, and we should make no progress at all. I heard the hon. Member, the other night, urge, in defiance, as it seemed to me, of the Rules of this House, a declaration which would infallibly impart into the middle of this discussion on the question of judicial rent another most important and difficult question. That is my objection, and it is as well it should be understood that we will not, as far as we are concerned, mix up the question of labourers with the Question now before the Committee.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I rise under some hesitation, because we have had a lecture administered to us beforehand. I do not in the least desire to interrupt the proper order of the consideration of the questions involved in this Bill; but I must call attention to the fact that we are, at the present moment, engaged upon a provision which has been framed by the Government, giving the conditions which are to attach to a case in which a judicial rent has been fixed; and, when a judicial rent has been fixed, we are told, in this sub-section, that it is to be deemed a tenancy subject to statutory conditions. We know all about statutory conditions, for we had them laid down a few nights ago in the 4th clause; but, according to the Bill, the statutory conditions are to be subject to certain modifications—in the case of those tenancies which are subject to judicial rent, certain of the statutory conditions are not to apply, and the conditions which, according to the original frame of the Bill, were not to apply until the power was given for the resumption on the application of the landlord for any purpose having reference to the good of the holding or estate, or for the benefit of the labourers' cottages, gardens, and allotments. That was the original proposal of the Government; but in those cases where the judicial rent was fixed there should be no power of resumption on the part of the landlord for the good of the holding generally, or for the benefit of the labourers. Then, on that, a challenge was given to leave out this prohibition; we proposed to leave out that prohibition, and Government divided. We were told that a prohibition of some sort must be retained. That was done by the Government against the sense of a considerable number in the House; but they expressed themselves as prepared to meet the case of the labourers, and to make exceptions for the purpose. Now, it is desirable that this labourers' question should be considered. I do not wish to say in what part of the House there is the most anxiety to consider the case of the labourers. I am convinced there is that feeling in all parts of the House, and I am certain that we are very anxious to have the case considered, and some nights ago we brought forward an Amendment which we thought would be of some assistance in the matter. However, what has happened is this—the Government have assented to the striking out of the words that prevent the landlord from resuming for the purpose of providing cottages and allotments for the labourers; but, even by striking out these, you do not distinctly affirm that there will be that power of resumption, and the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) has pointed out that if application was made by the landlord for the resumption of the holding, or a part of it, for the purpose, he might be told that it was not for the benefit of the holding or estate, and his application would be excluded. Then the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and others, are of opinion that it is desirable to show sufficiently that it was intended that this limitation of the power of resumption on the part of the landlord should be so qualified that it should not extend to the prevention or embarrassment of any provisions hereafter made in regard to labourers. We do not seek to discuss now what these should be; all we ask is a saving clause that may prevent embarrassment in regard to any future discussion that may be raised. It may or may not be necessary to introduce such an Amendment; it may or may not be necessary to affirm it; and, having distinctly the interests of the labourers in our minds, I do not see any objection to the insertion of the words.

MR. SYNAN

said, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had given in words the meaning which the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had not as yet apprehended—that was, that from the clause the power of the landlord to resume, even for the purpose of building labourers' cottages, was exempted. The hon. Member proposed words to save, what he called, the rights of labourers. What would be the effect of the saving clause? It would mean that the power of the landlord to resume was exempted, subject to the right of resumption in the case of labourers' cottages, and, in point of law, it could not be construed in any other sense; it must be construed in relation to what had gone before—that was, the exemption out of the exemption.

MR. LITTON

said, he. thought the objection of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) was a substantial one, and the present Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would not be in accordance with the views of the Committee in regard to the clause. He suggested that after the word "Court," leaving the words in the clause as they now stood, there should be added words giving the right to apply in respect to the building of cottages, &c. This would confer the right, and relieve the clause from the difficulty the hon. Member for East Sussex mentioned—namely, that the words "for the good of the holding, or estate," might exclude the application in respect to labourers' cottages. If in Order, he would, with the leave of the Committee, and if the hon. Member for the City of Cork did not press his Motion, move such an Amendment.

