DEFINITIONS, APPLICATION OF ACT, AND SAVINGS.

HC Deb 19 July 1881 vol 263 cc1273-312

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

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he had an Amendment to propose which stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce). Those who were were well acquainted with Ireland must know that a large portion of the unreclaimed moorland belonged absolutely and entirely to the landowners of Ireland. ["No, no!"] Well, a large proportion of it. And he thought he was fortified in his assertion by the statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law), who had adduced more than one instance in which moorland had been let by a landlord to a tenant at a moderate rent for a certain time, and then, upon its having been sold, or having again come into the possession of the landlord, the rent had been raised considerably. They had had given to them some very startling figures on this point, clearly showing that the land did belong, and belong absolutely, to the landlord. He only mentioned this in order to prove that a large proportion of this land was absolutely the property of the landlord, and that it was used by him for various purposes—for sporting purposes, for instance; and, in the next place, that it had been used by the landlords for allowing their tenants to turn out a certain number of sheep or cattle. The permission to use the land for grazing purposes had been given as a favour to the tenant, and in many instances, particularly in County Donegal, the landlords had taken care to reserve to themselves all rights and privi- leges in regard to this land. Where they had allowed the tenants to use it, it had only been for a few months at a time, so that it came into their possession again every year, and they were enabled to do with it as they thought proper. If that was the case, it would be a monstrous hardship if a tenant who had the right of selling his interest in his holding should also have the right of selling an interest in the privilege of using this land which had been granted to him from time to time by the landlord. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) hoped he had put the case clearly, because the matter was one that really deserved serious consideration at the hands of the Committee. He was quite sure that the Prime Minister was most anxious that nothing which could in any way imply that this property, which belonged to the landlord, should be taken away and given to the tenant to whom it did not belong, should be put in the Bill. He ventured, therefore, to hope that the words he asked the Committee to introduce, the Government would allow to be inserted.

Amendment proposed, in page 26, line 34, after the word "land," insert "unreclaimed moorland."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he did not think that unreclaimed moorland should be excluded. Either such land was in possession of the landlord, or it was part of the tenant's holding. If, as the hon. and gallant Baronet said was the case in Donegal, the land was reserved by the landlords, it would not be affected; but, on the other hand, if it formed part of a tenant's holding, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) failed to see why it should not be dealt with by the Bill. That was precisely the kind of land that ought to be protected.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

could not see any reason for the Amendment, unless it was to deter people from reclaiming moorland. If the tenants reclaimed this moorland, it was surely in the interests of the country as well as themselves; but if the Committee exempted this unreclaimed waste land from the Bill, the tenantry would have nothing to do with it.

MR. HEALY

wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, whether he had considered the question of cut-away bogland? In many cases the tenants held land from which the bog had been cut away, and which, therefore, was of no use to anyone. If the Amendment was accepted, there would be no inducement for anyone to reclaim such land. When the bog was on the land, the tenants had common right over it. He should like the Government to consider what ought to be the position of these large tracks of cut-away bog land, supposing the tenantry wished to reclaim it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that the right referred to by the hon. Member—namely, the right of turbary—was well known in Ireland. Where the right was given, when all the turf was taken away the right was at an end—the thing was over. There were other cases, which were not uncommon, where the land itself was common property. In these cases, when the bog was removed, the land would still continue to be common property, and would not belong to the landlord.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, that supposing the bog had been cut away, and the land had been put in cultivation by the tenants, it would be very unfair to allow the landlord to resume possession of it. No doubt, in the past, the landlord, if he had availed himself of his extreme rights, would have been enabled to do so; but, in the future, where the tenant had enjoyed possession of the substratum, it should be merged into his holding. He did not know whether the Bill would do anything in the matter.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that if a tenant went on paying a certain rent under which he enjoyed certain rights, and this right was not taken from him, by implication the land would become part of the holding.

MR. HEALY

said, he wished to point out that where the tenant had enjoyed the use of the turf on common land, it would be undesirable that the land, when cleared, should be left to go to waste. He would ask the Government to hold out some inducement to the tenants to reclaim land of that kind, and not to allow it to remain in the hands of landlords in a useless condition.

MR. GLADSTONE

I would point out to the hon. Member for Wexford that we have no more power over land like that than we have over other rights that the landlord may possess. Unless the landlord has been taking rent for this land I do not see how we can deal with it.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, that this case would sometimes arise, that the rent fixed for a holding would be higher in consequence of the rights of turbary than would otherwise have been the case. If a lower rent was asked when the turf had vanished the tenant would have no claims on the land.

MR. MARUM

said, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) did not see the distinction that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General drew. There might be a joint tenancy in any particular bogland, or there might be only a right of common.

MR. GIBSON

said, the Amendment was an important one, and unquestionably, if it was not to be dealt with now or on Report, it might lead to a great deal of hardship. This unreclaimed moorland was sometimes let on the easiest terms, sometimes at a trifling rent, sometimes even at no rent at all. It was let, not for the purpose of reclaiming, nor for any other substantial purpose, but for the mere sake of allowing the tenantry to send their cattle on it to graze. It was sometimes given as a separate holding, and sometimes as an addition to a holding. The subsequent sub-section, he was aware, excluded pasture lands of a certain value, and also under certain other conditions; but this unreclaimed mountain land, which was very common in Tyrone and Donegal, and which had been given on easy terms, would not come within the value, or very little of it would come within the value, fixed under sub-section 3; very little would come within the value fixed under sub-section 4. The matter was of some importance, and he quite agreed with what was said by the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. O'Sullivan), that it would be unreasonable to interfere with tenants in processes of reclamation. That was not the point at all; but there were cases where the land was let on very easy terms, so that a man might occa- sionally allow his cattle to roam over it and get what pasture they could. It was certainly not reasonable that such a case as that should be dealt with. He had no doubt that on Report the question would be raised again by the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce), who was thoroughly conversant with the subject. He would, therefore, recommend that the Amendment be withdrawn.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, In page 26, line 34, after "demesne land," to insert "or any land being or forming part of a home farm."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

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

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, he should like to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman what he meant by a "home farm;" because if he (Mr. O'Sullivan) understood the common English of it, it meant where the occupier resided, and if that were the case, every tenant farm in Ireland was a "home farm." He was afraid that the phrase would cover every farm in Ireland; at any rate, he thought the Amendment was a very dangerous one, and should not be accepted.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that the phrase would be understood as meaning, substantially, a pleasure farm attached to an estate—a farm cultivated by the owner of an estate for his own amusement. It was, practically, the demesne, but did not come under the definition of a demesne.

MR. MARUM

said, that as he understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he wished the "home farm" to be understood as being part of a farm belonging to the owner in fee that might be a distance from the park or from the mansion. Why they wanted to bring this measure into play was because they saw the necessity of there being a partnership between the tenant and the owner. That principle was carried out in the clauses, and where the question of town parks arose there should be a partnership recognized, or the tenant's interest would be confiscated. Neither the landlord nor the tenant should be allowed to confiscate the interest of the other. He thought the words "draw farm" should be inserted as well as "home farm."

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, that if the Commissioners would be likely to take the same view of the matter as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland there would be no danger; but, as the question stood, the Amendment would be a very dangerous one. He did not know what a "home farm" could be in Ireland, if it were not a farm upon which a man lived. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman object to add the words "or ornamental residence?"

MR. HEALY

wished to know on whom the burden of proof would be thrown in these cases? This was an important question, and he had an Amendment later on to throw the burden of proof as to the present tenancy on the landlord, because he was the person who would keep books and accounts, whereas the tenants would be more likely to be without such records.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, as he understood the Act, it would apply to all tenants of every kind. The effect of this limited section would be to withdraw certain classes of holdings, and the burden of proof would lay with the landlord to show that these were exceptions.

