DEFINITIONS, APPLICATION OF ACT, AND SAVINGS.

HC Deb 18 July 1881 vol 263 cc1149-204

Clause 44 (Definitions).

On the Motion of the ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Law), Amendment made, in page 25, after line 5, by inserting "'county' includes a riding of a county."

Amendment proposed, In page 25, line 14, after the word "landlord" to insert the following sub-section:—"The expressions 'limited owner,' 'tenant for life,' and cognate words used in this Act, shall, in addition to the interpretation of same given by the twenty-sixth and thirty-third sections of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' include the assignees, whether such by operation of law or otherwise, or any such limited owner or tenant for life, and the said 'Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' shall be for the future read and be held to apply in all respects in the same manner as if this extended definition of the above expressions had been there originally inserted in both said twenty-sixth and thirty-third sections thereof."—(Mr. Findlater.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he could not assent to the introduction of the words proposed by the hon. Member, if for no other reason than that they were rendered unnecessary by other provisions of the Bill which had been inserted in order to answer the object which the hon. Member desired to attain.

MR. GIBSON

said, the matter was far wider than his right hon. and learned Friend considered it to be. It was asked that anyone who came under the operation of the law should have all the powers given to a tenant for life or to a limited owner. A man, who might be a petty shopkeeper in a neighbouring town, might be given the immense powers conferred under this Bill. The matter would not stand argument. He did not object to the courteous undertaking of his right hon. and learned Friend to consider the matter before Report; but he hoped the result of that consideration would be to leave the matter very much as it was.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HEALY

, in moving, in page 25, to leave out lines 24 to 27, and insert— Present tenancy means a tenancy subsisting at the time of the passing of this Act. For the purposes of this Act any tenancy created within two years after the first day of January, 1882, shall also be deemed to be a present tenancy, and shall be subject to all the provisions of this Act which are applicable to such a tenancy. 'Future tenancy ' means a tenancy beginning after the first day of January, 1885, said, he did think it would be a very hard thing that after this Act passed there should be no such thing created as a present tenancy. Yet that was what would be. Suppose a landlord desired to confer on his tenants a present tenancy under a new letting, he actually had not the power to do so. Surely the Government did not mean to say that if a landlord evicted a tenant, and put him back for good reasons, he could not confer on that man the right to go into Court and get back his status. What was wanted was in all the cases for which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had such sympathy that it should be in the power of the landlord to confer, if necessary, upon his tenants the right to have present tenancies—that was, the restoration of status. There were men who had suffered from bad years, and whose farms were lying idle. Was the landlord to be prevented by Act of Parliament from giving back these men their status? If the Government were now willing to settle the Land Question they must do something to quiet the existing state of things in Ireland. There were hundreds of farms lying vacant; but he hoped it was the aim of the Government that in time equitable conditions would be patched up between landlord and tenant. No one could think it was desirable, under the Bill as it at present stood, that the landlord should be shut out from giving back to the tenants the status they had had hitherto. The Conservative Party would recognize the justice of that proposal equally with hon. Gentlemen opposite. Another thing he would like to say was that suppose this Bill passed on the 31st of August, a man to whom land had been let would be a present tenant; but if a man took land on the 1st of September he would not have the right or status of a present tenant. The relations of landlord and tenant were rent asunder. There were standing dangers in consequence; and it was very desirable that the landlord should have the right of conferring something like present tenancy. What advantage was it to a man who was in arrears to be told that he had six months' equity of redemption. That man would be in no better position to pay his arrears at the end of six months than at the present time. Probably he might be in New York, in the slums of Liverpool, or on the plains of Manitoba. The Government should, at least, give the men who were now wandering about homeless some chance to make conditions and terms with their landlord. Perhaps he was proposing a little longer period than the Government could accept. Perhaps they would give 12 months or a year and a-half; but, at least, let them give something like hope to those who were now being driven out without hope.

Amendment proposed, In page 25, leave out lines 24 to 27, and insert "Present tenancy means a tenancy subsisting at the time of the passing of this Act. For the purposes of this Act any tenancy created within two years after the first day of January, 1882, shall also be deemed to be a present tenancy, and shall be subject to all the provisions of this Act which are applicable to such a tenancy. 'Future tenancy' means a tenancy beginning after the first day of January, 1885."—(Mr. Healy.)

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

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he was willing to receive with indulgence many suggestions; but this Amendment was out of place. Its proper place would be in the next clause. It was distinctly an enacting Amendment, and this was simply a defining clause. As to the arguments of the hon. Member, he might say that the principal point was the proposition that the landlord should have the power, if he thought fit, of conferring a present tenancy on his future tenant. By the insertion of a few words in the Bill, the object of the Amendment might be attained, and the Government were quite disposed to entertain the proposal, or to make a proposal for attaining the object.

MR. HEALY

said, he quite recognized the force of what the Prime Minister had said as to the wrong place; and if it was considered desirable that he should move the Amendment in another place, he would do so. Might he ask if it was the intention of the Government to make the proposal themselves?

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that, on the part of the Government, he could not say that they could accept the whole of this Amendment.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, he hoped the Government would consider, when the time came, on Clause 45, the desirability of making it a little wider than was proposed in the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. J. N. RICHARDSON

said, he proposed to move an Amendment in the interest of farmers principally in the North of Ireland, who had erected upon their holdings, either they or their predecessors, scutch mills for the purpose of scutching flax, for which the farmer in the North of Ireland was noted. This was not by any means a manufacturing process. It was in the nature of the process of a threshing machine, or as a man threshed corn before carrying it to the market. Formerly, until 15 years ago, or a little more, this scutching of flax was done by the family of the farmer on winter nights, by the use of wooden knives, and that was how it was principally done in Belgium at the present time. But gradually the power of water came into use. Farmers erected these scutch mills, first of all with two or three handles or revolving pins to scutch the flax for themselves. Then they gradually commenced to scutch for their neighbours also. He found from the Returns of last year that there were 1,182 scutch mills in Ireland, of which 1,140 were in Ulster. Most of these mills were built in Ulster on the faith of the old Ulster Custom, because it was to the interest of the farmer and to the interest of the community that flax should be grown. Before 1870 they felt secure; but since 1870, on account of their fear that landlords would stand more upon their rights than formerly, they became very uneasy. But he must say for the landlords in the North of Ireland, that when they brought the matter before him, he did not find one single instance in which that Act had been taken advantage of. Now, when this Bill was coming into law, they were still more afraid that the landlords would stand upon their rights; and on account of the scutch mills not being actually suitable to the holding itself, they feared that advantage might be taken. A deputation from Ireland called on the Chief Secretary, at which he had the honour of being present; and he did hope the Government would allow some such words as those he was about to propose to go into the Bill in order to make the position of those industrious and enterprizing farmers thoroughly secure.

Amendment proposed, In page 25, after line 38, insert new paragraph "Improvements shall, in addition to the interpretation of same by section seventy of the Landlord and Tenant Act (Ireland), include any buildings or machinery erected on the holding by the tenant or his predecessors in title, for the purpose of rendering the agricultural produce of the holding or neighbouring holdings suitable for market"—(Mr. J. N. Richardson.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, there was a great deal worthy of consideration in what the hon. Member had mentioned. The tenant ought to have the power of selling his holding as it stood, and nobody doubted that the construction of these mills was valuable. Still, he did not think this Amendment, as it stood, could be safely introduced; but if the hon. Member would trust him to take charge of it, he would see to the insertion of suitable words in the Report.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, the 2nd section of the Act of 1870 defined an improvement to be a work which, being executed, added to the letting value of land on which it was executed if suitable for such land. They could not go beyond these words. Either the work did add to the value of the land or it did not add to the value of the land. If it did, the tenant should be compensated; if it did not, it was very hard that it should be added to the liabilities of the landlord.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the apprehension that was felt was that the scutching mill, not being confined to the use of the holding, might be held not suitable for the holding.

COLONEL BARNE

said, this appeared to him to be a fair Amendment. He did not like the words "for the purpose of rendering the agricultural produce of the holding or neighbouring holdings suitable for market." Although this machinery might be put up for the purpose of rendering the produce suitable for market, it might not have that effect; and, of course, it would be very hard to make the landowners pay for some machine put up by the tenant which might do more harm than good. If this Amendment was to be pressed he should move an Amendment to the Amendment, after the word "market," the words "will have the effect of." That would allow the Court to give full value to the tenant for the value of the mill, and would prevent the landlord from paying more than he ought to pay.

MR. P. MARTIN

said, he did trust the Government would accept the Amendment. It was most desirable that farmers should be stimulated and encouraged to develop small local industries. The limitations imposed by the definition in the Act of 1870 had been found to be most injurious. In some of the cases County Court Judges had been unwillingly compelled to deprive tenants of the benefits of expenditure made, on the ground that the buildings did not add to the letting value of the farm as an agricultural holding. If the landlord derived benefit from improvements made by the tenant, and these improvements were held to increase the letting value of the holding, in equity and justice, then, fair value ought to be allowed to the tenant. The argument was stronger in favour of the tenant, under the provisions of the present Bill, when such value was realized by sale and not by payment, as in the Act of 1870. It was a novel matter, and ought to encourage the Government to grant the concession asked and thus supported from the Conservative side. If the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland did not accept the whole of the Amendment, he trusted he would accept the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the other side (Colonel Barne).

MR. J.N. RICHARDSON

said, that, on the understanding that suitable words would be introduced by the Attorney General for Ireland, he would withdraw the Amendment.