MR. PARNELL

said, he should be happy to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), and ask leave of the Committee to amend his Amendment in two ways—first, to meet the objection of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, which, he recognized to be a valid one; and, secondly, to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet. He would ask leave of the Committee to amend his Amendment by prefixing to it the words "and shall be deemed to be," then it would read— And shall be deemed to be subject to the provisions in this Act contained for the benefit of the labourers in respect to cottages, gardens, and allotments. That would get over the valid objection of the Solicitor General, and a similar objection raised by the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. Synan). If it was intended to enact anything for the benefit of the labourers, that must be done by some interference with the holding of the tenant. The land was in the possession of landlord and tenant, and they must except so far the interest of the tenant from the operation of the clause by adding something to the statutory conditions as they now stood.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he was willing to accept the suggestion with the modification of the striking out of the words "hereinafter contained." It would not make a material change in the Bill. He had to say that, in his opinion, the words were entirely unnecessary, and that the clause was unequivocal and incapable of two constructions as it stood; but it was much better to introduce two lines of words that were unnecessary than to waste the time of the Committee, provided the words were harmless, and he believed they were quite harmless. Therefore, he proposed to admit the Amendment in this form— Subject, nevertheless, to the provisions in this Act contained for the benefit of labourers in respect to cottages, gardens, and allotments.

MR. PARNELL

said, the objection to his Amendment which he strove to meet came from the Treasury Bench—from the Solicitor General for England—who pointed out that the Amendment as it stood did not meet the object which the great bulk of the Committee had in view. The Prime Minister had agreed to accept the Amendment, and why? Because it did not meet the object in view. Now, he wished to take a division on the Amendment, framed in such a way as would meet that object, leaving the Committee to enact hereafter provisions for the benefit of labourers.

MR. GLADSTONE

observed that, because he differed from the hon. Member for the City of Cork, the latter imputed to him, that which no other would, that his object in accepting the Amendment was to defeat the object the Committee had in view. That was not a method of proceeding agreeable to the courtesies of discussion in Committee, and beyond saying that he would not refer to it. The objection to the Amendment turned upon the words "hereinafter contained." There were words in the Bill hereinbefore contained, which were words relating to labourers and the exercise of the discretion of the Court; therefore, the change in the words completely met the objection of his hon. and learned Friend.

THE CHAIRMAN

So far as 1 read 'hem, the two Amendments given in, that of the hon. Member for Cork and that of the right hon. Gentleman, are identical. I will read them—the first is that of the hon. Member for Cork—thus— And shall be deemed to be subject to the provisions in this Act contained for the benefit of the labourers in respect to cottages, gardens, and allotments. —and the Amendment of the Prime Minister reads— Subject, nevertheless, to the provisions in this Act contained for the benefit of labourers in respect to cottages, gardens, and allotments.

MR. GLADSTONE

remarked, that he had misheard the words of the hon. Gentleman; he was satisfied with them.

THE CHAIRMAN

The most convenient mode will be for the hon. Member to withdraw his first Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he did not think that the words would quite read. They would run thus— The application by the landlord for authority to resume, for some purpose having relation to the good of the holding or estate, should not be entertained by the Court. He did not see how the words "shall be deemed" came in.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, if the hon. Member for the City of Cork altered his Amendment he really pledged the Government to nothing, because the Bill would stand exactly as it was; and if there was nothing in the Act, why, the words "subject to the provisions" were useless. But if he retained the words "hereinafter contained," that pledged the Government to introduce a clause in the most distinct and specific manner to deal with the subject. He would point out to the hon. Member for the City of Cork that he had no security whatever that the Government were going to bring up a clause to deal with the labourers of Ireland which ought to be at all sufficient for the Committee; but if they inserted "hereinafter" they exacted a pledge from the Government that such a clause would be brought up. He would ask the hon. Member for the City of Cork to keep to his original words and take a division on them, and, if defeated, let him get the next best thing, the words suggested by the Government.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, there was some inconvenience in settling the drafting of a Bill in a large Committee, for it was difficult to keep everything under view. But it did seem to him that his noble Friend was in error in thinking that the matter would be improved by retaining the words "hereinafter contained," instead of "in this Act contained," because it was intended to make this power subject to provisions that were to be contained in the Act in some particular clause having reference to labourers; and it might be found convenient to introduce this into any clause before Clause 7, or even in Clause 7, and in that case the words "hereinafter contained" would not apply; whereas, if the other words were introduced, they would be generally applicable to anything in the Act. All that was important was to take care that the mere striking out of the words did not leave the prohibition to the land-land to resume for the purpose intended. There had been a pledge given that the Government would take up the subject, and if the Government failed to redeem that pledge—and he had no reason to suppose they would—then some other Member of the Committee, no doubt, would take it up. But he thought the Committee would hamper and confine themselves by inserting the word "hereinafter," which involved a question of drafting now beyond the power of the Committee.

