ORDINARY CONDITIONS OF TENANCIES.

HC Deb 16 June 1881 vol 262 cc655-748

Clause 1 (Sale of tenancies).

MR. GLADSTONE

I have an appeal to make to the hon. Member for Port-arlington (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who has the first Amendment on the Paper, not to bring it forward at the present moment, because I find that it deals with the question of judicial rents in statutory tenancies. This question is out of place on this part of the Bill, and will have to be dealt with farther on.

Amendment postponed.

MR. BRODRICK

moved in page 2, line 26, after "tenancy," to insert— Provided always, That if the amount of the purchase money is insufficient to pay the moneys found due to the landlord as aforesaid, the amount of such insufficiency shall he a first charge on the interest of the incoming tenant in the holding. The hon. Member said that at present the landlord's improvements were not saved by the Bill, and it was necessary to make some attempt to produce an equality in respect of improvements between the position of the landlord and that of the tenant. He would suggest, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister should accept the Amendment he (Mr. Brodrick) had placed upon the Paper, saving those parts of the landlord's improvements which had not been realized, or make it incumbent upon the Court to provide that when the tenant sold his interest such sale should not in any case include the improvements of the landlord.

Amendment moved, In page 2, line 26, after "tenancy," to insert "Provided always, That if the amount of the purchase money is insufficient to pay the moneys found due to the landlord as aforesaid, the amount of such insufficiency shall be a first charge on the interest of the incoming tenant in the holding. Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GLADSTONE

I do not think the hon. Gentleman has taken into account that this subject is to undergo amendment in conformity with the suggestion made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) to limit the application of the sub-section in order that there may be no passing, without the consent of the landlord, of the landlord's improvements to the new tenant. Under these circumstances, I do not think it desirable to press this Amendment, and I hope that the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) will reserve his judgment upon the matter until we have entered upon the question of the limitations which are to be made.

MR. GIBSON

said, the Government proposed that the sub-section should stand by for the present and be brought up on the Report. He thought the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend would have to be dealt with in some way, and he would give his reason why. Supposing improvements were sold with the consent of the landlord, that was one of the two questions that would have to be dealt with, and the Amendment proposed to deal with an alternative—namely, where the purchase money was not sufficient to pay for the improvements. The hon. Member asked that, in the event of the purchase money not being sufficient, the improvements should become a charge upon the holding.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the tenant could not sell the fee simple of the landlord's improvements any more than of the land itself; but if, with the consent of the landlord, the absolute property in the improvements was sold in conjunction with the tenancy of the tenant, then the two things would pass together to the purchaser, and the Court would have to find out what part of the purchase money belonged to the tenant, as representing his tenancy, including his use of the improvements, and what part to the landlord. That would be a matter for the Court to decide. Neither would be entitled to anything beyond what was found to represent his own separate interest.

MR. BRODRICK

said, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government he had great pleasure in withdrawing the Amendment; but he hoped the question would be taken into consideration.

MR. LEAMY

pointed out that the landlord had already the right of preemption, and if he chose to give his assent to the sale of improvements which were his own property he ought to take the consequence of that sale, and to accept as much and no more than the improvements would bring him. The landlord might exercise his right of pre-emption if he thought the improvements were going to be sold at a sacrifice.

DR. COMMINS

said, the incoming tenant would undoubtedly pay the value of the improvements in the first instance, and the Amendment proposed to make him pay interest upon the money that might be owing to the landlord in addition to what he had paid already. In point of fact, it made him pay twice over.

MR. WARTON

wished to point out a case which he did not think was provided for in the section—namely, the case where money was due to the landlord, not only for landlord's improvements, but for arrears of rent. It might be that the whole of the money due to the landlord from these two sources amounted to more altogether than the purchase money. The landlord was to have payment for any debt due to him from the tenant. Of course, that debt covered arrears of rent; but he hoped the Attorney General for Ireland and Her Majesty's Government would see that there might be a case where the claim of the landlord, both for arrears of rent and for improvements, overtopped what the incoming tenant was about to pay. Surely that ought to be a charge on the incoming tenant.

MR. GLADSTONE

In answer to the appeal of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), whether, when the claim of the landlord for improvements, together with the claim for rent, overtops the tenant right, that circumstance should not be taken into consideration in the charge made upon the incoming tenant, I certainly think that it must be regarded as a debt due from the outgoing tenant.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. E. W. HARCOURT

moved, in line 31, after "rent," to insert "for waste by dilapidation of buildings or deterioration of the soil."

Amendment moved, In page 2, line 31, after "rent," insert "for waste by dilapidation of buildings or deterioration of the soil."—(Mr. E. W. Harcourt.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press this Amendment, the object of which was, he submitted, fully provided for already.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. COHEN

moved, in line 31, to leave out "otherwise," and insert "other breaches of the contract or conditions'of tenancy." He said that the sub-section enabled the landlord to recoup himself out of all monies claimed from the tenant for arrears of rent or otherwise. Many hon. Members, including himself, were puzzled to know what was meant by "arrears of rent or otherwise."

Amendment moved, In page 2, line 13, leave out "otherwise," and insert "other breaches of the contract or conditions of tenancy."—(Mr. Cohen.) Question proposed, "That the word 'otherwise' stand part of the Clause."

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

asked, as a point of Order, whether this Amendment could be put, seeing that its adoption would prevent other Amendments of which Notice had been given from being moved?

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor) has an Amendment to leave out the words "or otherwise," which will have precedence.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LALOR

moved, in page 2, line 31, after "rent," to leave out "or otherwise." The sub-section of the clause at present stood thus— That where a tenant sells his tenancy to any person other than the landlord, the landlord may, at any time within the prescribed period, give notice both to the outgoing tenant and to the purchaser of any sums which he may claim from the outgoing tenant for arrears of rent or otherwise. He did not object to the landlord having a claim for arrears of rent; but why should there be any "otherwise"? What right had the landlord on any other ground more than any other creditor to lay claim to any portion of the purchase money?

Amendment moved, in page 2, line 31, after "rent," to leave out "or otherwise."—(Mr. Lalor.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'or otherwise' stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

thought the hon. Gentleman would see that it was quite impossible to confine the right of deduction simply to rent. The clause already provided in an earlier portion of the section that the Court might ascertain as to be paid out of the purchase money compensation for any injury the landlord might have sustained from the tenant by breach of the conditions under which he held the tenancy. At the same time, he quite agreed with the hon. Member that the word "otherwise" was too large, and therefore that it was right to propose the omission of that word. He proposed, however, to accept the Amendment which was about to be moved by the hon. and learned Member for South-wark (Mr. Cohen).

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved, In page 2, line 31, leave out "otherwise," and insert" other breaches of the contract or conditions of tenancy."—(Mr. Cohen.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. MULHOLLAND

moved, in line 41, to leave out the word "pay," and insert "retain a prescribed sum for costs, and pay the sum so retained and."

Amendment moved, In page 2, line 41, leave out "pay," and in-Bert "retain a prescribed sum for costs, and pay the sum so retained and."—(Mr. Mulholland.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

hoped his hon. Friend would not press this Amendment. It was quite obvious that it would be unreasonable to impose on the tenant the duty of giving security by depositing money in Court in order to meet the costs of what, after all, might be by no means a frivolous claim. If that provision were enacted in one case, it would certainly have to be enacted in the other, and the landlord also should be required to deposit a sum for costs. He thought matters of this kind ought to be left in all cases for the Court, which would have sufficient power to check the prosecution of frivolous claims.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

moved to leave out from the word "it" to "tenant," in page 3, line 2, and insert— The sale of such tenancy shall be deemed not to be completed, and the outgoing tenant shall be deemed to be still the tenant of such tenancy. He did not think that the Amendment would alter the object and intention of the clause. It appeared to him that the way in which the clause was drawn made it quite possible for the landlord to fall between two stools, if he might apply such a wooden expression to the Irish tenant. He thought that it was possible under the clause for the tenant to give up the farm, and to leave the landlord no alternative but to accept the incoming tenant, or to give up all claim to compensation. It would be quite possible for the outgoing tenant to make some private arrangement with an intending purchaser by which the outgoing tenant might receive the money and go to America, leaving the landlord without a remedy in regard to the claim to which he was entitled. The landlord would then be left in this position—that he would have to accept the purchaser as a tenant with no possibility of recovering the amount of the claim to which he was entitled, or else he would have the farm left on his own hands. The Amendment he proposed would have the effect of providing a safeguard for the landlord's rights, and it would in no way interfere with the power of the outgoing tenant to get a purchaser for the tenancy if he wished to get rid of it. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved, In page 3, line 2, to leave out from "it," to "tenant," in line 3, and insert "the sale of such tenancy shall be deemed not to be completed, and the outgoing tenant shall be deemed to be still the tenant of such tenancy."—(Viscount Folkestone.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

thought the noble Lord would find on examination that the words of the clause, as they stood, fully provided for everything that was necessary. The transfer of yearly tenancies in ordinary practice was never completed in any but one way—namely, by the landlord accepting the new tenant in place of the old one. There was no formality of deeds or conveyances; but the tenancy passed on the landlord accepting the new tenant in place of the old one, and thus assenting and giving effect to the transfer. The Amendment, in fact, was entirely unnecessary, and would cause great practical inconvenience. There was, perhaps, one possible case, although he had never come across an instance of it, where the noble Lord's reasoning might seem to apply—namely, where the tenant assigned his tenancy by deed. In such a case the legal interest would pass, although the tenant might have made the assignment after breaking some of the important provisions that were here made for the landlord's protection. For example, not having given notice. But he apprehended that the Court would have full power, if applied to by the landlord, to set aside the sale, on the ground that it was an attempt to derogate from his rights. There was a statutory obligation in the most imperative language that the tenant should do so and so, and if any of the obligations placed upon the tenant for the protection of the landlord were broken, the landlord would be able to go to the Court at once to have the sale set aside. It would not be desirable, therefore, to lay down a cast iron rule that the delay, for instance, of a single day in the service of a notice should render the whole transaction null and void. It was quite enough for the pro- tection of the landlord that the Court should have the power of setting aside the sale, unless it was satisfied that the conditions of the statute had been complied with. It would not, under such circumstances, be obligatory on the landlord to accept the tenant. No Court would say he was bound to accept the purchaser of a tenancy if he had never received any notice of the sale at all. The landlord would say at once—"I do not recognize or sanction that sale." As he had said, the only possible case he could imagine in which the clause would not apply would be the case in which a deed, had been executed, and that was a very rare thing in Ireland. But even in that case the ordinary law would protect the landlord. In point of fact, the Court had all the necessary jurisdiction and power if it considered it right to exercise them. He therefore trusted that the noble Lord would not insist upon the Amendment.

MR. GORST

thought there was a necessity for some Amendment in this direction, because, notwithstanding the explanation the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had given to the Committee, it was perfectly clear that the landlord did run some risk. Suppose that everything proceeded with the most perfect regularity, and there was no reason why the landlord should object to the new tenant, but that the assignment was made and everything was done with complete order and regularity, and then the landlord found that he had certain claims against the outgoing tenant, and served the new tenant with the notice provided for under sub-section 8. The incoming tenant being served with that notice, instead of paying the money into Court, paid it to the outgoing tenant, who conveyed his rights over to the purchaser by deed, and at once went to America. What would then be the position of the landlord? The assignment would be a perfectly good one, and would be complete; but, nevertheless, the landlord would be left without his money. The outgoing tenant having bolted to America with the sum that ought to have been paid into Court, the landlord would be left entirely without a remedy.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

stated that the Amendment might cause some danger to, and impose some hardship upon, the tenant. The noble Lord proposed that if the tenant had omitted any of the duties the section imposed upon him, he should thereby be deprived of his status as tenant. The result of that would be, that if there was any defect, technical or otherwise, in the deed of assignment, it might be held in terrorem over the tenant, and at any time subsequently. According to this Amendment, the landlord might take advantage of it in order to turn the tenant out, and say—" You are no tenant of mine." Why should the landlord have this power? Was he not protected by the power he had of seeing that the tenant fulfilled his duties before any assignment could be made? It was not obligatory on a landlord to accept the purchaser as a tenant if any default had taken place. He would have every opportunity of knowing what was being done, because, by the Amendment already accepted by the Committee, he would have an opportunity of knowing what the tenant intended to sell, and what the amount of the purchase money was to be. Therefore, he would be in full possession of all the knowledge that it was necessary he should have, and he ought to take upon himself the responsibility of seeing that there was no default on the part of the outgoing tenant. He trusted that the Amendment would not be accepted.

MR. GIBSON

said, the Amendment raised an extremely important question, and all the more important in consequence of the way in which his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had dealt with it. The sub-section to which his noble Friend had asked the attention of the Committee was important, because it was the only one from the beginning to the end of this complicated clause that indicated what was to happen in the event of the conditions introduced as safeguards not being complied with. The section gave to every tenant of Ireland the right of free sale, and it purported, in regard to the landlord, to throw around him certain safeguards which were to protect him from possible loss. It directed, in one section, that ample notice should be given to the landlord in order that he might have an opportunity of knowing who was to be his future tenant. Provisions were also introduced to enable him, if he pleased, to be paid out of the purchase money, for landlords' improvements. It permitted him to make obviously just claims against the purchase money in respect of arrears of rent, and it contained further provisions in the landlords' interest. But unless the safeguards which were introduced on behalf of the landlord were real safeguards, vital safeguards that could be given effect to under the clause, they would be perfectly worthless, because there was no provision, from the beginning to the end of the clause, that said to the tenant who disregarded these safeguards and gave no notice, but who put the purchase money in his pocket, and went to America or elsewhere—there was not a single section in the clause which said to the tenant who so disregarded the conditions of the section—"Your proceedings are all null. This section must control and govern the operations of the sale. You have wilfully given no notice; you have wilfully put the purchase money in your pocket; you have disregarded the fair claim of the landlord; and, therefore, under the sub-section, we will put aside all your operations and declare that what has been done is entirely null and void." Now this was a very essential point, and how was it met by his right hon. and learned Friend? His right hon. and learned Friend said that the clause which he proposed to amend gave all the remedy the landlord could require. That was rather startling. This particular section did not apply to the whole clause, but only to a single sub-section which appeared before it, and which provided that— Until the purchaser has satisfied the requirements"—not of the clause, but of that particular sub-section—" it shall not be obligatory on the landlord to accept the purchaser as his tenant. He did not think that that was any remedy whatever, even in respect to this sub-section, because the term "accept" was no substantial remedy whatever. What remedy could it give to the landlord except the privilege of saying to his friends and neighbours—"I do not accept the incoming tenant?" He would not say that the words proposed by his noble Friend were the best way of dealing with this sub-section, but they fairly challenged the incompleteness of the drafting as the Bill now stood. He would now say one word as to the way in which the general proposition of giv- ing validity to the safeguards had been dealt with by his right hon. and learned Friend. What his right hon. and learned Friend said was that it was unnecessary, and it would not be just, to put a cast iron rule into the clause which would say to the tenant and to the purchaser—"If you violate the rules laid down in this clause for the protection of the landlord your proceedings will be null and void." His right hon. and learned Friend said the landlord was not without his remedy, because he could go into a Court of Equity and by instituting a suit set aside the purchaser who violated the provisions of the Bill. Was that justice to the landlord? A tenancy was to be sold on his property whether he liked it or not. Under certain conditions, and without notice to him, the purchaser might pay over the purchase money to the tenant who had avoided notice, and in such circumstances it was a mockery to tell the landlord—" Your remedy is to go into a Court of Chancery, which will give you relief and set aside the proceedings." That was not just nor reasonable, if the landlord was to be dealt with on any principle of equity whatever. But the question would be raised in a broader manner upon an Amendment which stood in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham), and when that Amendment was proposed he trusted that some more conclusive reason than had yet been given would be assigned for setting aside the safeguards of the landlord.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) had manifested a little warmth in the matter; but the object of his right hon. and learned Friend and that of the Government were the same in desiring that nothing in the shape of a mere sham protection should be given to the landlords. He (the Solicitor General) was quite at one with those who would make the safeguards of the landlord real and substantial. No doubt there were some provisions for the protection of the landlord in regard to which it was only reasonable to say that the purchaser should not become the tenant unless those provisions were fully complied with. But there were other conditions for the protection of the landlord in regard to which it would be unreasonable to make what was, perhaps, an accidental non-perform- ance of them have the effect of vitiating the transaction altogether. The most vital concern of the landlord in regard to that section was that which related to the payment of the money, and as to that provision, it laid down that until the purchaser satisfied the requirements of the sub-section it should not be obligatory on the landlord to accept the purchaser as his tenant. Then, if the landlord was not bound to accept him as his tenant, he did not become the tenant; and if he had paid the purchase money to the outgoing tenant, who had absconded with it to America, it did him no good, because he was not accepted by the landlord and was not the tenant. But he apprehended that that would be a very rare and exceptional case, and even there he took it that, being bound by the sub-section to pay the money into Court, if the purchaser paid it to the outgoing tenant and not into Court he would be regarded as not having paid it; and even if there had been an assignment he would not be allowed to take the benefit of such assignment. If there was any dispute about the purchase money, of course they could not prevent the one side or the other from going into Court. If, however, it should turn out on further consideration that sufficient protection was not given to the landlord, the Government would be ready to make an alteration of the clause. His right hon. and learned Friend would see that it would be in the power of the Court to make stringent rules for the carrying out of the Act. This matter would not be lost sight of. He and his right hon. and learned Friend did not differ in principle; but, on the other hand, he did not want to do anything that might invalidate the whole of the proceedings, and he would promise that the matter should be carefully considered.