MR. HEALY

There can be no objection to put words to that effect in the Bill.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any objection to adding the words "or ornamental residence?"

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

Those words would be altogether unnecessary, as they are included in "demesne lands."

MR. BIGGAR

said, it seemed to him that the Amendment was of a very ambiguous character, and would possibly do a great deal of mischief. It might be held that every farm in the possession of a landlord, which had been cultivated by him for two or three years, was a "home farm." The question was one of practice and custom—whether speaking of a "home farm" which was one or two miles away from the demense might not give rise to very serious controversy when the Bill became law? He did not see any strong argument in favour of the Amendment, or in favour of the reference to demense lands. A present tenancy could not be created on the demense, and he did not see any substantial advantage to the landlord in adopting the Amendment. Strictly speaking, it would be better to leave the subsection out altogether.

MR. DAWSON

said, the term "home farm" was not understood in Ireland, but its meaning could not fail to be clear after the explanation they had received from the Treasury Bench. No doubt, the owner would be in possession of the land; but would it not be as well to insert words to that effect? He would propose that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should adopt in his Amendment the words "in the occupation of the owner."

MR. GIBSON

said, that would neutralize the whole clause. It might, for family reasons, or for his own convenience, be a desirable thing, as far as the landlord was concerned, that he should be able to make a letting of his demense, and of his "home farm." He should be able to do that when an emergency arose; and, when the necessity had passed, he should have power to come back again. The Amendment would be useful in the case of minors, and a great many others.

MR. HEALY

asked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) meant to say that if there was a piece of demense land let to a tenant, the tenant should have no tenant right in connection with that holding? He (Mr. Healy) apprehended that he would. He understood that it was only the landlord in the occupation of the land himself who was not to bear the burden of the Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that if a person severed a portion of his farm from the rest, it would cease to be a "home farm;" but it would continue to be such as long as it remained entire.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, he should be glad if the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) would give them his opinion on the subject.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the matter was a very serious one, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had failed to tell them why he had not put in words to make the thing quite clear. The Amendment seemed to him to be thoroughly am- biguous, and he should have to vote against it, unless it were made clearer.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

thought these words might with advantage be added to the Amendment—"or any land ordinarily in the possession of the landlord."

MR. MARUM

said, that as there was some difficulty in the matter, he would suggest that the Act should not apply to any "home farm now in the occupation of the landlord."

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might add the following—"in the occupation of the owner at the time of the passing of the Act."

MR. MULHOLLAND

said, he could speak without prejudice on that matter, as he had been in the enviable position of tenant of a "home farm" belonging to a resident in his neighbourhood. The proprietor and his family had been a long time away, and he (Mr. Mulholland) had entered into a written agreement to give up the farm at any time on a six months' notice. Unless the Amendment were agreed to, it would be impossible for anyone to make a contract of that kind, and it would be a monstrous thing to prevent such an agreement being entered into.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, that a "home farm" might be separated into several portions, and one part might be distant half-a-mile or more from another. They should not be deprived of the privilege of having a "home farm" in cases where that farm was divided into two or more parts.

THE O'DONOGHUE

said, that land that would come under this Amendment would be land that had always been cultivated by the owner. To give the Committee an idea of land that should not come under the clause, he would imagine that on the passing of this Bill a landlord might have in his possession land thrown up a short time before by the tenants. Such land should not come under this Amendment, and any tenant taking it should have all the benefits of the Act.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, it might prevent a division if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would add these words—"in the occupation of the owner at the time of the passing of this Act."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that it would be unfair to deprive a man of the power of acquiring a "home farm" years hence. He should be ready to adopt the words "or any land ordinarily being or forming part of the 'home farm.'"

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

Ordinarily in possession of the landlord?

MR. GIBSON

said, he agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's exception, believing it to be a very reasonable one; but he thought that the word "ordinarily" used in this connection would be much more objectionable than the words of the clause. It would be better to keep the Amendment as it was, and he was sure that every hon. Member in the Committee understood perfectly well what was meant by the words "home farm."

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HEALY

said, the next Amendment on the Paper was in his name, and the subject with which it dealt, though a small one, had attracted a great amount of attention in Ireland. Hon. Members from Ireland had received scores of letters from persons holding town parks, complaining of their exclusion from the benefits of the Bill. There was a great deal of misconception as to what a town park was, and that misapprehension should be removed by means of the clear wording of the provisions of the Bill. The point he wished to put to the Government was this—whether, in the case of a small village in Ireland, where there was an increase of letting value, it was desirable that this exclusion should be made. He had visited a small town of 300 inhabitants in Wicklow, and a number of people had come to him and told him they occupied lands which were termed "town parks," for which they paid substantial sums. These people had shops; but they said the shops would not keep them, and they were really more in the position of farmers who happened to have shops than in the position of shopkeepers who happened to have farms. Life was very sluggish in these little towns, and the advantage of living near them and their small markets was very slight; and he would, therefore, ask whether it was not advisable to put in a provision such as he proposed in his Amendment—namely, to insert after the word "town," the words of "above 6,000 inhabitants." He knew a case where town park land was on the river side; the occupier had to pay an extra rent for it, and it was excluded under this Act. But it was flooded every year, and the tenant actually suffered a loss from it. He would urge the Government to accept the Amendment; and he would ask them, at the same time, whether they could give any idea of the total acreage of land held in Ireland which was called "town parks?" It might be useful for the Committee to have that information on Report. No doubt, it could be got from the clerks of the Unions.

Amendment proposed, in page 26, line 35, after "town," insert "of above 6,000 inhabitants."—(Mr. Healy.)

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

MR. LEAMY

reminded the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that there was a great difference of opinion existing on the subject of population. One barrister, for instance, would say that a population of 2,000 constituted a town, and another would restrict the population to 200 or 300. In that state of uncertainty, it was only natural that Irish Members should ask for an explanation of the term "town;" and he thought the Prime Minister should include some definition of this in the Bill.

MR. FINDLATER

fully understood the anxiety of hon. Members opposite with regard to this question, which, in many parts of Ireland, was one of deep interest. There had been many instances of what he considered to be the very objectionable practice of turning farms into town farms, in order to get the benefit of Acts of Parliament. A great deal of evidence upon this subject had been given before the Bessborough Commission. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

MR. PLUNKET

pointed out that the question was one of value, irrespective of population.

MR. SHAW

said, this was a question of considerable interest in a great many parts of Ireland; and, having fully considered the matter, he thought the Government would do wisely in accepting the Amendment, although he considered the figure of 6,000 as somewhat too large.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, the meaning of the word "town" was at present an open question, and every barrister could take his own view of it. For his own part, he thought the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had gone a little too far in fixing the number at 6,000 inhabitants. The only place in which he (Mr. O'Sullivan) could find a definition of the word "town" was in the Towns Improvement Act of 1874, which included in the definition of "town or borough," a place of 1,500 inhabitants. It was a matter of notoriety that serious inconvenience arose from this uncertainty, and for that reason he urged upon the Government the propriety of introducing into the Bill a definition of some kind or other of the meaning of the word "town." If they considered the number expressed in the definition of the hon. Member for Wexford too high, they could, no doubt, get the hon. Member to name a smaller number. If some definition were not given in the clause, undoubtedly great litigation and expense would arise after the passing of the Act with regard to this particular point; and, therefore, he appealed to the Prime Minister to assist in mitigating what was regarded by Irish Members as the great blot on the Bill—namely, the enormous expense that it would give rise to.

