INTERVENTION OF COURT.

HC Deb 04 July 1881 vol 262 cc1971-2053

Clause 7 (Determination by Court of rent of present tenancies).

MR. MARUM

said, he had given Notice of his intention to move an Amendment, in the 8th sub-section, after the words authorizing the Court to disallow an application, in respect of a tenancy where it was satisfied that the holding had been maintained and improved by the landlord, to insert words enacting that the application so disallowed should be an application "so far as compensation for improvements" was concerned. He had intended to move this Amendment on Friday; but he found that, in consequence of a manuscript Amendment, brought forward by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), he was precluded and shut out from moving it. He wished to make this explanation in order to account for his not having proposed the Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member forgets that if manuscript Amend- ments handed to the Chair perplex hon. Members, they ten times more perplex the Chair. I first called upon the right hon. and learned Member to move his Amendment, and I then asked him to sit down in order that other Amendments might be used. The Amendment of the hon. Member was omitted by mistake; and he is, therefore, in possession of the Committee. But had he moved the Amendment, I should have ruled that it was irregular, as a decision had already been come to on the point.

MR. PLUNKET

moved to amend sub-section 8 of the clause so that it should read as follows:— Where an application is made to the Court under this section in respect of any tenancy, the Court may, if it think fit, disallow such application where the Court is satisfied that on the holding in which such tenancy subsists the permanent improvements have been made by the landlord. The Amendment commenced by the introduction of the word "on" before the words "the holding; "and he desired to state to the Committee the grounds on which he asked them to accept the Amendment. The object of this sub-section was to exempt from the operation of Clause 7 the determination by the Court of rents for holdings hitherto maintained and improved by the landlord. The object of the clause was fairly stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister on the introduction of the Bill, when he said— In cases where what is called the 'English system' prevails, or, as we define it, where the holding has been' maintained and improved by the landlord, we have thought that justice demands that the landlord should not be brought into a new and exceptional state of things which really has no application to the relation which subsists between him and the tenant."—[3 Hansard, cclx. 910–911.] The Prime Minister explained clearly and adequately what was to be found subsequently in the Bill; and the only reason why he (Mr. Plunket) offered the Amendment was that he feared the language in which it was drawn would not carry out the true policy of the Government in introducing the clause. The object of the clause was to carry out the intentions of the Government in regard to farms which were conducted on the English system where the permanent improvements were made by the landlords. It was intended to exclude such estates from the operation of the clause. It was altogether a different proposal from that which was brought forward upon the 1st clause by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage). The object of the hon. Member was to exempt from that clause all estates managed on the English system. The words of the present section were that the Court, if it thought fit, might disallow the application where it was satisfied that the holding in which such tenancy subsisted had been theretofore maintained and improved by the landlord. Now, he ventured to submit that it was not a clear expression to say that the holding had been maintained by the landlord, although the improvements might have been. The present Amendment was merely a verbal one. If the words of the clause were retained, as they stood at present, they would practically exclude every estate, because if they were interpreted, as he had no doubt they would be, to exclude estates where the improvements, although entirely created by the landlord, had been in any degree maintained by the tenant, it would be found, not only in Ireland, but even with regard to the best managed estates in England and Scotland, that the practice, although in some cases it varied, was for the landlord to provide all the fixed capital, and for the tenant to provide all the labour or working capital. In the case of Engish estates the custom varied in different parts of the country. In some instances, the holding was put into good order by the landlord, and the tenant was left entirely to keep it up; in other parts of the Kingdom it was the practice for the landlord to pay a certain contribution towards the expense of the improvements, such as providing bricks and slates, timber, and so forth. He doubted whether it would be found that in any part of England the improvements were made by the landlord exclusively and maintained by him. The only object of his Amendment was to prevent the virtual defeat of the intention of the Government; and he believed that if the clause, as it stood, was rigidly enforced, the landlord would, in almost every instance, be deprived of the benefit of this sub-section. In support of the view he took he would quote the opinion of a well-known landlord in Ireland. [An hon. MEMBER: Who?] He referred to Mr. Mahoney of Dromore, who said— Since I bought up my estate not a drain has been made by the tenant and not a slate placed on a building. Not a yard of sub-soiling has been done by the tenant; but I have adopted the system of making all the improvements myself, and I have charged interest upon the outlay on the occupier. Where an estate had been managed upon that principle the present subsection of the 7th clause ought certainly to apply, and he believed that the same custom would be found to prevail in many parts of Ireland. The Amendment, in his opinion, would simply have the effect of carrying out fully what the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had already expressed to be the intention of the Government.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 6, after "that," insert "on."—(Mr. Plunket.)

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

MR. MARUM

desired, as he had given Notice of an Amendment on the same subject, to say a word. He had intended to propose the rejection of the sub-section altogether, because he looked upon it as prejudicing the rights of the occupiers, and it was upon the rights of the occupiers that the structure of the Bill very much depended. At all the conferences and meetings which had been held throughout Ireland in connection with the Land Question the claim had been universally made on behalf of the tenant that he had a claim for something more than disturbance; and the late Mr. Isaac Butt, who was not only a sound lawyer but a great political economist, drew up a Resolution which embodied the views which the tenant farmers of Ireland had entertained for a long series of years. At the National Conference Mr. Butt drafted a Resolution to this effect. That tenant right was not a right to compensation for disturbance merely, but the direct right of the tenant to remain in the possession of his improvements and to sell the value of the occupation of the holding, so that when the occupation of the holding was inherited there was also a right to sell the tenant's interest in the holding. The next matter, and one of the foundations of the rights of occupancy, although he by no means admitted that it was the entire foundation, was the right to reclaim unimproved land. In the Devon Commission it was incontestably proved that unimproved land was commonly sold in the Province of Ulster for from 5 up to 10 years' purchase, and improvements resting on reclamation did constitute a considerable groundwork of the rights of occupation. Therefore, in direct conflict with the Amendment now proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), he had given Notice of an Amendment to insert words in the sub-section enacting that the Court should be satisfied that the holding had been reclaimed from its aboriginal condition, and had theretofore been maintained and improved by the landlord. The point he wished to bring before the Committee was that reclamation was a wholesome improvement, and was, in point of fact, the pith which ran throughout the Land Act. The fourth exception, which distinctly applied to permanent buildings and reclamation, as contra-distinguished from mere improvements, ought also to be included. In another portion of the Land Act, to which the Attorney General had turned his attention—namely, the sub-section of the 4th clause relating to leases where improvements were not specifically excluded by lease, the reclamation of the soil still survived. Thus there was a clear distinction provided in the Land Act between reclamation and improvement; and he thought it only fair that he should call upon the Government to include the word "reclamation "in the clause, so that if the tenant was in a position to call for the intervention of the Court by the 7th clause he should not be shut out from the right of making a claim for reclamation. He did not think that this was an unreasonable demand. He had intended to move the rejection of the subsection on the ground that it dealt improperly with the rights of occupancy; but if the Government would accept his Amendment, saving reclamation, he should be satisfied. He therefore trusted that Her Majesty's Government and the Committee would take into consideration both propositions at the same time.

MR. SYNAN

said, he did not exactly understand what the Amendment was that was before the Committee. Was it the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket)?

THE CHAIRMAN

It so happens that the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin is divided into two parts, and the Amendment of the hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. Marum) comes between the two essential parts. Therefore, I could not, with propriety, stop the hon. Member when he rose to explain his object in placing his Amendment upon the Paper. The Amendment immediately before the Committee is that of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin that the word "on" be inserted after the word "that."

MR. SYNAN

said, he hoped that the Government would adhere to the words of the sub-section. The Amendment moved in the 1st clause by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) was to exclude from the operation of the Bill all estates in Ireland which were managed on the English system. ["No, no!"] He gathered from the Bill that that was so where the improvements were made and maintained by the landlord. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) now took a step further, and wanted to exclude from the operation of the clause all holdings on which the improvements had been made by the landlord, so that if the improvements were kept up and maintained by the tenant, and although the maintenance had cost even more than the original improvements, the tenant would be altogether shut out from the operation of the clause. The argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that any improvement or maintenance by the landlord, if it had only cost 6d., should exclude the tenant from the benefit of the clause. He apprehended that the claim of the landlord for having maintained and improved the holding would be a fair claim for the Court to consider and decide; but the point left to the Court to consider should be whether the improvements had been substantially made, and substantially maintained, by the landlord. He therefore hoped that Her Majesty's Government would adhere to the words as they stood in the sub-section. On some estates in the part of the country with which he was acquainted the improvements were made by the landlord; but in no cases were improvements made by the landlord and maintained by the landlord. In some instances which he was acquainted with the improvements were made by the landlord, and paid for by the tenant at the rate of 5 per cent, which, in his opinion, was a very good investment of the capital of the landlord. But, in the great majority of cases, the improvements were entirely made at the expense of the tenant and maintained at his expense. He sincerely trusted that the Government would not give way in regard to this Amendment.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

agreed with the hon. Member that no fair-minded man would object to the Court being called upon to fix a fair rental; and he understood that the object of the clause was to enable the tenant to have recourse to the Court in order to obtain the fixing of a fair rental as between himself and his land-lord. He had heard it stated, over and over again, that there was no objection to such a course; and, therefore, could not see why the Court should not have power to take into consideration all the circumstances that bore upon the matter. He certainly failed to perceive what object could be gained by adopting the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend. The only question with which the clause dealt was the question what was a fair rent, and the Court was not only open to consider that question, but was bound to do so. He therefore hoped the Government would adhere to the words of the subsection, and would not yield to the Amendment.

MR. GLADSTONE

I am not able to assent to the views of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) that the words which he now proposes would make the intention of the Government at all more clear. He quoted a passage from my statement in introducing the Bill in which I referred to a case where the holding had been maintained and improved by the landlord. Now, the Amendment, taken as a whole, brings in the words "permanent improvements;" but, much more important, it leaves out entirely the maintenance of those improvements, and excludes it altogether from the action of the Court. Now, how does the matter stand? The intervention of a public authority to check arbitrary changes of rent has been recommended by the majority of the Richmond Commission, by the whole of the Bessborough Commission, and likewise by the minority of the Richmond Commission. I admit it is true that the majority of the Richmond Commission have not used the word "Court," but they have mentioned "public authority;" and the words "public authority" are used in connection with checking arbitrary changes of rent. That is the most favourable interpretation, and the most limited interpretation, that can be put on the recommendation of the majority of the Richmond Commission. I am bound to admit that none of these authorities have recommended any limitation whatever to the intervention of the Court, or the public authority—for example, the minority of the Richmond Commission have said that all the rights of the landlord, in respect to what he has done, ought to be most jealously guarded. But the Government have guarded them. We have provided, or are endeavouring to provide, as fully and as largely as possible, for the whole of the interests of the landlord in whatever improvements he has made. Now, however, the proposition is made materially to enlarge the exception that has been brought into the Bill, and which goes beyond all that the Reports of the Commissions have said in favour of the landlord, and in regard to which we feel it our duty to be very jealous at present. It has become our duty, in our opinion, to prevent its extension, since we had a discussion on a kindred subject on the 1st clause, because, undoubtedly, it did appear that there was an idea in the Committee that whenever it could be shown that the landlord had been liberal in the management of his estates, and in the investment of his capital, it exempted him from the action of the Court. That was never in the mind of the Government. What was meant to be conveyed in Lord Fitzwilliam's case was, that there had been a perfectly just action between the landlord and tenant, and all that we can undertake to do is to protect the landlord's interest in his improvements; but as to taking him out of the Court, I am bound to say we can do nothing further than we propose to do, where the improvements have only been trivial and slight. We can only take him out of the Court in cases where very substantial improvements have been made by him, and where such improvements have been maintained by him, and not by the tenant; therefore, we cannot agree to the Amendment.

MR. GREGORY

said, the question was, what was it that the Court was to be satisfied of as the clause stood? Was it to be satisfied that the landlord had not only made the improvements, but had substantially maintained them? He ventured to think that the maintenance of improvements by the landlord was a thing altogether unusual in this country. The custom in England, generally speaking, was, that when a farm was taken by a tenant it was put in order by the landlord, and there was an implied liability on the part of the tenant to maintain it in good condition as long as the tenancy subsisted. The extent of this liability might vary according to the custom of a particular part of the country, and something might depend upon the fact whether the tenant was under an agreement, or was a mere tenant-at-will. In the latter case, he would not have a permanent interest, and would not be liable for fair wear and tear; but where he was under lease or agreement it was the universal practice to insert a covenant on his part, throwing upon him the duty of maintaining the improvements. In some parts of the country with which he was acquainted the tenant was allowed the materials, and a certain portion of the labour was found; but he believed that in his part of the country the custom was there in favour of the tenant than in most of the districts of England, where the whole of the labour, as a rule, fell upon the tenant. The question was whether the system should be introduced into Ireland, or whether they were to make a hard-and-fast line that the landlord was not only to create the improvements, but that the tenant was to be absolved from all liability in respect of maintaining them.

MR. GIBSON

said, the Prime Minister had stated very reasonably that he was desirous of preventing any extension of the clause; but he was sure the right hon. Gentleman did not wish for a moment to prevent the clause from being rendered quite plain and clear, so that it might be a real clause giving the protection to the landlord which it was intended to give him. The object of his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Plunket) in moving the Amendment was to make the object the section purported to give real, and not a mockery, and to mitigate or obviate future litigation. The words of the clause, in their present form, would be either nugatory or would invite litigation. As it stood, the clause said that the Court might disallow the application where it was satisfied that the holding had hitherto been maintained and improved by the tenant. What was the meaning of that expression? Did it mean that the landlord created all the substantial improvements, and that he maintained them to a substantial extent, and that the tenant did nothing in the shape of maintenance? Did it mean that the landlord had not only to make such improvements, but that the tenant must have done nothing to assist in the maintenance of them? This, he ventured to think, might be a very reasonable construction which the Court might put upon the words, and, if so, it would make the clause absolutely worthless and nugatory. He would put this case. Suppose the landlord put up all the permanent buildings, that he had built the house, that he had erected all the outbuildings, that he had laid down a sound system of drainage for the entire farm, and that the tenant had done something, although it was no very substantial matter, in addition. Perhaps he might have made a very small addition to the house, trivial both in value and dimensions; or he might have done something by the way of opening the drain into a better fall, also trivial in extent and expense. In that case, could it be said that the landlord had done all the improvements and maintenance, when the tenant, as a matter of fact, had made some very trivial improvement in addition to what the landlord had done? For instance, would it be said that the landlord had not maintained, if the tenant had done anything by the way of putting paint upon the house, or in keeping the eyes of the sewers open, and that the landlord, therefore, had lost the protection of this clause? If that was the meaning of the Government, he had no doubt that they would say so at once. But there was nothing whatever in the clause to limit it, or to suggest to the Court that they should put that construction upon it. He hoped, if the Government were not prepared to accept the very words proposed by his right hon. and learned Friend, that they would be willing to introduce some words to show what the real meaning of the sub-section was, and to provide that its protection should not be lost to the landlord in consequence of any matter in connection with the maintenance of improvements which the Court might hold not to have really derogated from the substantial action of the landlord himself.

