§ Clause 1 (Sale of tenancies).
§ MR. BIGGAR, in moving, as an Amendment, at the end of line 13, to insert—
Unless when the yearly value of the holding exceeds thirty pounds, and so that neither the part sold nor the part remaining shall be of a less value than fifteen pounds per annum,said, that two other Amendments dealing with the same point had already been disposed of; and the objection urged against them by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was that they would weaken the Bill. Now, he (Mr. Biggar) was not at all anxious to 361 weaken, the Bill. On the contrary, he desired to strengthen it, and he was of opinion that if the right hon. Gentleman would strike out some of the provisions of the measure and adopt the present Amendment he would very much facilitate the future progress of the Bill. The proviso, as it now stood in the Bill, enacted that the landlord should have power to object to the tenant sub-dividing his holding. What it really meant was not that the landlords objected to the sub-division of the holding, but that a troublesome landlord should have the means of levying fresh rents by saying—"I will not allow this transfer to take place unless I get a portion of the purchase money." The experience he (Mr. Biggar) had gained in connection with the North of Ireland was that a small holding would fetch a very much larger price in proportion than a larger holding; and all that was proposed by the Amendment was that the tenant should be able to sell that which really belonged to himself, and not to the landlord, and it was unreasonable that the landlord should have the power of putting a veto upon his legal right. If the sub-division of the holding were likely to injure the property of the landlord, he would not ask the Committee to accept his proposal; but in the North of Ireland there was a general concurrence of opinion that small holdings were an advantage to the tenant. The sub-division would often enable a tenant to divide the holding among the members of his family and relieve him of the necessity of employing labourers.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 13, at end of line, to insert "unless when the yearly value of the holding exceeds thirty pounds, and so that neither the part sold nor the part remaining shall be of a less value than fifteen pounds per annum."—(Mr. Biggar.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GLADSTONEI do not know, Sir, what motive the hon. Member has in again raising this question, and in a form which is even more open to objection on the part of those who do object to it than the propositions of which the Committee has already disposed. It is impossible for the Committee, after having already settled the question in two full discussions, to go back upon it.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the principle which the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) raised was practically the same as that which was raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan), which was very fully discussed by the Committee, and decided in a way that was adverse to the wishes of hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House. He regretted that extremely, because he considered that Amendment, and also the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan, exceedingly important; but the matter having been settled, he did not think they were entitled to raise the question in another form a second time. He would therefore ask his hon. Friend, under the circumstances, to consider the propriety of withdrawing the Amendment, and not occupying the restricted time of the Committee with its consideration. He did not desire, in the slightest degree, to throw any obstruction in the way of the measure. The Prime Minister had undertaken a very gigantic work, and certainly the Irish Members had no desire to obstruct him, although they did not believe in his success.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that after the appeal which had been made to him by his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) he would not press the Amendment, although he was quite convinced that it was thoroughly reasonable. It was simply directed against one of the general principles of the Bill to which he strongly objected. The tendency of those general principles was to drive a great part of the people of Ireland out of the country.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
CAPTAIN AYLMER, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 14, to omit the word "prescribed," and insert "two months," said, that the next sub-section of the clause provided that the landlord might purchase the tenancy on receiving "such notice;" and it was, therefore, necessary to define clearly what the notice was.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, omit "prescribed," and insert "two months."—(Captain Aylmer.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'prescribed' stand part of the Clause."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)hoped the hon. 363 and gallant Gentleman would not press the Amendment. The Court, under the power to make rules, would, no doubt, prescribe a proper notice.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. ERRINGTONsaid, the next Amendment on the Paper stood in his name, and its object was to secure the omission of sub-section 3 altogether. He felt that the Amendment raised a most important question; but he could not, at the same time, help feeling that almost any Amendment which gave rise to discussion and tended to retard the progress of the Bill was out of place. He believed, if he pressed the Amendment, that it would give rise to a protracted discussion; and he knew, further, that it was one of a class which Her Majesty's Government could not accede to. Therefore, as an earnest and sincere supporter of the measure, he declined to take upon himself the responsibility of initiating any discussion of the kind. He should not move the Amendment; but if anyone else did so, he should reserve to himself the right of explaining the reasons which had induced him to place the Amendment on the Paper.
§ MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, that, like his hon. Friend on the other side of the House (Mr. Errington), he was exceedingly anxious to assist the progress of the Bill by using the utmost possible brevity. Therefore, in the briefest possible terms, he would move his Amendment for the omission of the 3rd sub-section. One reason why he proposed to omit the sub-section, and to refuse to the landlord the right of buying up what was called the pre-emption of the holding, was that, later on, he had another Amendment, by which he proposed to give the landlord the right of sharing in any increase in the marketable value of the tenancy. He considered it unfair to the landlord that any increase of value should go altogether on one side and none of it on the other.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, to leave out all the words from "On," down to the word "thereof," in line 19 inclusive.—(Mr. A. M. Sullivan.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'On' stand part of the Clause."
364MR. GLADSTONEI need hardly say, Sir, that this question of pre-emption in the hands of the landlord, as it has been termed, has been very much insisted upon in answer to those who state that the Government propose nothing at all to prevent the giving of the most extravagant rents for tenancies. It is further said that the tendency to do this is traceable in rare cases in Ulster, and it is alleged to be traceable to such an extent as to trespass upon the fair right of the landlord in regard to rent. I think we are bound to adhere to this right of pre-emption. The object of the sub-section is not to impose artificial limitations upon the value of the tenant right, but to enable the Court to interfere, if it should be of opinion that a price beyond the just and bonâ fide market value of the land, that it is proper to give and that a tenant could afford to give, has been offered, through the pressure of that extreme competition which is said to prevail for the possession of land in Ireland. At the proper point my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland will move an Amendment to strike out the word "settled" in line 18, for the purpose of inserting the word '' ascertained." The object of that Amendment is to provide and make it clear that the Court is not to exercise an arbitrary and unlimited discretion, but that it is to look into the facts of the case and ascertain what is the true and a reasonable market value of the land.
§ Mr. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he would not press the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. MACNAGHTEN, in moving, as an Amendment, in line 16, to leave out all the words of the clause after the word "notice" to the end of sub-section 3, and insert—
Being given, the tenancy may be purchased by the landlord for such price as may be settled by the Court, on the application of either party, in case the parties differ. In settling the price regard shall be had to what is fair and reasonable as between the parties under all the circumstances of the case.In the case of any holding not subject to the Ulster Tenant right custom, or any usage corresponding therewith, the landlord shall not be bound to accept a proposed tenant purchasing at a price exceeding that settled by the Court, on the application of the landlord or of the outgoing tenant, regard being had to what is fair and reasonable under all the circumstances of the case,365 said, that the Committee would perceive that the Amendment was divided into two parts—the first was general and extended to the whole of Ireland, applying to all cases where the landlord claimed the right of pre-emption, and giving the largest power to the Court to settle the price to be paid for the tenant right. The second part of the Amendment applied only to holdings that were not subject to the Ulster Tenant Eight Custom, or to any analogous usage, and it provided that if the tenant was desirous of selling, either the landlord or the tenant should have the power of applying to the Court to fix a price for the tenancy; and it provided, further, that the landlord should not be bound to accept a proposed tenant purchasing at a price exceeding that settled by the Court. The object and the sum and substance of both Amendments were the same—namely, to place the Court in the position of an arbitrator, and to give it ample power to do justice in the particular case submitted to it. In considering this clause and most of the clauses that followed, it was impossible to shut their eyes to the probable constitution and character of the Court. That question had already been discussed, and he did not propose to re-open it; but, in justification of the votes he had already given, he desired to say that he was convinced that the Government, who were in possession of the views of the Committee in regard to the tribunal it was proposed to constitute, would give the people of Ireland the very best tribunal which, in their judgment, could possibly be devised for carrying the Act into operation. He was quite sure the Committee would grudge no expense that was not unreasonable and extravagant in order to establish a Court that would command the confidence and respect of the country. Then, if they had a Court which commanded perfect confidence, the freer that Court was left the better, It would be unwise to fetter it by strict rules, or to embarrass it by the use of any terms that might be misconstrued. His first objection to the sub-section as it stood was to the use of the word "value." He did not know that there was, in the English language, a word more likely to lead to argument. Where a thing had a recognized market value, or was to be put up for sale, it was perfectly intelligible; but in the case of an 366 article which had no recognized market value and was not to be put up for sale, it would be very difficult to assign an exact meaning to the word "value." It might be construed to the detriment of the landlord; it was more likely to be construed to the detriment of the tenant. Then he thought the sub-section as it stood was open to another objection. When the Court had determined, the "value" of the tenancy it would not have got what was wanted. There might be arrears of rent and claims for damages. How were they to be dealt with? The Bill made provision for dealing with those cases where the tenancy was sold to a third person; but it made no such provision where the tenancy was to be sold to the landlord. It could not have been the intention of the framers of the Bill that on a sale to the landlord any counter-claim or set-off on the part of the landlord should be the subject of a separate action and a separate proceeding. By his Amendment, he (Mr. Macnaghten) proposed to remedy this defect in the measure, and to give the Court power to determine that which was really the only practical question to be determined—the price which the landlord, desirous of purchasing, ought to pay to the tenant who wished to sell. The Amendment left the Court perfectly free to do complete justice under all the circumstances, because it said that—In settling the price regard shall be had to what is fair and reasonable as between the parties under all the circumstances of the case.He could conceive that some hon. Members might think that it would be desirable, in settling the price, for the Court to state what was the deduction that should be made from the full price in favour of the landlord. There could be no objection to add a few words to the clause making it compulsory on the Court to assess these deductions separately if it was thought necessary. So much for the first part of the Amendment. He now came to the second part, and he must admit that it would require consideration and that he did not propose it without a good deal of hesitation. But it appeared to him that there were certain cases in which justice could only be done by giving to the Court the power of fixing a price as between the outgoing tenant and any 367 incoming tenant. The Committee would observe that the Amendment was strictly limited. It was limited to cases where the holding was not subject to the Ulster Tenant Eight Custom or to any usage analogous thereto. He would first take the case of holdings, peculiar to Ulster, where the landlord had bought up the tenant right. What was to be done there?—and such cases were very much more numerous than many hon. Members would think. Of course, they might be excluded from the benefit of this part of the Bill altogether; but if not, it appeared to him only right that the Court should be called on to say what was the fair price which the right of occupancy in the absence of tenant right ought to bring. He would now take a case not peculiar to Ulster, and he would put it in the words of the Prime Minister himself. On the 7th of April the right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the present Bill, and in alluding to the great variety of cases that would have to be dealt with in Ireland, among other instances gave this—You have the lands under-rented through the tradition of many estates, and in certain oases through the desire and perhaps with the express purpose of excluding tenant right and assignment."—[3 Hansard, cclx. 907.]Now, he would ask the Committee what they were to do in those cases? Having regard to the object and scope of the Bill, he thought it would be unreasonable and unfair to exclude that large class of cases from the benefit of the Act. But if they left the tenant perfectly free to sell his new tenant right, the inevitable consequence would be that the landlords would be disposed to raise the rents, and that would be a greater hardship on the tenants than leaving it to the Court to fix the price to be paid for this tenant right, which they were now conferring for the first time. There were many other cases which might be put; but he had no wish to weary the Committee, and he thought he had said enough to show that there were cases which must be dealt with in an exceptional way, or else they must make a provision giving the Court full power of doing justice in the particular case which might be brought before it. The only other observation he desired to make upon the Amendment was that the words "regard being had to what is fair and reasonable under all the cir- 368 cumstances of the case" were not his words; but he found them in an Act brought in and passed by the Board of Trade in 1869—the Railways Abandonment Act—and he was told at the time that they were the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Whether that was true or not he did not know; but it seemed to him impossible to use any words that would more clearly confer on the Court the largest power of doing justice. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 16, to leave out all the words after the word "notice," to the end of Subsection 3, in order to add the words "being given, the tenancy may be purchased by the landlord for such price as may be settled by the Court, on the application of either party, in case the parties differ. In settling the price regard shall be had to what is fair and reasonable as between the parties under all the circumstances of the case.
In the case of any holding not subject to the Ulster Tenant right custom, or any usage corresponding therewith, the landlord should not he bound to accept a proposed tenant purchasing at a price exceeding that settled by the Court, on the application of the landlord or of the outgoing tenant, regard being had to what is fair and reasonable under all the circumstances of the case,"—(Mr. Macnaghten,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'the landlord' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper previous to the one which had just been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Antrim (Mr. Macnaghten), but he had given way, although he thought that in some respects his was a better Amendment; and he certainly reserved to himself the power of discussing the present proposal, and of amending it so as to make it correspond with that which he had himself intended to move. The object of the Amendment was not to alter the Bill materially, but to render it more efficient in carrying out the object it professed to have in view. There was a great deal of ambiguity in the language used by the Government in regard to the question of free sale. The supporters of Her Majesty's Government—notably the hon. and learned Professor the Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) and the noble Viscount the Member for 369 Barnstaple (Viscount Lymington)—had recommended the Bill on the ground that it conferred free sale pure and simple. The whole of the speech of the noble Viscount the Member for Barn-staple—and the speech itself was much applauded by every Member of the Government—went to show that free sale benefited the tenant, and that it benefited the landlord even more. Therefore, the House was led to believe that the Government intended by the Bill to confer the benefit of free sale upon the tenant. But he observed that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, whenever the Bill was asserted to be a Bill for securing free sale, shook his head and expressed a vigorous dissent from that proposition. There was no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman was correct in doing so from his own point of view, because if the Bill gave free sale to the tenant it was as demonstrable as any mathematical proposition ever was that in every case where the tenant coming in bought the tenant right at a competition value, he would not escape suffering as much from the land hunger, which was now said to prevail, as the tenant who now paid the rent. The right hon. Gentleman saw that in the clearest manner, and as he had brought in the Bill avowedly for the purpose of checking land hunger, he, of course, felt bound to protest against the doctrine that it conferred the power of free sale. In consequence of the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had watched with great anxiety for the right hon. Gentleman to explain in what respect he imagined that free sale was limited by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman did not shrink from that question, and he told the Committee that it was limited by the right of pre-emption given by the Bill to the landlord; and his (Mr. Balfour's) whole object, and, he presumed, the object of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim, was to make that limitation, not as it was now in the Bill, a mere farce, but a reality and a benefit to the landlord. He could not perceive how they limited free sale if they passed the Bill as it stood at present. The landlord would be compelled in every case to buy the tenant right himself, where too high a price was fixed upon it, and he maintained that that was too great a penalty to impose on the land- 370 lord. It might happen that several tenants were desirous at the same time of selling their holdings. The market price might be such that the landlord thought they would be sold for a much greater price than ought to be given. But suppose that the landlord's property was burdened with mortgages and settlement charges. In such a case the landlord would have to go into the market and borrow a sum of money for the purchase, equivalent to several years' rent. Surely that was not an obligation they ought to impose upon a landlord who, prior to the passing of this Bill, had done everything he could to prevent the right of free sale being exercised on his property. He therefore asked the Committee to give to the Court such powers as would make it as efficient in limiting free sale as it was to be in limiting fair rents; and he asked that facilities should be given to the Court in order to prevent the incoming tenant from getting an outrageous price for his tenant right, and they could only do this by giving the landlord the power of appeal to the Court in every case in which he thought fit, and obliging the Court to fix a fair price in order to prevent the abuse of free sale. That was really all he asked the Government to do. They had themselves, by giving the right of pre-emption, admitted the principle, and all he asked was that they would make it in practice as efficient as it was in theory. He certainly could not understand how the Government, from the point of view expressed by the Prime Minister on the second reading of the Bill, could refuse this right. He would reserve any Amendment he might have to make in the Amendment now before the Committee until a later period; but he wished to point out now, because he thought it would conduce greatly to the clearness of their understanding of the Amendment, that it would be of advantage to introduce some words to provide that whatever price might be openly or secretly given by the incoming tenant should in no case be deemed to be a fair price until it had been arranged and settled by the Court. It was impossible, he believed, for any legislative arrangements to prevent a price in excess being given secretly; but they might do much to discourage the practice.