MR. GIBSON

said, it was very well recognized that there might be a large increase of value as accommodation land in the case of towns of 200 or 300 inhabitants; while, in the case of towns of 3,000 or 4,000 inhabitants, there might be none. It was, therefore, quite obvious that to confine the test to population was to ignore the most important condition of all—namely, the increase of value. It would be a retrograde step to attempt in this Bill to define that which was impossible of definition. The clause, as it stood now, was introduced into the Act of 1870, and passed unamended through that House; moreover, it passed unamended through the House of Lords, and had worked without friction ever since. He thought it better to retain the clause in its present form, inasmuch as confusion would unquestionably arise if it was attempted to draw an arbitrary line in the matter of population, which, after all, was only one test.

MR. REDMOND

said, that the question of town parks was exciting, and had excited the greatest interest in Ireland, and the proof that the clause in the Land Act relating to them had not worked without friction was the dissatisfaction that now existed in some towns on the subject. It seemed to him that the Government would do well to pay attention to the opinions which had been given from almost every quarter of the Committee by hon. Members, whether Irish Members or not. Hon. Members from Ireland of every shade of politics had spoken in favour of the Amendment before the Committee, with the exception of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson). In a matter of that kind the opinions of Irish Members ought to carry with them great weight with the Government. With regard to the limitation proposed, no one would think of obstinately adhering to any particular limit. If only the Government would agree to some limit in the clause, he thought his hon. Friends would not be disposed to make any difficulty with regard to the number of inhabitants. For his own part, he was in favour of the number 6,000, which he believed was used in the Public Health Act passed in the last Parliament by the late Government as the definition of a "town." He thought it would be well if the Government were to make a further statement, inasmuch as the whole of the opinions expressed by Irish Members, with the exception of those of the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. Gibson and Mr. Plunket) was in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford.

MR. MULHOLLAND

said, he thought the word "ordinarily" ought to satisfy hon. Members below the Gangway. But the whole subject had been thrashed out in 1870; and in the course of the debates which took place on the Land Bill at that time one speaker had said that the distinction between agricultural holdings and town parks had been known for centuries. It was obvious that the tenant in these cases did not reside on the holding, and made no improvements. The custom had been for the tenant to surrender to the landlord the town park, which was never subject to sale or purchase, to the landlord who handed it over to the new tenant. There was no analogy whatever between town parks and other agricultural holdings; and, therefore, he hoped the Government would not agree to any modification of the clause which had hitherto worked well.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he was clearly of opinion that the term "town parks" required some definition in the Bill. He had known great hardship arise from places being treated as town parks, which were never so-called before the Act of 1870. In one case, a man who had attained the age of 90 years had lived for many years on a small farm, the rent of which had been continually raised owing to its being near a town. At his death, his son, who refused to emigrate, remained on the land, and continued to pay the increased rents, and when he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) saw him he had in his pocket a roll of promissory notes extending over a period of 15 years, with which he paid the rent; he was only able to live by the bankers, who knew the circumstances, continually advancing him money to meet the notes as they became due. For his own part, he had never been able to see any reason for the exemption of town parks from the operation of the Bill. What reason could be shown why a holding near to a town should be exempted from the jurisdiction of the Court, as regarded the fairness of the terms on which it was held, because the rent was £2 an acre instead of £1? He was unable to see why these words relating to "town parks" had been introduced at all, and trusted that if the right hon. Gentleman was in a position to consider the point further he would do so, with the view either of including town parks within the operation of the Act, which he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) thought was the right course, or, at any rate, with the view of strictly defining them.

MR. P. MARTIN

trusted, if the words "town parks" were not altogether excluded from the Bill, that some definition would be given. He believed that anyone who had the slightest acquaintance with the working of the Land Act of 1870 would know that there was no greater difficulty than to get a definition of the word "town." There had been many opposing decisions upon this subject amongst the Judges. The words made use of in the Act of 1870 were extremely vague, and of a character to invite litigation. Notwithstanding the difficulty of making use of apt and proper words to define "town parks," yet if tenants of these holdings were to be excluded it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to clearly define the meaning they attached to the term. He respectfully submitted, as a proper solution, that the holdings should be included within the operation of the Bill. If an increase of rent ought justly to be paid to a landlord for these town parks, the Land Commissioners, who ascertained the judicial rent, would most certainly attach to them as much additional rent as might be properly paid for accommodation, so that no injury would on that account be done to the landlord. He wished to allude to the fact that there was a suggestion made by four of the members of the Bess-borough. Commission that town parks should no longer be excluded from the operation of the Land Acts. Such was their recommendation; and seeing that it could do no possible harm to the landlords, and while the reason for the exclusion of town parks which existed at the time of passing the Act of 1870 was no longer valid as applied to this Bill, he trusted the Government would not continue their exclusion.

MR. GILL

said, he was desirous that the Government should agree to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) to exclude town parks from this clause, so that the occupiers might have an opportunity of going into Court for the purpose of having a judicial rent fixed. But if the Government could not see their way to do that, then he trusted they would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) which was then before the Committee. He had considered the subject fully, and was unable to see that it could in any way do harm to the landlord to adopt either of those suggestions, inasmuch as the Land Commission would do no injustice to the landlord in fixing the rent. There were many cases in which it would be very difficult to draw a line of demarcation between lands that were called farms, and lands that were called town parks. For instance, he know of a holding of 50 acres within a mile of a town in Ireland which was called a town park, the occupier of which paid a rent of about £6 per acre, while the farm adjoining it—and which was only a quarter of a mile further from the town—of the same size and quality of land, was let at about half that rent. The former of these was called a town farm, and the latter an ordinary farm. He could not see that the so-called town park derived any advantage from being a quarter of a mile nearer the town than the other, which was at all equivalent to the additional rent of nearly £3 10s. per acre. Again, in many towns, the occupiers did not hold the farms in the neighbourhood for the purpose of obtaining any extra profit from the fact that they were near the town. They held them in order to make some profit in addition to that which they might make from their small businesses in the town, for, owing to the very low state of business in Ireland, the profits they made by their shops were by no means sufficient to supply them with the means of living. They took these farms for the purpose of increasing their small incomes, and it was only by sending their goods to considerable distances that they could make any profit out of them whatever. Under these circumstances, he thought the Government should take the suggestions which had been made into consideration, and either withdraw the words "town parks" from the clause, or mention some number of inhabitants of the towns as a limit beyond which the clause should not operate.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

thought that, inasmuch as the Government appeared to be influenced rather by the number of persons who spoke for and against an Amendment than by the arguments which they used, it was right to express his hope that they would retain the sub-section as it stood, instead of agreeing to its being altered in the direction indicated by the Amendment. It had been pointed out that town parks paid an increased rent over the other land in the district, and that they were generally in the occupation of some person living in the neighbouring town or city. Now, supposing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was accepted, and an arbitrary numerical limit as to population placed in the clause, it would, undoubtedly, result that a considerable number of persons occupying town parks would get a tenant right which they were not entitled to. He pointed out to the Committee that there was a great deal more behind this proposal than at first sight appeared. It might, for instance, very materially affect the growth of towns in various parts of Ireland, because if they gave to people occupying the lands in question rights which they never had before, and which they could sell for a considerable sum of money, they naturally increased the value of the land that adjoined the town, and made it more difficult for the landlords to afford additional accommodation.