MR. PARNELL

said, he did not wish to pledge the Government positively to deal with this question of labourers; but he wished to leave it open to them to do so. The Amendment which he asked leave to put to the Committee would carry out that object; and he thought the Attorney General for Ireland had not properly read the clause as he would always like to read it, as a lawyer. Taking the last lines of the clause, it would read thus— Such present tenancies shall be deemed to be tenancies subject to the statutory conditions and having the same incidents as tenancies subject to the statutory conditions consequent upon an increase of rent by the landlord; and then came in the exceptions, and his words would follow the words he proposed.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he understood that the Government were distinctly pledged to deal with the subject, and any words which would so bind the Government as to be satisfactory to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) would be impossible. He hoped the hon. Member for the City of Cork would be guided by the advice of the right hon. Member for North Devon, and accept the general words that implied that the question of the labourers would be dealt with in some way or other.

SIR RICHARD WALLACE

said, the Government had assented to the proposal that the landlord should have power to resume for the purpose of building labourers' cottages, and, no doubt, all were deeply interested in the question of the labourers; but they must not forget that there were other things absolutely necessary on an estate; and he hoped the Government would consider the proposal to include in these powers of resumption land for the purpose of building schools, churches, and hospitals.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 3, after the word "Court," to insert the words "and shall be deemed to be subject to the provisions in this Act contained, for the benefit of labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments."—(Mr. Parnell.)

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

MR. GLADSTONE

submitted that it was a rule that the persons in charge of a Bill were responsible for the drafting, and surely it was not right for a Member to oppose the Government on the question of general language. To the substance of the Amendment he did not object; but he could not accept the form of it, and should endeavour to negative it and substitute the words which had been suggested by his right hon. and learned Friend.

MR. PARNELL

said, he had not the slightest intention of casting any imputation on the motive of the Prime Minister, and he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would see the unfairness of imputing to him any such intention. He thought nothing but the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was such an old Member of the House, and he was a very young Member, would entitle him to use the language he had used. He said no other Member would impute such an intention to the Government. As to the suggestion of the Attorney General for Ireland, he was perfectly willing to accept it.

THE CHAIRMAN

The words which I now have to propose are— Subject, nevertheless, to the provisions in this Act contained for the benefit of labourers in respect to cottages, gardens, and allotments. Does the hon. Member wish to amend that?

MR. PARNELL

I have accepted the suggestion of the Attorney General for Ireland, and I move to prefix the words "such present tenancies shall."

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, To leave out the first word "and," in order to insert the words "but such present tenancy,"—(Mr. Farnell,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the word 'and' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."

