ORDINARY CONDITIONS OF TENANCIES.

HC Deb 14 June 1881 vol 262 cc473-524

Clause 1 (Sale of tenancies).

SIR ROWLAND BLENNERHASSETT

, in rising to move, in page 1, line 19, after the word "thereof," to insert— (4) Where the tenant has agreed to sell his tenancy to some other person than the landlord, he shall give the prescribed notice to the landlord, setting forth the name of the purchaser, and the consideration agreed to be given for the tenancy; said, that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had asserted that the right of pre-emption which was given to the landlord by the Bill was the great safeguard for his interests, and the best means of preventing an extravagant consideration being given for the tenant right. That was undoubtedly so. As long as the landlord, even if he had no desire to use it, had the right, where the tenant was willing to sell at a fair price, of stepping in at any moment and buying up the interest of the latter, and in case of dispute of getting the price fixed by the Court, he could do much to minimize the inconvenience which many apprehended from a system even of regulated sale such as this Bill provided. But in order that he should have a full and fair opportunity of exercising his judgment as to whether he would purchase or not, he ought to be furnished with the name of the person to whom the tenant wished to sell his tenant right in the farm, and also the consideration which it was proposed to give for it. It was quite clear that the price which the landlord would have to give would enter largely into the calculation whether he chose to exercise his right of pre-emption or not; and so, again, with regard to the purchasing tenant. The landlord might be willing not to interfere if the person who presented himself as the future tenant was a man whom it was desirable to accept. On the other hand, he might be disposed to make a considerable sacrifice rather than accept as tenant a person with whom it might be agreeable to have business relations. The landlord had the right of appealing against the purchaser, and of objecting to him on the ground of insufficiency of means to carry on the business of the farm, and so forth. But the consideration given for the tenancy must be an important factor in determining the sufficiency of means to meet the liabilities of the tenancy. He failed to see how the landlord could come to any decision unless he was furnished with the name of the purchaser, and also with the amount of the consideration which was proposed to be given for the tenant right. He presumed that the only objection to the Amendment would be that to some extent the provision he proposed to insert was already contained in the Bill; but he did not see what harm could be done by inserting words which would make the intention of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister perfectly clear.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 19, after the word "thereof," insert "(4) Where the tenant has agreed to sell his tenancy to some other person than the landlord, he shall give the prescribed notice to the landlord, setting forth the name of the purchaser, and the consideration agreed to be given for the tenancy."—(Sir Rowland Blennerhassett.)

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

MR. GLADSTONE

Under the Bill, as it stands, when the tenant decides upon disposing of his tenant right he is bound to convey to the landlord the name of the proposed incoming tenant, and the landlord, if he thinks fit, has the power of objecting to that proposed tenant. It may, however, be convenient that some form of notice should be given to the landlord; but that is a question of minute detail, and I apprehend that it would be within the power of the Court to lay down rules. Under these circumstances, I think it would be better to leave the matter to the Court.

MR. BRODRICK

hoped the hon. Baronet (Sir Rowland Blennerhassett) would not withdraw the Amendment. He thought that the condition which the Prime Minister had laid down would be most inconvenient in its operation. It was suggested that one of the most important and serious questions in the interest of the landlord should be left entirely to the Court; and the right hon. Gentleman refused to allow the Committee to assist him in defining what the rule should be. He declined to allow the matter to be set forth in the Bill; so that practically it would be possible at some future time, when the tenancy came to be sold, that there might be a question of doubt and of evidence what consideration had been offered to the outgoing tenant for the tenant right. He submitted that such an important question ought not to be left in any kind of doubt. A considerable item in deciding the reasonable nature of the bargain between the outgoing and the incoming tenant must be the amount to be paid for the tenant right, and the amount ought, therefore, to be clearly stated and made known to the landlord. Indeed, it should be a matter of public notoriety, capable of being referred to in a single moment. He sincerely hoped the Prime Minister would not force the hon. Baronet to withdraw the Amendment, but that he would allow this very reasonable point to be stated in the Bill. He thought some consideration ought to be paid to those landlords who had not hitherto had tenant right on their estates, and who had expended large sums in order to keep tenant right away. [Derisive cheers]. Hon. Members might laugh at this view of the matter; but he should like to know what would have been the position of the South of Ireland at this moment if the landlords had not foregone the rent, and given large sums of money, in addition, in order to assist tenants who had fallen into arrear in emigrating to America? If the Prime Minister declined to withdraw his opposition, he should certainly divide the House in favour of the Amendment.

MR. BIGGAR

said, there seemed to be an impression on the part of those who supported the Amendment that it would be entirely in favour of the landlords. He was of opinion that it would be quite as much in favour of the tenant as of the landlord. In consequence of the clause giving the right of pre-emption to the landlord, it was desirable that there should be some means of testing the value of the holding, and the best test was the price that was given for it from time to time. He believed if a registry were kept of the price and the amount of money which passed from one tenant to another on every change of tenancy, a standard would be arrived at by which the real value of the holding could be got at. He therefore did not think the Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Kerry (Sir Rowland Blennerhassett) was at all an unreasonable Amendment. Perhaps, as had been pointed out by the Prime Minister, the first part of the Amendment was unnecessary, because it was elsewhere provided that notice of the intention to dispose of the tenancy should be given to the landlord; but it was most desirable for all persons concerned that the price should be stated.

MR. PLUNKET

said he wished to put a question. As he understood the answer of the Prime Minister, the landlord, as a matter of course, would be made aware of who the purchaser was by receiving notice from the tenant, and that it was a matter that would obviously be regulated by rules which would be afterwards prescribed. But the Amendment went still further, and spoke of the "consideration to be given for the tenancy." Now, that seemed to him to be a very important point, and one which it by no means necessarily followed would be laid down by the authority of the Commission. The importance of it was this. As he understood, the check which the Government proposed was to secure that where more than the difference between a fair rent and a low rent was offered the landlord should himself have power to purchase or to serve notice of his intention to raise the rent. For that object it was extremely important that the landlord should know what sort of price was going to be given for the right of the tenant. The Government admitted that some provision should be made by which the landlord should be made acquainted with the name of the purchaser and the price to be paid, and under those circumstances he did not see why they should object to the introduction of the words "the consideration agreed to be given for the tenancy." He wished to know if they did approve of these words or not? If they did, he failed to see why, according to the scheme of the Government measure, they should object to insert them in the clause. The Prime Minister had very fairly admitted that they could do no harm, and the matter was of such very great importance that it was a most desirable thing this direction should be given.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

thought the name of the purchaser and the price to be paid should be given to the landlord with a clear statement of the amount that was to be paid for tenant right; but he believed it would answer every purpose to leave the matter in the hands of the clerks of the peace.

MR. CHAPLIN

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would re-consider his decision. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that this additional sub-section was unnecessary, because it was already in. the power of the Court to assign the reasonableness of the landlord's refusal to accept a particular tenant, and that the Amendment would confer upon the landlord additional powers as against the tenant. Now, that was not exactly the question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Kerry (Sir Rowland Blennerhassett). His hon. Friend did not wish that this should be a question on which the Court should be able to exercise any discretion whatever, and he (Mr. Chaplin) fully concurred with his hon. Friend. A certain sum of money was to be paid for the tenant right, and that sum of money ought to be named and known so as to settle the matter for future years. If his hon. Friend pressed the Amendment to a division he would certainly support him.

MR. GLADSTONE

I am quite prepared to give full consideration to the point raised by the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The question raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) is a very fair one. The Government have not the slightest objection to require that the landlord should be informed of the price; but what we want to avoid is the formality of a second notice, which means a second interval of time. I would suggest that the same object would be effectually attained by altering the Amendment, and allowing the words to run thus— Where the tenant has agreed to sell his tenancy to some other person than the landlord, he shall, upon informing the landlord of the name of the purchaser, state therewith the consideration agreed to he given for the tenancy.' That, I believe, would meet the point raised by my hon. Friend.

MR. NEWDEGATE

wished to point out another matter. In the case of the value of improvements under the Agricultural Holdings Act, the greatest difficulty had been experienced in ascertaining the validity of the awards, although in that case the consideration was for actual expenditure which was capable of proof. In the case of the tenant right which the House was now about to create there would be no possibility of proof as to the value which the Court would ascertain and be guided by. The whole transaction might be fictitious, and unless the specific consideration and amount of money were stated the Court would have no possible means of ascertaining whether the statement of value was fictitious or not. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would proceed upon the principle of the Amendment, and afford the Court some means of testing the justice of these claims for tenant right.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member for Kerry propose to withdraw the Amendment?

SIR ROWLAND BLENNERHASSETT

Yes, Sir.

MR. HEALY

was afraid that the Government scarcely knew what they were about to do. If the Amendment applied simply to Ulster, he should have no objection to it at all; but, as it applied also to other parts of Ireland, he would point out what it would do. The Government were of opinion that the price of the purchase would always be a matter of cash, and might easily be stated in the notice to the landlord. But it might be half-a-dozen cows, or six cows and a churn, or six cows and a firkin. In another case a man married off his daughter, and he sought to assign a part of his holding to his son-in-law. How were these considerations to be stated in the notice? The Amendment might be readily carried out in Ulster; but, in regard to other parts of Ireland, it would be a very serious matter. He would therefore advise Her Majesty's Government to confine the Amendment to the Province of Ulster. In the South of Ireland the operation of the Amendment would be found most inconvenient and objectionable, and it would certainly not be accepted without a strong protest.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

believed that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was altogether mistaken in supposing that the Amendment would be difficult to work in any part of Ireland.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In line 19, to insert "Where the tenant has agreed to sell his tenancy to some other person than the landlord he shall, upon informing the landlord of the name of the purchaser, state therewith the consideration agreed to be given for the tenancy."—(Mr Gladstone.)

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

MR. HEALY

moved to amend the Amendment by inserting the words "where the Ulster Custom prevails."

