PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTAL TO PRECEDING PARTS.

HC Deb 06 July 1881 vol 263 cc140-207

Miscellaneous.

Clause 12 (Sale of tenancy without notice of increase of rent).

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 7, after "tenancy," insert "under the provisions of the Act, and."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

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

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, Progress was reported last night in some uncertainty as to whether the Government intended to keep this clause in the Bill or not, in view of its action upon the sub-section of a former clause. He could not say that he understood exactly what course the Government really proposed to take, because the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had an Amendment on the Paper which raised a very important question; and, in the absence of the right hon. Baronet, he should certainly take the liberty of proposing it.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment referred to by the noble Lord is the one I have just put from the Chair. He will find it given upon page 2 of the Orders of the Day.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, the first Amendment on the Paper stood in the name of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor).

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment moved by the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was still under discussion when Progress was reported last night; and, according to the usual practice, it has again been submitted to the Committee. The Question is, "That the words moved by the right hon. Gentleman be here inserted."

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

hoped that the Government would give the Committee some explanation of the meaning of the clause.

MR. GLADSTONE

The purpose of the clause is a very narrow one. It is intended—I do not at all dissemble—to meet the case of something like fraud or trickery on the part of the landlord. At present there is a possibility of such a thing happening in the case of an un-principled landlord, who, after the arrangements between the incoming man and the outgoing tenant have been completed, and the money paid, should, before accepting the incoming tenant, intimate his intention of requiring a rise of rent. It is a nice matter, perhaps, to deal with; but we are of opinion that the landlord should be under the same liabilities to the tenant in regard to fair dealing that the tenant is under to the landlord, and that there should be a clear understanding upon the subject.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he had hoped that after what passed last night the Government would have announced this morning that they were going to drop the clause. It seemed to him a very complicated clause, and the complications of the Bill were such that it was advisable to lighten the ship as much as possible. He confessed that he had never been fully able to understand the object of the clause; and the statement which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had just made gave it a much narrower scope than before. He had understood that it was intended to guard against a kind of fraud on the part of the landlord in raising the rent between the sale of the tenancy and the acceptance of the new tenant. If the landlord allowed the transfer to take place without any word of dispute about the rent, he was to hold his peace for ever, and was practically precluded from requiring a rise of rent afterwards.

MR. GLADSTONE

If the landlord has accepted the incoming tenant, and the incoming man has now become his tenant, and the landlord then demands an increase of rent, there is nothing to prevent him from doing so. The object of the clause is to make provision for this narrow point; it is considered that there may be an interval between the completion of the transaction by the old tenant and the introduction of the new tenant, during which the landlord may say to the new tenant—"You are now coming in; I do not refuse to accept you; coming if you take this farm, you must take it under an increased rent." This clause would place the landlord under the same liabilities to the new tenant as to the old.

SIR. GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that in that narrow sense he did not think it necessary to object to the clause. If the landlord allowed six months to pass before he raised the rent the case would be different.

MR. GIBSON

said, the Prime Minister had presented the section in a very minimized and narrow point of view; but, in his (Mr. Gibson's) opinion, it was open to a far wider construction. He quite accepted the statement of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), that it was desirable, as far as possible, to lighten the ship. That he would be anxious to do if it was possible, especially in the present state of the weather; but he thought that the best way of lightening the ship in this instance would be to drop the clause altogether. Of course, if the Committee thought it desirable to deal with the question now it could do so. There were two classes of tenancies dealt with—namely, present and future tenants. The position of a future tenant was abundantly protected by sub-section 3 of Clause 2 as amended. But the question of the present tenant, which he admitted to be an important question, was not left uncovered. A present tenant had ample power, if he was dissatisfied with the rise, to appeal to the Court and demand that the Court should overrule the claim of the landlord to the extent to which it was unreasonable in the matter of rent. He wished to know whether those two that narrow point. But I do not think questions did not dispose of the width of the drafting of the clause? It might be a very narrow and minute point which had been indicated by the Prime Minister, and it might require some further drafting; but, unquestionably, on that side of the House they could not allow the clause to remain in its present shape without a protest. Therefore, in the interest of the time of the Committee, he would ask the Government to withdraw the clause. If it went on, they would feel called upon to move Amendment after Amendment which stood on the Paper in order to prevent the wideness of the drafting of the clause being used in a way which was not intended.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out that, if the clause is to be discussed in detail, a discussion is now quite irregular. It must be taken when the Question is proposed that Clause 12 stand part of the Bill, and not upon the simple Amendment now before the Committee.

DR. LYONS

wished to know what the actual words of the Amendment were?

THE CHAIRMAN

The proposal is to leave out the word "tenancy," in line 7, in order to insert the words "under the provisions of this Act, and."

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH

would venture to make a suggestion. There appeared to be a good deal of difficulty in the matter, and, in order to save time, he would suggest that the clause should be postponed. Perhaps the Government would agree to that course.

THE CHAIRMAN

It would be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment first, and after that is done the clause could be postponed, if desirable.

MR. GLADSTONE

I see no objection to the postponement of the clause. It was not intended last night that the clause should be postponed, but that I should state to-day what the object of the clause was. I trust that the Committee will see that there is really some point in the clause. My object is simply to provide protection against a very dishonourable transaction aimed at a man before he becomes a tenant at all, either present or future; and the clause is intended to have its operation confined to that the Government will have any difficulty in being able to consider the point between the present time and the bringing up of the Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause postponed.

Clause 13 (Regulations as to sales and application to Court to fix rent).

MR. BIGGAR

said, he wished to move the Amendment which stood in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). The object of the Amendment appeared to be that if the landlord had an objection against the tenant before the judicial rent was fixed, he should place the tenant in a position that he would be able to sell the holding at a reasonable and fair price according to the merits of the case. It was obvious that if the rent was increased, and then the holding sold, the tenant would be placed at a disadvantage. Therefore, the Amendment was, he considered, a fair and reasonable one. It gave both the landlord and the tenant the opportunity of getting a fair price, and nothing more.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 16, leave out from the word "proceedings" to "following," in line 25, and insert "Where proceedings other than proceedings in ejectment for non-payment of rent are taken by the landlord to compel a tenant to quit his holding the tenant may sell his tenancy at any time before, but not after, the execution of the writ or decree to possession, and thereupon such proceedings shall be stayed and wholly cease, and the purchaser shall hold such tenancy as if such proceedings had not been taken; and if judgment, or decree in ejectment, has been obtained before the passing of this Act, such tenant may, at any time before, but not after, the expiration of six months from the execution of a writ or decree to possession in an ejectment for non-payment of rent, and at any time before, but not after, the execution of such writ or decree to possession in an ejectment for non-payment of rent, and at any time before, but not after, the execution of such writ or decree in any ejectment other than for nonpayment of rent, apply to the Court to fix the judicial rent of the holding."—(Mr. Bigger.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'where proceedings' stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND

(Mr. Law) thought that the hon. Member must have misconceived the object of the clause. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) could see no difference between the object which the hon. Member proposed to attain by the Amendment, and what was in the Bill already, except in one small matter of very trifling importance. If the Amendment were adopted in the very common case of an ejectment for non-payment of rent, the tenant's power of selling would be gone. He thought that could hardly be the object of the hon. Gentleman. The Amendment left out all the first part of the clause, and accordingly left the tenant who was ejected for non-payment of rent without any power of sale. That, of course, was not intended. If the object was to enable a tenant who was ejected for non-payment of rent, as in other cases where proceedings were taken, to apply to the Court to fix a judicial rent, then that was expressly provided for by the Bill as it stood. The only difference in the Amendment was that it left the tenant entirely unprotected where he happened to be ejected for the non-payment of rent.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that under those circumstances, after the very fair explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, he would withdraw the Amendment. He might add that his hon. Friend, in whose name the Amendment stood, had not requested him to move it.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

would like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland a question or two before the Amendment was withdrawn. This was one of the two clauses which affected a tenant who had entered into a contract with his landlord. He understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government were anxious to make provision for those tenants whose tenant right had been swallowed up by excessive rents, and by the proceedings of the landlord. As he understood the matter, a tenant who was at present engaged in legal proceedings with his landlord would only get six-months, from the passing of the Act, in which to redeem himself, and put himself right so as to sell the advantages conferred upon him by the Act of 1870, and by this Bill. He wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether, if the Government thought it right to protect the tenants whose tenant right had been destroyed on account of bad seasons, and if they also thought it desirable that the protecting power of the clause should be limited to the short period of six months? The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know that this distress was not a distress of last year, but that it had extended over two or three years. He would, therefore, respectfully suggest that the Government should increase the protection afforded to those unfortunate tenants, so that they might have an opportunity of recovering their position.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND

(Mr. LAW) said, the clause must be read in conjunction with others. The condition laid down was that within this period of six months, if the rent still remained unpaid, and in one or two other cases specially provided for, litigation might be commenced and the tenant ejected. It would not be reasonable to require a more extended period to elapse before the landlord could have his remedy. The question which the hon. Member had just put related, he understood, to tenants now in difficulties. The Bill provided that they would have the same period of time up to which they would be able to redeem their position, and they might apply to the Court to fix a judicial rent. If they got a judicial rent fixed, they would have a statutable period of 15 years, during which they would be able to sell their rights. By sub-section 2, where the sale of a tenancy was delayed without default of the tenant, it was in the power of the Court to extend the time; and by one of the last clauses in the Bill, Clause 48, it was provided that, although the Court might not sit until October, and a tenant was unable to make an immediate application to the Court, he should be, if the Court thought proper, in the same position, and have the same rights in respect of his tenancy, as he would have been in and would have had, if the application had been made on the day on which the Act came into force. He thought that it was impossible to provide more reasonable arrangements generally in order to enable a tenant to realize the benefits of the Bill.

MR. MACFARLANE

also wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland a question. Were the proceedings referred to in the section those that were existing at the time of the passing of the Act, or only proceedings that were now pending?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

Both.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he understood from the Prime Minister, on Monday last, that it was intended to-day that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland should lay before the Committee the views of the Government upon the question of arrears. He should like to know when that statement was to be made.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I may briefly state that I propose to lay before the Committee the views of the Government in regard to this matter when we come to the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton). I may remind the Committee that I have given Notice of an important Amendment in Clause 45, to insert, after the words "a tenancy to which this Act applies shall be deemed to have determined whenever it is sold in consequence of a breach by the tenant," the words "after the passing of this Act." That would put a tenant under the notice of eviction in the position that if he thought himself rack-rented he could apply to the Court to fix a fair rent, and would be able to sell the holding as a present tenancy.

MR. GIBSON

said, the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) was one of extreme importance, and he would not now discuss its details. So far as he gathered, the Government did not intend themselves to bring in any substantive Amendment dealing with the question of arrears; but they intended to accept another Amendment and draft their alterations upon it.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

What I intended to state was that we proposed to put our clause upon the Table of the House to-day; and I intimated that I would take the opportunity for doing so upon the Amendment being moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton).

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LITTON

said, the Amendment he was about now to propose would only require a very few words of explanation. He proposed to insert, after the words "where proceedings are taken by the landlord," in line 16, the words "or have been taken." That would make the clause apply to proceedings taken both before and after the passing of the Act.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 10, after "are taken," to insert the words "or have been taken."—(Mr. Litton.)

Amendment agreed to.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

wished to move an Amendment, in order to clear up a doubt as to who the clause applied to. He proposed to insert, after the first word "tenant," in line 17, the words "of a present tenancy."

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 17, after the first word "tenant," insert "of a present tenancy."—(Captain Aylmer.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he could not accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR,

on behalf of the hon. Member for Wexford County (Mr. Barry), moved, in line 20, after the word "of," to insert the words "not less than two years."

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 20, after "of," insert "not less than two years."—(Mr. T. P. O' Connor.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

hoped that the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. The law as it stood gave the tenant a year's grace, and that was, he submitted, a sufficiently liberal allowance. It would be most unjust to require the landlord to wait for two years.