MR. GIBSON

said, he did not understand that the Attorney General for Ireland undertook to introduce any words at all. He said he would consider the matter before the Report. Under the Land Act of 1870, everything was an improvement which added to the letting value of the land, and was suitable to the land. Was it reasonable to go beyond that? They were asking that that was to be regarded as an improvement which might not add to the letting value of the land, and was not necessary to the holding. They could not argue in a circle. As he understood, the Attorney General for Ireland left it open, and did not accept the Amendment. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Law): I do not accept it.] In that case, he did not understand the position, because the hon. Member for the County of Armagh (Mr. Richardson) had said he had had the undertaking of the Government that they would introduce words that would have the effect of carrying out the principle of the Amendment he had moved. He (Mr. Gibson) did not know whether such an undertaking was given or not; but what he understood the Attorney General for Ireland to promise was merely that he would consider the matter before the Report, which was a much more hazy undertaking. As the law stood under the Act of 1870, everything was an improvement that, first of all, added to the letting value of the holding; and, secondly, that was suitable to it. If the completeness of this definition were challenged, he had a right to ask whether they challenged as incomplete the thing that added to the letting value of the holding, or that which was suited to the holding? No one desired to damage the Ulster tenant, or any other tenant, and he was merely testing the words in which this object was presented. Let them take it both from the tenant's point of view and from the landlord's point of view. This was an Amendment that sought to include as improvements against the landlord any buildings or machinery that might have been erected, not necessarily for the holding itself, but which might have been put there as a speculation on the part of the tenant, who might have maintained it simply for his own profit, although it might not come within the definition of the Act of 1870, under which the landlord might be asked to pay compensation. Was this just to the landlord? Let them take the case of a future tenant. Was the landlord to be compelled to pay for things which were not suited to the holding; because, otherwise, it was not necessary to give the definition? The landlord might not succeed in getting an equally speculative tenant, or he might go into the market to look for a new tenant, and come upon a lot of men eligible to take the holding in its ordinary condition, but none of them willing to pay the extra amount in respect of the buildings and machinery erected by the speculative tenant, and that were not necessary to the holding. Another reason that ought to make the Government hesitate to accept the Amendment in its present shape was that the tenant might go into the market, and, if he met with an equally speculative tenant, might get, in addition to the purchase money, what might recoup him for his expenditure; and he thought he had a right to ask that the landlord should not be called upon to pay for what did not really come under the head of improvements. He would only add that he had not understood his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland to undertake to alter the clause in the sense of the Amendment; and it was only because of the silence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman when the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Richardson) had put a different interpretation on what had been said, that he (Mr. Gibson) had thought it right to speak.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, no landlord in Ulster had ever contested his liability to pay for as improvements such buildings as were contemplated by the Amendment.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Martin) had stated that, in a county in the South of Ireland, there was a case in which a man had erected a very large building for the storage of wood, not for the use of his own farm, but for his neighbours, and under the operation of the Act of 1870 he claimed compensation for that building, and compensation was not awarded to him. Such a building could do no possible good to the holding on which it was erected; and if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Armagh were adopted, the result would be that they would have a complete change in the Act of 1870, and all sorts of claims would be allowed which, under the present law were, very properly, disallowed. He must say that he thought the reasons alleged for the adoption of the Amendment constituted a very poor ground for so serious a change of the law, and he trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would, on re-consideration, consent to leave the law where it stood at present, and where, on the whole, it worked well.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for Armagh would withdraw his Amendment, in order that his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland might suggest something that would meet the case.

MR. P. MARTIN

said, before the Amendment was withdrawn, he wished to briefly comment on the statement just made. When the Bill was introduced, the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners), and others, had said that they would not be able to pacificate Ireland by improvements of the Land Act of 1870, but rather by the promotion of industrial enterprize among the Irish people; Yet, when an opportunity was now presented of stimulating the creation of local industries in Ireland by giving the tenants the right to claim for valuable buildings and machinery erected on their holdings in view of their well-founded apprehension that they would otherwise be deprived of their interest in that industrial enterprize under the definition of the present Land Act, the noble Lord opposed such a concession on the part of the Attorney General for Ireland. He trusted, however, that notwithstanding the opposition they had had put forward against the Amendment, the Attorney General for Ireland would adhere to what he had said. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had approved of a decision come to by Mr. Justice Lawson—a name that ought to command the respect of the noble Lord—and if that were a wise decision as applied to Ulster, he (Mr. Martin) thought that now they were extending the Ulster Custom all over Ireland they ought to take care not to allow any words in the Definition Clause that would deprive the tenants of rights which were conferred on the Ulster tenants. The noble Lord spoke of the case of a wood store. He (Mr. Martin) would remind the noble Lord that these wood stores were used partly for the purposes of the tenants and partly for ensuring a supply of wood for their neighbours. Under the restricted Definition Clause of the Land Act of 1870, the tenant was deprived of all right to claim for such buildings, and he certainly trusted that the Attorney General for Ireland would not go back upon the assurance he had given that he would bring up on the Report of the Bill a form of words that would substantially put an end to what was rightly conceived to be a great grievance by tenant farmers.

MR. J. N. RICHARDSON

said, he wished it to be clearly understood that it was only on account of the undertaking on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, that he had offered to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. H. R. BRAND

objected to the proposed Amendment, and contended that the words of the Land Act of 1870 were quite sufficient. If the scutching mills that had been spoken of were additions to the letting value of the land, and were suitable to the holding, they would come within the definition of the Land Act, and if they did not come within that category the landlord ought not to be compelled to pay compensation; while, in the majority of cases, the tenant would be able to sell the buildings and machinery he had put up. Under these circumstances, he thought the better course would be for the Committee to negative the Amendment.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the general rule laid down by the Land Act of 1870 was perfectly safe, sound, and just; but here was a peculiar and exceptional case. He entirely approved of the pledge which his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had given to bring up a provision that would meet the case.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

hoped that some such provision would be added to the Bill, always provided there was an addition to the letting value of the property.

MR. MULHOLLAND

said, the question was how the value was to be determined. The improvements were all against the incoming tenant, and in that case their market price would determine their value; but he did not see how the value was to be assessed as against the landlord.

MR. H. R. BRAND

said, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he should not challenge the withdrawal of the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 Rules as to determination of tenancy).

MR. GIBSON

said, he had put an Amendment on the Paper, but he had mentioned the matter before in speaking on the second reading of the Bill. It was maintained that this Bill was to be read as one with the Land Act of 1870; but he thought it would be seen that the last paragraph of the clause required amendment as a matter of drafting, in order that the intention of the Government might be fully carried out. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would consider the matter before the Report.

MR. FINDLATER

, on behalf of Mr. GIVAN, moved as an Amendment, in page 26, line 2, to leave out from the word "determined" to the word "whenever" in line 6. He said his object was to omit the provision that a tenancy should be determined whenever it was sold in consequence of a breach by the tenant of a statutory condition, or in case of a tenancy not subject to statutory conditions of an act or default on the part of a tenant which would, in a tenancy subject to such conditions, have constituted a breach thereof. It struck him as rather anomalous that a tenancy should be declared to be determined on a sale, when, in order to make his purchase of any value to the buyer, the tenancy should still exist. There was some amendment required if the words were to be retained.

Amendment proposed, in page 26, line 2, leave out from "determined" to "whenever" in line 6.—(Mr. Findlater.)

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

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he could not accept the Amendment, as he held it to be right and politic that a substantial breach of covenant should lead to the creation of a future tenancy. Future tenancies might arise in three ways—either from the resumption of the land by the owner, or from the exercise of his right of pre-emption, or from a breach of covenant on the part of the tenant. If there were to be future tenancies at all, it was quite as reasonable that they should result from the last cause as from either of the others, and he must decline to alter the Bill in this respect. It would, he believed, be found that the provision to which his hon. Friend objected would give the tenant a motive for the exact observance of his engagements. The Government were not, as at present advised, disposed to part with that portion of the clause.

MR. GIBSON

said, the Government had intimated that it was their intention to recognize the early part of the clause, and preserve the substantial identity of the meaning. He understood that the Amendment was in manuscript, and he expected it to be carried out with the modification of the Chief Secretary's Amendment.

MR. HEALY

regretted that the Prime Minister should have expressed himself in such strong terms with regard to this Amendment. He thought that freedom of contract was the bête noire of this Bill. The whole contention in Ireland had been caused by want of security of tenure, and by the exorbitant rents exacted by the landlords; and he certainly did not want to see those evils arising again and again in connection with future tenancies, and, therefore, he objected to the multiplication of these opportunities for contention in the manner proposed by the Government. The Government admitted the necessity in Ireland of some one to interpose between the landlord and tenant for the purpose of fixing rents, and that something like security of tenure was desirable for the great body of present tenants. He asked was not that also desirable for the future tenants? He ventured to say that, within a few months after the passing of this Bill, hundreds of future tenancies would be created, which would give rise to more burning questions for English statesmen to deal with. He could not conceive why this system of freedom of contract was put forward by the Prime Minister. It appeared that if he (Mr. Healy) desired to buy a farm which was being sold for breach of statutory conditions, his tenancy would be a future tenancy. But that would not be what he wanted; he wanted a present tenancy—that was to say, something that would stand between him and future exactions on the part of the landlord.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he regarded the provision sought to be struck out as a serious blot on the Bill. An earlier provision of the Bill provided that the landlord should receive rent and damages due from the tenant out of the purchase money, and that rule had been found to work well in the North of Ireland in the interest both of the landlord and tenant. But what did the Government propose in this clause? It was not only that the tenant should pay rent and damages, but that he should also forfeit his tenancy at the same time. The difference between present and future tenancies appeared to him enormous. The future tenancy was a tenancy from which a man might be turned out in a week, subject only to compensation for disturbance, and, so far as this clause was concerned, the landlord might continue this practice ad infinitum. But, although he wished to see the privileges of the future tenant enlarged, he was much more concerned with the position of the present tenants; and he confessed he viewed with great apprehension the words of the Prime Minister uttered that day, as well as on a former occasion, that this clause of the Act would have a wide operation. He understood from the Prime Minister, that, after having elevated the present tenants to a higher stage by the present Bill, it was intended to strew pitfalls in their way in order to entrap them into a lower position. The clause would bear very harshly on many of the smaller tenants who would not be able to fulfil the condition of paying the rent. He regretted that the Government did not see their way to making the desired concession.