§ MR.LITTONsaid, the Amendment proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim (Mr. Macnaghten) raised a question of very great importance. The Committee would bear in mind that there had already been considerable discussion on the 2nd line of the clause, which provided that the tenant for the time being of any holding might sell his holding for the best price that could be got for the same. It was of the greatest possible importance that when they were conferring the right of sale upon the tenant that that right of sale should be for the best price that could be got for it. It would be idle to say that the tenant should have the best price that could be got and then to make provision for limiting the best price that could be got. It was right to say that the landlord should not be compelled against his will to accept as a tenant a person who was objectionable to him, and, therefore, he had the right of pre-emption; but there was no reason why they should deprive the tenant who was anxious to sell of the best price that he could get. He concurred in the sentiment which had been expressed that the word "value" was not well chosen; but the principle on which the clause was framed was to allow the value, or the sum which the tenant was to get, to be fixed by the Court. Now, he thought that the price should be fixed by a public auction, and he had an Amendment on the Paper to this effect lower down. The public auction should be under the direction of the Court, and with such rules as might be prescribed. There were only two which should be kept in view—first, that the tenant should get the full value of his tenant right, and next that the landlord should not be mulcted by fictitious or fraudulent bids. If, then, the sale was carried out, and under such rules as the Court might prescribe, ample protection would be given to the landlord against having the tenant right unduly set up against him, and against having an extravagant price attached to the tenant right, merely for the purpose of injuring him in the interest he had in the property. But while they did nothing to deprive the tenant who had the right to sell the tenancy at the best price he could get for it, they ought not to compel the tenant to agree to what would amount to a mere arbitration before the Court as to 372 the price of the tenancy—more especially if the clause, when amended, was to be still further limited by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour). The hon. Member for Hertford proposed to place such a limit upon free sale that the tenant would be unable to get the competition value of the holding. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] Then he (Mr. Litton) would submit that the tenant had a clear right to get the competition value, and any Amendment to the contrary would scarcely be in Order, seeing that the Committee had already passed that part of the clause which provided that the tenant should sell for the best price that he could obtain.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) contended that the tenant ought to be allowed to get the competition value of his tenancy. Now, the whole object of the Bill was to prevent the tenant being mulcted by the landlord in consequence of the hunger that was said to exist for the possession of land, and to prevent the landlord from obtaining the competition value of the land. Surely the same argument ought to stand good in preventing the tenant from obtaining the competition value of what he had to sell. There ought to be a clear understanding whether the Bill was intended for the benefit of all the tenants, present and future, or for the present tenants only. If it was intended only for the benefit of the present tenants of Ireland, by all means let them obtain the highest competition they could possibly secure; but if it was intended to remedy the grievances under which the tenantry generally suffered, then, by conferring the boon the Bill gave upon the present tenants only, they would entail upon all future tenants as large an amount of suffering as any that was now borne. For that reason they ought to endeavour to secure that the incoming tenant should pay only for the value he received. He remembered, in the Commission on which he had the honour to serve, that a gentleman came forward to give evidence who was an advocate for the "three F's" in their entirety; but in cross examination this point was put to him—" Do you think it fair that you should restrict the landlord in the matter of the rent which he is to be entitled to receive, in the interest of the tenant, and at the 373 same time that you should allow the tenant to sell at the highest value he can obtain that which he has to sell? "This gentleman, who went before the Commission to advocate the "three F's" in their entirety, when this anomaly was pointed out to him, at once fairly said that it was an inconsistency, that he thought the outgoing tenant should have the same measure dealt out to him as the landlord, and that it was not just that the outgoing tenant should have the power of selling at the highest competition value what he had to sell, when the landlord was not allowed to obtain the highest competition value in the shape of rent. There was no difference of principle, that he could see, between the question of rent and the question of what the incoming tenant bought. It was precisely the same thing. There was, however, this difference, which, perhaps, might account for the action of Her Majesty's Government in the matter—that, in the one case, it was the landlord who would lose; while, in the other, it would only be some man who was not yet in existence—the incoming tenant. He was of opinion that the whole aim and object of the Bill would be entirely missed, and that the grievance under which the tenants undoubtedly laboured would remain unremedied if they allowed the outgoing tenant to obtain from the incoming tenant, owing to the desire of the latter to possess land, the very highest price it was possible he could obtain. He supported the Amendment, and he could hardly conceive that it could be seriously objected to, if the only object was to secure for the tenant that to which he was fairly entitled.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, if they admitted the principle of free sale at all, it would be utterly impossible to limit it, because, whatever restrictions were imposed, they would certainly be evaded. In his opinion, what happened with regard to the Ulster practice was a proof of this. It was well known that all attempts which had been made to hamper the free sale of tenant right in Ulster gave rise to immense dissatisfaction, and were also evaded. He observed that his hon. and learned Friend who moved this Amendment (Mr. Macnaghten) proposed to exempt the Ulster tenures from its operation—that was to say, he proposed to introduce limitations 374 in regard to other than Ulster tenures. But that was hardly consistent. What was sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander; and he (Sir George Campbell) contended that if they admitted the principle of free sale at all, it must be free sale regulated by the market value, and that they could not restrict it in any way. The proposal of the hon. and learned Member amounted to a radical change; and, as he preferred the Bill as it stood, he felt bound to oppose the Amendment.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, there might be some grounds for limiting the sale of the tenant's interest if that interest had been created merely by that Bill, or by any Act of Parliament previously passed. He thought no one could deny that the portion of the tenant's interest which resulted from improvements made by himself—the outcome of his labour and capital, and for which he had received no compensation from the landlord—was as distinct from the property of the landlord as the landlord's property was distinct from the tenant's. They had been told that the right of appeal given by the Bill would afford the readiest way of ascertaining the value of this interest; but he (Mr. Leamy) submitted that the best and readiest way of doing it was to allow the tenant to sell his interest to the highest bidder, because there were improvements made on small farms, the effects of years of patient industry on the part of good tenants, which became part of the soil, or not to be distinguished from the soil, which it was impossible to register. It was impossible that the Court could estimate these improvements; and therefore, he repeated, the best and only way of dealing with them was to allow the tenant to sell them to the highest bidder. But in addition to the interest which the tenant created for himself, there was the interest which had been created for him by the Land Act of 1870. If the Court was to be allowed to fix the price at which the landlord was to be able to recover that interest from the tenant, he submitted that the Court should not go beyond; because, in the present position of the country, when so many tenants were in arrear, and the landlords had so many tenancies to sell, the landlords would be able to take up their farms at a less price than they would have to pay under other circum- 375 stances. It was said if they allowed the incoming tenant to pay too much for the goodwill of the former tenant, he would be in the position of a rack-rented tenant, because he would have to pay additional interest on the price of the goodwill. But as far as he (Mr. Leamy) could see, there was an important difference between the rack-rented tenant and the tenant who paid too much for the goodwill of his farm. The rack-rented tenant had everything to loose and nothing to gain by giving up his farm—he had no saleable interest; but the tenant who paid too much for the goodwill of his predecessor, and found out that his speculation was not a good one, knew, at any rate, that every pound which he owed to the landlord had to be taken off the interest which he could dispose of, and would, therefore, go to the market and endeavour to realize at the best possible price. The landlord could lose nothing at all by giving to the tenant the right of free sale. That portion of the tenant's interest which was created by his own improvements was his own property, and he contended that he had the same right to sell it as the landlord had to sell his property. But with regard to the interest created by the Act of 1870, which made the tenant a sort of co-partner with the landlord, he said, if they gave the Court the power to say what one co-partner should have for his portion of the interest, the Court should not also fix the proportion for the other co-partner. Because either the tenant had a distinct interest from the landlord's or not. He held that the tenant had a distinct property in his improvements, and that he had a right to dispose of them to the highest bidder, because the Court could not value them; and, further, that being a co-proprietor, he had the same right as the landlord to dispose of his interest.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYthought that, whatever objections of a theoretical character there might be to the free sale of the tenant's interest, everyone who had paid attention to the subject must feel that if the right of the tenant to get the best price he could for his interest was restricted, the Bill might just as well be given up. Any restriction of this right would render the Bill nugatory in the eyes of the people of Ireland. He was aware of the evils which had arisen from the excessive sums some- 376 times paid for the tenant right; but he believed that in future these largs sums would no longer be paid; and the reasons for that RELIEF he would lay before the Committee in a very few words. Nothing had puzzled him more, during the years he had studied the Land Question, than the difficulty of ascertaining why such excessive sums had been given for tenant right in the North of Ireland. But he had at last come to the conclusion that people, owing to the circumstances of the country, did not know the value of the sovereign. The Irish people had been in the habit of hoarding their money—putting it away in stockings and boxes, and, of late years, depositing it in the numerous banks which had been established in the small towns of the country at a very small rate of interest. The truth was, their eyes had been fixed upon the possession of a farm as the only means of obtaining a livelihood for themselves and families, and to obtain which they were willing to give any number of those counters, of whose real value they had no knowledge. Their case was quite different to that of Scotch farming. If you took the case of a Scotch farmer, it would be found that, as a rule, while he was waiting to purchase, or when he had spare cash, he made some judicious investment of his money in stocks, railways, or other securities. In Ireland, a man gave whatever it was necessary to give in order to get possession of a little plot of ground to live upon. But it stood to reason that when once he was made secure in his holding, and was made sure that he would be able to dispose of it, his attention would no longer be directed exclusively to agriculture as a means of living. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) therefore looked to the passing of this measure for results of far higher importance and benefit to Ireland than, the mere settlement of the question of tenant right. He believed that as soon as the tenant was relieved of the fear of the means of his livelihood being taken away from him, by inequitable raising of the rent on the part of the landlord, he would begin to seek for opportunities of using his money in manufactures and other enterprizes, and would never again pay for his small plot of land sums that he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) believed in one case had amounted to 70 years' purchase. The moment you fixed a fair rent for 377 the farm, the right of free and unrestricted sale followed as a matter of course. If the landlord received the fair rent of the holding which he let to the tenant, surely the tenant had the right to get the best price he could for his interest from anybody who would in future pay the rent to which the landlord was entitled. The right of sale then, following as a matter of course, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) said that tenants in future would not give the same price for it as in former years. The good effect of that would also show itself in better farming, because the excessive amount paid by the incoming tenant for the right of the outgoing tenant was an actual diminution of his means of working his farm. One reason, therefore, why he believed that Irish agriculture was in a backward state was on account of the large sums given for tenant right. The best chance of the Irish people becoming agriculturists under favourable circumstances was by allowing them to manage their own affairs, and by not being so anxious to interfere with every little detail in Irish life. Let the Irish people be treated less like children; allow them to sell that which belonged to them. If the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Macnaghten) had anything to sell, he would consider himself treated as a child if he were not allowed to dispose of it at the highest price he could get. For those reasons he objected to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Antrim. No restrictions should be imposed on free sale, which was the logical corollary of fair rents.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, it appeared to him that unless hon. Members confined themselves to the clause and the Amendments thereto immediately before the Committee the Bill would never be gone through. The question before the Committee was the right of pre-emption by the landlord of the tenant's interest. In what words was that conveyed by the clause? It said—
On receiving such notice the landlord may purchase the tenancy for such sum as may be agreed upon, or in the event of disagreement may he settled by the Court to be the value thereof.The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Antrim (Mr. Macnaghten) expressed the same idea, with the difference that it substituted 20 words for every one made use of in the sub-sec- 378 tion. To waste an hour of valuable time in making that unnecessary change appeared to him (Mr. Synan) unreasonable. The first part of the Amendment, then, fell to the ground, because it was already stated in the Bill. The second part of the Amendment provided that, outside Ulster, the landlord should not be bound to accept a tenant who had given more than the Court might settle for the price of the holding; and the extraordinary words were introduced that this was to be done "on the application of the landlord or the outgoing tenant." He would like to see an outgoing tenant going to the Court to say—" I am getting too much money from A. or B., and I apply to you to cut it down." But he could quite understand a landlord saying—"So-and-so is paying too much money for my farm, and I ask you to cut it down." The right of pre-emption he (Mr. Synan) contended was fixed by the clause itself in more accurate and perfect words than by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member; and, therefore, he suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn. He deprecated the discussion wandering into a question which had nothing whatever to do with the clause before the Committee. The Committee had already conferred on the tenant the right to sell his interest to another for the best price he could get, and therefore the last part of the hon. and learned Member's Amendment had no meaning whatsoever.
§ MR. BRODRICKsaid, the discussion upon the Amendment might travel over a very wide ground, and, with the view of shortening it, he would suggest that the Government should express an opinion upon the question. He ventured to remind the Committee that the Irish tenants were, as a body, not quite such simpletons as the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) supposed, and he would also remind the hon. Member, who had also said that security of tenure would prevent their giving such large prices as had hitherto been paid, that the arguments adduced in the course of discussion had proved to hon. Members on that side of the House that in places where the tenure was really secure a larger price was obtained for the interest of the tenant owing to the very security of tenure which existed. Therefore, he thought that in connection 379 with a Bill which proposed to give to the tenants further advantages in this direction, they might ask the Government to what extent they intended to put a stop to the land hunger which otherwise must eat into the pockets both of the landlord and the tenant. Again, in ascertaining the value of improvements, two things had to be taken notice of—the improvements made by the tenant himself, and those made by the landlord. If, then, the tenancy was to be sold in open market, he denied that the tenant, as the Bill stood, could be prevented selling the landlord's improvements as well as his own. Some limitation was therefore necessary for the protection of the landlord. The Government, however, proposed to let the tenant go into the open market, no matter whether the improvements had been made by him or by the landlord. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The Prime Minister shook his head. As the matter stood at present, the words before the Committee were that the tenant might sell at the "best price," and no limitation had been placed upon them. Therefore, he trusted some explanation of this point would be afforded. It seemed to him that some authority must value for the tenant on one side and for the landlord on the other with respect to improvements, so that there might be the means of ascertaining their separate shares in the tenant right, otherwise injustice might be done.
§ MR. PUGHsaid, he was sure the Committee would not agree to any provision which would give the tenant less than the fair value of his tenant right; but then came the question, what was the "fair value?" He agreed that it was not desirable that the word "value" should be retained, supposing that other words could be introduced which would represent fairly what the Government wished this provision of the Bill to be. The Prime Minister had stated that he would put in the word "ascertained" instead of "settled" in line 18. He (Mr. Pugh) would suggest that the wording "as shall be ascertained to be the fair price thereof" should be adopted.
§ MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he had withdrawn his Amendment for the omission of this sub-section, on hearing from the Prime Minister that it was intended to put in the word "ascertained;" because he thought that by the adoption 380 of that word it would be open to the Court to find means of doing justice between the two parties; but he regretted to find that hon. Members speaking on behalf of the landlords had disclosed a very painful desire to prevent the tenant getting more for his interest than they thought it would be good for him to receive. [Lord ELCHO: Hear, hear!] The noble Lord near him (Lord Elcho) cheered the sentiment that the incoming tenant ought to be protected from giving too much for the outgoing tenant's interest, on the ground that it would leave him without the means of working the land. But if they were to propose to restrict the landlord in selling the fee simple of his estate on the ground that it would be dangerous to create a race of landlords who paid too much for their property, he was quite sure the noble Lord would be the first to propose that the landlord should go into the Incumbered Estates Court and run up the price. It was only when the case of the tenant was dealt with that this suspicious sympathy for the incoming tenant broke out on the Opposition Benches. He (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) would appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Amendment (Mr. Macnaghten) to say whether it did not mean that in Ulster there was to be no restraint—in other words, whether he did not intend that the sauce for the Ulster goose was not to be the sauce for the Munster gander. The proposal of the hon. and learned Member was that the Ulster Custom should not be extended; and it was so absurd that there must needs be a new ground of objection to the incoming tenant besides that stated in the Bill itself—namely, that the purchaser must be a man of good character and ample means. The hon. and learned Member proposed that even when a man fulfilled those conditions, if he paid, say £2 10s., more for the outgoing tenant's interest in the farm than the landlord conceived to be right, the landlord should not be bound to accept him. That was reducing things to absurdity, and he trusted that no further time would be wasted upon the proposal of the hon. and learned Member.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Macnaghten) consisted of two parts, which had no real connection 381 with each, other, and had better be considered separately. The one was intended to regulate the action of the preemption clause with which they were now dealing; whilst the other was part of the question whether, in ordinary cases, the tenant was to get the best price for his tenancy. The first part of the Amendment seemed to mean precisely what the Bill meant. He took it that his hon. and learned Friend intended that where the landlord came to buy the tenant's interest he was to do so at the full value. He would like to hear from his hon. and learned Friend what he regarded as a fair and reasonable price as between the parties. Did he mean that it was anything less than the true and fair value of the interest? He (the Attorney General for Ireland) presumed he did not mean that either in Ulster or elsewhere, when the landlord came to exercise his right of preemption, that he was to get possession of the tenancy for anything less than its true value. His hon. and learned Friend said he did not like the word'' value.'' He (the Attorney General for Ireland) did not himself see any objection to it. He took it that his hon. and learned Friend did not think that the tenant should get from the landlord less than he would receive from a perfectly solvent and unobjectionable tenant. But, taking the case of an Ulster tenancy, and knowing the irritation which Office rules had caused in Ulster, was the hon. and learned Member willing that these arbitrary rules restricting prices should be swept away? If so, it appeared to him inexpedient and unjust to seek to impose in the three other Provinces the cause of irritation which had existed in Ulster. Again, there were two words at the end of the first part of the Amendment which he should like his hon. and learned Friend to explain. It appeared that the Court was not merely to assess what was fair and reasonable under all the circumstances of the case, but what was fair and reasonable "as between the parties." Now, he was somewhat suspicious of those words, which seemed quite capable of re-introducing, under cover of their vagueness, the Office rules they meant practically to abolish, although he was quite sure his hon. and learned Friend meant nothing of the kind. With regard to the second part of the Amendment, he could hardly think his hon. and learned Friend was 382 serious in proposing it. They had already agreed that the tenant should sell at the best price; but the hon. and learned Member now proposed to introduce an alteration into the clause which amounted almost to a contradiction in terms. The exception must not be as large as the rule. He agreed with what had been said by an hon. Member opposite, that many improvements might be effected on small farms which never could be paid for by way of compensation for improvements under the Act of 1870. The only effectual way in which the tenant could be secured compensation for these was by enabling him to sell his tenancy as provided by the Bill. If the tenant's price was extravagantly high, the landlord could buy at the price fixed by the Court—which was to be the fair market value of the holding, excluding fancy prices. On the whole, he thought the clause as it stood was quite right, and he hoped the Committee would adhere to it.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he had listened with much interest and some surprise to what had been stated by his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. He was rather disposed to think the Government had re-considered their views with reference to Clause 1 of the Bill, and that the statement put forward by the Prime Minister in his opening address had, on further thoughts, been substantially qualified. Much of the reasoning of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland pointed to an unqualified acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Antrim (Mr. Macnaghten). The Amendment meant that the true and genuine price, setting aside anything like a pretium affectionis, a fair, reasonable price should be measured and settled by the competent tribunal in the case of the landlord, as well as of the tenant. If the Amendment was not accepted, it would make the landlord's right of pre-emption almost worthless. If the parties agreed in their price there would be no question; but if they differed this Amendment said the Court should, having regard to the interest of all parties and the circumstances of the case, settle what was a fair price. He quite agreed that between the existing draft of the Government Proviso and the first part of the Amendment there was not much dif- 383 ference. The word "price" was used instead of "value;" but the unequivocal right of entering the Court was given to the landlord; and the Court, in settling the fair price, was to have regard to the interest not only of the tenant, but of the landlord. With reference to the second part of the Amendment, it was said that this was not the proper part of the Bill for bringing it in; but that was not a satisfactory way of grappling with the principle which it contained. On the contrary, he (Mr. Gibson) thought this was a fair place for introducing it. Even as the Bill stood it enabled the parties to measure the price to be paid by the landlord in case of pre-emption. The second paragraph went further, and sought to introduce this most important incident—that the landlord, if he did not desire to become the purchaser himself, should be enabled to invoke the machinery of the Court to say what—having regard to the interest of the holding, the interest of the future tenant, and the interest of the landlord—was to be a fair price paid, so as to obviate the probability of the incoming tenant being ruined by the payment of a pretium affectionis. Could anyone say, on looking at the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, that it did not suggest every condition that was fair, reasonable, and just between man and man? There had been a substantial change in the intentions of the Government between the introduction of the Bill and the present time. The Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill, said—
If a Court is to be called on at the will of the tenant to limit the annual receipts of the landlord and to fix what, in this Bill, we call a Judicial Rent, then I do not see on what principle you shall say that the tenant right of the tenant is to be subject to no similar and analogous limitation."—[3 Hansard, cclx. 904.]They cut down the landlord's judicial rent and took care that the landlord's receipts should be limited; but they still left it open to anyone to pay an extravagant sum for the tenant right. What the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend sought to do was to give legal effect to the words of the Prime Minister. To-night both the Prime Minister and the Attorney General for Ireland had said that it was desired not to bind the Court by the word "settled," and that what was sought to be given to the Court by the use of the word "ascer- 384 tained," instead of "settled," was the power to arrive at the true maket value of any particular holding. But it was obvious if they left the word "settled" out of the clause, and employed only the word "ascertained," there would not be one solitary syllable in the clause to indicate that there was any discretion given to the Court to give effect to the fair and reasonable words in which the Prime Minister introduced the Bill. Now, what did the Amendment do? It practically made the right of pre-emption impossible, because what would happen? The landlord would go into Court, supposing the parties differed, and would say—"Unfortunately we differ; I desire to purchase this holding either for myself or for a new letting, or for some reason which is sufficient to my mind." But the tenant would be able to adduce plenty of evidence for the purpose of measuring the price the landlord should pay in the exercise of the right of preemption. Was there a single sane man who had a shadow of doubt that the tenant would produce witness after witness who would swear he would give three times the amount the landlord offered? So by the rejection of the Amendment and by the substitution of the word "ascertained "for" settled," they were really killing the right of pre-emption which they had given previously; they were taking away from the Court the power of protecting the incoming tenant from giving a price which might absolutely pauperize him. He looked upon the refusal of the Amendment and upon the substitution of the word "ascertained" for "settled" as serious evidence that the Government were about to weaken the safeguards which they intended originally to rely upon.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had directed his arguments against a thing which was not in the Bill as it now stood. He had made no objection whatever to the 3rd sub-section as it was now in the Bill; but he had said that it was proposed to substitute "ascertained" for "settled," and this would make a fundamental change in the meaning of the 3rd sub-section. That was not the view of the Government at all, and if that was the objection of the right hon. and learned Gentleman why did he not endeavour to over- 385 throw the whole of the 3rd sub-section. But let them consider what was the force and effect of the word "ascertained." They did not admit, in the slightest degree, that the introduction of the word "ascertained" would have the effect of excluding the direct discretion of the Court as to inquiring into the circumstances of the case, and ascertaining whether the price offered was a reasonable or an outrageous bid for a farm. He (Mr. Gladstone) was greatly at a loss to understand the exact meaning and bearing of the Amendment. The two subjects touched upon by the Amendment were totally distinct, for in the first part the hon. and learned Member for Antrim (Mr. Macnaghten) dealt with the pre-emption of the landlord, and in the second part he introduced a proposal totally unknown to the Bill, and entirely apart from the first proposal—namely, the proposal to lay down certain rules which should operate in cases where the landlord did not exercise his right of pre-emption. It would be much better if they were to consider the question with reference to the Bill as it stood in the first instance, and see what reasons there were for displacing the 3rd sub-section. He objected to the Amendment because it was entirely wanting in the provision of any reasonable test by which the Court was to conduct its investigations. He denied that there was any change of intention at all on the part of the Government since the time when he used the words, which he believed the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had correctly quoted. Let them set aside all fear with regard to the landlord's improvements. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Macnaghten) seemed to imagine that the tenant would be able to sell the landlord's improvements. They had made provision against that, and if it was insufficient they would endeavour to make it otherwise. The tenant had no more right to sell the landlord's improvements as part of his tenant right than he had to sell the fee simple and raw material of the soil. Let there be no misunderstanding upon that point. In their view the business of the landlord was to look after his own improvements and take a just rent upon them. The tenant, however, would have a right to sell his own improvements, and he would have the right to sell the security of tenure, such as that 386 tenure should be determined by the present Bill. Those were the elements of tenant right, and the principle the Government adopted was that the general test of the value of the tenant right would be what it would fetch in the market. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had said the tenant was entitled to a true and genuine market price, setting aside anything like a pretium affectionis. It would be the function of the Court to examine whether there was any pretium affectionis, and if there was, undoubtedly the Court would have the right to set it aside. He owned he could not comprehend the objections that were taken to the 3rd subsection, except so far as they turned upon the word "value." If they said it should be the duty of the Court to ascertain the value, they would allow the Court to perform that function which they had described as properly belonging to it; but as to the general words of the sub-section, he failed to gather from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim, or from the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, any reason whatever for displacing those words, which appeared to the Government perfectly clear and simple, and direct and sufficient for the purpose intended. He hoped the Committee would support the clause.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he had listened very carefully to the arguments in favour of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Antrim (Mr. Macnaghten), and also to the arguments against it; but he could not see what good purpose would be served by any alteration of the clause. If the Committee went to a division he should therefore, with great regret, feel himself obliged to vote against the Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The division was about to be taken when—
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, seated and with head covered, said, he wished to call the Chairman's attention to the fact that he had not read the Question in precisely the same terms as it was read before the division bell rang; and he desired to ask, as a point of Order, whether it was competent for an hon. Member to raise two separate questions, as had been pointed out by the Prime 387 Minister, on a single Amendment? The first paragraph of the Amendment raised a totally different question from that raised by the second paragraph.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he first read "on receiving such notice." He found these words were not required, as the Question was more concise without them, though it remained practically the same. With regard to the second point raised by the noble Lord, he had to say the hon. and learned Member for Antrim (Mr. Macnaghten) had asked leave to withdraw the second part of the Amendment; and he (the Chairman) was not sufficiently a lawyer to be able to determine the legal differences as counsel learned in the law differed on both sides.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 193; Noes 130: Majority 63.—(Div. List, No. 239.)
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper:—In page 1, line 16, to leave out from the word "landlord" to the end of the sub-section, and to insert—
Will have the right of pre-emption, provided he offers as high a price as the tenant might or could obtain from any other person in a sale, whether by public auction or otherwise.After what had taken place, however, he thought it would not be desirable to press the Amendment. Looking at the length of time which had been already taken up by the discussion of this subject he would withdraw his proposal.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. LALORsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to enable the landlord and tenant to make a bargain. Tenants did not object to pre-emption on the part of the landlord, provided the landlord obtained it on fair terms; but they were averse to any interference of the Court in the matter, and they believed that no one could be better judges than the tenantry in the neighbourhood of the farm. There could be no doubt that if the landlord and tenant had to go before the Court they would bring forward conflicting evidence. The landlord would produce evidence in the attempt to lessen the value of the land, and against that the tenant would bring evidence to increase its value, and the Court would have to choose between the two. 388 It would have no special knowledge of its own of the subject, and it would be extremely difficult, if not altogether impossible, to form a correct opinion of the value of the land. There was a phrase which had been extensively used in the House—namely, the "land hunger" of Ireland. No doubt, there was a land hunger, which arose, not only for want of land, but from the fact that the people were unable to invest their capital in the land—
THE CHAIRMANIs the hon. Member confining himself to the first Amendment, for he has two on the Paper? It is not competent for him to discuss the second one now.
§ MR. LALORsaid, he was endeavouring to show that there was no fear of over-competition for land, and that the tenant had no objection to the landlord's first purchasing if he would do so as another tenant would buy it. There was no fear of his purchasing it over the proper value. He would submit his Amendment to the Committee without further statement.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 17, after "upon," insert "by landlord and tenant."—(Mr. Lalor.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)thought the hon. Member (Mr. Lalor) must see that the Amendment, if accepted, would not make any difference in the Bill. There could be only two parties to an agreement—namely, the landlord and the tenant; and the clause, therefore, fully provided for the object of the hon. Member's Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. LALORsaid, his next Amendment was to leave out, in line 17, from "upon "to the end of the sub-section. He would submit to the Committee that it would be a fairer and more practical manner of settling the matter to allow the tenant fairly and honestly to sell his interest in the open market.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 17, to leave out from the word "or," to the word "thereof," inline 19, inclusive.—(Mr. Lalor.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'or in the event of disagreement' stand part of the Clause."
389MR. GLADSTONEwas sure the hon. Member would not deem it a mark of disrespect to him if he (Mr. Gladstone) said that the Government could not accept the Amendment. It would entirely destroy the sub-section.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, he had much pleasure in supporting the Amendment for the very reason given by the Prime Minister for its rejection—namely, that it would destroy the sub-section. The Land Act of 1870 had left it a matter for dispute amongst lawyers whether or not the tenant had any interest in his holding; and he would remind the Prime Minister and hon. Members in favour of retaining this clause, and those who were acquainted with the condition of the farming class in Ireland, that if they established a tenant's interest in his holding, the tenants would never be satisfied until they had a free right to dispose of that interest. He did not think the clause, as it stood, would do the landlord much good; but it would, on the other hand, leave ground for contest and future agitation in Ireland. He did not intend to repeat what he had said in speaking on the former Amendment; but with reference to the argument which had been largely dwelt upon, that they would allow the Court to limit the rent which the landlord must receive, he would ask why was it that the Court was called on to do this? Was it' not the fact that when they had allowed the landlord the right to rack rent they had allowed him to eat up the tenant's interest? They said it was utterly absurd to recognize that interest if they did not give some safeguard and protection, and that they gave that when they took away the landlord's right to eat up the interest. This was the only opportunity they would have at that stage of the Bill of making their protest against this limit to the right of sale. They were now, beyond all dispute, establishing a tenant's right in his holding, and they who had been fighting this battle so hard up to this knew that the tenant never would be satisfied until he had the right of disposing of his interest with perfect freedom.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he would not advise the Irish Members to go to a division on this Amendment. They were not responsible for the Bill, and they did not believe in the clause now in the sub- 390 section. The responsibility for the Bill rested upon the Government, and the Irish Members should not do anything to take up the time of the House for even five minutes, and so take from the Government the smallest amount of responsibility. As the Government described the Bill as a magnificent one, and declared this sub-section to be perfection, he would invite his hon. Friend not to press the Amendment. Let the Government pass the Bill in its present shape, and let hon. Members wait and see what came of it.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, he was not particularly favourable to the Bill. He did not vote for the second reading; but he felt it to be his duty to propose, or support, or discuss, Amendments which went in the direction of the principles which he believed the people of Ireland wished to have embodied in the Bill. They should be able to say to their constituents when they went back to them—" You know what the Bill was when it went before the Committee? We endeavoured to amend it, and it was not our fault that it was not improved." They would not say that unless they supported such Amendments as that before the Committee; therefore, he hoped that a division would be taken.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 20: Majority 103.—(Div. List, No. 240.)