Amendment proposed, to insert at the commencement of the proposed Amendment, "Where the Ulster Custom prevails and."—(Mr. Healy.)

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

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

believed that the Amendment would be rather beneficial to the tenant than otherwise. Suppose that the tenant got a good price for his assignment. He got by the Amendment now proposed an opportunity of putting that fact upon record, and when he had once placed it on record that the tenant had got a good price for his interest in the holding, the new tenant would certainly have an equity against the landlord in regard to any undue increase of rent at a future time. With regard to the objection raised to the Amendment by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), he did not think there was very much force in it. He (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had seen a great many assignments of tenancies in one shape or another; but he never saw an assignment, even of the smallest tenancy, in which the condition was cattle, or anything of the kind. He had seen assignments in cases of marriage, but an assignment in such a case was for a very important consideration. Besides, he thought the landlord was entitled to know what was being given for the tenancy that was to be assigned. Unless he knew the price, how was he to know that the negotiation was a fair one? It was also to the advantage of the tenant in this way, that the tenant would be able to state to the landlord what the maximum price of the property was, and it would be a fair test of the value of the land.

MR. LITTON

appealed to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) not to press his Amendment.

MR. HEALY

said, he had no objection to withdraw it.

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

Original Question again proposed.

MR. WARTON

remarked, he had given Notice of an Amendment which appeared a few lines lower down on the Paper, to leave out "other person than the landlord," and insert "a proposed incoming tenant." He was afraid that if he did not move that Amendment now it would be too late to move it further on. He was anxious not to have the words "some other person than the landlord" standing either in the Amendment or in the Bill. He wished to make the Bill clear and explicit, and to guard against any possible danger hereafter. It was gratuitously assumed that when the tenant right was sold it would always be to the incoming tenant; and the Premier had himself used the expressions "the incoming man" and "the incoming tenant." The landlord also would have the right of pre-emption; but in adopting the words of the clause as they now stood, there might be the danger of creating a new interest altogether. The words were dangerously vague, and might let in some other person than the incoming tenant or the landlord—some third person—for instance, the usurer, who might have advanced the money for the purchase of the tenant right. He was anxious that nothing vague should be left for the decision of the Court; and they must not assume, because they all had in their minds that the person who bought must be the incoming tenant, that that would necessarily be the case. Ten years ago, when the Act of 1870 was passed, it was thought that no property or interest was given to the tenant; but so many unexpected results had followed the passing of that Act—results which at the time had been declared impossible—that in the present case he wanted to guard against some such construction as this being put on the words of the clause by the Judge of the Court, "I find here the words 'some other person than the landlord,' and that means all creation except the landlord." That was a real danger that might arise, and he appealed to the Committee whether the words as they stood would not include some other person than the landlord, who was also a person other than the incoming tenant—some sharpusurer, who might purchase the property and interest given to the tenant, and who might bring his action and insist upon the Court putting him in the position of the buyer of the tenant right. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 20, leave out "other person than the landlord," and insert "a proposed incoming tenant."—(Mr. Warton.)

Amendment negatived.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Amendment again proposed.

MR. LEAMY

was much surprised at the Government assenting to this Amendment. The clause enabled the landlord, on the receipt of such notice, to purchase the tenancy; but supposing that the landlord, on receiving the notice, did not take any steps to purchase the tenancy at all, then the tenant, having given the notice, and finding that the landlord had no desire to purchase, would look out for another purchaser, and he would be obliged to inform the landlord who that purchaser was, and what he proposed to give. He thought that that would be imposing too great an obligation upon the tenant. It was quite sufficient that the tenant should give notice to the landlord of his intention to sell. The landlord might then come in and purchase, and if the landlord declined, why should not the tenant go into the open market? What was the position in which the landlord would be, if, having given notice to the landlord of his intention to sell, and the landlord not having given notice of his intention to exercise the right of preemption and purchase himself, the tenant should then put the matter in the hands of an auctioneer, and ask him to sell his interest in the tenancy? It would not be until the day of the auction that the tenant would know who the purchaser was; and unless the land- lord had given notice that he would not accept a particular purchaser, then he (Mr. Leamy) submitted that the tenant was entitled to sell to any person who made a bid at the auction. Under such circumstances it would be impossible for the tenant to give previous notice to the landlord of the name of the purchaser.

THE O'DONOGHUE

thought that before the Government assented to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir Rowland Blennerhassett), it ought to be made clear that it would not deprive the tenant of his right to sell in the open market by auction. As he understood it, the landlord, in addition to the power of exercising the right of pre-emption, would by this Amendment be able to deprive the tenant of the right of selling by auction.

MR. SHAW

thought it would be preferable that the Committee should have some Notice of this Amendment, so that they might be able to understand its full effect. He had no objection to the Amendment, and, as a matter of course, he thought that the landlord, in one way or another, must know the price offered for the tenant's interest. He did not understand that this sub-section in any way interfered with the bargain. The bargain would be an accomplished fact. The purchaser's name would be sent to the landlord, and with it the terms of the purchase. But his objection was that it would create a feeling of jealousy in the minds of the tenants. Irish tenants, as a rule, were very suspicious, and they did not like to expose their affairs to the landlords. Indeed, they had an objection against it that seemed almost superstitious; and if the Committee were to pass such a clause as this they might really raise obstacles against the amicable settlement of these matters. He believed that in the North of Ireland a provision of this nature would be more objectionable even than in the South. The Northerners were a very sturdy race, and they would not like to be required to write and tell the landlord what was really their own business. He might say, as a matter of fact, that on some of the best managed estates in those parts of Ireland where tenant right was admitted the agent made it a point to ask no question at all as to the price that was given. Indeed, he knew very well that he would not be told the truth if he did inquire, and he knew, further, that he would only he interfering with what was really no business of his. All that the agent had to do was to satisfy himself that the incoming man was a good man.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he was of opinion that the Amendment should be a separate sub-section, or tacked on to sub-section 3. If that were done a great deal of difficulty would be obviated.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

hoped the matter would be allowed to stand as it was. He saw no objection to the Amendment so long as nothing but fair dealing was intended. He did not think that the tenant should be required to notify to the landlord all the circumstances which had passed between himself and the intended purchaser; but he saw no objection to his being required to give the name of the purchaser and the price. If a tenant sold his interest to another person, the landlord was the only person immediately concerned, and ought to know not only who the incoming tenant was, but what the consideration given for the tenant right was. He failed to see what objection there could be if the information given were truthful and fair; but he could understand that there might be very serious objection if a false statement was intended to be subsequently made as to the price which was really paid.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he had not changed his opinion in regard to the Amendment; but, at the same time, he believed there were a good many of his hon. Friends who had not spoken who were much opposed to it, and who were decidedly of opinion that it would have a very mischievous effect. He would, therefore, suggest that, as there was no Notice of the Amendment upon the Paper, it should not be pressed now, but that Notice should be given of it, and that it should be brought up on the Report, when it could be fully discussed. If he understood the question rightly, he gathered that one object of the Amendment was to prevent the landlord from raising the rent by charging 10 years' increase upon the purchase. If the landlord found the price at which the holding was being sold was very large, he might raise the rent and get 10 years' purchase, and the unfortunate purchaser would find his interest very injuriously affected. Under all the circumstances, seeing that no Notice whatever had been given of the Amendment, and that hon. Members who represented Irish constituencies had not had an opportunity of considering it, he thought it desirable that it should not be pressed at the present moment.

MR. GLADSTONE

The question has not been altogether raised without Notice; but the Amendment as it stood was accompanied by something which we thought objectionable—namely, a provision forcing upon the tenant the necessity of giving a second notice of a formal character. That objection has been got rid of by amending the Amendment, and the proposal contained in the Amendment is that the landlord should be made acquainted with the nature and effect of the consideration to be given. We are of opinion that in principle such a provision is only fair. You cannot deny the right of the landlord to be a party to the transaction and to be entitled to know what it is that the tenant is about to receive. There is also another thing which will require further consideration. It would never do for the landlord to have his right of preemption suspended until the tenant has made his bargain, and then for the landlord to come in and say, "I will exercise my right of pre-emption." My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland will fully consider this matter, and see whether it cannot be met by the introduction of some specification in another part of the Bill.

MR. LEAMY

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister objected to two notices; but did the right hon. Gentleman think that the one notice to the landlord of an intention to sell a tenancy would be quite sufficient? The tenant might form an intention of selling a tenancy before he found a purchaser, and before he could have agreed upon the price. Therefore, if he was to give notice of his intention to sell, he would be bound to give a second notice when he found a purchaser.

Amendment agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick), is governed by that which has just been disposed of. I must, therefore, call upon the hon. Member for Lisburn (Sir Richard Wallace).