Question put, and negatived.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

moved, after the word "rent," in line 22, to insert the words— Provided that any such tenancy so sold shall be, and be deemed to be, a subsisting tenancy as if no such proceedings had been taken. There could be no question that the tenancy in a legal sense would be gone, sub- ject to the equitable right of redemption. The object of this Amendment was to provide, as in Ulster, that the tenant, notwithstanding that fact, should be at liberty to sell so long as the right of redemption lasted.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 22, after the word "rent," insert these words "any such tenancy so sold shall be, and be deemed to be, a subsisting tenancy as if no such proceedings had been taken."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

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

MR. GIBSON

said, that this Amendment was proposed in manuscript without Notice, and would very much have preferred that the Amendment should have been placed on the Paper, because it was of great importance, bearing in mind the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (Sir Matthew White Ridley), which came immediately afterwards, and which provided that such sale should not prejudice or affect the landlord's rights in the event of the said tenancy not being redeemed within the period of six months his hon. Friend was not in the House at the present moment; but he (Mr. Gibson) intended to move the Amendment for him. It dealt with a technicality, and remedied a flaw in the clause. But if they declared that, notwithstanding a notice to quit, the tenancy was an existing tenancy, how would the position of the landlord be affected? Did it free the purchaser, who stood in the shoes of the tenant, from the obligation to redeem? That was a vital question. The tenant right at present was this—that he had six months after the execution of a writ or decree to redeem; and if the tenancy was not redeemed—and it could only be redeemed by the payment of the tenant's rent—then, in common justice, the landlord would be entitled to treat the tenancy as gone, and put a man in possession. His right hon. and learned Friend now proposed to declare, notwithstanding all this, that the tenancy should be held to be a subsisting tenancy; and he (Mr. Gibson) wished to show how, if they did that, it would affect the landlord's rights. He did not like to differ upon a question of this kind from his right hon. and learned Friend. But, unless his right hon. and learned Friend would say that the matter should be considered in connection with the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Northumberland, and that the acceptance of this Amendment would not prejudice the Amendment of his hon. Friend, he certainly could not accept the Government Amendment, which would prejudice that which he was about to move, and which was an absolute test of the bona fides of the clause. He must, therefore, most reluctantly decline to accede to the present Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

thought the observations of his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) were quite just; but it was not intended that the landlord's rights should be prejudiced by the Amendment. In point of fact, the Amendment was proposed as a means of protecting the landlord's rights. There would be a sale under the 1st clause of the Bill, and in a case of this kind where the rent was due the money must be paid into Court. He should have no objection to add to the Amendment, not exactly the words of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Northumberland (Sir Matthew White Ridley), but words which would provide against anything being done that was calculated to prejudice the rights of the landlord. The landlord had two rights—the right to recover the rent of his land, and the right to obtain compensation for damages; and the Government would not sanction any Amendment that would be inconsistent with those rights. Of course, if a tenancy was sold it went to the purchaser; but he would be perfectly willing to introduce an Amendment fully preserving the landlord's rights.

MR. GIBSON

said, he was sorry that be had been unable to follow the argument of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, and he would, therefore, shortly state his own views. He thought that the Government had no right—indeed, they admitted that they had no right—to interfere in any way between the landlord and the recovery of his rent.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, it might perhaps save time if he said that he saw no objection to the insertion of the words proposed to be moved by his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson).

MR. WARTON

wished to suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that it would facilitate the progress of the Bill if, when Amendments were moved which were not on the Paper, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would read the exact words in which they were framed. In regard to the last Amendment, he had noticed no fewer than four corrections from the words as given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and the words as afterwards read by the Chair.

MR. BIGGAR

thought that the conversation which had taken place between the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland and the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) was somewhat irregular. The Attorney General for Ireland had moved an Amendment, and the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin argued against it unless the Government would consent to some subsequent Amendment. Now, he did not think that that was at all a regular mode of proceeding. The best course would be to settle this Amendment first; and then, when the next Amendment was moved, it would be for the Committee, and not for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, to settle whether it was to be received or not.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) is perfectly correct. There was an irregularity in discussing the second Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. GIBSON

moved, in line 22, after "rent," to insert— But such sale shall not prejudice or affect the landlord's rights, in the event of the said tenancy not being redeemed within the said period of six months. This, he said, was the Amendment which stood in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (Sir Matthew White Ridley).

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 22, after "rent," insert "but such sale shall not prejudice or affect the landlord's rights, in the event of the said tenancy not being redeemed within the said period of six months."—(Mr. Gibson.)

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

MR. BIGGAR

said, he would like to have the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland as to what the effect of these words would be. It seemed to him that they might neutralize, in a great measure, what occurred in the subsequent paragraphs of this particular clause. Those paragraphs provided that certain proceedings should be suspended until the decision of the Court had been had on the question of rent and other matters; and he thought the Amendment, in its present form, would nullify that provision, and put the landlord in absolute possession of the holding even if legal proceedings were pending. Under those circumstances, he thought the Amendment very objectionable, and he hoped that the Committee would not agree to it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he did not think the Amendment would have any injurious effect. It was quite clear that the landlord was entitled to get the rent of his land, and that this right must be protected; and there never was any intention in any part of the House, when the land was transferred to another tenant, that the landlord's right to be paid his rent should be taken away from him. This Amendment merely involved a declaration that a sale should not prejudice or affect the landlord's rights, in the event of the tenancy not being redeemed within the specified period of six months. In reference to what followed, Ids right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) would see in the next paragraph of the Bill that power was given to the Court to extend the time for the application beyond the period previously assigned, so that, under special circumstances, although the six months might have expired, the Court would have power to enlarge the time.

MR. LEAMY

said, the Amendment might be very reasonable or not; but he thought they had already protected the landlord in the case of a sale. In the 1st clause of the Bill it was provided that until the purchaser satisfied the requirements of Section 8, and until any rent that was due was paid, the landlord need not accept the purchaser as tenant. Therefore the landlord was sufficiently protected as the Bill stood, and even for the purpose of protecting the land- lord there was no necessity for introducing this Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the difficulty arose from the words he had adopted in his Amendment, that a transfer should take effect as if no ejectment proceedings had been taken. His right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) therefore proposed these words in order to save the landlord's rights.

MR. LEAMY

said, there was this difficulty. If the landlord was not protected under the 1st clause, then, as he had said, it would be very fair and reasonable that the new tenant should stand in the old tenant's shoes; and if the rent was not paid within six months, of course it would affect the position of the incoming tenant. That was only reasonable. But then it must be borne in mind that the outgoing tenant was compelled to sell, and he must give notice to his landlord of his intention to sell. The landlord had the right to decide who should be the purchaser; and he had a right to object, on reasonable grounds, to the proposed purchaser. The landlord had also a right to call upon the proposed purchaser to pay the money into Court. The outgoing tenant would then have complied with all the conditions that were necessary in regard to the power of sale, and would have done everything that could reasonably be expected of him. Consequently, the landlord would have got sufficient protection. But if they allowed this Amendment, the tenant, having got the consent of his landlord to sell, and the proposed purchaser having been received favourably by the landlord, then the selling tenant might get nothing whatever from the incoming man, and the incoming tenant and the selling tenant might both be evicted.

MR. MARUM

thought that unless the words were qualified they would cut away the temporary power of suspension.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, he could not see what object was to be gained by inserting these words. They only repeated words that had already been assented to by all parties, and were contained in the Bill. They simply meant that if the landlord could not get his rent he was to have back his land, and that was perfectly just. He agreed that the insertion of these words might in- terfere with the intention of the clause. The laying down of general rules was often a good preface for making exceptions.

MR. BIGGAR

said, it seemed to him that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) did not attach sufficient importance to the words proposed to be inserted. He (Mr. Biggar) held that in the event of the tenancy not being redeemed within six months, what followed afterwards would be entirely nullified—namely, Where any proceedings for compelling the tenant to quit his holding shall have been taken before or after an application to fix a judicial rent, and shall be pending before such application is dismissed, the Court before which such proceedings are pending shall have power to postpone or suspend such proceedings until the termination of the proceeding of the application for proceeding in such judicial rent. He thought there ought to be some saving words contained in the clause, such as had been suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, or otherwise one part of the clause would contradict the other.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCEELL)

thought that, with a slight alteration, the words proposed might be rendered unobjectionable. No doubt, what had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy) was quite correct; but in case that transaction was not carried out, the words that had now been adopted, on the suggestion of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, might be argued to have the effect of putting an end to the ejectment proceedings altogether, and render them a nullity, so as to compel the landlord to commence proceedings de novo for a fresh ejectment. He thought it possible to add words to protect the landlord's rights—not to give him any fresh rights, but to provide that the proceedings already commenced should not be made a nullity. He would suggest that the Amendment should be amended by the substitution of the words— Without prejudice to the landlord's rights in the event of the said tenancy not being redeemed within the said period of six months.

MR. GIBSON

said, that everyone liked his own child best, and therefore he preferred his own words; but he would not object to those proposed by the Solicitor General, who had fairly stated the substance of the contention.

THE CHAIRMAN

The most convenient course will be for the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) to withdraw his Amendment and propose to insert the one now suggested.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 22, after the word "rent," to insert these words, "without prejudice to the landlord's rights in the event of the said tenancy not being redeemed within the said period of six months."—(Mr. Solicitor General.)

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

MR. FITZPATRICK

wished to propose a small Amendment in order to clear up an ambiguity. He proposed to insert after the word "to," in line 24— And the Court be satisfied the rent mentioned in the said ejectment was an excessive rent the tenant was unable to pay him, it might fix a judicial rent. These words were only an amplification of the words of the Prime Minister himself on the introduction of the Bill. Speaking of pending cases of eviction, the right hon. Gentleman said— A very lively and just susceptibility has been shown by Representatives from Ireland as to the effect of the Act in cases where proceedings with a view to eviction have been commenced; and it has been said that if you take the cases of excessive rent which the tenant has been unable to pay, it would be extremely hard that such a tenant should be deprived of the benefit which this Act proposes to confer on tenants as a class."—[3 Hansard, cclx. 911.] He only took those cases where the Court was satisfied that an excessive rent was exacted from the tenant; and in such cases he thought it was only right that the Court should have a permissive or a compulsory power to fix the rent, or else a litigious and tiresome tenant would force his landlord into Court, and go there simply in order to see what he could get. Where the tenant thought the rent was excessive, he would still be able to go to the Court and apply for a judicial rent; but if he had no reason to think that the rent was excessive, there would be no inducement for him to go into Court at all.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 24, after the second word "to," insert the words "and the Court be satisfied that the rent mentioned in the said eject- ment was an excessive rent the tenant was unable to pay him."—(Mr. Fitzpatrick.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he could not accept the Amendment. There was no reason why the tenant should not go into Court to have his rent fixed, even if the rent was not excessive, if he wanted to obtain the benefit of a statutory term.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

regarded the Amendment as a very ridiculous one. The hon. Member had spoken of an excessive rent, and under this Amendment the tenants would have to prove not only that the rent was not fair, but that it was excessive. Now, was not an unfair rent an excessive rent? Owing to a series of bad seasons the rent might be unfair, and the tenant would be compelled to submit practically to such hard terms as the hon. Member proposed.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that he would not enter into the legal question of what was meant by an excessive rent. No doubt, any rent which a tenant could not pay might be considered an excessive rent.

MR. GIBSON

thought the Amendment covered a matter of sufficient importance to be made the question of an independent Amendment. It was a distinctly retrospective provision; and anything in the nature of a retrospective legislation was, of course, immensely in favour of those who were to derive a benefit from it. The Bill, as drafted, proposed to extend to all tenants, good, bad, or indifferent—no matter what their circumstances were, and whether a man with money in his pocket absolutely refused to pay the rent—it meted out them the same measure of justice. He did not think this was fair, or calculated to improve the morality of the nation; and, therefore, he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick) was right in moving the Amendment. Was it reasonable that the people who came within it should gain the benefit of these retrospective words? He would take the case of a tenant, which was a common case in Ireland, who, with ample means in his pocket, and with every opportunity and fully able to pay, deliberately held back, and, in accordance with the iniquitous teaching of the Land League, had refused to pay, and insisted on the landlord's taking proceedings against him? Was it not abhorrent to justice to tell that man who, contrary to all principles of morality and justice, compelled his landlord to evict him, that he was to have the advantage of this retrospective clause equally with the deserving and impoverished tenant; and that he should be able to bring his landlord into Court without any direction to the Court to discern in any way between the two cases? It was most important that there should be something to indicate to the Court that they should have a discretionary power in dealing with such a case. These might not be the most appropriate words to introduce into an Act of Parliament; but they had high Parliamentary sanction, because they were the very words used by the Prime Minister in introducing the Bill, when dealing with the question of excessive rents, which tenants were unable to pay. The very same words had been introduced by his hon. Friend into the Amendment, and, at any rate, they contained an important principle; and it was quite plain that when the Prime Minister presented the Bill to the House on the first occasion he fully appreciated the propriety of discrimination when dealing with past proceedings in reference to ejectments. A tenant who, owing to circumstances beyond his control, such as poverty and bad seasons, was unable to pay, ought not to be treated in the same manner as a man who had refused to pay owing to his own misconduct. He hoped the Government would be able to indicate that they were willing to adopt some Amendment whereby they might indicate to this Court of Equity that it might have power, if it considered it necessary, to refuse the application of a tenant who had improperly and unjustly refused to pay his rent.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he agreed with his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) that if the Court was satisfied that a tenant had wantonly and unjustly refused to pay, it should not accede to the application. But that case was fully provided for under the 8th clause, which stated that where the Court, on the hearing of a case, was satisfied that the conduct of the land- lord or the tenant had been unreasonable, it might refuse the application. That clause was certainly intended, and he submitted was quite sufficient to meet the very case which his right hon. and learned Friend contemplated.