MR. DALY

said, the Prime Minister appeared to have forgotten that if the question of town parks came before the Court the Commissioners would have to take into consideration all the circumstances of the holding. Therefore, in taking the words "town parks" out of the sub-section there could be no possible injustice done to the landlord. On the other hand, if the words were retained a great injustice would be done in many cases, unless a close definition was given. With regard to the Amendment before the Committee, he was inclined to the view expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) that a numerical limit was not the only test to be applied, while he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) that for the purposes of this Bill the words "town parks" should be excluded from the clause altogether.

MR. GLADSTONE

It appears that I have arrived at a conclusion, in conjunction with my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson), in reference to this point which will not be satisfactory to hon. Members generally. But we are now dealing with a subject of great importance, entirely distinct from the general provisions and purport of the Bill—that is to say, the local limits within which it will apply, or, as it may be termed, the geography of the question. This is a matter which has not been before under our consideration, and which is altogether new. There has been a kind of general assumption that this Bill was to adhere to the lines of the Land Act of 1870. I do not recollect that the Commission which preceded the introduction of this Bill was so minute in its inquiries as to touch upon this subject in their Report. Everyone has known for the last six months that proposals were about to be made affecting the relations of landlords and tenants in Ireland; but that was taken to mean the relations of landlord and tenant as understood in the Land Act of 1870. If I were dealing with the question for the first time I should feel strongly the appeal made to me by hon. Members. I cannot conceive for a moment that, if these matters were brought within the purview of the Court, the Court would be so insensible of its duty as to reduce the rent; and, therefore, I do not think we should be doing an injury to the landlord simply by extending to him the jurisdiction of the Court. But I feel, on the whole, obliged to take this line. I think it is our duty to say that we must regard the question of town parks as a separate matter, and that we cannot with equity to all parties introduce into the scope of the Bill at the eleventh hour—I might say at this advanced portion of the twelfth hour—of the discussion on the Bill, a subject which is new in the sense of its not having been fairly before the minds of the parties interested. Therefore, Sir, we feel it to be our duty to adhere to the clause as it stands, not as saying that the present state of the law as regards this subject is satisfactory, but because we feel we cannot undertake to legislate upon it before notice has been given to, and before we have obtained from, the persons interested, all the light which they can throw upon it.

MR. HEALY

said, the argument of the Prime Minister had proceeded upon the assumption that all parties interested in the present transactions with reference to the Land Question in Ireland had received due notice of changes proposed. Of course, it was not to be expected that the right hon. Gentleman could make himself acquainted with the movement of Irish opinion on small matters of this kind; but he was in a position to inform him that if there was one point on which Irish feeling had been expressed strongly it was upon this subject of town parks. With regard to the Notice which hon. Members had received upon this Amendment, he begged to say that he had handed it to the Clerk at the Table immediately the Bill had been read a second time, so that there had been ample opportunities for studying the Amendment on the part of hon. Members. He reminded the Premier that he appeared to be under the impres- sion that there was compensation for disturbance in the case of occupiers of these lands. It was a shocking thing to think that after they had made improvements on their farms and were turned out they were not entitled to compensation. By leaving the question of town parks in its present position the Government were simply putting a premium on agitation. They admitted the injustice of the present system, but said that, owing to the want of notice to the parties interested, it was undesirable to entertain an Amendment of this kind. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, if he could not agree to the Amendment at that moment, to say that the matter should be considered before Report.

MR. A. MOORE

said, as he understood the existing law, tenants who held town parks were entitled to the protection of the Act of 1870 in respect of their improvements; they were also entitled to be recouped for the money given to the previous occupier with the consent of the landlord; but they were not entitled to compensation for disturbance. If the Government would say that the Commissioners might value town parks, as well as other agricultural holdings, he believed it would add to the number of those persons in Ireland who regarded this Bill with satisfaction. But he could not support the Amendment, because, if they once landed themselves in the valuation of town parks, he could not understand how they could confine themselves to towns of 6,000 inhabitants.

MR. LEAMY

said, as the Prime Minister had stated that the present law on this subject was not satisfactory, but that the question of altering it could not be entertained, because the landlords had not had sufficient notice, Irish Members would have to tell the people of Ireland that if they wished the defects in the law to be removed it would be necessary to get up another agitation.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, the arguments of hon. Members had travelled wide of the Amendment before the Committee; and it would appear from some of them that the supporters of the Amendment wished to get rid of the exemption of town lands from the operation of the Bill altogether. But that was not the case. They were asking for a definition of "town parks," and did so with the desire of avoiding, in future, the expense and litigation which had already arisen from the state of uncertainty in which this question was involved. They wanted the Government to define the meaning of "town," for the purpose of this Bill, and not leave open the door to future uncertainty, and the inevitable expense attached to it.

MR. SHAW

hoped that the clause would be allowed to pass after the assurances of the Prime Minister. Looking at the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), it appeared to require some verbal alterations, which would make it more effectual; and he thought the best course to pursue was that this matter should be removed altogether from the difficulties of legal decisions, and that it should be placed in the hands of the new Court which was to be established under this Bill. The hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) had stated that these town parks were not subject to purchase and sale in the same way as other agricultural holdings; but he (Mr. Shaw) could point out to him many cases in the South of Ireland where the reverse was the case, very large sums being paid for them. He was in favour of the matter being dealt with in the Bill, in a manner that would do no injury at all to the rights of the landlords; while, at the same time, the interests of the occupiers were guarded. He thought the question might safely be left in the hands of the Government.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, the proposal was that the small towns and villages should not be treated like the large towns; but it was generally the small villages that had "town parks" near them. These spaces near the large towns were, as a rule, occupied by market gardeners. It was a rare thing for large towns to have farms near them kept for grazing purposes; whereas, in the case of small places, it was very common.

MR. GLADSTONE

I recognize the spirit of my hon. Friend's (Mr. Shaw's) suggestions; but I am bound to say that, in view of the short time that will elapse before the Report, we do not feel that we should be able to put forward any satisfactory provision dealing with the lands in question. This is a question which, undoubtedly, requires the greatest amount of consideration; and, although I might be able to satisfy myself upon it very easily, if it were to be decided according to my own view, there is another element in our judgment necessary, and that is, that we should have the benefit of all the assistance and information which can be afforded by the parties interested. It is by having had recourse to such information and assistance that we have alone been able to cope with this great Land Question to the extent which we have done. But there are other reasons which must have their due weight in deciding the course which the Government have to pursue. I do not think we have any judgment on the subject in the Report of the Bess-borough Commission; and with regard to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Martin), I can conceive that very serious objections might be raised to the removal of the words "town parks" altogether from the clause; and, again, I feel considerable doubt as to the distinction proposed to be drawn between small and large towns. I believe that the lands in question are much more known in connection with small than large towns. Then let hon. Members consider the difficulties involved in the proposal to bring town parks within the operation of the Bill. At present, the holders of town parks can claim for improvements, and even if they could claim compensation for disturbance they have no title to sell their tenant right; they have no protection against the arbitrary augmentation of rent, and, finally, they have no right to go into the Court. These are all serious questions; and although we are prepared to do our best, I cannot honestly give a promise that we can reconsider the matter usefully before Report. I frankly own, however, that the present state of the law on this subject is unsatisfactory.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, that after the distinct statement of the Prime Minister, he could see no advantage in arguing the question further, against his decision. He, however, suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he might reasonably accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), which he should be happy to move on behalf of that hon. and learned Gentleman, if he were not in his place when it was reached by the Committee.

MR. HEALY

said, he could perceive that the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was open so far as this question was concerned; and he understood that the right hon. Gentleman required further evidence and time for consideration. He (Mr. Healy) was in a position to supply the right hon. Gentleman with plenty of evidence bearing on the subject, and would ask him if he was willing to grant a Select Committee to inquire into the question of "town parks" next Session, with a view to striking out the words relating to them from the Act, if the Report of the Committee was in favour of that course?