MR. SYNAN

remarked that the Committee had been favoured with a legal argument from the learned Solicitor General; but the common sense view of the matter had been left out of consideration altogether. The objection was that the landlord would be left without protection—that, in point of fact, the purchaser would be such a fool that after having received notice from the landlord, after having given his name as the intended purchaser to the landlord, and having declared the sum that was to be paid for the tenant right he would pay his money to a runaway tenant, and leave himself without a hold either upon the tenant or the landlord. Was it right to assume that any man out of a lunatic asylum would be guilty of such a proceeding as that? He now came to the case of an assignment. It was said that a difficulty might arise in the event of an assignment; but he contended that if there was an assignment of the lease, the tenant or the purchaser would have perfectly legal rights quite outside the Bill altogether. If, however, the lease contained covenants against assignments, and if in violation of those covenants the purchaser paid his money to a runaway tenant, he would simply stand in the position of the old tenant who had forfeited his lease, and be subject to the same conditions. It was very improbable to suppose that the case would ever arise, even in regard to a lease containing no covenants against an assignment. The purchaser would always take care that he was accepted as the tenant, and he would not be likely to pay the purchase money to a runaway tenant, and thus lose his title to the property; at all events, the landlord would not be damnified by the folly of the purchaser.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

agreed up to a certain point with what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The hon. Gentleman said that it was "impossible." He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) would say it was "improbable;" but, nevertheless, he would put it to the Government whether it was not better, either here or further on in the clause, when they came to the proposal of the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham), to introduce some words which would safeguard the landlord against such cases as might arise. What was really wanted was that the Bill should take care that, as far as possible, the transaction should take the course of a sale in Ulster. In Ulster the practice was this—both the outgoing and incoming tenant and the landlord met, the money was handed over at the meeting, and all proper deductions were made at the same time. He would not say that it would be right to introduce a provision to that effect; but he hoped the Government would consider it.

MR. GORST

really thought, after the declaration that had been made by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, that there was no occasion for continuing the discussion. He understood that the Government fully appreciated the object of his noble Friend (Viscount Folkestone) in moving the Amendment. They were as desirous as his noble Friend was that the landlord should have protection, and Her Majesty's Government would consider whether the words of the present Bill gave a sufficient protection or not, and if they did not, they would propose some other words to give protection. Under these circumstances, he thought his noble Friend might safely withdraw the Amendment.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

said, that if he understood from the Government that they were prepared to take care of the landlord's rights on this point, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment, providing they would undertake to bring up some words to carry out this object, either upon his Amendment or upon that of his hon. Friend the Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

trusted that there would be no mistake. What the Government had declared their readiness to do was to consider whether the clause as it stood did not give sufficient protection. They could not undertake to put in additional words if it appeared that the landlord was perfectly safe. The subject, however, would be fully considered.

MR. GIBSON

understood that his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General gave an undertaking as distinct as possible, whereas the statement just made by his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland was only of a qualified character. He understood his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General to say that there was a class of cases of exceptional character, although he (Mr. Gibson) believed they would become common if that Bill passed—such as legal assignment by deed of tenancy from year to year. His hon. and learned Friend admitted that that was a class of cases that was not covered by the drafting of the present clause, and he added that he was willing to consider that question, with the view of introducing words into the clause to remedy what might be a great abuse of the landlord's rights.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he had not stated that the clause as it at present stood did not cover that. All he said was that it was the only case in which it could be suggested that the clause did not provide a remedy. He had certainly added that it was desirable to put the matter beyond all doubt; and if the Government came to the conclusion that there was any doubt about it, it would be made perfectly clear.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GIVAN moved,

in page 3, line 8, after "applications," insert the words— And may disallow or reduce the arrears claimed by the landlord, if the rent has been an exorbitant rent, or in case such arrears shall not have wholly accrued within three years next preceding the then last Yule day, or that such arrears shall have accrued in consequence of failure of crops, damage by flood, or any exceptional circumstance. The hon. Member said that if it would be more convenient to discuss this question at a subsequent time, he would be willing and even anxious to withdraw the Amendment, so that it might come on at a more opportune time. But he saw that there was a somewhat similar Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and it would be necessary that they should join in withdrawing both Amendments, and in putting them on the Paper for a subsequent portion of the Bill. He should be glad to learn whether the hon. Member was willing to take that course.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. Member that his proposal is certainly very similar to the proposal of the hon. Member for Cavan; but while his Amendment is a minor proposition, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan is very much a major one. I presume that what the hon. Member for Monaghan means is that he will not press this Amendment at present, if the hon. Member for Cavan will also postpone his.

MR. GIVAN

said, that was exactly what he meant.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he had not been able to follow what the hon. Gentleman said with regard to these particular Amendments. They dealt with the question of arrears and excessive rents, and he regarded those questions as matters of the very greatest impor- tance. In point of fact, they laid at the whole root of the Bill. Unless a very decided attitude was taken by the Government upon that particular question the whole of their legislation would fail.

MR. RITCHIE

asked what was the Question before the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN

I have explained to the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) the difference between his proposal and that of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and I understand the hon. Member to offer to withdraw his Amendment if both Amendments are withdrawn, and introduced at a subsequent stage.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that he had certainly no objection to withdraw his Amendment, if the Government would consider the question hereafter.

MR. GIVAN

said, he did not yield to the hon. Member for Cavan in his estimate of the extreme importance of the question, and he quite agreed with the hon. Member that very much of the dissatisfaction and discontent existing in Ireland at the present moment had been to a considerable extent brought about by the state of affairs with which that Amendmeut proposed to deal. He was nevertheless of opinion that these Amendments could be more conveniently discussed, and better discussed, from his point of view, when the Bill had proceeded a little further; and it was in order to have it more effectually discussed, and more effectually decided by the Committee hereafter, that he wished to postpone the Amendment for the present. In appealing to the hon. Member for Cavan to withdraw his Amendment, he wished it to be understood that he only asked him to withdraw it temporarily; but in order that the matter might be fairly before the Committee he would move the Amendment which stood in his name.

Amendment moved, In page 3, line 8, after "applications," insert the words "and may disallow or reduce the arrears claimed by the landlord, if the rent has been an exorbitant rent, or in case such arrears shall not have wholly accrued with three years next preceding the then last Yule day, or that such arrears shall have accrued in consequence of failure of crops, damage by flood, or any exceptional circumstance."—(Mr Givan.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. BIGGAR,

seeing that he was now more or less in Order, wished to say that he was anxious to fall in with the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) in every way that he could, and he had no desire to press his Amendment in an adverse manner. All he wished to know was whether the Government were willing to consider the question. He did not ask them to pledge themselves to the principle involved, either in the one Amendment or the other. But he should like to know if they would consider the question in an impartial spirit; and in that case he would be prepared to put off his Amendment until a period when it could be more conveniently discussed. He should like again to point out that it was this question of arrears and evictions which had brought about the present disturbed state of things in Ireland, and had given rise to the urgent need at the present moment for a Land Bill.

MR. GLADSTONE

It has been said that various intimations have been given from different parts of the House that hon. Gentlemen desire to make some proposal with regard to arrears now impending—some special isolated proposal as to which I will not now say more than that, having regard to the character of the proposal, I do not think we ought to form any opinion upon it until it is before us. But the Amendment before the Committee is a proposal of a different kind. It is a proposal to embody a permanent rule in our legislation, that permanent rule being that when there is a claim on the part of the landlord for arrears of rent, it shall be in the power of one of the parties to raise the question whether the rent is a reasonable one. To that proposal we are not prepared to give our consent, nor do I know that there would be any great advantage in considering it at a later period. It would, in our opinion; be a most objectionable principle to introduce in any legislation relating to the Land Laws that there should be permanently introduced this power of restricting rents agreed to under contract; but most especially it would be objectionable to entertain any question of that kind in connection with tenures with regard to which at the present moment we are giving the tenant power to apply to the Court for the purpose of obtaining remission of rent.

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, that the proposal of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) was, in plain language, that whereas any simple contract creditor had six years allowed him wherein to recover debts, the landlord was not to be able to recover what was due to him after three years had elapsed. He was quite unable to see why a man who had shown forbearance to his debtor for more than three years in the matter of the payment of rent should be punished more severely than one who had been, the sharpest and most exacting landlord in the country. He altogether denied the assertion of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that the question of the recovery of arrears of rent had given rise to the present disturbed condition of the country for which he and his friends were responsible.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan that the question of existing arrears was one of very great importance, and the necessity of dealing with it in some form was, in his judgment, pressing. The proper way of raising the question would, he thought, be by the addition of a new clause specially addressed to the subject and he had prepared a clause dealing with it.

MR. BIGGAR

thought it right that the attention of the Committee should be directed to the fact that it was not the intention of himself or of his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Givan) to make the provision contained in his Amendment permanent. His intention was to make it apply to outstanding matters, on account of which farmers were now liable to be evicted from their holdings. Therefore, he thought it right that the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) should be carried out, and that the question should be raised in such a way that the Prime Minister should be able to accede to the proposal. Under the circumstances, he was willing not to move his Amendment, and would suggest to the hon. Member for Monaghan to withdraw the Amendment before the Committee.

MR. GIVAN

said, that one reason why he moved the Amendment was that if rent was exorbitant and unfair the tenant would not be able to pay it without being brought to a state of bankruptcy, and that it would therefore be right to put power into the hands of the Court to deal with arrears. He was prepared to withdraw his Amendment on the distinct understanding that it would be renewed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved, in page 3, line 11, leave out the words "the same," and insert "his holding."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved, in page 3, line 11, after the word "occasion" insert "of quitting his holding."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved, in page 3, line 16, leave out "tenancy," and insert "holding."—(Mr. Litton.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved, in page 3, line 18, leave out "claim to."—(Mr. Litton.)

MR. WARTON

suggested that the word "elect," which was well known in law, should be substituted.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

remarked that the word "claim" implied that the tenant must show the right of sale before the Court, whereas, if it were put absolutely, he could sell without public notice on his part.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, there was no harm in the words proposed to be struck out; but as they wished the section to be an enabling section, he was prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tyrone.

MR. GIBSON

thought it would be better to retain the words.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

reminded the Committee that the power to sell had already been conferred by the first paragraph of the clause.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

thought the word "elect," suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), was the correct one, and "claim" was used as an equivalent; but neither was necessary.

Amendment (Mr. Litton)agreed to.

Amendment moved, in page 3, line 18, after the word "may," insert "elect to."—(Mr. Warton.)

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. and learned Member that this Amendment cannot be put in its present form, the Committee having decided that the word "to" should be struck out.

MR. WARTON

submitted that the words "claim to" conveyed one idea, and those which he proposed to substitute another. However, he would move in another form.

Amendment moved, in line 18, after "may," insert "elect that he will."—(Mr. Warton)

Amendment negatived.

MR. LITTON

said, the working of the Ulster Custom had been regarded with great jealousy since the passing of the Land Act of 1870, and on many estates rules had been laid down that a tenant should not receive more than a certain number of years' value. In some cases it was three years, in others five, and in a few cases as high as ten. These rules had been imposed upon tenants without their consent since 1870, and if they elected to sell under the custom, and the words of the clause remained as they were, they would sell under the custom limited by office rules. His object being that they should sell without any such restriction, he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment moved, in page 3, line 19, after "usage," insert "unrestricted by any office or estate rule."—(Mr. Litton.)

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, that, whatever feeling there might be with regard to the Amendment, it was quite clear that it was out of place to move it on the present sub-section. The clause did not in any way apply to or regulate the Ulster tenant right custom. No doubt, in the discussions which had taken place on this clause, allusion had been made to office rules in existence in Ulster; but that had been owing to the misconception that the clause applied to the Ulster Custom. No doubt, the hon. Member could, if he wished, raise the question upon a subsequent clause; but to introduce the words proposed into a sub-section which merely gave the tenant the option of selling his tenancy in either of two ways could only lead to confusion.

MR. LEA

said, he knew of an estate in the North of Ireland in which the tenant right was at one time sold at 20 years' purchase. But the estate having changed hands, an office rule was made which reduced the tenant right to the value of five years' purchase. It was perfectly clear that a rule of that kind largely affected the value of the tenancy. The Amendment was, in his opinion, necessary in the interest of the tenant, as well as for the due working of the Bill, and he trusted it would meet with the acceptance of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister.

MR. GLADSTONE

While I do not deny that the question is one which might be fairly raised at another time, I cannot but think that the Ulster tenant right custom ought not to be touched in a collateral manner, whether by the abolition or modification of office rules.

MR. LITTON

said, there were other clauses in the Bill which introduced references to the Ulster tenant right custom. If an early section of the Act contained a reference to the custom indicating that office and estate rules were a part of the custom which might be in operation after the passing of the Act, a great evil would, in his opinion, be done. Therefore, unless the words of his Amendment were inserted here, he did not see how this evil could be avoided, because it would be impossible to go back on the clause when it had passed. He agreed that when the option was given to the tenant he need not sell under the custom; and, possibly, so far as this particular section was concerned, no great harm would be done; still, everyone would admit that the Ulster Custom did include estate or office rules. If the Prime Minister considered it more advantageous to adopt the Amendment at a future time he was willing to defer to his better judgment; but he would remind the Committee that even the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) could make no objection to the words proposed to be added.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

thought it would be very hard if the Amendment could not be introduced in another part of the Bill after it had been withdrawn by the hon. Member opposite. The tenant might, by this sub-section, elect to sell under the Ulster Custom, and if he did so he ran the risk of being brought under estate and office rules. But he had also the power of selling in pursuance of this clause; and that being the case, he wished some words to be introduced which would have the effect of preventing the landlord saying—"You may sell; but there is a rule on the estate that you shall not get more than a certain sum of money for your tenancy." That was the danger he wished to guard against; however, if an explanation were given from, the Treasury Bench that it was the intention of the Government that a tenant selling under the Ulster tenant right custom, or selling under the Act, should not be bound by office rules, he should be satisfied.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

pointed out that if the tenant did not like the estate rules he had only to sell under the plain and simple provisions of the clause.