MR. LALOR

asked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) desired to persuade the Committee that there were tenants in Ireland who had allowed themselves to be served with ejectments from their holdings, and had allowed themselves and their families to be evicted, when they had money in their pockets to pay the demands of the landlord. [Mr. GIBSON: Hear, hear!] The right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he believed that, would believe anything. The assertion was as absurd as it was false? Nothing of the sort had ever occurred in Ireland, and there was no man in Ireland who would have allowed himself to be evicted from his holding who had the money to pay the rent in his pocket. As to excessive rents, he would remind the Committee that, although the rents might not have been originally excessive and unfair, the circumstances of the last three or four years might have caused rents to be unfair which would not otherwise have been excessive; and, therefore, although they might not have been excessive previously, they were excessive now. There was another part of this clause to which he desired to call the attention of the Committee—namely, And if any judgment or decree in ejectment has been obtained before the passing of this Act such tenant may, within the same periods, respectively apply to the Court to fix the judicial rent of the holding. He would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that, at the present moment, there were a number of Irish tenants who had been evicted, and evicted for non-payment of rent; and, if this Act did not come into operation before the end of six months, they would be completely deprived of all benefit from it unless it was intended to extend its operations.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would give some answer to the appeal just made to him. As yet no satisfactory intimation had proceeded from the Treasury Bench as to what was to be done in regard to pending cases.

THE CHAIRMAN

That question is not raised by the Amendment before the Committee.

MR. FITZPATRICK

said, he was satisfied with what had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland as to the working of the Equity Clause; and he would, therefore, withdraw his Amendment.

MR. WARTON

wished to call attention to the very wide application of the 8th clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was in Order in referring to the power already passed in the 8th clause; but the hon. and learned Member for Bridport cannot discuss the 8th clause now.

MR. WARTON

said, he only wished to apply it in the same manner that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had done. The position of the tenant who had paid his rent and the tenant who had not paid it was dealt with in the 8th section. It gave the Court the power to review the conduct of the tenant; but not separately, and only with regard to the joint negotiations between the landlord and tenant.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LITTON

said, that with reference to the subject-matter of pending arrears, he did not wish to stand between the Committee and the statement about to be made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and, therefore, he would content himself with simply moving the Amendment which stood in his (Mr. Litton's) name on the Paper.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 25, after "holding," insert "and if the rent theretofore payable appears to the Court to have been an excessive rent, or that the tenant, by reason of the general failure of crops in the district or other unavoidable necessity, is unable to pay the same, so as to redeem his holding, the Court may reduce the arrear due by such tenant to such sum as the same would have amonnted to had the rent theretofore payable been the rent fixed as the judicial rent, and may also give time to the tenant for the payment thereof, or direct that the same shall be paid by instalments upon such terms and conditions as the Court shall deem fit."—(Mr. Litton.)

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

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I think I may at first state, with regard to the Amendment, that the Government cannot undertake to accept it, and on this ground—that it is implied by it that a legal debt at present due from the tenant to the landlord would be compulsorily diminished. There is a very great difference between Parliament dealing in this Bill with future contracts, and sanctioning a breach of past contracts; and we must bear in mind that this Amendment does not cover all the cases of arrears. There are many cases in which arrears have been caused by the distress of bad years, and which are not caused by any excessive rent at the present time. The Government cannot accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, nor that of my hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan), which would give the power of diminishing the debt, not merely by excessive rent, but by any defective seasons or failure of crops. If the Committee will allow me now to explain the proposals of the Government, I will do so as briefly as I can. It is our desire to give a fresh start, if it is possible, to the tenants in arrear. It is most desirable to do so, and for that purpose we think that Parliament may give facilities, and may, I may say, hold out temptations to both landlord and tenant to come to an agreement. Our object is to make proposals which may conduce towards snaking both landlords and tenants meet their difficulties. I will, therefore, make as slight an allusion as I can to any matters on which, no doubt, there is great difference of opinion. Those who owe arrears may be divided into two classes—namely, those who are unable to pay, and those who are unwilling to pay. Let me first state what we are actually doing for tenants in arrear. By the clause which we are now actually considering in Committee, and by the 45th and 48th clauses, we put every tenant against whom his landlord takes proceedings for the recovery of unpaid rent in this position—that he would not lose the benefit of the Act, on account of the landlord's taking proceedings, with- out having the power to apply to the Court to fix a judicial rent. The result of this would be that if he had been rack-rented, or if he had been even over-rented, or charged any rent which was above a fair rent—if that were so, he would have the opportunity, notwithstanding that he was in arrears, of having a fair rent fixed; and then, by the 1st clause, he gets the power of selling his tenancy as settled by the Court; and by the proposals to which I have already alluded, and which the Government hope to persuade the Committee to accept, he will be able to sell that tenancy as a present tenancy. This applies to our definition of proceedings—namely, that proceedings should not be completed until the six months for redemption have passed over. The hon. Member for the City of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) asked what was to become of the tenant if the Act is not passed within six months. If we do not pass the Act at all we must begin all our discussions over again; but if the Act is to be passed at all it must be passed within six months? I think that is the evident reply to this question. It would be a great mistake to suppose that this is not a considerable boon to tenants in arrear; but I am perfectly well aware that there may be many tenants whose arrears will be beyond the price they could obtain for the tenant right even with a present tenancy and with a judicial rent. The question is, how far we can or ought to help those of them who are unable to pay their arrears—how far we ought to help them so that they may have a fair start along with other tenants, and not be evicted? In considering this question we must bear in mind, when we come to examine into the arrears, that generally speaking—I may say almost invariably, for the exceptions are on so small a scale that hon. Members of practical experience will confirm me in the belief that they are really more or less arrears within the last three years—namely, the two bad years of 1878 and 1879, the two rents which were due before the last crop, and the comparatively good year of 1880. What I mean by that is that they are the rents which ought to have been paid after 1878, or 1879, or 1880. I am well aware that on some estates there is an appearance of arrears beyond that time; but I I believe that that is really what we may call an arrangement of accounts much more than a reality. ["No!"] I am told that you may find some estate books upon which there appear to be arrears due since the time of the Great Famine. That appears to me to have been very unwise book-keeping, and I do not call those arrears at all. In some few cases, after the Famine, no doubt, when the rents were paid, instead of starting fair, the landlords put them to the credit of the old account. But I do not call those arrears, and they are not worth a farthing in the pound. What we have really to deal with, practically, are the arrears of the last three years. Of those arrears I believe that if the last year had been by itself, and the tenants had been left alone, there would not have been much trouble. I believe that, generally speaking; I do not say that there would not have been exceptions—there always will be exceptions—but if the tenant had not had the arrears of the two previous years hanging around him like a mill stone, and there had been only last year to deal with, and if the tenant had also been let alone, the landlord would have obtained the rent, in some cases without abatement, and in others with reasonable abatement. But then comes the great difficulty of the two previous years, and I am afraid that some hon. Members may have a feeling of disappointment when I now state what the Government propose. But the Government believe, after serious consideration, that they would be more likely to arrive at beneficial results for both landlord and tenant, and quite as much for the tenant as the landlord, if, instead of making any compulsory arrangement as to what the landlord must accept or what the tenant must pay, we stepped forward on the part of the state and made an offer. The offer we propose to make is this. That the Commission shall have power to advance to all tenants who have settled with their landlords for the rents due since last year's crop—that is, who have paid their rent, or made arrangements with their landlords by which he accepted what had been paid as payment in full; to all those tenants the Commission will, in regard to their holdings, have power to advance to the landlord 50 per cent of any arrears that may be due from the two previous years—I hope I am making myself understood—1878 and 1879, on these conditions—That the landlord and tenant shall agree in the application; that the landlord shall undertake the repayment of the advance in 15 years in half yearly instalment, at, I suppose, an interest of 3½ per cent—certainly not above 3½ per cent—that the tenant shall allow the payment to be added to his rent for 15 years, whether it be a judicial rent or not; and that in consideration for receiving that advance the landlord should give a release in full to the tenant for all arrears. The result of that would be this—that on those holdings to which the arrangements would apply there would be no possibility of eviction for anything due up to the present time. Upon last year's rent the landlord and tenant would come to an agreement; and with regard to the two previous years' rent, the landlord would receive a sum not exceeding one year's rent, as an advance, from the Government; while the tenant would be free from all previous debts upon the condition that he pays this small addition to his rent, whatever it may be, spread over a period of 15 years. That is the proposal which we make. I must now state out of what fund the Government propose to take this money. It is proposed to make this advance on the security of the Church Fund, which, after all, is a purely Irish fund. I hope that hon. Members from Ireland will recollect that agricultural distress, and arrears of rent, and the difficulties of tenants, and, I must say, the difficulties of landlords, are not confined to Ireland at the present moment. But it would be a mistake to suppose that the Government incurs no responsibility, because the Irish Church Fund has a good many burdens upon it; and I do not know how far it may stand this additional strain. Therefore, it is not to be supposed that the Government are making a proposal which, to some extent, may not involve a responsibility to the ratepayers. Let me say one or two words as to the effect of this proposal. It is true that it is not a compulsory, but a voluntary arrangement. There are advantages in compulsion; but, I believe, the difficulty of getting an enactment passed into law—I suppose I should hardly be in Order in explaining much more than that—the difficulty of getting an enactment passed into law, which might have any- thing of a compulsory nature about it, would be very great. On the other hand, there are very great advantages if we can give the two parties, the landlord and the tenant, a strong temptation to come to an arrangement voluntarily. What would they get from it? The landlord would get a strong temptation from the tenant to pay the whole of the remaining debt of last year. He will get an advance of 50 per cent of the previous arrears, possibly amounting to one year's rent in ready money; and I am afraid that there are a great many landlords in Ireland to whom that would be a great boon. It may be said that the landlord would still have to lose the other 50 per cent. No doubt he would lose it; but if he could get it, it would be with great difficulty, and it is for the landlords to judge what is best for them. My strong belief is that the majority of landlords in Ireland will not object to the offer which the Government make, nor look upon it as a bad one. Then, what would the tenant gain? He gains a fair start for the future. He gains a release of all arrears of the bad years, and any arrears that may have been existing before. He gets the temptation from the landlord to make fair terms with him for last year's rent, and he gets time for repayment; and he gets security against eviction; and, furthermore, a certainty of obtaining the benefit of the Act. I need hardly say what would be the advantages to the State if we can get this proposal agreed to. It is not necessary to explain that. Instead of having the landlords considering how they can get the law enforced, and instead of many of the tenants considering how they can break the law, we should have both considering the best use they could make of the offer of the Government. I may explain that this proposal cannot be discussed now; but I hope to place it upon the Paper to-day. I am obliged to the Committee for allowing me to make this statement. It is impossible to make the proposal to-day, simply because I have not yet had time to consult the authorities of the Treasury as to the exact technical position of the fund from which this scheme is to be carried out. I trust that I have made myself clear; at any rate, I have tried to do so, and I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not object to withdraw his Amendment, on the perfect understanding that if he thinks fit—I hope he will not—to bring it up at a future time, he will find an appropriate opportunity, and one upon which he will get the best chance of a full discussion upon the clause which I shall place upon the Paper to-day.

THE CHAIRMAN

I wish to point out to the Committee that though, by the indulgence of the Committee, it is permitted to a Minister of the Crown sometimes to make an explanation of a clause in advance, it would not be in Order to discuss a clause which is not before the Committee; but the discussion must be postponed until it is. At the same time, any explanations asked from the right hon. Gentleman in order to make his statement more clear would be in Order.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I rise, not for the purpose of discussing the important statement which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland—I quite agree that it is one which we ought not to attempt to discuss now; but I rise chiefly for the purpose of asking whether this will be brought in as a separate clause? If so, we shall have plenty of time to consider it on the Paper before we come to its discussion; and although the statement of the right hon. Gentleman has been extremely lucid, I think we could scarcely appreciate that statement until we see it on the Paper.

MR. LITTON

said, that, after the Ministerial statement, it would be extremely inconvenient to discuss his Amendment; and he would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw it.

MR. LALOR

said, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be only that which was enjoyed by every trader in the Kingdom—namely, the right of offering a composition to his creditors.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is now discussing the proposition which is proposed to be withdrawn.

MR. LALOR

said, he was discussing the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton). He did not see how it was possible to make any objection to that principle. With regard to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he had no doubt that it would be an excellent provision for the landlords of Ireland who were unable to collect their rents, because it gave them 50 per cent of the rents which they were not able to get. He wished, however, to ask the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to tenants who had paid up their rents to last November 12 months, whether such tenants would get any benefit from the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he did not wish to discuss this proposal now; but he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions with regard to it. The first was that which had just been put by the hon. Member who last spoke (Mr. Lalor) whether it was intended that the proposal should apply to cases in which the arrears had been paid as well as to those in which they were still due; and, secondly, was it proposed that the scheme should apply to the whole of Ireland? because he must say that he was perfectly certain, from all the information which had reached him, that there were many parts of England in which, if the proposal was to be justified by the distress of the landlords and tenants, it would be as much required as in Ireland.