MR. GLADSTONE

As I have already indicated, I am not prepared to affirm that the present law bearing upon this subject is satisfactory. We regard the question as to the best means of dealing with this matter as open to consideration; but we may find it to be our duty to investigate it during the Recess.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Amendment made in page 27, line 8, after "let," by leaving out the words "and expressed in the document," in order to insert the words "by written contract of tenancy therein expressed."

Amendment proposed, In page 27, line 11, to leave out "any cottage allotment not exceeding a quarter of an acre."—(Mr. Leamy.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

was understood to say he did not, of course, know the exact view which the hon. Member (Mr. Leamy) took of the advantage which the agricultural labourer might derive from being able to go into Court; but the matter was open to question. He thought it would be safer to leave it to be dealt with in the manner proposed by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The labourer in Ireland was not constantly employed on one farm, and, indeed, the less he was tied to one neighbourhood the better it would be for him. It was not thought desirable to give him a position as against the farmer; and, consequently, it was decided not to allow the operation of this Bill to apply to very small holdings, at any rate, to less than half an acre of land.

MR. HEALY

thought the labourer should be left alone to go to the Court or not as he pleased.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

thought the Government would do well to leave the clause as it stood. He asked his hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Leamy) would discourage persons who might otherwise be willing to let a quarter of an acre, because they would be creating an estate that it would be very difficult to manage.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. BRODRICK

said, he had understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had expressed his intention of accepting the Amendment in his (Mr. Brodrick's) name, to substitute the word "half" for the word "quarter," as expressed in this sub-section. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would adhere to that view, because the Amendment was intended solely for the benefit of the agricultural labourer. As the Bill stood, it was impossible for the landlord to apply for the purpose of labourers' allotments more than a quarter of an acre of land, because he would, by giving a larger allotment, bring the letting within the operation of this Act. He (Mr. Brodrick) could point to two cases in which the operation of the landlords in respect to cottage allotments had been suspended since the Bill was introduced; and it would be most prejudicial to the labourers if landlords were thus prevented from placing them in a better position.

Amendment proposed, in page 27, line 11, to leave out "quarter," and insert "half."—(Mr. Brodrick.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'quarter' stand part of the Clause."

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

hoped his hon. Friend would not press this Amendment. He did not believe that if the Bill remained in its present form, so far as this sub-section was concerned, that the holdings would be limited to a quarter of an acre. On the contrary, he believed they would be much greater, because he thought that the landlord would find it was to his interest to give the labouring class a position as well as the tenant class. It would undoubtedly be the case in the part of the country where he resided.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

thought that the Amendment should be agreed to, because the labourer could easily cultivate half an acre of land in his spare time; and it was undoubtedly to his benefit that the landlord should feel himself free to apportion more than a quarter of an acre.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That the word 'half' be there inserted," put and agreed to.

MR. GIBSON

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper relating to minors, which, however, he should not move at that moment, in the hope that his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland would consider the matter before the Report. The Bess-borough Commission had reported that it was reasonable that in the case of land being let during the minority of the landlord there should be some power of contracting tenants out of the operation of the Act.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he did not see, at the moment, any reason for making the distinction suggested in the case of land belonging to minors, who were always pretty well looked after by competent persons. But he would consider the matter before Report.

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

Clause 47 (Saving of existing tenancies).

THE CHAIRMAN

said, there were several Amendments raising the question whether a lease, which could be proved to have been obtained by force, might be varied by the Court or declared to be void, thus placing the lessees in the position of present tenants; and it would probably be convenient if the question were discussed as a proposed addition at the end of the clause, after the other Amendments to the clause had been disposed of.

MR. M'COAN

said, he was willing to fall in with the suggestion of the Chairman that the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland should take pre- cedence, although he (Mr. M'Coan) was bound to say that he preferred his own Amendment on the Paper to that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, that, as the object he had in view was covered by the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, he did not intend to move the Amendment standing upon the Paper in his name.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the following Amendments made:—In page 27, line 12, leave out "tenancy," in order to insert "contract of the tenant;" line 15, leave out "act," in order to insert "section;" line 15, before the word "provision," insert "lawful."

Amendment proposed, In page 27, line 19, after "act" insert "At the expiration of existing leases the lessees shall be deemed to be tenants of present ordinary tenancies, from year to year, at the rents and subject to the conditions of their leases respectively, so far as such conditions are applicable to tenancies from year to year."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