MR. PARNELL

said, in order to prevent misunderstanding, he would like the Attorney General for Ireland to state at what part of the Bill this question might be better raised than at the present. As the Bill stood, it did not propose to remove restrictions in the way of office rules which existed at present in Ulster, and those who desired that they should be removed so as to give the tenant his free choice of selling, either under the old unrestricted and original Ulster Custom, or on the lines of sale laid down by the Bill, were anxious to know when the question could be properly raised. It appeared to him that the present clause was the proper part of the Bill on which to raise any question relating to the sale of tenancies.

MR. LITTON

pointed out that there were two Amendments on the Paper involving the question which was raised by his Amendment. Therefore, he thought it would be safer to discuss the question at once, and that the words of his Amendment, against which the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) could urge no objection except that they were unnecessary, should be added to the clause.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, the point was closely connected with another—the power of the Court to assess the value of the tenant right. They did not allow the Court to make any rules or valuations tending to interfere with free sale; and, therefore, it stood to reason that what was refused to the Court could not be given to the land- lord. He suggested, seeing that the two points were closely connected with each other, that it would be better to put off the consideration of this question for the present, especially after what had fallen from the Prime Minister.

MR. GIVAN

felt that the question raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) was of such vital importance that the decision of the Committee with regard to it ought not to be postponed. He had looked through the Bill, and could see no place in which the words proposed by the hon. Member could be inserted if they were not introduced in the present sub-section. He thought it must have been evident to hon. Members who had been present during the discussions upon the earlier Amendments proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite that almost all of them were aimed at leaving a loop-hole for the introduction of office rules. No one could suppose that when the usages of Ulster were legalized they were legalized in order to be cut down and destroyed. The words of the Act of 1870 were as plain as any words could be— The usages prevalent in the Province of Ulster, which are known as the Ulster tenant right, are hereby declared to be legal. There could be no doubt whatever about the meaning of these words. But it was a fact that in the North of Ireland the tenants on some estates could get in the open market double or even treble for their tenancies than they were able to do, owing to the restrictions imposed upon them by estate and office rules. He was bound to acknowledge that no such rule as the limitation he had mentioned had ever been introduced with regard to the estates connected with the family of the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton), and the consequence was that tenant right relating to them was more valuable than in any other part of Ireland. He contended that to permit the words proposed by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tyrone to be added to the clause would be of the same effect as if office and estate rules had been recognized by the 1st section of the Act of 1870, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would argue with all his legal acumen and ability that when the sub-section said a tenant could sell his tenancy in pursuance of this custom or usage, it meant that he could sell his tenancy modified by office rules. Again, it would be said that the 1st clause of the Bill gave the tenant, for the time being, the right to sell his tenancy; but his tenancy was a thing which was qualified by office rules; and, therefore, unless the point was made clear in the manner indicated by the hon. Member for Tyrone, a loophole would be left for litigation between landlord and tenant, the breach between them which existed owing to the fraud upon the Act of 1870 would be widened, and the tenants of Ireland would remain discontented. Therefore, he urged the Committee to adopt the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He had had so much experience of the abuses which the Amendment was intended to obviate that he felt that unless the matter were placed beyond the region of dispute by the wording of this section, and subsequent parts of the Bill, where necessary, the same irritation would continue to exist among the tenants of Ireland as had existed since the passing of the Act of 1870. The question, as he had said before, was one which should be decided in a way that would not give rise to future complications.

MR. SHAW

said, he was entirely in favour of doing away with the so-called office rules, although he did not think it would be wise to press forward the question at that moment, for if it went to a division he was afraid that those in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tyrone would not carry their point. He could not see any other place in the Bill where the Amendment could be introduced more naturally than, in the present sub-section. He wished to know, if a tenant sold, whether he thereby removed his holding from the Ulster tenant right? His belief was that no tenant in Ulster would in future sell under the Ulster tenant right, but that he would elect to sell under this section of the Bill, because it was one part of the custom that the landlord when a sale took place should raise the rent. On the whole he thought it would be better to bring up a separate clause.

MR. GLADSTONE

I think if hon. Gentlemen look to the proper construction of the Bill they will observe that this is distinctly the wrong place to bring in the subject. We are clear that if the tenant sells under this section there ought to be no restriction whatever; but, as regards the Ulster estate rules generally, I hope the question will not be raised now, because we shall be compelled to vote against the Amendment.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

agreed with what the Prime Minister had said, and suggested that whatever form his hon. Friend brought up, it should be introduced after the word "section" and not after the word "usage." He did not regard the time as wasted which had been expended upon this Amendment, because he admitted that this matter was one that was looked upon as of great importance, particularly in Ulster; and he hoped that when the clause was revised the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) would favour the Committee by stating the effects of the non-restricted right of sale in Ulster so far as his father's estates were concerned, on which, he believed, a reasonable right of veto as regards the incoming person only was exercised. He knew of an estate in the North of Ireland in connection with which there had been for years a recognized right of sale up to 16 years' purchase. When the estate changed hands the purchaser sought to cut down that right so as to make it conformable to the custom prevailing on other estates of his in the neighbourhood—namely, five years' purchase. The resistance, however, was so great that he was obliged to abandon that mode of attack on the interest of the tenants; but he raised the rents on the estate, so that the position of the tenants became practically very much the same as that of the tenants on the other estates in the district.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he thought a separate clause might with propriety be inserted, to effect the purpose of the Amendment, after the 1st section, or after the section which dealt with the leasehold tenant right of Ulster.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that no answer had been given upon the important point raised by the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) as to whether the tenant who sold under the 1st section of the Bill would thereby deprive himself of his rights under the Ulster Custom.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim (Mr. Macnaghten) on which that point would be discussed.

DR. COMMINS

mentioned that, as the evidence before the Bessborough Commission showed, the Ulster Custom had been hidden away under the office rules, and there had been no way of distinguishing the Ulster Custom, plus the rules, from any other case. He could not see any other place at which a provision to prevent the custom being hidden away by office rules; and he urged that if the tenant was to have the right of free sale, and was not to be rendered nugatory by office rules, the Amendment should be adopted.

MR. LITTON

expressed his willingness to withdraw the Amendment, and said he should prefer to see the Government bring in a clause to the same effect.

MR. GIVAN

alluded to the statement of the Prime Minister that it was the intention of the Government that there should be no restriction on the Ulster tenant right by office rules.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, it was the view of the Government that there should be no application of any Ulster estates rules to the operation of the Bill.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

thought it would now be better, in order to save time, to finish the debate and take a division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LITTON

moved, in page 3, line 21, at end of Clause, add— (12.) Upon a sale under the direction of the Court, the Court shall have power to issue an injunction to put the purchaser into possession of the holding. If the Attorney General thought those words unnecessary he would not press them; but he thought the Court should have this power, because, although a man might have a legal title transferred to him, yet he might have some difficulty with the outgoing tenant to get possession. His ordinary course would be to proceed by ejectment, but that would be a roundabout course; whereas if the Court had power to put him in possession that would be a very simple process. That plan had been adopted in the Landed Estates Court, and might be adopted in this case.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be further discussed, for the Court would have power to do what it thought proper as to putting the purchaser into possession.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HENEAGE

said, the Amendment standing in his name raised the whole question of what were called English-managed estates. As the Bill now stood, except the 7th clause, the English-managed estates were in the same position as those managed under the Irish system; and it was thought by many that it was hardly fair to those landlords who had spent a great deal of money in improvements on their estates that they should be placed in the same category as those for whom the Bill was originally framed. As a rule, the estates which had been improved by the landlords were rented at a lower value than those on which the tenants had done everything and the landlords nothing. In such cases the landlords might not wish to raise the rents, and the tenants would be free from ejectment. But there was another question which affected them. It was not only this Bill that must be looked at, but if the Committee once began by saying that free sale was to be imported into estates managed on the English principle, where were they to stop? Mischievous people who had nothing to do with land, but who were always ready to interfere with other people's property, would be found, in a few years, using the Act to introduce free sale into holdings in England; and looking not only to the Bill itself, but to its influence on English landlords, the Committee ought to be very careful. Then he would ask the Committee to consider for a moment the arguments upon which the Bill was originally founded with regard to free sale. They were told that there was no analogy between England and Ireland, and that the chief reason for the Bill was that in Ireland the tenants had done nearly all the improvements, and were not only the occupiers, but the improvers, and they ought to have free sale, because the landlords had put themselves into the position, practically, of rent-chargers. They were also told by the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), at Liverpool, that there was no analogy between the English and the Irish estates. That was perfectly true in regard to dealing with those estates managed on the Irish principle; but directly they dealt with those managed on the English principle an analogy at once began. That was, perhaps, a dangerous admission to make; but he made it because he thought it well to acknowledge facts. He could not see with what justice those landlords who had managed their estates liberally, wisely, and fairly in Ireland could be put into a penalized position, while those who had neglected their estates in England, and had been equally non-resident, were not also brought under the system of free sale. From the experience he had had in England, and from his examination into the question, he considered that if there were estates to be brought under free sale, they would not be the estates managed on the liberal principles of the English system in Ireland, but the Crown Lands in England. Therefore he could not see how the principles could be kept separate and distinct. Then he should like to remind the Prime Minister of what he said on the first reading of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said— In cases where what is called the 'English system' prevails, or, as we define it, where the holding has been maintained and improved by the landlord, we have thought that justice demands that the landlord should not be brought into a new and exceptional state of things which really has no application to the relation which subsists between him and the tenant."—[3 Hansard, cclx. 911.] He claimed, therefore, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in support of his argument. But the right hon. Gentleman told them something further—namely, that the chief element of tenant right was the result of improvements by the tenant, and their value was what it was worth while for a man to give for it. But he must point out that tenant right existed before the tenant had the right to sell. They would, no doubt, be told that, intentionally or unintentionally, under the Act of 1870 there had been something which had arisen to which the tenant had a right. He admitted that there could be no doubt that there was something undefined which had arisen under that Act; but if that came to be defined before a Court of Law it would be found that on the well-managed estates it was a minimum interest, and not a maximum interest at all. If free sale was to be allowed, he thought that, with the land hunger in Ireland, if a tenancy was to be sold by auction, that would end in the estates on which the landlords desired should be liberally rented coming into the same position as the rack-rented estates. Then that something was difficult to define. It must have connection with the improvements; that something must be a sort of goodwill, for a man could not sell the goodwill of a thing he had not got. In fact, that something which had arisen appeared to him to be in the same position with regard to the improvements for which a tenant might claim on an Irish-managed estate as the mint sauce with regard to the lamb—the one was useless without the other. There could be little claim to goodwill where there had been no improvement. He was quite aware that the English-managed estates were exempted from the 7th clause; and they would be told that in that respect, no doubt, the estates maintained and improved by the landlords were placed on a better footing than those maintained and improved by the tenants. That might be so theoretically; but he ventured to say that it might not be so practically, because the only remedy which a landlord had was to raise the rent; but the moment he did that he could be dragged into Court under Clause 3, and if it was there found that he had exceeded the amount which, in the opinion of a majority of the Court, he should fairly charge, he would be liable to be mulcted in 10 times the amount in excess. Therefore, he practically went into Court with a rope round his neck. He maintained that the Bill would be better and simpler if the landlord had free access to the Court given to him; but on the face of the Bill the landlord had not free access to the Court. He could not go to the Court and ask the Court to fix the fair rent; he must raise the rent first, and then be dragged, with a rope round his neck, into Court by the tenant. That he thought, was a strong reason for some provision being made in the Bill with regard to estates maintained and improved by the landlord. There was also another strong argument. The Courts would have quite enough to do and should not be overburdened with useless cases; and it was bad to allow the tenants to think that they had a right to the landlord's improvements—an idea which was easily instilled into their minds, and which would lead to constant litigation. The Bill ought to show that in certain estates managed on the Irish principle the tenants had a great claim; but on estates managed under the English principle they should lave next to no claim whatever. As the Bill now stood that was not so, and he would ask the Government to give a fair consideration to his Amendment, because, in his opinion, and in that of many of their own supporters, some such words ought to be added to the Bill.

Amendment moved, In page 3, line 21, at end of the Clause, to add the words, "Provided always, That, subject to the discretion of the Court, the provisions of this section shall not apply to the tenancy of any holding which has heretofore been maintained and improved by the landlord, or his predecessors in title."—(Mr. Heneage.)

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

MR. GLADSTONE

In following my hon. Friend I will put aside one or two remarks which he will himself admit are not really the matter at issue. With reference to the landlord's access to the Court, we have nothing to do with that subject on this Amendment. Let that be considered without prejudice when we come to the proper part of the Bill. Neither have we anything to do with the difference between low-rented and rack-rented estates. An English-managed estate may be rack-rented to the highest point, and an Irish - managed estate rented down to the lowest point. The roal question is with regard to English-managed estates, and my hon. Friend is justified in founding himself on a distinction which I shall not venture to criticize in detail, because we have introduced it into the Bill ourselves, and therefore we are bound by it. We must be supposed to admit that there is no distinction between what we colloquially call English-managed estates and other estates. That distinction we have extended in the Bill this far—we have empowered the Court to exclude English-managed estates from these important provisions of the Bill which relate to the fixing of a judicial rent. My hon. Friend asks us to go a great deal further, and to exclude the English-managed estates. That, I think, is the intention of his Amendment. [Mr. HENEAGE: To allow the Court.] I am not quite sure that I do understand how far the Amendment proposes to go; but, at all events, it more or less excludes English managed estates from the operation of the Bill with regard to tenant right.

MR. HENEAGE

Whereas, by the Bill, the presumption is in favour of the tenant on English-managed estates, the presumption by the Amendment is in favour of the landlord, and if the tenant wishes to go into Court and prove anything he thinks he has a right to do, he can do so.