MR. H. R. BRAND,

said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland with respect to one point in the scheme. He had failed to gather from the right hon. Gentleman's explanation whether the advantages it was proposed to give were to apply to all tenancies alike, or whether a distinction was to be drawn between those who had been really unable to pay their rent, and those who had not paid their rent although they had been perfectly able to do so.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

wished to put a question in order to further elucidate the nature of the Government proposal. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said the arrangement would be purely voluntary. In that case, how would it fit in with the 8th clause of the Bill? Was the refusal of the landlord to accept the arrangement to be regarded as unreasonable, and would it come under the 8th clause?

MAJOR NOLAN

wanted to know if this offer on the part of the State was to be upon the gross rent, without deductions in any way for poor rates or county cess. [Cries of "Oh!"] He protested against the supporters behind the Government constantly groaning whenever an independent Member rose to put a question. It would be far better if they would get up and explain plainly what they meant. He wished to know, also, whether the Income Tax would be remitted on those payments?

MR. MACFARLANE

said, the proposition amounted to this—that the landlord would get from the Government 50 per cent of the sum he was entitled to collect from the tenant. He wished to know, further, if the landlord would not also be entitled to collect from the tenant the other 50 per cent?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

With regard to the question of the hon. Member for the County of Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) I have already stated that one of the conditions of the advance will be that the landlord shall give a release for all arrears due. With regard to the question of the right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) whether the scheme will apply to the whole of Ireland, I can only observe that there are parts of Ireland in which both landlords and tenants are less distressed than in other parts of the United Kingdom. But I am sure that, unless in exceptional cases, in many parts of Ireland these advances would not be made, because there are no arrears due previously to the last year's crop. In the parts of Ireland to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, the rents, as a rule, were uncommonly well paid, sometimes with abatements on account of bad years, but, taken as a whole, uncommonly well paid until the rents were due last November; and, consequently, this offer will not apply to those cases. The offer will not apply to any arrears that have become due since the last year's crop. We believe, as a general rule, that the arrears which have become due since last year's crop might fairly be left to the landlord and tenant to settle between themselves. In the great majority of cases they can be paid; and the scheme, on the one hand, tempts the tenant to pay up last year's rent because of the advantages he will gain on account of previous year's arrears, and, on the other hand, it tempts the landlord to make a reasonable abatement on last year's rent in order to get the 50 per cent advance on the arrears of the two previous years. There is one thing of some importance which I forgot in making my statement, and of which I have been reminded by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand), and that is that the offer is limited to tenancies of the value of £30 and under. The hon. and gallant Member for the County of Galway (Major Nolan) asks whether county cess will be taken into account? That is rather a technical question; but I think I can give him a pretty clear understanding—namely, that what we deal with is the rent due from the tenant to the landlord—a rent that he can put in his rent bill if he takes proceedings to evict. I think I have now answered all the questions that have been put to me.

MAJOR NOLAN

You have not answered my question about the Income Tax.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I do not think that we shall make allowance for Income Tax.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question with reference to the 8th clause.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

With regard to the 8th clause I would refer the noble Lord to the language of that clause, which is that, if the conduct of the landlord or the tenant is unreasonable, it is for the Court to consider whether it has been so. The mere fact of the refusal on the part of the landlord would not be sufficient; but it might be accompanied by other things which might tend to render the conduct of the landlord unreasonable, and all the facts would be considered by the Court. As to what fell from the hon. Member for Queen's County, I think he stated this, after all, was only an offer enabling the tenants, like any other traders, to compound their debts with a landlord creditor. There is just this difference—that the State comes forward and offers to prevent, in their cases, the surrender of the land. One great object of ours in this Bill, and in these discussions, is to enable the tenant's in the future to enter into agreements with the landlords without compelling them to make this great sacrifice.

MR. MACARTNEY

asked what, exactly, would be the position? The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the rent that would be considered as arrears in regard to this offer would be rent that would be included in the claim of the landlord if he brought proceedings to eject a tenant. If that were the case it would include rent up to the 1st May, 1881; therefore, it would include rent which would be payable under ordinary circumstances in Ireland out of the crop of this year. They ought to have very clear information on this point—

MR. W. E. FORSTER

The hon. Member does not understand me.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, that if the right hon. Member would allow him to conclude he would put the case as he understood it. In most parts of Ireland there was rent unpaid payable last November, and due on the 1st May, 1880. There were very few landlords who had received their November rents in May this year. That being the case, if these landlords made the abatement asked for, they would be foregoing 50 per cent.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I do not complain of the misunderstanding of my statement, because I do not believe that, however clearly to my own mind I might have put the case, hon. Members can perfectly understand the matter before they see it in print. What I did say was that this is voluntary offer with conditions attached to it, and that one of those conditions—the most important of them—is that it should only apply to the case of holdings on which the rent due since the last crop—that is to say, due last November or last May, has been paid either in full or to such an amount as the landlord is willing to accept as payment in full. I think that answers the question completely. Of course, it will be for the Committee to determine what time the Commission shall allow to elapse in this arrangement. I dare say our proposal will be open to some objection as not going far enough; but, after going through the matter very carefully, we propose that last year's rent should be settled for.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he still was not clear on the point.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

We shall have to frame the clause so that it will be understood by both parties as a legal offer on our conditions. The tenant must have paid to the landlord the rent due on the last two gale days since the crop. What we mean to say is that we do not think any offer should be made as regards last year's rent. We do make an offer as regards the previous two years' rent.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, it would simplify the proposal if the offer were made conditional upon the payment of one year's rent, whether last year's or one of the two preceding year's.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he did not wish to discuss in any way the proposal, but he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions; and, first, as to an observation he had made in reply to an hon. Friend behind him. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he was not aware that £1,000,000 was advanced to the clergymen of the Irish Church as an indemnity for the non-receipt of their tithes, that this money was paid out of the Imperial Exchequer and was afterwards forgiven? He would like to ask also whether those tenants who had not been able to come to any arrangement with their landlords as to the payment of last year's rent were, by this proposal, to be left to fight it out with the landlords as best they could? He should like to ask, further, whether the Government would be willing to re-consider the figure of £30 valuation, which, if adopted, would make the proposal completely worthless to a large number of people in Ireland? He would not ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the latter question now. There was still another query he wished to put—namely, whether the proposals of the Government would take into account, or would be supplemented by anything which would take into account, the position of the 9,436 persons evicted in 1880, the 1,732—less 181 put back as caretakers—evicted in the first three months of the present year, the 4,679 evicted in 1878, and the 6,239—less 633 put back as caretakers—who were evicted in 1879, all these evictions having taken place in what might be called years of distress?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I cannot give an answer as to what happened with regard to the tithes. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), who would be likely to know something about this, seems to think that the money was not given, but advanced. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Advanced and forgiven I said.] That may be so, but many years have passed since then. As to the other questions, they do not appear to have anything to do with my proposals, about which I do not think there can be any doubt. The hon. Member asked if any other proposal is contained in my proposition, and, in reply, I have to say that there is none. If the hon. Member wishes to bring forward any of these proposals it is perfectly within his power to do so. There is no proposal before the House for reinstating those persons evicted during the past year. It would be a most difficult thing to do.

MR. SHAW

said, he rose for the purpose of suggesting that it might be advisable now to postpone a critical examination of the proposals of the Chief Secretary. They would not gain very much by discussing them now. The right hon. Gentleman's proposals were most important and required careful consideration.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) had put a very pertinent question as to whether, within the limit of £30, there was to be any distinction between tenants who would not and tenants who could not pay. In the case of a perfectly solvent tenant, were the taxpayers to pay a part of his arrears, or was a discretion to be allowed by the Court?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

The proposal is intended to apply to all cases. If my hon. Friend looks into the matter he will see that there is a great guarantee to the taxpayers in the case he mentions, for if the tenant is able to pay, and there are no difficulties in the way, I do not suppose the landlord is likely to accept only half the arrears.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

wished to know why the Chief Secretary had fixed the valuation at £30? There might be a large number of persons who might have suffered distress with a valuation far above that.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Baronet is now discussing the clause.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

No doubt this matter will come under discussion when the clause is before the Committee. The figure has not been hastily fixed. It has been carefully considered, and the chief reason upon which we justify our proposal is that it will secure the peace of the country by relieving those people who are suffering. That was the sum named in the Bill of last year; and I would remind the hon. Gentleman that in cases above £30 the risk to the taxpayer would be immensely increased, whilst the number of people relieved would be very much smaller.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, he had not received a clear answer to the question he had put to the Government.

MR. GLADSTONE

The hon. and gallant Member's question has reference to the Income Tax, whilst this question is one as to rents—there payment of allowances to be made for rents. When the circumstances of the case are taken into consideration, I leave it to the hon. and gallant Member to consider the policy of the change he proposes.

MR. BIGGAR

said, it seemed to him that the Amendment went on proper lines. Objection was taken to it because it was retrospective; but he would point out that all legislation as to arrears must be of a retrospective character, and, more than that, it seemed to him that there would be so many complications of different sorts that it seemed impossible to prepare a clause drawing a hard-and-fast line that would not be objectionable in some respects. Let them take a case where the landlord had not been charging over the valuation. In such a case the Court could reasonably say—"This tenant has not been unfairly treated. He has a right to pay his arrears on the valuation, and he has no right to get any redress under the provisions of the Bill." But, on the other hand, suppose the tenant came before the Court and said—"This landlord is charging me three or four times the Government valuation, and has improperly heaped up his arrears; I want to get some redress as to these arrears." In that case the Court might fairly say—"This tenant has been harshly treated, and we think he should have a substantial allowance." With regard to the question of bankruptcy, the Court never took the last penny a bankrupt had; but in these cases of eviction, where the cause of non-payment was excessive rent, the tenant would be turned out without mercy. Under the Bankruptcy Law it was frequently possible to make arrangements for a friendly composition. The Court, he understood, was to act as arbitrator between the two parties. He had a letter from one of his constituents which referred to an estate where, although both the present owner and his predecessor had acted in a kindly manner, arrears of three and four years were still kept by the agent in the rent book. This was an extract from the letter in question— As the question of arrears of rent is likely to occupy considerable attention in discussing the Land Bill, I take the liberty of bringing the case of the tenants on Lord Charles Beresford's property in this parish under your notice. This property formerly belonged to the late Primate of Armagh—the present owner's uncle—who was a good landlord. During the last Famine in 1848, the tenants were allowed to fall into arrears, as they were not able to pay—some of them as much as six years' rent. When the times improved the tenants paid their rents punctually enough; but the agent still kept the arrears on the rent book, and when the late Primate died all the tenants who were able to pay were processed and made to pay these old arrears. But a large number of these arrears are still due—three or four years; so that if there is not some provision made for cases like this, the Land Act will be of very little benefit to a large number of people. Such cases as these the Court could reasonably take cognizance of.

MR. DE LA POER BERESFORD

said, that the tenants on the estate referred to had been treated, perhaps, better than any other tenants in County Cavan or in any other part of Ireland. Few of them had been processed, there had been hardly any ejectments, and where such things had occurred the tenants had been re-admitted as caretakers. There were very large arrears due, yet no one had been put out. The tenantry had been treated with the utmost kindness both by the late Primate and by Lord Charles Beresford.

MR. BIGGAR

said, be had stated that the late Primate of Armagh had treated his tenants in a most kindly manner, and he had said the same of the present landlord. He had no charge to make against the proprietor of this particular property; but what he wished to observe was, that this was a case in point. Large arrears were due, and such an Amendment as that proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), if carried, would give an opportunity to the Court to take the case into consideration and, if necessary, to wipe off the arrears. Though the Beresford family might not act in a tyrannical manner towards their tenants, there were other landlords in Ireland of whom this could not be said. There were some who would extort the last penny from the unfortunate tenants.

MR. LITTON

said, that after the discussion which had taken place he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PLUNKET

said, he rose to propose an Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage). The object of it was this—Now that an opportunity had been given to the tenant to proceed to sell where proceedings were taken against him, and to ask the Court to fix a judicial rent for the holding, the landlord should be enabled to apply to the Court to direct that the tenancy in the holding should be sold. Either the tenant had the money to pay or he had not. If he had it he ought to pay it, and the policy of the earlier portion of the measure was that he should sell, and, out of the proceeds, pay his just debts to the landlord. The Amendment was to prevent the landlord being obliged, under the circumstances contemplated by the clause, to proceed further with ejectment proceedings. He might receive directions from the Court that the tenancy was to be sold, and that, out of the sale, the debts to the landlord should be paid. He was aware that other Amendments had been postponed after the statement of the Government; but this particular proposal did not run on the same lines. Therefore, be should be glad to hear what his right hon. and learned Friend had to say on the subject.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 25, after "holding," insert "Provided that in those cases where arrears of rent may be owing to the landlord, the landlord may apply to the court to order the tenant's interest in his holding to be sold, and the purchase-money for the same to be paid into court as hereinbefore in this Act provided, and to be applied in the first instance in satisfaction of the just claims of the landlord, and as the court shall direct."—(Mr. Plunket.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that although, no doubt, a great deal might be said for the Amendment as a mode of dealing with the case, it would bring about an entire revolution in the system of ejectment for non-payment of rent. At present the landlord's right, in case of default by the tenant, was to get back the holding, and the Bill was drawn in accordance with the present system. The Amendment would run entirely at right angles with that, and could not be accepted.