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

MR. GIBSON

said, he had an Amendment of his own on the Paper; but he should not press it at that juncture. It was to introduce into the Amendment before the Committee, after the words "at the expiration of existing leases," the words "made since the passing of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870." The Amendment moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was one which, although moved in the most concise form, and as if it were one of little or on importance, was, in reality, one of the most important Amendments proposing to introduce one of the most startling changes ever made in an important Government Bill. If there was one thing which more than another appeared to be tolerably plain to anyone reading the Bill for the first time—any clause that appeared to convey its own meaning with precision and clearness, it was the 47th clause. That clause was one which preserved intact and inviolate, governed by existing provisions, contracts that had been entered into between landlords and tenants, or between the representatives of landlords and tenants who had entered into them on their behalf. The earlier part of the clause, before the Amendment proposed to be introduced by his right hon. and learned Friend, laid down as clearly and precisely as possible what should be the rights and positions of those parties; and, in point of fact, he (Mr. Gibson) was disposed to think that if the Chairman would examine with attention the earlier part of the clause, he would be disposed to rule that the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was out of Order, for it was certainly entirely outside the meaning of the words of the clause antecedent to the Amendment. The words of the clause, as they now stood before the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend, set forth that— Existing leases shall remain in force to the same extent as if this Act had not passed, and holdings subject to existing leases shall be regulated by the provisions contained in the said leases and not by the provisions relating to the tenancies in that behalf contained in this Act. If there were one thing that was absolutely clear about existing leases, it was that they all contained covenants to surrender in good order and condition at the termination of those leases, and he maintained that the Amendment was absolutely inconsistent with those covenants, because it said that notwithstanding their existence the tenant should hold on as if he were a present tenant. Therefore, he put it to the Chairman, as a matter of Order, whether the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was not absolutely inconsistent with the words at the commencement of the clause as already passed? But it did not at all rest on what they all knew was contained in every lease drawn up in Ireland; but, under the statute of 1860—an Act called Deasy's Act—what should be covenants on the part of every landlord and tenant were provided for, and one of the covenants in every tenancy was a covenant on the part of the tenant to surrender and yield up at the termination of the lease the quiet and peaceable possession of the holding; and notwithstanding this and the clear provision of this section of the Bill in which the deliberate opinion of the Government was stated in the earlier portion, as framed by his right hon. and learned Friend, that the provisions of the lease were to have absolute and com- plete vitality and vigour, the right hon. and learned Gentleman now proposed to provide that at the termination of the lease, instead of going away and allowing the landlord to resume his rights, the tenant was to be able to stay on, not in any doubtful position, not in the position of a future tenant, but in the position of a present tenant—that was to say, with an absolute right to walk into the Court for the purpose of having the rent revised, a process that would give him a tenancy of 15 years, and a constant right of renewal as often as he might please. So that this short and apparently innocent Amendment was to add to the duration of the longest lease at its termination, a provision nullifying one of its most important expressed covenants, and extending the term of tenancy as long as the tenant pleased, with the power of re-adjusting the rent as often as he might think proper at the end of every successive term of 15 years. Never was there a more distinct and flagrant violation of contract than was proposed by this Amendment, which would set aside the most solemn covenants and the most deliberate engagements as between man and man. He desired to point out to the Committee the necessity of making no mistake as to the second Amendment on the Paper in the name of his right hon. and learned Friend which proposed to deal with leases that might be regarded as unreasonable and inequitable. The present Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend, was absolutely distinct from any suggestion of the kind contained in the second Amendment. It proposed to graft on all leases, no matter when made, nor how made, no matter how many important conditions were executed by the landlord, no matter how low the rent, it proposed to say to the landlord—"At the termination of your lease you must regard your tenant not as a man bound by covenant to surrender his lease, but as a man bound by this new confiscating provision to hold on if he pleases for terms of 15 years as often as he likes, with power to have the rent revised." He (Mr. Gibson) ventured to say that never was a clause more opposed to justice and common sense, nor more absolutely opposed to every other proposal of the Government that the Committee were entitled to regard as expressing the de- liberate opinion of the Government, attempted to be inserted among the provisions of any Bill. He thought he was entitled to say that on this measure his right hon. and hon. Friends and himself had offered nothing but moderate, temperate, and concise criticisms of the Government proposals. The alteration it proposed to effect in the Bill was one of a most serious and vital kind; and he held that it would have been a great deal more frank and manly, and would have presented the action of the Government in a more bold and independent way, if they had at once said, "We will strike this part of the clause out of the Bill;" because they were here producing an Amendment which killed the previous words of the clause, while at the end of the clause they proposed to introduce another Amendment that would intercept all the other leases that might have escaped the operation of the Bill. The Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend was challenged in several ways. He was at present challenging the absence of discrimination in the Amendment with regard to leases. The Amendment dealt with all leases, no matter what their date, no matter what the conditions were as they were originally executed, whether they were executed before the passing of the Land Act of 1870, and before a knowledge of the provisions of that Act, or after 1870, with a knowledge of its provisions and what it sought to effect. That was a point that was not devoid of a broad significance; it was not a point that could be disregarded by anyone who was in the slightest degree acquainted with the history of the subject, nor by any man of common sense whether he was acquainted with the subject or not. The whole foundation of what was regarded as the tenant right of the Irish tenants outside of Ulster was rested on the claim to compensation for disturbance under the 3rd clause of the Land Act of 1870; and they had heard over and over again—in some cases from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and in some others from the Chief Secretary for Ireland—that that clause, introduced for one purpose, was now made the foundation of proposals for another purpose—that having been introduced in 1870 not to found a tenant right nor a claim for joint ownership—a claim entirely repudiated in 1870 by the Prime Minister—it was now to be acted on by the Prime Minister, as constituting, whether originally intended or not, a claim to tenant right. The foundation of what he (Mr. Gibson) called by courtesy the equity of this Bill rested on claims that were founded on the existence of a right to compensation under the 3rd clause of the Land Act of 1870. How, he asked, did that clause, which, as he had said, was made the foundation of the clause of this Bill, affect leases? It must be obvious to any man, he cared not whether educated technically or whether he regarded it by the strong light of common sense, that they must take into consideration what was the lease? A lease made antecedent to the year 1870 had absolute validity given to all its covenants under the old Common Law—that was to say, at the moment at which he spoke in respect of a lease made prior to 1870, the landlord was entitled to resume possession if he pleased, and no tenant holding under such a lease could, at its termination, have any right to ask for compensation for disturbance. This was a position that could not be gainsaid, denied, or questioned. It was not in accordance with common sense to treat a landlord having these rights as being in the same position as a landlord in the case of a lease made after 1870; and, therefore, Section 3 of the Act of 1870 made a broad and clear distinction. He did not know whether his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had considered this point. He believed that the moment the right hon. and learned Gentleman did bring his mind to bear on it he would alter the proposal to what would be just and fair; but he was curious to know how his right hon. and learned Friend would justify this common treatment of all landlords who started on entirely dissimilar conditions. He (Mr. Gibson) confessed that, at the present moment, he was entirely unable to see it. He believed that some hon. Members had intimated that the tenants, at the end of their leases, would find themselves placed in the position of future tenants. That was the modest way in which it was at first put—and anything might be called modest in comparison with what came afterwards; but after the speech that had been made by the Prime Minister one day, and recalled. the day after, the suggestion as to a future tenancy vanished, and the idea of a present tenancy was developed; and they now found it stated in the Amendment that, at the termination of his lease, a tenant was to be regarded as a present tenant. He should like to hear from his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland how he proposed to justify a broad proposal like this, which made no discrimination or distinction whatever. His right hon. and learned Friend, who had moved the Amendment in about two minutes, had justified it by what had been already done under a judicial lease, and according to the usage prevailing in Ireland. Surely, each of the inferences of his right hon. and learned Friend was destructive of the argument he had sought to rely upon. A judicial lease could only be entered into after the passing of this Act by the landlord with a full knowledge of what he was doing, and on the actual determination of the judicial lease; he was warned by the section that a certain class of tenants who would be called into existence by it would be present tenants. Where, he asked, was the analogy? The landlord, in the case of a judicial lease, acted with his eyes open at the outset; but after they had said to the landlords, who might have made leases of 40 years, or whose ancestors might have made long leases before them, that at the end of the lease the lessee would be a present tenant, he wanted to know where the analogy could be? He was told that another argument was to be based on what was largely the usage in many of the counties of Ireland. They all knew that the charges that had been made against the landlords had faded away and melted into thin air, and now the good-natured way in which they had treated their tenants was to be used as a weapon against them; and that, whether they liked it or not, they would be compelled to see their property transferred from them to their tenants. In conclusion, he wished to know how the Government could justify the application of the same drastic measures to all cases, regardless of the date and conditions, or bases of the rent, of the improvements effected by the landlord, and of every kindness and consideration they might hitherto have shown their tenants?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he would like to offer a suggestion, and ask the impartial ruling of the Chairman on a point of Order. The clause said— Any leases or tenancies existing at the date of the passing of this Act, except yearly tenancies and tenancies less than yearly tenancies, which existing leases and tenancies (except as aforesaid) are in this Act referred to as existing leases, shall remain in force to the same extent as if this Act had not passed. Then came the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, which said— At the expiration of existing leases the lessees shall be deemed to be tenants of present ordinary tenancies from year to year, at the rents, and subject to the conditions, of their leases respectively, so far as such conditions are applicable to tenancies from year to year. If the first part of the Bill were to remain, and to be regarded as sense, the tenancy must be "as if this Act had not passed;" and he would ask whether the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was absolutely in Order?

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that what had apparently caused some confusion in the understanding of the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was that it ought to have been placed two words later, after the words "Provided that." He understood that all the conditions, &c. of leases were to remain as if this Act had not been passed, and that this should be a Proviso—an exception.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he would amend his Amendment by moving that it be inserted after the words "Provided that."

Question, "That the said Amendment be inserted after the words 'Provided that,' "put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 27, line 19, after the word "Act," to insert the words "Provided, That, at the expiration of existing leases, the lessees shall be deemed to be tenants of present ordinary tenancies, from year to year, at the rents and subject to the conditions of their leases respectively, so far as such conditions are applicable to tenancies from year to year."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

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

MR. GIBSON

moved, after the words "at the expiration of existing leases" in the proposed Amendment, to insert the words "made since the passing of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870."

Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, In line 1, after the word "leases," insert the words, "made since the passing of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870.'"—(Mr. Gibson.)