MR. GLADSTONE

I do not think I speak unfairly when I say the Amendment, more or less, excludes those estates from the operation of the Bill with regard to tenant right. I wish to bring that question clearly before the Committee, because it is one of considerable importance, although I am not sure that I shall succeed in giving an adequate exposition of it. We have excluded, or propose to exclude, English-managed estates from the system of judicial rents, because the judicial rent is an innovation not only in this Bill, but in the general provisions of the law relating to landlord and tenant. It is an entire innovation, and on that ground, and not believing it to be required by English-managed estates, we have excluded them—for when we empower the Court, the meaning of that is to direct the Court to exclude them from the provisions of the Bill as to tenant right. But is the question of tenant right a parallel case? What is tenant right? It is interest in an occupation. That is no innovation in this Bill; that is no innovation in the general law as to land. The general Common Law accepts the right of a tenant to sell his interest in his holding. What we are doing is this—we are removing the shackles which, by practice in this country, and by the Act of 1870, were placed on the Common Law right of the tenant to sell his interest. If that be so, my hon. Friend will see at once upon how different a footing stand the two questions; one whether we should exclude English-managed estates from the judicial rent; the other whether we should exclude them from the provisions of the section with regard to the sale of the tenant right. My hon. Friend spoke of introducing a new and exceptional state of things. I wish to point out that this Amendment would introduce a new and exceptional state of things. I must call upon him to observe what we have already done—what we have done by the Act of 1870 in confirmation of the principle of the right of assignment. We have done this—before the Act of 1870 the tenant had, in the absence of any covenant to the contrary, a right to assign. That was tenant right. By the Act of 1870 we fortified that right by compensation for disturbance; and, although it has been truly said that compensation for disturbance was not enacted for that purpose, yet the effect of that compensation, in all cases where the farms to be aided were fewer than the people wanting the farms, was to give additional value to the estate. But that additional value is the value which the tenant will possess in a very moderate degree on the English-managed estates. If a man has an English-managed estate, from which he cannot be evicted without the payment of compensation for disturbance, he has a tenant right for which there will be plenty of people ready to give him money. How are you to treat that tenant right? My hon. Friend's Amendment would be absolutely ineffective. He proposes to empower the Court to exempt these estates from coming under the provisions of the 1st section of the Bill. Suppose you do. Suppose a man goes into the open market in the exercise of his Common Law right, are you going, by this Bill, to prohibit him from availing himself of that right? Yet, if the hon. Member wishes to attain his object, you must do that. What would be the effect of the Amendment? The tenant has got an interest that is of value; he would go and sell that interest; but he would sell it without any of the restraints or pre-emption in favour of the landlord, or security to the landlord, which we have been providing by the particulars of the 1st clause of the Bill. Under these circumstances, will my hon. Friend really press on his Amendment? Does he mean that he will introduce into the Bill an enactment to say that on English-managed estates the right of assignment shall be subject to the prohibition of the landlord?—because unless he does that he does nothing, and if he attempts to do that he will be attempting, for the smallest purpose in the world, to introduce an enactment which will be of a most invidious, and, I may say, of a hopeless character. I do not think my hon. Friend would wish to propose a prohibition on the part of the landlord, especially after the admission has been made that this right of assignment is a Common Law right. When we are introducing these exceptional provisions, on the part of the tenant, into the Irish Land Law it is too late to withdraw from the tenant the benefits of the principle to which he is entitled under the Common Law. It would be most injurious to the landlord for these sales to take place without any security to him, for, however much the tenant might be in arrear, the landlord would not be able to refuse to receive a new tenant, and would, consequently, have no security for the payment of arrears out of money received for the tenant right. What is the case on the other side? The hon. Gentleman has said that on an English-managed estate, where the improvements have not been made by the tenant, the interest is a very minimum interest, and that is quite true. Surely there is no objection to allowing the man to dispose of it'? His interest adjusts itself to the circumstances. If large improvements are on his property he will give a large sum for the tenant right, because he will have his improvements to sell as well as his security in his tenancy; but if he has no improvements to sell, and only has his occupancy, no doubt his interest will be small; but why should he not he allowed to sell that small interest? Why should we create an invidious distinction between him and other tenants if there are people ready to pay him for his interest? Is not this a startling paradox that there is something of extremely small value which, if you will only allow a man to offer it for sale without restriction, will become of high value? An open market endeavours to get at the true value of a thing; and it is a false idea of the virtue of an open market to suppose that that which is of small value when offered for sale without restriction will become of high value. I am sure that my hon. Friend will see the distinction between our withholding from the tenants and landlords of estates of a certain class a perfectly novel provision that has no place in the general law; and, on the other hand, withholding from them the right which is rooted in the general law, and which can only be excluded from the Bill by a special, and, I think, impossible enactment.

MR. MARUM

said, he could not allow the Prime Minister's remarks to pass by without some comment. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the 8th subsection of the 7th, or rental clause. He (Mr. Marum) wished to protest against the provision in question, and to declare that he considered it one of the greatest blots in the Bill.

MR. DUNDAS

thought that if the Amendment was accepted there would be a departure from uniformity of law throughout Ireland, and he was not prepared to say that that would not be a matter of great advantage. If they looked at the practice, whatever Common Law rights there might have been, tenants had not been allowed to sell. All estates should not be included in the Bill, otherwise, upon estates managed on the English system, the landlord would be obliged to raise his rent, or sell his improvements to the tenant. In any case the tenant would have a large sum of money taken out of his pocket, and he would not be likely to conduct the agricultural operations of his farm in a satisfactory way, or be as good a farmer as he had hitherto been. These were facts of great importance; and he thought the matter of uniformity of law was only a small theoretical point. There were many farms on which the tenants had contracted out of the Act of 1870; and, at a later stage, he would take the liberty of bringing in an Amendment to deal with these cases.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, there could be no doubt that this was a very important question, and that it went a great deal further than the Prime Minister would have liked it to go, or than he allowed it did go. There were certain landlords in Ireland who, in the interests of their tenants, had treated their estates as what were called "English estates" were treated. They had laid out their money in draining the land and putting up buildings; and, in fact, had allowed the tenants to go to no expense at all. These landlords had taken care that there should be no free sale upon their estates, and had solemnly con- tracted with their tenants, in many instances, that no such thing should exist. On these estates no one knew when a tenancy was to be vacant, or who the future tenant was to be. He might come from the neighbourhood, or he might be selected from a distance; in fact, the landlords had done all they could to retain in their own hands all those rights and privileges which, in 1870, the Prime Minister himself thought so much of. His great object then was that the landlord should live on his estate and discharge all the duties of a landlord, laying out his money to the best interest. The Prime Minister had distinctly laid it down that it was better, in the interest of all parties, that there should be compensation for disturbance, and he had distinctly stated that there should be no right whatever; and he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) held the right hon. Gentleman to these words, which were most important. If they meant nothing at that time, then the right hon. Gentleman never ought to have made use of them, because people had dwelt on them and had believed them, and, on the strength of them, had felt themselves secure in laying out their money on their estates. He would put it to the right hon. Gentleman, when people had laid out money in this way—when they had managed their estates to the best of their ability, when there were no complaints on them, and everything had been done to the benefit and interest of the tenants—by what right, unless there was something which, in the public interest, should condemn them, ought they to be mulct in the way proposed? The right hon. Gentleman had no right to deal with them as he had said he would deal with them. The Prime Minister had shown that earth hunger was the one thing which had disturbed Ireland so much. Well, they were obliged to look at all these clauses, and, when the right hon. Gentleman said—" We are going to consider the principle whether landlords are to go into the Court," he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would answer him boldly—"If the landlord is to have an equal right with the tenant to go into the Court it would very much facilitate the passing of this Bill." If the right hon. Gentleman wished to facilitate the progress of the measure, the more information he gave them with regard to the concessions he should be able to make the more easily would the Bill be passed. There were two or three points—he was not going into them now—concessions on which would greatly shorten the labours of the Committee. He, however, would only now dwell upon this matter of the well-managed estates. The right hon. Gentleman had said that in Ireland the earth hunger was so strong that rents might be raised and people would come and rent land at most exorbitant prices. People would do that now. They would pay exorbitant prices for farms on estates where great improvements had been carried out, and how was the right hon. Gentleman going to prevent it? The farms would be publicly sold, no doubt; but when it was known that the rent was low, that everything had been done, that the tenant could step into a good holding, and that he would find everything necessary at his hand, a far higher price would be bid for it. There was no disguising that fact, and he ventured to say it would be one of the cruellest acts of injustice to men who had endeavoured to do their duty to allow the Bill to pass without some provision to protect their properties. He knew several estates of this kind, and, seeing what the landlords had done, they were bound to consider the matter well and fairly. He was not quite sure that the hon. Member who had brought forward the proposal had put it quite as clearly before the Committee as he might have done. He might have gone more into detail, and have shown that these estates could not be compared with the others with which the Bill dealt. The Prime Minister had himself admitted it by saying that these rents were not to be touched when they came to Clause 7. But that very admission showed that the free sale clause was unjust, and the worst of all the provisions of the Bill. It was the thing which would damage the incoming tenants more than anything else which had been done, and many would live to rue the day when free sale was granted to the whole of Ireland. Nothing would pauperize Ireland more than the free sale which would be given under the 1st clause of the Bill. He would not go further into the matter; but he did not think the Prime Minister had touched the real question at all. He had said that there was nothing to sell, or that there was only a small modicum; but it seemed to him (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) that more would be given for these than for any other properties in Ireland.

COLONEL COLTHURST

wished to point out two fallacies which, it seemed to him, were to be found in the Amendment, and certainly in the speech of his hon. Friend. The first was that free sale—or the Ulster tenant right, which was the same thing—was, per se, a bad thing. With regard to this, it was quite sufficient to point to the Province of Ulster; but he would give one authority, which, he thought, ought to have some weight with right hon. and hon. Members opposite—namely, the late Lord Chief Justice Whiteside. His Lordship, speaking of the Ulster Custom, had said— If these principles have been productive of so much benefit in Ulster, they ought to be extended to the rest of Ireland; that was to say that the very thing ought to be done which his hon. Friend said would cause the ruin of Ireland. The number of estates in Ireland upon which all the improvements had been done by the landlord was infinitesimal. They were really not worth taking into consideration. He still further maintained that on these estates the right of free sale, or free sale as understood by this Bill, would not injure the landlord in the least. It was quite true that in regulating the rent account should be taken of the improvements effected by the landlord, and the landlord having let his land for a small sum. But he was afraid there were very few estates on which the improvements had been made entirely at the cost of the landlord, and the land was let at a low rent. It would be unreasonable to suppose that it should be otherwise, taking into consideration that three-fourths of the holdings were under the value of £60 a-year. It would be impossible for any except a few of the richest landlords to make improvements on such small holdings, and, at the same time, let them at low rents. Therefore he thought that all these Amendments tending to regulate free sale, and pointing out the hardships to which what were called "improving landlords" would be subject were entirely illusory. Such estates as those in question would be infinitesimal in number compared to the great mass of the estates in Ireland. He was glad Her Majesty's Government would not accept the Amendment, and trusted they would resist all similar proposals.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

said, that if they had set out with a clause to the effect that in future no landlord could refuse his consent to the assignment of a tenancy except under conditions mentioned in sub-section 5 of Clause 1, free sale would have been granted at once, and the Committee would have been spared all these discussions as to what it was the tenant had to sell. Whatever might have been the intention of the Government in otherwise drafting the Bill, there was a certain amount of it which was rather startling; and hon. Members on that (the Conservative) side of the House would like to be told what was to be done in the case of those tenants—and they were not a few in number—who had divested themselves of the right of assignment—who had enabled the landlord, by contract, to prohibit them from assigning to a person of whom he might not approve. They had been told that the tenant's interest was resolvable into certain elements. The present Amendment applied to those cases where the tenant's interest did not consist of improvements made by himself or any previous tenant, nor in money he had paid, so that he had no interest but the fancy value which unwholesome earth hunger gave to his tenancy. A landlord might strive, by every means in his power, to keep his land outside the operation of the Act. No one should blame him for this; and, surely, if he should be able by making improvements to exclude his estate from the operation of the Act, the effect would not be bad. On the other hand, the tenant's interest would be to make improvements in order to bring himself within the Act. It seemed to him, therefore, that if the Amendment were adopted they would bring about a healthy competition between the landlord and the tenant. The landlord and the tenant would be perpetually striving who should do the greatest amount of good to the land. He did not believe in legislation which failed to favour the application of capital to production in Ireland. If the efforts of those landlords who, in the past, had expended money in improving their estates met with no recognition, in the future there would be very little disposition to cause capital to flow into the land which had so long and so disastrously stood in need of it.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

pointed out that although this Amendment had been discussed at considerable length the time of the Committee had not been wasted. The point at issue was one of the most important that were likely to be raised; and when, one way or the other, the Committee had disposed of it, they would have passed one of what might be called the principal obstacles to the rapid progress of the Bill. The more thoroughly they threshed out the point at this stage of the Bill, and disposed of their doubts concerning the clause, the more rapidly would they be able to dispose of the remaining provisions. It was perfectly true, as the Prime Minister had reminded them, that, strictly speaking, they could not discuss anything but the clause immediately before the Committee; but it was almost impossible to discuss this Amendment, or any part of Clause 1, without having mental reference to Clauses 3 and 7. He specially dwelt upon this point now because there had been a great deal of unreasonable impatience outside the House as to the progress made by the Committee. It was no waste of time to discuss these little details, because in dealing with them they were deciding important points that would otherwise have to be considered later on. But, no doubt, these small points had been much too disagreeable for Gentlemen who criticized the proceedings of the Committee in the Press to make themselves acquainted with; therefore, the future rate of progress of the Committee had been calculated according to the rate of progress made with Clause 1. He mentioned these things in order to point out that those who criticized the action of the Committee were utterly unacquainted with the details of the measure, and to give him an opportunity of declaring that he, for one, was most anxious to do nothing to impede the legitimate progress of the Bill. He challenged any hon. Member to say that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, or any other Amendment proceeding from that part of the House, was anything else than to the point and properly drawn, as far as its terms were concerned. There could be no doubt in the mind of any unprejudiced person that the proposal of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby tended to promote the progress of the Bill; and in supporting that Motion he wished briefly to reply to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said, among other things, that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby seemed hardly to grasp the full significance of his own Amendment; and he then proceeded to show that the Amendment, when properly understood, might be shown to refer to, or to touch upon, a matter so small as to be hardly worth consideration. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), on the other hand, thought his hon. Friend had shown that he was fully master of the question which he had brought forward, and he ventured to say further—in spite of the dictum of the Prime Minister—that, in his view, the question involved in the Amendment was not a small but a very great one, perhaps, indeed, the most important that the House would have to discuss while it was in Committee on this Bill. The proposal, in brief, was to exempt what were called English managed estates from the operation of the clause which was under discussion—in other words, to exempt such estates from the free sale of the tenancies mentioned in the 1st clause. In asking the Committee to set up a class of exemptions in regard to free sale, his hon. Friend had set out on the ground of the consideration that the House, in being asked to adopt this measure, was asked to do so because the measure was one which was justified only by the peculiar circumstances of the Irish land tenure. Evidence given before the Devon, the Richmond, and the Bessborough Commissions, and statements contained in Thom's Almanack and Directory, a most interesting and well-informed publication, showed that in Ireland it was the custom for the tenants on estates to make the permanent improvements, while in England such improvements were made by the landlords. It was also shown further that the English custom had crept into the management of Irish estates by reason of the fact that many of them had been put under the management of English agents who went to their work imbued with English ideas. Whether the English system had or had not been adopted to any large extent was a mere matter of detail, and did not in any way affect the question of principle which was involved in the proposal of his hon. Friend, for it was to him a novel principle of law that because any class of people were few they were not to be held entitled to protection. That was a dangerous and a startling doctrine, and one which, if adopted in any system of law, would be monstrous in its consequences. Leaving out of the question, then, the point as to the small or large number of cases of the kind, he wished to consider what might be called the argument of the Prime Minister. As far as he was able to understand the matter, the argument of the Prime Minister was that the right of the tenant to sell his tenancy was based on one or all of three things—namely, improvements which he had made; compensation for disturbance, and the term of his tenure. As far as the question of improvements was concerned, he was speaking now of English-managed estates, on which the improvements had been made by the landlords, be that particular hypothesis as to right of sale did not apply. Then came this question about compensation for disturbance, which was the foundation for the mysterious something which it was said belonged to the tenants. But that argument, in his view, was a fallacious one, in that it was based upon the perfectly arbitrary supposition that in the case of every tenancy under the Land Act of 1870 the Court would have adjudged compensation for disturbance at the maximum rate. These were mere assertions, for compensation for disturbance was a contingent and not an absolute right; and although it might be necessary, in regard to small tenancies, to recognize what had taken place, no one could be justified in founding arguments on arbitrary suppositions. Then they were told that yearly tenancies were terms of tenancy so short that his hon. Friend was scarcely justified in basing any argument in support of his Amendment upon them. It was not, however, in his view, a small question, because, although, at the present moment, the question of this particular tenant right might be one of comparative unimportance, it might, under the operation of the Bill before the Committee, become a matter of very great import ance. What he wished to make perfectly clear was that there was or ought not to be in reality any difference of opinion as to the facts between his hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, the only divergence being as to the inferences to be drawn from the facts. The Prime Minister had said that these different elements of tenant right prevailing on English-managed estates or holdings, it was absurd to assume that a large sum would be given for the tenant right or other grounds of compensation provided by the Bill. It was, however, well known to those who had a knowledge of the country that extraordinarily large sums were paid in Ireland for properties which, in fact, were of small value. It was, in his view, under a complete delusion that the Prime Minister had based his argument on this branch of the question, for it was absurd to assume that there was not a something for which a man of business would give little or nothing for which an Irish tenant would not give a large sum. There could be no doubt that one of the most terrible causes of poverty in Ireland would cease to operate if this was not the state of things. It was matter of notoriety in Ireland that unreasonable sums were given by tenants for the occupancy of land, and, these sums being given, when, in course of time, the tenant found that he could not get back the interest on the money for payment of which he had acquired the right of entry upon his holding, he began to clamour for a reduction of his rent. This being so, he complained that, as the clause at present stood, it was not possible to see how far it would be in the power of the Court to protect landlords against the payment by persons wishing to occupy land of these unreasonable sums, which would constitute the nucleus of a large tenant right which would eat into the rent and tend to keep it down to what was less than a just sum to be paid. For these reasons he should support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. Hon. Members knew that they were threatened before long in that Committee with a very disagreeable controversy about compensating the landlords; and in view of that he might be allowed to express his belief that if the Amendment now before the Committee were accepted nothing more would be heard of those demands for compensation—demands made on behalf of the English-managed estates, on which large sums of money had been expended by the landlords in the making of improvements, such landlords having conducted the management of their properties on what might be called civilized principles. All that his hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby asked was that the good landlords should be exempted from the operation of this clause, and whether they were many or few was in no way the point at issue.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, his noble Friend seemed to think the Amendment before the Committee one of the most important in the Bill, mainly because he appeared to think that a considerable number of estates in Ireland were conducted on the English principle.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, he had been misunderstood. He put the issue referred to entirely aside.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,