§ MR. LITTON, in rising to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, said, the question of sale by public auction was of great importance, not only in the North of Ireland, but in every part of the country. Having regard to the early words of the Bill, that the best price that could be had for the holding was the price which the tenant had a right to secure, it should be open to the tenant to sell by auction, subject to such rules as the Court might lay down. In Ulster, before the Estate Office rules had crept in to eat up the tenant right, it was the invariable practice to allow the tenant's interest to be sold by public auction. In the evidence taken by the Commissioners on the Land Question, it had been over and over again stated that the Ulster Custom itself was the privilege of selling to the highest bidder at a public sale. New rules had crept in, however, and the 391 claim of the incoming tenant was limited to three or five years in many cases. The Office rules, which had from time to time been forced on the tenants, in the end deprived them of this free sale by public auction. This was a fair test of the value; therefore, he would respectfully ask the Committee to consider very carefully whether or not this was not a fair demand on the part of the tenant. The last division was one which, in some respects, tested the feeling of the Committee; but he did not think it tested it to the full extent, because the Amendment did not propose to substitute public sale or any other machinery by which a fair rent could be ascertained. The present Amendment, which he would now move, was viewed with very great interest in Ulster and elsewhere; and, moreover, it was entirely within the principle of the Bill.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 18, to leave out from the word "disagreement," to the end of sub-section, in order to insert the words "the holding shall be sold by public auction under the direction of the Court, and such rules as may be prescribed,"—(Mr. Litton,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'may be' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. BIGGAR, referring to the argument as to several years' purchase, pointed out that it was not the case that men who purchased could always get 5 per cent for their money, and the result was that what appeared to be a great many years' purchase, if the money were valued at what it would bring in the market, would not amount to a very great increase in the rent payable. It was, therefore, fallacious to imagine that tenants gave more than the holdings were worth. Then, again, the landlords might offer evidence that such and such a price was the price that the land sold for before the Act, and so would get possession of the land at the price for which it would nominally have sold, when in reality, if the tenant had the power to sell, he would have got the sum usually paid now, in addition to the nominal price. Of course, the landlord would run a risk, at an auction, of having the value of the property raised by fictitious bidding; but he would, no doubt, avoid that by having some person bidding for him who was not known to 392 be bidding for him. That would be as good for the landlord as for the seller, and if the landlord bid for himself, and offered a big price, it was doubtful whether any other person would give a full bid, because if he outbid the landlord, the landlord would not be on friendly terms with him. He thought the landlord would gain more by public auction than he would lose, and altogether public auction would be the fairest way of selling the property. If the market were dull, the landlord would get a low price; but if it were brisk, he would get a good price for his reward.
§ MR. FINDLATERsaid, the result of the discussion upon the Amendment was looked forward to with the deepest interest in the county he had the honour to represent (Monaghan). His (Mr. Findlater's) Catholic constituents looked with great suspicion upon any provision which would enable the landlord to become possessed of his tenant's holding for any amount less than the fair market competition price. He was sorry to say a very strong and bitter sectarian feeling existed in the county; and as the great majority of the tenants were Roman Catholics, they naturally and properly entertained the greatest dread, from their experience of the past, that if the landlords got possession of their holdings upon easy terms they would be removed, and replaced by a solely Protestant tenancy. They had no confidence whatever that fair play would be afforded to them, and therefore he hoped his hon. Friend would press the Amendment to a division. As the Government would not deprive the landlord of the right of pre-emption altogether, they should press that that privilege should be only exercised at the same price as an ordinary purchaser would pay in the open market. They were, in his humble opinion, entitled to that protection, and on their behalf he should insist upon it.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the objections which applied to the previous Amendment applied equally to this, and that great hardship would be inflicted on the tenant if he were bound to dispose of his tenant right by auction. It was a mistake to suppose that a favour was always conferred on a vendor by telling him he might sell by auction, for, in many cases, attempts to sell by 393 auction failed, and the only practical method was sale by private contract.
MR. CHARLES RUSSELLrecognized the desirability, in certain cases, of sale by auction; but he would suggest, as a compromise between his hon. Friend (Mr. Litton) and the Government, that the Court should have the power to decide whether a public auction should take place or not. The Government could not wish that the landlord should get the thing for less than it was fairly worth in exercising his right of pre-emption; and, therefore, if the Court thought the best way to ascertain the true value would be by public auction, they should be able to order that course to be taken.
§ MR. BIGGARsupported the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), observing that if the Court had to decide the value it might be that high estimates would be given for the one side, and low estimates for the other. The Court could not test the accuracy of these estimates, and if the Court had the power to direct a public auction, that would be the best way of deciding between the parties.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONwished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether the regulations contained in this section applied to the Ulster Custom or not? It seemed to him that they did not apply; and, if so, the arguments of the hon. Members fell to the ground.
§ MR. LITTONsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex assumed that the last part of the section was to stand as it was; but an effort would be made to introduce words protecting the tenants from the Office rules.
MR. CARPENTER-GARNIERhoped the Government would not accept the Amendment, for the Court might shirk the responsibility of deciding whether or not there should be a public auction.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKthought the best way to decide what the best price was would be by public auction; for the Court would not be a good valuer of the property. He, therefore, thought the hon. Member's (Mr. Litton's) proposal was a good one.
§ MR. HEALYsuggested that power should be given to the Court to sell the property by public auction, if necessary.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)objected to the 394 proposal, pointing out that if the landlord was bound to buy at a price fixed by public auction it would be equally absurd and unjust. An auction implied several possible purchasers; but here there could be only one—namely, the landlord, so that all other bidders must be unreal. They would, in fact, be merely so many "puffers," and bidding, too, without incurring any liability. The system of auction, in short, was totally inapplicable to such a case as they were now providing for.
§ MR. M'COANargued that the only way to ascertain the fair value would be by competition, and it would be well to leave the Court the discretion suggested. If some concession was not made to the strong feeling prevailing in Ireland there would be great discontent.
§ MR. THOMASSONthought there need be no objection to the Amendment if the landlord had the power to go to the Court to get the rent fixed.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 29: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 241.)
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 18, to substitute the word "ascertained" for the word "settled."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1,line 18, to leave out the word "settled" in order to introduce the word "ascertained."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
§ Question proposed, '' That the word 'settled' stand part of the Clause."
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLthought there was more in the Amendment than met the eye at first sight. Why should the Government want to alter their own original word, and substitute a word which, as far as he (Lord Randolph Churchill) could make out, had been suggested to them by a Gentleman on that (the Opposition) side of the House belonging to the Party of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell)? The word "ascertained" was obviously very different from the word "settled," and even the word "settled" was in itself a word to which objection might be taken, as applied to the decision of a Court of Justice. In his opinion, the proper word to have put into the clause, 395 considering the nature of the Court that was to be constituted, was the word "ordered," or the word "adjudged." "Settled" was not in itself sufficiently strong to apply to a Court with such illimitable jurisdiction as this Land Commission, and "ordered," or "adjudged," would be a great improvement. But he should not have raised any objection to the word "settled" if it had not been for the new proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. The word "ascertained," substituted for the word "settled," really meant to deprive the Court of a certain amount of its own individual power of judgment. The Court was to ascertain the price of the land, and it could ascertain it by the only means open to it—namely, by hearing evidence. The power of "ordering" the price was taken away, because it would have to be "ascertained" by evidence that the price which ought to be given for the land was such-and-such a price. [" Oh, oh ! "] The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Johnson) appeared to be a little contemptuous in regard to this contention; but it was perfectly certain that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be capable of raising a very ingenious argument to show that the word "ascertain" virtually limited the discretion of the Court. It was quite clear that when the Court was called upon to fix the price evidence would have to be taken on both sides. The tenant would, no doubt, bring evidence to show that certain people would give a certain price for the holding; and, in all probability, in some instances, the price offered would be an extravagant and fancy price. The landlord would bring counter-evidence to say that such a price would not be given by a solvent tenant; but everybody knew how difficult it was to prove such negative statements, and to establish the fact that the price offered was one which an intending purchaser could not pay. If they left in the word "settled" the Court would be bound to come in, provided that the Court was composed of persons who were as competent to arrive at a conclusion as to the value of the land as any witnesses who might be examined. The chances were that there would be a battle in the Court between different persons who professed to be acquainted with the value of the land; 396 and it was therefore obviously of enormous importance that there should be no doubt whatever that the Court should be able to exercise its own individual judgment, guided, no doubt, and influenced by the evidence, but also, if necessary, quite irrespective of the evidence. He thought he was able to explain the difference between the two words pretty clearly by giving, as an illustration, what frequently happened in regard to works of art—especially old pictures. The best known pictures in this country, and indeed in Europe, were all catalogued and valued in Smith's learned and exhaustive catalogue. That catalogue, as a rule, settled the value of the works of the greatest artists; but if the same pictures were brought to the hammer at Christie & Manson's auction room, the value was ascertained by the price given for them, and it by no means followed that the price tallied with the value given in Smith's Catalogue. The sum actually paid was frequently much higher than that which was catalogued; and, in one sense of the word, the true value of a thing was what it would fetch. In an open auction anybody could bid what he liked; but there was another value in regard to a farm, and that was what it ought to fetch, if the man who bought it was to be in a condition to carry on the business. The word "settled" would apply to one description of purchaser, and the word "ascertained" to another. It was not at all clear; and he hoped, in the absence of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, the hon. and learned Solicitor General would give an opinion upon the point—it was not at all clear that if they inserted the word "ascertain" they would not empower the Court to order the sale of the property. They said that the Court was not to "settle" the price guided by its own judgment, but it was to "ascertain" the value by whatever evidence it could obtain. It was clear that evidence might be brought before the Court both by the tenant and by the landlord of an extremely conflicting nature—so conflicting, indeed, if they adopted the word "ascertain," that it would be almost impossible for the Court to arrive at a decision. In such a case the Court might say—" We cannot, from the evidence, decide the value of this tenant right. We will put it up 397 to auction." The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland said that was absurd, because there was only one buyer, and that was the landlord. But the Court might say—"We will put this tenant right up to auction, and the highest price bid for it will be the value of the farm; and if the landlord will not purchase at that price, then the highest bidder will have it." The Committee must recollect another thing. The Chairman of the county might be appealed from to the Land Commission, and the Commission might decide, in the event of the landlord refusing to purchase, that the highest bid was the true value of the tenant right, without the Court being called upon to settle, order, or adjudge. Was that course impossible under the word "ascertained?" The Court might be a learned and a weighty Court; but the Land Commission might delegate its powers to any single individual in Ireland, and there would be no appeal from the decision of that sub-Commissioner. It was not improbable that he might say—" I have inquired into the question; but I cannot come to a conclusion, and I will order a sale." Thus, if such a course were not taken by the Land Commission themselves, it was one which might be taken by their agent. Therefore, upon these points he was not at all clear that even the hon. and learned Solicitor General's opinion would be of such enormous value as to satisfy the Committee that the Court would not have power to order the sale of the land. It was perfectly certain that if they left in the word "settled" it would never occur to any human being that the Court had power to order a sale. But if they substituted the word "ascertain" they would give the Court the power of arriving at a larger and wider interpretation in regard to what might be called the "fancy price" which might be offered for the tenant right, and they would put it in the power of the Court to consider favourably a fancy price for the tenant right. He was perfectly certain that the word "ascertain" had not been suggested merely for verbal reasons, or to give greater elegance to the language of the clause, or from any small or trifling reasons. The Prime Minister, as a rule, was too fond of his own English and his own sentences to part with any phrase lightly; and there could be no question that this word 398 " ascertained" was really introduced with a distinct bias towards the views of the party who were in favour of getting the highest conceivable price for the tenant right. He thought it was rather extraordinary that the Government should have sprung this Amendment upon the Committee. He was not one of those who believed that the Bill was carelessly drawn. He was of opinion that it had been very carefully drawn, and much more carefully drawn than some people imagined. He believed that every word in the Bill to which any importance could be attached had been decided upon by the Government after careful examination, and after considering everything that could be brought to bear upon it. And when he saw the Government suddenly throwing up a particular word, and substituting another word suggested to them from a quarter in which the most extreme views were taken, he thought the proceeding was one which should inspire the Committee with very great suspicion. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had given absolutely no reason whatever why the word should be substituted; and he (Lord Randolph Churchill) thought that that fact alone was a most suspicious circumstance. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) simply met the view of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) on the point which the hon. Member raised. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman neither gave his own reasons nor that of the Government for substituting the word "ascertained."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), no doubt unintentionally, was misrepresenting him. He had certainly made only a very short speech; but he had distinctly stated that the word "ascertained" was introduced in order to limit the arbitrary action of the Court.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he had failed to catch the reason now given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and it was certainly the most extraordinary Reason he had ever heard. How could the action of the Court, with such powers as it was proposed to give it, be anything but arbitrary? There was no appeal from it, and it must be an arbitrary action altogether. Yet it was proposed to limit this arbitrary action 399 by putting in the word "ascertained." They had a Court with the most illimitable power ever known since the time of the Star Chamber, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman said the Government wished to put in the word "ascertained," because they wanted to limit the arbitrary power of the Court. They wanted the Court to have no doubt as to the intentions of the Legislature. By substituting the word "ascertained," the Committee were telling the Court that they might consider any evidence which might be determined upon by the tenant to show that the tenant right, if put up to auction, would have fetched a certain price. He felt sure that the word had not been proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland without some very deep reason. It was, no doubt, intended to make the Bill meet the views of the extreme party by adopting this change; but, whatever the reason might have been, it was important to note that in proposing the Bill the Government did not know their own minds, and were driven to catch at any suggestion that was presented to them. The more general word "settled," which would enable the Court to exercise its own knowledge and judgment, was by far the preferable word.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER, HERSCHELL)said, the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) asked whether, supposing that the word "ascertained" was substituted for "settled," the Court would have the right to sell the tenant's interest by auction to the highest bidder, unless the landlord should agree to the price offered by the highest bidder. To that question he (the Solicitor General) unhesitatingly answered "No." With regard to the price, who was to buy, and how or by what tribunal the value was to be ascertained, he asked if it was to be supposed that, under the provisions of this clause, the Court would put the tenant's interest up to a kind of sham auction with the view of ascertaining the value at which the landlord was to buy? He was quite certain that his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Gibson) would agree that no Court in Ireland would ever dream of holding such an auction. Therefore, he declined to accept the statement of the noble Lord opposite, that this substitu- 400 tion of one word for another made all the difference as to what the action of the Court would be. The noble Lord said, if the word "settled" was retained, the Court would deal with the case regardless of evidence. And, again, the noble Lord said that the action of the Court could not be otherwise than arbitrary, if it received evidence. But he (the Solicitor General) did not agree with that view—the action of this Court after taking evidence would be no more arbitrary than the action of any other Court. He denied the proposition of the noble Lord on this point altogether. The word "settled," in the opinion of the Government, was calculated to lead to the idea that the Court was not to enter into the question with the view of ascertaining the real value, but was to fix the amount arbitrarily. The Government, therefore, preferred the word "ascertained," which showed that it was intended that the Court should not act capriciously; but after having evidence should ascertain the real value of a tenancy. He assured the noble Lord that there was no mysterious or sinister motive lying hid under this proposal as the noble Lord seemed to suggest.