MR. CHAPLIN

remarked, that after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in introducing the Bill he was disappointed when he came to see this sub-section, and still more disappointed at the refusal of the Government to accept the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend. The words of the right hon. Gentleman, on the introduction of the Bill, were— I cases where what is called 'the English system' prevails, or, as we define it, where the holding has been maintained and improved by the landlord, we have thought that justice demands that the landlord should not be brought into a new and exceptional state of things which really has no application to the relation which subsists between him and the tenant."—[3 Hansard, cclx., 910–11.] That meant, of course, that such estates should not be brought within the operations of the Court. The paragraph itself involved a serious contradiction of terms, because he did not understand that it was the English system that prevailed, and that estates and improvements were maintained by the landlord. In point of fact, it was a contrary state of things that prevailed. What was generally done in England was this. The landlord made improvements, and put everything into a good state; and, as a general rule, the tenant was bound by the terms of his agreement to keep them in a good state of repair. Therefore, he took it that that paragraph involved a contradiction of terms. But if the section was ever intended to exempt English-managed estates from the operation of the clause, they ought to have a more distinct definition than they had yet had of what the word "maintenance" meant. Did it mean that every single repair was to be done and kept up by the landlord? And was that qualification rendered necessary by subsection 8, because a tenant built a single pig-stye, or put up any small building on the estate? He hoped the Commit- tee would get something further from the Government; and, unless they did, he thought they would have good grounds for believing that they had been singularly misled, although it might not have been intentional.

COLONEL COLTHURST

said, his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Plunket), in moving the Amendment, quoted a case in which be stated that the clause as it was at present drafted would work harshly. In the case mentioned by his right hon. and learned Friend, no doubt a large sum of money was invested in the improvement of the estate; but he believed that the money was obtained from the Government, and that provision was made for paying it off by means of a sinking fund, at 6½ per cent. The clause as at present worded might work hardly in certain cases; but it would not injure landlords whose improvements had been paid for by money borrowed in that way. The borrowed money would, in point of fact, be repaid by the tenant; and when the term had expired, how could it be said that the money had been expended by the landlord?

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

desired to say a word, mainly in consequence of what had just fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Colthurst). He quite agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend in the distinction he had drawn between the cases of landlords spending money out of their own pockets and laying out money borrowed from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and repaid by means of a sinking fund. But, in justice to the case alluded to by his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Plunket), he had reasons to believe that a large portion of the money in that instance was not borrowed from the State, but was money provided by the landlord himself. Where the landlord spent money of his own, unless it could be shown that he charged a sum which covered not only the ordinary interest upon that money, but a sinking fund for the repayment of the original loan, they had no right to treat it as his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Colthurst) did. It would be for the Court, he apprehended, to enter into every case upon its merits. But what he wanted to say had reference to what fell from the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). He was exceed- ingly anxious not to make any charge against Her Majesty's Government of having at all misled the Committee, either voluntarily or involuntarily. He thought it desirable that they should keep to the discussion free from any allusion of that kind, because he felt certain that it could not have been the intention of any Member of Her Majesty's Government to mislead the Committee. At the same time, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in making his speech on the introduction of the Bill, had been a little misunderstood. The right hon. Gentleman was quite correct when he said that where the major expenditure was made by the landlord there was to be an exemption from the Bill. [Mr. GLADSTONE: A substantial expenditure.] He had no doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman's words were carefully read it could be shown that they necessarily covered that meaning; but it was based on a different belief that his hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) the other night brought forward his Amendment on the 1st clause. That Amendment was a proposal that in cases where a substantial expenditure had been made by the landlord there should be an exemption from the Bill, because exemption from free sale carried with it exemption from the rest of the Bill. His hon. Friend used the same words as were used in the present case, in the belief that they meant that where substantial improvements were made by the landlord under Clause 7, there was to be an exemption from the powers of that Court. They now found that the legal interpretation of the words meant something a good deal less than that. Personally, he did not think it would much signify whether they kept the sub-section in the clause or not. He very much doubted whether in Ireland they would find many cases where the holding, after having been made by the landlord, had been entirely kept up by him. He was inclined to doubt whether they would find it to be the case in England or Scotland either. He believed that the words would exclude every holding kept up under a lease where the tenant was bound to maintain the holding in what was called in England tenantable repair. Acting upon the lines he had previously suggested of simplifying the Bill, he honestly confessed that if they excluded English-managed estates from the purview of the Court, he did not think that any very great effect would be produced by the clause. He really did not think that the sub-section was of very great value; but he should go into the Lobby with the Government whatever their decision might be. As a matter of fact, he believed that if the Government decided to omit that sub-section the result would be the same.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I do not think there need be any occasion for a division if the Prime Minister will agree to keep the word which he used in his speech, or, at all events, which he has accepted within the last few minutes—I mean the word "substantial." If we are to understand that the sub-section is to be applicable to the case in which the landlord substantially makes the improvements, that would be easily expressed by inserting the word "substantially" in the 7th line before the word "maintained." It must be borne in mind that a large proportion of the case made for exceptional legislation in Ireland rests upon this—that it is the practice in Ireland, although it is not usual in England, for the tenant to make the improvements; and, therefore, where a case arises in which the landlord makes the improvements the case is altered, and must be provided for. A great deal has been said about a distinction between cases where the landlord makes the improvements out of money he has borrowed instead of the money being his own; but it ought to be borne in mind that if the landlord makes the improvements out of money which he has borrowed, it is he who is really chargeable with the interest and responsible for repayment; and, suppose that an alteration takes place in the value of his property, by which the rental is largely reduced, he may find it very difficult to meet the burden which he has undertaken in carrying out the original improvements, in the belief that the rental would remain the same. Unless, therefore, the Bill makes some provision to relieve a landlord in that position, we must treat the case of the landlord who has borrowed money very much as if he had laid out money of his own for these purposes. Under these circumstances, I think, in the present instance, it would be a convenient arrangement to introduce the word "substantially," and that the introduction of that word would meet the justice of the case.

MR. SHAW

remarked, that, in his opinion, no harm would be done if the sub-section were omitted entirely. But if the Government did not desire to omit it, he decidedly objected to the insertion of the word "substantially" as an introduction to the word "improve;" but he did not think there would be any objection to its insertion if it were used only to qualify "maintained." The section would then read—"Where the improvements have been made by the landlord and substantially maintained." At the same time, he did not think the section, even amended in that way, would either do much good or any great amount of harm.

MR. LITTON

objected to the insertion of the word "substantially," because it might be regarded as an indication or cue to the Court that it was to consider whether the nature of the improvements effected and maintained by the tenant were to such an extent as to give him a substantial interest in the holding. He thought it would be sufficient to show, after the improvements had been first made, that they had been efficiently maintained so as to make the rent paid a fair rent, and an application to the Court would not be necessary for anything short of that. He, therefore, saw no reason why the word "substantially" should be inserted in the section.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he understood from hon. Members opposite that they would use the word "substantially" to qualify the maintenance, but not the making, of the improvements. That would certainly be an improvement of the section as it now stood; but it would not obviate the objection which was made on that side of the House in more than one quarter, that the tenant might escape from the operation of the clause by making some small and unimportant improvement upon the farm. For instance, he might erect a substantial pigstye, and by that means escape altogether; and, therefore, it was thought necessary that the word "substantial" should be introduced, and that it should be introduced not only to qualify the maintenance of the improvements, but the making of the improvements themselves.

MR. GLADSTONE

I am willing to accept an Amendment in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw). I do not agree that the words as they stand would cover improvements made by the tenant of an unsubstantial character. Undoubtedly, the meaning of the section is, that the improvements made by the landlord should be substantial and appreciable; and also, in regard to the maintenance, that it should be a substantial maintenance. I believe that that is a common and well understood phrase, and that it is absolutely necessary for the tenant to maintain the holding substantially. We agree to put in the words "by the landlord and not by the tenant." The section would then read thus— Where the Court is satisfied that the holding in which such tenancy subsists the improvements have been made and substantially maintained by the landlord and not by the tenant.

MR. PLUNKET

said, that, as far as the words proposed by the Prime Minister went, they would not affect the earlier part of the clause—that was to say, that the improvements should have been substantially made by the landlord. He would accept the words suggested rather than put the Committee to the inconvenience of a division, which, he supposed, he would not have much chance of carrying. But he reserved to himself the right afterwards of raising the question if he considered it necessary. The Amendment he had moved for the insertion of the word "on" after the word "that" was merely a verbal one.

Amendment (Mr. Plunket) agreed to.

MR. MARUM

said, this sub-section was of an exceptional character, and ought to have been placed amongst the exceptions in the 46th and 47th clauses. He contended that, no holding in Ireland ought to be excepted from the operation of the Act, and therefore proposed to add, in page 8, line 7, after the word "subsists," the words "has been reclaimed from its aboriginal condition and."

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that the proposed Amendment would not make sense, the word "on" having been adopted by the Committee.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 7, leave out "has," and insert "the per- manent improvements have."—(Mr. Plunket.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. PARNELL

said, the Amendment he proposed to move would give the tenant the benefit of the improvements he was entitled to claim under the Act of 1870.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 7, after "theretofore," insert "during the tenancy of the tenant and his predecessors in title."—(Mr. Parnell.)

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

MR. GLADSTONE

was disposed to adopt the Amendment.

MR. GIBSON

said, he hoped the Government would consider carefully the effect of this Amendment, which was rather adroitly introduced by the hon. Member for Cork. It would place the landlord under the obligation to going back in respect of the improvements infinitely beyond any that had been proposed in previous land legislation, or in this Bill as it originally stood. The Bill said the improvements on the holding should have been theretofore maintained and made by the landlord; but the hon. Member for Cork proposed to introduce words to say that the improvements must have been made and maintained on the holding during the entire term of the tenant and his predecessors in title, thereby going back to the farthest limit possible; but which, in fact, amounted to no limit or qualification at all. Some limit, however, must be imposed. If the Amendment were adopted, the landlord (Mr. Mahony) whose case had been referred to, and who came into possession in 1851, would be deprived of the benefit of the clause, although he had spent every penny which had been expended in improvements during the last 30 years. Then, again, there were tenancies which dated as far back as the year 1810, and the time of the Union. Surely it was not intended that the landlords of those estates should be ousted. Under the Act of 1870, there was a provision that improvements should not be credited to the tenant that had been made for 20 years before the passing of that Act. But this Amendment struck at the root of that principle, and would compel the landlord, even if the tenancy had been in existence 200 years, to show that he had made and substantially maintained the improvements through, that long duration of time. The Amendment was absurd on the face of it, and could not stand the test of examination. If it was intended to give landlords who made and effected the improvements on their estates the benefit of this sub-section, it was absolutely necessary that some reasonable and definite limit should be placed on the time to which those improvements were to date back.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

pointed out that the word "theretofore," already in the clause, included all time which had gone before. In the case of the landlord, who dated from 1851, suppose that he had effected improvements since that time, and that they were of small value as compared with the improvements made by the tenant prior to that time, and that the tenant's improvements still survived, why should the tenant not have the benefit of the clause? The Amendment appeared to him perfectly reasonable. Where a particular tenancy was under consideration of the Court, the question should naturally be—what had happened during the continuance of that tenancy? The only limit that could be put was the limit of the tenancy.

MR. GIBSON

said, he could not vote for this Amendment if the case he had referred to was to come within it. His right hon. and learned Friend had not touched that point at all. He thought that it was a matter which might fairly be left to the Court to say what would be the reasonable periods during which the expenditure should have been made before the passing of the Act; and, therefore, he proposed to add to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) the words "for the prescribed period."

MR. CHAPLIN

pointed out that the Prime Minister could not have intended the Court to be guided absolutely by the word "theretofore," or he would not have said "we change this where the English system prevails;" had he so intended, he would have used the word "prevailed." The Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork would render the sub-section completely worthless. How could a landlord contradict the statement of a tenant that improvements on the holding had been made by the tenant's predecessors in title 100 years ago? But unless he was able to do so, as he (Mr. Chaplin) understood it, the landlord would not get the benefit of the sub-section. The Amendment, if accepted, would, therefore, be the means of defeating that provision by which the Committee had been informed that it was the intention of the Government to except English-managed estates from the provisions of the Bill.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

pointed out that there were many estates on which, both the landlord and tenant effected improvements. It appeared to him if a tenant had reclaimed land 40 years ago, or built a house, and if the holding had been in his possession, or that of his successors in title ever since, and if the improvements still subsisted, that it would not be right to bring that holding within the operation of this sub-section, because, notwithstanding that the landlord might have effected some improvements, it would not be in the position of a farm managed on the English or Scotch system, under which everything was done by the landlord. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork.

MR. PLUNKET

said, he hoped the Government would not agree to the Amendment. He contended that all estates which were conducted on English principles—where,for instance, the houses and buildings had been made by the landlord and substantially maintained by him—that such estates should have the benefit of this sub-section. The Irish landlord who did that ought not to be placed in a worse position than other Irish landlords, because he had acted in the same way as his brethren on this side of the Channel.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, the clause had nothing to do with the sale of tenant right—it simply had reference to the fixing of a fair rent. If the landlord had erected a substantial building, and had lately expended money on the farm, he would naturally be entitled to a higher rent than a landlord who had not done so; and that he would get from the Commission. On the other hand, there was hardly a farm in Ireland on which some substantial reclamation from the waste had not been made by the tenant. The sub-section seemed to him of no real importance, and he should not be sorry to see it struck out, because, without it, the landlord would always get credit for what he had done.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, he could not understand the opposition on the part of the landlords which had been offered to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork, inasmuch as that Amendment was rather in favour of the landlord than otherwise. The effect of the sub-section was to enable the Court to disallow the application of the tenant for a reduction of rent in case the Court was satisfied that the holding in which the tenancy subsisted had "theretofore," that is for all past time, been maintained and improved by the landlord. The Amendment of his hon. Friend proposed to limit the application of the term "theretofore," by adding the words "during the tenancy of the tenant and his predecessors in title." If the Amendment were accepted, the liability of the landlord would only be in respect of improvements effected by the tenant himself, or persons who had held under his lease.

MR. PARNELL

said, that if the acceptance of the Amendment by the Government was likely to lead to prolonged discussion on Amendments from the Front Opposition Bench, he should wish to place himself in the hands of the Committee. He would rather withdraw this Amendment than that time should be wasted in further discussion.

MR. GLADSTONE

I think that the word "theretofore" is a phrase which gives no particular limit to the antecedent time during which the improvement had been made and maintained by the landlord. The hon. Member for Cork is disposed to get rid of that indefinite period, and to found that antecedent action of the landlord upon something like principle; and I think there is something like a principle in the hon. Member's proposal, because it means wherever this thing has been done by the landlord during the time in which there has been a continuity of interest in the tenure. I think that is a just and rational basis for our action; and, although I should be sorry to place any obstacle in the way of the hon. Member if he wishes to withdraw, I rather hope that the Amendment will be adhered to.

The word "theretofore" omitted.

The words during the tenancy of the tenant and his predecessors in title" substituted.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 7, at the end of the foregoing Amendment to insert the words "for the prescribed period."—(Mr. Gibson.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

regretted that this Amendment could not be accepted.

MR. GIBSON

said, in that case, he regretted to be obliged to put the Committee to the trouble of a division, because he believed that, with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork, the sub-section would not be worth the paper on which it was written.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 175: Majority 65.—(Div. List, No. 286.)

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 8, after "landlord," insert "and not by the tenant."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. GIBSON

, in moving the next Amendment, said, one of the main reasons for introducing this Bill was the allegation, so frequently made in the Irish Press and on Irish platforms, that landowners in Ireland, in abuse of their position, had taken advantage of the Act of 1870 to raise their rents. It had also been mentioned from time to time, in important speeches made in that House, that the landlords of Ireland had, to a large extent, raised their rents since 1870. He did not intend to go into that question; but he said it was reasonable that when no such course had been taken by the landlord of raising the rent since the Act of 1870, the Court should have power to refuse to entertain the application of the tenant. Wishing, as he did, to prevent litigation under the Act, he proposed to insert the words he had placed on the Paper.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 8, after "landlord," insert "or that the rent of such tenancy is not higher than it was at the passing of the Land Act of 1870."—(Mr. Gibson.)