SIR RICHARD WALLACE

moved, in page 1, line 19, after "thereof" to add— And in case it may appear to the landlord desirable that the holding about to be sold should be amalgamated with an adjoining one, he may by authority in writing delegate to the tenant of such adjoining holding his right of preemption, who may purchase the tenancy in like manner as is herein prescribed for the landlord. The hon. Baronet explained that the object of the Amendment was to enable an adjoining tenant to exercise the landlord's rights of pre-emption and purchase the holding. A custom of consolidating small holdings by enabling the adjoining tenant to purchase existed on many large estates in the North of Ireland. There were a very large number of tenants whose holdings were not of a greater value that £5 a-year, and there were 450 whose holdings were only valued from between £10 and £15, and this custom of consolidating the small holdings had been found very beneficial to the hard working and thrifty tenant. It was of very great advantage to a small holding where the same amount of stock which had worked a small farm would be found sufficient to work the enlarged holding. And not only was this the case with regard to stock, but in many cases no additional ploughs or farming implements would be required. There was another point which told usefully in favour of this amalgamation. A tenant of a consolidated farm was often able to reclaim a quantity of land now entirely wasted in forming a boundary between two farms, which was of no service to the crops and might be removed with advantage. This was not at all a landlord's question, because the landlord would derive no benefit from it. He would only have the advantage of possessing a more thrifty, a more hard working, and a more industrious tenant, and it was only in the case of the adjoining tenant wishing to buy that the privilege would be granted. In the event of the adjoining tenant not wishing to buy the land, the usual custom of free sale would be carried out. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name, and he trusted that it would receive favourable consideration at the hands of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 19, after "thereof," to add the words "and in case it may appear to the landlord desirable that the holding about to be sold should be amalgamated with an adjoining one, he may by authority in writing delegate to the tenant of such adjoining holding his right of pre-emption, who may purchase the tenancy in like manner as is herein prescribed for the landlord."—(Sir Richard Wallace)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

hoped the hon. Baronet would not press the Amendment, because the object which he had in view was sufficiently provided for so far as it was desirable by the Bill as it stood. One of the hon. Baronet's objects was to facilitate the enlargement or amalgamation of holdings. But if the hon. Baronet would look at the evidence given before the Bessborough Commission, he would find that Judge Flanagan and other witnesses stated that under the system of free sale the consolidation of holdings had increased much more in the Province of Ulster than in any other part of Ireland. There was also this advantage in leaving the matter to be worked out by perfect freedom of sale—that the process of consolidation would thus go on in a natural way and without causing any irritation. If, however, his hon. Friend was not satisfied to trust to that natural process by which consolidation, where desirable, would be effected, if he wished to promote it by the direct action of the landlord, then the Pre-emption Clause would enable the landlord to purchase the tenancy for the purpose of either occupying it himself or of adding it to any other holding. It was altogether undesirable that the landlord, by the delegation of his authority, should transfer this right of preemption to anybody else. If he wished to exercise the right he ought to exercise it by himself, and not by deputy; and if an adjoining tenant wanted to buy the holding next to his own, let him purchase it in the ordinary way.

MR. CHAPLIN

expressed a hope that, as in the case of the last Amendment, the Government might be persuaded to re-consider their decision. The effect of this Amendment would be, at all events, to consolidate judiciously some of the worst holdings in Ireland. He apprehended there could scarcely be a difference of opinion on the other side of the House as to the desirability of this object. The right hon, and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland said the Bill would accomplish that object so far as it was desirable. Now, he (Mr. Chaplin) did not quite understand what the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant by the words "so far as it is desirable." The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the natural process by which one tenant could buy out another, and said that in Ulster, where the system of free sale was carried out to a greater extent than in any other part of Ireland, the process had been beneficially exercised. But the Amendment did nothing to interfere with that natural process. What it did was to facilitate it; and it was limited solely to those cases where one small farm adjoined another. That was all that the Amendment did. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked—" Why cannot the landlord do it himself?" The landlord could not do it for a reason that he thought would have been obvious. Where was he always to find the money and the capital for exercising this right of pre-emption? Therefore, it was desirable, where the tenant was anxious to effect this consolidation, that the landlord should be able to delegate his right of pre-emption to the tenant. He could not conceive anything more hostile to the interests which the Government desired to serve in Ireland than to refuse an Amendment of this nature. There appeared to him to be not a single objection to it, and he trusted that upon re-consideration the Government would accept it.

MR. GLADSTONE

I do not think there is the least likelihood of the Government receding from their objection to the Amendment. On the contrary, we hope to win over my hon. Friend the Member for Lisburn (Sir Richard Wallace) to our view of the case, and to convince him of its reasonableness. I will take the case of tenant A going out and of tenant B holding a farm next to it and desiring to have the holding joined to his own. The landlord is also desirous that the amalgamation shall take place. Either the parties are willing or they are unwilling; and if both are willing, under the Amendment, as under the Bill, the transaction will go on. But this Amendment partakes of the nature of compulsion, and gives the power of referring to the public authority. As I have said, if A and B are willing, then, under the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend, just as much as under the Bill, the transaction will go on. The only case in which this Amendment would be material is where tenant B is unwilling. It may be that there are good reasons why the amalgamation should take place; but our point is that if tenant B is unwilling, it is far better that he should be dealt with by the landlord through the right of pre-emption, which is given under the Bill, than that the landlord should have the power of delegating to tenant A the right of purchasing. Where the process partakes of compulsion it is far better that it should be in the hands of the landlord than of the tenant. That is our point, and I hope my hon. Friend will see the propriety of acceding to it.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, that upon well-managed properties it was the custom to give the preference of purchase to a tenant on the adjoining farm; and if he would not buy, then the holding went into the open market. That rule would be abolished by the Bill. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, which was quite consistent with the practice in the North of Ireland.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

trusted the Government would not adopt the Amendment, which would give a preemptive right to the adjoining tenant.

MR. J. N. RICHARDSON

said, he was very reluctant to oppose the Amendment brought forward by the hon. Baronet, who, he was quite sure, would not make any proposal that was not a fair one. But he could not agree in the desirability of the Amendment, and expressed a hope that Her Majesty's Government would not give way. He was perfectly aware that in former years there was a feeling on the part of the Irish tenantry in favour of an arrangement of the kind proposed, and he believed he was right in saying that they actually wished their landlords to make an Office rule giving them a pre-emptive right. But that was in times before the American competition and the present agricultural depression, when the idea in the mind of the Ulster farmer was that he would be the man to remain on the land, and that when his neighbour went away he should be able to get his farm cheaper than if it went into the open market. But since emigration had set in all that was changed, and the feeling was now that the man himself would have to go, and hence the desire not to be prevented getting as much as possible for his holding. He did not object to the right of pre-emption on the part of the landlord; but to extend it to another person would, in his opinion, be an injustice to the tenant.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

hoped the Government would not accede to the Amendment, which, it seemed to him, would have an opposite effect to that intended by the hon. Baronet who moved it. In his opinion, the preservation to the landlord of the right of pre-emption was just, inasmuch as it secured to him his just position with respect to the estate; but he altogether objected to the landlord's right being delegated to a third person. That would be, he thought, to open the door to plotting and contriving, in the case of transfers, to restrict the tenant's market. He was quite certain that was not the object of the hon. Baronet, who, he thought, would protect the right of the landlord better by not allowing him to delegate his pre-emptive right than by any other means.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he was at first attracted by the reasons given by the Prime Minister for not accepting this Amendment; but he now saw that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman involved a fallacy. There could not be any compulsory pre-emption on the part of. the landlord unless at the option of the tenant who wished to sell. It was quite open to the tenant to go into Court and get under statutory conditions. No reason had, therefore, been advanced against the Amendment, and he hoped it would be agreed to.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

said, the Prime Minister had argued that it would be possible for the landlord to get rid of his right of pre-emption by purchase. But suppose the landlord could not buy the tenancy through want of funds, and that for the good of the estate it was necessary to add it to the adjoining tenancy. Why would it be unfair to anybody for the landlord to pass over his right of pre-emption to the tenant of the adjoining holding in order that the two farms might be amalgamated? He was quite unable to see any unfairness in that arrangement. The Committee had passed in this clause a section which enabled the landlord to exercise the right of pre-emption, and in exercising it he would buy at the true value; but if the landlord could not exercise that right for want of funds, and was, moreover, not able to delegate it to the tenant who wished to buy, it would result that the tenant who wished to purchase the tenancy that was to be given up and add it to his own would not be able to buy at the true value, but would be obliged to go into the market, where he would, no doubt, be run up and have to pay an exorbitant price, thereby subjecting himself to a heavy rack-rent.

MR. MACFARLANE

could not agree with the noble Lord who had just sat down. It seemed to him that if the landlord were too poor to exercise his pre-emptive right, it was perfectly open to him to arrange with the adjoining tenant who was a willing purchaser. He presumed the money would not be required on the spot, and that the matter could very easily be adjusted. There was nothing in the world to prevent a landlord arranging with one of his tenants to provide the necessary funds. In his opinion, the Amendment was both useless and mischievous.

MR. BIGGAR

said, nothing could be more mischievous than the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. He objected to the clause which gave pre-emption to the landlord altogether.

SIR RICHARD WALLACE

said, he agreed that the principle of giving the right of pre-emption to the landlord ought not to be pushed to an improper degree. He had listened attentively to the arguments which had been used against his Amendment, but felt it his duty to put the Committee to the trouble of a division.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 210: Majority 103.—[Div. List, No. 247.)

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment appears to me to be substantially the same as that which has been negatived by the Committee.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

asked whether it would be competent for him to move a similar Amendment on another part of the Bill?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, it would be competent for the noble Lord to move such an Amendment at a later stage of the Bill, but not in Committee.

Amendment proposed, in page 1,line 20, leave out sub-section 4.—(Mr. Lalor.)

Amendment negatived.

On the Motion of Mr. LITTON, Amendment made, in page 1, line 21, after "may," by inserting "within the prescribed period."

MR. MARUM

said, that as the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had on the Paper an Amendment in similar terms to his own, he was willing to amalgamate the two and leave the matter in his hands. He objected to the bad character of a tenant being specified as a reasonable ground of refusal of a tenant on the part of the landlord, as also to the exception on the ground of previous failure as a farmer. Hon. Members acquainted with commercial affairs would know that many men who had been in former years unsuccessful had made their experience the means of success in after years.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

would not trouble the Committee by any general observations on the question of the right of sale of tenant, particularly as the experience of everyone practically acquainted with these matters would show him that in places where the sale of the tenant's interest was free from all restriction, not only were the landlord's and the tenant's relations the best, but the position of the tenants themselves was good. This benefit did not end with the tenant only, but, in proportion as the position of the tenant was improved, the security of the landlord was greater. He strongly urged on the Committee that as they had recognized the right to sell in the tenant, they should leave that right as free as possible, consistently with what was right and just to the landlord. He pointed out to the Committee that as they were reposing large powers in the Court, the best way of dealing with the question of the grounds upon which a landlord might refuse to accept a tenant would be not to specify the particular reasons contained in the section, some of which he regarded as objectionable, and then, as was the case in the section, add a general clause at the end to meet cases in which dispute arose, but to drop the particular reasons, and to let the clause run as follows:—

" Where a tenant has sold to some other person than the landlord, the landlord may refuse, on reasonable grounds, to accept the purchaser as tenant; and, in case of dispute, the reasonableness of the landlord's refusal shall be decided by the Court."