MR. MARUM

would remind the Mover of the Amendment that the landlord had very great powers now, and it could not be desirable to supplement them.

MR. PLUNKET

was sorry the Government had not been able to give the Amendment favourable consideration. As such large sacrifices had been made to get rid of the ill-blood which these proceedings occasioned between landlord and tenant, he thought the Government should have had no difficulty in accepting the proposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SHAW

said, he had the following Amendment on the Paper:—In page 10, line 25, after "holding," to insert— Provided that if in any district scheduled in the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Acts 1880 and 1881, on hearing the case it appears to the Court that the arrears of rent accrued during the years 1877, 1878, and 1879, and were the unavoidable result of bad seasons and the failure of crops, the Court may reduce such arrears by one-third and give a decree for the balance. And the Land Commissioners may out of moneys in their hands advance the other two-thirds, one-half of such advance to be a free grant and the other half to be repayable by the tenant without interest in five yearly instalments, such instalments to be collected by the guardians for the relief of the poor in each union. He did not propose to move the Amendment, because, under the Resolution of the House of May 30, the Committee had no power to deal with it.

MR. PLUNKET

said, that, in the absence of his right hon. and learned Colleague, he would move the next Amendment, which was in his (Mr. Gibson's) name. He thought the proposal was obviously just and fair, and trusted that the Government would not resist it.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 25, after "holding," insert "After judgment or decree in ejectment for non-payment of a judicial rent, and where a decree of possession or writ of habere facias possessionem of the holding has been executed, the landlord shall from thenceforth hold the holding discharged from the tenancy and freed from any claim save one for restitution or redemption made within six months after the date of such judgment or decree in ejectment."—(Mr. Plunket.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he could not accept the Amendment, as it would be directly contrary to the paragraph they had just passed.

MR. GIBSON

said, he did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman had seized the point of the Amendment. Its object was to introduce certainty for uncertainty, as to the redemption period. The period, he thought, ought to be within six months of the date of the judgment decree. As the Bill stood, during the redemption period the landlord was practically unable to do anything with a farm. He could not effect any permanent improvements. He must leave it often derelict and worthless to himself and to the community, in consequence of the instability of the redemption period. At present they could not tell when the redemption period would begin, as it ran, not from the certain date of the decree, but from the uncertain date when the landlord might be able to execute it. He did not think that the objections as to the question of antecedent drafting were at all affected by this proposal. The earlier portion of the section gave the power of selling to the tenant. He had no objection to the insertion of the words "subject to the aforesaid rights of the tenant;" and, whatever might be his own opinion, he did not now question that the purpose of the Amendment was what was done in the 1st sub-section of Clause 13. In the case of tenancies subject to judicial rent, he certainly thought the landlord should have the redemption period fixed.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

admitted that there was a good deal in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said; but the practical difficulty was met by the landlord putting back the tenant as a caretaker. However, whether the period of redemption began with the date of the eviction or the date of the judgment, the same difficulty existed during the interregnum. He hoped that any great difficulty which had hitherto existed would be overcome by other parts of the Bill. The difficulty had arisen in this way. The tenant not being able to sell, and his only hope being the chance of getting a sum of money in some other way, the landlord was left, to a certain extent, in a state of uncertainty; but now the tenant, when pressed by the landlord for the rent and unable otherwise to pay, would, within the time allowed him, sell his tenancy, and then everybody would be happy. The landlord would get his money, and the tenant would have something left in his pocket. It would be better to leave the clause unaltered. The period of six months was already given after the execution of the decree. That was contained in an earlier clause. The tenant might sell his holding; but what was now proposed was to cut down the redemption period; and that was entirely contradictory of the first part of the clause, which gave six months as the period after eviction. All that was proposed in this Amendment was that after judgment, or where a decree had been executed, the landlord should hold the land discharged of the tenancy.

MR. MARUM

thought the effect of the Amendment would be to cut down the six months; but six months was an equitable period, and he objected to the Amendment, which would be contrary to all principles of equity.

MR. GIBSON

asked permission to withdraw the Amendment; but stated that on Report he should present in a clearer way, and earlier in the clause, an Amendment challenging the whole principle of this redemption period, because he did not recognize that when they were doing everything for the tenant they should do nothing to simplify the rights of the landlord.

MR. P. MARTIN

mentioned that in the Fixity of Tenure Bill of the late Mr. Butt, instead of the six months' period for redemption, the tenant was given the six months additional to pay his rent. The tenant thus could not be sued in ejectment for non-payment of rent for some 18 months. Now, under the present system, the tenant had the same time to redeem; but if unable to meet his rent, the useless and unnecessary costs incident to an ejectment and the execution of the habere had to be incurred. Having regard to the fact that under the provisions of the present Bill the tenant had the right of sale, he considered additional reasons now existed for giving effect to the course suggested by Mr. Butt. Let the right of redemption be abolished, and tenants have that period of six months within which to pay the year's rent, without being subjected to the costs of an action of ejectment. This would be infinitely preferable to the complicated proceedings under this Bill, with all the costs which would be thus unnecessarily incurred prior to the selling of the tenancy. He would suggest that the hon. Member should propose that period when the Amendment was brought up again.

MR. MACARTNEY

hoped an alteration would be made in the clause. If the landlord obtained a decree of ejectment he had to go and take possession. He then put the tenant back for six months, during which he might redeem the farm; and it would be simpler that the decree should give possession to the landlord in six months from the date of the decree, and that the tenant should have the right to go on until then.

THE CHAIRMAN

The last two speakers have discussed provisions that are not in this proposal at all. The Question is whether this Amendment shall be withdrawn.

MR. MACARTNEY

thought he was quite at liberty to discuss an alternative to the Amendment, and said he had heard several suggestions made by other hon. Members of a similar kind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY, Amendment made in page 10, line 25, after the word "holding," by inserting— But subject to the provisions herein contained such application shall not invalidate or prejudice such judgment or decree which shall remain in full force.

On the Motion of Mr. GIBSON, Amendment made in page 10, line 28, after "tenant," by inserting "and on such terms and conditions as the Court may direct."

On the Motion of the ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Law), Amendment made, after sub-section 2, by adding, "or in the case of ejectment for non-payment of rent redeem the tenancy."

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT,

in moving to introduce, in page 10, line 28, the words— Provided always that the Court shall be satisfied that such enlargement of time will not prejudice the landlord in the recovery of any rent or arrears of rent due to him or otherwise, said, that they had heard a proposal made by which the landlords were to lose a certain amount of their arrears by a certain payment being made to them; but he was quite certain that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Government would wish that that should be a precedent, but that they would wish all arrears of rent which were justly due to the landlord should be fairly and properly paid. There had lately been an exceptional period, which, of course, made a difficulty; but all hoped that this time would not recur in the future. It was because he believed that it would be unfair, unjust, and unwise that the landlord should not be able to recover his arrears, that he moved this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 29, after "sale," insert the words "Provided always that the Court shall be satisfied that such enlargement of time will not prejudice the landlord in the recovery of any rent or arrears of rent due to him or otherwise."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law)

said, he did not think the hon. and gallant Baronet, on reconsideration, would deem the Amendment necessary. The clause as it ran now read— Where the sale of any tenancy is delayed by reason of any application being made to the Court, or for any other reasonable cause, the Court may, on the application of the tenant, enlarge the time during which the tenant may exercise his power of sale. That made it clear that there must be a reasonable application, and that anything unreasonable, as prejudicing the right of the landlord, would be refused. The Court had also power to impose any conditions it thought fit before granting an application. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Baronet would be satisfied with that provision.

MR. MARUM

pointed out that this was not a compulsory proposal, but simply that if the landlord and tenant agreed an advance should be given. It was not a proposal cutting down rent, but an arrangement which the landlord might accept if he pleased.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. GIBSON

proposed, in page 10, line 30, after the word "tenant," to insert the words "of a present tenancy."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he did not think the Amendment necessary, for unless the Bill was completely altered the right of appealing to the Court to fix a judicial rent would be confined to the present tenant.

MR. GIBSON

said, he was aware that in the earlier drafting of the Bill no one but the present tenant could appeal, and that the future tenant could not appeal; but that was just his point. If hon. Members would read the drafting of the clause, they would find that it was an unqualified declaration, which might give a new right. It was in order to guard against that that he proposed this Amendment.

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

On the Motion of Mr. GIBSON, Amendment made, in page 10, line 34, after the word "framer," by inserting "in such terms and conditions as the Court may direct."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he proposed to introduce a new paragraph after the last Amendment. The object of the clause was to enable the Court, in the case where an ejectment was brought for breach of the statutory conditions other than the non-payment of rent, and where the Court was satisfied that the landlord could be fully compensated by damages, to deal with the case accordingly. He proposed, therefore, that where notice to quit could be served by the landlord upon the tenant during the statutory term consequent upon a breach of the statutory conditions, the tenant might, at any time before the commencement of the actual proceedings, apply to the Land Commission, and, if ejectment proceedings had commenced, might apply to the Court to stay them; and then, if the Court or Commission was of opinion that adequate compensation for breach of the condition could be made by compensation, the tenant should be relieved of the liability to eviction on payment of damages to such an extent as the Court might award. There would then be no injustice done. It would, in effect, be simply the introduction into the clause for the enforcement of the statutory conditions the usual power given to a Court of Equity.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 41, at the end, to add as a new sub-section, the words,—"(4.) Where a notice to quit is served by a landlord upon a tenant for the purpose of compelling the tenant to quit his holding during the continuance of a statutory term in his tenancy in consequence of the breach by the tenant of any statutory condition other than the condition relating to payment of rent, the tenant may, at any time before the commencement of an ejectment founded on such notice to quit, apply to the Land Commission, and after the commencement, or at the hearing of any such ejectment, may apply to the Court in which the ejectment is brought, for an order restraining the landlord from taking further proceedings to enforce such notice to quit. If the Land Commission or Court to which such application is made are of opinion that adequate satisfaction for the breach of such condition can be made by the payment of damages to the landlord, and that the tenant may justly be relieved from the liability to be compelled to quit his holding in consequence of such breach, the Commission or Court may make an order restraining further proceedings on the notice to quit, upon the payment by the tenant of such sum for damages as they shall then, or after due inquiry, award to the landlord in satisfaction for the breach of the statutory condition, together with the costs incurred by the landlord in respect to the notice to quit and the proceedings subsequent there to. If the Land Commission or Court are of opinion that no appreciable damage has accrued to the landlord from the breach of such condition, and that the tenant may justly be relieved as aforesaid, they may make an order restraining further proceedings on the notice to quit, upon such terms as to costs as they may think just."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

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

MR. LITTON

observed, that the object in view seemed quite correct, except in one particular; and he would propose to add, after the word "thereto," a second paragraph— Provided the Court may, if it think fit, in place of awarding payment to the landlord, direct the amount awarded to be laid out in making good any injury to the holding when the breach of the condition complained of relates thereto. It was true that a remedy was afforded by the clause; but it might so happen that the landlord might take the amount awarded and put it into his pocket, and allow the injury to remain a continuing injury where it affected a matter of repairs. It would be desirable that the Court should have the power to direct that that amount could be expended in restoring premises to their proper condition. That was the form of the Proviso he moved on the 4th clause, and he thought it would commend itself to the Committee.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, In line 20, after the word "thereto," to insert the words "Provided the Court may, if it think fit, in place of awarding payment to the landlord, direct the amount awarded to be laid out in making good any injury to the holding when the breach of the condition complained of relates thereto."—(Mr. Litton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he did not see that there was any necessity for the Amendment; but he was not unwilling to accept it.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he saw no reason for the Amendment. The Court had power to award damages for breaches of conditions, and he did not think the Committee ought to travel beyond that. If this Amendment were accepted it would only give additional grounds for litigation between landlord and tenant.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

regretted hat the Attorney General for Ireland had adopted the Amendment without further discussion. The Amendment would have no effect except to complicate the Bill, and that would greatly tend to litigation. If the Amendment were adopted, it would necessitate the appointment of a number of surveyors to determine how the money was to be laid out.

MR. HINDE PALMER

observed, that the terms of the clause as to statutory conditions were very strict as against the tenant, who was to be subjected to forfeiture upon breach of any of the statutory conditions, some of which were very technical. The object of the clause was, as he understood it, that if the Court thought that, notwithstanding the breach of conditions, the landlord could be placed in the same position as he had been, the tenant should not incur liability to ejectment.

THE CHAIRMAN

I am afraid the hon. and learned Member is going to a point which is not in the Amendment.