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

MR. GLADSTONE

I cannot agree to this Amendment. There is no doubt that the fact of the rent not having been raised during a certain period of time might be considered by the Court; but it is quite plain to my mind that if we are to go back to any period it should not be the date of the passing of the Land Act of 1870, but the date of the Encumbered Estates Act.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he did not understand the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. So far as he understood the Amendment, it would only affect estates managed on the English system. ["No, no!"] Well, if that were not so, the mistake was his. He was strongly in favour of the Amendment, especially after they had fixed the statutory term of 15 years in the interest of the tenant. There had been some very grave statements made as to the Act of 1870, to the effect that since that Act tenant's rents had been raised throughout Ireland. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) shook his head; but statements of that kind had been made, and had been very extensively commented upon in the Press and elsewhere. He thought that landlords who had dealt honestly with their tenants, and had not altered their rents for 15 or 20 years, deserved some consideration; and he ventured to say that there was nothing in the Bill, as it at present stood, to enable the Court to extend the deserved consideration to those landlords. The Prime Minister would lose nothing by accepting the Amendment. The question was a serious one, and had been raised by his right hon. and learned Friend at the proper time.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

said, the right hon. and learned Member who brought forward this Amendment had not made allowance for the fact that a rent fixed in 1870 might not have been a fair rent. If he could have established, at the outset, that the rents fixed in 1870 were fair, there would have been some ground for the proposition; but he had not done so. Such a thing could not be established; in fact, on all hands it was strenuously denied. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, by his Amendment, seemed to consider that the Bill would only have effect now; but, as a matter of fact, in all probability it would be in operation for many years to come. There was to be a statutory term of 15 years; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman wished that to be ignored by the Court, if they thought fit, and he desired to enable it to refuse an application to have the rent fixed, and thereby, perhaps, to compel a tenant to pay an unfair rent because a certain rent-was paid in 1870. He concurred in the hope that litigation would be decreased as much as possible; but he thought they might rest assured that where the rent was anything like a fair one, the tenant would not take a course which would lay him open to the risk of having an increase added to his rent.

MR. GIBSON

asked the permission of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment. There was some force in what had been said by the Prime Minister, that the Amendment might be taken as a restraint upon the discretion. He would bring up a proposal less open to objection on Report.

MR. MARUM

pointed out that fluctuations in the price of agricultural produce would produce fluctuations in the amount of rent. Variations in the price of produce could not be controlled by an Act of Parliament, and it must be borne in mind that it was owing to the altered condition of things in consequence of the reduction in the price of produce, and the unfavourable seasons of the past three or four years, that had brought about the present agitation in Ireland, and rendered this Bill necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GIBSON

said, the next Amendment in his name had reference to the procedure of the Court, and it seemed to him that it ought to be readily accepted by the Government. As the hon. and learned Member for Antrim (Mr. Macnaghten) had pointed out on the second reading, this Amendment would prevent a gross injustice. Under the Bill, as at present drafted, it would not be possible to compel the tenant to run the chance of what the decision would be, for, if he saw the case was going against him, he might say—"I shall retire; I do not want your decision." A man might apply to the Court hoping that it would reduce his rent; but after hearing the evidence, and considering the circumstances of the case, the Court might refuse to reduce the rent, or, even looking upon it in an altogether different light, it might put some small increase upon the rent. The Bill, as at present drafted, would not prevent a tenant, when he found which way the Court was going, and that he had no chance of succeeding, quietly withdrawing from the matter. Therefore, as he had said, the Amendment sought to prevent a gross injustice.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert as a new sub-section, "(9.) When an application is made to the Court under this section in respect of any tenancy, such application shall not be withdrawn except after prescribed notice, and by leave of the Court upon cause shown."—(Mr. Gibson.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the Amendment related to that which was purely a matter of procedure, and he thought it would be well to intrust the Court with the regulation of such matters. It was for the Court to decide whether it would allow an application to be withdrawn or not, and unless they were going into the minutiæ of the practice of the Court, they had much better reject the Amendment and leave the case as it stood.

MR. GIBSON

said, he would not withdraw the Amendment, for the reason there was nothing whatever in the clauses later on to suggest to the Court what their line of action should be.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

said, the Amendment would have a much wider scope than merely meeting the case, the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested.

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, there were some cases in which it would be impossible for the tenant to withdraw. Let them take, for instance, the case of a landlord having been put to the greatest inconvenience and expense in the preparation of a case and the bringing up witnesses. At the very last moment, the tenant might neglect to put in an appearance, or, having gone into the Court and having heard other and similar cases decided, fearing that the Court would rule in favour of the landlord, refuse to go on. All the expense and trouble to which the landlord had been put would have occurred for nothing. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would press his Amendment to a division.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

thought that the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were conclusive in favour of the Amendment. It should be borne in mind that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), who was one of the most competent lawyers in the House, was clearly of opinion that the Amendment should be agreed to.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he thought the Amendment was one that would be productive of mischief, as it would interfere with those cases in which a landlord might consent to allow a case to be withdrawn.

MR. GIVAN

said, that if the tenant withdrew from the proceedings he would, at any rate, be made to pay the costs; but if they did not allow him to withdraw, it would be most dangerous for any tenant to commence proceedings.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 127: Majority 75.—(Div. List, No. 287.)

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he wished to move an Amendment that stood in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Sir John Holker). Estates under the Landed Estates Court were in a different position to ordinary estates, and arrangements were made under the Landed Estates Court, the object of which had been to attract capital into Ireland, and a considerable number of new works had taken place in connection with that Court. On many of the estates the rent might have been increased; but, at the same time, he knew for a fact that there were many landlords who put their estates in the Court and afterwards bought them out again, the rents remaining the same. He could mention one case in which he was certain that no rent had been raised—namely, the case of the estates of Lord Portarlington. The rents on his Lordship's property were the same as they were on the day he succeeded to the property. If there were cases of that nature in which the object of the new purchase had been to improve the condition of the people, and not to make speculation of the matter, he thought the estates had a Parliamentary guarantee, and, therefore, there ought to be some exception made with regard to them.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the foregoing Amendment to insert the words "or in the case of a tenancy comprised in an estate purchased in the Landed Estates Court, that the rent of such tenancy has not been increased since the date of such purchase."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

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

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he could not agree to the Amendment; but he would suggest that the noble Lord should bring forward the proposal, in the shape of a new clause on Report. It seemed to him they would be better able to consider the matter on Report than at present.

MR. GIBSON

said, the Amendment which had been moved by the noble Lord, in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Sir John Holker) dealt with what was to be the position of estates which acquired a statutory title by purchasing in the Landed Estates Court. An entirely new and vastly important topic was opened, and the tenants would often be told that the rents were under value. It was not right that such tenants should be put in precisely the same position as those who had not acquired similar rights, and the Amendment only required that the attention of the Court should be directed to the difference in position of those purchasers from the others.

MR. GLADSTONE

I do not think the question is one for the discretion of the Court; but it is one of the highest and most difficult subjects with which the Legislature can deal. The guarantee of the State is perfectly clear; it is a guarantee of title and not of rents.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, that the guarantee was this, so far as the action of Parliament was concerned, that the value of the estate should not be interfered with. The Prime Minister thought it a waste of time to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that there were many estates in Ireland that had been bought in the Landed Estates Court; but he (Lord Randolph Churchill) did not think it was a waste of time. It was not a waste of time if it had only the effect of showing that while a Radical Government was in power the guarantees of Parliament were worth absolutely nothing.

MR. GIVAN

said, he did not suppose anyone intended to argue that the guarantee under the Landed Estates Court was a title to a certain amount of rent; in his experience no such thing had ever been urged before, and he was surprised to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) arguing in that way. The Landed Estates Court guaranteed the title of the landlord—it gave an indefeasible title of the landlord interest in the holding to the purchaser. It gave over the tenants, with all the incidents of their tenancies to the purchaser; but the tenants were not affected in their rights by the transfer from one landlord to another. They merely passed over, retaining their tenancies as they were before, and their claim to be protected from excessive rents was untouched. If the Amendment were accepted, as the Prime Minister had said, purchasers in the Landed Estates Court last year or the year before, if they had not raised their rents, would not come under the operation of the Act at all. Really, the Amendment was too absurd to demand the serious argument or consideration of the Committee; and he could hardly see, except for captious purposes, how the question could be raised.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said that Parliament never heard of guaranteed rents. No one asked him to guarantee rents; that was not the question at all; all that they asked was that the Government should not interfere with rents depending on property, the title to which had been sold by themselves. What was the position of the Government? It was this—they had sold property of which they admitted they had guaranteed the title. What was the value of guaranteed estates? That depended, of course, on the rents; and the argument of the right hon. Gentleman amounted to this—"We have guaranteed you a title, and we must not interfere with the title; but we have perfect liberty, though we have guaranteed you the title, to reduce the rents to-morrow." Surely such an argument was never used before. He would call attention to a statement made by the Liberal Lord Chancellor. He had said— It cannot be denied that it would be contrary to the special guarantee, as well as to general principle, if you destroyed in one Session titles on the faith of which you have induced purchasers to invest their capital. These were the sentiments of the Lord Chancellor of the present Government; and yet the Prime Minister had the assurance to get up and say that he had perfect liberty to reduce the rents if he pleased.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

said, there seemed to be a great amount of misapprehension in the mind of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) on this subject. He had spoken of the State selling these properties; but that was a mistake. What the Landed Estates Court Act did was this—it facilitated, at the instance of mortgagees, the right they had at law to realize the mortgage securities, plus this, that it enabled owners of encumbered estates voluntarily to go into Court and, by means of which the Court approved, to sell those estates. The Court was enabled to give a perfect guarantee of indefeasible title—but indefeasible title to what, in what respect did the purchase—except as to the indefeasibility of the title—in the Landed Estates Court differ from any other purchase? It was said, in announcing these sales, that "the rent was so and so, but that they were capable of being increased." Was not that done in the case of private estates? In what respect was the purchaser in a different position as to rental to the purchaser of a private estate through private means? In both cases it was a common thing to say that the rents might be increased; and, as Judge Longfield had pointed out, everyone who bought in the Encumbered Estates Court took the risk of any subsequent legislation that the Legislature thought it for the good of the community to pass. He would point out that the arguments used on this Amendment went very far and were very wide. The question was not one of giving the Court authority; but they ought to assert boldly their claims, if they had any, and not leave them to the discretion of the Court.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

, said, it seemed a strange thing that Parliament could say, where the rents had been' fixed, that they would bring in a Bill to have the rents reduced. Estates bought under the Encumbered Estates Court Act were practically given by the State; but they were told now that the tenant was to have an interest in the land, and that matter would come under the notice of the Court. He maintained that the title that was given was reduced under the Bill. Those who purchased in the Encumbered Estates Court were now made aware of many things which they bought in ignorance. The tenant's interest in the soil and the statutory term had since sprung into existence.

MR. ARTHUR MOORE

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Aylmer) had confused two things. It might be a question for debate whether there should not be a limited time for litigation beyond which tenants should not be allowed to come into Court to have their rents revised; but it was a monstrous thing to say that because a man bought from the Landed Estates Court he was never to have his rent raised. Was he in any better position to the man who had immemorial title? Purchasers had no right to expect that their rents would be stereotyped.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, if this Amendment were adopted it would deprive a large number of tenants of the benefit of the Court. It was well known that the estates purchased under the Landed Estates Court were just those upon which the tenants required protection.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, that this Amendment seemed to go on the assumption that all the rents on the property bought under the Encumbered Estates Court Act were fair rents; but that was not the case. He was acquainted with the circumstances of a property in the West of Ireland on which the rents were raised immediately before the sale, and the man who bought had been regretting his purchase every day since, because he had had, as an act of justice, to make very considerable abatements. Why should not considerations of justice affect properties bought under the Landed Estates Court Act as well as any other properties? There was no ground for the assumption that these rents were fair rents, and that being such they should hold good for all time.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he should take a division upon the question, in order to stereotype the conduct of the Government, and to show that Parliament, under the present Administration, set no value whatever upon Parliamentary guarantees. He wished, if there was anyone fool enough to purchase property under the new Land Commission that he should do it with his eyes open, knowing the kind of treatment he was likely to get in, say, 10 or 15 years' time.

MR. MARUM

opposed the Amendment, and pointed out that when the protective peace duties were imposed properties had been purchased on the strength of the then existing condition of things, and, when that condition was subsequently altered by the repeal of the duties, were very considerably damaged.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 116: Majority 96.—(Div. List, No. 288.)

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, that, in the absence of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Long) he wished to move the next Amendment. Its object was to define more distinctly the nature of a holding. As it was described, it would represent an absolute interest in the holding, and not simply an interest in the tenancy.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 15, after "the," insert "tenant's interest in the."—(Mr. Tottenham.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, there was an inaccuracy in that part of the clause; the word "holding" should be omitted, and the word "tenancy" substituted. He himself would propose an Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 18, leave out "resume the holding," in order to insert the words "purchase of tenancy."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, he had an Amendment to move that stood in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Northcote.) When the Court fixed the rent the sum named by the Court was to be lessened by the amount of any damage done by the tenant, wilful or otherwise, resulting in the waste or deterioration of buildings. Well, it was quite possible that such damage might have been done, or have been allowed to be done by the tenant; and it seemed monstrously unfair that the landlord should not be allowed to get the same rent that he had received before.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 21, after "fixed," insert "or less by the amount of any damage caused or suffered to be done by the tenant, resulting from waste by dilapidation of buildings, or deterioration of soil, or otherwise."—(Captain Aylmer.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he could not accept the Amendment. In the first place, if a building upon a holding had been wasted, or the soil had been allowed to run out, his tenancy was worth so much, less, and so much less was paid for it. This clause simply enabled a landlord to exercise the right of preemption which was given to him in the 1st clause. He would undertake to bring up a clause to provide that if there had been dilapidation the amount of such dilapidation should be assessed and deducted.

MR. PLUNKET

supported the Amendment. The insertion of those words could not do any possible harm, while it would make the clause much more satisfactory.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, that unless he misread the clause an application might be made at the commencement of a statutory term to fix the price; but the notice to fix the price might be at the end of a tenancy or shortly before a tenancy; and the hon. and gallant Gentleman must perceive that when the 15 years had elapsed great deterioration might have occurred, and that deterioration should be taken into account at the time the price was fixed.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he could not accept the Amendment; but he would be prepared to consider the question on Report.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, in that case he would withdraw his Amendment, relying on the Attorney General for Ireland to bring up another.

MR. BIGGAR

objected to the Amendment being withdrawn, for the proposal was one-sided, and it would be better to negative it.

MR. WARTON

observed, that he did not approve of these hasty withdrawals, for when they came to the Report there would not be anything like the time that would be necessary for the discussion of all these matters. Hon. Members would not be able to speak three or four times to make their meaning clear; and, although assurances had been given on many points, he feared the Committee would be put off at the last moment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

proposed another Amendment, explaining that it had previously been placed at another part of the Bill, but had been knocked out. Its object was to insure that the value of improvements should not be piled up on an estate for ever, causing a very heavy incubus on the estate, and eventually a heavy loss to the landlord. On the second reading of the Bill the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) endeavoured to show how the 7th clause would work. He took the case of a farm valued at £150. The occupant might spend £250 in improvements, and he would be entitled, say, to £250 for goodwill. Suppose he sold for £500, why should not the next man sell at a higher sum—the same amount of £500 with a slight addition for occupancy, and another £100 for improvements, and so bring the sum up to £700 or £800? On the other hand, the full rent might not increase; the holding might be valued in a bad season, after a tenant had not been very wise in his management, and £150 might still be the full rent, while, instead of interest on £500 being deducted, it would be interest on £800. So a slice would, be cut out of the landlord's property at each transfer. This was no suppositious case; it might go on until, after a time, the tenant's right in the farm would be equal to the fee simple, if not greater. The Prime Minister had stated that under this Bill what was given to the tenant would by no means come out of the rent; but, according to Clause 12, the higher the tenant right the lower would the rent be reduced. It was evident, therefore, that the Bill should provide some precaution against this continued high rate of improvement; and that it should, at all events, be limited. He was quite aware that there were some limitations to the tenant right; but he hoped the Prime Minister would agree with him in the necessity for this limitation. In London the Government let hind on 80 years' leases; but they made it a condition that the tenant should spend a certain amount each year upon the land, the land reverting to the Government at the end of 80 years. If the Amendment was refused, they would practically be refusing to Irish landlords what they insisted upon from tenants of the Crown. He only asked the Government fairly and carefully to consider whether this right to permanent improvements should go on piling up for ever, and whether it would not be fairer to give a reversion to the landlord after a fair occupancy. Under the Act of 1870, a limit of 20 years was mentioned, and it was always allowed by those who advocated that Act that 31 years ought to pay a tenant for his improvements; that 31 years would be plenty of time for a tenant to recoup himself for his improvements; and he hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment as it stood, or in some other shape.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 21, after "fixed," insert "and the value of any permanent improvements considered by the Court to be such, shall for the purposes of this Act be estimated at the fair cost of effecting same, less four per cent for each year that shall have elapsed since such improvements were made."—(Captain Aylmer.)