As the section stood, the enumeration of specific grounds was not exhaustive, and would only have the effect of raising, as between a fair landlord and fair tenant, questions that otherwise might not get into the mind of either of them. Further, he submitted that the grounds mentioned were objectionable as they stood. The words "insufficiency of means, measured with respect to the liabilities of the tenancy," were of themselves, and without further particulars, perfectly vague, and would, therefore, be no guide to the Court. Then there was the reasonable refusal on the ground of bad character. Did this mean bad moral character, or that the landlord might reasonably object to a person professing objectionable views, or to one who was a member of a society or organization which was distasteful to him? This latter ground of objection would probably raise a number of unpleasant questions—sectarian amongst the rest. With regard to the next ground of objection—the failure of the purchaser already as a farmer—he asked, might not a case exist in which a man's previous failure had given him the very experience necessary for successful farming? But however much experience such a man had gained, the Bill, as it stood, would debar him from becoming a tenant again. Finally, there was the omnibus clause, which said "Any other reasonable and sufficient cause." As it appeared that in case of dispute the reasonableness of the landlord's refusal was to be decided by the Court, why should not the Court be allowed to decide the whole question of what constituted a sufficient reason for refusal? He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, leave out from "the" to "cause" in page 2, line 3.—(Mr. Charles Russell.)

MR. LITTON

remarked, that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk having exhausted the subject, he merely rose to say that he proposed to withdraw the Amendment of a similar character standing in his name. At the same time, he took the opportunity of referring to a Petition which had been presented to the House by the hon. Member for the County of Londonderry (Sir Thomas M'Clure) which showed the interest and importance attaching to this matter in Ireland. The Petition to which he referred was signed by 420 Presbyterian ministers in Ulster, who strongly condemned the express indication of the grounds of objection on the part of a landlord to accept a purchaser. These specific statements appeared wholly unnecessary, inasmuch as in line 4 of page 2 it was provided that— In case of any dispute the reasonableness of the landlord's refusal shall be decided by the Court. Under those circumstances, he hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he hoped the Prime Minister would agree to the Amendment before the Committee. Although the Court had power to decide in case of dispute, he ventured to point out that it would be guided by the previous sub-sections, which would in all cases rule the last part of the section. He felt certain that if the matter were left to the Court entirely the best decision would be arrived at.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he thought there was no middle course between leaving out the section and putting in a great number of exceptions. Therefore, he hoped the Government would agree to the Amendment.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. If the Committee would examine the particular reasons given in the clause they would see that they were in themselves perfectly just. He admitted they were open to amendment in the sense suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk; but they were undoubtedly just. On searching for precedents, he found that the practice in cases of this character was by no means uniform. There were, however, a number of cases in point where it had been the custom of Parliament not only to introduce general words, but also particular reasons. The 13th clause of the Land Act of 1870, which applied to restrictions with regard to compensation, gave two particular and one general case. This seemed to furnish a strong argument in favour of the clause as it stood. In his opinion, it was desirable that these particular cases should be mentioned in the clause because the landlord would thereby be saved a good deal of uncertainty; it furnished him with certain reasons on which he could safely refuse. On the other hand, their omission would place him in a position of great difficulty. Further, this would lead to very great uncertainty in the decisions of the Court. The result of all this would be that the landlord would never be sure that he was safe in refusing a purchaser, because he would know that the Court would have to decide, and that no advice was given by Parliament as to the grounds upon which its decision was to be founded.

MR. A. MOORE

said, it would be a matter of extreme difficulty to draw out an exhaustive list of the reasons which would justify a landlord in refusing to accept a purchaser, and an imperfect list would do more harm than good. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

MR. PLUNKET

said, he should give his support to the clause, which was based upon a passage in the Report of the Bessborough Commission, where it was stated that under the Ulster Custom, the veto of the landlord upon certain, specified grounds was universally recognized, those grounds being the insolvency of the proposed incoming tenant, or the fact of his being a bad farmer, or of his having failed in farming. As these cases were recognized under the Ulster Custom, it was not likely they would be of very rare occurrence.

MR. GLADSTONE

I rise to express the great satisfaction I have received from the discussion of the present Amendment, which has not been regarded from a Party point of view. The question has been argued by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) very fairly indeed, and the same spirit of fairness has been apparent throughout the speeches which followed that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down is quite right in supposing that in the insertion of these words the Government had reference to the passage in the Report of the Bessborough Commission which he quoted. We have, however, to a certain extent, regarded this question as one to be settled ambulando; and I am bound to say that after hearing the arguments so fairly stated on both sides it is our opinion that we should do wisely to waive this specification. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) has stated his fear that the omission of the clause will give rise to cases of uncertainty and variation of judgment in the decisions of the Court. But, Sir, I think we can give a practicable answer to that objection, and it is that the question is not a new one. The Courts in Ulster have long been in the habit of considering what are "reasonable grounds," without any special guidance from Acts of Parliament, and no inconvenient variation of judgment has been produced. On the contrary, the standard seems well understood, and where that is the case it is probably better to avoid the risk of disturbing the practice by any attempts at definition. There is, I think, great force in the observation of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk that if we enumerate at all we ought to enumerate exhaustively. But that certainly cannot be done. Upon the whole, I consider the balance of argument to be in favour of my hon. and learned Friend. I am bound, also, to say that the precedent taken from the Act of 1870, although it was ingeniously handled by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, is clearly in favour of this omission. It is clear that the opinion of Parliament, at the time when those words were inserted in the Act, was that the ground of establishing the reasonableness of a refusal had better be left to the Court.

MR. GIBSON

said, that nothing could be fairer than the way in which the Prime Minister had given his reasons for assenting to the view of the subject taken by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell); but he must endeavour to state why he thought it would be desirable to retain the present drafting of the Bill. He had listened attentively to the Prime Minister, and, as far as he could judge, he simply rested his argument for the withdrawal of this sub-section of the Bill on the way this matter was worked in Ulster. But he must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this clause did not at all apply to the Ulster tenant custom. That custom was well known and clearly ascertained—it was, so to speak, a going concern; and, therefore, it was entirely unnecessary to lay down any fresh rule with regard to it. What was the objection urged, or that could be urged, to the retention of this clause of the Bill as it stood? It came before the Committee accredited by authority; it followed almost word for word the Report of the Bessborough Commission; it had received the sanction, amongst others, of the hon. Member for Cork, and had been arrived at after hearing a great variety of evidence. Nor did it rest upon that authority alone. They knew that the specification in question as well as the other sections of the Bill, had been elaborately considered by Her Majesty's Government—considered and reconsidered, and if he might venture upon a criticism of the form of the Bill, he would say that it was enormously over-drafted. However that might be, there was no doubt that this particular sub-section was the result of a great deal of consideration. But, of course, he admitted that it was competent to the Government, on further re-consideration of the matter, to submit new proposals to the House with reference to it. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk said, in dealing with these specifications, it was better not to touch the matter at all, if it could not be done exhaustively. But if that were the case the same argument would apply against any legislation by that House. It was not the intention of the sub-section that the landlord should be able to preclude a man from getting a farm because he had failed once as a farmer, or had once had a bad character. If a landlord put forward his objection and said—"I object to you, because you failed as a farmer 20 years ago," anyone would say his objection might be unreasonable. But, after all, the landlord was not left to judge of his own case, because the last lines of the sub-section said—"In case of dispute the reasonableness of the landlord's refusal shall be decided by the Court;" and, therefore, the sub-section contained within itself all the means of rendering it reasonable. Again, supposing the special grounds of objection were got rid of, would not the landowner be left largely without guidance, or rather absolutely without guidance? He contended that the landlord would be exposed to an amount of odium almost intolerable, and which he would certainly have to encounter if he were compelled, unaided by the Bill, to put forward the objections which the Committee were now asked to strike out from the sub-section. He admitted that the arguments in support of the Amendment had been urged by the Prime Minister and all who had spoken on this question with extreme moderation. But the question had hardly been looked at from the landlord's point of view. At present the landlord had the right of making other objections that were covered by the words "any other reasonable and sufficient cause," so that the Court was furnished with a particular as well as a general guide; but if the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk were accepted it would be without any guide whatever. It was clear, therefore, that the Amendment struck largely against the operation of the Court. On the whole, he thought it very important that the sub-section should be retained, both in the interest of the Court, who would be left entirely without guidance, and in the interest of the landlord, who would be practically exposed to great difficulties in putting forward as objections to a purchaser of the tenant's interest in his holding topics which now were deliberately removed from the Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he considered it would be better and safer to leave this matter to the discretion of the Court. In addition to the three specific grounds at present stated in the clause, hon. Members opposite had already placed on the Paper Amendments specifying three other grounds which they wished to have stated. Yet one of the objections urged by his right hon. and learned Friend opposite against the omission of the clause was that the Bill was over-drafted, and went too much into particulars. Surely that argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was rather in favour of the proposal now made. The answer to all the objections which had been made was that the present practice worked extremely well, and that the Courts in Ireland had never had the smallest difficulty in ascertaining what was a reasonable ground for a landlord not accepting a tenant, and this was all the more evident in Ulster, because there were more assignments in that Province than in other parts of Ireland. It would be much safer for the landlords themselves to leave a large and wide discretion to the Court.