MR. GLADSTONE

I know not how to interpret what has fallen from my hon. Friend, except by supposing that he means that we ought to extend the intervention of the Court to the transactions of private life. I imagine that is so because the intervention of the Court is somewhat different in the case of the present and future tenants under this Bill, and it is that intervention of the Court which my hon. Friend, applying rather too readily his Indian experience, regards as such a permanent security for the dignity and well-being of Ireland, not only now, but for all time. From the way in which my hon. Friend spoke of the advantage of everyone being able to apply to the Court, one would suppose that a new view of the garden of Eden was before us, by simply saying that every transaction of life shall be subject for ever to the intervention of a Court, so that if a man buys a coat from a tailor the Court shall intervene to fix the price. This the hon. Member describes as progress and advancement. But if once we venture to narrow this intervention of the Court so as to provide individuals with the means of coming together to settle matters that can be very well settled without the intervention of the Court, my hon. Friend pronounces on the consequence in the most dorolous terms. Our view is that the Court is a remedy for serious and intolerable evils. It is upon that ground alone that we bring it in; and, consequently, it is no unnatural deduction to say we will not ask Parliament to affirm in the year 1881 that this intervention of the Court is to be stereotyped perpetually and universally throughout Ireland. I have some hope that my hon. Friend has not exactly measured what the condition of future tenants will be, because the future tenant, notwithstanding the opinion of my hon. Friend, is by no means relegated to the provisions of the Act of 1870, even with the alteration which has been made in the scale of compensation for disturbance. That is not the case at all. The future tenant will have exactly the same right of disposing of his tenant right, and in the same manner as the present tenant, and, in my opinion, will be on a better footing than the present tenant in one important respect, inasmuch as the present tenant, if he goes to Court, is liable to have a judicial price put upon his rights which will stand for the whole of his statutory term, whereas the man who does not go to the Court will obtain the market price. The latter has, therefore, a more free enjoyment of his tenant right, and along with that he has the protection given to him by this Bill against the augmentation of his rent. That is the position of the future tenant; and, undoubtedly, while in some respects his position is in my opinion improved, unquestionably it is not deteriorated in any one thing except that of the delightful privilege of going to law, which would seem to be my hon. Friend's compensation for all the ills of life. This intervention of authority is, I think, proposed by my hon. Friend more in accordance with Indian than English views. It is hard to say whether the loss of that privilege is now a greater boon to the tenant than the landlord; but 20 or 40 years hence the privilege would, I am perfectly sure, be a greater loss to the tenant than the landlord. It must be remembered that this modification of the conditions of tenancy will be by an enactment under which not only the tenant can take the landlord into Court but under which the landlord can take the tenant into Court. That is no slight consideration. As a general rule, in such cases, one of the parties is a rich man and the other a poor man, and, undoubtedly, the man who stands at the door of a Court of Justice with a long purse has an advantage over the man with a short purse. I say it is a hasty assumption that it will be an unmixed loss to the tenant that he is not able to go to law. I hope I have removed some of the apprehensions with regard to the sufferings of these future tenants, which I am afraid have disturbed the slumbers of my hon. Friend for some time past. At any rate, I have desired to do so. This is a matter on which the Government have arrived at their present conclusion, after much consideration, and without being idolatrous believers in freedom of contract. We have thought that it would be a very serious matter indeed to ask Parliament to extinguish it for ever in consequence of circumstances which are wholly abnormal and belong to the present very peculiar position in Ireland, and with regard to which we are sanguine enough to believe that they will not be permanently established from generation to generation.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

admitted readily that his great fear was with re- gard to the degradation, so to speak, of present and future tenants. He had also no hesitation in saying that his own view was that freedom of contract might best be attained in Ireland by making future tenancies as free as possible, subject only to compensation for improvements, and, unless a very long lease was granted, then compensation for disturbance. His wish was that present tenants should not be degraded, and up to the present time he had been under the impression that it was intended by this Bill to give that which existed in one part of Ireland to the other parts—to allow the tenants in those parts of the country to regulate their condition by fixity of tenure, with fair rents and free sale of their tenant right. His impression was that the old tenants of Ireland were to be given the "three F's," and that a property in the soil was to be created for them. His idea was certainly not that their property was to be the subject of continual litigation between themselves and their landlords—for he was no more enamoured than was the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister of litigation—but that they should follow the example of the tenants of the other countries of Europe, and progress without that expense. On the whole, he felt much disappointed at the words which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he had always failed to understand the object of the Government in making a distinction between present and future tenancies, because, according to their contention, they wished to get rid of what they called a crying evil—namely, the possibility of landlords charging exhorbitant rents. The Prime Minister said that the future tenant was in a very grand position. But would anyone affirm that he would get a fair price for his tenancy if the landlord was known to be extortionate? It was the object of the Amendment to prevent that loss to the tenant, and the result of the clause as it stood would undoubtedly be that the incoming tenant would say—"I cannot give a high price for the holding, seeing that the rent is very much higher than the judicial rent would probably be." He and his Colleagues did not suppose that there would be any great number of changes of tenancy. They wished the alterations contemplated by the Bill to take place, and to see a succession of more or less prosperous tenants; but they certainly did not desire that the land should be changing hands every day and hour. For his own part, he did not value as highly as some persons appeared to do the power of free sale, because he regarded it as a minor part of the question. But suppose a man, who perhaps did not hold on statutory conditions, by some accident committed an act that would amount to a breach of statutory conditions in the case of a tenancy so held, he would be in this position, that he must sell the holding, and that subject to any increase of rent the landlord might choose to demand. That seemed to him to be too heavy a penalty to impose upon a tenant for the breach of a statutory condition. Take the statutory condition relating to the dilapidation of farm buildings. The damage might amount, perhaps, to £100 or £200; but the loss to the tenant under this provision would be many hundreds of pounds more than the damage resulting from dilapidation of the premises. Then in the case of the tenant becoming bankrupt, if the tenant would not join in the sale of the tenancy for the benefit of the creditors, one of the creditors would probably make him bankrupt, and the land would be sold, no doubt by collusion with the landlord, in such a way that the remaining creditors would get almost nothing. A very great injustice would therefore be done to the creditors, and a substantial benefit to the landlord by enabling him to extort from the incoming tenant an amount of rent above that which would probably be fixed by the Court. In this respect, then, the clause would do a great deal of harm. It would also be mischievous in the case of future tenants, because it was a matter of certainty that the number of future tenants would constantly increase, while that of the present tenants would be decreasing. The result of all this would be continuous agitation for a new Land Act—an agitation as strong as there had been during the last 10 years.

MR. GILL

said, as the Prime Minister had explained the matter, there was a considerable difference between the position of present and future tenants, and, neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Attorney General for Ireland being present, he desired to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland for some further information on this point. There appeared to exist a very considerable misconception with regard to future tenancies, and he had quite recently read two pamphlets on the subject which took diametrically opposite views of the position of the future tenant. One writer was of opinion that as soon as he obtained the statutory term of 15 years by accepting a rise of rent, he became for the future in exactly the same position as the present tenant; that he could at the end of 15 years apply to the Court for a revision, and, if necessary, a reduction, of his rent. The other writer was of opinion that at the end of 15 years he must accept another increase of rent in order to get another 15 years. If the future tenant was in that position, he could not regard him as dwelling in that paradise described by the Prime Minister; on the contrary, he thought he was in a lamentable position. He would be in a worse position than the leaseholder of the present time, because at the end of every 15 years, in order to hold his farm, he would have to accept an increase of rent. There were many hon. Members sitting around him who had all along thought that, according to the language of the Bill, after having accepted a rise in rent, the future tenant would have all the advantages which were connected with the statutory term; and, therefore, as the Attorney General for Ireland was now in his place, he desired very much that he would state the exact difference, if any, between the position of a future tenant who obtained statutory tenure by accepting an increase of rent, and the position of a present tenant who obtained it by an appeal to the Court.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

was understood to say that of the two descriptions given of the position of the future tenant, the latter was the correct one.

MR. THOMASSON

said, he thought the matter would have been better discussed on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford to the last clause, the latter portion of which provided that future tenancies should begin on the 1st day of June, 1885. He should have been prepared to support a proposal fixing a still later date for their commencement; indeed, it seemed to him that it would have been better to de- fine a future tenancy as one commencing 15 years after the passing of the Act. During that time landlord and tenant would have found a modus vivendi; we should have peace and quiet in Ireland; and the tenant having obtained a sense of security, future tenants might at the end of that time have been left to make their own contracts with their landlords.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

suggested that they should get rid of the present Amendment. He would afterwards move an Amendment at the end of the 46th section.

MR. GIBSON

said, he understood it to be absolutely clear, from the previous statement of the Prime Minister, that although the words under discussion were to be struck out, the Government were pledged to introduce words exactly a the same sense, but in an altered form.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

signified assent.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

remarked, that when the Attorney General for Ireland introduced an Amendment, no amount of argument would induce him to agree to any alteration of it.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. HEALY

said, he had an Amendment to propose which was not on the Paper. He had, at a former part of the discussion, raised the question as to whether it would not be desirable to give the landlord power to re-create a present tenancy by writing under his hand. It was said that the power already existed to do this; but he had not had time to go thoroughly into that matter, and had prepared an Amendment to give the necessary power. He did not say that the reading was the best that could be arranged for the purpose.

Amendment proposed, In page 26, line 9, add "Provided, That notwithstanding any such determination, the landlord may by writing under his hand, or by reinstating the former tenant or his legal representative, rehabilitate and re-establish the tenancy previously subsisting."—(Mr. Healy.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the hon. Member for Wexford had fairly stated that he did not expect the Government to adopt the exact wording of his Amendment. Adopting its principle, however, he would bring up a clause on Report, with the object of enabling the landlord to do in a simple way what he might already do by a cumbrous and round about process.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

We understand that the principle is that the landlord may voluntarily re-instate a tenant.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

Yes.

MR. HEALY

said, in asking leave to withdraw his Amendment, he must remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he had given no explanation with regard to present and future tenancies. Irish Members were in an awkward position from not having received some statement from the Government with regard to the suggestion contained in his Amendment to the last clause—namely, that present tenancies should be created until within two years after the passing of this Act.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HEALY

said, the Amendment he was about to move was a corollary to Clause 6. Under the old law, if a man made improvements, he could not obtain compensation except on notice to quit. As he held it to be undesirable that there should be any creation of future tenancies upon what he called "technicalities," he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed, In page 26, line 13, after the word "tenancy," insert new sub-section—"A present tenancy shall not be converted into a future tenancy by reason only of the determination by surrender or otherwise of such present tenancy, and the acceptance by the tenant for the time being of a new tenancy. Notwithstanding any such determination of any present tenancy by surrender or otherwise, and such acceptance of a new tenancy, such present tenancy shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be still subsisting so long as the tenant for the time being and his successors in title continue in possession of the holding, whether the incidents of his or their tenure be varied or not."—(Mr. Healy.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he did not think the Government could adopt this Amendment. He pointed out that they had provided by the 1st sub-section that the surrender to the landlord of a tendancy for the purpose of the acceptance or admission of a tenant, or otherwise, by way of transfer, should not be deemed to be a determination of the tenancy. That operated as a surrender to the landlord, and, of course, it was understood that the provision, which merely acted as a piece of machinery, created no legal title. But the Amendment of the hon. Member went further than that provision. He could not see the object of the Amendment clearly. Suppose a man held five acres, and surrendered them to get 50, it would be hard to say that that should not be a future tenancy. Taking either less or a great deal more must, of necessity, make a new tenancy. Again, mere change of rent did not operate to change the tenancy, as was obvious, when it was proposed to fix a judicial rent. The hon. Member's Amendment referred to determination by surrender "or otherwise," and it was, therefore, objectionable on that ground, because it could not be expected that the Government should reverse the Common Law. They would, however, provide, on Report, for technical breaches of statutory conditions.

MR. HEALY

said, upon that undertaking on the part of the Government, he should ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. It was only natural that Irish Members should be suspicious of the pitfalls contained in the clause; and he asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give the matter his serious consideration between that time and Report.