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

MR. W. E. FORSTER

objected to the Amendment, and did not think the least wrong was done by the clause as it stood.

Amendment negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that on the 26th of June the Committee decided that the statutory term should be 15 years. I am aware the hon. Member's Amendment refers to a judicial rent; but I do not know whether he intends to move it.

MR. BIGGAR

said, there was some difference of opinion among his hon. Friends with regard to this Amendment, and, therefore, he would not move it; but he had not changed his opinion upon the point.

MR. LEA

, in moving an Amendment standing in his name, said, it was one which involved a very important principle—namely, a tenant's security in his improvements. That was not only a landlord's and tenant's question, but a national question. The present section of the Bill said there should be a judicial rent for 15 years, at the end of which the tenant or landlord might apply to the Court for a fresh rent. How was that rent to be determined? If it was to be determined upon a re-valuation of the holding, the tenant's improvements would be valued, and in that case the Bill would inspire no confidence, and tenants would refrain from making improvements. A judicial rent should be fixed by a revision, and there ought not to be any revaluation. In Ulster the great complaint had been that the tenant right was eaten up almost entirely by the raising of the rent. He had known instances in which the tenant right had been partially destroyed by that process. Evidence to that effect had been before the Commission, and, in spite of what might be said in "another place," he was convinced that a stronger case might still be made out. One object of this Bill was, not only to protect the tenancy, but to create confidence; and a great increase of employment was anticipated from the Reclamation Clauses. He would not discuss them now; but he thought the Committee could not do anything better with a view to reclamation than to give perfect security for improvements. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) had said last autumn he had heard there were 2,000,000 acres of waste land in Ireland which might be reclaimed; but would a tenant reclaim if he was not secure in his improvements? He desired to have some clear statement laid down by which there should not be re-valuation, but simply revision of rent; and his Amendment was framed for that purpose. He would give the landlord all that he was fairly entitled to; but the landlord was not entitled to raise the rent on the tenant's improvements. If there was some external improvement made by the introduction of a railway, or some improvement in the town or neighbourhood by which the land was made more valuable, the landlord would be entitled to his share in the improvement; but the tenant farmers would not be content if there was any chance of re-valuation. Was it likely a tenant would make improvements if the raising of his rent was to be the consequence? This matter had created a strong feeling throughout the North-West of Ireland, and throughout Ulster generally, and for that reason he proposed this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 24, after "years," insert "nor thereafter, unless the landlord has made improvements which have added to the agricultural or letting value of the holding, or unless the agricultural value of land in the district without reference to tenant's improvements has increased or decreased; and in the latter case such increase or decrease to he divided in proportion to the interests of landlord and tenant in the holding."—(Mr. Lea.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND. (Mr. LAW)

said, he thought the suggestion deserving of consideration; but it appeared to him that the Amendment really proposed nothing more than the Court would be obliged to do. Everybody admitted that the tenant was entitled to the value of his improvements; and if the agricultural value of the land rose or fell, that must be taken into consideration by the Court in determining upon a revision of the rent. In the ordinary course of things, at the end of 15 years' statutory term a tenant would hold on at the same rent as before, until there was some movement made by himself or by the landlord to alter the terms. He would be a tenant from year to year before he got the statutory term; but the statutory term having gone, the landlord would be able, if he chose, to raise the rent. If, however, the tenant felt that the rent ought not to be raised, he could go to the Court and get a revision of rent and another statutory term. He was not sure whether the Committee thoroughly realized the fact that the cardinal principle of the clause at the beginning of it was that the tenant could, from time to time, go to the Court to fix his rent; and the tenant did not lose that power by going once or any number of times, subject to the restriction of the two sub-sections that when the rent was once fixed he could not go to the Court for 15 years, and only in the 15th year. And it appeared to him that the terms suggested by the hon. Member, as those which should determine the revision of the rent, were precisely what the Court would have to consider without any distinct specification of them. There was a difficulty in laying down there what particular considerations the Court must have re- gard to; and the Amendment did not go much into particulars, for it said the rent should not be altered unless the landlord had made improvements to the holding which had added to its agricultural value—which was an obvious thing; or if the agricultural value of the holding had altered either upwards or downwards. That was what the Court had to ascertain; and he thought it would be better to leave that to the Court. The 1st clause provided that the Court should consider not particular circumstances, but all the circumstances, and that covered everything that could be conceived as admissible for determining the rent. The Court must consider all the circumstances not only on the first revision, but on every revision from time to time to the last.

MR. LITTON

said, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not fully appreciated the importance, in all its aspects, of the Amendment, for no notice had been taken by him of the last portion of it, which contained the most important provision— Such increase or decrease to be divided in proportion to the interests of landlord and tenant in the holding. The interest with which the question was regarded might be gathered pretty well from the very definite Amendments lower down on the Paper in the names of several hon. Members, amongst others the learned Professor the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce). That, hon. Member had, in extended, terms, placed on the Paper an Amendment which raised this precise point; and he apprehended that the decision of the Committee on the present Amendment would very much affect the right of the hon. Member to move his. The principle involved raised the question of how far the unearned increment was to be dealt with. When that came to be considered by the Court—as it would be under the terms giving the right to apply from time to time—the Court would be bound to regard the improvements effected by the tenant; but there was no provision with regard to the increase or decrease of the value, independently of the outlay of either landlord or tenant; and if some such increased value arose through the extension of a railway, or the sudden growth of a town, or the discovery of a mine, there was nothing in the clause to determine whether the landlord was to have the full benefit of that increased value, or whether the tenant was to have it, or whether it was to be divided between the landlord and the tenant. The observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not show that the unearned increment ought to be divided; but that question was regarded as of great importance by tenants, especially where land had been reclaimed. Upon these grounds, he thought the Amendment was entitled to a great deal more consideration than it had received from the Attorney General for Ireland; and he should support the insertion of some such words either in this or in some other place where the Government might be prepared to discuss and consider the question of unearned increment.

MR. GRANTHAM

pointed out that there was no time fixed, by the Amendment as to when the landlord and tenant might go into Court for the purpose of getting an alteration of the judicial rent. By the Bill, as it was drawn, the landlord was not to be deprived of his rights except for the period of 15 years, whereas if the Amendment was adopted that limit of 15 years would be entirely destroyed, and the landlord and tenant would never have the right of applying for an alteration of the judicial rent, unless it could be shown that the agricultural or letting value of the land in the district had increased or decreased. Not only would great difficulty arise as to the time when the future statutory holding would commence, but a still greater difficulty would result from the last part of the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) appeared to think the best—namely, the division of the increase or decrease of value in proportion to the several interests of the landlord and tenant in the holding. It must be perfectly clear that the tenant's interest in the land was essentially distinct from that of the landlord. The tenant was allowed possession of the land for the purpose of farming it, and could not be disturbed for a time unless certain things were done by him; but, as far as he (Mr. Grantham) knew, it had never before been suggested that the tenant had any interest in the value of the land. That was a matter that entirely concerned the landlord, and the very reason why he was willing to take a low interest upon his money in the shape of rent was because he knew that, in all probability, the value of his land would rise owing to improvements which might take place in the district, and so afford him future compensation. If the adjustment of such matters as these were to be added to the already heavy labours of the Commission; they would, he believed, be rendered greater than any Court could deal with justly and to the satisfaction of the parties. For these reasons he hoped the Government would adhere to the determination they had expressed of not adopting the Amendment.

MR. LEA

said, his object was to create confidence on the part of the tenants in Ireland, who had been deceived with regard to the amount of protection they expected from the Act of 1870. He trusted the Government, by adopting the Amendment, would do something to create confidence on the part of the tenants in effecting improvements.

Amendment negatived.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, the Amendment he was about to move was one of the most important that had been proposed to this clause, because under it could be discussed, and ought to be discussed, the whole question of fixity of tenure. The Bill had received a great amount of favour in Ireland and from Irish Members on the ground that it embodied the principle of the "three F's." Before he proceeded to speak of fixity of tenure, and the precise form in which the question was raised by his Amendment, he desired to meet an objection on the part of some of his hon. Friends that his Amendment did not go far enough. There was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) which raised the question of fixity of tenure, and proposed to deal with it in a more drastic fashion. But that mode of raising the question did not appear to him to be the best. The reason he had chosen the term of 30 years was that he hoped so to construct his Amendment that it would fit into the framework of the Bill in such a manner as to enable the Government to accept it. If hon. Members would look at Clause 9 they would see that a lease of 31 years constituted a future tenancy; and his proposal was that two statutory leases of 15 years or, in other words, a lease of 30 years, should also constitute a future tenancy. So that his Amendment, as it was framed, harmonized extremely well with that clause of the Bill, not yet discussed, under which the tenant, who made a lease with his landlord of 31 years and approved by the Court, would, at the expiration of that lease, become a future tenant. He proposed that if a tenant went twice to the Court, having continued a tenant for 30 years at the rent fixed by the Court, he should be in the same position as the tenant who entered into an agreement with his landlord to give him a lease of 31 years. It appeared to him, therefore, that he had raised this question in a shape that would be more agreeable to Her Majesty's Government than that which was proposed by the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson). Her Majesty's Government had stated constantly that they objected strongly to the interference with freedom of contract which was contained in this Bill; that they deplored it as a necessity; that they did not profess to like it, but that as a necessity they adopted it. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) had, in a speech that had been frequently quoted, described this Bill as a modus vivendi, which was gradually to bring back the Irish tenants to the normal and proper condition of free contract. But if the Court was to be allowed, at the end of every 15 years to the end of time, to fix the rent, he asked how that could be described as a modus vivendi? For anything to the contrary in the Bill, there was no reason why the successors of the present tenant should not go on for 999 years, having their rents fixed at intervals of 15 years by an order of the Court which excluded freedom of contract between landlord and tenant. Again, he asked, how could such a process be described as a modus vivendi by which free contract would ultimately be reached? In the limit of 30 years he had chosen the extreme limit which could be adopted, if it was not intended that the condition of things created by the Bill should be permanently established in Ireland. The period of 30 years represented one generation, and if a longer term than that was decided upon, the generation now growing up, and for whom they were legislating, would be educated under the belief that all relations between themselves and the landlords were to be settled and provided for, not in the way in which contracts were arranged and provided for in every country of the world, but under a special provision, which the Government themselves desired to be temporary in its operation. If, therefore, that period of 30 years was extended, there would be the risk that the generation of Irishmen now growing up, and for whom they were legislating, would be indoctrinated and impregnated with the opinion that there was a special Providence, in the shape of the Court, watching over their affairs. For the reasons he had put forward, he now begged to move the Amendment in his name.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 24, after the word "years," to insert the words—" (11.) After the expiration of two statutory terms, a tenant shall be deemed a future tenant."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)

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

MR. GLADSTONE

As I have always understood the statement of my noble Friend, referred to by the hon. Member who has just sat down, and so often quoted in this House, it was that this Bill was a modus vivendi, not for the purpose of securing freedom of contract, but absolute ownership on the part of future Irish proprietors. My hon. Friend will bear in mind that it was a fixed conclusion with the Government that at the end of existing leases the tenure should be renewed. But even if that were open to discussion there is a considerable difference between a lease entered into by the landlord and tenant and a lease for the statutory term. It would be a very serious thing if, after the Government said—"We propose to give to the tenant of Ireland a tenancy under the name of a present tenancy," we should now depart from the groundwork of the Bill, and accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, which would involve, I will not say an absolute breach of faith, but a disappointment of the reasonable expectations which we have encouraged the Irish tenants to entertain. We must, therefore, adhere to the original intention of the Government as expressed in the clause.

MR. GRANTHAM

said, after the observation of the right hon. Gentleman, that it would be defeating the reasonable expectations held out by the Government to the tenants of Ireland, it seemed idle to ask hon. Members to support the Amendment. He was of opinion that it was just this encouraging of expectations which the Government were unable to fulfil that had created much of the difficulty which existed at the present time. Undoubtedly, clauses had been put into the Bill, merely because some Liberal Members said it was necessary to insert them, which, he believed, were neither for the good of the tenants nor of the country. He could not suppose that the Government would accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour); but, at the same time, it was only fair to draw attention to the observations of the Prime Minister when he introduced the Bill to the House. The right hon. Gentleman had, with great emphasis, described this Bill as a temporary measure—a measure to obviate those temporary difficulties in which the country was placed, saying that he hoped for a return to freedom of contract. He thought, under all the circumstances, that rather more consideration should have been shown to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he quite approved the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford, inasmuch as it would put a limitation on the principle of perpetuity of tenure Bought to be introduced by the Bill; but he had this objection to it, that it did not go far enough. In his opinion, perpetuity of tenure was included in the Bill; and he should listen with great anxiety to the defence of the Government against that charge, and especially to that of the Prime Minister himself, who was pledged up to the eyes against that principle. The question, however, he thought, had better be raised on the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson), which, notwithstanding that it went farther than the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford, did not go as far as he would have liked. He ventured to hope that his hon. Friend would take the discussion upon the question raised by his Amendment upon the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, the explanation of the Prime Minister was that the statement of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India, alluded to by the hon. Member for Hertford, referred to the period when those, who were now tenants, and who, by the assistance of State management, would, sooner or later, become proprietors, should, in their turn, be enabled to let their lands to tenants—and then, said the noble Lord, there would be a return to freedom of contract, and they would cease interfering with the principles of political economy in Ireland. If that were the real explanation of the words of the noble Marquess, the Committee would understand the condition of things about to be established in Ireland. All the present tenants were virtually to be turned into tenants in perpetuity. There was to be no end to the tenure; but, as soon as they were able to become landlords themselves, they could let land to tenants without any of the restrictions now sought to be imposed on present landlords, and exact whatever rent they thought fit. He was compelled to say that the explanation offered by the right hon. Gentleman presented, to his mind, a very unsatisfactory prospect, because the time would come when the same questions which were now being discussed would revive, and that, perhaps, under more aggravated conditions—when the people, whom they were about to assist by State management to become landed proprietors in Ireland, should insist upon exacting from their tenants a higher rent than they were willing to pay.