MR. BRODRICK

said, he differed entirely from the concluding remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that it would be much safer to leave this matter to come before the Court. One of the strongest feelings amongst landlords in the South of Ireland was that, if the particular proviso relating to the means of the tenant were put upon them, it ought to be made incumbent on the tenant to prove sufficiency of means. Everyone knew that it was impossible for the landlord to prove insufficiency on the part of the tenant who, in order to buy the tenancy, might have borrowed the money and be really insolvent, having a large interest to pay. But the fact of leaving this to be settled by the Court was that the landlord would have no power to call upon the tenant to prove anything at all. There was nothing in the Bill which imposed on the tenant the necessity of proving that he had sufficient money to work the farm. He therefore most strongly objected to the omission of the sub-section. But he ventured to oppose the withdrawal of the 'sub-section on other grounds. There seemed to be a disposition on the part of the Government to leave everything they could not settle for themselves to the decision of the Court. When they were pressed to define the tenant's right, they said the definition in the Act being insufficient, and the House being unable to define it, they would leave it to the Court to settle what was to be the legal value of the tenant right. It was precisely the same with regard to the question of fair rents, and now, on the question of the reasonable ground on which a landlord might refuse to accept a tenant, the Committee were asked to put a child-like confidence in the Court, of the nature of which they knew nothing with certainty, and the composition of which they might find it difficult adequately to criticize when the present clause was passed. He therefore hoped the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk would not be accepted by the Government.

MR. SHAW

said, that, notwithstanding the Report of the Bessborough Commission, he was in favour of the exclusion of the sub-section. The proposal would, on the whole, strengthen the hands of the landlords.

MR. GIBSON

said, he was not in favour of time being occupied in dividing the Committee. He had, however, a very strong opinion against the Government giving way on this point. When the Question was put hon. Members on that side of the House would merely indicate their dissent.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 5, after "Court," insert" Provided that no action shall be brought against the landlord or any person giving evidence on his behalf, or against the tenant or any person giving evidence in his behalf, for or in respect of any statement made in any proceedings under this section."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the provision was quite unnecessary. It was settled law that for statement made in the course of any legal proceeding no action for defamation could, be maintained.

MR. GIBSON

pointed out that it was not at all clear that the sub-Commissioners, when sent down to make inquiries, would constitute exactly a Court of Justice. He thought, perhaps, under the circumstances, that the noble Lord would be willing to forego the matter at that time, and raise the question, if necessary, farther on, when the constitution of the Court and of the Commission was finally laid down and ascertained.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment; at the same time, he thought it right to state that it was at the request of the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself that he had put the words on the Paper.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

agreed that it would be better not to raise the question on the present clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. H. R. BRAND

said, he had only put down the Amendment he was about to move for the purpose of getting some explanation from the Government upon the subject of the exception contained in sub-section 6 with regard to the condition relating to the payment of rent. He was quite at a loss to understand the reason for these words appearing in the sub-section. It appeared to him that the tenant could get compensation for his improvements under any circum- stances, and he was quite unable to see why the landlord should not get compensation for damages done by the tenant in case of eviction for non-payment of rent.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 10 and 11, leave out "except the condition relating to the payment of rent."—(Mr. H. R. Brand.)

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

thought that these words might be omitted. There was no reason why a landlord should not be able to recover compensation for waste when he ejected for non-payment of rent as well as for the breach of other statutory conditions. The Amendment would, therefore, be accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. PARNELL

said, he thought the Committee ought to have some further explanation from the Government before the Amendment was agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is too late. I said the "Noes" had it.

MR. PARNELL

said, he rose before the Chairman said that.

THE CHAIRMAN

No doubt the hon. Member rose; but I did not hear him challenge the statement.

MR. GIBSON

said, there should be no question as to the absolute right of the landlord to be recouped out of the purchase money for damages sustained by the breach of statutory conditions on the part of the tenant. It might be that the word "may" was for this purpose as strong as the word "shall;" but there was no doubt in his mind that the latter word should be inserted in this case.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 11,leave out "may," and insert "shall."—(Mr. Gibson.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he saw no necessity for the Amendment. It could hardly be intended that the Court should be under an absolute statutory obligation to grant compensation under all possible circumstances; and the advantage of the word "may" was that whilst it left the Court free to refuse to act where its interposition would be inequitable, it was construed as imperative in all proper and suitable cases.

MR. GIBSON

argued that the Amendment was indispensable if, as it purported, the sub-section was really de- signed to prevent the infliction of injustice on the landlord.

MR. SHAW

said, he had understood that the Government were willing to accept the word "shall."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated with perfect truth that the intention of the clause was that, where there had been a breach of contract which had been injurious to the landlord, and he had suffered a money loss, the Court should compensate him. The whole question raised was whether it should be said the Court "may" or "shall" do it. It was one of those questions in which he was reluctant to interfere; it was a sacred matter, and to give an opinion where lawyers were concerned might be dangerous. Upon the whole, however, he was disposed to stand by the word "shall."

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, in the early part of the section the landlord was entitled to his rent out of the purchase money paid by the succeeding tenant, and by an Amendment already accepted he would be able to claim damages for the non-payment of rent. If they substituted the word 'shall" for "may," the result would be that the Court would have no discretion but to give damages for the non-payment of rent; whereas, if they left it vague, the Court would be empowered, if they thought it proper, to say to the landlord—" You have had quite enough, and you are not entitled to any damages." For these reasons he thought it better that "may" should remain, or that, when they came to Report, they should re-consider the Amendment they had just accepted.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

pointed out that the Court would not give damages for the non-payment of rent.

MR. GIBSON

asked if was intended that the Court might grant the landlord out of the purchase money everything except the arrears of rent? If the landlord was paid his arrears, he would understand that in addition he should not he paid damages for their non-payment.

MR. MARUM

believed the effect of the clause would be to give the right of action to the landlord for nominal damages for breach of contract.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FAEEER HERSCHELL)

said, it would not make the slightest difference whether "may" or "shall" was the word inserted. There was the highest legal authority for saying that the Courts were bound, if the circumstances contemplated existed, to do what the section described. With reference to the other matter, there seemed to be some misapprehension. It was quite clear that for the non-payment of money the Court could not give damages; there was no such thing as an action for damages for the non-payment of money.

MR. H.R. BRAND

asked the Attorney General for Ireland under what clause the landlord, who exercised his right of pre-emption, would get his arrears of rent out of the purchase money?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

replied that as soon as the purchase money was ascertained, and the time for payment came, the landlord would simply deduct the rent from the purchase money, and pay the balance.

Amendment agreed to.

DR. COMMINS

moved, in page 2, line 12, after the word "moneys," to insert the words "payment of any debt due to him by the tenant and." The Amendment would take away all liability to misconstruction. Without the insertion of the words he proposed it might be held that damages could be awarded for the non-payment of rent.

Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

, who had the following Amendment on the Paper:— Clause 1, page 2, line 12, after "moneys," insert "any arrears of rent which may, at the time of such sale, be due from the outgoing tenant to the 'landlord, and also any taxes payable by the outgoing tenant due in respect of the holding and not recoverable by him from the landlord, and also, said, he did not know whether the Amendment just agreed to by the Committee did not materially affect his proposal.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the latter part of the noble Lord's Amendment seemed different from the one just agreed to.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

said, the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Dr. Commins) seemed to have the same effect as that he had to propose. Perhaps the Chairman would say whether he was of opinion the Amendment last agreed to would cover the point he (Viscount Folkestone) wished to raise.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the latter part of the Amendment seemed different from that of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Commins.)

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

said, that if the first half of the Amendment was already covered, and that, therefore, the landlord could get his arrears, he would move the insertion of the words— And also any taxes payable by the outgoing tenant duo in respect of the holding' and not recoverable by him from the landlord, and also. The Amendment had nothing to do with the principle of the Bill, and he was induced to move it because he found the same provision in the Act of 1870 under the clauses relating to compensation for disturbance. As he understood that the same rules relating to compensation for disturbance would now apply by this Bill to every tenancy determined, after the passing of this Act, he thought it but fair and just to the landlord that the provision made by the Act of 1870, under the clauses regulating compensation for disturbance, should appear in this clause. He apprehended the Government would have no objection to the Amendment. He did not propose it in any spirit of obstruction; indeed, he thought that if in future obstruction was imputed to the Opposition side of the House they ought to remind the Attorney General for Ireland that he had just now made a most animated speech against his own clause.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he did not think this Amendment was in the same position as that just agreed to, and for this reason. These taxes, in many cases, if not in all, were charged upon the land, and they might be distrained for after the new tenant had come into possession. There was nothing to make the landlord pay the taxes; but if they were not paid the incoming tenant would be called upon to meet them.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

said, he had taken the words out of Clause 3 of the Act of 1870; and, as far as he could understand, they would apply just the same now as then.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

remarked, that compensation for disturbance dealt with cases where the landlord had put out the tenant, and taken possession himself. He, therefore, very properly claimed the right to deduct that which would otherwise fall upon the land in his own occupation. But here was a transfer of land from one tenant to another, both of whom were liable. The payment of taxes, therefore, ought to be arranged between themselves.

MR. GIBSON

said, there was, no doubt, that distinction between the cases which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated. It was plainly not proper that the outgoing tenant should go away with the purchase money in his pocket free from all deductions in respect to the unpaid taxes. But he would not say there might not be some better way of presenting this matter to view. His noble Friend was quite right in raising the question; but it was possible that it might be made in a more convenient form than that proposed. The matter was certainly one that must be carefully considered before the Bill left the House.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

observed, that there would be the right of action by the purchaser to get the money paid from the old tenant, who, by the very nature of the contract of sale, was bound to indemnify him against these charges.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

DR. COMMINS

moved, in page 2, line 14, after the word "conditions," to add— And which shall be claimed in the suit or process for the recovery of such possession, and awarded by a jury upon the trial of such suit or process. The object of the Amendment was to prevent what might be a great grievance to the tenant. As the clause now stood, it would be competent for the landlord, when a sale took place, to make a claim for a real or imaginary breach of eon-tract without the slightest previous notice to the tenant. This, however, would be obviated by the Amendment, which also provided a proper tribunal for the assessment of damages—namely, a jury. Where a landlord claimed damages for breach of contract he should oblige him to bring his claim before a jury, having previously given notice to the tenant of his intention to do so. The section would not be complete unless the words he suggested were added. Any differences existing between landlord and tenant could then be fairly tried, and adjusted by a tribunal capable of doing justice between them.