MR. BIGGAR

remarked, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had put the case of a person who gave up five acres of land in order to get 50 acres. But he wished to take, also, the converse of that position, and suppose the case of a tenant who wanted to get a smaller piece of land than he had in possession. Now, in both these cases the dimensions of the tenant's holdings would be more or less changed; and he asked the Attorney General for Ireland whether or not in both cases the tenancy would be determined?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he proposed to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Cavan at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he proposed to move to leave out sub-section 2, which restrained a landlord from exercising his rights for 15 years after he had purchased the tenant's interest in his holding. The sub-section in question ran as follows:— Where a present tenancy in a holding is purchased by the landlord from the tenant in exercise of his right of pre-emption under this Act, and not on the application or by the wish of the tenant, or as a bidder in the open market, then if the landlord within fifteen years from the passing of this Act re-lets the same holding to another tenant, the same shall be subject, from and after the time when it has been so re-let, to all the provisions of this Act which are applicable to present tenancies. That was a restriction upon freedom of contract to a degree which he could have hardly expected from the framers of this Bill. The present occupier had received the full value of his interest in the holding, as determined by the Land Commissioners; he had exercised his right of pre-emption from a desire of benefiting his property; he had a strong opinion that it was not, on the whole, desirable that the tenancy should be charged with the interest on the purchase; he desired to let the land again, and did not wish to get a large premium from the tenant, because he preferred that the tenant's money should rather be invested in the land itself by way of improvements. In short, he had no wish to embarrass the tenant. But under this sub-section he would be absolutely prohibited from taking the course which an English landlord would take of enabling the tenant to apply all his capital to develop the resources of the land. This appeared to him so great a restriction on freedom of contract that he hoped the Government would agree to strike out the sub-section, the omission of which he begged to move.

Amendment proposed, In page 26, line 14, to leave out from the word "where," to the word "tenancies," in line 21, both inclusive.—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)

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

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, he was not enamoured of the sub- section. As he understood it, it drew a distinction between the first term of 15 years and the subsequent term; in fact, it raised a tenant, who otherwise would be a future tenant during the first 15 years, into the position of a present tenant. The Attorney General for Ireland would, perhaps, inform him whether he understood the sub-section correctly, when he believed that whereas a man, after the exercise of pre-emption by the landlord, would otherwise be a future tenant, and would not be able to go to the Court to get the rent fixed and the term determined during the first 15 years, he would, under this sub-section, be able to do so? The point was germane to the section. He had previously raised it; but he was not prepared to raise the question over again or press it to a division. It did, however, seem to him that all these small distinctions and differences did unnecessarily encumber and complicate the Bill, and he believed it would be a great improvement, and the tenant would not suffer in the least, if they were omitted. He respectfully pressed on the Government to consider whether there was any substantial advantage to the tenant in keeping up these distinctions, or, at least, to consider whether the small advantage accruing to the tenant was not outweighed by the amount of matter by which the Bill was encumbered.

MR. GLADSTONE

I must own we are not at all prepared to agree to the removal of this sub-section. My noble Friend says it would be well to do away with these minute distinctions; but then he should recollect that earlier in the evening there was application made of that principle by others in a very different sense, and that was that it would be well to abolish the differences between present and future tenancies. It was argued that if we wanted to simplify the Bill we must do this. But we decline to simplify the Bill at the cost of such a change as that. We must consider whether this proposition in subsection 3 is a proposition fit to be maintained or not. I think the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. Smith) attach to the omission of this sub-section a greater consequence than really belongs to it. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if upon the omission of this sub-section it would be in the power of the landlord to get rid entirely of the provision which enables the tenant to whom the land is re-let to sell his tenant right. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the landlord's desire to relieve the land from the burden of this price of the tenant right, paid on interest; he thought it would empower the landlord, if this sub-section were omitted, after the exercise of pre-emption, to get rid of the tenant right when he let a holding again. Of course he might, if he thought fit, put such a rent on it as would absorb it. That is another thing. But after all, you must remember you cannot absorb so much of the tenant right in rent as you suppose. The Irish tenant is willing to pay for the tenant right what he is not willing to pay for in the form of rent. Now, Sir, suppose we were to omit this sub-section, what might happen? I reckon this power of pre-emption exercised by the landlord to be a very large power indeed left in his hands by the Bill, and a particular landlord might have a great fancy for the exercise of this pre-emption, and might take advantage of the position of the tenants to change extensively the tenure, and to re-introduce the tenants as future tenants. We do not think it would be wise, having regard to the general tranquillity of Ireland, that there should be a large introduction of these future tenancies until such time has elapsed as the Act generally shall have had a fair trial. That is really the motive which led us, when we came to consider the Pre-emption Clause, to determine that it was necessary we should guard the clause so as to prevent its being used, even by particular persons—perhaps eccentric parties when compared with the general mass of landlords—for the purpose of a rapid and early introduction of a considerable number of future tenancies. That would not give the Act fair play. We do not think it would be to the interest of the general settlement of the Irish Land Question, which we take to be a matter equally for the advantage of landlord and tenant, that this sub-section should be omitted. These are the main grounds on which we support the sub-section, and on which we must adhere to it.

MR. WALTER

said, he was anxious to hear what the Government had to say in defence of this sub-section. He could not help thinking that on the face of it it bore a construction extremely illogical. They gave the landlord, in the very first clause of the Bill, the right to pre-emption. That was not a right to be exercised on his mere motion; it could only come into existence when the tenant had signified to the landlord his desire to sell his holding. Upon that the landlord came in and sought to exercise his right of pre-emption. First of all, they gave him the opportunity of coming to a friendly agreement with his tenant, and if this agreement could not be arrived at, the parties go to Court. He wanted to know, therefore, in what respect, upon the Government's own hypothesis, was the outgoing tenant, anxious to sell his holding, injured? If they had any faith in their Court—and he had faith in it—for the future adjustment of these difficulties, why could they not be content with its decision? Recollect the whole, or the greater part of this Bill, so far as it related to present tenancies, turned upon the existence of certain existing relations between two particular persons or their representatives. But there were no existing relations between the landlord and future tenants. Why, therefore, should they attach something of a penal character upon the action of the landlord? It was argued that, in consequence of his having taken an unfair advantage of the outgoing tenant, the landlord was to be precluded for 15 years from making a contract with another tenant. Now, that was illogical. There were three possible ways in which a landlord might acquire the exercise of the right of pre-emption. He might do so upon the application of the tenant, or in the open market, or by the settlement of the Court. Why was the third course to be considered so much less safe, less secure, less just to the tenant, that it was to involve the forfeiture of the 15 years' freedom to begin a new contract? As a mere matter of policy, there might be a great deal in favour of the Prime Minister's statement; he would not say that policy might not be sufficiently strong to outweigh other considerations. As a mere matter of justice between man and man, he could not see how the subsection could be defended.

MR. GLADSTONE

asked hon. Members to recollect that, in the present state of Ireland, whatever value might be set upon the power of going to Court, a tenant right which conveyed the power of going to Court and the tenant right which did not convey that power would fetch very different prices indeed. He apprehended there was little doubt about that, and that was a matter which the Court would have to take into consideration in fixing the tenant right. As far as justice was concerned, it was not a question of the defence of the future tenant, who would pay a price proportionate to the value, but it was for the defence of the present tenant, with whom the landlord had relations, that this subsection was inserted.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he understood that a present tenant had now the right to go to Court in order to have his rent fixed before he sold his interest in the holding. The present tenant sold his interest in the holding by agreement with the landlord, or at a rate ascertained by the Land Commission to be a fair price for the holding. For what reason were they to prevent the landlord doing what he felt to be, on the whole, in the interest of his holding and in the interest of the future tenant, in making a contract with the future tenant? Why were they to penalize the action of the landlord? Why were they to prevent him coming to an arrangement with his tenant under the 1st section of this Act? If they told the landlord that he was to be held under the conditions of this sub-section in coming to an arrangement with a tenant, they put him under great difficulty in exercising his power of pre-emption. They would almost make it impossible for him to exercise his power of pre-emption, because a tenant coming in would know perfectly well that he had his landlord completely at his mercy. Why should they not leave the landlord's hands perfectly free? Having done everything so far as the present tenant was concerned, why should they not leave the landlord to make the best terms he could with the future tenant?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that this subsection would interfere with the power of the landlord. The right hon. Gentleman would observe the clause was confined to the exercise of seignorial right of pre-emption, and did not apply to where the landlord bought on the application or with the consent of the tenant. If the landlord lay by until the tenant signified his intention to sell, and then stepped in and said he would buy, that would be a different thing. The object of the clause was to put a restraint on the landlord for a certain very obvious purpose. If the landlord wanted the land for himself, or for his demesne, or for some other like purpose, the clause would not apply; but if he bought the tenant right for the purpose of defeating one of the provisions of this Act, if he exercised his right of pre-emption for the purpose of turning present tenancies into future tenancies, if he used his power for the benefit of his own estate, and to deprive his tenants of the protection of this Bill, and to produce in a few years a recurrence of the misery which now prevailed in Ireland, the clause would apply. Very few landlords would do that, but there were some landlords who would take a sort of pleasure in defeating the purposes of the Act in this matter. The Government did not desire that the provisions of the Act, which were meant to secure a certain amount of quiet and contentment to the Irish tenant, should be defeated by the landlord exercising his power of pre-emption in order to turn present tenants into future tenants. There was no interference with the power of the landlord to buy if the tenant was willing to sell in the ordinary way; the clause applied only when the landlord intervened on notice of sale being given, and said that nobody else should buy.

MR. WALTER

said, inasmuch as one case had been put, he might be allowed to put another. Suppose a landlord having exercised the right of pre-emption kept the farm in his own hands for five or six years, and then sold it, was the purchaser to be bound by this limitation—could he not create future tenancies?