MR. CHAPLIN

asked, did not the Government intend to make any reply to the appeal of the hon. Member for Lisburn (Sir Richard Wallace)—a more natural or fitting appeal he never heard. This was a clause by which the landlord would be deprived of his property for years, practically for ever; and the Government, before the question was put to the vote, should make some reply, and show that they intended to include in the landlord's power of resumption the means of doing an act of real charity. The hon. Member raised the question whether the Government would not make some provision in the Bill by which, in cases where the tenancy is let for a statutory term, the landlord might be enabled to resume part of a holding for the purpose of providing land for a church, a school, a hospital, or a convalescent home.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not in Order. That is a subject not now before the Committee.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, in view of that decision, and to put himself in Order on a question that appeared to him of vital importance, he would move that the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. He would not for one moment take this step except on a matter of vital importance. He did not know how or where he was guilty of a trespass on the Order of the Committee, when the question was raised by an hon. Member to whom the Chairman took no exception whatever; nor did he understand how, if the present Amendment should be accepted, the question could be raised again. He was quite sure the Prime Minister would admit that the purposes for which the hon. Member for Lisburn made his appeal were admirable in every respect. They were going to take away the landlord's property for a period of years, it might be for ever; and yet would not allow some provision in the Bill by which a landlord might carry out his laudable intention.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Chaplin.)

MR. GLADSTONE

remarked, that he felt bound to say that, although it might be beyond his power to prevent or check the spontaneous exercise of the discretion of the hon. Member opposite in entering into matters which were irrelevant to the point at issue—[Mr. CHAPLIN: I did not introduce it.] The point before the Committee was that the hon. Member had moved that the Chairman report Progress, and that was a Motion which he had not power to prevent or check. But he had the power of declining to concur in a practice which, in his opinion, was destructive of the order that should regulate the proceedings of that House. He hoped the hon. Member would excuse him if he declined to say a single word; but as the question had been raised by the hon. Member for Lisburn (Sir Richard Wallace), he might say that he knew no person who was better entitled to make an appeal to the Government on the Land Question than that hon. Member. He was quite convinced that if it had not been for the circumstances in which they found themselves they might have told the hon. Member in what way they intended to deal with the subject before the Committee. But he must respectfully say that this was not the place where they could entertain that question. It related to resumption generally, and the place for it was where they were dealing with resumption generally. Certainly, an Amendment might be raised in this way for the purposes of discussion; but he was quite clear that the principle was certainly connected with the conditions of resumption, and that the place for considering it would be when, upon the Report, they came again to be on the 4th clause. He did not wish to dismiss the question; but this was not the proper place to discuss it.

SIR HENRY TYLER

said, that the right hon. Gentleman promised at an Earlier stage to introduce words similar to those of the hon. Member for Lisburn.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, that his object was simply to elicit some answer from the right hon. Gentleman to the appeal made by the hon. Member for Lisburn. He did not desire to delay the progress of the Committee in that House; and when the right hon. Gentleman accused him of introducing a subject in a disorderly manner, the right hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, permit him to remind him that the subject was not introduced by him (Mr. Chaplin), but by another Member of the House, and that he (Mr. Chaplin) was not in the slightest degree disorderly. His Motion was accepted by the Chairman; and, with deference to the Prime Minister, he declined to accept his interpretation.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that having accepted the words of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he should adhere to those words, and consider them before the Report.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

asked if he might intervene for a moment to smooth a single point of difference, as to which he believed the Prime Minister would have no justifiable cause of complaint? Might he respectfully point out that, in the opinions of people in that House and those outside of it, it would really look as if the Government begrudged the hon. Member for the City of Cork the credit of having moved this Amendment? ["No, no!"] The meaning of that cry was that hon. Gentlemen believed that that was not the motive; but he might say that he did not agree with them on that point. He appealed to Her Majesty's Government to agree to this Amendment, which was their own. It might be that he misconceived the intentions of the Government, and if he did, he apologized for that; but as there was no substantial difference between the Amendment of his hon. Friend and that of the Government, he thought it quite right and fit that the Government should accept some Amendments from his side of the House.

MR. GLADSTONE

thought the hon. and learned Member had misconceived the course the Government was pursuing. The accepting of Amendments from the opposite side was exactly the thing the Government was doing. He was accepting the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), with the modification suggested by the hon. Member for Lisburn (Sir Richard Wallace). He was accepting Amendments from below the Gangway, with modifications from above the Gangway, such modifications having been accepted by those below the Gangway.