MR. LITTON

apprehended that, before the Amendment was considered, the Attorney General for Ireland should move to add "except the condition relating to the payment of rent."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

moved to insert in page 2, line 14, after "conditions," the words "except the conditions relating to the payment of rent."

THE CHAIRMAN

suggested that the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon should withdraw his Amendment until that of the Attorney General for Ireland was disposed of.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 14, after "conditions" to insert the words "except the conditions relating to the payment of rent."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

could not conceive why the Attorney General wished to insert these words.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

considered the words necessary.

Amendment agreed, to.

DR. COMMINS

then proposed his Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his Amendment. The principle of the Bill was to leave the Court to determine these questions, and he thought they would be able to determine the point contemplated as well as others. The Government had every wish to do what was fair and just between the parties.

MR. PARNELL

thought it would be better to leave the consideration of the question raised by his hon. and learned Friend until they came to discuss the question of the constitution of the Court. He understood certain Amendments would be moved then with the object of raising the question of some other tribunal for the purpose of deciding these questions, and perhaps his hon. and learned Friend would see it would be more convenient to discuss this point at that stage of the Bill rather than on the question of a particular duty which the Bill proposed to assign to the Court.

DR. COMMINS

thought the Amendment would be acceptable to the Attorney General if he withdrew the last line of it, so that it would read "and which shall be claimed in the suit or process for the recovery of such possession."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the Amendment was quite unnecessary. If there was no claim there would be nothing to decide.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HEALY

moved the omission of sub-section 7. The Court fixed the statutory term, and it would be neglecting its duty if it did not take into consideration, after fixing the rent, the amount of the increase of rent. This section provided that at a certain period the Court must take into consideration the improvements made by the landlord or his predecessors. Why should that not be done by way of fixing the increased rent? There was no reason why the landlord should have the power to keep hanging over the tenant the threat that at some future time he should come down upon him for a claim for the improvements he had made. The landlord should claim in the Court to have his statutory term fixed, and in the increased rent he would get the value of his improvements.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

said, the effect of the omission of this sub-section would be to compel the landlord to raise the rent for every improvement made on a farm. He submitted, however, to the Government that there ought to be some restriction as to the character of the improvements.

MR. HEALY

said, his object in proposing the omission was that if the landlord had made any improvements he should at once claim the value of them in an increased rent. If he did not do so he would always have it in his power to come down upon the tenant for them. Furthermore, if the landlord valued his improvements at £500, but the tenant only estimated their worth at £100, who was to decide between them?

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

said, it would be a mistake to omit this sub-section; but it certainly would need amending by the addition of the words "improvements suitable to the holding." He noticed that an hon. Friend (Mr. Givan) had such an Amendment on the Paper. He was aware of an instance where a substantial tenant in the county he had the honour to represent was required by his landlord to permit the making of improvements, even in the way of buildings, and the consequence was that the farm was simply ruined to the tenant. He appealed to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) not to press his Amendment, but to allow them to concentrate their best efforts to carry the Amendment, providing that all the improvements should be of a reasonable and suitable character.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, it would not be well to omit the clause. It was only proper that both the tenant's and landlord's improvements should be taken into consideration. If a landlord wished to be repaid the money he had invested in the improvement of a farm, the clause would enable him to come into Court when the purchase money was paid in and have his reasonable claims satisfied. The clause was not intended to operate in a case where the landlord, by an increased rent or in any other way, had got a return for his investment; but if he had not received any compensation for his improvements, he would be entitled to come into Court and obtain out of the purchase money what would recoup him. The purchaser would know what he was buying and the seller would know what he was selling.

MR. HEALY

asked whether, in the case of the incoming tenant paying the outgoing tenant for the tenant right and the landlord for his improvements, there was anything to prevent the landlord immediately raising the rent or evicting the new tenant?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that in the case of a tenant, who had not the protection of the statutory term, there was nothing to prevent the landlord evicting him in the ordinary way, or raising his rent. But in a case like the one cited by the hon. Member, the landlord, by the very fact of his being paid for his improvements out of the purchaser's money, would be prevented charging any additional rent for these improvements. The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) had spoken of the advisability of inserting the word "suit- able" before "improvements." If the hon. and learned Member would turn to the Definition Clause of the Land Act of 1870, which was incorporated with the present Bill, he would find that by "improvements," improvements suitable to the holding were alone contemplated.

MR. PARNELL

said, what his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford wished to demonstrate was, that where a tenant did not apply to the Court for a statutory term and a judicial rent, the landlord would have, under this sub-section, a right he did not have under the Act of 1870. That was to say, it would give him the right to get compensation for his past improvements whenever there was a sale of the tenant right, and, in fact, to place an additional restriction besides those provided under the Act of 1870. The hon. Member seemed to think it would be fair to except those tenants who did not claim the interference of the Court from the operation of this sub-section wherever it gave an additional right to the landlord not provided by the Act of 1870.

MR. SYNAN

said, if the tenant sold the improvements of the landlord, it was only fair that the landlord should have some claim upon the money so realized. It would be well to strike out the word "tenancy," and in its place say "purchase money paid in respect of such improvements."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. FINDLATER (for Mr. GIVAN)

moved in page 2, line 15, after the word "where," to insert the word "suitable." There could be no objection to the Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment. The definition of the word "improvement" was very explicit.

Amendment negatived.

MR. MULHOLLAND

moved in page 2, line 15, after "on" to insert "or for the benefit of."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, they had better leave the words as they were. The proposed alteration would not lead to the smoother working of the measure.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BRODRICK

moved in page 2, line 16, after "predecessors," to insert— In title, or by the landlord, or his predecessors in title, jointly with the tenant, or his predecessors in title. The effect of the sub-section, as it stood, was this—when the tenant right was sold two classes of improvements were provided for—namely, that made by the landlord and that made by the tenant. One class of improvements was not provided for—namely, that made by the landlord and tenant jointly—that class of improvements in which, for instance, the landlord supplied the material and the tenant the labour. It would be most unjust to deprive the landlord of any claim in respect of such improvements, and he felt the Government would see the justice of the Amendment he now proposed.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he had no objection to the Amendment in principle, but thought it might be more suitably framed. The hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, allow it to stand over until a later stage of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GIBSON (for Mr. FITZPATRICK)

moved in page 2, line 16, after "predecessors," to insert— And the benefit of such improvements has been sold with the consent of the landlord, the landlord shall upon the sale of such holding. He thought sub-section 7 was, in many respects, one of the most important subsections of the clause; certainly it was the most important to the landlord in reference to his past dealings and future relations with the holding. This subsection pre-supposed by the sale sanctioned in the earlier part of the Bill that the landlord's improvements had been actually sold by the tenant, and it implied throughout that the sole equity of the landlord, whose improvements had been sold by an operation already agreed to, was that he might make an endeavour to substantiate a claim in the Court to be recouped for his improvements, so far as they were in existence and unexhausted. The sub-section further implied that if the landlord did not come into Court at a certain time, it would be assumed, or might be assumed hereafter, that his improvements had been sold under the 1st clause of the Bill. He did not think from what the Attorney General had said, as well as from some words which fell from the Prime Minis- ter on a previous occasion, that it was the desire of the Government to prevent landlords, in the future, having an interest in the holdings of their tenants. This sub-section, however, was one fraught with grave consequences in that direction. That Amendment said this—the landlord, if he consented that his improvements should be sold to the incoming tenant, was enabled to come in and say—" I am satisfied; it suits all parties. It suits the incoming tenant; it suits the outgoing tenant; and it suits my pocket to be paid; and, therefore, I am satisfied that this arrangement should be made, both for the present and for the future." That was one view of the case; but there might be—and he hoped, notwithstanding what had been said, that the number would be still larger—a number of men who desired to retain an interest in their estates; and it was desirable that that class should be increased, and, therefore, he wanted to make it abundantly plain that the landlord might have an opportunity of saying—" I do not desire to be paid off, but I am satisfied to allow things to remain as they are under the old tenancy. I have made these improvements, and the law has given me the right of preferring a claim for them whenever I think proper." That was really the scope of this Amendment. As his right hon. and learned Friend would see, in consequence of the last Amendment, some re-construction of the clause might be necessary. He presumed his right hon. and learned Friend had read the Amendments the first of which he was now moving. They all hung together, and he thought that his right hon. and learned Friend would find that they all tended to carry out the view that he had expressed, and he hoped that he had explained them with sufficient clearness.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 16, after "predecessors," insert "and the benefit of such improvements has been sold with the consent of the landlord, the landlord shall upon the sale of such holding."—(Mr. Gibson.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he had nothing to object to or complain of in this Amendment. He thought that the proposition made by his right hon. and learned Friend was fair and right, and his only objection was of a mere verbal character. His right hon. and learned Friend proposed that the improvements themselves should not be sold, except with the consent of the landlord. That was obviously the view of the Government in the matter. It was only right that there should be no mistake about this—that what the tenant had to sell was not the land or the houses, but the use of them, or the benefit of them, during the currency of his tenancy; and they did not mean that he should have a right to sell anything else. But while he agreed with the reasons on which his right hon. and learned Friend based his Amendment, there were two or three words in the Amendment which were objectionable. He suggested that his right hon. and learned Friend should leave out the words "benefit of" and make the clause run "such improvements." In short, if his right hon. and learned Friend would leave the matter in his hands, he would undertake to re-model the clause on the stage of the Bill.