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, the more he listened to the explanations given by the Government the more puzzled he was to know what the point was the Government insisted on. Their real object seemed to be to debar the landlord, as far as possible, from exercising the right of pre-emption, and not to do justice as between landlord and tenant; their purpose seemed to be to prevent the landlord dealing with his land hereafter upon a system over which Government had no control. He quite understood that the Government, in making the proposals contained in this Bill, were, to a very considerable ex- tent, departing from what they recognized as the sound and normal conditions of free contract between landlord and tenant. They did so in the belief—and there were certain grounds for that belief—that it was necessary to make provisions for the protection of tenants as against their landlords. The Government began the Bill by saying that they gave to the tenant the right of freely selling his interest in his holding, and that they gave to the landlord the right of pre-emption. But the landlord could only exercise that right if, in the first instance, the tenant had chosen to take the step of saying he would sell, and, of course, the promoters of the Bill had taken steps to guard the interests of the tenant so that he would have no injustice done by the landlord exercising the right of pre-emption. The landlord would pay that which the Court considered fair, and would pay it upon the tenant's own motion. The tenant, therefore, could have no further interest in the holding. He had had no injustice done him, and the holding was in the hands of the landlord, who, if he chose to, had a perfect right to hold and cultivate it. The Attorney General for Ireland had said they meant to refuse the right of pre-emption to the landlord if he intended to use it for the purpose of benefiting his own estate. Well, but how might he benefit it? He might benefit it by converting large holdings into small holdings; he might benefit it by taking a holding and joining it to another; he might benefit it by re-adjusting his land; and each of these courses would be to the interest of the tenants on his estate, and of the tenantry in that part of the country. Then why was he to be restrained, when he had got land in his own hand, from doing that which might appear to be the very best thing he could do—namely, letting it on fair and reasonable terms? "Oh," said the Government, "that will interfere with the system which we contemplate as the best system to be in future adopted in Ireland, and we do not want to have any of this free contract, because it may prejudicially affect the relations of present tenants with their landlords in every part of the country." The Government did not want free contract lest it should interfere with the good working of their new patent system. It was not the injustice done to existing tenants, or the harm done to anybody, that the Government feared; but it was the harm that might possibly be done to their new system if there was free contract. That was the only meaning he could attach to the explanation of the Government—an explanation which was so unsatisfactory to him that he was bound to ask for more instruction.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, it was very possible that under this sub-section they might arrive at a very ridiculous complication. Suppose that after the passing of the Act—say, next year—a landlord created a future tenancy, that the present tenant of a farm of 30 acres adjoining was obliged to sell, that the landlord exercised his right of pre-emption, and wished to let the farm to the future tenant, with whom he had contracted for the adjoining farm, under this sub-section he could not dispose of it in the way he wished.

COLONEL COLTHURST

said, the question seemed to be whether the intention of the Bill was to be more or less frustrated by the omission of this sub-section, because the whole Bill proceeded on the assumption that it was necessary to restrain the competition for land in Ireland, and this was one of the means of restraining it. He did not think the argument of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) was at all applicable. If a landlord wished to take land into his own hands, and was willing to pay a proper price for it, there was nothing to prevent his doing so; but he thought the Government were perfectly justified in restraining any attempt on the part of the landlord to create future tenancies with the object of defeating the Bill. He was glad to hear the Government did not intend to make any concession on this point.

MR. BRODRICK

said, the Bill seemed to him to be inconsistent with itself. The original demand was that future tenants should be altogether exempt from the operation of the measure; and when the right hon. Gentleman opposite talked of standing as arbiter between the parties, he forgot that he had already made terms with one side, who were now asking only half of what they asked before.

MR. A. MOORE

said, this was vital to the principle of the Bill, and he did not know that he could add anything to that which had fallon from the hon. Member for the County of Cork. It was perfectly evident that there was underlying all these criticisms a consciousness of what would be done if further concessions were made; the landlords would go into the Court and exercise the right of pre-emption at as low a value as possibe, and they would realize the pretium affectionis from incoming tenants. In that way in a very short time there would not be a single present tenant in the whole of the country. It was essential, if this Bill was to have a chance, that those provisions should remain.

MR. PLUNKET

wished to know on what ground this had been put forward as the policy of the Bill? It was said that if it was struck out any landlord could go into the Court and would have the right of pre-emption. Hon. Members must know that the landlord would not have a chance of exercising his right of pre-emption unless the tenant wished to sell. How was the landlord to get all his tenants to give him the opportunity of exercising his right of pre-emption in the way contemplated by the clause? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) objected that by the excision of this clause the unfortunate tenant would be left without protection, and that they would in that way defeat the policy of the Bill. But the tenant was already protected, for he had the Compensation for Disturbance Clause, and he also had the advantage that before this terrible transaction he would have seen the rent fixed for the former tenant. He would know what was a fair rent, and he would have a very fair standard to go by in order to judge what was a fair amount which he himself should be asked to pay. The present tenant would be there, or, if he desired to sell, they must assume that he had had his rent fairly fixed by the Court.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

He may or may not have had his rent fixed.

MR. PLUNKET

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must see that if he had not a fair rent he would go to the Court and have the rent ascertained. How could it be maintained that the tenant was unprotected if this sub-section was struck out? The tenant would know very well what kind of rent he ought to be asked to pay, and he would be better protected than he was at present. It was said they would defeat the object of the Bill, which was to encourage free sale, if the sub-section were struck out. Well, he admitted that the policy of the Bill was to encourage a system of free sale, but it was not to encourage a system of free sale at exorbitant prices, and what he understood to be the great boon given to the landlord in this right of pre-emption was that he would thereby have the power of preventing the interest in the holding being sold at an exorbitant price—that the landlord might step in and say, "I prefer to have the fair price estimated for me and I will pay it myself." If the policy of the sub-section were to be to encourage reckless bidding amongst would be tenants, the excision of the clause would put a check upon the practice; but it all came back to this, in the end, that the clause was inconsistent in its various members. He could not see how the arguments of the hon. Member for Berkshire had been in the least degree answered; it seemed to him that the clause was not only inconsistent in its various members, but was contrary to the policy of the Bill.

MR. MARUM

wished to say a word with regard to the justice of this transaction from the point of view of the tenant. Supposing there was no 1st clause in the Bill, the tenant would have a Common Law right to sell his tenancy at the highest price he could obtain for it. The 1st clause rather cut him down, and what the tenant enjoyed was not free sale, but restricted sale—restricted by the right of pre-emption on the part of the landlord. As an equivalent for that restriction this sub-section was required. So far as the landlord was concerned, it was voluntary. He could come in unfettered by conditions if he liked; but, from the statement of the Prime Minister, it was quite evident that in justice to the tenant this provision should be inserted.

MR. GIBSON

said, the argument of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) certainly had the advantage of being logical; his argument was entirely against any such thing as the right of pre-emption. The hon. Member seemed to think that pre-emption was so bad that the more it was watered down and killed the better; and that the provision under discussion really would have the effect of emasculating the right of pre-emption given in the 1st clause. From his (Mr. Gibson's) point of view the right of pre-emption should either not have been given at all, or, if given, it should have been preserved and strengthened. When it was given nothing was heard about a landlord wanting to exercise it for selfish purposes, such as increasing the demesne. On the contrary, it was said it was one of the means by which a landlord might exercise some influence over the management of his property. They had been reminded that the right of pre-emption was one of the means given to the landlord by which he could moderate some of the disturbing influences that might be brought about on his property by a reckless use of the privileges of free sale. The Government expressly took away from the clause those words enabling the Court to moderate the price, and allowed it to remain so as to confer upon the Court the humble function merely of ascertaining the fair price. The landlord could only exercise the right of pre-emption, therefore, by paying the proper price ascertained by the Court. If the Court had ascertained what was the fair price, why should not the landlord be restored to perfect property in what he had bought? Do not let him buy if they did not want him to have the rights of property, and if they did let him buy do not restrict him in this way. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had put a case to the Committee which had rather reduced this to an absurdity, and he (Mr. Gibson) would give another which would have the same effect. Supposing a landlord had bought a farm on the conditions under the Bill, and he then said, "family reasons," or "my own health compel me to give up the farm," he (Mr. Gibson) would contend that they would not allow that person to go into the market to make a new letting, but they compelled him to make a letting with a present tenancy. Was that just or reasonable? Where was the equity of the provision? Thus was a proposition which, if defended at all, should be defended in the interest of the future tenant. The old tenant was not in question; he had been paid—he had gone away, he was done with, and it was immaterial to him what became of the let- ting. The Prime Minister had said that the object of this provision was to avoid changes which a few years after the passing of the Bill the landlord might otherwise effect. The landlord might acquire the land by pre-emption, and might endeavour to make a letting in the nature of a future tenancy. But the landlord could only buy from a tenant who desired to leave the holding; therefore, the interest of the old tenant, who voluntarily announced that he did not wish to stay and could not stay, would not be affected. The old tenant, therefore, was out of the question. This was in effect to penalize the right of pre-emption which the Government had given at the outset. They should not have given it at all if they were not prepared to allow the landlord to exercise the right with freedom. Having given the right the Government was bound to leave the landlords in possession of it, and not to fetter them in the extraordinary way proposed by the sub-section.

MR. LALOR

, said, he quite agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, that the right of pre-emption was a very inconsistent right to put in the Bill; and not only was it inconsistent, but it was a most dangerous power to have left in the hands of the landlords of Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen belonging to the Opposition had maintained, in the course of this discussion, that the sale was a free sale between the landlord and tenant. This very thing showed the opposite. It was not a free sale between the landlord and tenant. What did the sub-section say? It said—"That where a present tenancy in a holding was purchased by the landlord from the tenant in exercise of his right of pre-emption under this Act, not on the application or by the wish of the tenant, or as a bidder in the open market, then if the landlord, within 15 years from the passing of this Act, re-lets the same holding to another tenant, the same shall be subject, from and after the time when it has been so re-let, to all the provisions of this Act which are applicable to present tenancies." Surely that was a free contract between the landlord and tenant; but it would be more candid if hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches argued the question on a different basis altogether. Why did they not say at once that the application of future tenancies as compared with present tenancies was the best form in which the tenantry of Ireland could hold the land? Now, if future tenancies were the best for the tenant farmers of Ireland, why did not hon. Gentlemen say so at once, and argue against present tenancies altogether? Hon. Gentlemen, however, did not say so; and if they allowed that the present tenancies were better, was it not right on the part of the Government to try and prevent landlords creating tenancies without having something bôna fide, at the bottom of them? Hon. Members were not prepared to argue in that way, because they wished to throw dust in the eyes of those who were in favour of present tenancies. They wished to show hon. Members that they were not against future tenancies, but that they were fighting entirely for justice to the landlords as between them and the tenants.