§ MR. PLUNKETthought that the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to make this substitution was not satisfactory. It was true that the alteration was only the change of a phrase; but the character of this Bill was such that even a change of phrase might make an immense difference to the parties affected by it, and certainly there was no part of the Bill where a change of the kind could be more important; because they were, at this part of the Bill, conferring upon the Court a discretion which was to be the only limit to these tenures being sold at very high and immoderate prices, and to give the landlord the opportunity of purchasing at a fair sum—to cut down, in fact, the high prices which were admitted to be objectionable. He agreed with the noble Lord that the Court could take the substituted word to mean that it might ascertain the price to be given for a particular tenancy by putting it up to auction. It was of the utmost importance to give the most exact instructions possible to a Court clothed with such grave responsibility. Great influence would be brought to bear on the Judges, as Judge Longfield had remarked in his essay; and, therefore, he 401 thought it was a most unfortunate thing that this change had been proposed by the Government. As he had said, it was only a turn of a phrase; but there was no necessity for making the change. In his opinion, the change proposed by Her Majesty's Government was a change for the worse.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he could quite understand hon. Members opposite exercising a very watchful supervision over the Bill. To a certain extent his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) had rightly described this proposed alteration as being only the turn of a phrase. He did not understand why the Government had proposed this alteration, and, having proposed it, he did not see that they could reasonably complain of the amount of criticism which had been bestowed upon it. But he was bound to say that, as far as he could judge, there was the same danger in the word "settled" as the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket) supposed to lurk in the word "ascertained." It was quite possible to go on through the whole evening discussing the refinements of meaning to be found in the two words in question; and, therefore, he suggested that the best way to terminate the discussion would be to adopt both, and let the clause run thus—"ascertained and settled." There could be no doubt, then, that the Court would have to hear both sides, and he presumed both parties would be satisfied.
MR. GORSTrose for the purpose of asking the Government to explain what would be the meaning of the Bill after this Amendment was made. He had listened attentively to the observations made by the Law Officers of the Crown, and understood that when the alteration was made, the function of the Court would be to ascertain what was the best price that could be got for the tenancy when it was sold in open market, and having ascertained that best price, that the Court was to let the landlord have the tenancy if he chose to pay it. That was the effect of the argument of the hon. and learned Solicitor General. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir Farrer Herschell): I said nothing of the sort.] 402 In that case he should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to explain what he did mean. The Court was to ascertain the value of the holding, and if conclusive evidence were given to the Court that, had the holding been sold in open market, it would have fetched a certain price, he asked the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General whether the Court would not have to ascertain the price and give the landlord the opportunity of purchasing at that price? In other words, the price was to be the full competition price of the holding. The Prime Minister, on the second reading of the Bill, said that the right of the tenant to a free sale was limited; and when challenged to say how it was limited, he said it was limited by the landlord's pre-emptive right. But if the landlord's pre-emptive right was only a right to buy at the full competition price, how did that limit the tenant's right to sell? The Prime Minister himself had, in his speeches, always admitted that there was an objection to allowing the tenant to sell at the full competition price. If that were so, then, he asked, how was that objection in any way alleviated by the landlord's pre-emptive right? But if the landlord had a preemptive right to buy, at some fair price to be settled by the Court, which should say what was a reasonable and fair price, under all the circumstances of the case, then there would be a certain limitation on the tenant's right of free sale. It would still be an imperfect one. But if the only right the landlord was to have was the right to buy at the full competition price, he did not see that there was any limitation whatever on the right of free sale.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)remarked, that the discussion had strayed from the Amendment before the Committee, and that they were now discussing the general question. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), he believed, was not in the House when the subject was discussed an hour or two ago; but even if he had been present, he seemed to have paid as little attention to the question then under consideration as he had to the speech which he (the Solicitor General) had just made. His hon. and learned Friend had attributed to him things which he had not said. He had never used such an 403 expression as that the landlord was to buy at the full competition price.
MR. GORSTI never said the hon. and learned Gentleman made use of that expression. I said that his argument amounted to that.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, in that case the hon. and learned Gentleman had mistaken his argument, for that was not its intention. In his remarks he had spoken of the real true value as distinguished from any pretium affectionis, or any outrageous or fancy value. Those were the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) and they had been accepted by the Prime Minister as exactly expressing his meaning. That understanding had been arrived at an hour ago, and he had certainly said nothing at variance with it.
§ MR. WARTONremarked, that anyone acquainted with the English language must feel that there was a great difference between the meaning of the words "ascertained" and "settled." The former appeared to him to describe the action of a subordinate—a clerk or agent—while the word '' settled'' implied the exercise of a judicial function. When the Bill was drawn, he had no doubt whatever that it was intended that the Court should exercise some judicial power in fixing the price, after taking into consideration all the facts of the case. He could only say that if the word "ascertained" were adopted the landlord would have no pre-emptive right at all.
MR. GORSTasked whether the hon. and learned Solicitor General's interpretation of the clause was that the landlord might buy the tenant's interest for something less than the competition value?
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, they had heard a great many legal opinions on this clause, and it was very difficult when lawyers differed to say who should decide. He would venture to make a suggestion, which might, perhaps, tend to solve the problem. He understood the two Front Benches were agreed in principle that the Court should be allowed to ascertain the price by a sale by auction under their direction; but the power of the Court to do that seemed to be doubted by some legal authorities on the Opposition side of the House.
404 He could not help recollecting that since the passing of the Act of 1870 things had taken place which were never contemplated by the Government, and which they were distinctly assured by the Government never could take place. They were told that under no circumstances could the Act of 1870 confer a joint property with the landlord in the soil on the tenant; but now it was argued by a great many people that something of that nature had occurred. If there was the least doubt that a Court might be able to ascertain the price by a sale by auction, the point ought to be settled and placed beyond all dispute. The suggestion he would make was that they should expressly exclude the power from the Court to direct that the price should be decided by auction.
§ MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that the Amendment suggested by the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken was wholly unnecessary, as the words of the subsection already excluded the idea of a sale by auction. It dealt only with the right of pre-emption given to the landlord, and the only question was how the price to be paid by the landlord for the tenant right should be determined, and that was to be fixed by the Court. The sale was, therefore, a sale by private agreement, and could not possibly be a sale by auction. An express prohibition against a sale by auction would, therefore, be an absurdity.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not agree with the remark of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Morgan Lloyd); but he did not differ much from what had fallen from the Treasury Bench, because he thought it improbable that any tribunal, with this clause as it now stood, would ascertain the value by auction. On the other hand, he had no doubt whatever that the Court might hold that that was a mode of ascertainment competent to them. He would not press the matter now, but would himself consider it; and if they found anything in the point they would again bring it under the notice of the Committee either at this or a subsequent stage of the Bill. He thought many advantages would be derived by this discussion. He, of course, knew that the Government intended to oppose this; but he would suggest to his hon. Friends who had taken part in the discussion not to put the Committee to the trouble of a division, but to merely ex- 405 press their dissent when the Question was put.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. GIBSONasked leave to propose an Amendment which was not on the Paper. It was to introduce in line 18, before the word "value" the word "genuine." He would not say "genuine" was the proper word to employ; but it was right there should be some word or other put in in order to direct the attention of the Court to the fact that an utterly extravagant value must not be placed upon any holding. He hoped the Government would see no objection to the insertion of the word.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, before "value," to insert the word "genuine."—(Mr. Gibson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'genuine' be there inserted."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the Government could have no objection to the principle of the Amendment; but he confessed he did not like the word "genuine." He would be prepared, on behalf of the Government, to insert the word "true" instead of "genuine."
§ MR. GIBSON"True and genuine."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he could not accept the two words. He never saw the word '' genuine "in an Act of Parliament.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, before the word "value," to insert the word "true."—(Mr. Gibson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'true' be there inserted."
§ MR. WARTONsuggested the employment of the words "true and real." The word "real" was suggested to him by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, who said he had no real objection to the Amendment. He supposed the right hon. and learned Gentleman would make no genuine objection.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLfeared they were embarking upon a sea of troubles. He saw no reason for any change at all. The value of any hold- 406 ing he took to mean the value in the market to a fair and honest purchaser. If the word "true" were inserted, it might be argued that the true value was not what people might give in the market—not what solvent people were ready to give—but the value which someone considered to be the value independent of the market.
§ MR. HENEAGEagreed with the last speaker, and objected to the insertion of any adjective before the world "value," which would be perfectly understood; but if there was to be any alteration, having had some experience in land agency, and in arbitration in respect of land, and as a practical man, therefore, he would suggest that the words should be "fair price."
MR. GORSTobserved, that the objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was that it would make the Bill intelligible, which he (Mr. Gorst) thought the Government did not wish to do. He and others wished to know, though they had up to that time failed to receive an answer from the Government, whether a true, or genuine, or fair value did not mean the value which the tenant right would realize on account of ''land hunger?"
§ MR. LEAsaid, the Amendment trenched very much upon that of which he had given Notice, and if it were accepted it was rather questionable whether the Chairman would not rule his Amendment out of Order. The Prime Minister had said that what he intended by value was the market or the fair price, and other hon. Gentlemen had said what they wanted was a fair market price. The object of the clause was to give the tenant the right to sell the property he had in his holding. They proposed the Court should fix the value of the property, and if they took away from the tenant and gave to the landlord the right to their improvements, they ought to give to the tenant a fair market price. There was a consensus of opinion that if the tenant was to be deprived of the right to sell by auction, the Court ought to be able to give him a fair market price, and if he might do so, he would move that the words inserted should be "fair market value."
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Amendment at present before the Committee was to insert the word "true." When that was disposed of, it would be competent for the hon. Member to move his Amendment.
§ COLONEL BARNEasked whether the Government intended in this clause to include the future value of the land? There was an immense difference between the agricultural and future value of land which might come to be used for building purposes. Did the Government intend that the Court should make the unfortunate landlord pay for the future value of land? The land around towns considerably increased in value in case of an extension of the towns. If Ireland became more prosperous, and her towns grew in size, the land round about them would become far more valuable than at present. He did not think Ireland would become more prosperous if this Bill passed, because there would be no security for money. All he wished to ask the Government was whether they intended to include the future value of land in this clause?
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, it would be well if the Government would give some consideration to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Lea). The word "true" was not an expression commonly used in reference to the markets of Ireland. Surely it would be well to adopt an expression to which some legal value was attached, or some word understood in the districts where the measure would have to take effect. A "fair market value "seemed to him a sensible and reasonable expression, and one which would suggest that the tenant was not to be entitled to a payment to the landlord outside or at the top of the competition price; but that the landlord, on account of his purchasing the interest of the tenant in his holding, should have some little consideration, and should get it at a "fair market value," which would not be outside the competition price. The expression "true" was one to which they were not used in matters of this kind, and the Court would find great difficulty in the matter.
§ MR. CARTWRIGHThoped the Government would not press the adoption of the word "true," because, amongst practical men, it was utterly unintelligible.
MR. CHARLES RUSSELLthought that by this time the Government would see the advisability of sticking to the original text of the clause.
§ MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, they might use whatever adjective they chose; but the Court would thoroughly understand its duties under the Bill as it now stood. In discussing this matter he really believed they were wasting time.
THE CHAIRMANunderstood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland moved it.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) proposed the word "genuine," and he (the Attorney General for Ireland) said he did not like the word, and if the word "true" were suggested he would not object.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he proposed the word "genuine" as a distinct qualifying word to the word "value," qualifying to the extent that it would exclude the extreme cases of pretium affectionis and land hunger. He now stood by the word "true" which he had moved.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 188; Noes 36: Majority 152.—(Div. List, No. 242.)
§ MR. LEA, in rising to move the Amendment standing in his name, said, the tenant ought not to lose by giving the landlord the right of pre-emption. In the clause they were taking away one of the tenant's rights; and, under such circumstances, they ought to give him what he considered the value or the fair market price. He should, therefore, move the insertion of those words in the sub-section.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, to leave out the word "1value," and insert the words "and fair market price."—(Mr. Lea.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'value' stand part of the Clause."
409MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government were taxed very severely in consequence of having departed from the language of the clause as it originally stood. Considering at what a cost of time they conducted all these comparatively small discussions, nothing but the hope of securing great advantages would have induced him to part with the word "value." The word was well known, and was to be found in old Acts of Parliament; but he doubted whether "market price" was to be found anywhere. He hoped the Committee would not countenance long discussions of verbal Amendments, which, if allowed, were likely to consume months of time.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the Irish Members strongly objected to the word "true." They thought it would lead to a great many complications, and they stated their objections. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was aware of those objections, and so long as he was inclined to make concessions to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the Liberal side, the Irish Members would take up a position of benevolent neutrality. He, however, refused to accept the Amendments of his own supporters, but made concessions to hon. Members above the Gangway on the Opposition side, and the Irish Members were opposed to those concessions.
§ MR. LEAsuggested that the Premier should leave in the word "value," and omit the word "price," so that the words would run "true market value."
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLappealed to Her Majesty's Government to devise some plan by which the word "true" could be construed, believing that, otherwise, great difficulty and confusion would be occasioned. Whether they adopted the words "selling value" or "market value," he really would venture to appeal to the Government that, having accepted the word "true," they should go a step further, and tell the Court what they meant by that word.
§ MR. DUCKHAMsaid, that he considered the Government had already made one mistake in introducing the word "true" in this clause. After considerable discussion the word "ascertained" had been accepted, and that, he thought, a very valuable addition to the Bill, because it enabled the Court to take evidence. As to the words "market value," every practical man knew what 410 the meaning of "value" was in the cultivation of the soil, and in investment of capital and labour. Upon these things they could not put a fixed market price; they must ascertain the value, it might be the result of many years of labour and capital, and that could alone be done by taking evidence.
§ MR. BIGGARasked the Government whether the acceptance of the Amendment would make the Bill any worse than it was? He considered it was an exceedingly bad Bill as it stood, and the Government had accepted an Amendment which made it worse than it otherwise would be. The Amendment was a lawyer's Amendment, and would give rise to more legal business. The expression proposed now—namely, "market price," was the one in common use in Ireland. The real intrinsic value was a thing that no one knew; and he would point out that when Amendments of a reasonable character were proposed by their followers it would be as well for the Government to accept them, rather than the Amendments of their opponents.
§ MR. SHAWsaid, that, in his opinion, the Amendment was anything but acceptable; and in proof of that it would only be necessary to remind the Committee that, during the last two years, if the Ulster tenants had been obliged to take a market price for their tenant right, they would have suffered very materially. The "market value" had been down to almost nothing. As a matter of fact, the value depended on 50 things that might occur, and he therefore thought the clause, if amended as proposed, would be singularly misleading, and would fail to satisfy the Irish tenants.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Prime Minister had said that these words did not appear in any Act of Parliament; but he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that "fair market value" was to be found in a clause of the Artizan's Dwellings Act, and under that clause an enormous amount of compensation had been given.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) objected to the word "market" because, he said, the tenant, in bad times, would give less for his farm than it was worth. But did they think that the landlord would be such a fool as to go into the Court to give something more than the 411 market value in such times? What would happen when this Bill came to be interpreted in Court? Why, every two lawyers would have a different opinion about it; and he could assure the Committee that the parties interested would find enough to contend with without having the difficulties increased. If the Amendment were adopted, they would have one standard of true value in one Court, and another in another; and there would not only be differences in the Court of First Instance, but in every case there would be an appeal to ascertain the meaning of the words of the Act.
§ MR. CALLANwished to know, from some legal authority, what was the difference between "value" and "market value?"