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

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he was bound to say that the argument of his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) against placing the lessee of an expiring lease in the position of a present tenant was absolutely unanswerable; but he (Lord Randolph Churchill) was also bound to say that he could not follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the distinction he had drawn between leases made since the Act of 1870 and those that were made before the passing of that Act. Under the Act of 1870 they had invited the landlords to give leases to the tenants, and certainly of the two the leases made since the Act of 1870 were deserving of most consideration.

MR. GIBSON

said, he had been dealing with a technical distinction between the two.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he certainly thought the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland very unfortunate, as it was copied verbatim from one standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Wexford. (Mr. Healy), and it was evident that it was never intended by Her Majesty's Government when they brought in the Bill. Of course, if the hon. Member for Wexford was to be the draftsman of this Bill, hon. Members who thought with him (Lord Randolph Churchill) must resign themselves to it; but, with all deference to the ruling of the Chairman, he still thought the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was out of Order. The Amendment he (Lord Randolph Churchill) had to move was to amend the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland's Amendment by adding, after the word "leases" the following words:— At the expiration of existing leases, with the exception of all leases which at the date of the passing of this Act have fifteen years to run. Irish leases were nearly all for 30 years and upwards, and by making that Proviso they would only be doing an act of justice. Let them take the case of leases drawn up only the other day for a term of 30 years; there would be less than justice in the proposal of the right hon. and learned, Attorney General for Ireland. He did not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would press his Amendment; but if he did not, or it was not carried, he should ask the Government to kindly consider his Amendment, making some provision for leases which, at the date of the Act, had 15 years to run.

COLONEL COLTHURST

said, he had to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), who had stated that the proposal as to leases had come on the Committee by surprise, that the moment the Bill appeared the exclusion of leases was the subject of universal complaint in Ireland. Nearly every Irish Member had mentioned the exclusion; and the Prime Minister, though he gave no pledge, admitted that the question deserved consideration, and promised to reserve it for consideration, without saying how he would deal with it. He therefore thought the Irish. Members had no right to complain of a surprise. As to leases, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had allowed the justice of making present tenants of those who had got leases since 1870. [Mr. GIBSON: That is quite a mistake.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to do so. Was it the fact that leaseholders who received their leases since 1870 had no just cause of complaint? In 1868–9 a great number of leases were forced on the tenants, with the knowledge that the Act of 1870 was coming on. In the county of Cork, on an estate where leases had never been given, the tenants went to the Bess-borough Commission and declared that in 1869 they were obliged to take leases with an increased rent, and those who refused to take them were fined by increased rents. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had stated that it would be very unjust, if a good landlord who had made improvements should, at the expiration of a tenant's lease, be subject to the hardship that the tenant should be placed in the position of a present tenant. How was it unjust? Suppose a tenant with a 21 years' lease had made improvements, would not the landlord have his remedy at the expiration of the lease? Would not the Court take into consideration the improvements in fixing the rent? If the tenant sold his interest, would not the Court take into consideration the improvements made by the landlord? What injustice would be done? Take the other case. Suppose the Government had not made this concession. If leaseholders were to be left without protection after the expiration of the leases, there would be in every district in Ireland a certain number of discontented people considering themselves excluded from the benefits of the Act, and a chronic state of discontent would have been created. He felt bound to express his gratitude to the Government for making this concession, and he felt certain that no concession made in the Bill was of more value, or more likely to make this Bill a great and beneficial measure.

MR. MARUM

said, it was known in Ireland that there were a species of leases for lives with covenants for perpetual renewal. They practically contained a specific provision for renewals; but those provisions had been broken through. The Courts had, however, enforced specific performance of them in the case of solemn contracts under seal. What they held was to be looked at was the security of rent to the landlord. The Courts of Equity had acted in that way in Ireland—the practice was not known in England—and the Tenantry Act of 19 & 20 Geo. III. declared that if leases contained solemn contracts and specific covenants, on the fall of lives certain renewals should be claimed; and not only had the Courts enforced that, but the Ulster Tenant Right Act had rehabilitated these proceedings, and declared that renewals should be had. He referred to this because it would appear from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had said that there were very startling proposals made to change these leases. The new Court would be a Court of Equity, and the object of that Court would be to secure landlords in their rents, and a continuance of the leases on their expiration. It was practically the custom in Ireland that on the expiration of leases the tenants not only held on, but were allowed to hold on; and he held that it would be only a natural sequence to carry that on and deal with tenancies from year to year in the same way as if there were no leases.

MR. GIBSON

thought the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) was under a misconception. He (Mr. Gibson) had stated throughout that he was anxious to elicit as early as he could some explanation from the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland as to the indiscriminate way in which these leases were treated. He should ask permission to withdraw his Amendment; but he wished for an explanation as to the difference between himself and the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

observed that if the lettings were from year to year they would be present tenancies within the meaning of the Bill, with all their incidental advantages. The fact that leases ran for a certain definite number of years did not, in his opinion, make any difference so far as the present point was concerned; and his observation applied alike to leases made before and after 1870. It would be manifestly useless for a landlord to get hold of farms of a few acres, each scattered over the face of the country. What could he do with them? They would only run to waste and go back to their original condition. Accordingly, they found in Ireland that usually, if a landlord thought of resuming possession of a farm from a tenant, he put someone else into it as tenant. But almost universally at the termination of a lease, the lessee remained in undisturbed possession, though there was commonly a re-arrangement of the rent. The landlord, in fact, knew he would get a better rent from the occupying tenant than from anyone else, and almost always so dealt with him. He thought the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he had only moved his Amendment to obtain an explanation hardly squared with his somewhat fierce onslaught on the proposals of the Government.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, that when the Bill was introduced he had asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether it provided that on the expiration of a lease the tenant right of Ulster should be continued, and the tenant be considered a tenant from year to year. The reply was that it did, and now the provision appeared to have been introduced in the Bill. He could not forget that in the last Parliament a Bill was introduced establishing this principle in Ulster by the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland), and a similar Bill introduced by the noble Lord who then represented the County Down (Lord Arthur Hill-Trevor) was defeated in the House of Lords. Also, in company with the hon. Member for Derry (Mr. Lewis), he (Mr. Macartney) himself had introduced a Bill in which there was a clause to the same effect as this, so far as Ulster was concerned. He thought there should be no difference between one part of the country and another.