resuming, said, he understood his noble Friend to say that in any case, whether the estates conducted on the English principle were many or few, the proposition of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby ought to be adopted. He had himself been in many parts of Ireland, and ventured to say, as the result of the experience thus gained, that there were in the whole country very few estates managed on the English plan. He might go further, and say that he had the authority of a Member of the Duke of Richmond's Commission for saying that the Commission had not found a single estate in Ireland managed purely and simply on the English system. In further proof of this, he would refer to a Return which had been laid before the Richmond Commission. The Committee of landlords had collected statistics of expenditure, and it was shown by the figures that in the course of 30 or 40 years the landlords had expended £3,500,000 in the making of improvements on their properties, which extended to about 4,000,000 acres. This was at the rate of about 2½ per cent per annum, whereas the expenditure of English landlords on their properties in the way of maintenance and improvement was not less than at the rate of 15 per cent per annum.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

called the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the Fitzwilliam estate,

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he believed that even on that estate a great many improvements had been made by the tenants. With respect to the £3,500,000 which had been expended by the landlords in making improvements on the 4,000,000 acres to which he had referred, more than half had been borrowed from the State, and the interest on the loans had been paid, not by the landlords, but by the tenants. He did not deny that, in a certain number of cases, the Irish landlords had made improvements on their properties by constructing main drainage works on their estates, and advancing money for the building of houses. But, at the same time, it could not be denied that the cases of English-managed estates were so few that they could be very easily counted, and provision was made in the Bill to meet them in such a way as that tenants would not be allowed to go to the Courts for judicial determinations of rent, but would remain, simply, tenants from year to year, and would be in a position to sell such tenancies which they could now do at Common Law, which it was not proposed to repeal by the present Bill. Setting the benefit the landlord would gain under Clause 1 against the loss he might be supposed to suffer under any other of the provisions of the Bill, he could not but think that the balance of advantage was in his favour.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the proposal of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby did not go far enough; but there was a fallacy in his argument when he urged that the tenant would not continue under the terms of the Bill the freedom of sale of his holding which he had before, when the rent came to be settled. He had listened with great satisfaction to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), who had demolished altogether the argument in favour of the clause as it stood, and he could not understand how the noble Lord was able to reconcile his speech with the general support which he had promised to give to the Bill. On the general question, he could not understand the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister as to the regulated tenant right, taken in connection with the subsequent statements that had been made showing that the tenant right was to be an altogether unregulated one—the Court having to settle the value of the tenant right in every case. If that was the case, it was an additional reason why estates managed on the English principle should be altogether excluded from the operation of the clause under discussion. He was told that the members of the Land League were not particularly anxious that the Bill should pass; but if it did pass, he thought it not improbable the League would advise all the tenants to go into Court at once, for the purpose of getting a judicial rent—applications the hearing and deciding upon which would occupy from 10 to 15 years at the least—with the additional piece of advice that they should pay no rent at all until the amount had been fixed. The argument as to the right of assignment under the Common Law by yearly tenants, if true, would apply with equal force to tenants holding under similar tenures in this country. He thought there ought to be some clear definition of the meaning of the words of the Amendment. It applied to tenancies— Which have heretofore been maintained and improved by the landlord or his predecessors in title. Did those words mean that in the case of a holding on an estate of 50,000 acres, where the landlord had maintained all or any of the improvements, the effect of the Amendment would be vitiated by the tenant having erected half-a-dozen pig-sties? To make the meaning perfectly clear some words were still necessary; and, with that proviso, he was willing to give the Amendment his support.

MR. CARTWRIGHT

said, that having listened with the greatest possible attention to the speeches of the Prime Minister and the First Commissioner of Works, and with every disposition to be convinced by them, he felt bound, nevertheless, to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. The arguments which had been adduced against his hon. Friend's proposal were, in his opinion, beside the mark, one of them being that it struck at the right of absolute freedom of sale. But he ventured to say that this was not within the four comers of that proposal, as he understood it. It was meant to protect the property of one man by providing that his property should not be made the asset of another. In that sense his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works had made a very great point by saying that the Amendment was superfluous, because he stated there were no estates in Ireland which, properly speaking, were managed on the English system. That statement he disputed entirely, partly on his own knowledge, partly on information derived from persons thoroughly acquainted with the matter, and also on the words of the Prime Minister. If there were no English-managed estates in Ireland, why, he asked, were sub-sections introduced into the 7th clause to except English-managed estates from the operation of the Bill? Sub-section 8, Clause 7, said— Where an application is made to the Court under this section in respect of any tenancy, the Court may, if it think tit, disallow such application where the Court is satisfied that the holding in which such tenancy subsists has theretofore been maintained and improved by the landlord. He could not suppose that in drafting the Bill a sub-section would have been introduced guarding a class of estates if that class of estates had never existed. In respect of that sub-section he pointed out that the Amendment of his right hon. Friend was precisely in conformity with the spirit which had dictated it. The sub-section said that the Court might disallow the application in the case in question; and the Amendment said that the discretion of the Court, in estates referred to where they did exist, might be excepted from the operation of the clause. It had been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) that such estates existed, but that their number was infinitesimal, and that it was not worth while to legislate for them. He disputed that, and said if only one landlord in Ireland had invested his money in improving his land, those improvements ought not to be made the asset of another. Take the case of an estate where the landlord had made those improvements at his own cost. He wished to know what protection existed in the Bill, as it stood at present, for a landlord in this position? There was none whatever; and, therefore, it was neces- sary to introduce an Amendment like the present in order to secure to the landlord his property. If they did not secure the landlord who managed his estates on the English system in the way proposed, there was only one modus operandi left to him, which the Attorney General for Ireland had so often alluded to, and that was to raise his rents. In no other way could he protect himself against loss. But could, anything be more odious and more likely to expose landlords in Ireland to obloquy than that in order to secure themselves against loss they should be obliged to threaten to raise the rents of their tenants? The 56th paragraph of the Report of the Bessborough Commission stated that it would be odious to impose on the landlords, who were improving landlords, the necessity of covering themselves against loss by the raising of rent. Another testimony which he wished to bring forward in support of the fact that there were such landlords in Ireland was contained in a passage of the speech of the Prime Minister on the Second Reading of the Bill, in which the right hon. Gentleman said that happily the improving landlords in Ireland were many. Believing that the Amendment was one which simply meant to introduce a Proviso by which landlords, who had themselves sunk money in improvements for which they had not recouped themselves, could bring their case before the Court and be able, in a legitimate manner, to recover their outlay without going through the odious process of raising their rents, he should give it his cordial support.

MR. RODWELL

said, as the Amendment he had placed upon the Paper was of somewhat similar character to the present, and as he apprehended, when they arrived at it, he would only be able to move it in a mutilated form, he therefore took the opportunity of stating the reasons that induced him to give his entire support to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. Although he should confine himself strictly to the point of free sale of tenant right he did not think one could entirely overlook the circumstances and causes that had led to the introduction of this Irish Land Bill, because it seemed to him that, although the Prime Minister wished to narrow the issue rather unfairly, as he thought, to his hon. Friend opposite, yet, at the same time, regard must be given to the general scope of the Bill and the effect that this clause would have upon the landlord as it stood. This Bill was called into existence for the purpose of preventing some landlords in Ireland from indulging their cupidity by preying on the greed for land that existed among the tenant class in Ireland. That was one of the objects of the Bill. The other was to prevent the exercise of the right of eviction in a manner capricious and hard to the tenant. But the fact that had a great bearing upon the point under discussion was that of improvements. The whole difficulty had arisen from the fact that improvements in Ireland had been carried out rather by the tenant than by the landlord. Now, Clause 1 as it stood would at once constitute a partnership between the landlord and the tenant directly this Bill was passed, and it would affect good, bad, and indifferent landlords alike. Whether the landlord had been performing his duties with generosity, or the reverse, whether the improvements were his or the tenant's, the moment the Bill was passed the tenant would have a right to something which, at the moment, he did not possess. What that "something" was nobody yet had been able to discover. It was not a corporeal hereditament nor an incorporeal hereditament, and it seemed to him peculiarly an Irish hereditament, and he very much questioned whether this "something" could be worth very much, assuming that the improvements had been carried out by the landlord. It was perfectly fair and right that when this partnership was forced on the landlord by the admission of the tenant that the tenant should have the perfect right of selling his portion of the capital, which was the value of improvements he had made in the soil; and he was perfectly willing to admit that in many instances the share of the tenant far exceeded that of the landlord in his partnership. But there were cases in which the tenant contributed no capital at all, and those cases the Amendment was intended to meet; and the question was whether the tenant, who was only nominally in partnership with the landlord, was to have the same rights, and to be put in the same position, as the tenant who had contributed to the partnership by his improvements in the landlord's property.

That was the question. He did not suppose anyone would imagine that had it not been for the improvements, which somebody had called the "lamb," and this something, the "mint sauce," that there would be the right to sell the "mint sauce" without the "lamb," or that there would have been any "mint sauce." Without this Amendment a great injustice would be done to the landlord who, for years past, had discharged his duties in a way probably satisfactory to his tenant, and who, having done the improvements himself, gave the tenant no right to claim anything. He had said this "something" was indefinite; but there was a remarkable expression in the Report of the Bessborough Commission which conveyed to his mind the feeling of the Commission that unless the tenant had contributed something, you would, by this clause, do an injustice to the landlord, because the Commission said— In the same extent that you convey a right of ownership to the occupier pro tanto you diminish the rights of the landowner. That was a sound proposition. What the "something" was he did not know; there was nothing specific or real, but the improvements in the soil and the same rights should not be extended to the tenant who had not, as to the tenant who had, carried out all the improvements himself. Looking at the whole scope of the Bill he saw no ground for the opposition to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. He had listened with great attention to the speech of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, who was a great authority, or was supposed to be, on this Irish Land Question; and he must confess he thought that speech was most disingenuous, and for this reason. He said the power of assigning in England was the same as the power of assigning in Ireland. Now, he (Mr. Rodwell) would venture to dispute that. In England, no doubt, there was power of assigning; there was a certain freedom of contract; but in Ireland that power was barred. The cases were not parallel between the right to assign in England and in Ireland, and his right hon. Friend conveyed an error in his expression as to the like condition of things in England and in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman made another statement, which showed that during the calls upon his time in the discharge of important duties he had not been able to read the evidence produced by either of the Commissions which sat, because if in that evidence there was one thing clearer than another, it was that there were in many parts of Ireland estates that were managed upon the English system. Whether he meant managed by Englishmen or not he did not know; but, beyond doubt, there were in this "litter of reports" cases—he would not mention names—where estates were managed on the English system; and the most prominent distinction was drawn between the English and the Irish system, between the relations of landlord and tenant in one, and the relations of landlord and tenant in the other. It was admitted also—he did not quote the language used, for everyone knew it—by the Prime Minister, and Sir Roundell Palmer, the present Lord Chancellor, that the system introduced by the Land Bill of 1870 was not applicable to England, because the relations between landlord and tenant in England were different to the relations existing in Ireland. The Prime Minister had, in this particular, put the point fairly; and the question now was, whether any difference was to be made in the cases where estates were managed according to the English system from those in Ireland which were not so managed? And he thought, using the language the right hon. Gentleman had employed on that previous occasion, if it could be shown that there were in Ireland estates managed on the English system, then those estates should be exempted from the operation, of Clause 1. If it was right that estates managed on this side of St. George's Channel in a peculiar manner should be treated in a particular way, why should estates, perhaps belonging to the same owner, on the other side of St. George's Channel, and managed in the same way, be treated differently? Could it be said that it was impossible to introduce an exception to this clause? Why, he could do it in five minutes. The Amendment of the hon. Member did it. Was it to be laid down as a principle that because, where a tenant had made improvements, or where he had contributed capital to the farm of which he was occupier, he thereby had rights and privileges, that the tenant who contributed nothing should have the same rights and privileges? He could not follow such an argument at all. It appeared to him that the whole thing hinged on the question of improvements; and if there were no tenant's improvements, then it was a hard thing that the landlord should be subjected to the operation of the clause. He found fault, again, with, the Chief Commissioner of Works when he said that landlords did not object to this; and here, again, it was evident he had not read the Report of the Bessborough Commission, for it was distinctly stated, on page 59, that landlords could get over fixity and fair rents, but they did not like free sale, though it was an argument in its favour and made palatable to landowners as affording agents a means of securing arrears of rent, and that it made things easy and pleasant. This was stated plainly, and the Chief Commissioner would find abundant evidence from the Bessborough Commission that it was a matter landlords especially disliked. Mr. Kavanagh, one of the Commissioners, in his Report, writing on the subject of Free Sale, said he entertained no dislike to the extension of this right to his own property, for evidence had convinced him that it conferred more advantage to the occupier than disadvantage to the landlord. So far, that was contrary to his (Mr. Rodwell's) argument; but Mr. Kavanagh went on to say he would be glad to see the power extended, "if it can be justly done." The question, then, was whether this was "justly done" or not. Then the Report, proceeding on the assumption that the improvements were the tenant's making, went on to say— That as it would be for the general advantage of the country, the landlord would be content to make some sacrifice to attain it. Where all the improvements were made by the tenant, the difficulty or injustice, so far as the landlord's rights were concerned, was not so clearly apparent, provided the power of using a veto against an objectionable tenant was given to the landlord. In other districts, where enormous sums had been spent by the landlord, and the property had been improved on the English system, or where the landlord had bought up the tenant right, Mr. Kavanagh said the extension of the right of free sale would be an act of "simple confiscation which the circumstances would in no sense justify." That showed what was passing in Mr. Kavanagh' s mind. This Report was written in a judicial speech by one conversant with the question, and which every one who took an interest in Irish matters should read. He had every disposition to go far to assist the tenant, he saw the difficulties of the Irish Land Question, and was willing to give up his personal rights with a view to clearing away those difficulties; but when the Chief Commissioner of Works said that landlords did not object to such a provision as this, this Report from one of the most intelligent and impartial of Irish landlords was a complete answer. From the evidence collected both by the Bessborough Commission and the Duke of Richmond's Commission—and he would rather refer to the former—it was quite plain that upon the estates of great noblemen and others property was managed according to the English fashion. And why, he would ask again, from the accident of such property being on the other side of St. George's Channel, were they to bring it under the operation of a clause, which, it was admitted, ought not to be applicable to the property in England managed on the same system? He had another landowner whose evidence he might refer to, he was formerly a prominent Member of the House (the O'Conor Don). He said they must be careful not to do injustice to the landlord where he had made the improvements. His Paper on the subject was well worth reading; but he (Mr. Rodwell) would merely use his name as one who agreed with the view taken by Mr. Kavanagh, though he did not go so thoroughly into the case as the latter did, as to the injustice of the indiscriminate application of this power of free sale. In the discussion of this matter, he could not but bear in mind a special Report—another of the "litter "—which was written by a Nobleman who took a very active part in the passing of the Land Act of 1870 (Lord Carlingford). He (Mr. Rodwell) had the honour of sitting with him, and hearing the evidence. He did not agree with the Report of the Richmond Commission on the question of Free Sale; but he recognized most thoroughly the distinction between the Irish and the English system. In page 21 of his Report he said— The interests and rights of all landlords who have adopted wholly or partially what may be called the English system on this subject ought to be most carefully guarded. Now, he would like to know in what respect these rights were carefully guarded, as the Bill stood, in accordance with that recommendation of Lord Carlingford? The Amendment supplied what Lord Carlingford advocated. He did not wish to obstruct the Bill in the slightest degree—far from it—and, so far as his humble efforts had been directed, they were not in opposition to it. But he supported this Amendment on just grounds; and he believed most sincerely, from what he had heard in the House, from what he had heard from witnesses, and from opinions he had quoted, that if something in the principle of the Amendment—he was not wedded to the words—were introduced into the Bill, it would conciliate many opponents who now viewed the Bill with, the greatest apprehension and aversion. This Amendment was justified by the evidence, justified by the statements of persons who had studied the subject, and justified by those who were interested in the question, and had taken the trouble to commit their opinions to writing for the guidance of Parliament. He was surprised that a Commission, appointed under the circumstances that the Bessborough Commission was, should have their advice disregarded on such an important matter. He had referred to Lord Carlingford, who understood Irish matters, and whose opinion was entitled to the greatest respect; and he contended that where the improvements had not been paid for by the tenant they could not be the property of the occupier; and the Amendment was founded on equity and fairness. The principle of the Bill would not be affected by its adoption; but, as it stood, the clause would inflict a wrong upon landlords who had done their duty to their tenants. The principle of the Bill was to protect the property a tenant had acquired by his improvements; but where the improvements had been made by the landlord there was no pretence for imposing upon that landlord the same conditions as if he had allowed the tenant to make the improvements. Where the estate was managed on the English, system the same law should apply as governed the same condition of things in England.