§ MR. FINIGANhoped a fair compromise would be come to on this matter. The words "fair market price" were better understood in Ireland than in the House of Commons. What was really wanted in relation to this Bill was the confidence of the people of Ireland; and if they could be taught that, by means of the Bill, they would get a fair market price for their tenant right, they would believe that the measure was really meant for them, and not for the landlords only. He hoped the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Lea) would adhere to his Amendment, and would, if necessary, divide the Committee on it.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 241; Noes 36: Majority 205.—(Div. List, No. 243.)
§ COLONEL BARNEmoved, as an Amendment, to introduce, at the end of the subsection, the words "for agricultural purposes only," and explained that the Amendment would have the effect of preventing a landlord having to pay for the future value which land might have for building purposes near large towns. He thought it could hardly be intended by the Government to make the landlord pay for such future value, and to make that sure he proposed the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 19, after the word "thereof," to insert the words "for agricultural purposes only."—(Colonel Barne.)
§ Question proposed, '' That those words be there inserted."
412MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought the Amendment quite unnecessary, because the whole scope of the Bill was confined to agricultural purposes, and tenant right did not exist, and could not exist, except for agricultural purposes; but, if that were not so, the hon. and gallant Member did not gain by his Amendment the purposes he had in view. His object, he said, was to exclude the future value of land for building purposes; but it was quite possible there might be great change in the future agricultural value of land. It might, for instance, be well worth the while of an occupier to turn land into a market garden. The Amendment would not, therefore, attain the object aimed at, and he hoped it would not be pressed.
§ MR. WARTONwas glad to hear the declaration of the Prime Minister; but he wished to know in what part of the Bill that declaration was borne out. After the experience of 1870, the Committee must not be content with mere assumptions; and in the Interpretation Clause (Clause 44) he found nothing confining the Act to agricultural purposes. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Clause 46.] He did not find what he wanted in Clause 46, and he should like the Premier to point out where he would find it.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. E. W. HARCOURTmoved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 19, after "thereof," to insert the words—
'' And in settling this sum the Court shall have regard to improvements made, either by the landlord or his predecessors in title, or the tenant or his predecessors in title, and to any claims by the landlord against the tenant, or the tenant against the landlord.The hon. Gentleman said, that after the substitution of the word "ascertain" for the word "settled," this Amendment was more necessary than it had previously been. He thought that the consideration of the conditions under which land would be held in Ireland had been very much neglected in considering the interests of the present tenants; and he considered these words necessary to qualify the conditions laid down in the clause. The future tenant ought to be considered as well as the present tenant, and if they added to the difficulties men had in obtaining land in Ireland, they would not improve the cultivation of the 413 land, which must be the ultimate object in view. The improvement of the land was a matter of as much importance as the improvement of the interests of the tenant; and if the Committee wished to improve the condition of Ireland generally, they must also consider the interests of the future tenant. He did not see how the interests of landlords, tenants, and the land were to be separated; and, therefore, he moved this Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 19, after the word "thereof," to insert "and in settling this sum the Court shall have regard to improvements made either by the landlord or his predecessors in title, or the tenant or his predecessors in title, and to any claims by the landlord against the tenant, or the tenant against the landlord."—(Mr. Harcourt.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GLADSTONEobserved, that the interests enumerated by the hon. Member (Mr. Harcourt) had no connection with the value to be ascertained. It was the value of the land which was to be determined by the Court, and in determining that value the Court, of course, must have regard to the tenant's improvements, but not to the other things mentioned. They were all to be saved and provided for, but they would be provided for elsewhere; and while the Amendment brought into consideration the value of things that did not belong to the clause, it excluded the value of the improvements, tenure, security, and the terms the tenant already had or would make under this Bill. He did not think there was any substantial difference of view between himself and the hon. Member; but having regard to the arrangement and construction of the Bill the Amendment would lead to confusion.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he wished to move an Amendment of which he had given Notice, to the same sub-section. He observed that the whole of the clause dealt with the question of free sale, and the first object of his Amendment was to supply what appeared to him to be a great omission in the Bill. The clause gave the tenant the right in all cases to sell his interest for the best price he 414 could obtain. That particular sub-section [31 in the clause was intended, as he understood it, to place some restriction on the unlimited right of free sale. So far, so good. But, the omission of which he complained was that unlike Clause 7, which dealt a fair rent, and in which the most stringent instructions were laid down—instructions not only most stringent, but, as it seemed to him, most hostile, so far as the interests of the landlord were concerned, for ascertaining the fair value—no instructions were laid down, where the interests of the tenant were concerned, for the guidance of the Court in settling what was to be the price to be paid to the tenant for his interest in the holding. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill, stated distinctly—and he (Mr. Chaplin) commended the statement to the attention of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) and others on that side of the House—that if any construction was to be placed on the right to goodwill the tenant right was not in any sense to be an unregulated tenant right; and he proceeded to give some reasons, and excellent reasons they were, for that view. But if that was the fact, it was quite evident that unless this particular sub-section was to be nothing but a farce, it was absolutely necessary to lay down some instructions for the guidance of the Court on that point; otherwise, with the first line of the Bill staring him in the face, by which it was enacted that every tenant was to sell for the best price, he could not conceive how the Court could have any alternative but to take as their standard of the price what the tenant demanded in open market. The House was also told by the same high authority—and the right hon. Gentleman had repeated that statement that evening—that the power left to the Court was the due and proper means of preventing the landlord putting up the rent and trespassing on the rights of the tenants. But there were cases in which this power would not apply at all, or, where it did apply, it would be practically useless. Take the case of an ordinary tenancy; that was where a tenant had not gone into Court, or where the farm was let under its ordinary market value, and the tenant did not wish to go on farming, but to sell his interest in the farm. Under 415 those circumstances, with a farm of that kind, let below its market value, and the competition being keen, if the tenant right was unrestricted, whatever hon. Members might say, it was quite certain, in the present circumstances of Ireland, an extravagant and unreasonable price would be obtained. How was that to be checked? The power of the Court in such a case would not apply. No doubt the Court could check it, if applied to, by raising the rent; but such an application was only to be made by the tenant; the landlord was not allowed to go into Court at all. The object of the tenant in such a case not being to get a fixed rent and to stay, but to pocket a capital sum and go, there was nothing whatever to induce him, but rather the reverse, to go into a Court at all. Then, so far as the power of the Court, by raising the rent, to place a limit on the tenant right was concerned, that ceased to exist. Then there remained the power of the landlord to fix a limit by raising the rent; but the Government had taken care to prevent him from availing himself of that power. What they did in the case of the landlord was this—they gave him a power, nominally, to raise the rent at his discretion; but what they gave to him with one hand they took back with the other, because this power was weighted with pains and penalties of so severe a description that, he ventured to say, not 1 in 100 landlords would avail himself of it. If the landlord raised his rent beyond what the Court might afterwards fix as the fair rent, he would be subject at once to a fine so severe as to amount to ten times the amount by which his rent exceeded the rent fixed by the Court. Therefore, whenever a landlord desired to increase the rent, whether it was a moderate or an immoderate rent, he would be obliged to leave a margin, in order to put himself on the safe side, and so he would not be able to raise the rent to anything like its real and natural value. There was absolutely nothing in the Bill, as at present drawn, which would be any practicable check on an unregulated tenant right; and, in fact, the tenant right in future would be exactly what the right hon. Gentleman had said it ought not to and would not be—namely, an unregulated tenant right in the future. If that were the case, how was it to be checked? By simply 416 laying down instructions for the guidance of the Court in this case in precisely the same way as instructions were laid down for the Court elsewhere. That was all the more necessary in this case, because, although the Committee had been debating the Bill for many nights, they had never yet been able to define what the interest was which the tenant had to sell. He imagined that, in laying down instructions of this kind for the Court, everyone would admit that the tenant was entitled, in the event of leaving his farm, to receive full compensation for the value of improvements effected by himself, and so also it should be in the case of tenant right. Where it had been the custom for considerable sums of money to be paid for the goodwill with the knowledge and consent, and with the privity of the landlord, there he thought the tenant ought to have the right to sell upon the same terms as those upon which he bought or acquired on entering the farm. Further, the power to indiscriminately raise the rent after the tenant right had been purchased by the farmer was a glaring anomaly, and an injustice which the Act of 1870 intended to remedy, and in regard to which he was prepared to act as any Member of the House—not by the means suggested in this Bill, but by means which he believed would be far simpler, though more effective, and which he should be prepared to maintain at the proper time—in giving to the tenant that protection which he believed policy demanded, and to which the tenant was entitled by every consideration of justice and right. That was a very different thing from giving to the tenant something which he had never bought and had never acquired, which he never earned, and to which he had no claim or title whatsoever; which, in reality, belonged to somebody else, and which, notwithstanding all that, was precisely what the present Bill would do if the tenant right was left unregulated, as it now was. He maintained that, after being paid for his improvements and for his tenant right, there was, practically, nothing else for which the tenant was in justice entitled to be paid on leaving the farm. It might be that some undefined right had grown up under the Act of 1870, in consequence of the effect which the Government had said never would 417 arise; but what was that right? It i was to compensate for disturbance for one thing alone, and it was given in the shape of damages for causeless eviction. And where was the causeless eviction in the cases he was talking about? It was in the case in which the tenant left his holding of his own accord; where he desired to go, but where the landlord might desire him to stay. In such a case he was to be entitled to receive damages which, under the Act of 1870, it was said were to be given for causeless eviction alone. Then they were told something about the value of occupancy, and it was said that after the tenant had been paid for his improvements and for his tenant right, he was entitled to sell the value of his occupancy. That was a principle which could not be limited to land or to Ireland. If it was to be applied to land, why should it not also apply to houses? And if in Ireland, why not in England and Scotland, and in every other part of Her Majesty's Dominions? There was only one other consideration he wished to submit. "What the Government were really going to do was this—to extend the Ulster Custom to the rest of Ireland, where no Ulster Custom or any analogous custom existed. They were going to place the man in Ulster, who had paid a large sum for his tenant right on entering, on the same footing as the man in the South of Ireland who had paid absolutely nothing for it. He contended, and he would maintain against all comers, that it was impossible to extend this Ulster Custom, or anything practically like the Ulster Custom, to the rest of Ireland, without making compensation to the landlords, unless they were determined to inflict great injustice upon the landlords; and he must repeat once more what he had said on a former occasion, because the Government had not condescended to notice it, although when he quoted the words of their own Lord Chancellor, he thought they were bound to deal with the facts submitted. With regard to the extension of the Ulster Custom, the Lord Chancellor had said—
The extension of the Ulster Custom to the rest of Ireland.… does appear a manifest violation of the principles of justice, and to be impossible if we mean to respect those principles.And, further, he said— 418When you talk of extending that custom to other parts of Ireland.…if you give in such a case to the tenant the value of the custom existing elsewhere, you would be just taking so much from the landlord and giving it to the tenant."—[3 Hansard, cxcix. 1666–7.]He desired to ask the Prime Minister two questions—first, in what respect did that Bill differ from an extension of the Ulster Custom to the rest of Ireland? and, secondly, if he was right in saying that it did so, what had occurred since 1870 to make that which the Lord Chancellor said 10 years ago was a manifest violation of the principles of justice, compatible with those principles in the year 1881? He thought those were questions which ought to be met and fairly answered by the Government, if they wished to make fair and real progress with the Bill. His Amendment was not directed in any way to the principle of the Bill. The principle, or one of the principles of the Bill, on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was an unregulated tenant right, and it was in order that there might be some real regulation of the tenant right that he moved this Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 19, after the word "thereof," to add the words "Provided, That in the case of a holding not subject to the Ulster tenant right custom or any usage corresponding therewith, the price thereof settled by the court shall in no case exceed the value of the improvements, if any, effected on the holding by the tenant or his predecessors, in respect of which the tenant quitting his farm would be entitled to compensation under the provisions of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' added to the sum, if any, for which the tenancy was purchased by the tenant or any of his predecessors in title: Provided, That the tenant shall not receive compensation in respect of improvements included in the sum paid for the purchase of the tenancy by the tenant or his predecessors in title."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. GLADSTONEI must take the liberty of saying that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin)—I do not think purposely—invites us by his Amendment completely to destroy the effect of the principal enactment of this clause which we have considered. That enactment requires the Court to consider the true value of the tenant's interest; but the hon. Member now asks us not to provide that the Court shall not ascertain the true value at all, 419 but something which has nothing to do with the true value—namely, what the tenant had paid on entry to his farm. "What has the sum which the tenant paid on entering to do with the amount which he ought to receive on leaving his farm and selling his tenant right? "What, in other words, has the amount which the tenant paid on entering to do with the true value of his holding at the time at which he leaves it? The tenant in possession might, from any reason best known to himself, have paid a great deal too much for his holding. The transaction may have been clandestine; and I ask why should the landlord, in exercising his right of pre-emption, be bound to pay to the outgoing tenant a sum of money which he had foolishly and unreasonably paid?
§ MR. CHAPLIN, rising to a point of Order, said, the landlord was not bound to do that. The amount to be paid was left to the discretion of the Court, within certain limits.
MR. GLADSTONEThen the hon. Member says you are going to provide a maximum; but I do not think that explanation either alters or amends the matter; because, as I understand him, his view is that if a tenant paid £100 a-year for his holding, and it is now worth double the sum, he is only to be entitled to receive half the amount which he paid in the event of the tenant right only being held to be worth that sum at the time of the transfer of tenancy. This, certainly, is a great departure from the principle of equity which the hon. Member says he wishes to observe. It seems to me that the hon. Member is proceeding on a basis entirely different from that of ascertaining the true value of the holding. The hon. Member says we are proposing to make an unregulated and unrestricted tenant right; but that is not so. Extravagant values and fancy prices are to be set aside by the judgment and in the discretion of the Court, on investigation of ascertained facts laid before it. What, then, is it that we have to consider? It has been admitted on all hands, and thoroughly understood, that the Court is to have regard to the main facts of each case, and that the price to be fixed is that which could be reasonably obtained for the tenant right.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he had in his speech referred only to cases in which 420 the power of the Court would not apply in regard to the question of raising values and prices to be paid on changes of tenure.