MR. HINDE PALIMER

added that he thought the Amendment hardly went far enough. His idea was that where a restoration was to be made in regard to damages or otherwise the Court should, if it saw its way to doing so, relieve the tenant from forfeiture. This mode of amending the Amendment did not go as far as he could wish; but, to a certain extent, it effected the object of the Amendment which he had prepared to move at an earlier stage of the Bill.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

pointed out that one of the statutory conditions related to deterioration of the soil, and asked how it would be possible for a tenant to pay a sum of money to be spent in restoring the soil? It took years to restore the soil, and it could not be done by lodging a sum of money in Court.

MR. LITTON

remarked, that this was only a permissive and alternative clause, and that it was not necessary that the Court should direct that the money should be laid out in restoring the premises. The soil could be restored by the Court ordering money to be spent on manure for the land; but the point was that power should be given to the Court to have the damages awarded laid out as it thought fit. He believed it would have the contrary effect to increasing litigation. If the landlord was to have a sum of money paid to him he would always be on the watch for an opportunity of making a claim, and that was to be strongly deprecated. If, however, he knew that the Court might order the money to be laid out on restoration, he would not have that inducement. It was to the interest of the tenant to be sure that the money would be expended on the land, and to the interest of the landlord to have his premises restored to their former condition.

MR. SHAW

said, he would suggest the introduction of more general words, instead of special directions. He thought it would be better to give the Court discretion to apply the money in some way for the benefit of both parties.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, the last argument of the proposer of this Amendment was that the Court should be at liberty to expend the money to be paid into Court in certain agricultural operations at its own discretion. That would make the Court an agricultural machine for the whole of Ireland; but who were to be the skilled agriculturists who were to superintend these operations under the Court? Were they to be the County Court Judges? Were they to instruct the tenant how to lay out the money? The hon. and learned Gentleman had left the Committee totally in the dark on that point, and all he could make of the proposal was that it was to whittle away still further the security of the landlord. The Amendment cut directly against the statement of the Prime Minister that the Bill did not contemplate setting up perpetuity of tenure, and he hoped it would be withdrawn.

MR. GIVAN

observed, that the Amendment gave an alternative to the Court to award damages, if it thought fit, where notice to quit had been served, and, instead of giving the money to the landlord to put in his pocket, to direct that it should be laid out in making good the breach of conditions. Surely the hon. Member for Cork County did not mean that the Court should wander from the specific complaint of the landlord and direct the money to be laid out in something else. He was opposed to statutory conditions; and he thought the Amendment, coupled with that of the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), would so alleviate the stringency of the provision as to take away its effect altogether.

Mr. GIBSON

said, he questioned the wisdom of the Amendment to the Amendment, for there was nothing a Court so rigorously guarded itself against as making itself responsible for expending money. It was easy to say the Court should direct the money to be spent on the holding; but if they did that they must impose, as a corollary to it, the responsibility of seeing the order carried out. What machinery had the Court for doing that? He thought it would be better if the hon. Member would be satisfied with the discussion, and reintroduce his proposal on Report.

MR. MACARTNEY

thought the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), that landlords would be on the watch for grounds of claim, an extraordinary one. Was a tenant to make compensation for the taking away of turf by sending the landlord so many cart-loads of turf, or so many cart-loads of stone for stone taken out of a quarry, or was the spreading of so much manure over the land to be compensation for deterioration of the soil? It seemed to him that the argument of the hon. Member was one of the strongest possible arguments for the proposal of the Attorney General for Ireland, for it would interfere with what had been already done.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not persevere with the Amendment, and urged him to adopt the suggestion to bring it forward again on Report, so that it might be discussed after the Committee had seen it on the Paper. Having had a good deal of experience in such matters as a landlord, he believed the Amendment would lead to more litigation than any other Amendment of as many words in the Bill. A small fine in money would be sufficient to deter a tenant from injuring a holding.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he thought the Amendment a very innocent one; but he felt it would be better not to press it to a division.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law)

admitted that the proposal was deserving of consideration, and if the hon. and learned Member would withdraw it he would undertake to consider it before Report.

MR. LITTON

said, he would assent to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion.

Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 21, to leave out the word "appreciable," in order to insert the word "substantial."—(Mr. Given.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he could not accept the Amendment.

Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Amendment again proposed.

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

MR. GIBSON

said, he had now to offer a short criticism on the Amend- ment, and give the reasons why he could not support it. He objected to the Amendment because, in the first place, it retained a notice to quit, which was a long and most dilatory process, as the sole means by which a landlord, no matter how much aggrieved, could enforce the statutory conditions. He did not think it fair to tell the landlord that the only remedy he had was one which could only fructify in 12 or 15 months after the grievance complained of; but that was what was sought to be stereotyped in the early part of this Amendment. What was the power to be given to the tenant? Not the power of speedily going to the Court and asking relief. Suppose a landlord was compelled to serve notice to quit, what was it that the tenant might do to intercept the remedy of the landlord? They did not say that the tenant must come with all possible speed to the Court, and ask to be relieved on payment of damages or the performance of the just conditions of his statutory term. Nothing of the kind; but they proposed to give him, by the studious and deliberate drafting of the Amendment, not only the period of 12 months during which the notice to quit must run, but, as the proceedings could only be taken at the expiration of the 12 months' notice, and this might involve another period of six months, he would have a period of 18 months in which to make up his mind. If they gave an equitable right to the tenant to step in and interrupt the plain legal right of the landlord, they ought, at all events, to see that some equivalent should be conferred on the landlord. He would now come to another point that had been raised on this question—he referred to the question of subdivision. If there was one thing in the previous discussions that had taken place on this Bill that was clear and plain, it was contained in the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, when he had, over and over again, in the clearest possible manner, indicated, in accordance with the requirements of simple justice, that he did not propose to hand over to the Court the power of making any decision enabling sub-division or sub-letting without the consent of the landlord. But, according to this Amendment of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, the Court would be enabled indirectly to sanction sub-letting without the landlord's consent, because it was not proposed to except from the operation of the clause, or the relief proposed to be given in case of the broach of statutory conditions, subletting, or sub-division. There was, in point of fact, nothing in the Amendment to indicate in any way that a tenant sub-dividing or sub-letting his holding might not claim the intervention of the Court, if the landlord, in the assertion of the right given to him by the earlier clauses of the Bill, were to say—"I cannot pemit that; that is a power which no landlord having the slightest regard to his own interest would ever permit a tenant to exercise; I therefore serve you with notice to quit as a remedy in protection of my rights." There was nothing to indicate that the tenant might not, under such circumstances, apply to the Court to exercise its power of restraint over the notice to quit. In fact, under this Amendment, it was proposed to give the Court power to say to the landlord in such a case—"We consider that this is an objection you have no right to make. It is true that there is a statutory provision which says there is to be no sub-letting or sub-division without the landlord's consent; but we have the power given to us to say that that means nothing, and that this is a matter which we can decide as one of appreciable damage." He would ask, was this construction of the Amendment what was really intended. Because, if it were not intended, then the drafting of the Amendment had been so defective that unless it were altered it must of necessity work serious injustice to the landlord. In the earlier part of the Bill this matter had been discussed, and the Committee had refused to delegate to the Court the slightest control or means of fettering the action of the landlord in this matter. He therefore put it to the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, was it meant by the wide manner in which this Amendment had been drafted to undo what the Committee had already done, and to do what the Government had said, at least half-a-dozen times over during the progress of the Bill, they would not do? He confidently asserted that the sub-section under discussion included in its terms power to the Court to indirectly condone or sanction sub-letting; that it gave the Court power to tell the landlord who might seek to assert his dominion over a farm that was being sub-divided or sub-let—"You may have damages if the Court thinks there is a case for damages; but if the Court thinks, in its discretion, that you have incurred no substantial damage, or that the damage is something less than 'appreciable,' it may regard the sub-letting that has taken place as a matter that may be compensated for, or treated as working no appreciable harm, and may make an order restraining further proceedings on the notice to quit upon such terms as to costs as the Court may think fit." It was obvious that this was an Amendment so prejudicial to the landlord's interest, and so subversive of the principle that had heretofore been laid down, that he was unable to give it any support. There was another matter of great importance, showing that the equitable power of relief proposed to be given to the tenant was absolutely and entirely one-sided. If it were fair to give the tenant—and he did not dispute that it would be unreasonable for the landlord to avail himself of what he might call a mere technical breach, which was a matter dealt with by an Amendment of his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley)—if it were fair to give to flue tenant an equitable right of this kind, they ought to put the landlord in the position of being able to say to the Court—"I have served a notice to quit that must run under the law for 12 months, and which cannot give me possession until after further legal proceedings have been taken. This man on whom I have served the notice is, in the meantime, ruining my farm, and is employing the time which the notice gives him to make the land utterly worthless to me; give me a remedy." The Government ought, in the equitable clause which enabled the tenant to go into Court and ask for relief, to enable the landlord also, when there was a grievance which threatened the destruction of his farm, to say to the Court—"Give me an order, although the notice to quit is running, at once to resume possession, so that I may save my farm from absolute ruin." This would be fair and even-handed justice; but it was not proposed to do it, and this was another reason why he was not able to give this sub-section any support whatever. He would offer one other observation. It had been said over and over again by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House that this was a relief from forfeiture. This was not a proper way of putting it. It had been pointed out by the Prime Minister that it was not forfeiture, but the power of directing the tenant to sell. The tenant had power, under the earlier portion of the clause, to sell at any time, so that the Committee were dealing not with a forfeiture, but with a clause that would compel the tenant, on breach of the statutory conditions, to sell. He would support the Amendment to the clause that was to be moved later by his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley), which presented the question fairly and reasonably to the Committee; and, of course, when that Amendment came on he was certain that his right hon. and gallant Friend could accept any Amendment that would render it more satisfactory to the Committee.

MR. BIGGAR

said, it seemed to him that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin had quite forgotten to take notice of one of the leading provisions in the Amendment before the Committee, which ran in these words— If the Land Commission or Court to which such application is made are of opinion that adequate satisfaction for the breach of such condition can be made by the payment of damages to the landlord, and that the tenant may justly be relieved from the liability to be compelled to quit his holding in consequence of such breach, the Commission or Court may make an order restraining further proceedings," &c. So that if the Court is of opinion that the injury to the landlord will not be fully satisfied by money damages, it might give its decision to that effect. It would be entirely discretionary to the Court after having heard the arguments upon it pro and con. This seemed to him to be a thoroughly reasonable Amendment, and he held that the objections made to it were entirely outside it. He had often thought that this matter of sub-letting would be possible between present and future tenants. He thought no real arguments had been urged against the Amendment in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and he hoped the Committee would agree to it.