MR. SHAW

only wished to interpose for a few minutes. It occurred to him that they had passed a sub-section that provided very effectually for the interests of landlords in Ireland who had laid out money on their tenants' holdings. The hon. and learned Member who had just spoken had referred repeatedly to estates in Ireland managed on the English system. Now, he sat on the Commission the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to, and he was exceedingly anxious then to hear about these estates, and expected some evidence on the subject. He heard names mentioned, and some of the agents did attend; but they did not raise the question of English management. He found that the general rule was to charge interest upon improvements at such a rate as would cover principle and interest in a certain number of years, and that, he thought, was not the English mode of management. He did not believe there was a single estate in Ireland managed on the English principal. He was in hope that the estates of Lord Fitzwilliam would be found to be exceptions. He was a landlord who resided in the country when he could, and did, as far as he could, promote the welfare of his tenants. He (Mr. Shaw) was in hope that Lord Fitzwilliam's agent would give evidence as to the English principle of management on the estates. But there was nothing of the kind. There was no evidence in Ireland of such estates, and he did not believe they existed. He believed there were estates where the landlord had made improvements in the drainage; but there was no habitual outlay. If any Gentleman could bring evidence that there was any distinct likeness between an English estate and an Irish estate, then there would be some foundation in argument for this Amendment; but none existed now. It would be unwise to endeavour to introduce a system of management that would not be liked by the tenant. Nothing would be more difficult, for he believed the tenants would greatly dislike the looking over the bill for the cost of this or that. It did not commend itself to the people of Ireland, and the Committee could not do a more unwise thing than to encourage the absurd idea of spreading English mode of farming all over Ireland. For the last two hours they had not been discussing any real thing about Ireland; and he regretted that it had been set up, for the thing did not exist to any extent in Ireland.

MR. C. W. WENTWORTH FITZWILLIAM

said, as allusion had been made to his family, he desired to make one or two observations, and to say a word or two in reply to the hon. Member who had just sat down. He said that evidence was taken all over Ireland, and he had endeavoured to get at the practice on all the estates; but he had never been able to arrive at any as to the management of the estates of his (Mr. Fitzwilliam's) relative. Now, he thought, perhaps, there was one very good reason for that. The Chairman of the Committee upon which his hon. Friend sat had once been agent to that property, and it might not have been convenient for him to inquire how, during his reign, the property was managed; but perhaps he might give the Committee some little information of what had been done during the period the present owner had been in possession of the property. It was said—he thought by the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst)—that there were hardly any estates on which money had been expended on the English principle, and very little money had been expended there. The statistics he had were these. The present owner of the Fitzwilliam estates in County Wicklow succeeded to them in 1857; and from that time to the year 1869 the sum expended was £117,731 12s. 1d., and from 1869 to 1879 a further sum of £194,859 4s. 9d., so that in a period of 20 years £312,590 had been expended in drainage and generally used in improvements. And that was not all; for previous to that—he could not give the figures—an enormous sum, nearly double the amount, was expended on the Wicklow and other estates. To say, then, that no money had been expended on English principles on the improvement of estates in Ireland showed anignorance which might have been pardoned in other than an Irish Member. He thought it would be found that besides the estate with which he was acquainted, there were others on which money had been expended in a really liberal way, and that on those estates the tenantry were in a much more prosperous condition than on those of which some hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to take so much care. As to the point of the Amendment, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby wished to exempt those estates which were managed on English principles from the provisions of the Act, and he did so justly. What would be the effect if tenant right were to be allowed there? Tenants would flock in in hundreds to those estates, and give exorbitant tenant right. That meant that they would diminish their capital. Now, what was there so detrimental to good agriculture as for a man to go on to a farm without sufficient capital to work it? Who would suffer? The landlord, whose rents would be diminished, in order that the farmer might be able to eke out a subsistence from what he could earn by his capital. He therefore hoped that the Committee would look favourably on the proposition of the hon. Member; and, notwithstanding the veils thrown over the idea, not to say incorrect statements, that he would be followed into the Lobby by such a respectable following as would induce the Prime Minister to think better of the proposition than he did at present.

MR. PARNELL

thought the Amendment as it stood would apply to a great many more estates than hon. Members who were interested in supporting it would have the Committee believe. It appeared to him that the Amendment would apply not only to estates which were managed on English principles, but to tenancies where the landlord had at any time made any improvement. He might be wrong in his construction of it; but he believed it would apply to the case of any holding where the landlord had made any improvements whatever at any time. If that were not so, of course it would be different; but as the Amendment read, it provided that holdings should be exempted from the operation of the section which had been heretofore maintained and improved by the landlord or his predecessor in title. Now, it was very much the custom on some estates in Ireland for the landlord to advance some of the money for improvements, where the tenant proposed to effect them. For instance, where the tenant wished to build a house, he used frequently, before the Act of 1870, to go to his landlord and say—"I will build the walls of the house, if you will give me slates and timber for the roofs." And the landlord would give him slates and timber for the roof, and he would lay out capital on the walls. But if this Amendment were carried, the mere fact of the landlord having given the tenant slates and timber would entitle him to go to the Court and dispute the right of the tenant to sell his holding, and so to involve the tenant in an additional law-suit on this point of a very expensive character. They had heard a great deal about Irish estates managed on the English principle; but he ventured to think they did not exist at all. There were many estates where the landlords made improvements to a greater or lesser extent; but he knew of none where the landlord maintained those improvements as he did in England. In every case where the landlord made improvements the tenants were always left to maintain them. It could not be said that there existed in Ireland any estate where the improvements made by the landlord were of such a character and of such extent as to do away with the traditional belief of the tenantry that they had a tenant right—an interest in their holdings which they were entitled to sell. Take the case of the Fitzwilliam estate, in the county of Wicklow. He knew a great deal of the management of that estate. On the whole it was a well-managed estate; but it was not managed on the English system, though it was to such an extent well managed that the tenants for the most part had, up to the present time, refused to join the Land League. But when they heard, if they should hear, that an Amendment of this kind had been accepted by the Government or carried by the House of Commons, preventing them from having the benefit of selling their interest in their holdings, he thought not many days, or even hours, would elapse before all Lord Fitzwilliam's numerous tenantry in Wicklow would hasten to join the neighbouring branches of the League. What were the facts so far as he knew them? The habits of the agents might differ in different portions of the Fitzwilliam estate, which was spread over a very considerable part of the county of Wicklow, and was a very large estate; but, so far as he had been able to see, where the landlord executed improvements, he charged the tenant interest on them, and, he thought, at the rate of 5 per cent. Those improvements, therefore, could not be said to be executed by the landlord, and were clearly executed by the tenants, for they were made at the expense of the tenants. To found a claim for the exemption of such an estate, on the ground that Lord Fitzwilliam put his tenants in the same posi- tion that he was himself with regard to borrowing money from the Board of Works for the improvement of his property, was manifestly an absurdity which could not be maintained for an instant. The mere fact that improvements were executed on a holding by the landlord out of money advanced by the Government, and the interest of which the tenant had to pay, clearly did not put that landlord in the position of an English landlord on an estate managed on the system prevailing in England. Let them go a little further. Statistics had been given as to the amount of money laid out by landlords during the last 20, or 30, or 40 years, under remarkable facilities for borrowing money such as the English landlord did not enjoy. No doubt, the landlords had borrowed the £3,500,000 which had been mentioned by reason of those facilities; but who made the improvements on the holdings up to the time when the Legislature made it so easy for Irish landlords to borrow money, and so induced them to borrow the comparatively small sum of £3,500,000, which made the letting what it was? Who built the houses, who erected the fences, who drained the land, who sub-soiled it, who reclaimed it, who removed the boulders? The tenants did all these things; and in talking about estates managed on the English system, the Committee must not allow itself to be drawn into the notion that there was any analogy between the two countries and the systems followed in them. Certainly, up to within the last 30 years, the improvements, without exception, were made by the tenants. During the last 30 or 40 years some little amount of money might have been laid out by the landlords; but half that amount had been paid by the tenants in the form of increased rents. Therefore, this case for the improving landlords who had been managing their estates on the English system vanished entirely into thin air; because, in the first place, the amount of money laid out by the landlords on the holdings in Ireland was, comparatively speaking, infinitesimal; and, in the second place, they would give ground for litigation of an expensive character by enabling the landlord who had spent any money on a holding to go into Court and contest the right of the tenant to sell his holding, and they would practically de- feat the object of the Bill so far as it professed to confer free sale on the Irish tenant.

MR. LONG

remarked, that it had been said by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that there were very few properties in Ireland managed on the English system, and another Irish Member opposite had said it was unnecessary to pay attention to this subject, because there were very few of those properties. That was a remarkable argument to be used by an hon. Member in his position. If they were to judge by numbers, and that argument were to be accepted, would it not be fair to say that the numbers of the Party to which the hon. Member belonged should be taken into consideration when they considered their opinions? Perhaps if the argument were applied to the position of a Member of a smaller Party than any other in that House, perhaps the hon. Member would not regard it as so strong with reference to the management of properties in Ireland according to the English or Irish system. He had a fairly accurate aequaintance, not with a property in Ireland managed partially on the Irish principle, but on the principle which actuated most English landlords, and, as he hoped and believed, most Irish landlords—namely, a desire to place the tenants in a fair position, so far as lay in their power. A relative of his, who had been for many years a Member of that House, possessed property in Wexford, and some portion of the property which he had purchased once belonged to the hon. Member for the City of Cork. When he purchased it, the rents were about 70 per cent over Griffith's valuation. To that remarkable pitch he had the best reason for believing they had been brought by the individual action of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, who appeared to think that to raise the rents to that pitch was a justifiable proceeding on the part of the landlord. His relative, however, considered them to have been unduly and unfairly raised, and they had been lowered. He should like to call the attention of the Committee to the position of two men—one, an Irishman, or, at all events, partially an Irishman, who had wished himself to be considered entirely an Irishman, and who was the head of the present agitation in Ireland; another, who would probably be called by the hon. Member an absentee landlord, because he only spent a portion of the year in Ireland. The one man raised his rent to an unfair and inconsiderate pitch, and then sold his property and left it to one of those so-called absentee landlords to get the rents as best he could, or, if he chose to act in the in terest of the tenant, to reduce the rent. That was the course followed by his (Mr. Long's) relative, who had had to stand the loss upon his capital, which he invested on the strength of the position which had been assumed by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. If they were to consider the question of the management of properties according to the opinions given in the House by Gentlemen who were either themselves landlords or who had practical experience of the management of properties, the best thing they could do, where there were these landlords, was to look to their management of the properties they had, or once had; and when they found that they had carried out the re verse of the principles which they came to the House to advocate—

MR. GIVAN

rose to Order. He submitted that the hon. Member was not speaking to the Amendment before the Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member, I think, was giving an illustration of his argument, and is, therefore, clearly in Order.

MR. LONG,

resuming, said, he was endeavouring to show how properties were managed by Irish and English landlords; and he was saying that he could not select a better case, or a better Gentleman to turn to, than that one who was looked upon by many as the leader of Irish opinion, and as that hon. Gentleman was one for whom the present Government had shown great respect, and to whom they had turned more than once, finding gladly that his opinions were to be held forth in support of their Bill. Even supposing those Irish-managed estates were only very few, was it an argument to be held forward by the great Liberal Party, that because they were few therefore they were to be turned on one side and forgotten? The fact of their being weak and small ought to strengthen their cause with hon. Members. He thought the Liberal Party were the great Party in support of the real rights of the people; and yet the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Colthurst) had said he only objected to the Amendment, because the English-managed estates were few.

COLONEL COLTHURST

said, he had also stated that, in his opinion, the course proposed by the Bill would not do any injury to the landlords.

MR. LONG

observed, that the hon. and gallant Member had laid great stress on the remark that these properties were few; but surely that was not an argument for the Party to which he belonged? If there were only half-a-dozen, was that any reason why they were to be deliberately robbed of that which belonged to them solely and entirely? He would ask the Government one question. If the tenant had not made the improvements on his farm, to what were the Government giving him the right of sale? If a tenant took a farm, he bound himself by contract, with his eyes open, to certain principles, and to pay a certain rent. What were the Government going to do? They were going to give him money down, and a pecuniary advantage, for simply carrying out the contract he was bound by law to carry out. They were going to give the farmer the same pecuniary right which was given to the proprietor of a business, if a tradesman opened a shop, and by his industry established a good business, he had a right to be able to sell the profit of the business; but the farmer took a farm with his eyes open, under a landlord to whom he looked—and with justice—for help in bad times; he was bound by a contract which, in old times, was strict, but which was now becoming lax; and the Government were going to give him the right to sell what he only got by carrying out the contract he had made. He thought the Committee would do well to accept the Amendment, because it would allay a great deal of the suspicion with which the Bill was regarded, and would exclude from the hardness of the Bill those landlords—and he ventured to say there were more of them than some would admit—who had conducted their estates in Ireland on English principles.