Amendment to said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I do not rise to propose any Amendment, but to say one or two words on what I consider to be the position of this question; and if my advice be taken; I would suggest that we had better take issue on the words proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. These questions are a good deal complicated, and the real point we have to consider is whether this new proposal of the Government is one which can be accepted or not? My right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) spoke with regard to a distinction between particular classes of tenantry—those created before, and those created after, the Act of 1870; but the bulk of his argument pointed to no distinction being made, and I agree with my noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) that it is desirable we should take issue on the broad ground of whether this change of front ought to be allowed, and whether any sufficient grounds have been shown for it. What I would point out with regard to this Bill is that it was introduced upon a certain frame-work, for the purpose of making certain changes, but, at the same time, of saving certain conditions of tenantry which already exist; and, as we understood, the case of leases was exactly the case which was to be left out, because it had been already regulated. If we now accept this clause, with the Amendment proposed, and the other Amendment to be proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, you will exactly turn the clause inside out. It will not be merely that you will make the clause of no effect—as you have made the Emigration Clause of next to no effect—but you will turn the clause upside down. It is a sort of Trojan horse, introduced under cover of being a supporter of the lease system, and is turned to the entire overthrowing of existing leases, and leases which are in a condition in which holdings under leases are to exist when the leases have run out. It seems to me that we have had no ground whatever given for this change of front, except that when the clause was introduced in the form in which it stands, there was a great outcry in Ireland against it, and a desire to enlarge it and bring everything into it; but the Government, as they have proceeded with the Bill, have been led to entirely change their position with regard to these leases, and, in effect, to knock them on the head. Considering that we have for so many years been desirous, by legislation, by precept, by exhortation in every way, to induce landlords and tenants to make reasonable and binding arrangements, and that arrangements have been made to give the security which is needful in Ireland, to turn round and destroy the leases in this way is the most insensate thing that can be conceived. For my part, I would recommend that instead of attempting to omit this clause, or to introduce different words, we should endeavour, so far as we can, to put in our protest against this change, and, as far as we can, to hold the Government to the clause as it originally stood.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) was certainly right in saying that they ought to protest against this clause, and divide upon it. He considered that the clause as it stood might work harshly in the case of tenants whose leases fell in very shortly after the passing of the Act. He suggested that it should be amended; but would not admit that the form of Amendment proposed was the one best suited to remedy the complaint, which had foundation in fact, for it could not be suggested that tenants holding under leases were in the same position with others who held from year to year. He wanted to ask the Government whether they meant to say that all tenants hold- ing under leases at present were in exactly the same position as the yearly tenants at the present moment, or whether they drew a distinction between tenants whose leases terminated within a short time of the passing of this Bill and those whose leases would not terminate for a good many years. To ascertain that he would move the Amendment to which he had previously referred.

Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, After the first line to insert "With the exception of leases which, at the date of the passing of this Act, have fifteen years to run."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

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

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the Government did not say that the position of a lease which had 15 years to run was exactly the same as one having 100 years to run; but there was no difference between one and the other, and in point of policy it would not be expedient to create such a difference.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GLADSTONE

I will now do what I would not do before and notice the speech which we heard just before the last Amendment was moved. It is a matter of long and constant observation in this House that whenever an hon. Member or a right hon. Member is dealing with opponents who are proposing some proposition which is new, and he finds it difficult to adduce sufficient arguments against it, he always endeavours to damage and discredit it by calling it a change of front. I observe that my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) three times, in the course of a short speech, described this Amendment as being a change of front, and from that three-fold repetition I gathered that he found it not so easy to bring forward substantive objections to the proposals of the Government. As to a change of front, I need not say that is a phrase which has come sometimes from one quarter and sometimes from another. It is a perfectly fair weapon of Parliamentary warfare; but it is not to be expected that such old stagers as we are, are to be influenced by whatever force of argument may seem to be latent in the phrase. The observations of my right hon. Friend were very strong. I do not remember all the phrases he used; but he described the proposal as an entire overthrow, as reducing to nullity and absolute destruction and defeat all the covenants the leases contain, and he described it as an insensate thing. Of that I make no complaint; but is it an insensate thing, and does it overthrow existing leases, and what is the fundamental notion of leases in Ireland? The grounds upon which we justify this proposal are—first of all, the grounds of custom of the country, and, secondly, general equity. With regard to surprise, I think that argument can hardly be maintained, because, on the second reading of the Bill—and that was the first time upon which the Bill was discussed—I myself spoke of the state of the case with regard to leases in these words— In the same way, another bye-question which we have considered, and the result of which consideration appears in the Bill—but it may be worthy, notwithstanding, of further consideration—is the question of current leases."—[3 Hansard, cclxi. 590.] Therefore, that distinctly left the matter open for further consideration, and I do not scruple to say there were various points of considerable importance—for example, arrears—with regard to which we felt that we could better approach such knotty questions after these main issues had been settled, than if we treated them as merely affairs to be disposed of by the Cabinet, and therefore we deferred them. First of all, let it be understood that this charge that this is an absolute overthrow of the covenants of existing leases and a nullification of the clause itself depends wholly upon a certain assumption as to what leases are understood to be in Ireland. According to the right hon. Gentleman a lease is understood to be a covenant that at the end of a certain number of years the man shall go out. But there we raise an issue of fact, and we contend that that is not so. A lease is understood to be a covenant for fixing a certain rent for a certain number of years. I mentioned in a former discussion a description of a lease given 40 years ago, and the ideas prevailing in Ireland, of a case where a man holding a lease for his own life bequeathed his interest in it. That being our opinion, and if that be the view of leases in Ireland, then the allegation from the opposite side is deprived entirely of all foundation. But then, beside the custom of the country, and the established traditional and al- most universal view in Ireland as to leases, we stand upon general equity, and collaterally, I may observe, that unless I am mistaken, a Bill was introduced into the last Parliament by an hon. Member who is now opposed to us, which distinctly recognized that at the termination of a lease in Ulster the whole interest of the man in the lease was to be kept intact. Though I have not seen the letter, I have been credibly informed—and if. I am wrong I can be easily undeceived—that shortly before the General Election the Leader of the Opposition wrote a letter, in which he approved of the principle of that Bill as sound. If the principle of that Bill was sound, it will defy the ingenuity of an hon. Gentleman who admitted the soundness of that Bill to show that the Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend is unsound. We stand upon general equity as well as upon the custom of the country, and with regard to general equity, how does the matter stand? This is a question not subject to dispute, and it is one where, in my opinion, the conclusion to be drawn is that of general equity, and the fair spirit in which we should all endeavour to approach this question; and on these grounds I think the Government can well maintain the proposal they make. As to the case of the leases made before the Act of 1870, if our proposal with regard to them is defensible, it is à fortiori defensible with regard to those made since 1870. I will take one of these leases, and what has happened? I will take a lease made 30 or 40 years ago. At that time the Irish tenant from year to year had no defence at all; he was completely open to the action of the law, which was constructed, not upon a fair balance of interest betweeen the tenant and the landlord, but entirely in a sense favourable to the landlord. Under those circumstances, the tenant, thankfully perhaps, accepted in exchange for a state in which he had no defensive provision, a state under which he had a defensive provision, which was that the rent would not be raised for a certain number of years. That was the state of things he exchanged for his lease; that was the footing upon which he made his bargain. But in 1870, and now again in 1881, we have entirely changed the position of the Irish tenant, and have endeavoured to invest him, first with a right to full compensation for improvements, then to compensation for disturbance, and now the right to sell his interest in his holding, with provision against an arbitrary increase of rent, and, as a climax to the whole, with the power of going to the Court. So that while this man had been, as it were, in a stagnant state of existence, we have completely changed and advanced from a position of defencelessness to a position strongly fortified by legal rights—namely, the position of a tenant from year to year. Is it inequitable, under these circumstances, to say there is no reason to show why the man, or the representative of the man, who so took a lease 40 years ago in exchange for what was then the position of a yearly tenant, should be deprived of all the benefits, or any portion of the benefits, to be conferred upon present tenants by this Bill. Where would he have been? What is the answer? That he has had the benefit of the lease. The force of that answer depends on whether the lease is an injury to the landlord; but we have never supposed that, but that it was an advantage to both parties, and in no sense an injury to the landlord. In that case I must say that upon a mature and careful consideration of the interest of this class of persons, setting aside the main stream of motives which dictated this Bill, we are clear in the conviction that it would be most hard that in the case of a yearly tenant who had changed his position when he was in a totally different state of things 40 years ago, we should say to that tenant—"Without any fault of your own, and without having anything to allege against you, we shall exclude you from any of the benefits which, if you had continued a yearly tenant, you would now receive."

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 244; Noes 139: Majority 105.—(Div. List, No. 314.)

It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman reported Progress; Committee to sit again this day.

House suspended its Sitting at five minutes to Seven of the clock.

House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.