MR. HINDE PALMER

said, he was very much inclined to think that the proposed Amendment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley) met his views of the real position of the case much better than the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton). He thought the better course would be for the last-named hon. and learned Member to withdraw his Amendment, so that the Committee might come to that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, which he believed would more nearly meet the justice of the case.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he would answer one or two of the grounds on which his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) had objected to the Amendment. He had first dealt with the case of sub-letting and sub-division; and he thought he could relieve the question of all difficulty with regard to these breaches, by the simple statement that the statute prohibited sub-letting and sub-division, and consequently any such act by a tenant would be absolutely void, and the Court would have no power to make such a transaction good. When the Courts found that a statute said it should not be lawful to do a thing, any attempt to do it had been held to be absolutely void; so void, indeed, was it, that in the case of an assignment without the consent of the landlord, when required, the landlord could not even sue the assignee for rent. Therefore, subdivision, sub-letting, or assignment without the consent of the landlord, might be regarded as simple nullities. Under the 8th clause, too, the Court would have power to require the tenant to undo the sub-letting before it gave him the relief he sought. With regard to the time during which the notice to quit would run, it was not intended to give the landlord any new power. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted by the Committee.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said the matter was one that certainly involved great difficulty. His right hon. and learned Friend was perfectly accurate in his statement when he had said that the Court would have power to deal with cases in which there was sub-letting. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had said that this would not be the case; but he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) could only read the language of the Amendment, which said— If the Land Commission or Court are of opinion that no appreciable damage has accrued to the landlord from the breach of such condition, and that the tenant may justly be relieved, as aforesaid, they may make an order restraining further proceedings on the notice to quit, upon such terms as to costs as they may think just. That was plain and simple English language, and surely it gave power to the Commission or Court to deal with a case of sub-letting. The Court under that section might think it right that a 100 acre farm should be divided, and that the tenant ought not to pay damages for such sub-division. To empower the Court to take it out of the landlord, and authorize what he had striven to prevent during the whole time he had had possession of his estate, was neither equitable nor just. He asserted that this question was involved in the Amendment; and he held that sub-division, as carried on in many instances, especially in the West of Ireland, was a curse to the country. The Prime Minister, up to that moment, had endeavoured to provide that sub-division should not take place; but now they load an Amendment moved by the Attorney General for Ireland which would enable subdivision to proceed, and which gave the Court power to sanction it in cases where it might not be thought to be detrimental.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, there was no doubt that this clause did weaken the effect of the statutory conditions. He was not sorry to see some of the statutory conditions weakened; but he was exceedingly sorry to see the statutory condition against sub-division or sub-letting weakened in any way. As it was, no tenant could sub-divide or sub-let his holding without the most positive knowledge that he was doing that which was contrary to the law. There was no doubt that there was a class of tenants whose condition was the cause of much of the difficulty that had to be contended with; and the sub-division going on among this class in the West of Ireland was, as had been said, a curse to the country. To allow the feeling to grow up in the mind of the tenant that he might continue to sub-divide in the quiet and unostentatious manner in which he was at present doing it, and might afterwards trust to the clemency of the Court to get him out of the difficulty, would be highly injurious, not only to the property so dealt with, but to the tenants themselves. He had a tenant on his own property whose rent was £20 a-year. He had a fine farm of good grazing land, and was a prosperous man. He had four sons; and when he died, the sons wished to sub-divide, each to have a farm of the value of £5 a-year. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) very foolishly, and with absurd good nature, permitted them to do this; and what was the consequence? Two of those tenants had ever since been in a position of absolute pauperism, and the whole family were constantly quarrelling with each other, and there was no peace in the neighbourhood, and, except in the case of one of the brothers, who had some money, there was no prosperity. The same sort of thing would go on if this sub-section were carried. The tenants would do with the Court exactly what his tenants had done with him. They would sub-divide, and trust to the Court to condone the offence. He had condoned the offence; in fact, hitherto no one could help himself in such a case in the West of Ireland. He should like to know how was the Court to get rid of the persons who had been put on the land which had been sub-divided? If they resorted to the process of eviction, they would have all the difficulties which had arisen before with regard to eviction. He earnestly hoped that as the Attorney General for Ireland had excepted from the sub-section one of the statutory conditions—namely, the payment of rent—he would also except sub-division. He wished to see it impressed on the minds of the people that they must not sub-divide their small holdings, and hoped that in the interests of the small tenants in the West of Ireland the sub-section would be accordingly amended.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. What the Committee wanted more information on was this. It was clear that the tenant ought not to sub-divide or sub-let, and the Attorney General had said it was illegal. Supposing a tenant had sub-divided or sub-let, and the landlord wanted to turn him out, and the tenant then went to the Court for relief, according to the sub-section the Court could declare that no appreciable damage had accrued to the landlord from the breach of the statutory condition, and might make an order restraining further proceedings on the notice to quit. In the earlier part of the Bill the Committee decided clearly that without the consent of the landlord no sub-letting or sub-division should take place, even with the consent of the Court. What he wanted to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was whether the landlord might not, under this Amendment, find himself saddled with tenants who might sub-let or sub-divide, and where he might not be able to show appreciable damage, the Court might grant relief as against the landlord?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that subletting or sub-dividing, one or the other, was alike forbidden by the Bill. It was not a mere matter of contract; it was a statutory prohibition. Any act of subletting or sub-division would therefore be simply void; and if people were in under it for 20 years, they would have no better title than if they had been in but for a day. Well, then, how was it to be got rid of? What would happen? The landlord would serve notice to quit, and the tenant would go to the Court for relief. By the statute, every application of the tenant was to be considered on its merits, and might be acceded to or not upon such terms and conditions as the Court thought fit. Suppose there was a sub-tenancy created, or attempted to be created—for without the landlord's consent such a thing could not exist in point of law, but only physically—and an attempted sub-division of the land, which again was a wholly illegal act, he did not believe that any Court would consider that the tenant could be justly relieved from such a wholly illegal act for which, technically, he could be prosecuted, unless he did his best to undo the wrong that he had done. His right hon. and learned Friend opposite and others seemed to confine their attention too much to the first point—namely, the question of damages. But there was a second and more important condition that the tenant must perform before he could get relief, and that was to show that he had a just right to relief; and a man who had deliberately broken the statute would not be entitled to relief. It was difficult, of course, dealing with a general clause like that, and statutory conditions of varying importance, to deal with them all in general words; and he did not see how to deal with them except by transferring to a proper tribunal the task of considering whether a particular case was entitled to relief or not. But what were they to do if they did not give to the Court the power to deal with a technical breach of the statute? Suppose a tenant did commit a breach of that kind—that, for instance, he had sub-let for a few days, but undid the wrong before he went to the Court—was the landlord to be at liberty to insist upon the technical breach he had committed, though the subletting had remained in force, say, only for a week? It might be said that no decent landlord would do so, and he did not think there were many who would; but such things were possible, and they must give the tenants some security against some landlords who would do so. The only way, therefore, to proceed was to devolve upon the Court the obligation of saying whether the tenant, under all the circumstances, could be justly relieved from forfeiture, and also to give them the power of imposing on the tenant any terms which they might think just. All the conditions except non-payment of rent were liable to be enforced by a notice to quit, followed by ejectment. He supposed it was not intended that for a mere nominal breach the tenant was to be left at the mercy of his landlord, as there were some, though he trusted but few, who would take advantage of it. If, therefore, they did not wish that for some technical breach, such as sub-letting for a day, the man should be without the slightest redress, let them leave the matter to the Court. Before the Court could act it must be satisfied that the tenant was justly entitled to relief; and no man could justly claim to be relieved from the consequences of his own acts if he persisted in those acts, knowing them to be illegal. He thought they might fairly trust the Court to deal with a matter of that kind.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that the last sentence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was very different from his opening declaration that by the law, as it stood, and by that Act, subletting and sub-division were absolutely illegal, and, therefore, could not receive the relief purposed by that Amendment. By the last sentence, he concluded that the Attorney General for Ireland did look to certain cases of sub-letting which might be included in the provisions of the Amendment. Now, he should like very much to know which of these views the Committee was to understand was the real view entertained by the Attorney General for Ireland? The view placed before them by the hon. Member for Galway County (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was very clear and distinct. If the Attorney General meant that sub-division should be prevented by law and by the Amendment he had just submitted, he would suggest that the whole of the difficulty the Committee found itself in sprang from the phraseology of the first few lines of the Amendment. In the first few lines it was stated distinctly that where a notice to quit was served by a landlord upon a tenant for the purpose of compelling the tenant to quit his holding during the continuance of a statutory term in his tenancy in consequence of the breach by the tenant of any statutory condition other than the condition relating to payment of rent, the tenant might, at any time before the commencement of an ejection founded on such notice to quit, apply to the Land Commission, and after the commencement, or at the hearing of any such ejectment, might apply to the Court in which the ejectment was brought, for an order restraining the landlord from taking further proceedings to enforce such notice to quit. Well, now, what must be the conclusion the tenants would draw from that phraseology? They would say—"This clause is intended to relieve us from any one of the breaches of the statutory conditions with the single exception of non-payment of rent." Therefore, if it were the intention of the Government not to permit sub-division and sub-letting, he should say, in fairness to the tenantry, it was right that the words should be enlarged, and that sub-division and subletting should be made an exception, as non-payment of rent was already made. He would suggest, when they came to the Report—if the Amendment were carried, which he hoped it would not be —that the Attorney General for Ireland should insert words to that effect.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he really did not feel the difficulty which the noble Lord suggested about the matter, nor did he admit the irreconcilability of his statements. As a legal act, sub-letting and sub-division were null and void; but the fact remained, and perhaps the transgressor was on the land. That was not a legal question, but was simply a matter of fact. What the hon. Member for Galway County (Mr. Mitchell Henry) wanted to know was what would happen then? The holder would have no legal title to the land, and the man who put him there could evict him at once. That had been done before. The difficulty of the noble Lord was to know how his words were consistent. How was the difficulty to be got over if the people were there and the land parcelled out? Under the clause of the Bill as it stood the performance of any condition might be required, and the tenant must show that he was justly entitled to the relief he asked for. Well, his answer to that was that no man was entitled to relief if, after having endeavoured to break a statutory condition and transgress the law, he insisted on still maintaining his unlawful position. But if he had undone the wrong and got back into the land, as soon as he had discovered that he had done wrong, and had then been proceeded against by ejectment for the breach of condition, he ought to be deemed entitled to relief. The whole thing would work without the smallest difficulty. With regard to the exception made for the case of non-payment of rent, there was a reason for that exception, because there was a difference of proceeding in it as contrasted with other breaches. In cases of non-payment of rent there was the special form of ejectment, with its complete provisions for redemption of the holding. They were now merely asked to allow the tenant in other cases to go to the Court and show that the landlord would be in just the same position as ever he was by the payment of damages, and that the tenant was justly entitled to relief, and to provide that if the Court were satisfied on those points, then they might grant the relief sought.

Mr. GIBSON

said, that his right hon. and learned Friend had just re- marked that they might trust to the discretion of the Court. But he said that they could not trust the discretion of the Court if they allowed it to override what they had previously said should rest absolutely in the sanction of the landlord. Supposing a man on a farm of 200 acres were to sub-let it to four thoroughly respectable solvent men. It might be true that under the words "it shall not be lawful" they would have no legal estate; but if they had the possession the landlord had only the power of serving them with a notice to quit on which to found an ejectment. What good was that to him? The only remedy he had they took away by giving the Court the liberty of saying—"You have suffered no appreciable damage; you have four solvent tenants on your land, and therefore we will give you nothing."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he wished to call attention to the second condition, which was, that the tenant must be justly entitled to the relief he sought.

MR. MARUM

said, he would not go into the details of the matter. He thought the objections to them had been satisfactorily answered. But, upon the general principle of the measure, he must remind the Committee that one of the greatest objections to the Bill was the difference between these present and future tenancies, which made the severity of the statutory conditions. Public opinion with regard to the acceptance of the Bill in Ireland depended very much upon the question of whether the severity of the statutory conditions would be mitigated or not. He assured hon. Members that that question was so strongly felt that a meeting of the Catholic hierarchy had been held, at which a most emphatic resolution was passed and forwarded to the Prime Minister, asking him to do away with the distinction altogether.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he was so greatly against turning any man out of his holding for breaches of statutory conditions that he would be disposed to go even further than the Bill. He should vote for the Amendment, because he did not think it was a just thing to turn out men on that account. But he should vote with very much greater pleasure if the Attorney General for Ireland would put in some words which would make it compulsory on the Court not to give relief in cases of subdivision until the wrong had been redressed. Almost all the Gentlemen who had spoken in that debate had represented constituencies in the North and South, and they had not spoken of the West. His contention was entirely in the interest of the country. Sub-division was the curse of the Western portion of Ireland, and it was perfectly true that under that Bill sub-division would be illegal and perfectly null and void. It was illegal now; but it went on every day, and they could not stop it. What he wanted was to prevent the notion in the minds of the tenants that it was a thing that could be done, and that they could continue to sub-divide their holdings in the most reckless manner. Let them take the case of a farm at £20 a-year, sub-let to four solvent tenants. The Court might very well say that those four young fellows could just as well pay their £5 apiece as one pay £20, and, therefore, that no such injury was done as would compel those tenants to go out. Well, he thought the very greatest injury was done, not merely to the landlords, but to the tenants themselves. Where lands were sub-divided they became simply homes of pauperism. He would rather that the Attorney General for Ireland should consider on Report whether he could not insert some words which would make clear to the tenant classes that which ought to be made clear to them—namely, that the Court would not sanction sub-division, but that they would compel restitution of the holding in the condition in which it was before it was sub-let.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that before a tenant could go before the Court adequate measures would have to be taken to make everything in the nature of compensation for damage that had been done to the landlord. Those measures ought not to be limited to subletting only, but to all breaches of statutory conditions.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, that if that were the opinion of the Prime Minister and his Legal Advisers, how easy it would be to introduce some words to carry it into effect at that present moment; and he would suggest that the words should be added—"And that the breach complained of no longer exists." The Attorney General for Ireland had stated that if the breach was in regard to some technical matter it would be very hard to turn the tenant out. But the first thing the tenant had to do was to say—"I see I was wrong, and the breach of which the landlord complains no longer exists." Those words would materially improve the Bill; and he ventured to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he would not add to his Amendment—"And that the breach complained of no longer exists."

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

said, that it seemed to him that the object of the Amendment was to enable the Court to exercise to some extent the faculty of mercy. Now, in most offences there was a maximum and a minimum punishment; but, without that Amendment, the Court would have no option but to allow the landlord to evict the tenant. A great deal had been said on the subject of sub-division, and they had been told that it was the curse of Ireland. It had been already stated, and it was true that in some cases subdivision was very injurious; and it was equally true that there was great opportunity for sub-division in many parts of Ireland, with great advantage to the public interest. He hoped the Amendment would be passed. He thought it a great hardship that for every breach of statutory conditions there should be only one punishment—namely, eviction.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that he was afraid the words suggested by the hon. and gallant Baronet would not be of any use. It would be difficult to insert the words now; but he was perfectly ready to undertake to consider before the Report whether they might not insert some words providing that the tenant must restore matters to their former condition.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that what the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) seemed to want was that someone else should put the law in motion against the tenants, instead of taking proceedings himself. The hon. Gentleman really had full power to make the tenants do as he wished; but, as he was Member for the County of Galway, he did not wish to have it announced that he himself was taking proceedings, as that would render him exceedingly unpopular among his constituents. He should like to corroborate the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) in stating that in some cases sub-division might be very beneficial, not only to the tenant, but to the community at large, and would certainly not be in the slightest degree injurious to the landlord.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 251; Noes 147: Majority 104.—(Div. List, No. 292.)