MR. PARNELL

observed, that the Prime Minister objected to accept the Amendment which he (Mr. Parnell) moved. The Attorney General for Ireland took exception to some expressions which he used. He should be very unwilling to have any such expressions interfere with the better shape of the present Amendment and the more intelligible reading of it; and he would unhesitatingly say that he unreservedly withdrew the expressions he used, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman took exception.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member desire to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment?

MR. PARNELL

No; I referred to the expressions.

Question put, "That the word 'and' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 305; Noes 53: Majority 252.—(Div. List, No. 283.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. GORST

moved an Amendment to insert, after the word "cottages," the words "schools, churches, and hospitals." This, he thought, would enable the Government to fulfil their intention of making provision in that direction.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to insert, after, the word "cottages," the words "schools, churches, and hospitals."—(Mr. Gorst.)

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

MR. GLADSTONE

explained, that the proper place for considering a question of this bind with respect to the extension of the principle of resumption was on that part of the Bill which mainly and principally dealt with the causes of resumption—that was the 4th clause. He must, therefore, ask the hon. and learned Member to withdraw the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member now proposed to bring in a new subject, and to bring it in in this place; and it was a subject upon which the Govern-had already given the Committee, on a former day, an intimation of their view. Under the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman thought it reasonable and fair to make a speech, and to administer a severe rebuke to a portion of the Committee, because they thought the course he had adopted unusual. He was bound, by his respect for the structure of the Bill, to resist this proposition.

MR. CHAPLIN

understood the right hon. Gentleman to object to the proposal on the ground that it was not introduced in the proper place. But the matter was one that might very easily be disposed of. The right hon. Gentleman said he had already given an intimation of a disposition to accept the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman would only undertake to embody the Amendment in the Bill before the Bill left the House, no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press the Amendment. But there ought to be a distinct understanding that the Government would accept, unconditionally, the views of the hon. and learned Member in reference to the erection of schools, churches, and hospitals.

MR. GLADSTONE

I have nothing to add to the intimation I have already given.

SIR HERVEY BRUCE

said, the right hon. Gentleman had already given an intimation of his willingness to accept such a proposal before the Bill left the House.

MR. GORST

thought the Government would really find it necessary to put in words of this kind in this place. If they really meant, as he had no doubt they did, to fulfil their promise, and put in such words in the 4th clause on Report, their insertion in the present place would be an earnest and a proof of their intention, and would, in fact, pledge them to carry out that intention on the Report.

MR. GLADSTONE

I am very much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who says he must have "an earnest and a proof," in order to enable him to believe what I say.

MAJOR NOLAN

thought the point was an important one, but did not think it was dealt with in the right way at present. There was a notable case in his own county—in the Diocese of Clonfert, where, owing to objections made by the landlord, the building of two churches had been stopped. Now that a partnership was to be established between landlord and tenant, it would be well if power were given to some central body in Dublin to hear and to deal with such matters.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I entirely sympathize with my hon. Friend the Member for Lisburn (Sir Richard Wallace) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), with regard to the object they have in view. I think it important and desirable that we should make some provision for the introduction of words which may provide for resumption for these purposes; but I very much doubt whether, at the present moment, we should not rather embarrass the question by pressing this particular Amendment.

MR. GORST,

in deference to the opinion just expressed by the right hon. Baronet, was willing to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. GLADSTONE

I consider it my absolute duty to object to the withdrawal of the Amendment, after what has been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman, unless he gives a more explicit explanation in reference to the words he used.

MR. GORST

said, he did not wish to he misunderstood by the right hon. Gentleman—ho was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not do it wilfully—but he (Mr. Gorst) had been obliged to speak very quickly and briefly because of the interruptions of the right hon. Gentleman's followers. If he were allowed by the Committee to explain his meaning at the same length as the right hon. Gentleman himself could do, he should not so frequently fall under the misconception of the right lion. Gentleman. But he would say as explicitly and as frankly as he could that if the words he had used were such as to imply that he had the least doubt in the world as to the right hon. Gentleman keeping every promise or pledge he made to the Committee, he (Mr. Gorst) begged most unreservedly to withdraw any such insinuation; for, however imperfectly he might have expressed himself, nothing could have been further from his thoughts than that.