MR. GREGORY

said, the Amendment had had the good effect of obtaining from the Prime Minister a distinct avowal of the object of the Bill, which was, as he understood, and as, he doubted not, the Committee understood, to create perpetuity of tenure. That was, undoubtedly, the effect of the Bill also, because so long as the tenant observed the statutory conditions he had a perpetual right of renewal, constituting what was called in law a toties quoties covenant. He had already protested against the Bill on the second reading, as turning the landlord into a mere rent-charger, while the tenant, in fact, remained the real owner of the estate. No doubt, he would have to pay rent to the landlord, and fulfil the statutory conditions; but, subject to that, he might deal with the property absolutely as he liked; he might under-let it—["No !"]—sub-divide it—["No !"]—bequeath it, leave it among a number of legatees, and create any amount of beneficial interest therein. He hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin had an Amendment on the Paper which would raise the question in a more convenient form.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

No one can doubt that the point raised by the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford, and by that of my right hon. and learned Friend near me (Mr. Gibson), is one which deserves consideration and discussion, because it deals with one of the cardinal principles of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford has raised the question in a form which is rather peculiar, and which he has adopted, not so much because he considers it the best way in which the question could be raised, as because he thinks, in its present form, it is most likely to commend itself to the Government. But we have had such an answer from the Prime Minister as I think disposes of that idea, and shows us that there is no chance of the intermediate proposal of my hon. Friend being accepted by the Government. Under those circumstances, I think we should do better to take the discussion in the form raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin; and I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should withdraw his Amendment, in order that this may be done. With regard to the period of 30 years, named by my hon. Friend, I fear it is not improbable that at least one or two Irish Land Bills will be presented during that time.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, after the expression of opinion which had taken place, he thought the best course he could pursue would be to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. The Committee had now heard from the Government that they proposed to create perpetuity of tenure, regulated by the action of the Court. That was the first time the admission had been made; and if his Amendment had produced no other effect than to cause the Prime Minister to make that avowal, he thought the time had not been wasted. He begged to withdraw the Amendment. ["No!"]

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, if the Committee went to a division on this Amendment it would be a complete waste of time, his hon. Friend having expressed his readiness to withdraw it. Nothing could be gained by the Government refusing to allow the withdrawal of the Amendment. On the contrary, after they had gone into the Lobby, another division would have to be taken on the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, under the circumstances, he was compelled to take a division on his Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 161: Majority 104.—(Div. List, No. 289.)

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment is in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson); but that Amendment I find to be inconsistent with the earlier part of the clause, which enacts that the tenant, either by himself or with his landlord, may apply from time to time to the Court to fix a fair rent. This Amendment would make that application subject to the concurrence of the landlord.

MR. GIBSON

No.

THE CHAIRMAN

Yes; and if no such application be made, then, at the determination of such statutory term, the landlord would be entitled to resume possession of the holding. The Amendment, therefore, is not consistent with the decision which the Committee has just affirmed.

MR. GIBSON

said, he must protest clearly that—["Order!"]

MR. GLADSTONE

Protest!

MR. GIBSON

said, he was entirely within his power, and he had a perfect right to speak to a point of Order with regard to his Amendment. He cared not from what quarter interruption came; he insisted upon submitting to the Chairman on the point of Order reasons which, to his mind, were clear, why he should be permitted to move his Amendment. He should, of course, sub- mit to the ruling of the Chairman if, on consideration, the right hon. Gentleman adhered to it. No one would for a moment believe that he (Mr. Gibson) would call in question the ruling of the Chair. He was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair would readily recognize that he would be one of the last Members in that House to call in question for a moment the authority of the Chair; but the right hon. Gentleman, he trusted, would recognize that he was fully within his right in pressing on him, as a matter of Order, that he was entitled to move his Amendment. So far as he understood, the grounds upon which the right hon. Gentleman had ruled him out of Order—

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

rose to Order. He wished to point out that this matter had been repeatedly ruled upon by the Chairman in this very Committee; and after the Chairman had pronounced an opinion with regard to an Amendment being in Order or not in Order, no one had ever been permitted to dispute that ruling. He did not at all see why, on this occasion, the Committee should stultify itself by allowing the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) to proceed.

THE CHAIRMAN

Of course my ruling is not that of a lawyer, and may, therefore, be subject to the revision of a legal opinion. I should be glad to hear the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) as to whether I am right or wrong.

MR. GIBSON

I will submit to you, Sir—

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

I must rise to Order. I wish to ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to be heard because he is a lawyer?

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

And I wish to speak also to a point of Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) is speaking to a point of Order.

MR. GIBSON

Sir, I will speak to Order, with your permission, and with entire deference to your authority. As I understand it, your ruling rests upon two grounds, and upon two short and narrow grounds; and I shall not occupy the Committee more than a moment in referring to them.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

I rise, Sir, to a point of Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is in possession of the Committee upon a point of Order.

MR. GIBSON

said, the Chairman had ruled that the Amendment upon the Paper was out of Order for two reasons, both of which were perfectly intelligible. The first was in consequence of an earlier part of the clause which had been passed and affirmed by the Committee, to the effect that a tenant of any tenancy to which the Bill applied might, from time to time, during the continuance of such tenancy, apply to the Court to fix what would be a fair rent to be paid. Well, he ventured to submit that that was not in the slightest degree incompatible with the Amendment which he sought to move here in reference to the drafting of sub-section 7. He did not see the slightest inconsistency whatever, because sub-section 7 of Clause 7 gave special power for an application to be made to the Court only within the last 12 months of the 15 years, and itself took away the tenant's power of applying from "time to time" during the previous 14 years. He did not seek to take that away, but only to qualify it, and to say that, although it might be made, it should be subject to this condition—that it had the consent of the landlord. On the other point the Chairman stated, as far as he could follow his ruling, that the Amendment made just now by the hon. Member for Hertford, and which the Prime Minister would not permit to be withdrawn, was also a stumbling block in the way of his proposal. He was unable, with extreme deference, to see any difficulty at all caused by that, because all the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford affirmed was that, at the end of the second statutory term, the then tenant should be a future tenant. That was quite consistent with his Amendment that there might be, if the landlord consented to an application being made in the last portion of the first term, a second term. His hon. Friend sought to deal with this by saying that, assuming there was a second term, then the result would follow that a future tenancy was created.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

wished to ask whether the Chairman gave his decisions from the Chair in the capacity of a lawyer or in the capacity of a layman?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, by his Amendment the tenant would become a future tenant, and there was a great distinction to be drawn between a future tenant and a landlord in the possession of a holding.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

regretted to observe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) had commenced his address with a protest against the action of the Chair; and he was quite sure that that was not what could be considered either desirable, expedient, or proper in any Member of that Committee. He was sure that he could appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when circumstances necessarily arose in the course of a debate of this description that were sometimes irritating, to assist the Government in keeping the discussion in a vein of good temper. As to the point of Order, the 1st sub-section of this clause provided two things; it provided that a tenant of any present tenancy might, from time to time, alone apply for the fixing of rent; and there was another provision that the landlord and tenant conjointly might apply. Those were two distinctly separate things. A tenant alone might from time to time apply, and a tenant and landlord together might from time to time apply. Now, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment were carried, neither could alone from time to time apply, because after the first application a tenant could only do it with the concurrence of his landlord. The right hon. and learned Gentleman now asked that a tenant might not from time to time apply, but should be held to have exhausted his right by making one application, because the subsequent applications could only be made with the concurrence of the landlord. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would therefore see that the Amendment would be inconsistent with the provisions already agreed to.

MR. GLADSTONE

I wish to say one word on the point of Order. I said across the Table that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not "protest" against the ruling of the Chair, and I adopted that course because I thought it the most courteous and direct method of suggesting that he was using a word that is seldom, if ever, used in this House by a Member of the House against the decision of the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees. I am satisfied that he used that expression in haste, and I had hoped that he would withdraw it; indeed, I even now cling to a hope that he will do so. The expression is one which, for half-a-century, I have never heard from any hon. Member with regard to the decision of the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees.

MR. GIBSON

May I just say one word? The right hon. Gentleman has tried to magnify—["Order!"]—and, from the tone and gesture with which he has just spoken, he has tried to intensify the course I took. I entirely, I hope, Sir, to your satisfaction, and to that of the Committee, explained that I had not the slightest desire or intention of acting in any way disrespectfully to the Chair. Twice over I declared that I should bow with respect to your ruling, if you adhered to your view.

THE CHAIRMAN

I regret that I can only bring considerations derived from common sense to bear upon this question. I have no legal knowledge upon the question; but, from a common-sense point of view, I delivered my opinion that the Amendment could not be put as being inconsistent with the earlier part of the clause. The Amendment cannot be put.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

I rise, Sir, to a point of Order—

THE CHAIRMAN

The matter is settled, and cannot be further discussed.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

I wish to speak to a point of Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

There is no point of Order before the Committee.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I beg to rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask a question of the Prime Minister.

THE CHAIRMAN

I call upon Mr. Blake to move his Amendment.

MR. BLAKE

said, he saw that the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor) had an Amendment to a somewhat similar effect on the Paper; and, therefore, rather than occupy the time of the Committee unnecessarily he would withdraw his proposal, particularly as the Chairman of the Irish Parliamentary Party had told him it would be better to give way to the hon. Member. He would reserve his remarks until the Amendment of the latter came on.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, the next Amendment on the Paper stood in his name. On a previous occasion the hon. Member for County Carlow (Mr. Gray) had moved an Amendment which he (Mr. Macfarlane) had given Notice of; and, referring to that Amendment, the Prime Minister, speaking with regard to arrears, said, that reasonable consideration, which was due to a matter of such great importance, would be given to the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman added that he had no bias on the subject; but, notwithstanding that 10 days had elapsed since that statement was made, and the right hon. Gentleman had had time to give the matter reasonable consideration, nothing had been heard about it. At any rate, he (Mr. Macfarlane) did not propose to move his Amendment on that part of the Bill; but he should be glad to get some assurance from the Government as to the nature of the proposal they intended to make on the subject. His proposal was in these words— In the case of tenants who, at the time of the passing of this Act, are in arrears with their rent, and are, in consequence of such arrears, excluded from the benefit of this Act, it shall be competent for such tenants to apply to the Court, and if they can show to the satisfaction of the Court that such arrears are due to an excessive rant, the Court may reduce such arrears by such sum as it may deem equitable under the circumstances, and grant to the said tenants a statutory term, during the currency of which they shall pay up the balance of arrears in such instalments as the Court may direct. In deter I mining what constitutes excessive rent, for this I purpose, the Court shall take into consideration the failure of crops from past bad seasons.

MR. GLADSTONE

Probably tomorrow, or the next day, or, at any rate, in a very short time, I hope that my right hon. Friend near me will be able to lay upon the Table the proposal of the Government with respect to arrears.

MR. CHAPLIN

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to mean that he will announce to the Committee what the proposals of the Government are with regard to arrears before the 7th clause is disposed of? [Mr. GLADSTONE: Oh, no!] "Oh, no!" Then I shall certainly take whatever I may deem necessary on the matter.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

said, he had an; Amendment to offer which he trusted would meet with the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government. It was most unjust that the Court should decide hereafter that the rent of a certain estate was to be the same, and that the recipients of rack rents should derive benefit from the rack-rented property. During the last few years the people of Ireland had suffered much hardship from the action of the landlords owing to the landlords being obliged to exact head rents and mortgages, and never allowing the smallest abatement in their claims upon the property. He thought that his Amendment would be considered a fair one, and he begged to move it.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, after sub-section 11, insert "on estates purchased in the Landed Estates Court, if the rent fixed by the Court shall be less than the gross rental as published under the authority of the Encumbered Estates Court, the Court shall direct a proportionate reduction of all head rents and mortgages chargeable on such estates."—(Major O'Beirne.)

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

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he desired to hear some expression of opinion from Her Majesty's Government on this point, as a most important principle was involved. Apparently the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) thought repudiation a matter for joking—that Parliament should destroy the value of its own guarantee. As a matter of fact, the whole Government Bench seemed to think that great schemes of public plunder and robbery, or of public and private repudiation, were a laughing matter. What did this Amendment do? It raised the whole question of mortgages and the interest of people who had advanced money to the owners of land in Ireland upon a Parliamentary title. The object of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Lei trim (Major O'Beirne) was that Parliament should not deliberately step in and destroy the value of its own guarantee, and that the general public should share in the loss which would be inflicted upon people who were not interested in Ireland so far as the land was concerned, but were only interested in it so far as the money they had advanced upon it was concerned. The proposal appeared to him to be a reasonable one, and though, no doubt, it was not one that the Conservative Party would vote for by itself, they must remember that, owing to the Radical majority in this House, they had accepted the principle of this Bill; and it was necessary now to extend equal justice to all who would be affected by the measure. No doubt the mortgagees had as close an interest in this Land Bill, and in the details of it, as the land- owners themselves. It seemed to he a subject of immense amusement to the Treasury Bench that the mortgagees should consider themselves interested in this matter; and it was, no doubt, thought that they had no claim to the protection of the State any more than to the protection of the Government. What was the proposal which was contained in the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment? It was that where the action of the Court diminished the value of a property—the Court set in motion by the Legislature—that those interested in the property pro tanto should not suffer. If they threw a stone into a pond the ripples went circling round and round; there was no limit to them; there was no end to the ripples which went on, and on, and on, until every part of the water was affected. In the same way this matter was brought home to English merchants, and English capitalists who had advanced money on property in Ireland through the Landed Estates Court in consequence of their having been such fools as to believe in the British Parliament. He asked the Committee not to let the Government treat this as they had treated the labourers' question, and the question of arrears, upon which they said they had proposals to make. He did not believe that the Government had any proposals to make on those matters.

MR. GLADSTONE

I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether after a Member of this House has just stated in his place that he has a proposal—that is to say, that his Colleague has a proposal to make to-morrow or the next day with regard to arrears—I wish to ask whether the noble Lord is to be permitted to say that he believes the Government have no such proposal to make? He thus attributes to me directly, and to my Colleague by implication, the statement of a falsehood.

THE CHAIRMAN

If the noble Lord referred to the statement which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister made a short time ago, he is distinctly out of Order in saying that he disbelieves the assertion.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

With all respect, I stated no such thing. The Prime Minister, with his usual impetuosity, interrupted me before I had finished my sentence. What I was going to remark, if the right hon. Gentleman had allowed me to finish, was that I did not believe that the Government had any proposals to make on the subject of labourers, or on the subject of arrears, that would be satisfactory to I the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman had permitted me to finish my sentence he would not have found it necessary to call upon the Chairman for a ruling in this matter. What I was I going to say was that I believed that the proposals of the Government, such as were referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, would be quite unsatisfactory, and I would therefore urge upon hon. Members not to allow this matter to be dropped, but to require the opinion of the Committee to be taken upon it—upon this question which affects the capitalists, i merchants, insurance offices, and bankers in this country, who have advanced hundreds and thousands of pounds on Irish estates on titles granted by Parliament, which, until the Prime Minister came into Office, they expected would hold good.

MR. GLADSTONE

I have great pleasure in complying with the demands of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill). With regard to what occurred just now, it seemed to me that he had finished his sentence; and that opinion, I think, was not exclusively confined to one side of the House. ["Oh, oh!"]

EARL PERCY

I rise to Order. I wish to ask, Mr. Chairman, whether the Prime Minister is in Order in asserting that the noble Lord who sits near me (Lord Randolph Churchill) had concluded his sentence, and that that is his opinion, and an opinion not confined to one side of the House, when the noble Lord distinctly states that he had not concluded his sentence?

THE CHAIRMAN

As I understand the Prime Minister, I see nothing out of Order in his statement. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he understood the sentence to be finished, and I must certainly say that I understood the same. The right hon. Gentleman stated that such was his opinion, and he did not think that opinion was exclusively confined to one side of the House.