MR. GLADSTONEI am not speaking on that point at all, but in reference to a matter entirely different, and having regard simply to the raising of the rents. The question which the hon. Member has raised is one which, in my view, cannot profitably be raised at the present moment. I believe the Bill will place a most efficient power in the hands of the landlords for their own protection; but I am not arguing that point now, because it is not essential to our present purpose. All I am now arguing is that the Court is to have regard to value as tested by facts—by the prices which competent and reasonable purchasers were ready to give—and in this respect I am not speaking on my own authority alone. I may be permitted to quote the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who said he was perfectly willing that the tenant right should be so regulated as that it should correspond with the true and genuine market value of the holding. This suggestion of the right hon. and learned Member laid down a basis of action for the Court from which we are now asked entirely to depart, although the Committee have adopted that basis. I have already shown, I think, how strange is the proposal of the hon. Member. It amounts to this—that if a tenant on taking a holding has paid too much for it, he must suffer in consequence; but if he has made improvements in his holding, he is not to be entitled to reap any advantage from the money which he has expended. This is a proposal which is commended to us in the name of equity and justice. And now let me try and make good my statement that the basis laid down by the hon. Member in no way corresponds with what the tenants ought in justice to pay or to receive. He says that the tenant may receive any sum which is within the actual value of his improvements, and also within the sum which he has paid for the tenant right. With regard to improvements, our objection to the proposal of the hon. Member is that it would limit the signification of "improvements" to those mentioned in the Land Act of 1870; but it has never been concealed that, in 421 the view of all the supporters of this Bill, the word "improvements" had a wider scope than, that which was accorded to it by the Act which I have mentioned. All these form part of the subject-matter involved in the present Bill. We have endeavoured to press upon the Committee our conviction that there is another element in the question of tenant right, over and above the value of improvements, and that is the value of tenure. The hon. Member has referred to the compensation for disturbance given by the Act of 1870; but I would like to ask what has been the effect of that provision as far as compensation for disturbance is concerned? The effect has been that the tenant who was in possession of a means of livelihood, for which other people were willing to pay a price, could not be dislodged without payment for his right. There can be no damage to the landlord by reason of the fact that the tenant has received such compensation. If the landlord put his tenant out, he would have to pay the compensation; and therefore I cannot see why if a tenant wished to go away he should, while taking no single farthing from his landlord, not get, with respect to tenure and improvements, as much as a rational and moderate purchaser was willing to give. Another element in the question of tenure is the duration of tenancy and the prevention of arbitrary action. There are other incidents in connection with the matter which do not in my view arise in this particular branch of the subject, and I shall not, therefore, attempt to deal with them. The basis of the Amendment is totally different from our views, in that we wish to recognize tenant right as an interest founded on certain matters of fact. We cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, because it is based upon principles entirely contrary to those on which the Bill is based.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken seemed to have forgotten a debate which occurred a short time back, in the course of which he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) moved an Amendment, the effect of which, if carried, would have been to define what the tenant had to sell. That was, in reality, the point of difference between those who supported and those who opposed the Bill. 422 When he raised that point in the former debate, he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to say that was not the proper moment at which the question ought to be raised.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken as to what he said on the occasion referred to. What he then contended for and now maintained was, that the value of the improvements and the incidence of what the tenant would have to sell would depend upon the provisions of the Bill, and that it was impossible at the moment to enumerate them.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS, continuing, said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in making the statement to which he had referred, invited him to defer the observations he wished to make on this particular question until the Interpretation Clause of the Bill was reached. Now, however, there had been raised a precisely similar question, and the right hon. Gentleman said it had been raised too late. It would not be possible for the Committee to make any progress, unless the clause was so arranged as that the Committee and the House generally could know what it was that the Court had to value. What, he wished to ask, was it that the tenant had to sell—was it the undefined something which had been spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), and which was now spoken of as the right of occupancy fortified against disturbance by the Land Act of 1870? The statement which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman showed that the Committee was never likely to come to a proper understanding until a full and sufficient explanation had been given on this point. He would, with the permission of the Committee, put a case. Let them take, as an instance, demesne lands which had never been let at all. A landlord, since the passing of the Act of 1870, had a farm to let, and a tenant wishing to occupy it says that he cannot afford to pay more than £100 a-year, fortified against disturbance by the Act of 1870. In that case, the tenant could have nothing to sell except the value of the improvements he had made, the tenancy being from year to year. If there was anything else, he ought to have paid a higher rent in the first instance. An 423 incoming tenant could afford to pay no more than an outgoing tenant; and, in these circumstances, the outgoing tenant would have nothing more to sell than the value of the improvements which he had made in his holding. Now, however, the right hon. Gentleman said the tenant had not only this but a great deal more to sell—namely, that which the incoming tenant, owing to the land hunger which existed in Ireland, was willing to give in addition to that which the outgoing tenant said at the outset he could afford to pay as the rent of his farm. Therefore, he held that what the incoming tenant could afford to or was willing to give belonged to the landlord, and to no one else. This was an old question, and the sooner it was settled the better it would be for everyone concerned.
§ MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he did not think it was wise to drive the Committee again into a discussion of what tenant right really meant. He thought it would save a great deal of time if hon. Members could get into their minds some notion of what they were doing. When he brought in the Bill the Prime Minister expressed the opinion that it would not be fair to give to tenants legislative rights without at the same time empowering landlords with the means of securing their own just interests. These words were clear and precise; but he (Mr. W. Fowler) could not see how they applied to cases—not infrequent in Ireland—where the lands had been habitually under-rented, and where the improvements on the land had been made by the landlord himself. The Prime Minister had stated that in cases of the kind the landlord had the remedy in his own hands by raising his rents; but this he feared would be an awkward remedy to adopt. The tenant whose rent was raised would not understand the subtleties contained in the Bill as it now appeared before the Committee, and would think that he was being deprived of the tenant right which the measure proposed to confer on him.
THE CHAIRMANpointed out to the hon. Member that he was travelling beyond the question which had been raised by the Amendment before the Committee.
§ MR. W. FOWLERsaid, that if the ruling of the Chairman, to which he bowed, was right, other hon. and right 424 hon. Members had gone equally wrong-in discussing the Amendment.
§ MR. CHAPLINasked, whether the Prime Minister had not said that the landlords had the power of checking the tenants' right of sale by raising their rents?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had referred to the question mentioned by the hon. Member, and was under the impression that in a single sentence he had disposed of a quarter of an hour of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the single sentence of the right hon. Gentleman, was, in his view, used rather in the way of illustration than as part of a general discussion of the question before the Committee.
§ MR. CHAPLIN, rising to explain, said, he had not referred to anything which the Prime Minister had said in. reply to his argument. The statement to which he had just referred was made in an earlier part of the debate.
§ MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he had no wish to impede the progress of the Bill, and would not therefore proceed further with the line of argument which he had taken. He must say, however, that he could not help thinking a great amount of time would be saved by a fuller explanation on the part of the Government. At present it seemed to him that one of the main principles of the Bill was that the tenant right was the joint property of the landlords and the tenants. The question therefore was, whether the tenant had anything, and if so what, to sell; and he hoped also that careful consideration would be given to the question of under-rented farms in Ireland.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister found fault with the Amendment, because it rigidly confined the improvements, the value of which the Court had to ascertain, to the definition of improvements under the Act of 1870; and he added, at the same time, that there were improvements, other than those defined by that Act, which the tenant had to sell. That was a remarkable statement to come from the Prime Minister at that stage of the Bill, and he (Lord Randolph Churchill) should be glad if the Government would inform the Committee what could possibly be the value of the improvements made by 425 the tenant other than those specified by the Act of 1870. According to that Act, improvements were such works as added to the letting value of the holding. That was perfectly clear; but the right hon. Gentleman had adopted an extraordinary construction of the phrase put forward by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy), who included amongst the improvements the value of the tenant's right arm. Now, it seemed to him that this meant nothing more nor less than the ordinary cultivation of the farm—sowing and reaping, and what manure might be necessary. But how could that be recognized as improvements which could be sold and taken into account by the Court as affecting the value of the tenancy? Upon that point, therefore, he asked for further information. It had been pointed out that the improvements were not defined in the Bill—that everything was defined but the improvements. The reason for this was that the Bill was to be read with the Act of 1870, the improvements defined in that Act being the improvements contemplated under this Bill. But the Prime Minister, although he had a greater knowledge of the matter than anyone in the House, said there was something besides improvements—the value of the tenant's right arm; or, in other words, the ordinary obligations which he had contracted with the landlord to perform. Did the Government think that the definition of the Act of 1871 would not be regarded by the Court; that the Court would go beyond it, and take into account as improvements the ordinary operations of agriculture which the tenant had contracted to perform, and by the non-performance of which he would forfeit his tenancy? That was a point of so much importance that it required further illustration.
MR. H.R. BRANDremarked, that if the Committee were to engage, at this stage of the Bill, in discussions which were more relevant to Clause 7, it would never be finished. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had put the case of a man who had taken a farm subsequent to the passing of the Act of 1870, and asked what it was he would have to sell? To this, he answered he had to sell his right of undisturbed possession. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln- 426 shire (Mr. Chaplin) was contrary to the principle of the Bill; and not only so, but contrary to the principle of the clause, that—
The tenant for the time being of every holding to which this Act applies may sell his tenancy for the best price that can be got foi the same;which had been passed by the Committee. By the Amendment the tenant's interest might be entirely absorbed under cover of the landlord's right of preemption. He wanted to know how any distinction could be drawn between the value of a farm, when sold to a third person, and the value of it when the landlord exercised his right of preemption? All these attempts to prevent a man giving, under competition, a certain value for the possession of a farm were useless." But what it was necessary to provide against was that the mere competition value for the possession of a farm exclusive of the value of the tenant's improvements should be considered as a factor in determining the rent of the landlord. He asked the Committee to bear in mind the words of the Prime Minister when he said this would have nothing to do with the value of the rent. When Clause 7 was reached it would be found that a great deal of time had been wasted in discussing this point.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEThe hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) says we are discussing what ought to be discussed on Clause 7. But I must remind him that Her Majesty's Government have been asked whether they have not certain Amendments to propose to that clause, and that the Prime Minister stated that before they could decide as to Clause 7, they wished to know what we were going to do with Clause 1.
MR. GLADSTONENot quite that. I said I thought we should be much better able to open the question of Clause 7 when Clause 1 was disposed of.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEThat, of course, may be a difference as far as the Government are concerned; but, as far as the House is concerned, we shall be very much in the dark as to what is open with respect to Clause 7 as long as Clause 1 remains undisposed of. This question of the "something" which the tenant has to sell is continually presenting itself. I understand that everybody agrees that the tenant ought to be com- 427 pensated for improvements which he effects, and that he ought to be repaid what he has given for the tenant right; but with regard to the "something" which is beyond that, we really stand in need of a definition. It does not follow that because the tenant has a right to undisturbed possession that, therefore, he has a right to sell that possession. That is always assumed, but it does not follow. Take the common case of a landlord having a farm to let, and of two persons presenting themselves as tenants. One is willing to give £100 and the other £150 a-year. The landlord, on various grounds, might think it better to let it to the person who offered £100 than to him who offered £150. It does not follow that because he has let the farm for £100 the tenant has the right the next day or year to sell the property which has been let to him, perhaps, because he is a good tenant, to somebody else, and pocket the difference which the landlord has for good reasons refused to take. If the raising of the rent is suggested as a remedy, that brings about exactly the condition of things which we complain of. The difficulty has been the raising of the rent; and if that is objectionable, clearly the raising of the rent is not a remedy. We want a definition that will give us a tangible idea of what this "something" is which the tenant may sell; and if it be the case that we have spent a considerable time over Clause 1, I cannot think the Committee are to blame for asking for that full explanation which they are entitled to.
MR. CHARLES RUSSELLhoped the time expended upon this Amendment had not been wasted. He would endeavour to answer the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman in a few words, and would ask to be allowed to put a case which was possibly not in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. Assuming the Act of 1870 had not been passed, what was the position of a tenant holding from year to year? He had, in point of law, a recognized estate in the land, and one which, as far as legal recognition went, was as high an estate as one for a term of years; he had the right of disposing of it. This was a right in law incident to the estate he had. It was perfectly true that this right was cut down by custom, and sometimes by express agreement; but in the 428 much greater number of cases it was left to the ordinary legal incidents which attached to it. He ventured to say, subject to correction, that the tenant in such a position had, apart from the Act of 1870, a disposable interest in his holding. The Act of 1870 had made that disposable interest more secure, because it had put upon the landlord a penalty which rendered it less likely that he would disturb the tenant. That being so, what did the present Bill propose? It provided, in the 1st clause, merely to recognize that which was the legal estate of the tenant in the land. Then came the case of the demesne land let a £100 a-year. If that sum represented the outside value of that particular demesne land, the estate and interest of the tenant was something very small. Still it existed, and the measure of its value was that which somebody else was willing to pay for it. The real effect of the Amendment would be to exclude from the consideration of what was the tenant's interest that which had been called the goodwill. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin) had quoted a high authority with regard to the extension of the Ulster tenant right. He (Mr. Charles Russell) should very much like to see the context in which that language was used. But he would venture to say that the same principle of justice which gave to the "Ulster tenant his tenant right existed all over Ireland. That however, was not the point. They were dealing with tenants from year to year with certain legal incidents attaching to their tenancies, including the reasonable expectation of continuing in their tenancies. That right was recognized by the Act of 1870, and that right he conceived it to be the object of this Amendment to cut down.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONdid not think the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee (Mr. Charles Russell) did not properly estimate the motives which had induced hon. Members on that side of the House to place on the Paper Amendments to Clause 1. He had no objection what ever to the tenant selling his interest; but he objected to his selling that which the Bill deliberately pointed out did not belong to him. The Prime Minister and the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland stated, over and over again, that a man could not sell 429 that which was not in him, and yet the Bill contemplated the sale by the tenant of the improvements of the landlord as well as the sale of the difference between the rent imposed and the statutory rent which he might get. It was true that, after he had sold, he was to return the landlord's portion. But to say to a man—"Whatever you sell must belong to you; you are to sell something or other, but if, after you sell it, you find that a certain portion belongs to somebody else, you are to refund it"—was not that, he asked, to sow the seeds of future agitation in Ireland? The argument of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, that he could not sell what was not in him, would be set at nought by the tenant, who would at once say—" It is robbery to prevent my keeping what I have sold." He wished to point out a great difficulty that would arise if this unlimited tenant right were allowed. There would, perhaps, for the next two or three years be fancy prices given for holdings. The only thing which kept up their price was the limited number of farms which came into the market. If, therefore, any large number were offered for sale, it was absolutely certain that the tenant right would diminish in value, and then every tenant who had paid money for his tenancy would say he could not get his money back, because the rents were too high. That had been the case before, and would be so again. Further, if you gave the tenant the right of selling that which this Bill declared did not belong to him, while, at the same time, it was said that the only protection for the landlord was that he could raise the rent, would not that compel landlords to apply to the Court to have their rents raised, whether they wished it or not? For these reasons he should support the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), if he went to a division.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, the Court would decide what were the improvements of the landlord, and what was the value of the tenancy, after having before it evidence as to the improvements of the landlord. With respect to the test case put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who asked what the tenant of demesne land let at £100 a-year had to sell, he (Mr. Synan) ventured to say that if he had contracted 430 himself out of the Act of 1870, he had nothing to sell; if not, he had an assignable interest. He was also in the position of having an insurance under the Compensation for Disturbance Clause, which insurance was of some value; and, therefore, under the Act of 1870, he had a valuable interest, independent of occupation. With respect to the question of improvements raised by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), he pointed out that the Committee had not to decide upon improvements. They would be decided upon by the Court, as provided by the Bill. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) that they were discussing upon Clause 1 a point which belonged to Clause 7. It was, therefore, not the time to discuss this Amendment; and until Clause 7 was reached the interest of the tenant could not be exactly defined.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked if the Prime Minister wished the Committee to understand that it was the intention of the Government that the definition of improvements contained in the Act of 1870 was no longer to be regarded by the Court as defining the improvements which they were to take into consideration?
§ MR. WARTONsaid, if the Government wished to save time, the best way to secure that result would be for them to say what it was the tenant had to sell. The Committee were treated, almost every day, to fresh and always enlarged definitions in connection with that subject. The Committee should remember that there had been an agitation in Ireland extending over a long period, and directed towards making the tiller of the soil the owner thereof. That, he said, was the plain, straightforward object of certain Members of the House; and when the Premier descended to make use of the expression "the right arm of the tenant," he was, in plain words, pandering to that object.
THE CHAIRMANI must point out to the hon. Member that he is travelling beyond the Amendment before the Committee.
§ MR. WARTON, continuing, said, the Premier had laid down that evening his last, and therefore his largest, definition, of what it was that the tenant had to sell. The right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) 431 had put the case clearly and plainly when he asked the Committee to consider what on earth the tenant had to sell when, holding a farm of the value of £100 a-year, he paid just £100 a-year for it. What was it that he had to sell? The Premier said "the right of occupancy." But, supposing the bargain to be an equal one between the landlord and the tenant, had not the landlord some right also—the right to have a tenant? Was not that an equally valuable property with the right of occupancy? Those hon. Members who were landlords knew perfectly well how hard it was to have land unlet. If the tenant was to be compensated for his right of occupancy, why was the landlord to have no compensation for his unlet land? The Premier had at last taken refuge in the phrase—'' He has got the value of his tenure." But the value of the tenure where the rent was fair was exactly nothing; and the object of the Government was to say, in one voice, to those who had brought on this agitation—"We will give you something," and, in another voice, to other people—" We will make some excuse, pretending to sell some right, while we know perfectly well that no such right exists."