MR. T. COLLINS

hoped the Committee would allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, because they all wanted to get on with the Bill, and to make progress with it, and no progress would be made if its withdrawal was refused.

Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question proposed, That the words 'and shall be deemed to he subject to the provisions in this Act contained for the benefit of labourers in respect of cottages, gardens, or allotments,' be there inserted.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

If we negative these words, will it be possible to insert the Amendment of the Government, which begins with the words "subject to?"

THE CHAIRMAN

They are essentially different in the preliminaries. But when another Amendment comes to be proposed it will then be competent to consider it.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 273: Majority 207.—(Div. List, No. 284.)

MR. GLADSTONE

I now propose the words, with the connecting words necessary to make them follow.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 3, after the word "Court," to insert the words "Subject nevertheless to the provisions in this Act contained for the benefit of the labourers in respect of cottage gardens, or allotments."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

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

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

wished to raise a point of Order, and it was extremely important that they should have a clear and definite ruling upon it, because he understood it was a Rule of the Committee that another Amendment could not be moved exactly in the same sense as an Amendment already negatived. The Amendment which had just been negatived by a very largo majority was exactly in the sense of the one now proposed, and the Prime Minister was really asking the Committee solemnly to reverse its decision. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] It was perfectly useless for the right hon. Gentleman to shake his head, for this was a matter of fact and not of opinion. He submitted with deference that the Amendment could not be put, and that the intentions of the Committee on which they were perfectly unanimous had been defeated by the action of the Government.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he thought the present Amendment was not out of Order, because it really dealt with another subject-matter. The subject-matter of the previous Amendment was "tenancy;" the subject-matter of the present Amendment was the "modifications" contained in the last part of the clause with reference to the Court not entertaining the application on certain subjects.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

That is not grammar; it does not read. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): The matter of grammar or reading is wholly different from the point of Order.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, the simple fact appeared to be that when the Prime Minister moved an Amendment all the Rules of the Committee were to be set aside. He wished to point out that the Solicitor General had suggested that the Rules of Order had been or should be set aside on the present occasion.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, the noble Lord was mistaken, as he had not made any such suggestion.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, if this was so, it must surely be unnecessary to make the Amendment which had been proposed. The words "subject to the provisions in this Act contained" had no reference to the modifications which had been mentioned; and he maintained that the Solicitor General had made out no case for the Amendment, either on the grounds of Order or of grammar.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that as far as the question of grammar was concerned, the words "subject to" did not refer to the tenancy or the modifications, but to the whole of the preceding sentence.

MR. GORST,

speaking on the point of Order, said it seemed to him that the positions taken by the Solicitor General in the first instance, and the Prime Minister in the second, were altogether different. The position of the Solicitor General was an extremely ingenious one. It was that this Amendment was in Order, because a former one applied to tenancies, and this one to modifications. The position was, however, changed by the Prime Minister, according to whose dictum the Court, in construing the clause as amended, would apply it equally to matters covered by both Amendments.

MR. WARTON

said, he wanted, in regard to this point of Order, to show to the Committee the ludicrous position in which it was placed. The first form of the Amendment, as it was moved by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), was in these words— Such tenancies shall be deemed to be subject to the conditions in this Act contained, for the benefit of labourers, in the shape of cottages, gardens, and allotments.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. and learned Member was out of Order in that he was not speaking to the immediate point of Order.

MR. WARTON

said, that the observations he was making when he was interrupted by the Chairman were leading up to the immediate point of Order; but as the Committee seemed to be growing somewhat impatient he would not pursue the matter further.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he thought the Committee was indebted to the noble Lord for drawing attention to the close similarity between the two Amendments. It was a very important point—indeed, it was the invariable rule of the Committee that no vote should be taken upon an Amendment which was substantially the same as one that had already been negatived; and if he believed that the Amendment now before the Committee was substantially the same as the one which had been negatived, he should rule that the present one could not be put. But, as he understood it, there was a material difference between the two proposals; and he should, therefore, rule that the Amendment now before the Committee could be put.