MR. MULHOLLAND

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had declared that Gentlemen on the Conservative side of the House were not prepared to argue that future tenancies were not better than present tenancies for the people of Ireland. He must say for his own part he thought they were. They were told, with reference to present lettings, that it was necessary to appeal to the Court because, in many cases, they had been over-rented. It was said that the tenants under such circumstances might have become attached to their farms, and, in spite of the heavy charge made upon them for their improvements, were reluctant to give up the holdings. None of these arguments, however, applied to future tenancies. An hon. Member had asked—"Why should not I, as a landlord, be allowed to take a farm on the same conditions as a tenant?" and he had said that the future tenant, it was to be presumed, would not pay a rent unsatisfactory to himself, and if he did he was protected by the Bill from any subsequent raising of his rent. The landlord could not raise the rent without the tenant having a right to go to the Court and appeal against it. When the Bill was brought in great stress was laid on the clause giving the right of pre-emption to the landlord, and it was said that that was one of the means that would be looked to to prevent extravagant prices being given under the right of free sale. Well, he agreed it was the most important part of the Bill; but, if it was so, and if it was necessary to guard against extravagant prices being given under the right of free sale, why introduce a condition which would have the effect of altogether limiting the power that the landlord ought entirely to possess over the land he had so acquired? He could see no reason for it whatever. The Bill was open to the objection that had been made against it generally—namely, that the present tenants were to be benefited at the expense of the future tenants in time to come. It was only right that they should modify that objectionable part of the measure.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he wished to add this to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor) had taunted the Conservative Members with not saying what they meant about the Bill. He had asked—"Why do not hon. Gentlemen behind the Front Opposition Bench argue against present tenancies or against some of the main principles of the Bill?" Surely the hon. Member must know that very often—far too often, in the opinion of some Members of this Committee—the Conservative Members had done nothing else but argue, to the best of their ability, against the principles of the Bill from beginning to end, and they believed they had done it with success—they believed they had demolished the arguments advanced in favour of the Bill, not only out of their own mouths, but from the mouths of the authors of the measure themselves. It was therefore rather a strong thing for Irish Members to turn round upon the Conservative Members at this point and say that they were afraid to declare what they thought of the principles of the Bill. There was one thing with regard to this sub-section which he had not yet heard mentioned, and that was that if it was retained in its present form the result would be that the same thing would be sold, it might be, twice or three times over, or as many times over and over again as anyone might like to imagine. Take the case of a landlord who had purchased the tenant right, and supposing he re-let the farm, the holding, according to the sub-section, would have to be subject to all the con- ditions of a re-letting. Then the tenant might sell the tenant right over again. Surely never before had such a preposterous proposal been made. The tenant could sell the value of his occupancy when he desired to leave the farm. Supposing it fetched 20 years' purchase, the landlord might buy it under his right of pre-emption; he might let it again at a fair rent, and again the tenant would be allowed to sell the tenant right. The tenant might sell at the same price that had been fixed before by the Court; and they were told that whatever happened the tenant right was not to be carved out of the rent. The tenant right might be sold ten times over, and yet it was said it was to have no effect whatever on the rent at which the farm was to be let in the future. He did not know what course the Mover of the Amendment intended to take—it was no use voting against a mechanical majority, the Members of which fought at the behest of the Prime Minister, without thinking for themselves—but, for his own part, he should be inclined to take a division against this sub-section.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he could not understand on what principle this sub-section had been introduced. It seemed to him that the purchase of the tenant's interest under this Bill was the same thing as the purchase of the tenant right by the landlord in Ulster under the old tenant right system. When that tenant right was purchased by the landlord the tenant right was extinguished; the landlord paid what was supposed to be the value of it, and both the landlord's and tenant's interest became vested in the landlord. If he might use a legal phrase, the tenant's title became "merged" in the landlord's title; but now they wanted the title to emerge again, and become the tenant's instead of the landlord's.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 185; Noes 95: Majority 90.—(Div. List, No. 311.)

MR. MULHOLLAND

said, that, seeing that the sub-section had been passed, the bad effect of it might, to some extent, be mitigated by adopting the Amendment that he would now move. His proposal was that the re-letting should have had the approval of the Court, and that the agreement should have been an agreement in writing. He hoped the Government would not object to this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 26, line 21, after "tenancies," insert "unless such re-letting be made by written agreement and approved of by the Court."—(Mr. Mulholland.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he could not accept the proposal.

Amendment negatived.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he had an Amendment to propose to re-enact a certain provision which had been struck out, in order that it might be brought up in a more perfect form.

Amendment proposed, In page 26, after line 27, to insert the following words:—"Whenever a present tenant issued in consequence of a breach by a tenant, after the passing of this Act, of statutory conditions, or, in case the tenancy is not subject to statutory conditions, of an actual default on the part of the tenant, after the passing of this Act, which, if the holding has been subject to such conditions, would have constituted a breach thereof, the purchaser from such tenant shall not at any time be entitled to apply to the Court to fix a judicial rent for the holding; but this provision will not affect the right of such purchaser to hold at a judicial rent during the remainder of a statutory term:"—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

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

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, it was necessary that they should see this in print on the Paper before they were asked to discuss it. He must confess he failed to gather its meaning from hearing it read by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland and by the Chairman.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that the matter was explained at an earlier hour in the evening. The real truth was that the legal difficulty arose upon the question of expression. On account of that legal and technical difficulty the words between the second and the sixth line of the clause were struck out and brought down to the place where his right hon. and learned Friend now moved them; and the words, as moved by his right hon. Friend, with one exception, were precisely what were necessary to give legal effect to the word "now" in the clause as it stood in the Bill. The one exception which he made was that the operation of the word was now confined, in conformity with an intimation previously given to the Committee, to breaches of condition committed after the passing of the Act. That was the only change introduced.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he thought he might assure the hon. and gallant Baronet that there was really nothing to be afraid of in the Amendment. It appeared to him a very small matter indeed; and, though he had no objection to the Amendment passing, it appeared to him that they were wrangling about nothing.

MR. HEALY

somewhat sympathized with the hon. and gallant Baronet in his objection, because, although he had had the advantage of listening to the discussion, he had felt considerable doubt as to what the difference was. It was an intensely Tory Amendment, and if the hon. and gallant Baronet would take a division he would support him.

MR. GIBSON

said, the peculiarity of the change was that it introduced, in deference to the discussion carried on below the Gangway by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his Friends, a most important and very concise Amendment in the name of the Chief Secretary, which rendered it absolutely impossible for any man to be turned into a future tenant by any breach or act that occurred before the passing of the Act. How that could be called an intensely Tory Amendment he could not imagine.

MR. MARUM

said, there was only a difference in terms from the expression that existed before; and, therefore, he could not agree that it was a Tory Amendment.

MR. LALOR

said, he stood up, on the part of the people of Ireland, to protest against the Amendment. The unfortunate Irish tenants were men who might, by ignorance, be guilty of breaches of statutory conditions. Now, what was the class and who were the men against whom that clause was certainly directed? They were acknowledged on all hands to be an ignorant class of people, and when he recollected that there was probably not one in 10 of the Members of that House who thoroughly understood the Bill as it then stood, how could he imagine that the small tenant farmers of Ireland would be fully alive to the dangers of those statutory conditions? Was it not a direct premium for the landlords to try and watch for a breach of the statutory conditions that might be made by every tenant? He believed there was no enactment that would be so fatal in its operation as that section of the Amendment which had been moved by the Attorney General for Ireland.

MR. WARTON

said, he objected to Amendments being moved which were not on the Paper. Having only heard the words as they were read by the Chairman, he had the greatest difficulty in understanding the question. He would suggest, however, a small Amendment to the Amendment, and would call the attention of the Attorney General for Ireland to the fact that there were breaches of two sorts. There was a difference between committing a breach after the passing of the Act and continuing a breach already committed. He would suggest the words— In consequence of a breach committed, or the continuance by the tenant after the passing of this Act.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 46 (Tenancies to which the Act does not apply).

MR. MARUM

moved to leave out after "any holding which is not agricultural or pastoral," the words "or partly agricultural and partly pastoral." He wished to qualify the clause, because no one wished that any villa residences should be included in the Act. There were 175,000 small tenants, who had holdings of under the value of £4. The question would arise as to whether these men had really residential holdings, and whether they might not be excluded from the Act. He was not acting entirely upon his own judgment, but had referred to Mr. Butt's work upon the subject, in which he stated that the definition in the legislation of 1870 was extremely lame and indefinite, and ought to be qualified in some way. The effect of his Amendment was that the exception made by the clause should not apply to any holding let to be used wholly or mainly for agricultural purposes.

Amendment proposed, in page 26, line 32, after "pastoral," leave out "or partly agricultural and partly pastoral."—(Mr. Marum.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he did not think the Amendment would at all alter the clause. The words used in the clause had been adopted from the Land Act of 1870, and he did not see his way to adopt the Amendment, which would not carry the clause any farther.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MAJOR NOLAN

moved, in page 26, line 33, to add the words— Except in the case of towns of under thirty thousand inhabitants, in which case so much of this Act as relates to compensation for improvements shall apply. The object of it was to include in the clause houses in the smaller towns of Ireland. He had not introduced any provision for compensation for disturbance for the tenants in the smaller country towns; but he considered the tenant was entitled to the value of his improvements. He did it for two reasons, because, in the first place, the cases were continually occurring; and, in the second, because the small towns in Ireland were practically the same as the country. The inhabitants of the small towns had all the ideas of the country, either from having small holdings of their own, or having friends who were interested in the land. In the smaller country towns the landlords thought it was the tenant who ought to do all the improvements; and it was a very great discouragement to a man when he had improved his house and found he could not get compensation for what he had spent on it. People who travelled in Ireland would tell them that there was a great deal of dilapidation in the holdings on account of the landlord not caring to improve his property, and the tenant not having any security for his improvements. Some of the smaller country towns wished to go farther, and to have disturbance clauses introduced; but he had not seen his way to do so. That was not the first time the Question had been brought before the House, as both he and the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) had brought in Bills on the Subject.

Amendment proposed, In page 26, line 33, after the word "pastoral," insert the words, "expect in the case of towns of under thirty thousands inhabitants, in which case so much of this Act as relates to compensation for improvements shall apply."—(Major Nolan.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that the object of his hon. and gallant friend would not be carried out by the Amendement, which was one that the Government could not at all accept. It was foreign to the scope of the Bill, which made no provision for giving a right of compensation. It contained one single clause regulating the devolution of title, as there might be some difficulty in the way of proving title; but the right to compensation rested entirely upon the Act of 1870; and, therefore, when they said that the Bill should not apply to holdings, neither agricultural nor pastoral, they did so because they had got an Act at work. The whole purport of the Bill was to relieve the tenant under the Act of 1870 from a technical difficulty

MAJOR NOLAN

said, it would be very easy to remedy the technical difficulty on Report.

MR. H. R. BRAND

said, he wished to know whether an Amendment which was to give a claim for compensation for improvement to tenants of houses in towns was within the scope of the Bill?

THE CHAIRMAN

I certainly very much doubted whether it was when I saw it; but as the Attorney General for Ireland did not take exception to it, I let it pass.

MR. P. MARTIN

said, it was plain this Amendment was in Order, and had reference to a matter within the scope of the Bill. Land, as any lawyer knew, meant not only the soil, but anything placed on the soil, but anything placed on the soil in the nature of the buildings. Indeed, a question of a similar character was debated at the time of the Land Act of 1870; and he thought that one of the very reasons of the great dissatisfaction which was felt throughout Ireland in respect of that Act arose from the exclusion of town holdings from the benefit of the Act. There was no class of cases which required legislation more than that class of town holdings in the small villages of Ireland. They knew that such houses had been, for the greater part, constructed by the tenants, out of their own industry and earnings; and one reason why they were in such a wretched way at present arose from the fact that no protection whatever was given to the tenants in respect of improvements which they had effected in that manner. He was of opinion that the town holdings required rather more protection than the country ones.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

wished to know the opinion of the Chairman upon the point of Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

I was in great hopes that the lawyers would assist me on the point of Order. It is impossible that a Chairman can decide matters of this kind, involving a legal construction of terms, unless he is assisted. I understand that this Bill is for agricultural and pastoral land; but I desire to be assisted by the legal gentlemen.