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he had no desire to be unreasonable in prolonging the discussion on that, or on any other Amendment; but he thought the Members of the Government were unreasonable in the course they were taking. Two or three speeches had been made from the Opposition Benches, propounding propositions which it was desirable that they should understand before a division was taken, and they had only been answered by an excellent aide-de-camp of the Government below the Gangway—he referred to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell)—who, however, had not met the case put by the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). All this really arose from the reticence of the Government as to the real meaning of what was to be given to the tenants of Ireland. If they would only explain, the Committee might be clear in dealing with the matter. It had been objected that they were discussing on the 1st clause of the Bill a question which would properly arise on the 7th, and that objection applied not merely to 432 the particular Amendment now before the Committee. But when they came to the discussion of the 7th clause, it would be said, if the 1st clause was allowed to be passed in its present form, '' Oh, you have already disposed of the matter!" ["Hear, hear!"] No answer of any kind had been given from the Treasury Bench to the question put by the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire. It had been suggested by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Synan), who apparently did not understand the proposition put before the Committee, that the tenant who had taken his holding under the Act of 1870 had already got and was entitled to sell that for interest in his tenancy which arose from a right to compensation for disturbance. But the question put to the Government was this. Assume a case in which a tenant had come in and had paid a rent calculated upon a right to compensation for disturbance—that was to say, a rent which would have been excessive if no such right of compensation for disturbance had existed. It was clear that the tenant who came in upon those terms had nothing to sell, except the value of the improvements he had made. If he had anything more, it should be specified in the 1st clause, or otherwise the consequence would follow which had been pointed out by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph. Churchill)—that by the 1st part of the Bill they authorized the tenant to sell something which did not belong to him, in order that in a subsequent clause they might restore that part which did not belong to him to the person to whom it rightly did belong.
§ MR. HICKSsaid, he had never before troubled the Committee with one observation during the whole of the debates on this question. He had listened now for an hour to the debate on this Amendment; but, with the exception of the speech of the Prime Minister, he had not heard one word from the Treasury Bench. As an independent Member, he protested against this mode of conducting debates. They were told of Obstruction; but he maintained that the Obstruction came from the Treasury Bench. If the Government wished to pass this, or indeed any Bill, and to have the support of independent Members, they must give clear explanations 433 of the views and objects at which those measures aimed. The Government had been asked a plain question; but for more than an hour the Committee had failed to get an answer from the Treasury Bench. And yet the question, though important, was surely simple and easy to answer if the Government really knew the objects of their own Bill. The question was this. If the owner of the land let a farm at a fair rent to a tenant to-day for £100 a-year, and that tenant, from any cause whatever, changed his mind to-morrow morning, and did not wish to become a farmer, what could he possibly have to sell? Surely the landlord had as great a right to choose his tenant as the tenant had to choose his landlord. In letting a farm, he (Mr. Hicks) did not necessarily want to let it to the highest bidder, but to the tenant who would cultivate it in the best manner, and be of use and benefit to the land and to the neighbourhood in which he lived. It was no answer to him to say that the tenant should have a right to let it to somebody else, and put the money in his pocket, and be of no use whatever. A plain question had been put to the Government by the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) and by the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition; but to that question no answer had teen given, and until an answer was given, he hoped the Committee would not divide upon the subject.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL(who spoke amid some manifestations of impatience) thought the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Hicks) had a great deal of right on his side. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) was aware that, in the opinion of the Government, any question which did not emanate from ex-Cabinet Ministers, but which happened to come from unofficial Members of the Opposition, were not of themselves entitled to an answer. [" Oh, oh ! "] That was the view of the Government; and whenever any questions put by persons other than ex-Cabinet Ministers did receive replies, that was to be regarded as a merciful dispensation, which they were not to look for as a habit. [Cries of'' Question ! "] That was very much to the Question. Two questions had been put to the Government that evening by independent Members of the Conservative Party, and to 434 neither had the Government condescended to give an answer. It must be remembered that the Conservative Party, so far as he (Lord Randolph Churchill) could judge, had conducted the discussion on this Bill with the greatest possible fairness and consideration for the Government. [" Oh, oh!"] He did not think any impartial man would deny that fact. All their speeches had been to the point, and had been marked by brevity, which was more than he could say for the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They knew the complications of this Bill, and its great length, and the number of Amendments put down, and in every way in which fair Parliamentary treatment could be given they had given it. He felt that Members on both sides would not be disposed to deny that. The Bill was a matter of great complication, and points would arise from time to time which required elucidation from the Government. The Prime Minister himself had a manner of answering speeches made upon Amendments which in itself raised a whole cloud and host of new points. That had been illustrated most remarkably to-night. But when questions were put to the right hon. Gentleman upon his own speech, he wrapped himself up in disdainful silence, and his Colleagues on the Treasury Bench were not allowed to say a word. ["Oh, oh!"] The Committee were asked to go to a division completely in the dark. ["No, no!"] Well, he would not say "the Committee," he would say "hon. Members on the Opposition side," for they did not pretend to the superior wisdom which illuminated the other side of the House. Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches were asked to go to a division while wholly and completely in the dark as to a most important point, which the Prime Minister had raised in his speeches; and although questions had been put by three or four Members of the Opposition, they had been treated with the utmost disdain. He wished to appeal to the Government, and to point out that they could not make that progress with the Bill which would be satisfactory, if that course were pursued. He could not account for their obstinate and, he must say, extremely rude silence—["Question!" and "Order!"]—for it was neither more nor leas than 435 discourteous, considering the treatment they had received. Considering their marked discourtesy—
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI beg to move, Sir, that you do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
MR. GLADSTONEI do not know whether the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) is serious in making that Motion. The questions which he complains we have not answered are not, as it appears to me, now before us. What constitutes tenant's improvements is a matter which will come on for discussion in a later portion of the Bill; and, considering the detail to which these matters run, it appears to me, I confess, quite enough to say, in answer to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), that we place a wider construction upon the word "improvement" than is given to it by the terms of the Act of 1870. Then the noble Lord invites me to say in what respect we place this wider construction, and, thereby, completely to draw us off from the point under consideration, and into another matter which will come on for regular discussion at a later part of the Bill. When we come to determine the question of improvements, then will be the time for considering whether we are right in our definition of the terms, or whether the hon. Member is right. If the noble Lord is anxious to know more on that subject, I would refer him to the 23rd page of the Report of the Bessborough Commission of Inquiry, where he will find set out the particulars in which the definition of the Act of 1870 falls short.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he quite acquitted the Government of any intentional discourtesy. He thought that when they did not reply to those who sat opposite to them, it was from no want of courtesy or good manners, but because they were quite unable to answer. The Prime Minister had been somewhat hard on his noble Friend. ["Oh, oh!"] 436 Hon. Members should recollect that one of the main grounds of objection which the right hon. Gentlemam took to his (Mr. Chaplin's) Amendment was that the improvements for which he (Mr. Chaplin) was prepared to give compensation were improvements mentioned in the Act of 1870, and, so far as he could tell with the Bill before him, he understood that they were the improvements contemplated in the present Bill, because among the Definition Clauses were these words—
Any words or expressions in this Act which are not hereby defined, and are defined in the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, shall, unless there is something in the context of this Act repugnant thereto, have the same meaning as in the last named Act.He thought that hon. Members on the Opposition Benches were met with less than justice when, after they complained that the tenant right as laid down in this clause was not restricted, and that there would be an unregulated tenant right, they were told on high authority that the proper means of restricting the tenant right was by the landlord or the Court. For they were also told that those powers were practically useless. They were told, "Oh, you must not discuss the question of rent now;" even though the question had been raised by the Government themselves. This was the treatment they had received all along; it was always the same story. It was either "too early," or "too late," whenever a question was raised which the Government could not, or dared not, answer.
§ MR. T. COLLINSexpressed a hope that the Motion now before the Committee would not be pressed to a division, seeing that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had obtained the information he asked for.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEbelieved he had studied that question of tenant right longer than any hon. Member in that House. The Prime Minister had said that this Bill would create a right in the tenant. What the Members of the Opposition wished to know was what that right would be. They wanted to know what would be its value, because the right hon. Gentleman said it was to have a value. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, refused to describe, in the slightest degree, the extent of the right, or the value attaching to it. That, 437 at all events, was the impression which prevailed upon the Opposition Benches.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, there was another question which he wished to put to the Government, and he would take that opportunity of putting it, because it was as important as any the Committee had had before them, that evening, and it was regarded with great interest out-of-doors, as well as by a large section of that House. What were the intentions of the Government with regard to the position and progress of the Bill? Here they were at the end of the first night after the Whitsuntide Recess, two months after the Bill had been brought in, and they had not yet reached the 20th line. There were hundreds of Amendments on the Paper, and the course of proceedings indicated that the threat which was uttered during the debate on the second reading of the Bill would be carried out—the threat that the Bill would meet with prolonged, severe, and bitter opposition. These threats, it seemed, had not been vainly used. At the present time, Ireland was in a most critical position. [Mr. WARTON: By whose fault?] No one could shut his eyes to the fact that a large portion of the Irish people were in avowed antagonism to the law, and there was but a short distance between avowed antagonism and open conflict. This was not the time to trifle with the question. The people of Ireland were in this position—that the Government were employing 50,000 armed men to carry out a law which the responsible Government of the Crown, and an overwhelming majority of that House, had declared to be unjust, and a law which ought to be repealed; and the Government could not on any principle of justice or fairness allow these cruel evictions to be carried on for three, or five, or six months, as would have to be the case if this sort of textual revision of the Bill was allowed to go on for an indefinite period. There was also another thing which he wished to ask. When the Government early this Session found it necessary to bring in a measure of coercion, they invited the House to put every other Business on one side, and to proceed with the Bill de die in diem. Again and again the House did sit through the night, and once they sat for 41 hours at a stretch, so that there should be no delay. He asked the Government now 438 to put their foot down upon the Bill. The House of Commons should do one of two things—it should either turn out the Government, or pass the Bill. He felt that this question was being trifled with now. There had been trifling this evening—repeating second reading speeches—and he thought Her Majesty's Government should now tell those who were prepared to support them, and should also tell the country, which was eagerly watching the conduct of the House, what course they meant to take in the face of threatened Obstruction compared with which all that they had endured from the Irish Members paled into insignificance.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI do not know with what object or expectation of advantage the remarks which we have just listened to have been made. If the Government have anything to say on the question raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), we shall be glad to hear what that something may be; but with regard to the course which we have taken, both on former occasions and more especially to-night, I say that we have taken and are taking the course which we are bound to take. We do not admit that hon. Gentlemen opposite have a monopoly of patriotism in this matter, or of a desire to do that which is for the good and pacification of Ireland. But to pass this or any other Bill without proper explanation and a proper understanding of what it contains, is not the way to pacify Ireland. It would only lead to future misleading and difficulty, and we should be failing in our duty if we did not take all proper and legitimate methods of endeavouring to extract from the Government proper explanations as to those points which appear to be uncertain and to require consideration. As to the discussions which have taken place to-night, no one who has attended to them can fairly say that there has been anything in the nature of deliberate obstruction or waste of time. We have been asked to consider a Bill which has never been properly explained; and, at the beginning of the evening, the Government themselves, by the significant change of a single word in the Bill, have caused a great deal of discussion. When they chose, after deliberately proposing that the words should run thus—"Or, in the event of disagreement, the ques- 439 tion may be settled by the Court," to change the word "settled" into "ascertained," it was perfectly obvious that they had a meaning in that change, and it is owing to the change they have thus made that a great deal of discussion has been provoked. It is absolutely necessary that we should challenge and criticize every word of an important Bill like this, which is to be the law of the country for a considerable time, especially when we consider that by misleadings, from whatever cause they may have been, the Act of 1870, passed under the auspices of a Government related to the present, failed to carry out the intentions with which Parliament passed it. We do not want to have the same thing happen over again. If we are at times a little too pressing in asking questions, I think we should be better met by frank and ready answers. I hope the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) will not press this Motion for reporting Progress to a division; but we do wish to have it clearly understood that we shall think it our duty, whatever may be the opinion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, to discuss this Bill, and to endeavour to settle it in a manner which will make it a fair and reasonable settlement of a great and important question. I can quite understand that my noble Friend the Member for Woodstock has good cause to complain that his question has not been answered, and yet I hope he will not persevere with the Motion he has made.
MR. GLADSTONESir, it is but natural that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) should, in estimating the reasons for the exceedingly slow progress we are making—although the urgency of considerations pressing from outside would seem to call for more rapid progress—it is quite natural that he should lay the whole blame of this on the manner in which the Government have failed to explain their views in regard to this Bill. But we have used our best exertions to explain; and I may venture to say that the accusations coming from the opposite side have been absolutely contradictory and destructive of one another. Those who have listened to-night will find that, in many instances, including that of the right hon. Gentleman himself, they have been accusations of an obstinate reti- 440 cence and the avoidance of discussion of topics raised by the Bill. The other half of our accusers have said, and have, I think, said with an equal amount of truth and accuracy, that we have given half-a-dozen explanations of every important point, each explanation differing from the others. That would seem to indicate an officious zeal, on our part, carried to an unwholesome excess. I shall avoid accusations of the kind. I have considerably more interest and responsibility with regard to the progress of this Bill, and with regard to what is taking place out-of-doors, than have right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I admit fully their duty to canvass and examine the Bill with care, and even with jealousy, and I make no charge against anyone. I think, however, it is my duty to say with reference to what has fallen from my hon. Friend (Mr. H.H. Fowler), that I believe the sentiment he has given utterance to—namely, of great interest, of great anxiety, and of some dissatisfaction—is a sentiment rather widely spread throughout the country. I carefully avoid making any charge against anyone; but I do not accept the liberal manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has charged the whole blame upon Her Majesty's Government on account of obstinate reticence. But it is our duty to lay to heart the very grave considerations that have been raised by this controversy; and my hon. Friend may depend upon it that, from day to day, they are never absent from our minds. We wish to feel the ground under our feet a little more closely, a little more surely, before we arrive at any decision; but our intentions and our convictions with regard to the necessity of bringing this Bill forward, and, if possible, of obtaining to it the assent of the Legislature are, if I may say so, stronger than ever. There are no legitimate means that we can use that we shall hesitate to employ with the view of attaining that end. We shall not hesitate to make such requests as the urgency of the circumstances may appear to require, in case we should find that the rate of progress continues to be such as to make it hopeless to deal with the Bill within the limits ordinarily accorded to such discussion. We have thought it right to allow considerable time to elapse before arriving at any conclusion regarding the making of a further demand 441 upon the time of the House, because we think it right to consider that although we are only still in the 1st clause, and in the early part of the 1st clause, after we have been five or six nights in Committee, yet it is natural to expect that on a subject of this kind many hon. Gentlemen who were so unfortunate as not to secure a hearing during the debates on the second reading, should, more or less, seek the opportunity for the discharge of accumulated thought when occasion offers in Committee. Besides that, there have been many subjects of great importance affecting the character and substance of the Bill that have received material elucidation. We have also affirmed one of the most important of all the principles of the Bill in the apparently slight progress we have already made. We wish, therefore, to avoid a premature conclusion, and, above all, to avoid reflections upon anyone; but we shall continue to watch from day to day the course of circumstances, and we shall not shrink from any duty that the future may seem to impose on us.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 244: Majority 99.—(Div. List, No. 244.)
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)—put, and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.