MR. PARNELL

I shall not detain the Committee more than a few minutes in order to refer to the attack made upon me by the hon. Member (Mr. Long). There is not the slightest foundation for any of the statements he has made with regard to MR. He says I sold property in the county of Wicklow to a relative of his own, after having raised the rents to 70 per cent over the Government valuation. I never sold any property in the county of Wicklow, or anywhere else, to a relative of his, or to anybody else. I never raised the rents of any of my tenants 70 per cent, or any other per cent above the Government valuation; and I think the hon. Member, who has made this attack not now for the first time, for he made a similar attack upon me at a Party dinner some months ago, might in the interval have made surer of his facts before coming here to libel me as he has done.

MR. LONG

May I be allowed to say one word? The hon. Member for the City of Cork says the statements I have made are, in every sense of the word, untrue. I am perfectly prepared to produce my authority for those statements, which is of the best character. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Name, name—] I am sorry to say that the conduct of Irishmen in Ireland has been such as to preclude any Member in this House from giving names, and I cannot give the name of my authority; but I need scarcely assure the Committee that I am able to support what I have said.

MR. W. FOWLER

wished to call the attention of the Committee to the difficulty in which they were placed by the Bill itself. In sub-section 8 of Clause 7 an exception was made by the Bill, for it gave the Court power to exempt certain estates. He should not have thought of making or advocating an exception if there had not been one placed in the Bill by the Government. He should have felt the difficulty of defining the exception so great that he should have deemed it practically impossible; but when he found that the Government themselves saw that there was a great difference between one class of estates and another, he thought there might be some means of doing justice in this matter. The Prime Minister's words were very simple. He said— In cases where what is called the 'English system' prevails, or, as we define it, where the holding has been maintained and improved by the landlord, we have thought that justice demands that the landlord should not be brought into a new and exceptional state of things, which really has no application to the relations which subsists between him and the tenant."—[3 Hansard, cclx. 910–11.] The Prime Minister had said those words did not apply to free sale, because free sale was not new, but had been established by the Common Law for a long period of time. But he felt some difficulty as to that argument, because there were large estates in which the tenant right had practically been bought up by the landlord. How were those cases to be dealt with? Were they to be ignored? Were they to deal with, those estates as if nothing of the kind had been done? He was well aware how difficult it was to define the cases in which they were to make an exception; but the hon. Member had taken the definition of the Bill itself, and he (Mr. Fowler) did not know that he could have taken a better. He felt even a greater difficulty, however, in saying that they were to treat all landlords alike. There was one point which had not been referred to by any hon. Member to which he wished to draw attention, and which he wished to put right—he referred to cases in which improvements had been made by the tenants in consideration of the fact that the land was let to them at a very low rent. Now, he had been told—but it was difficult to know what to believe with regard to Ireland, because immediately one man made a statement another contradicted it—that these cases were numerous, and that improvements had been made over large areas simply by reason of the low rent the land was let at. ["No, no—"] Hon. Members from Ireland differed on this matter, as it was their custom to differ on all things. He knew a case in the centre of Ireland where the land had been let at a low rent. ["Name, name—"] He would give hon. Members the name of the landlord, privately, if they wished to have it. The land had been let for a long term of years at a low rent; the difference between the value and the rent came to many thousands in the course of the term; and the improvements effected were small compared with the value received by the tenant in the low rent. This should not be treated as a case in which all the improvements had been made by the tenant, and it seemed to be one which called for the intervention of the Court. The Court was supposed to come in and decide all these knotty questions. They were going away from freedom of contract, and were going to have a Court to settle these matters. Well, when once they went away from freedom of contract there would, no doubt, be great difficulties to be encountered; but if the landlord could prove that he had improved his property, whether he had done it directly or indirectly, it came to the same thing as a matter of justice. There was another question which he should like to say a word about. He was told that there were cases where the landlord's had made improvements and the rents were also low. That might or might not be so; but he wished to ask this question—Suppose a man had improved his estate, and his rents were low, and they passed an Act to enable the tenant to sell his tenant right, would they not be passing a law allowing the tenant to sell property which belonged to the landlord? It seemed to him that such cases would arise, and when they were mentioned the only answer given was "the landlord must raise his rent." But raising rent in Westminster and raising rent in Westmeath were very different things. It was a very easy thing to say to the tenantry in the county of Wiltshire—"We will raise your rent;" but it was a different thing to say it in Ireland; and, if they did, the result would be to bring about that very disturbance which they wished to avoid. He should like very much to avoid making exceptions to this clause; but there were to be exceptions to the 7th clause, and therefore there might be to this also. Moreover, it had been truly said that if they had fixed rents they must have a term, and if they had a term they must have free sale. But they were going to have cases where there would be no fixed rent, therefore there would be no term, and, logically, no free sale. The Prime Minister said that was true; but that, besides all this, there was something to be sold—something which arose out of the Act of 1870, a something not yet defined, but a something which existed. There was a great deal of truth in what the Prime Minister said, though it was never intended by the House. Then he asked this—" If exception is made in one case, is it not exceedingly difficult to avoid making it in another?" He was afraid the mistake, if there had been one, had been in creating this exception in regard to fair rent, and if the mistake had been made they must follow' it up. He could not help thinking that it would be exceedingly hard to treat bad and good landlords alike. He could not understand how, in common fairness, they could do it. There were many places in Ireland where this Bill would work admirably; but if they were going to treat all Ireland as if it were a homogeneous country, when the Prime Minister himself had said that there was the greatest difference between one part and another of it, they would make a great mistake. He should vote for the Amendment, although he should do so with great reluctance.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

One reason given by the hon. Member for voting for this Amendment was that there is to be an exception made in another clause. We had better, I think, consider this clause by itself. The hon. Member also said that he did not wish to interfere with freedom of contract more than is necessary; but I do not see how this clause in any way interferes with freedom of contract. It will be said, I have no doubt, when we come to the 7th clause, that that, to a certain extent, does interfere with freedom of contract; but this clause certainly does not, and I really cannot understand what, in this respect, my hon. Friend's argument means. The hon. Member who proposed this Amendment brought in a considerable number of exceptions to the working of this clause, and we have to consider what would be the effect in Ireland if those exceptions were admitted. What was it we agreed to in the first words of this clause? It was this— The tenant for the time being of every tenancy to which this Act applies may sell his tenancy for the best price that can be got for the same, subject to the following regulations and subject also to the provisions in this Act contained, with respect to the sale of a tenancy subject to statutory conditions. That means we have allowed the doctrine of free sale by the tenant of everything he has; and we have guarded against his being allowed to sell anything which is not his. We have stated in one section that the improvements made by the landlord he is not to sell, or, if they are sold, the landlord is to get an acknowledgment for them. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Long) spoke of "robbery;" but where was the robbery? I am prepared to admit there are many landlords in Ireland who improve their estates to a far greater extent than is the custom, gene- rally, in that country, and very likely they have derived great advantage from the better position of their tenants. I agree with the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) that it is excessively rare to find any estate in Ireland managed upon the principle upon which English estates are managed. I have not yet heard of any such estate. I suppose the Amendment is to be limited to estates on which the improvements have been made and maintained by the landlord; and if that really is so, my hon. Friend might have spared himself the trouble of moving it and us the trouble of this discussion. It seems to be assumed by the hon. Gentleman opposite that the fact of the landlord managing his estate according to English notions is to be accepted as a test of his being a good and liberal landlord; but I should be sorry to think there are no good landlords who have not managed their estates on English principles. It would not be at all fair to Irish management and opinion, or ideas, to say that the English definition of a good landlord should be made the sole test of the good management of an Irish estate. But what would be the result of attempting to make this exception? It is not required for the purpose of guarding against robbery, because in the sub-sections we have already guarded against it. The effect of the Amendment would be to divide Ireland into two camps—one very much larger than the other; and I do not think it would be to the advantage of either landlords or tenants. I do not believe it would practically work. It is an undoubted fact that, notwithstanding all the attempts that have been made in some parts of the South and West of Ireland to prevent it, tenant right has been sold. It has been sold, over and over again, on estates where its sale has been forbidden. It has been done under the rose, but sometimes more or less with the acknowledgment and assent of the landlord or the agent, and sometimes against the nominal prohibition of the landlord, but in reality with his knowledge. Do the Committee for a moment imagine that an Act can be passed acknowledging the principle of free sale—acknowledging the principle of the tenant's right to sell whatever interest he has in his holding—throughout the whole of Ireland, and that you can pick out two or three estates in one county or another and say the Act is not to apply to them? Undoubtedly, all tenants would follow the custom of the country, made all the stronger by your Act, and the outgoing tenant would get a price from the incoming tenant; and I believe the only upshot would be to cause some heartburning between the landlord and tenant in endeavouring to preserve this exceptional position. The landlord would lose the advantage of free sale, which would secure him the payment of arrears of rent, and you would lose the inducement on the part of the outgoing tenant to improve and maintain his farm in such good condition as to have something to sell when he left it. There would also be an invidious distinction created between those parts of Ireland where tenant right would exist, and where, by the Amendment, it would in effect be prohibited. It would be unfair to put landlords in such a position. The principle of the Amendment would be utterly unworkable and, with the exception of the hon. Member for Malton (Mr. C. W. Fitzwilliam), who was almost dragged into the discussion by the mention of the well-managed estate of his brother, I observe that no Irish landlord, living in Ireland, has come forward in support of the Amendment.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

There is not one in the House.

MR. GIBSON

said, that this Amendment, which had been moved in a speech of great moderation, had been practically discussed by those who opposed it, not on the ground of the principle on which it rested, but by attempting to suggest that it would have little or no application. He ventured to say that, long as the discussion had been going on, not a single argument had been addressed to the Committee grappling with the Amendment as a question of principle and a question of justice. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and who had discussed the matter fairly, had dealt with it in regard to its application, and had contended that it would be inconvenient—not unjust—to adopt it, as it would have the effect of dividing Ireland into two camps. Well, Ireland was tolerably accustomed to that; and it must be borne in mind that the Amendment would only do in the 1st section of the Bill what the Government themselves had deliberately done in the 7th section. It was idle and unreasonable to say that all landlords in Ireland, good, bad, and indifferent—those who had improved their estates and those who had not improved them, those who had spent money on their estates and those who had declined to do so—were all to have the same scant measure of justice dealt out to them, without a single particle of discrimination. How was the Amendment received by the other occupant of the Treasury Bench who spoke next before the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant? The First Commissioner of Works had also gone upon the question of application, and had said that there were very few cases to which it would apply; and then, in that peculiar way he had of speaking of Irish landlords, he went on to say that even in those few cases the landlords had made their improvements with borrowed money. What answer could the light hon. Gentleman give, on principle, in justice, in equity, in fair dealing, to those landlords who from their own sense of duty had made improvements on their property? It was necessary to remind the Committee what the Amendment was, and it could be done in a couple of sentences. The Amendment proposed to leave to the existing law, which had heretofore been found sufficient, and not to subject to the new law, which was contained in the 1st section of the Bill, a certain clearly defined class of persons—the class of persons whose properties, for the sake of convenience, had been called "English-managed tenancies." Now, was it not reasonable where the improvements had been made by the landlord, and not by the tenant—and remember what the Prime Minister had said in the course of this very discussion, that the main ingredient that entered into the conception of tenant right was the fact that the improvements had been made by the tenant—where the tenant had not spent a farthing on the land, that a distinction should be made between the landlords who had so acted and those who had not? Was it not according to common sense, plain justice, and simple fair play that a distinction should be made? The proposal was that the landlords who had made the improvements should not be subjected to new and irksome conditions and hardships, but should be left under the conditions and in the exact state of circumstances in which they had thriven and prospered during the last two or three generations. The case was met by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works by saying that there were, practically, none of these landlords, and the right hon. Gentleman had added that he knew a good deal about Ireland. Well, he (Mr. Gibson) readily acknowledged the right hon. Gentleman's willingness to make himself acquainted with Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said he had not come across any of these cases, and that might be so, without disparagement to the extent of his examination; but if he had looked into the matter with a desire to find out these cases, and not with a desire not to find them out, he would not have had much difficulty in discovering some of them. One had been mentioned to-night—the case of the Fitzwilliam property, upon which over £300,000 had. been expended in 20 years. He did not wish to press this case beyond a reasonable point; but he assumed that a substantial part of that expenditure had gone to make and maintain improvements on a substantial number of holdings. The same might be said of the Leconfield property. The First Commissioner of Works had referred to a pamphlet called Facts and Figures. It was a very clearly written pamphlet, and did not purport to deal exhaustively with the improvements executed by landlords all over Ireland. It stated, at the outset, in the clearest way that it would only deal with those properties which had sent in Returns in answer to questions submitted to them, and that some of the great properties which would be most likely to supply cases that those who supported the Amendment could rely on had not furnished Returns; and, amongst others, the estates of Lord Fitzwilliam, Lord Port-arlington, and Lord Bath, were mentioned. These noblemen were, beyond all question, in the habit of expending large sums of money on the making and maintenance of improvements on their estates. The pamphlet pointed out that in a given number of years £3,500,000 had been expended on the improvement of certain estates. There was one case, and one case only, to which he would specially refer. He did not know the gentleman, he had never seen him; but he thought every one in Ireland knew his character—he referred to Mr. Mahoney. He would describe this case, and he would ask the Committee whether it was fair to subject a gentleman like Mr. Mahoney to the treatment to which the great body of landlords would be treated? Mr. Mahoney said that he came into possession of his estate in 1851. The old rentals in his possession showed that for many years previous to that date there had been allowances made to the tenants at the rate of about £1,000 per annum; yet when he took up the estate there had not been a yard of road made by the tenants, not a single slated house built, and no sub-soil drainage carried out. Mr. Mahoney had adopted the principle of making the improvements himself, charging interest for his outlay upon the occupiers. [Laughter.] To listen to hon. Members one would think that was a criminal offence. The result had been that in some 25 years Mr. Mahoney had built about 80 houses, made 28 miles of road, and 23 miles of fences, thoroughly drained 500 acres of land, reclaimed 150 acres of waste land, and proportionately improved the condition and circumstances of the people. Was it not monstrous to subject a man who had devoted himself to that loyal kind of work for the benefit of those who were on his property to exactly the same measure of justice as the man who had never spent Is. in the improvement of his property, and who did not live among his people? One other observation which he was obliged to notice was made in the speech of the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), a Gentleman who ought to be heard with respect on this or on any other question, on account of his great sense and sagacity. What was the argument of the hon. Member? Did he grapple for one second with the justice or the principle of the case? Not at all. He said that the Commission on which he served had come across few or no such cases as he had referred to. Was it the business of the Commission to find them? Did they send down a Secretary or an Assistant Commissioner to try to find out a single case in Ireland? That was not the construction which he placed on the Report. He was bound to say it looked as if the evidence had been selected largely from one point of view; and most unquestionably the Index, which was sent out yesterday, was a document framed so as to give the greatest facility of reference to cases against landlords, while there was the greatest difficulty in finding out any which were in their favour. This case was dealt with by the Prime Minister himself in a way very different from that in which it had been presented by others who followed him on the Treasury Bench. The Prime Minister argued the question in a way that commanded attention, and required close examination; but, as far as he could find out, the case which the right hon. Gentleman presented was this—there was no analogy whatever between this 1st section and the 7th section. It was a false analogy, the right hon. Gentleman said, because the 7th section dealt with a complete innovation, and it was right in that section to make a distinction in order to prevent injustice being done. But how did the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to apply that as a principle of justice to show that the same distinction should not be equally drawn with respect to the 1st clause? The right hon. Gentleman said there was no innovation, technically, in the 1st clause, because there had always been what was known as the Common Law right of assignment. He knew that, according to practice and usage on this class of estates, there was not a right of free sale; and where was the difference in justice and in principle? If these owners of land had so managed their estates that they had established a usage which had worked well, had they not a right to have a distinction made in their favour just as much as those landlords had who were face to face with a technical innovation in Clause 7? A suggestion of an adroit character was made by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant towards the close of his observations. The right hon. Gentleman remarked that this debate had been carried on rather by English landowners than by those who were interested in Irish land. That argument left the question of justice and principle entirely untouched. But was it decisive either way? Was it not quite natural that English landlords should insist that the properties of Irish, landlords which had been managed on the English system should have justice extended to them by being exempted from the operation of this clause?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he thought at one time that his right hon. and learned Friend was going to give the go by altogether to the speech of the Prime Minister, for he spent a large part of his argument in discussing the views of those speakers on the Ministerial side who had rested their contention on the question whether there were many or few cases to which this section could apply. Although this was mentioned incidentally, it was by no means the main argument which was addressed to the Committee from that side of the House, and certainly it had no application whatever to the speech of the Prime Minister. The argument of many Members on the opposite side was, "What has the tenant got to sell if he has made no improvement?" The answer to this question had been so often given by the Prime Minister and others that it might seem absurd to repeat it. Nobody yet had had the hardihood to stand up and say that the occupancy right of the tenant, even if he had made no improvement, would not be worth money. Until someone had the courage to assert that it might be taken for granted that the right of occupancy possessed a pecuniary value. In fact, they were asked to protect the Irish people from the effect of the land hunger, which would make them give extravagant prices for the occupation right. Surely this showed that the occupation was a right, and that it belonged to the tenant wholly irrespective of improvements. It was asserted that this was a small interest without improvements; but this was no argument against just protection. The case had been cited of a gentleman who had made roads, built houses, and planted a number of acres of land on his estate; but it could hardly be argued that on account of this his tenants ought to be deprived of their right of assignment. As the evidence taken before the Bessborough and the Richmond Commissions clearly enough showed, the discontent in Ireland arose not in cases where the improvements were made by the landlord, but in cases where they were made by the tenant, and where the tenant was subsequently rack-rented on account of them. One hon. Member had said—"Why rob the good landlords?" meaning the landlords who followed the English system. Well, the term "good landlords" was a relative one. A good landlord in any country was one who did what was just and fair to his tenants, having regard to their Habits and sentiments; and it did not follow that a landlord was good merely because he forced English ideas upon the Irish people. But, accepting the term as it stood, he held that the position of "good landlords" was improved instead of being compromised by the Bill. They were allowed to retain their present power of raising their rents, and they had the additional power in certain cases of getting back the capital paid for improvements. He could see no ground for this Amendment, and he hoped the Committee would, without any hesitation, reject it.