MR. P. MARTIN

said, on the point of Order, that the Bill was a Bill to amend the law relating to the occupation and ownership of land, and for other purpose relating thereto; and he considered that the word "land," in its ordinary signification, not only meant the soil itself, but everything that rested upon it—that was to say, buildings and houses. It was under a somewhat similar title that in the Act of 1870 there was a debate as to whether those town holdings should be subject to that the Act; but he regretted to say that the Committee came to a conclusion averse to the view which was gallant Friend, and which he trusted he should induce the Committee to accede to.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, he wished to point out that there was not single country town in Ireland of 30,000 inhabitants. There were only four towns possessing that number—namely, Dublin, Belfast, Limerick, and Cork. He considered the present discussion was out of Order.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he hoped that the Chairman would not lay stress upon the argument of the noble Lord, because the object of the Bill was to promote large and flourishing towns. Because Irish towns had not prospered up to the present was no reason for helping to continue such a deplorable state of things as was to be implied from the statement of the noble Lord. There was one reason why they should make the scope of the Bill as wide as possible, and that was that under that Bill they intended to remedy some of the mistakes and failures of the Act of 1870. Under that Act was there was no doubt—and the Attorney General for Ireland would corroborate him—that a great deal of harm was done to the smaller towns in Ireland by depriving them of benefits which had previously existed. The Act of 1870 was most generously conceived, and it was intended to do a great deal of good; but it failed in some respects, and in no respect more than in the encouragement it gave to persons interested of depriving holders of their plots of lands and the hirers of small houses of all the tenant right to compensation for improvements which they had enjoyed previously.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he need hardly say that one's inclination was rather in the direction of finding the Amendment out of Order, because it would widen considerably the scope of discussion on that part of the Bill, and it was the common knowledge of everybody that the Bill was only intended to deal with agricultural holdings. The whole of the arguments had proceeded upon that assumption, and it was thoroughly understood. But when they were dealing with the Amendment as a point of Order, they were bound to proceed, not by what were the intentions of the framers of the Bill, but by what they found within its four corners. When they looked at the title, Land Law (Ireland) Bill, and when they saw it was a Bill to further amend the law relating to the occupation and ownership of land in Ireland, and for other purposes relating thereto, he was bound to suggest to the Committee that the Amendment was in Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have looked carefully at the Bill, and have come to the conclusion that the Amendment is within the title. At the same time, I consider that throughout all the discussions this Bill has been held to be of an agricultural nature; but still I cannot stand between the decision of the Committee and the Amendment.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not press his Amendment. If he would bring in a Bill to enact by law what he there suggested, he would support it. But he objected to clogging the Bill with Amendments which everybody knew would be out of place. There was a good deal to be said in favour of those who had built holdings in towns of less than 30,000 inhabitants and more than 10,000. Therefore, he would ask his hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw the Amendment, and not to offer at that stage any serious obstacle to the Bill.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, he was very sorry the hon. Member for Youghal objected to the Amendment. He thought it was a very reasonable one, as it merely asked that persons who laid out their money in small towns should be protected. He did not see how the Amendment would clog the Bill, and it would not do injury to anyone.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he did not object to the principle of the Amendment. He only contended that it was hopeless to try and carry it into law on the present occasion by means of the machinery of that Bill. If the hon. Member went to a division, he would mark his sense of the importance of the question by voting for the Amendment; but he believed such a course would have no satisfactory effect.

MR. REDMOND

said, it seemed to him that they had overcome the technical objection raised by the Attorney General for Ireland, and that it would be well that before they went to a division they should have a few words from the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon the merits of the Amendment itself. It was evident that to the condition of the small towns of Ireland a provision of this nature would be an immense improvement. The absence of security for the tenant's efforts kept these towns back in the condition in which they now were; but if it was just that tenants of agricultural holdings should be protected, there was no reason why the tenants in towns should not have the same protection. If improvements in agricultural holdings were the property of the man who made them, then equally so should it be in towns. The improvements that were made in the town properties in Ireland, few as they were, were to a large extent made by the tenants, just as they were in the counties. With regard to the limitation in the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend, he did not entirely approve of it; it was too large, or it ought not to exist at all. He would prefer to have no limit. If the principle was right in towns under 30,000 inhabitants, then it was right in all towns. If there was to be a limit at all to it, logically it should be a small limit if the Amendment was to apply to towns only of such a small character that the tenants were more or less agricultural. Then the limit should be much lower, because, as pointed out by the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench (Lord George Hamilton), there were only four towns in Ireland having a population larger than 30,000. He would much prefer no limit at all; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman had done good work in bringing the subject forward. It was an important and a growing question on which a strong feeling existed in the towns of Ireland in favour of some such provision as this. He knew that the feeling in support of security for improvements was growing in intensity among the people of the small towns, who were looking with interest on the Land Bill, and were filled with a sort of anxious jealousy that it did not take into account their admitted and well recognized grievances. If his hon. and gallant Friend effected nothing more by his Amendment than keeping the question to the front, and preventing it being lost sight of by the leading politicians of the Kingdom, he would be justified in having brought it forward. He hoped it would be carried to a division, for, though it might be defeated, it would show that Irish Members were not forgetful of the towns, and the Division List would show how many amongst those who were so fond of talking of the privileges, rights, and property of tenants, were sufficiently logical to go to the further end of the argument and extend the same protection to the undoubted property of another class of tenants.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he had no doubt the Amendment was seriously proposed, still he could not doubt that the judgment of the Committee would be for a moment held in suspense as to the course they should take. Technically, no doubt, the case of the tenants in towns might come within the purview of the Bill; but who could suppose it would be a rational course to take on the 18th of July with regard to a great and complicated subject of which until now they had never heard a word to invite the Committee to begin to open up this new untrodden field? But even if this were practical with regard to themselves, there was another consideration that put it out of the question, and that was regard to the parties affected. What did the Committee know of their desires and their circumstances, and what Notice had been given that Parliament was about to deal with their interests? When they began to legislate upon Irish land everybody knew what Parliament was about to do; but this would be a complete surprise to landlords and tenants of town property. The Committee could not entertain a proposition of this nature without giving the fullest means to the parties concerned of making known their wants and opinions.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he agreed in the general scope of the reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman; but the fact was there was a great feeling in a large part of Ireland that a great deal of the wrong done to occupiers in small agricultural towns came from the right hon. Gentleman's own Act of 1870. He could quote several instances of small agricultural towns in Ulster where, practically, tenant right existed for generations, where a tenant sold his right of occupation in his house, and where he could get compensation for his improvements, but where, in consequence of the Land Act of 1870, landowners could now, and had, in numerous cases, confiscated the traditional rights of the tenants in towns. There was one case in a town in Donegal, in a town of 700 or 800 inhabitants, where nearly £20,000 of the tenants' property had been transferred from the tenants to the ground landlord under the operation of the Land Act of 1870. Could there not be a reasonable compromise suggested by which they might give up trying to obtain protection for improvements in those towns that could not by any figure of speech be considered agricultural villages? Could they not recognize the fact that there were so-called towns that were really agricultural villages depending exclusively on the agricultural population? Could not security for improvements be extended Ito towns up to, say, 1,000 or 1,500 inhabitants? Assuredly, without some pro- tection the small country towns of Ireland would remain what they were now—a disgrace to our civilization. It was impossible for a tenant in an agricultural village in Ireland to improve his holding when he knew the only result would be that the landlord would come in and confiscate his improvements. Ulster Members could say that the well-meant scheme of the Prime Minister in 1870 had the effect of robbing poor men in hundreds of cases. In small country towns, so small that they were practically undiscernable from villages or hamlets, there, at any rate, the property of the tenant might be protected, and it was absolutely essential that it should be so to allow the tenant to make his habitation fit for a human being. In 99 out of 100 cases, the filth, the squalor, the misery of an Irish country town was simply due to the fact that the tenant was prevented from making his house tenantable by the fear that his improvements would be confiscated.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

said, it was extremely difficult to vote on the Amendment. He felt, when it was introduced, that it would dangerously encumber the Bill by mixing up with agricultural property a property that was really distinct from land; but he was in this difficulty—that he shared largely the feeling of his hon. Friend who had just spoken, and knew himself the position of these agricultural villages. But going up to the limit of 30,000 inhabitants, did not that prejudice the good intentions of the Amendment, because it was trying to treat in an agricultural Bill house property in towns? In these agricultural villages, as his hon. Friend said, the squalor and untidiness arose from the neglect of the landlord and the fear of the tenant to make any improvements. Some few beautiful exceptions there were where villages were cared for by landlords. Santry was one, which had been built on a plan, had houses clean and tidy, with flowers about them; but agricultural villages generally were built in a haphazard manner, the houses being run up in a corner of a field, the tenants not caring to make them neat for fear they would, in consequence, have to pay more rent. He could not support the Amendment, for the limit fixed carried it far beyond the case of agricultural villages. The Amendment would now be voted down; but the equity of the thing was so apparent that ultimately some measure must be introduced dealing with the subject.

MR. HEALY

said, he believed that this was a remarkable beginning of a new agitation, and he was glad the Amendment had been proposed. These unfortunate people would see that something would be done for them, and he believed that some Government would some day recognize that legislation could not stop in this matter. If it was desirable to protect the improvements of tenants in agricultural holdings, why not in every holding? His hon. and gallant Friend put the case fairly when he said, as a rule, the small towns were intimately connected with agriculture. Without going into the question of limit, he would say that in towns up to 10,000 there were many that might be called agricultural in their tenancies. In the cases of the small towns, such as Bantry, tenants had no security. English tourists had often remarked to him upon the miserable condition of Irish country towns. The reason was simply that the people had no leases, and dared not build and improve, for they were at the mercy of the landlord. He trusted the Amendment would be pushed to a division, for, though it might not be carried at the present time, still it was a beginning of an agitation for a much needed reform.

MR. MAC IVER

said, he thought the Committee were very much indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for his useful and instructive Amendment. The reasons he gave in support of it were better than many reasons alleged for Amendments that had been accepted by the Government. With equally good reasons, another hon. Member proposed to remove the limitation, and the views presented afforded much for consideration; and, perhaps, in a future Session, the Government would take up this sequel to their legislation and deal with the question of household tenants. If such legislation were reasonable at all—and he (Mr. Mac Iver) did not mean to imply that it was—there was not the slightest reason for confining it to agricultural land or to Ireland. This particular proposal had a good deal to commend it. Landlords were few and tenants were many; and he (Mr. Mac Iver) thought that an extension of the principle of tenant right to householders generally would do much to satisfy the Vote-hunger of Her Majesty's Government. They might begin again next Session with a re-distribution of the property of landlords in the City of London.