MR. BARRY

, in moving, in page 11, line 5, after the word "ejectment," to insert— Upon a twelve months' notice to pay or discharge not less than twelve months' arrears of rent due at the date of such notice," and "so far as not herein otherwise provided, said, that unless some such Proviso as in this Amendment were inserted, the clause would operate hardly upon some tenants in circumstances largely beyond their control, and there would be no safety for a tenant in arrears. They knew very well that the fair landlords would not enforce the law harshly; but, on the other hand, there were landlords who would do so. Therefore, the effect of his Amendment would be to give the sanction of law to what was done by fair landlords at the present time. It would operate only against the harsh and mercenary landlords, and would not affect the fair landlord, who, at the present time, would not enforce the strict letter of the law. He therefore trusted that the Committee would accept this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 5, after the word "ejectment," insert "upon a twelve months' notice to pay or discharge not less than twelve months' arrears of rent due at the date of such notice," and "so far as not herein otherwise provided."—(Mr. Barry.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he did not think it desirable to insert the proposed Amendment.

MR. BIGGAR

, said, this power of ejectment would only benefit the rack-renting landlords. He thought there was no harm in adopting his hon. Friend's Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. GIBSON

said, his right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Stanley) had on the Paper the following Amend- ment:—In page 11, line 8, after "ejectment," to insert— As in the case of a power of re-entry upon condition broken contained in a lease. Provided always, that the tenant may (except in case of breach of statutory conditions as to sub-division or sub-letting) before any such proceedings are taken by the landlord, or during the pendency of the same, apply to any Court in which such proceedings might be commenced, or in which the same may be pending, for relief, and the said Court may grant or refuse relief as the said Court, having regard to the proceedings and conduct of the parties, and to all the circumstances of the case, thinks fit, and in case of relief may grant it on such terms, if any, as to costs, expenses, damages, penalty, or other matters relative to the breach, as the said Court thinks fit," and leave out "founded on notice to quit. But he thought the more convenient course would be to wait and see how the whole clause would turn out on the Report, and then, so far as they thought it necessary, they would deal with it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BIGGAR,

in the absence of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), moved the following Amendment:—In page 11, at end of Clause add— From and after the passing of this Act the fifty-second section of 'The Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ireland), 1860,' shall be read as if the words 'two years' rent' were substituted therein for the words 'a year's rent;' the fifty-fourth section of the said Act shall be read as if the words 'two full years' rent,' were substituted therein for the words 'one full year's rent;' and the fifty-eighth section of the said Act shall be read as if the words 'two years' rent,' were substituted therein for the words 'one year's rent,' This section of this Act shall not apply in any cases of proceedings in ejectment for non-payment of rent commenced before the passing of this Act. So much of the 9th section of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, as enacts that in case of a person claiming compensation on the determination by ejectment for non-payment of rent of a tenancy existing at the time of the passing of the said Act, and continuing to exist without alteration of rent up to the time of such determination, the Court in said Act mentioned may, if it think fit, treat such ejectment as a disturbance, if the holding, subject to such tenancy, be held at an annual rent not exceeding fifteen pounds; and if the said Court shall certify that the non-payment of rent causing the eviction has arisen from the rent being an exorbitant rent shall be and the same is hereby repealed. In lieu of the words so repealed, it is hereby enacted that in case of a person claiming compensation under the said Act, as amended by this Act, on the determination by ejectment for non-payment of rent of any tenancy to which said Act applies, the Court in said Act mentioned may, if it think fit, treat such ejectment as a disturbance, if it shall appear to the said Court that the non-payment of rent causing the eviction has arisen from the rent being an exorbitant rent. This Amendment would apply to few landlords. A certain proportion of the landlords had been charging excessive rents; and they had got a special advantage by their own misconduct of being able to turn out the tenant without giving compensation. The object of this Amendment was to make that class of landlords give compensation for disturbance. If a landlord were a good landlord charging only a moderate rent for his land, and wished to get possession of his holding for any reason and turn out his tenant by notice to quit, he would have to pay compensation; but, on the other hand, an exceedingly bad landlord, who charged very much more than the land was worth, would be able to put out the tenant without compensation, because the tenant would not pay more than was due to the landlord. In fact, by this clause a premium was given to the bad landlords. For this reason, he thought that this Amendment should be accepted.

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

MR. GLADSTONE

hoped that the hon. Member would not persevere with the Motion he had made. The experience gained on this point under the Land Act of 1870 was not of a very satisfactory nature. There was, undoubtedly, a reason for the existence of the clause at a time when the Land Act made no effectual or general provision for getting rid of distress. This was then a great mitigation, or might have been a great mitigation, of exorbitant rents. But as they were now legislating for a machinery for getting rid of exorbitant rent and preventing its recurrence, it appeared to them to be quite unnecessary to keep alive a separate provision which contemplated the continuance of that practice. The proof before the Court had been found to be a matter of difficulty sufficient to deter the tenant to raise the question. They had now made a provision for dealing with excessive rent, and they were disposed to trust to that, and not to keep alive the fact of previous practices. It must be borne in mind that in every case now the tenant would be advantaged. He thought the proposed addition to the clause unnecessary.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the difficulty with regard to that was this—the Amendment applied to rents which were now due. It would be a very small compensation to the tenant to sell the interest in the holding, when, in point of fact, the price for the holding would not be more than the arrears which were due. This question of arrears was likely to be discussed at very much greater length at a later stage; and, as a great many Amendments would be proposed on the clause of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he thought it better that this Amendment should not be pressed to a division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

, who had the following Amendment on the Paper:—In page 11, at end of Clause, add,— Provided always that as to any arrears of rent of any agricultural holding not held under lease owing at the date of the passing of this Act, the Court shall have power to stay any proceedings for ejectment for non-payment of such arrears, save as follows:—

1. "(1.) In any such proceedings the Court shall judge and declare what would have been a fair rent for the holding during the three years next preceding the last gale day in 1880, having regard especially to the circumstances of holdings affected by any general failure of crops within such three years;
2. "(2.) The Court shall ascertain how much has been paid within the said three years for, or on account of, rent of such holding, and deduct the amount thereof from the amount of the three years' fair rent declared as hereinbefore enacted; and the balance, if any, remaining may, at the option of the Court, be declared payable in half-yearly instalments over such period as the Court shall determine, and shall, for the purposes of this section, constitute during such period an addition as rent to the rent otherwise payable for such holding under this Act,"

said, he had not had the advantage of hearing the very important and interesting statement which was made on the subject by the Government to-day; but he had heard of it. The Committee would excuse him if he thought his clause worthy of the consideration of the Government as a solution of this exceedingly delicate and difficult question. Of course, he was indisposed to put the Committee to the trouble of now discussing this question. He wished merely to ask the Government, between this time and the consideration of the arguments for their own proposal, to take into consideration one feature in his Amendment now before the Committee, which, as he gathered, was not included in the proposals stated to the House that morning—namely, some power to the Court to stay proceedings for ejectment on payment of arrears, where the Court should consider that the refusal on the part of the landlord of the terms suggested by the Government was an unreasonable refusal. He should, therefore, ask leave of the Committee to withdraw his Amendment at this stage, in the view of considering the Government proposal when it was made later on.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GIBSON

, in moving the follow-Amendment:—In page 11, line 8— 3. Where a civil bill decree has been obtained for not less than one year's arrears of a statutory rent, it shall be competent to the plaintiff in such decree to apply for and obtain from the Court making the decree an order that, unless the amount thereof be paid within a time to be named in such order (not being greater than three months from the making of the decree), the interest of the defendant in the statutory tenancy should be sold by the sheriff in like manner as chattel interests in land are now sold under a writ of Fi Fa;

1. "Provided—(a) That the interest so sold should be assigned to the purchaser by a deed to be executed by the Court which has made the order for sale;
2. "(b) That the purchaser shall be entitled to an order from the said Court, in the nature of an injunction, from the sheriff to put the said purchaser into possession of the interest which shall appear by the said assignment to have been granted to the purchaser;
3. "(c) Where a sale takes place under such an order, the landlord shall have no right of pre-emption,"

said, the Amendment was an attempt to simplify the procedure; and it was rather more to the interest of the tenant than to the landlord. At present, under a civil bill decree, a sale could not take place without one or two proceedings—an application to a Superior Court, and then a variety of other proceedings of rather an expensive character. This was an Amendment which sought to shorten that, and to provide machinery to control the powers of the Court. It enabled the plaintiff to make an application to the Court which must be made within three months, and then it safeguarded the whole thing by three Provisoes—namely, that the interest so sold should be assigned to the purchaser by a deed to be executed by the Court which had made the order for sale; that the purchaser should be entitled to an order to put him in possession of the interest, and that the landlord should have no right of pre-emption. The Amendment would be largely in favour of the tenant. The Amendment spoke for itself.

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that what was proposed was, in effect, a process by which, passing over ejectment for nonpayment of rent altogether, the landlord might be facilitated in selling the tenant's interest by the process of a civil bill decree. No matter what the amount was, he might call upon the Court to make an order. He did not think such a provision was desirable, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, it was proposed to give to the sheriffs a new power which they never had before, to put the purchaser at once in possession, even though the title might be a bad one. Surely that was a power which the law had never before contemplated. It would place too much power in the hands of the sheriff, and he trusted that the Government would never consent to it.

MR. GIBSON

said, the Amendment gave no power whatever to the sheriff, for there must be a judicial act. However, after the statement of his right hon. and learned Friend, he did not propose to carry the matter any further at that stage of the Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 (Limited administration for purposes of sale).

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

moved, in page 11, line 14, after the word "fit," to insert these words— And who shall give such security for the due performance of the duties by this Act imposed upon him as the Court shall consider sufficient. He thought it was necessary to provide that where the Court appointed an administrator, that administrator should give security, as he would be a person intrusted with the collection of monies, and he might have those monies in his possession for some time.

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

MR. GIVAN

wished to point out to the noble Lord that this Amendment was altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as when an administrator was appointed under the Act by the Court for the purpose of a sale, the money was invariably brought into Court and distributed under the direction of the Court, and it did not go into the hands of the administrator at all.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

explained that under the Land Act no security was required, because, as had been pointed out, the administrator did not carry out the sale.

MR. GIBSON

was quite aware that that was so under the Act of 1870; but it had invariably been considered a great mistake, and it was right, in his opinion, that these words should be here inserted. As the clause stood at present, power was given to the Court to appoint an administrator, without there being a single word to indicate that the administrator was to give any security.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

was willing to make some alteration if it were thought necessary; but he wished to point out that the Amendment as proposed spoke of the sufficiency of the security. It would be better, he thought, to leave it to be provided for under the insertion of words "such as they may think fit."

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

was quite willing to withdraw the Amendment, if the Attorney General for Ireland would propose another instead, carrying out the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own views on the subject.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

moved, in page 11, line 14, after the word "may," to insert the words "or such terms and conditions (if any) as they may think fit."

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

MR. P. MARTIN

said, he really must object to the insertion of these words. He was most unwilling to enter any objection to what were merely and simply verbal Amendments; but if they went on amending the Bill in this fashion, and complicating its provisions, he did not know how it was to be worked. How did the matter stand? The very same words which appeared in the Act of 1870 were already in the Bill, and gave power to the Court, if they thought fit, to appoint an administrator for certain specified purposes. Now they had experience of the working of that Act. No one alleged that the clause had worked badly or required amendment. Administrators had been appointed in a great number of cases, and had been found to work effectively and properly—and now Parliament were asked to undo all this for the purpose of inserting an Amendment which the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had very properly declared, as soon as it was moved, to be totally unnecessary. That was, in fact, a case of limited administration, where the administrator had not to pay debts or distribute the purchase money. He was merely a person who transferred, by virtue of his appointment, a legal title and possession. They were now asked to undo all this which had worked so well, and to insist upon a provision that where an application had been made to the Court for the purpose of setting up a limited administration, the administrator on being appointed should be compelled to give security. He understood that it was the object of the Government to avoid the probability or necessity of litigation in unnecessary cases; but an Amendment such as was now proposed would encourage the making of applications which in many cases would have the effect of seriously injuring the tenant. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Law) dissented.] His right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland shook his head; but he (Mr. Martin) had had some little experience of the course of litigation not unfrequent between landlords and tenants, and he knew how often it was that personal feelings were engendered on both sides, and that a good deal was frequently done for purposes of spite. Under such circumstances, he did not think the Committee ought to sanction such an Amendment as the one now proposed.

And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Chairman reported Progress; Committee to sit again To-morrow