MR. GLADSTONE

I still retain the opinion which I expressed. However, the noble Lord has made his own statement to the Committee, and he has requested me to reply to a query which he has put. I rise to meet his desire that Her Majesty's Government should ex- press an opinion upon this Amendment. I can express that opinion in one sentence. We are opposed to the Amendment, and we are opposed to it because it seems to us to lie outside the range and scope of the Bill.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

said, that, judging from the language of the noble Lord, and from the tone and temper of the Prime Minister, it was evident that the heat of the atmosphere out-of-doors was having some effect upon the proceedings of the Committee. The hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim had put into his Amendment a phrase which was very misleading. He spoke of the gross rental as published under the authority of the Encumbered Estates Court. Of course, he meant the Landed Estates Court; but that Court had nothing to do with the rental, and the phrase in the Amendment would lead the Committee to suppose that the Court in some way endorsed or approved rents. The Court had nothing to do but to put down the figures sent in by the landlord, and the proposal of the Amendment was this—the most mischievous transactions which took place in Ireland would be covered by the Amendment; the jobbers, the knackers, and the butchers would go into Court to buy up property, and then sell it at a high rental. Every Irish gentleman knew that the miseries of the Irish tenantry were due less to the old proprietors in the country than to this class of people.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say the Amendment was entirely outside the scope of the Bill; but he thought he could give the right hon. Member many possible and even probable cases under the Bill which would show clearly that the whole question of mortgaged estates in Ireland would necessarily be raised under this Bill. They had given power to the Court to reduce the rent entirely at its own discretion. He would take the case of estates in Ireland, which at the present moment were mortgaged, as the phrase went, up to the hilt; and he was sorry to say there were numerous cases of that kind in Ireland at the present time. Suppose the Court reduced the rent to such an extent that there was not enough money left even to pay the charge on the mortgage. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that that was an impossible case, and entirely beyond the scope of the Bill? If he did, he took a far more sanguine view of the case than he himself could. He had heard men who were well acquainted with Ireland declare that the action of the Court under this Bill would be to reduce the rents throughout Ireland; and, if so, was it not true that the whole question of mortgages must come under the view of the Court, and, therefore, absolutely within the scope of the Bill? He wished to make one or two remarks upon questions which had arisen, and he should move to report Progress, much as he regretted adopting a course which he admitted was somewhat unusual. A question was raised as to arrears, and the course which the Government intended to take, and the right hon. Gentleman fairly stated that within a day or two he would inform the Committee of the views of the Government upon this question; but, in answer to a question this evening as to whether that would be done before Clause 7 was disposed of, the right hon. Gentleman said, certainly not. That was only one question which had been postponed; other questions had been postponed of not less interest to hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House. The question of leases had been also postponed—["Question, Question !"] He was strictly in Order in alluding to this question, because it was not fair or right to ask the Committee to give the final decision that this clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, while they were left in ignorance with regard to a question which came directly under that clause. They were told the other night that the question of labourers' rights and cottages must be postponed; but there was another question to-night with regard to which he wished to make an inquiry, and it was mainly for the purpose of doing so that he moved to report Progress, because he did not know when, under all the circumstances, he would be able to raise the point again. The whole question of perpetuity of tenure was raised by an Amendment which had been ruled out of Order. He would not question that ruling; but he wished, with great respect, to remind the Chairman of one thing. The Chairman had invited hon. Members to express their opinion on a point of Order, and he was about to remind the Chairman of a matter by which he thought the Chairman would have been influenced. The Chairman ruled Mm out of Order in endeavouring to raise this question on the question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill. What happened? The right hon. Gentleman rose and said the question would he better not raised on the Amendment which, stood in his (Mr. Chaplin's) name. The Chairman had acquiesced in that, although he supposed that was as legitimate and regular an opportunity for making the observations he desired to make. He could say more upon the point of Order; but it would be out of place after the Chairman's ruling. But what was his position; and when was he to raise this question? When was he to ask the right hon. Gentleman to vindicate the statements he had made in regard to circumstances or facts on great principles of morality and justice, which were eternal? When he had been ruled out, by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman being ruled out of Order, he was entirely precluded; and he wished to ask the Government whether, before this clause was put to the final decision of the Committee—this clause in which such vital questions were included—they would give hon. Members a fair opportunity of discussing the question of leases and arrears, of sub-tenancies and perpetuity of tenure, because he was bound to say that if the Government did not give such an opportunity there would be only one conclusion to be come to by the Committee and the country, and that was that the Government were evading questions which they did not care to face. The right hon. Gentleman had said the other night that they all had a sacred duty to perform in promoting the progress of the Bill. There might be differences of opinion, and he desired to say nothing as to the other side of the House; but they on his side also had a sacred duty to perform, and that was to maintain and uphold principles which had been held and considered to be sacred for 1,000 years, and to vindicate the rights of property which were assailed in this Amendment in a manner in which, he ventured to say, they never before had been assailed in the House of Commons.

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

MR. GLADSTONE

The hon. Gentleman admitted that he had taken a course which was unusual. It certainly has been a proceeding which is unusual in this House; but I am sorry to say I do not think it is very unusual to the hon. Member, because, unless I am much mistaken, he has done it three times within the last week. I cannot make an answer to the hon. Gentleman's speech without again entering my protest against the mode of procedure to which the hon. Gentleman seems so much attached. It is, I think, most unfortunate, and it is quite unusual as he has said, and I deem it highly injurious to the public interest. I will say that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire has now, I think, an opportunity of discussing what he calls perpetuity of tenure. This is exactly the place where it should be discussed, and when I heard the animated close of his speech I thought he intended to deliver a speech on that subject of a very elaborate character. The hon. Gentleman makes four demands. I am very sorry I can accede to only one of them; but one of them I can put out of the way. He demands that before Clause 7 is disposed of he shall have an opportunity of discussing leases, arrears, sub-tenants, and perpetuity. With regard to leases, I am afraid it is totally impossible for me or any human being to give him that power, because I apprehend that the question of leases, being dealt with in a subsequent clause of the Bill, it would be entirely in violation of the fundamental Rules of Committee that we should discuss it now. With regard to arrears, I must represent to the hon. Gentleman that the very grave matters contained in this clause form a sufficient burden for us to carry, and that the question of arrears is not necessary to, and has no natural connection with, this clause. It is a distinct and different question, to which we are anxious the Committee should give a dispassionate consideration, and which we shall do our best to put in such a shape that it will be well understood. With regard to sub-tenants, I conceived we had entirely disposed of that, because we stated, and it is most distinctly known to the authors of the Bill, and perhaps to those who have closely studied it, that the Bill is in favour of sub-tenants. Undoubtedly, when we say the tenant all through the Bill, we mean also the subtenant. That is to say, he who is the occupier of the soil. Then, with regard to perpetuity of tenure. That was raised on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford. It is clearly involved in the principle of the clause. By all means let us proceed with the question, and not waste further time on the Motion for reporting Progress.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I think the last observations of the right hon. Gentleman show the inconvenience of the position into which we have been brought. There is no doubt that this question of perpetuity of tenure can be, and will be, discussed on the Motion that this clause stand part of the Bill; but I would point out that this clause, although it does, undoubtedly, contain the principles of perpetuity of tenure, contains, also, a good deal of other matter; and it might happen that those who desire to differ from the provisions of the clause as to tenure might be unwilling to vote against the clause as a whole on account of the other portions. Therefore, it seems to us that it would have been a great deal fairer that we should have been allowed to take the question of perpetuity of tenure, which has never been discussed, and which we were shut out from even on the second reading, because we were told there were so many other matters to be dealt with that we could not deal with that question alone. It would have been more convenient and better if we could have taken that question by itself and challenged the opinion and decision of the Committee upon it. When we came down to the House this evening we thought there were two Amendments on either of which it would be possible to raise the question—namely, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. Balfour), and that of my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson). The hon. Member for Hertford had precedence, and brought forward his Amendment; but in the discussion which took place upon it, it was intimated by several hon. Members who spoke on his own side that it would be desirable and preferable to take the discussion on the Motion of my right hon. and learned Friend, and so strongly was that opinion felt that my right hon. and learned Friend and others who generally took part in these discussions abstained from taking part in that discussion, because they avowedly reserved themselves for the subsequent Amendment. What happened? Although we have avowed our preference for the other Amendment, and although we were reserving ourselves for it, we never had a hint, or suspicion of a hint, from hon. Gentlemen opposite that that Amendment could not be put. They gave us no guide or hint on the subject, and they told us—well, we are so particular now in our language that I hardly know what to say, but they said this was an inconvenient question; and when the hon. Member for Hertford offered to withdraw his Amendment they refused to give him permission, and that was fatal to my right hon. and learned Friend. One reason you, Sir, gave for not allowing the right hon. and learned Gentleman to proceed was that the question had been decided on the Motion of the hon. Member for Hertford, which had been negatived. If my hon. Friend had withdrawn his Amendment that difficulty would not have arisen. Now we must do the best we can, as we are thrown back on the discussion of this clause; and although, in one sense, the Government think they saved time, I very much doubt that, because there are so many points which have been left in an unsatisfactory position. This is one not only of great complication, but which touches so many interests that it is almost impossible, especially on this clause, to restrain or limit the debate upon it. I hope my hon. Friend will not persevere with the Motion to report Progress, and that it may be withdrawn without the labour of walking through the Division Lobby; but I think it is not unfortunate that the hon. Member has given us an opportunity of saying where it is that the shoe pinches in this matter. We cannot discuss this important question of perpetuity of tenure by itself, but with the whole clause, and so the Committee have to deal with it, together with other matters. One word with reference to the point which was before the Committee when the; hon. Member made his Motion. I think it is impossible that we could accept such an Amendment as that at the present time, or, indeed, at all; but I would point out that the negativing of that Amendment does not at all dispose of the difficulties which were raised, and I which the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim perceives, as to the effect this Bill may have on the position of landowners with charges upon their estates generally. That is a matter we shall have to discuss before we part with this Bill; and although I do not think this a convenient time to discuss it, I think we shall find that it will be necessary to take some decision upon that point.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

observed, that while he thought, after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote), the hon. Member would not be justified in pressing the Committee to divide, he believed that any impartial man who had followed the discussion on this Bill closely would admit that the hon. Member was justified in making the Motion. The hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim—who was not a foreigner, but was, he believed, a Home Ruler—had raised a question which involved a great principle, and he (Lord Randolph Churchill) had endeavoured to elicit the opinion of the Government upon it. But the Prime Minister only said he should oppose the Amendment, and vouchsafed no opinion upon it. He had said if they were in for repudiation, they had better bring it in all round; but the Prime Minister said that was not in the scope of the Bill, and declined to admit repudiation in the Bill when they came to English mortgages. What was the position in regard to a great many questions of this kind? With regard to leases the Committee were in the dark.

THE CHAIRMAN

On a Motion fur reporting Progress the noble Lord cannot discuss a clause which is in the future.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

replied that he was not doing so; and if the Committee would have patience for two minutes they would see that. He was not discussing a future clause, but the conduct of the Government a short time ago, in order to show the difficulty in which hon. Members were placed who opposed on general grounds the proceedings of the Government. When they asked the Government for explanations on vital points they deferred explanations, and simply said they would give them some day or other; and they had not made up their minds on the question of leases. Last week the Government had an Amendment on that point, and said nothing should induce them to give way on the question of leases; but the morning after that declaration, down came the Prime Minister, saying there was a great deal in the arguments of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his Party, and that the leases which he had himself invited the Irish landowners to conclude, under the Act of 1870, should be repudiated by him. He did not think there was a Member of the Committee who had watched the Bill with greater interest than he had, or followed its windings and the tergiversations of the Prime Minister, who one night refused to upset the leases, and next day was ready to repudiate them.

MR. A. MOORE

rose to Order, and asked whether the noble Lord was entitled to discuss leases on a Motion to report Progress?

THE CHAIRMAN

I understand that the noble Lord is referring to something which is past, and not to a future clause.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, the hon. Member was no doubt right as to a discussion of leases; but he was pointing out why the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire thought the Committee could not proceed further on this question. The Government had treated the Committee in a very extraordinary manner, for what had they done? The moment an Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), which completely destroyed the little value the clause had to the landlords, the Government said they thought it was a perfectly fair Amendment on the part of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and accepted it, the consequence being that the clause, which otherwise preserved a little something to the landlords in Ireland, was destroyed.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that the noble Lord was discussing a matter that had already been decided by the Committee.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he was drawing attention to the conduct of the Government with respect to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. The Government, he said, had refused to give hon. Members on that side of the House who were interested in the Bill any explanation with reference to minor points regarding these clauses; and he was merely pointing out with respect to the questions of leases and labourers and mortgages, and this question of perpetuity of tenure, that the Government had, in point of fact, jockeyed the Committee. ["Order!"] Hon. Members called "Order;" but the expression was one that was well; known in that House, and that accurately expressed the conduct of Her Majesty's Government.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

rose to Order. He wished to know whether; the noble Lord was in Order in saying that Her Majesty's Government had "jockeyed the Committee?"

THE CHAIRMAN

I cannot say that the expression is an un-Parliamentary one; but I think it undesirable to use such a term, because it is calculated to raise heat in discussion.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, in the speech in which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had introduced the Bill, he had stated that he was guided by the divine light of justice, and that, while guided by that divine light, he could not err. Well, all that he (Lord Randolph Churchill) could say on that matter was that the divine light spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman had glimmered with a most feeble ray.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

said, that he, in common with almost every Member of the House, was anxious that the Bill then under discussion in Committee should be passed, and that it should be passed as rapidly as possible. He did not think that speeches such as that they had just heard from the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock tended to contribute towards that result, nor did he think that to move at half-past 10 o'clock that the Chairman report Progress on a Bill of so much importance was the way in which a great Constitutional Party ought to deal with such a question. Perhaps it did not he in his mouth, as he did not happen to belong to the Conservative Party, to allude to the mode in which hon. Gentlemen opposite were proceeding in regard to this great question; but he might say that there were many hon. Gentlemen in that House who were well aware of the number and importance of the tenant farmers in this country; and I he believed that when those tenant farmers came to read in the papers on the following morning the proceedings in the House of Commons that night, they would be inclined to ask themselves why it was that the exciting speeches to which the Committee had just been treated had been made on a question of such importance, and one in which many hon. Members took so much interest—namely, that of the rent to be fixed in cases of estates purchased in the Landed Estates Court. It was within his memory that much feeling was excited at the time when men in Ireland with estates at 10, 12, and 20 years' purchase had to hand over to the mortgagees their property, and thereby became little better than beggars in Ireland, their successors being those hon. Gentlemen who had been the subject of so much eulogy from hon. Members opposite. So much for the Amendment that had preceded the Motion to report Progress. But his object in rising had been to caution hon. Gentlemen opposite. ["Order!"] In reply to hon. Gentlemen who called "Order," he was not aware that he was out of Order. Those hon. Gentlemen had constituents in various parts of England who would watch their conduct on this question. He was here speaking of the great mass of the English farming interest, who would eagerly scan the proceedings of the hon. Gentlemen opposite; and it was essential that those who wished to maintain their old position as the great country Party should see that their position in that House would not be improved by their becoming a kind of faction to prevent the progress of a measure of the greatest importance, not only to Ireland, but to the Kingdom at large.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, the hon. Baronet who had just resumed his seat could not have been in his place during the discussion of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour), or he would have known that the scene they had lately witnessed, very much to his (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's) regret, had been entirely the fault of Her Majesty's Government. At any rate, the light of common sense had not deigned to shine very strongly on the course the Government had taken with regard to this question. What, he asked, were the facts? The hon. Member for Hertford had moved an Amendment, which, after its rejection, was immediately ruled by the Chairman to have superseded the Amendment that succeeded it on the Paper—namely, the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). Her Majesty's Government; must have been prepared to contend that the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend was out of Order, because the hon. and learned Solicitor General, who, he supposed, represented the other legal luminaries who adorned the Treasury Bench, had just risen in his place and given reasons—good reasons, as he thought—why that Amendment was out of Order. Now, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) wished to put a question, as an old Member of that House, to Her: Majesty's Government, and the question, he desired to asked was this—if such really had been the opinion of the Treasury Bench, why did they not say so while the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford was before the Committee, and why had they led the Committee to suppose that this Amendment might be negatived as a matter of course, and that then the question could be discussed on the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, and the Government were the more to blame, because his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had actually said he would not pursue his argument on the first Amendment, because the matter would be in a position to be discussed in full when the second Amendment came on? Therefore, his (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's) contention was, that if there had been an interruption of the progress of the Bill, that interruption was entirely owing to the fault of the Government. He did not wish to make any reflections on anyone; but he felt bound to say this—that they had seen a great number of changes of opinion on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and those who had sat in that House for a few years were well aware of the different styles he adopted as a politician. But the right hon. Gentleman, with all his experience, did not seen to have yet learned that the best way of treating an Opposition—an Opposition largely composed of English Gentlemen—was to deal with them fairly and frankly, and to offer, when needed, such straightforward expressions of opinion as the opportunity might call for.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he did not think he should have improved on his own method by adopting that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for White haven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), who had just spoken, and who had said that the Opposition was largely composed of English Gentlemen—a statement which accounted, in a very disagreeable manner, for that portion of the Opposition which was not so composed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that he (Mr. Gladstone) was a very different politician from what he was when he entered those walls. All he could say in reply to that was that during the entire period since the right hon. and learned Gentleman had entered that House he had been the object of his unqualified and unmitigated censure. With regard to the question the right hon. and learned Gentleman had raised as to the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, the case, as far as he knew it, was this—the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford had not, in his opinion, any connection with the putting of that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman out of court. As far as he understood it, it was the opening up of a question affecting the 1st clause which had put that Amendment out of court.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