MR. P. MARTIN

said, he was sorry to intervene, more especially after the Prime Minister's observations, still, as he had been alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), and as he had introduced a Bill embodying the principle of the Amendment, he wished to say a few words. So far as the Amendment went, it was perfectly reasonable; and, notwithstanding that the subject was considered at the time of the passing of the Act of 1870 and then rejected, the Committee must reflect that they had in the present Bill gone far beyond the principle in that of 1870; and he was certain that if the subject were disregarded a new agitation would spring up in Ireland having a well-founded sense of injustice to sustain and encourage its progress. As to the results of the Act of 1870 in the small towns in the North of Ireland, they did not rest on mere statement. Mr. Butt, in his valuable work, and in speeches in the House, presented the gross injustice there was in the exclusion of these small holdings in those places where the Ulster Custom prevailed, and what he stated was corroborated by Mr. Donnell, the Secretary to the Bessborough Commission. The Poor Law Inspectors appointed in 1870 gave several very interesting accounts as to the manner in which, by giving protection and security to the improvements made in towns by the occupying tenants, well-built, thriving, and prosporous towns had been created instead of a cluster of mud hovels. The history given of the town of Enniscorthy well deserved perusal. No reason existed why tenants in small towns should be thus denied the benefits of the present Bill. Nay, there was even a greater sense of insecurity in Ireland, unfortunately, amongst this class of tenants than those who held agricultural holdings. If the act of injustice perpetrated in 1870 by the exclusion of this class of tenants was continued, if all concession was unwisely rejected, a serious agitation would spread over Ireland.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, it was clear that whatever might be thought of the "three F's," on which the Bill was said to be founded, there was one "F" that it did not include, and that was the "F" that stood for "finality." Here was a door being opened, the closing of which was rather difficult to see. He thought everybody would see it was impossible to take up so large a question as would be involved in the adoption of the Amendment. Surely the Committee had got quite enough on their hands.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, he only wished to point out that he in no way bound himself to the limitation in his Amendment; that only expressed his own idea. So that those who thought the limit was too large or too small might fairly vote for the Amendment, he did not insist upon the 30,000 beyond expressing his opinion that some moderate limitation should be admitted. It was no hobby of his own; but it was a subject that had engaged the attention of many.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, the Committee might be saved the trouble of a division if the Government would give some opportunity of meeting the supporters of the Amendment if they thought the proposition too large. The Prime Minister would certainly go so far as to redress the wrong done to poor tenants by his Act of 1870. He saw the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Lea) in his place, and he would ask him had he not received representations from his constituents on this subject urging him to support an Amendment of this nature? He could certainly promise that there would be a beginning of a new agitation if these requests were disregarded. If the limit of 30,000 was too large, then let the Government say what they conceived a fair measure of relief.

MR. LEA

said, he was very unwilling to detain the Committee a single moment; but the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had so distinctly alluded to the Members for Donegal that he felt compelled to trouble the Committee with a few observations. There was a good deal more in the question than hon. Members imagined, and especially where it bore upon the North of Ireland, where little towns, villages, and hamlets had sprung into existence entirely upon the faith of the Ulster Custom, and in which the tenants' erections were thus entirely unprotected, and inroads upon their property were constantly occurring, and this was especially the case in the counties of Derry and Donegal. He could hardly quote a better instance than the small town referred to by the hon. Member—namely, Carndonagh, in County Donegal, and it might be taken as an example of many other places in the North. The hon. Member was right in saying that £20,000 was about the value of the tenants' interest, and that it was certainly unprotected by law. The tenants had put up the buildings under the promise that they should receive the full benefit of the Ulster Custom, and now they were told they should be excluded from legal protection, as had unfortunately been the case under the Act of 1870. By that special exclusion of the Act the Ulster Custom might not be allowed to protect them; for, although the landlord, who had encouraged them to build, had kept his promise, the property had, perhaps, passed to his son, who, it was reported, might dispose of it, and the purchasers would not be bound by the late owner's promises. Was it, therefore, likely that the tenants would leave £20,000 worth of property at the mercy of the landlord? He would remind the Committee that the small towns and villages were the focus of the agitation; and if this provision allowed the sense of injustice to remain, the better classes of the inhabitants would join with any who might be more disposed to get up an agitation which would be of little or no importance if the injustice were removed. He wished his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan) would alter his Amendment, so as to reduce it to towns of from 2,000 to 3,000 inhabitants; because places of that size were certainly the snore within the scope of the Bill, as they might clearly be supposed to depend upon agriculture; at all events, the question was a serious one, and he hoped it would be placed in a proper shape, for sow a great injustice might be committed by a landlord, and the law utterly failed to protect the property of the tenant. Indeed, by specially excluding his interest it almost seemed to invite appropriation by the landlord.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he would move to amend the Amendment by altering the figure to 2,000. If this were agreed to, the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member would apply to towns of 2,000 inhabitants.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, To leave out the words "thirty thousand," in order to insert the words "two thousand,"—(Mr. O' Donnell,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words 'thirty thousand' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MAJOR NOLAN

said, he could not accept a lower figure than 10,000, because he was sure towns of that size would barely come within the definition of towns influenced by agricultural ideas. He should much prefer 30,000; and although he should not now expect to carry that proposal he thought it would be better to divide on 30,000.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 261: Majority 226.—(Div. List, No. 312.)

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

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I understand that we are now to report Progress in order to take a Vote on Account. Of course, if the necessities of the Public Service require that money should be taken on account we cannot object; but I think it ought to be very clearly understood, if we are now obliged to take Votes on Account—and we have also a very large amount of Supply still undiscussed and voted—we ought to have a clear understanding from the Government as to the Business with which they intend to proceed. We are now at the 18th of July, and we have still a great deal of work before us on the Bill with which we are engaged. There are necessary measures which we are aware must be got through before the end of the Session, and there is a great deal of Supply to be taken. When, a week or 10 days ago, the Prime Minister made a proposal with regard to the order of Business, he stated, with regard to several measures, that it was not the intention of the Government to proceed with them, but that there were some one or two of great magnitude upon which he, for a time, reserved his opinion. We think we ought, now that we are asked to report Progress, to have an understanding with regard to these measures. I refer particularly to the Bankruptcy Bill, the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill, and the Charitable Trusts Bill.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, it would be irregular to answer these questions in Committee, and he would reserve his statement until the House got out of Committee.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

We may be very willing to report Progress for the purpose of going into Supply; but it is perfectly true that we may be unwilling to report Progress if it is to give up the Land Bill in order to get a Vote on Account, and the Government are then to say they do not care to go on with the other Bills. That is exactly what we cannot allow. A Vote on Account was given some months ago on the distinct understanding that no further Vote should be asked for.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out that this discussion should be made on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

It is a question of absolute Order, and not a question of reporting Progress. I want to ask a question of positive Order. When a suggestion is made to report Progress for the express purpose of going into Supply, are we not entitled to discuss whether we shall go into Supply or not? All I want is a distinct ruling on a point of Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

As a point of Order, I have no doubt that the discussion upon a Motion to report Progress should be relevant to the Bill, and should not embrace subjects quite extraneous to it. It is not in Order to discuss subjects which belong to the House before the Chairman of Committees.

MR. HEALY

said, the Prime Minister had promised to make a statement as to present tenancies when the next clause was reached; but when they came to Clause 45 nothing was said, and the Committee was still as much in the dark as ever. There was considerable uneasiness among Irish Members and in Ireland upon this matter; and he thought it was rather hard on those who had three times tried to raise the subject that they should now be told this was not the proper place to do so. He appealed to the Government to say what they meant to do.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he would consider the point.

EARL PERCY

said, that the Prime Minister had moved to report Progress earlier than usual on this Bill, and wished to know whether it was in Order to ask why that course was taken, and to discuss the reasons which had influenced the Prime Minister?

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not think that is a question which the Chairman has to decide as a point of Order. I have stated that questions relating to the Business of the House and to other Bills before the House should not be brought before the Chairman while the House is in Committee upon a particular Bill referred to it; but that they should be brought forward when the Speaker is in the Chair.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

When we are in the middle of a discussion on an important Bill and a Motion is made to report Progress, is it not in Order to put questions as to the reasons and grounds upon which the Government think we can suspend our discussion?

MR. GORST

said, the sixth Order of the Day was the second reading of the Bankruptcy Bill, and asked if he should be in Order in asking the Prime Minister whether he moved to report Progress in order to take that Order?

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not think the hon. and learned Member would be in Order. The Question is that we report Progress in reference to the Irish Land Bill now before the Committee.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he had no objection to reporting Progress on the condition that the Government eliminated from the Vote on Account the Votes which were distinctly contentious.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have explained that such questions should come before the Speaker in the Chair, and not before the Chairman of Committees.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

thought that, as a matter of Order, he had a perfect right to state why he should be in favour of a particular Motion, or why he should be against it. If the Government would eliminate the contentious Votes, he should be willing to report Progress.

THE CHAIRMAN

Under cover of the Motion, the hon. Member cannot anticipate the discussion which would properly take place before the Speaker on a Motion to leave the Chair. The hon. Member cannot pursue that discussion.

MR. GLADSTONE

Hear, hear!

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he would have the Prime Minister understand that he would take no dictation from him on points of Order. He did not wish to raise any improper discussion; but he wished the Committee to understand why he would not consent, at the present moment, to report Progress unless he had some assurance from the Government that they would abstain from going into contentious matters.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he did not understand whether the Chairman had ruled that the Committee were precluded from inquiring what was the object of the Government in moving to report Progress, nor whether he had ruled that the Government were precluded from informing the Committee; but he should oppose the Motion unless and until the Government condescended to inform the Committee of their objects, upon which they had not had the slightest information.

MR. GLADSTONE

The hon. Member is as inaccurate in point of fact as he is irregular in his proceedings. He was informed, with the Speaker in the Chair, several days ago of the reason why Progress would be moved this evening. With regard to answering the questions, that has been ruled by you, Sir, as out of Order, and it is not for me to interpose, however high may be the authority from which that ruling has been challenged. The proceedings are so unusual that I never, in my whole Parliamentary experience, witnessed anything of the sort. I shall reserve any information I have to give until the Speaker is in the Chair.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

Do I understand that the explanation will be given when the Speaker is in the Chair? because if we are satisfied that it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement we have nothing further to say; but the question I put was not at all so unreasonable a question.

MR. GLADSTONE

My words were that I would reserve my explanation till the Speaker was in the Chair, and I did not give the right hon Gentleman credit for so narrow or blunt an understanding as not to infer that that explanation would be given.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 162; Noes 58: Majority 104.—(Div. List, No. 313.)

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