MR. GIBSON

said, he accepted the suggestion of his right hon. and learned Friend; and, as it would be necessary to re-cast the clause, it could be introduced at a further stage.

MR. SHAW

said, there was one point which must be made quite clear—namely, that where there was a want of consent on the part of the landlord, there should be some notice that on buying the holding the incoming tenant did not purchase the landlord's improvements.

MR. MARUM

expressed a hope that the clause would be so drawn as not to interfere with the freedom of contract.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he did not think that any difficulty would arise. There must be a consent between the two owners, one of whom was the owner of a temporary interest in the holding, and the other the owner of the fee simple of the holding. It was not necessary that there should be any contract between the two parties; but a simple arrangement that the two things should be sold together.

MR. PARNELL

asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland what course of procedure he would contemplate being taken where the landlord did not give his consent to the benefit of these improve- ments being sold? For instance, where a tenant wished to sell his holding, the Bill provided that he might sell for the best price he could get. If the landlord was entitled to come into the sale and claim the intervention of the Court, and ask the Court to say that the price which was to be given by the incoming tenant was too much, and refuse his consent to sell the landlord's improvements for the price offered by the incoming tenant, including the value of the landlord's improvements, would it be leftafterwardsfor the Court to determine how much of the purchase money should go to the tenant and how much to the landlord on account of the improvements? In other words, he wished to know if the landlord could stop the negotiations between the tenant and the person wishing to purchase, or whether it would be left to the consideration of the Court afterwards under sub-section 7?

SIR THOMAS ACLAND

said, he understood that it was intended, on both sides of the House, to encourage the landlords in Ireland to continue upon their property, and to encourage them also in making such improvements as outfalls, drains, fences, &c. But it was said that the benefit of those improvements might be sold by the tenant. Was he to understand that if a landlord, being on the best possible terms with his tenant, added to the value of the farm by effecting certain improvements, he would thereby, in consequence of some sale of the interest of the tenant, be precluded from making a fresh agreement with some other person at a higher rent. He thought that ought to be made quite clear.

THE O'DONOGHUE

said, that all that had been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland appeared to be a contradiction to the answer given to his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). The right hon. and learned Gentleman had certainly pointed out that the outgoing tenant could sell all the improvements of the landlord as well as his own; but if they were bought by the incoming tenant, then the landlord's portion would be deducted from the purchase money, but the improvements would become the property of the incoming tenant.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that what he had stated was that the landlord would come into Court and insist upon having the value of his improvements paid out of the purchase money, and in that case, of course, the improvements became the property of the incoming tenant. But that was only where the landlord acceded to the tenant's request that not only the use or tenancy of the improvements, but also the fee simple of the improvements should be sold. In the event of the tenant asking the landlord to sell his improvements, and the landlord not giving his consent and declining to join, what would happen would be that the tenant would sell what he had always been in the habit of selling—namely, his interest in the holding as improved. He did not sell anything but his interest in the house or the land. In short, whatever he sold was his own interest in the holding as it stood. In that case, no part of the purchase money would be taken in respect of the improvements of the landlord. It was only in the exceptional case where the landlord said—" I prefer that you should sell my improvements along with your tenancy and recoup me my money," that the landlord would have the right to demand the value of his improvements out of the purchase money. If he took that course, the landlord's portion would have to be deducted from the price. But he thought those cases would be exceedingly rare. Such, a sale of improvements would be a very rare case indeed; but whenever it did occur, and the landlord agreed to sell his improvements along with the rights of the tenant, of course the tenant would only receive that to which he was fairly entitled, and the remainder would go to the landlord. The Government had already accepted the principle contained in this Amendment, and they proposed to recast the clause for the purpose of more clearly embodying those views.

MR. H. R. BRAND

thought it ought to be made perfectly clear, before they went on with this Amendment, that the landlord was not to be driven into the Court in order to protect his interest. He did not speak of estates on which the landlord had made improvements and charged interest upon them in the shape of increased rent, but of the cases mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite on the second reading of the Bill, where the landlord had made improvements in the past and charged no interest for those improvements to the tenant in the shape of increased rent. In what position would the landlord be placed in such a case? He would be obliged to force the tenant to sell; in fact, to give the tenant notice to quit, in order to compel him to sell his interest so that he might establish what were landlord's improvements and what was the landlord's interest in the farm. He contended that the landlord could not in every case afford to sit still, because, if he did sit still, in the course of time the improvements which he had made and not charged for would be merged in the interest of the tenant. Therefore, the effect of this clause would be to force the landlord to evict the tenant in order to get him to sell his interest.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, it would be obvious that the natural course a landlord whose estates were under-rented would take would be to get the value of his improvements in the form of a fairly increased rent.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, he understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) to say that he moved not only this Amendment, but, practically, the two following ones. He wished to have this matter made perfectly clear.

MR. GIBSON

said, that the three Amendments were all welded together.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said,.the only question was whether the purchaser bought the landlord's improvements or not. If he bought them he would not be liable to any future claims the landlord might set up for improvements.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. W. FOWLER

said, he had an Amendment upon the same point, but after what had passed he would not persevere with it.

MR. GIBSON

said, the next Amendment was consequential upon the one he had already proposed, and he would, therefore, withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BRODRICK

moved, in page 2, lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words "an adequate compensation," and insert" full repayment both of the capital value and a fair interest thereon." He thought that this Amendment was one that would commend itself to the judgment of the Committee. Where improvements had been made on a holding by the landlord, or by the landlord and tenant jointly, in respect to which adequate compensation had not been paid, it was desirable that provision should be made for the repayment of the capital value, together with fair interest. It was desirable, he thought, to put this matter very carefully before the Court. Adequate compensation might be simply the interest on the capital expended; but, on the other hand, it might be held that adequate compensation had not been paid without an increased rent beyond the interest on the capital expended. It was desirable to put this case as fairly as possible before the Court, and he did not think any injustice would be done to the tenant.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, lines 16 and 17, to leave out "an adequate compensation," and insert "full repayment both, of the capital value and a fair interest thereon."—(Mr. Brodrick.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he could not accept the Amendment. The real value of a thing was what it would bring, and certainly not the capital expended, and that, too, with interest upon it. In other words, the landlord joined in the sale and offered the improvements as they stood for their true value as ascertained by sale.

MR. SYNAN

thought it would be an extraordinary course to compel a tenant to go into the Court in order that he might ascertain what should be paid to the landlord for improvements. He hoped his hon. Friend would not persevere with the Amendment.

MR. CARTWRIGHT

said, he did not quite understand the position in which the clause was placed. The Government had accepted some portion of the Amendments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson); but the words had not been put down on the Paper, and some confusion had arisen among hon. Members on that side of the House as to the position in which the Committee stood with reference to the clause. He thought that it would be undesirable to continue the discussion until they saw the words of the clause.

MR. HENEAGE

understood that the Amendment moved was that all the words after the word "in," inline 16, to the word" contrary," in line 20, should be omitted. And it was in the middle of the words to be omitted that his hon. Friend opposite proposed his Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

None of those Amendments were proposed.

MR. GLADSTONE

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright), as to what is the position in which the Committee now stands, I may say that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite proposed his Amendment my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland pointed out that in our view the words would perplex and intercept the real effect of the Amendment. My right hon. and learned Friend accepted a subsequent Amendment with a qualification, and undertook to frame a clause. The effect will be that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire, and others who have not gathered the upshot of what has passed, will have full opportunity of dealing with the matter when the clause is re-framed.

MR. BRODRICK

said, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment; and, if necessary, he would reserve to himself the right of again proposing it on the Report. He wished to explain one portion of his proposal which had been misunderstood by the right hon. Gentleman. His proposal was not that the landlords should receive out of the purchase money the capital and interest upon the capital expended, but that where the landlord had not been paid the capital and interest he should have power to make a claim for compensation out of the purchase money.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. E. W. HARCOURT

, in moving, in page 2, line 26, at the end of subsection (7), after the word "tenancy," to insert— And where the holding is at the time of the sale let at less than a fair rent, the Court shall, on the application of the landlord, fix a fair rent, and the difference between this and the actual rent shall be capitalized for the term of the prospective tenancy, and shall be deemed to be a debt payable to the landlord out of the purchase moneys of the tenancy, said, this was a matter of a very simple character. Although he should be sorry to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing upon it, he should like to have some assurance that the matter it related to would be dealt with in some way or other. It was a question which regarded what might be called the good landlords, who might, as often happened in England, let their land at 25 per cent below its value. It was desirable that the value of this indulgence should not go into the pocket of the tenant, and that when he sold his interest he should not make a claim for that which really did not belong to him. Therefore, he sought to capitalize that sum, whatever it might be. Supposing a farm was honestly worth £125 a-year, but was only let for £120 a-year, it would be unfair that the tenant should be allowed to claim an advantage for the circumstances which had not been brought about by any action of his own, and which, in point of fact, simply amounted to a remission of rent on the part of the landlord. The tenant ought to be called upon to pay a fair rent in all cases. He understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to say that the tenant had a right to the temporary enjoyment of the landlord's improvements; but this was something more than the temporary enjoyment of the landlord's improvements, because it was money put into his pocket by the landlord for a series of years, and it was not right that the tenant should have the power of selling the value of this indulgence to an incoming tenant. He therefore begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 26, at the end of sub-section (7), after the word "tenancy," to insert the words "and where the holding is at the time of the sale let at less than a fair rent, the Court shall, on the application of the landlord, fix a fair rent, and the difference between this and the actual rent shall be capitalised for the term of the prospective tenancy, and shall be deemed to be a debt payable to the landlord out of the purchase moneys of the tenancy."—(Mr. Harcourt.)