desired to remind the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), in reference to what had fallen from him (Mr. Bentinck) with regard to the composition of the Opposition, that many Irish Gentlemen, and also a few Scotch Gentlemen, were to be found in the ranks of the Opposition.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he must apologize to the Committee for the Motion he had made. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had been kind enough to vindicate him from the charge of doing anything unusual in making that Motion, on the ground that he had already done the same thing within one week. This, however, was a slight exaggeration on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He might, however, say, with regard to the motive that had induced him to make the Motion that the Chairman should report Progress, that it was entirely due to the conduct of the Government during the proceedings on this Bill in Committee, which had been such that it was only by making Motions of this kind that the Opposition had, on more than one occasion, been able to extract any information from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. Why, even up to the present time, the Government had not defined what the interest of the tenant was—what it was that he was to be allowed to sell. But he had no desire to enter upon a discussion of that point at that juncture. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had, however, pointedly invited him to enter into a discussion of the question of perpetuity of tenure, for which he had said this appeared to him to be the most fitting and appropriate moment. As the right hon. Gentleman had invited him to enter on this course, he presumed he should be strictly in Order in so doing. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would have invited him to take a course that was out of Order, and, that being the case, he would proceed to discuss the question. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] The right hon. Gentleman said "No!" but he must remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he had said. He had said—"I wonder that the hon. Member does not do it now." If he were in Order he would proceed with the discussion; and he certainly quite shrunk from the imputation of the right hon. Gentleman that what he (Mr. Chaplin) had to say on the subject was already exhausted. He was entirely in the hands of the Chairman. ["Divide!" "Order!"]

MR. GORST

asked whether the loud cries coming from the other side of the House were not un-Parliamentary?

THE CHAIRMAN

called on Mr. Chaplin to proceed.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he was entirely in the hands of the Chairman and the Committee, and if he were in Order in discussing the question of perpetuity of tenure, he was most anxious to do so; if not, he would sit down. He awaited the instruction of the Chairman.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to have suggested that it would certainly be appropriate, when the Question was put that Clause 7 stand part of the Bill, to discuss the point referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, the right hon. Gentleman had certainly said he wondered that he (Mr. Chaplin) had not discussed the question before. If it was not the wish of the Committee that he should discuss the question then, though he certainly thought it was, he would desist; but he should like to ask whether or not it was in Order to do so?

THE CHAIRMAN

It would certainly be inconvenient and irregular to do so on the Motion for reporting Progress.

MR. CHAPLIN

Under those circumstances, I shall not proceed; and I will, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

said, he would, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LALOR

moved, in page 8, line 27, after sub-section 11, to insert the following sub-section:— Where the tenant of a present tenancy, the rent of which has been fixed as a judicial rent, either by the Court or by mutal agreement between landlord and tenant, applies to the Court for an alteration of rent at the termination of the statutory term, the Court shall have power to fix a rent for the next statutory term: Provided, That in fixing such rent the Court shall not take into account the present state of the farm at the time being, but only take into account the prices of the farm produce, hereinafter designated, at the time when the first judicial rent was fixed, as compared with the average prices of the same description of farm produce during the whole period of the latest previous statutory term; And if the value of the farm has decreased in proportion and in consequence of the fall in prices of the same description of farm produce, hereinafter designated, then the difference between the present value of the farm and the rent fixed for the first statutory term shall be ascertained, and half the amount so ascertained shall be deducted from the present rent, and the rent so fixed shall be the judicial rent during the next statutory term. But if the prices of the same description of farm produce, hereinafter designated, shall have increased, and in consequence the value of the farm has proportionately increased, then half the amount of such increase shall be added to the present rent, and the rent so fixed shall be the judicial rent during the next statutory term; And at the end of each succeeding statutory term for the future, the tenant of every present tenancy, and the tenant of every future tenancy shall, on application to the Court, have the judicial rent fixed during the ensuing statutory term on the same principle and in the same way as in the foregoing sub-section; For the purpose of fixing in future, at the end of each statutory term, what shall be a fair rent for a tenancy during the next succeeding statutory term of said tenancy, the Land Commission shall appoint a competent person, who shall be an officer under the control and direction of said Land Commission, to ascertain what has been the average wholesale prices in Dublin of the following farm products during every week of the time between the first of May, one thousand eight hundred and eighty, and the first of May, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, namely:—

• Wheat, at per stone of fourteen pounds.
• Oats at per stone of fourteen pounds.
• Barley at per stone of fourteen pounds.
• Beef at per stone of fourteen pounds.
• Butter at per stone of fourteen pounds.
• Mutton at per stone of fourteen pounds.
• Wool at per stone of fourteen pounds.
• Pork at per stone of fourteen pounds.

And the prices so ascertained shall he registered in a book for that purpose, and preserved in the office of the Land Commission, and a copy of the same shall he forward to, and preserved in, each of the County Land Courts of Ireland; And it shall he the duty of the said officer of the Land Commission to ascertain during every week for the future, commencing from the first day of May, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, what may he the average wholesale prices in Dublin of the afore-named I farm products; And the prices so ascertained shall he registered in a book for that purpose, and preserved in the office of the Land Commission; And at the end of every succeeding year, from the day on which the first entry shall he made, the average of such prices shall he ascertained, for the entire period of such year, and entered at the end of each year's account; And a certified copy of the entries in said book shall be forwarded to, and preserved for use in, each of the County Land Courts in Ireland. The question was on what data would the Court decide on fixing the rent, at the end of the statutory term for the next statutory term. One effect of the Bill, as it stood, would be that if the tenant did make improvements as the term of his tenancy was about to expire he would allow the improvements to run out in order that the land should be in as bad a state as possible when the Court was about to make the valuation for the I next term. Nothing could be more in jurious to the interests of the land, and his Amendment was intended to meet such a state of things. Hitherto the landlord had insisted on the right of adjusting the rent in proportion to the in crease of prices; but he did not allow I the tenant to have a right to any portion of the improvement; he took the whole value of the rise in the price of produce for himself. Nothing in the world could be more unjust than that. The produce that he (Mr. Lalor) wished to include in this Amendment consisted of the products generally cultivated in Ireland—not only agricultural products, but beef, and mutton, and eggs, and butter. All these things taken together were really the commodities that regulated the value of land in Ireland, and the only improvements which supple, merited them, and which alone the landlord could fairly claim to have any right to, were such as sprang from the increase in the number of houses built, and the consequent increase in the size of villages and towns. If some such proposal as this were not accepted the landlord would be enabled to act like a dog in the manger; and if the industry of the people were obstructed there would be no means left of raising the condition of the Irish people. But if, on the other hand, the people were allowed to have full and free play for their industry they would cultivate their land properly and improve their farms rapidly. The people who ought to be helped were not those who had been idly spending the money of the tenant how and where they chose, and who had prevented all development of industry in Ireland, and robbed the tenantry of their rights—it was not these, but the Irish people themselves, who should be assisted by this legislation. He had tried to make the matter as clear as he possibly could to Her Majesty's Government, and he was thoroughly convinced that the adoption of this proposal would be the means of saving future litigation by adjusting the rent on the only satisfactory basis without injury either to the landlord or to the tenant. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

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

MR. GLADSTONE

I should like to point out that what the hon. Gentleman proposes to do forms no part of the main argument, nor, I suppose, of the main purpose of the clause. The main purpose of this long Amendment, so far as I can understand it, is to lay down this principle—that the rent from one statutory term to another may vary, but only according to the variation in the prices of produce, by a rule constantly fixed. The prices of produce, no doubt, will be a very great element indeed in guiding the judgment of the Court when they proceed, after the expiration of one statutory period, to consider one rent to be fixed for another; but I hold it to be quite impossible to lay down beforehand for the whole of Ireland, on the principles of absolute justice, one rule founded on the price of produce, which will be as different as possible in its application to different parts of the country, accordingly as each, particular district grows one description of produce or another. At the same time, I freely make this concession to the hon. Member—that this question of the price of produce is a very important one; but the appreciation of this very important element must be left to the judgment of the Court. When it is so left, the prices of produce will be adduced before the Court, but only with reference to the particular holding, and with reference to what is produced upon that particular holding, so that you will get a valuable and really practical application of the principle of the hon. Member. It is not in his power to make any consistent application of his principle that could fairly be applied to all the holdings all over Ireland, and I am not prepared to admit that the variation in the prices of produce is the only element to be taken into consideration. Only to refer to a very few others, there is the price of labour; and, on the other side, the Court may have to take into consideration the improvements in machinery. In truth, there are a very largo number of elements to be taken into consideration, the whole of which must be left to practical men and to the judgment of the Court.

MR. PARNELL

said, he thought that a good deal of the criticism of the Prime Minister was fair. It was, undoubtedly, a very difficult thing to set down beforehand a number of articles of produce by the prices of which the Court were to be bound in estimating a fair rent and future revisions of rent. At the same time, one of the weak points of the Bill—and a weak point which would greatly influence the minds of the tenantry in considering the benefit likely to be derived from the Bill—was the vagueness of the instructions to the Court—so far, at all events, as the valuation was concerned at the expiration of the first period of revision. It had always seemed to him that one of the chief difficulties in valuing rents was the ascertaining of a fair rent to start with; but if once they could succeed in ascertaining a fair rent to start with there ought to be no practical difficulty in ascertaining it at the end of the period of revision, or at the end of the statutory term. He thought it would be well to adopt some Amendment in the direction of that proposed by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce). There was, undoubtedly, a great dislike on the part of the tenants to have the valuator cross their boundaries. They could not prevent the valuator from crossing the tenant's boundary in order to ascertain the initial rent; but if the tenant were told that, the initial fair rent having once been ascertained, no valuator would ever again cross his boundary, that would give him a confidence in the future working of the Bill which he could not otherwise possess. Undoubtedly, as the clause stood at present, the Court would have to inquire into the future condition of the holding in estimating the fair rent at the end of the first period of revision, and there was nothing more difficult than for the tenant to show what improvements he had effected in his holding. He (Mr. Parnell) would like to see some provision framed which would appeal to the senses of the Irish farmer, and give him some assurance that his improvements would be held sacred from the landlord's touch, and that everything that the tenant might do to his holding in the future, and by which he might make two blades of grass grow where only one grow before, would be for his own benefit, and not for the benefit of his landlord. He (Mr. Parnell) entreated the Prime Minister to consider whether some clause might not be framed in regard to this question of the revision of rents at the end of the first statutory term which would give the tenant an assurance that his improvements would be sacred to himself, and that the value which he added to his holding would not go to his landlord, either directly or indirectly.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he was very much inclined, from the experience he had gained in India, to agree with the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Cork. No doubt it was impossible to adopt the present Amendment in the form in which it was proposed; but the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) contained a principle which he was much inclined to accept. He hoped that before they got to the end of the first statutory term of 15 years it might be done; but it was impossible that the principle of this Bill could be properly elaborated before the Bill passed this Session.

MR. BLAKE

wished to remind the Prime Minister that he had not dealt with one very important point—namely, the great probability that existed that the price of certain articles of produce—wheat and meat being among the most important—would fall considerably before the end of the first statutory term. Anyone who had studied the question of American produce could come to no other conclusion than that within the next six years it was almost certain that the cheapness of American breadstuffs and meat would largely bring down prices both in England and Ireland, and certainly not permit the farmer to pay the same rent that he did now. American wheat could be delivered in large quantities in Liverpool at 35s. per quarter; and the English farmer, if he were to continue to pay his present high rent, could not sell his wheat for less that 45s. per quarter, while the Irish farmer, making allowance for lower rents and less taxation, would require at least 40s. per quarter. It was certain that the butcher could not pay less than 7d. per lb. to the farmer for dead meat, if the farmer was to pay his rent and live; but in the White Star Line steamer in which he (Mr. Blake) had travelled from America, the contract for the best meat, taking the whole carcase, was 4d. per lb., and that meat could be delivered in Liverpool with a fair profit to everyone at 5d. per lb. It was perfectly manifest then that the price of certain kinds of produce of the United Kingdom must come down, and rents should fall with them. Another important consideration was that, independent of supplies from the United States and elsewhere, very large quantities of breadstuffs and meat were likely to be brought from Canada. In the North Western territory alone there was one wide tract, 1,000 miles long and 300 wide well suited for wheat, stretching from Manitoba to the Rocky Mountains, as well as other large tracts of country on each side of it four times as large as England, suited for the production of meat, and. they could depend on getting from Canada all the corn and meat they could consume four times over. He earnestly besought the Government to consider what would be the effect of prices falling in the way he had suggested. It would produce over again the same unhappy effects that had been seen in Ireland, and unless something was done to have more frequent periodic revisions of rent in the event of a fall in certain descriptions of produce, par- ticularly cattle and corn, there was no possible hope that this Bill could produce the good results which otherwise might be expected from it.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford County (Mr. Blake) had spoken as though his thermometer was one of complete accuracy. But if his case was good for anything at all, it would simply prove, not that the farmers could not afford to pay such high rents as at present, but that they would not be able to pay anything at all for their land. If his hon. Friend's figures were to be accepted, they showed that it would be unprofitable to grow anything in Ireland which had to face American competition. His hon. Friend was familiar with one article of produce—fish. Why was it that the price of oysters had not gone down in this country in consequence of the immense importations from America? By a parity of reasoning the price ought to have gone down. The fact remained that it had not gone down. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) was in the habit of consuming American beef himself; but he could not get it delivered at home for less than 1s. per lb. He believed that, however much the supply increased and the people consumed, it would keep up its price.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he was surprised at the apathy with which the statement of the hon. Member for the County of Waterford had been received. No notice of it, so far as he could judge, had been taken by the Government, notwithstanding that the question raised by the hon. Gentleman was one of the utmost importance, and one which touched most deeply the interests of agriculturists, not only in Ireland but in England as well—the enormous amount of our food importations from America, and the consequent great lowering of prices. The hon. Gentleman had, he understood, devoted much time to travelling through America; and, therefore, no man was calculated to speak with greater weight and authority upon the subject. Indeed, this point formed one of the greatest and most vital objections to the whole scheme of the Bill. The Government were going to give perpetuity or fixity of tenure under valued rents; and what would be the result if, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, prices fell to so great an extent? Why, it would utterly defeat the whole object and purpose of the Bill. He thought this point might have received some notice at the hands of the Government. He could not pretend to foretell what would be the effects of American competition; but he attached great importance to the latter portion of the Amendment now before the Committee, which provided that a record of prices should be kept for the guidance of the Court. No doubt, in a great degree, this question of prices would and must be left to the judgment of the Court; but the Court ought to have some record for the guidance of its judgment. The Prime Minister, in days gone by, objected, in the strongest manner, to the possibility of valuing rents upon the prices of produce; but that was in an argument directed against the whole system of the valuation of rents by the State. Now, however, that argument was altogether abandoned, and we were to have valuations of rent by the State. That being so, there ought to be some record or standard of prices kept for the Court to go upon in making its valuation. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had suggested that, however useful that might be, it would not be possible to deal with it in the present Bill. But why should the Court have imposed upon it so hard a task that Parliament felt incompetent itself to deal with it? He (Mr. Chaplin) would move as an Amendment to that before the Committee that the first three sections should be omitted, and only the last inserted in the Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN

asked whether the hon. Member who had moved the original Amendment meant to press it? He understood that the hon. Gentleman had risen to withdraw it.