Question put, and agreed to.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, the Amendment he was about to propose would not take long, as he was inclined to believe, after what took place on the previous night, that the Prime Minister would accept it in principle if not in terms; in which case he would withdraw his proposal, leaving it to the Prime Minister to deal with the matter at a later stage of the Bill. As the Committee would doubtless remember, the question of sub-tenants was mentioned on the previous night, and that the Premier then informed the Committee that the matter in question would come before the Committee under Section 7; but on looking into the Bill it struck him that if the case of a sub-tenant came before the Court, the Court would say that it could not adjudicate upon the matter, because they would be compelled to give to the sub-tenant a statutory term of 15 years, whereas the tenant, from whom the sub-lessee took the property, was only a tenant from year to year. He therefore moved, after sub-section 7, to insert the words— On the occasion of an application to the Court by a tenant or an occupier holding under another tenant, the statutory term granted to him by this Act shall be co-existent with the statutory term of his immediate landlord; and in case the original tenant has not obtained a statutory term, then the term assigned to the subtenant shall be for 15 years, or such less period as the immediate landlord shall continue in the occupancy of the holding.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he had no hesitation in saying that the Govern- ment accepted the principle of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment, and for one reason, because it was a principle which had been followed throughout the Bill, to a greater extent than the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to have perceived. There were in Ireland tenants with widely differing tenures, and in no case could the Government begin with the men at the top of the hierarchy of tenants. The tenant actually in occupancy was the only person to whom a statutory term could be given. He might be called a tenant as far as the landlord was concerned; but not in the view of the Court. He had no difficulty in saying that his right hon. Friend would deal with this matter in the view shadowed forth by the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

CAPTAIN AYLMER,

in asking leave to withdraw his Amendment, after the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, said, he hoped the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, in dealing with the matter, would not lose sight of the fact that sub-tenants in Ireland were practically unknown to the real landlords, who were, therefore, unable to exclude the middlemen whom they did not recognize.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PELL,

in moving that Progress be reported, said, the Government had accepted the principle of a long and important Amendment put in in manuscript, which hon. Members had not enjoyed an opportunity of considering.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Pell.)

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he was extremely sorry the hon. Member had thought it necessary to make the Motion he had laid before the Committee, because he had hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin would have been able to-night to make the proposal which stood in his name, so that it might be in the minds of hon. Members for consideration before the Committee was resumed. He could not, therefore, assent to the Motion.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, it was generally understood that the Motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin would take some time; and, therefore, he thought the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) was a very reasonable one.

MR. GLADSTONE

repeated, that he was very sorry he could not assent to the Motion. He was very sensible of the fact that a severe tax was being put upon the physical energies of those hon. Members who were in full physical strength and vigour; but, at the same time, as a most sacred protest against any attempt to limit the time which the Committee was willing to give to the progress of this Bill, he must take a division on the Motion to report Progress.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, there was a disposition on the part of the Committee to facilitate the progress of this Bill; but he could not help thinking that, at the present moment, they had arrived at a stage when the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Pell) was not at all unreasonable. He did not say that on his own behalf, but on behalf of Members of the Government themselves, who had been on the stretch for so many hours, and also for the sake of other Members of the House, who had been so long in continuous attendance. The Government had taken possession of the whole of the time of the House for that Bill, and a very considerable strain was entailed on the House by taking the same measure at both the Morning and the Evening Sittings. He ventured to express an opinion, based upon experience, that the Government was likely to make greater progress by not pressing the House too far.

MR. PELL

said, he could not admit that his proposal to report Progress was unreasonable; and, therefore, he must ask the Committee to divide upon it. It must be obvious that if an enormous strain was to be put upon the physical strength of the Chairman of Committees, the Business of Parliament could not be conducted as efficiently as it ought to be. He certainly did not think anything could be gained by proceeding at that late hour (12.55) with a long and important Amendment which was not on the Paper, and concerning which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had made an important statement.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 164: Majority 88.—(Div. List, No. 285.)

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.