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

MR. GLADSTONE

We cannot agree to this Amendment. If the landlord thinks fit to let his land at less than a fair rent, it may be a very generous and a very proper act; but he must not complain that we make no provision for such a case in this clause. He cannot eat his cake and have his cake. Further, I may say that the adoption of this Amendment would very seriously extend the action of the Court in matters which have not yet been contemplated. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment; and when we have considered the action of the Court, and the distinction between ordinary tenancies and statutory tenancies, he may again bring forward a proposal on the subject. But I am bound to say that the principle of the Amendment, affecting, as it does, a man who has been voluntarily receiving less than a fair rent and entitling him to put that down as a debt against the tenant is one which we could not accept.

MR. E. W. HARCOURT

said, his Amendment was not retrospective but prospective. Suppose a man had been for the last 20 years letting a farm to a tenant for 25 per cent below its value, what they virtually said was—" If a sale is to take place, you shall be required to let that land for 15 years more at the same price."

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

thought his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt) had raised a very important point—namely, whether a free sale should be a free sale, or only limited to what the Government appeared to have in their mind—that was, the right of selling a reasonable expectation of continuing in the holding, whatever it might be worth, or whether they were to give the tenant a free sale, to be manufactured out of the generosity of the landlord. There were several properties in Ireland which let considerably under what the Court would consider to be a fair rent. They would force all the landlords in Ireland who had let their property at a low rent to go into the Court at once, in order that they might obtain, in an indirect way, an increased rent. He understood the object of his hon. Friend to be this—to protect the landlord who had treated his tenants with great generosity, and who for years had allowed his tenants to have the land very much under the market value. For instance, he believed there were many cases in which Griffith's valuation had been, taken with regard to pasture land, and on many pieces of pasture land Griffith's valuation was absurdly low. If they gave the tenant the right to sell at that low rent, they would give him a right to sell something which had been conferred upon him solely through the generosity of his landlord. If his hon. Friend's Amendment were accepted the landlord would be able to go into Court and say—" I require the Court to find out what is the fair rent of my tenancy, in order that I may know what difference there is between a fair rent and the rent I have actually charged, because it is indisputably lower than the rent I could get in the open market." The Court would then fix a fair rent, and the tenant would not be able to sell that particular margin between a fair rent and the rent which he had been paying, and which was not a margin he would have acquired by any act of his own. If they did not accept this Amendment they would not enable the landlord to keep out of Court, but they would absolutely force him for his own protection to go to the Court, or else the tenant would be able to sell what did not belong to him. He did not know whether this was the exact point urged by his hon. Friend; but it was certainly a question of very great importance, and if the Prime Minister did not see his way to agreeing to the principle of the Amendment, he hoped that his hon. Friend would go to a division, and take the opinion of the Committee upon the subject.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

understood the point raised by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt) to be that of a landlord letting a farm to a tenant or tenants very much under its value. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) had spoken of the generosity and kindness of the landlord; but whatever the landlord's motives might be, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) assumed that the present tenant ought not to lose any portion of the full value of the interest which he had in the holding. The noble Lord was afraid that when a tenant came to sell his tenancy he might sell to the purchaser a part of the landlord's generosity; but he could not sell without giving the landlord notice that he was going to sell, and the landlord, when he found that his reason for treating the tenant with forbearance and generosity was at an end, and was to be interrupted by the transference of the holding to a stranger, could at once raise the rent; and probably he would not have to go to the Court for that purpose at all, because, if he knew that the rent was very much too low, he apprehended that the tenant would be equally conscious of that fact. Either an arrangement would be come to, or the landlord would go to the Court and get a fair rent fixed. Of course, it was not reasonable that a tenant should be able to sell the generosity of his landlord; but it must be borne in mind that when the time for selling came the landlord would have full notice of the change, and would then give notice to the tenant and to the purchaser of the fact that he intended to raise the rent, and if they could not agree as to what was a fair rent for the holding, then it would be in the power of either of them to go to the Court. But the hon. Gentleman wanted to go far beyond that, and to provide that when the rent was ascertained for the future, the Court should capitalize the future forbearance of the landlord, and pay him the amount out of money which was coming to his old tenant. The effect would be to charge this old tenant with the full money value of the difference between a fair rent and such lower rent as the landlord might then be ready to take from the purchaser. In fact, it would be enforcing the payment of so much of the fair rent, not in the ordinary or natural way, but by anticipation in the shape of a fine or capital sum payable by the original tenant. To that the Government could not accede.

MR. PLUNKET

said, the conclusion of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland's speech entirely gave the go-by to his argument at the beginning of it. It was said that his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt) had attempted to give the landlord an opportunity of eating his cake and keeping it; and of obtaining all the cudos he could get for his generosity, and then demanding payment for it. If his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland would carefully study the language of the Amendment, he would see that the words were these— And the difference between this and the actual rent shall be capitalized for the term of the prospective tenancy. He (Mr. Plunket) had been about to Suggest to his hon. Friend that he should withdraw the Amendment in favour of the one which stood in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Portarlington (Mr. Fitzpatrick), which proposed to give effect to the same principle, but in better words. The words of the present Amendment were a little too general. However, the principle had been controverted by his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, who had argued against the idea altogether. He would, therefore, state what the real object of this proposal was. They must assume an estate, of which there were, indeed, a great many in Ire land, whereon the rents had always been kept down to a very modest figure. The landlord would never have thought of raising the rent upon any of his tenants; but, under this Bill, any one of the tenants, by selling his interest in the holding, might at once put it upon the landlord either to raise the rent or to purchase the holding himself, perhaps at an exceedingly inconvenient period, or else to submit to lose the difference between this very low rent and what would have been a fair rent. The object of this Amendment was simply to enable the landlord to escape the loss of the difference between the low rent he had charged and that which the Court would assign to be the proper rent that ought to be paid, and the Amendment would allow him to escape that loss without undertaking the invidious task of raising the rent on the incoming tenant. That was the whole object of the Amendment, and—

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

Paying by anticipation.

MR. PLUNKET

hoped his right hon. and learned Friend would allow him to continue his argument. For the sake of argument, he assumed that the rent was very low indeed. The tenant proposed to sell his interest in the holding. It must be assumed that there was a considerable difference and margin in the rent that was charged and what would be declared by the Court under the Bill to be a fair rent. Now, unless they had some such Amendment as this, the landlord would have no alternative except either to submit to the loss of this difference altogether, or to raise the rent against the incoming tenant—and it would not do for his right hon. And learned Friend to interrupt him and say it was paying by anticipation. What difference was there between that and doing what he would do—namely, raise the rent against an incoming tenant? The object was that the landlord should have, not a very low rent, but a fair rent against the new tenant, and that he might be enabled to charge what would be practically a fair rent without going through the invidious process of raising the rent of any particular holding.

MR. W. FOWLER

said, he hoped that the Committee would not be called upon to divide upon the Amendment. The clause was a prospective one, and it might inflict injustice upon the tenant by compelling him to pay a larger sum than he ought to be called upon to pay. He quite failed to understand the difficulty about raising the rent. He agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that if there was an exceptionally low rent it would be very easy to raise it. The only question was, what would be the most convenient remedy? and he confessed that he did not think the Amendment would answer any such purpose.

COLONEL BARNE

thought it was just as well that the tenant farmers of Ireland should understand that by this Bill the whole of the rents of Ireland would have to be raised to their full value. The landlords of Ireland would be compelled, under a heavy penalty, to raise their rents to their full value. He was told that many large estates in Ireland were let very much under their full value; and as by this Bill the landlords would be compelled to raise their rents, hon. Members who were going to support the Government in this division must clearly understand that they were about to vote for raising the rents of the tenants of Ireland to their full value.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

, who rose amid loud cries of "Divide," said, the Committee had made wonderful progress that morning, and he saw no reason for the impatience they were manifesting, especially as this particular Amendment was a very important one. A landlord let his land admittedly very low. The tenant gave notice to quit, and intimated that he was going to sell the holding. The landlord wished to exercise his right of pre-emption. He was obliged to make it appear in evidence that the land had been let at a very low rent indeed, because it stood to reason that land must be worth more when it was low-rented than when it was over-rented. If the landlord did not wish to have a person coming in of whom he did not approve he was obliged to exercise the right of pre-emption, and unless some such provision as this were inserted in the Bill the landlord would have to pay an enormous penalty for his generosity in the past. They could not get out of the difficulty in any other way. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] He knew very well that nothing more vexed or annoyed the Prime Minister when he was speaking himself than for anybody to shake his head. In consequence, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) had carefully avoided doing so; but he observed that the Members of the Government were constantly in the habit of doing that which they objected to in others. And most of the important Members of Her Majesty's Government, and especially the Solicitor General, were in the habit of sneering, shaking their heads, and turning up their noses whenever anybody expressed an opinion in which they did not coincide. Now, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) did not feel inclined to allow a division to be taken until the Government had entered into a clear explanation of what would be the effect of not adopting some provision like the present one for the protection of the landlord. If the landlord desired to make himself safe, he must compel the tenant to pay an increased rent, and the tenant could take him into the Court to have it fixed. Thereby the Government were actually producing the very result they professed to be anxious to avoid, because if the landlord did not exercise his right of pre-emption he would have to pay an enormous fine for having let his land at a low rent. He should very much like to hoar the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) argue this question.

MR. E. W. HARCOURT

said, that as he was certainly not convinced by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had said he should go to a division. In the first place, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not quoted exactly what he (Mr. Harcourt) had advanced. He did not wish to capitalize the difference between a fair rent and a low rent, what he wished was that a landlord should not suffer on account of the lenity with which he had hitherto dealt with his tenant, and that if he were to be compelled in the future to let his land below its value because he had done so in the past he should receive some equivalent for an obvious injustice. If the landlord, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, endeavoured to set himself right by applying for a rise of rent, he would immediately subject himself to the statutory conditions.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 212: Majority 112—(Div. List, No. 248.)

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.

The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.