MR. LALOR

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment, as the Government did not appear willing to accept it.

MR. GORST

said, on the point of Order, that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had moved an Amendment to the Amendment before leave had been asked to withdraw it, because although the hon. Member who had moved it stood up in his place, it was understood by the language of his Friends that he intended to withdraw it. Yet the Chairman had called upon the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, who, being in possession of the Committee, moved an Amendment. Even if the hon. Member for Queen's County had asked leave to withdraw the Amendment, it appeared to him that until the question that he be allowed to withdraw it were put from the Chair, anyone might move an Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

Before the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire rose, I heard the hon. Member for Queen's County say that he desired to withdraw the Amendment. If the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire does not wish it to be withdrawn, he has simply to say "No."

MAJOR NOLAN

said, he greatly regretted that the Government had not accepted something of the kind. Of course, the objection brought out by the Prime Minister was perfectly good as the Amendment stood, as it was not all land that would grow all those different articles. But he considered that might have been remedied on Report, and he had no doubt the hon. Member would have been perfectly ready to admit the Amendment of the Prime Minister. He did not want to go into the whole question; but he regretted that they had no fixed principle whatever, and if the Prime Minister thought that the Commissioners were going into the value of every separate holding in Ireland he would be very much mistaken.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

said, the hon. Member for Queen's County desired to withdraw his Amendment in order that they might discuss the subject on the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce).

MR. BIGGAR

said, it seemed to him that the proposal in the Amendment was an exceedingly reasonable one. There was no certainty in the valuation of land. It was entirely guess work, and it might be a good guess or a very indifferent guess. Under the Bill he had no doubt the Government would make considerable exertions to get a pretty good valuation in the first instance. But what sort of valuators would they have 15 years hence? They knew nothing about them, they would be entirely beyond the control of the present Government, and they might be valuators of a very objectionable character. In addition to that, the evidence they would have to take with regard to the improvements which should have been made within the preceding 15 years must be of a very uncertain character. It would be perfectly impos- sible to get good and trustworthy evidence of the improvements that had taken place on a holding; and it appeared to him that if the view contained in the Bill, which seemed to be that an inquiry should be made into the details of each particular holding, were to be carried out, it would be very undesirable to have a re-valuation in 15 years, because the question of improvements was so uncertain. It was a very material thing with regard to small holdings, in many of which cases it would take nearly the fee-simple value of the holding to get professional evidence as to what the improved value of the holding was, and to satisfy the Court as to the value of a particular tenancy. For these reasons he thought it was very desirable that, if not the exact plan of the hon. Member, at least some similar plan should be adopted in the Bill, so that present tenants should, at the end of the first statutory term, be saved not only from the landlords, but from all the difficulties and troubles connected with the calling in of fresh evidence with regard to the value of their holdings.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from the first word "Where," to the words "foregoing sub-section," in line 28.—(Mr. Chaplin.)

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 250; Noes 146: Majority 104.—(Div. List, No. 290.)

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he should like to know, before the Amendment was withdrawn, how it would affect the Amendment which followed and which stood in the name of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce)? If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Queen's County were l-ejected, would it be in Order for the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets to move his?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the first part of the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets contained much larger questions. It contained the question of labour, the rise and fall in the price of labour, and also the question of live stock; so that the first part of the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets would not be affected by the Amendment under discussion.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he understood the Government would not accept the Amendment as it stood.

Amendment (Mr. Lalor), by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN

Before the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets moves his Amendment, I must call his attention to the second part of it, which is— Provided, That, where the value of the land shall be proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been increased or diminished (as the case may be) by causes independent of anything done either by the landlord or by the tenant, the Court may, in determining the rent, have regard to such increased or diminished value, and shall, for the purpose of such determination, take the landlord's share in such increased or diminished value to bear to the tenant's share therein the same proportion as the selling value of the fee-simple of the land (subject to the tenant's interest) bears to the selling value of the tenant's interest in the holding. I must point out that that cannot be put, because it is substantially the same as that of the hon. Member for Queen's County.

MR. BRYCE

moved, in page 8, line 27, after sub-section 11, to insert the following sub-section:— (12) Where, during the last twelve months of a current statutory term, or at any time after the expiry of the same, an application is made to the Court to determine a judicial rent, the Court shall not vary the amount of the rent from the amount at which it had been previously determined, except in respect of any increased value arising from improvements (if any) made by the landlord, or in respect of any increase or diminution (as the case may be) in the price of agricultural produce and live stock estimated upon the average prices of the five years last preceding, or in respect of any rise or fall (as the case may be) in the wages of labour or otherwise in the cost of production estimated upon the average of a like period. He said he would accept the Chairman's decision, and say nothing about the second part of the Amendment, and confine himself to the first part. His task of explaining it to the Committee had been considerably lightened by the observations that were made upon the last Amendment by several hon. Gentlemen. He would just say that it was not open to several of the objections urged against that Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. Now, the present Amendment dealt with the settlement of a fair rent after the expiry of a statutory term; and it proposed not to deal, like the last Amendment, with details, but to lay down two general principles. The first was that the relative and proportionate interests of the landlord and tenant should be observed; and the second gave to the tenant a security that his rent should not be varied, except in respect of changes which made it fair that he should pay a different rent, so that a sense of security would be given to the tenant which would induce him to go on improving his property, and would prevent him from looking forward with alarm and apprehension to the determination of the statutory period. Let them suppose different cases. In the first case, if the price of agricultural produce as well as the wages of labour and the cost of production did not alter during the 15 years, then clearly there was no ground for imposing an increased rent at the end of that time. But in case they had altered, then, if the price of agricultural produce had risen, it would be fair for the landlord to receive a larger rent. On the other hand, if it fell, it would be proper that the rent should be diminished, and the same would be the case, conversely, with regard to the cost of labour. He submitted that the principle of the Amendment, in regard to fair rent, was perfectly clear; and he did not understand, in the short discussion which had taken place on the question, that the justice of that principle was seriously disputed. He understood hon. Members opposite, and also the Prime Minister, to have admitted that the principle was a sound one, and that the objections which would be urged against it would be of a different kind—namely, that the proposed mode of carrying out that principle was a somewhat complicated and difficult one. His answer was that it was very desirable that statistics of the prices of produce and of wages should be regularly kept. He believed that they would be regularly kept, and that it would be perfectly easy, where the statistics of relative prices were applied to the case of one farm in a district, to apply them to the cases of all the farms in that district. Where once they had been determined for a given area, they would form a standard for determining a fair rent all over the district. Then another objection had been raised—should the calculation be made on the prices ruling through Ireland generally, or on those of a particular district? To this he would answer that it would be with the discretion of the Court to determine the district. The 42nd clause would give very large powers, enabling the Land Commission to make rules for the carrying out of the Act, and it would be a very proper object for them to determine the district within which prices should be calculated, to preserve the list of prices, and generally to settle the details of the system prescribed by the Act. Finally, he would meet the objection that the Amendment was unnecessary, since the Court would proceed anyhow on its principle, by the answer given by many who had spoken before him, that it was very desirable, now that an attempt was being made to settle the rent question on a permanent basis, and when the desire of Parliament was to impress the tenants with a sense of their security, and to give them every motive for improving their farms, that the settlement should be absolute, and that once for all the respective rights of landlord and tenant should be fixed in a way that might prevent future disputes and give the tenant every motive for improving his holding. He was far from saying that the Court would not proceed on this principle; he hoped and trusted, even if the Amendment were not carried, that the Court would. But what he wished to put to the Committee was that it would go a long way to inspire confidence in the tenant if this provision were introduced. It was not at all the same thing for the Court at some future time, before the term of 15 years expired, to make rules, or for an amending Act to be brought it. It was necessary that the tenant should now at once be made contented with the settlement.

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

MR. GLADSTONE

desired to say but a few words on the Amendment, which was prepared evidently with great care, but which, he was afraid, had been fatally mutilated by the decision which, under his sense of duty, the Chairman had taken. Striking out the second portion had made it, in his judgment, impossible to put the first. Taking this absolutely as it stood alone, it set forth that the rent during the second judicial term, or judicial term subsequent to the first term, should not be varied except in respect to certain cases which were enumerated. These were improvements by the land- lord, the prices of agricultural produce, and wages, and other matters affecting the cost of production—that was the whole purpose of the first paragraph. But then the second paragraph introduced another set of cases distinctly curtailing the limits of, and so far contradicting, the first. The second paragraph took notice of other causes independent of anything done by landlord or tenant, and which his hon. Friend recognized as likewise forming necessary points for the consideration of the Court; and, therefore, he would not be surprised that he said they were hardly in a position to debate the Amendment. It must be admitted that it seemed to be drawn up with great care and skill; but this mutilation, he thought, prevented the discussion of it as a whole, and the one paragraph was in absolute contradiction to what his hon. Friend proposed as a whole. But he must say that, while he was unable to admit the first paragraph because it was incomplete, it would be hardly ingenuous in him not to state that he could not concur in the principle of the second paragraph. The first paragraph appeared to be perfectly balanced as between the interests of landlord and tenant; but in the second his hon. Friend laid down a rule for dividing the share in the increase or diminution of value that he was not prepared to adopt. But it would be irregular to dwell upon that, for that was not the proposition. Under the circumstances he was afraid that no profit would arise from a discussion of the first paragraph of the Amendment.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he was sorry the hon. Member was prevented from putting the Amendment in the form in which it was originally drafted; but he was afraid the reasons given by the Prime Minister were fatal to it. But he only rose to say that there was no reason why the Prime Minister should not consider between now and the consideration of the Report, if Tory Obstruction should ever allow the Bill to reach that stage, some means of inserting in the measure that principle which the hon. Member sought to recommend to the attention of the Government. The Prime Minister, he was sure, was well acquainted with the general lines of the system of land tenure in India and some of the various Codes upon it; and he (Mr. O'Connor) thought the object which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had at heart was contained in some measure in those Codes, whereby the rent was not increased unless the value of the produce or the producing power of the land had been increased otherwise than by the agency or by the expense of the ryot. This was a fair principle, and might well find recognition in the Bill; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give serious consideration to the form of words which, in his judgment, would embody some such proposal. It was quite evident, from the remarks of the hon. Member for Cork, and by one who spoke on behalf of Ulster, that the one thing that tenants there felt strongly was the prospective danger of the value of a farm being increased in consequence of improvements the tenant might make. No doubt this prospective danger would not arise for 15 years after the passing of the Act; but it was danger that, though 15 years remote, yet did possess the mind of the tenant and greatly affected the benefit the Bill was calculated to confer. For himself, he did not think the danger would be very great, with a combination of a Liberal Government and the vigilance of an Irish Opposition, to protect the interests of the tenant even after the end of 15 years.

MR. LITTON

said, he thought the thanks of Irish Members and Irish farmers were due to the hon. Member for the manner in which he had formulated his Amendment; and it occurred to him (Mr. Litton) that there was not that connection between the two branches of the Amendment, as the right hon. Gentleman contended, that the one should necessarily fall with the other. The latter part had been ruled out of Order; but the earlier part declared that at the end of the current statutory term the rent should not vary from the amount fixed except in respect of increased value arising from landlords' improvements, or increase or diminution in the price of agricultural produce, live stock, or rise and fall in cost of labour. These were the three elements in respect to which there might be an alteration of rent; and where was the inconsistency in saying that these circumstances having been taken into consideration in determining the statutory rent, that they should be considered on re-valuing and dividing the unearned increment between the land- lord and tenant? Passing away from the latter part of the Amendment, the first portion of the Amendment would stand by itself; and it appeared to him that the argument based on the fact that because one part of the Amendment was ruled out of Order the other part could not be submitted to the Committee was not conclusive. Of course, at that hour, probably the hon. Member would not press his Amendment; but certainly it was a subject upon which the tenant farmers of Ireland entertained the deepest interest, because they had a strong fear and impression that their own improvements might be considered in a subsequent revision of rent; and as that feeling might have much effect on the success of the measure, it was desirable to have some such assurance as the Amendment of the hon. Member would give. On such grounds he would support the Amendment in a division, though probably the hon. Member would not press his Amendment so far.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

, without going into the particular point raised, said, the principle upon which they had been dealing with the action of the Court was to leave the Court as little fettered by minute directions as might be. If the Committee passed this first part of the Amendment, they would be going a long way to hamper the Court with minute restrictions that might be found extremely inconvenient.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, it was well said by the right hon. Baronet that they did not wish to lay down any absolute directions for determining the second or subsequent revision of rent; but one thing he did wish to say in reply to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), and that was, that he was at one with him in the desire that the whole fruits of the tenant's industry should be secured to the tenant, and become a permanent basis of his interest in the property as the proceeds of his own labour and capital applied to the soil; and he was convinced that this would not be forfeited. He only gave this assurance to remove any doubt that might exist.

MR. GIVAN

said, he had given a great deal of attention to this Amendment, and was sorry the Prime Minister had not seen his way to accepting it. The assurance that the landlord should not be allowed to acquire more than he was entitled to was so far satisfactory; but the tenants had a fear, founded on experience, that after the initial rent was fixed their own improvements would be taken into account on a subsequent valuation. A letter from an able Presbyterian minister which he had received that day referred to this in allusion to the discussions of the past week. The writer referred to the great advantage it would be to remove the sense of insecurity that now existed in the minds of tenants, and to make it clear that they should have the benefit of the improvements that they had themselves created. That was the very object the Government professed to aim at in their Bill, and unless it was accomplished the Bill would fail of success. He expressed a hope that in the interval before the Report was considered the Government would give their earnest attention to this.

MR. BRYCE

, after the remarks of the Prime Minister, did not think himself justified in asking the Committee to divide. He might say that he felt that the leaving out of the latter part of the Amendment did seriously affect the first part as now worded; but he did not conceive this to be a fatal objection to the first part, if it were slightly altered in expression. But the experience of Friday did not encourage him to hope that the time of the Committee would be profitably spent upon matters of drafting, and he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, with the view of bringing it up on Report in an amended form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Antrim (Mr. Macnaghten), is precisely the same as one upon which the Committee has already decided, and cannot, therefore, be put. The next Amendment in Order is that of the hon. Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce).

SIR HERVEY BRUCE

said, he had some degree of difficulty in regard to his Amendment, which was for the purpose of bringing labourers' rents under the 1st section of this clause. He was anxious that something should be done in regard to labourers' rents; but he had been told by Gentlemen more learned in the drafting of Amendments than himself that the words he proposed would not accomplish the object he had in view. He therefore thought the best course would be to postpone the subject and to wait until the deputation of labourers, which he understood was to have an interview with the Chief Secretary on Friday, had had an opportunity of explaining the views of the labourers; and perhaps the result might be a clause better drafted than his. He would not give the Committee the trouble of discussing his Amendment.

On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, as his hon. Friend was not going to put his Amendment, he begged now to move to report Progress. He did so in the hope that the Prime Minister would accede to it, because the great question of perpetuity of tenure arose on the question that the clause be retained, and the clause had been so altered that it required much looking into.

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

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he was about to make the Motion himself.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had agreed to the Motion; it was still early in the evening, and he thought the Committee were going on in a satisfactory manner. He was afraid the Government were giving in to Obstruction.

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.