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, he had no intention of following the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, for, although he had listened attentively to his speech, he was totally unable to gather from it any logical argument. His object in rising, however, was not to complain of this, but to deny the imputations cast upon Lord Fitzwilliam, and to correct the mis-statement of the First Commissioner of Works that there was no instance in which improvements had been made solely by the landlord. By way of throwing dirt at the assertion that Irish landowners were in the habit of expending money on their estates, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had stated that although it was true that Lord Fitzwilliam had expended large sums on his estate, yet his Lordship borrowed the money from the Board of Works, and charged his tenants 5 per cent in respect of the improvements. Now, he was informed that this statement was totally inaccurate. Lord Fitzwilliam had never borrowed 1s. from the Board of Works, and had expended the whole sum out of his private income. During the last 20 years his Lordship had expended on an average £15,000 a-year out of his own pocket in improving his estate, which produced him a return of only some 1½ per cent. In such a matter it was, perhaps, excusable enough that the hon. Member for the City of Cork should be misinformed; but he protested against a Member of Her Majesty's Government making an authoritative statement that he believed no improvement had been made solely by the landlord in any single case in Ireland. That statement was actually made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. The Irish Land Committee, which was instituted for the purpose of defending the landowners from the attacks which they knew would be made upon them both in and out of Parliament, had been sitting in Dublin for many months. That Committee had, at great cost of time, trouble, and expense, put together many facts which he commended to the notice of the First Commissioner of Works as being a more valuable basis of information than the theories which the right hon. Gentleman formed in his fleeting visits to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had stated his belief that there was not in Ireland a single instance in which the improvements had been made solely by the landlord. He had no hesitation in referring to the pamphlet entitled Facts and Figures, because its accuracy had already been admitted by the Prime Minister, who quoted from it in his opening speech in introducing this Bill. The Land Committee had collected information respecting an area of 6,660,000 acres, or about one-third of the whole of the country. They had collected evidence on 1,629 estates, and it gave the following results:—On 200 of these estates the improvements were made solely by the landlords; on 590 they were made by the tenants; and on 839 they were made by the landlords and the tenants jointly. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would have done better by having figures of that kind to go upon, than simply by making the statement that no improvements had been made on Irish estates wholly and solely by the landlords. With regard to the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland, without going into unnecessary detail he could name off-hand many gentlemen who had made all the improvements themselves on their estates—amongst others, Lord Fitzwilliam, Lord Leconfield, Lord Digby, and Captain Crosbie. His argument against the Amendment was wholly fallacious. According to that argument, when improvements had been made by the landlord, tenant right came to this—that the tenant would have the power of selling that which had been created by the improving landlord, and which would never have existed at all if the landlord had not created it by the improvements.

COLONEL KINGSCOTE

said, as a Member of the Richmond Commission, he was able to corroborate the statement that there was strong evidence to show that Irish landlords had in some cases made their own improvements, and conducted their estates on the English principle. The cases of Mr. Mahoney and Lord Fitzwilliam, which had been quoted, would strongly exemplify the case intended to be met by the Amendment before the Committee; but he said that no exceptions should be made where landlords had done their duty and had spent money in improvements. Take the case of Lord Fitzwilliam, and deduct from the amount of £300,000, which had been spent, and assume that a sum of £100,000 had been expended on his demesnes, and there would still remain £200,000 expended on the estate for the benefit of the tenants. It was said that a percentage had been charged; but even if that were so the rents had not been raised, and what tenant, he asked, would not pay 5 or 6 per cent for such improvements as had been made? He maintained that the Amendment was founded on a right principle; one which would allow landlords to lay out money in improvements on their estates, and it was the landlords who must be looked to for the capital. That was the great need in Ireland, and he believed that a great deal of mischief had been done in time past by the inability of landlords to make improvements.

MR. PARNELL

said, the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) had contradicted a statement which he had made a short time back in the course of the discussion. He (Mr. Parnell) had said that in his own neighbourhood, and to his own knowledge, Lord Fitzwilliam charged 5 per cent for the money expended on improvements effected for the tenants. The hon. Member had said that there was no foundation for the statement, and that Lord Fitzwilliam charged only 1½ per cent. Whether the money was borrowed or not from the Board of Works had nothing to do with the question; but he knew that 5 per cent was charged. It had been pointed-out that Lord Fitzwilliam had spent in 20 years £300,000 for improvements on his estate, and it had been admitted that £100,000 had been spent on land in his own possession, and that the remaining £200,000 had been spent on the holdings of the tenants. Whether or not that was so, it made very little difference so far as his argument went; but the absurdity of setting up such a contention on behalf of landlords in the position of Lord Fitzwilliam was plain when it was known that fully £99 out of every £100 expended on that estate in improvements had been paid by the tenants. It was within the last 20 years that those improvements had been made, and because in that time he had spent £200,000 on an estate which amounted in value to £1,000,000, or more probably £ 1,400,000, they were to believe that Lord Fitzwilliam ought to be permitted to confiscate from the tenants on that property the whole of their tenant right.

MR. TOTTENHAM

I did not say that Lord Fitzwilliam charged 1½ per cent, but that the outlay returned him 1½ per cent. I certainly should not have been guilty of the absurdity of saying that the tenants on the estate spent £20,000,000 in 20 years, which is what the statement of the hon. Member for Cork comes to.

MR. FITZPATRICK

said, he was acquainted with property in connection with which £16,000 had been spent by the landlord in buying up the improvements of tenants before the incoming tenants came in, in order to insure that they had money in their pockets wherewith to work their farms. On an estate of that kind he thought the Attorney General for Ireland would find it hard to show what was the "something" which those incoming tenants had to sell. They had heard a great deal of the pretium affectionis; but surely they ought to coin the word pretium moderationis, to describe the consideration for which a landlord charged a low rent and paid for all the improvements himself.

COLONEL KINGSCOTE

said, the hon. Member for the City of Cork had attributed to him words which he never used. He only assumed that Lord Fitzwilliam had spent the amount which he had mentioned on his demesnes.

MR. SYNAN

said, it appeared to him that the argument had been based on false premisses. Without entering into detail, it had been assumed throughout the discussion on this Amendment that the improvements of the landlord were to be confiscated. He maintained that these landlords were protected by the Bill. Not one shilling's worth of their improvements could be sold under the Bill; and, therefore, not 1s. would get into the pocket of the tenant as coming from the sale of the landlord's improvements. The representatives of the landlords desired to deprive the tenant of the interest given to him by the Act of 1870. He contended that the question ought to be argued, not upon personal grounds, but upon the principle of justice, and it was upon, that principle that the Amendment ought not to be accepted.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he thought the Committee ought not to go to a division on this Amendment without being made aware of the evidence given by the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) before the Richmond Commission. It appeared that in 1867 the hon. Member re-valued his estates and raised the rents very considerably. Being asked whether he had not said that he did not himself effect the improvements on his estate, but that the tenants did, he answered, that as far as all drainage, fencing, and works of that sort were concerned, the tenants did the whole of them. The hon. Member was also asked, when Hodges and Forster came down to value the farms which the tenants had brought from a condition of bog, how they valued them, and he replied they valued them as a whole; it was no business of theirs how the work had been done; they merely valued the land as they saw it before them. Being asked whether they raised the valuation, the hon. Gentleman said they raised it about 10 per cent generally. That showed that the hon. Gentleman had raised the rents upon the tenant's own improvements. The case could be put in a nutshell. There were a few landlords in Ireland who, like Lord Fitzwilliam, had the spirit to improve their estates; and he took the opportunity of remarking that if it had not been for those noblemen Ireland would not have been in so good a position as it was at that moment. It was not to be wondered at that Ireland should be in a bad condition agriculturally if, when improvements were made by the tenants, the landlords raised the rents; and, therefore, he had listened with great regret to the disparagement of landlords who had effected improvements on their estates. He trusted such landlords would always be found in Ireland, and felt sure that as soon as the tenants found they would not have to pay higher rents because of their improvements many persons in Ireland would be ready to effect improvements, and thereby better the general condition of Irish agriculture.

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, that the statement of the hon. Member for Galway only showed how careful people should be as to making statements on incomplete evidence. The most complete answer to his charge lay in the fact that the valuation in question was not acted upon, as he did not consider it a fair one.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

It seems to me very undesirable that we should allow the question raised by this Amendment to go off into one of a merely personal character. It is, no doubt, a matter of great importance that in any legislation that may take place we should agree to do justice to all those who, in their different spheres, are doing their best to promote improvement in Ireland. The great question we have to consider is the effect which the modification proposed by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) would have on the agricultural and social condition of Ireland. For the most part, the case of the Government rests upon the fact that a system prevails in a large part of Ireland different from that which prevails in England, and upon that we have been asked to agree to proposals which are open to a good deal of question, and, in the minds of some, to a good deal of objection. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby, at all events, said—"If this be the case with regard to a considerable part of Ireland, there are other portions which are administered on a different system, and I think that you ought to consider whether you would not meet the case of those other portions of Ireland by exempting them from the provision contained in the first part of the Bill." Two objections have been taken to this proposal. In the first place, the Attorney General for Ireland said that what the Committee had done already precluded us from this point, because the portion of this clause which had been passed provided that— The tenant for the time being of every tenancy to which this Act applies may sell his tenancy for the best price that can be got for the same. But I believe that this is not an accurate statement, because I think that these words were inserted— Every holding not hereinafter specially excepted from the provisions of this Bill. And I regard the case dealt with by the Amendment as one which it is proper to make an exception from the provisions of the Bill. As to whether there are many or few of these cases, or whether the improvements have been done by the landlord or by the tenant, I think we must bear in mind that the proposal of the hon. Member is not absolute. The Amendment says— Provided always, That, subject to the discretion of the Court, the provisions of this section shall not apply to the tenancy of any holding which has heretofore been maintained and improved by the landlord or his predecessors in title. It is not an absolute proposal; it is a question in the minds of many persons whether there are any cases to which it would apply. If there are none, then no injustice would be done by the insertion of the words. On the other hand, if there are a few cases, it would be as right to do justice in those cases as if there were many. But, Sir, the question is not so much what are the number of cases in which this system prevails, as it is how far it is desirable that we should encourage the introduction of a system under which the landlord, finding the capital, and employing it in effecting permanent improvements on the estate, makes the position of the tenant a good one, and, at the same time, tends to the general improvement and cultivation of the soil. If it be true that there are so few cases in which the landlord has done this, then I think it disposes of the objection, for there would be no harm in the introduction of the words. But if, on the other hand, there are many cases—and I believe there are many such—in which the landlords have done a great deal for the improvement of their estates, and have given not only money, but, what is still more valuable, time and attention and intelligent exertion of their own in getting over the difficulties with which the improvement of agriculture in Ireland is surrounded, I say we ought, in the interests of the country, to encourage and promote the interests of those landlords. Reference has been made to the very remarkable case of Mr. Mahoney. We know what he has done, and most of us have read the very interesting pamphlet which he has published on the case. I hope I may be forgiven for reading two or three of the concluding sentences of that pamphlet. Mr. Mahoney says— But the integrity of our cause does not rest on the evidence of inventive oratory. It stands silent, but undeniable in those districts where the face of nature has been changed by our labours, and its features will be traced by their solidity through generations of decay. The difficulties of the faith on which we have patiently travelled are not now apparent. It was no slight matter often to overcome even the material obstacles. But beyond these we have contended against ignorance, against prejudice, against misrepresentation—some of us against violence. Then he says in these concluding words— These foes have been in our front. But when the Government of the country takes us in the rear the cause is lost.

MR. HENEAGE

ventured to hope that the Committee would now be allowed to proceed to a division. He was perfectly satisfied with the course which the debate had taken, for the argument had been entirely and conclusively in favour of the Amendment; and although he might be beaten by numbers, still there would be a large number of independent votes given to show what was the real feeling of the Committee on this occasion. He would not, therefore, detain the Committee any further.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 200; Noes 225: Majority 25.

AYES.
Alexander, Colonel	Birkbeck, E.
Allen, H. G.	Birley, H.
Amherst, W. A. T.	Blackburne, Col. J. I.
Archdale, W. H.	Blennerhassett, Sir R.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.	Brassey, H. A.
Aylmer, J. E. F.	Brise, Colonel R.
Bailey, Sir J. R.	Broadley, W. H. H.
Balfour, A. J.	Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.
Barne, Col. F. St. J. N.
Barttelot, Sir W. B.	Brooks, W. C.
Bateson, Sir T.	Bruce, Sir H. H.
Beach, rt. hon. Sir M. H.	Bruce, hon. T.
Beach, W. W. B.	Burghley, Lord
Bective, Earl of	Burrell, Sir W. W
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.	Buxton, F. W.
Beresford, G. de la P.	Buxton, Sir R. J.
Biddulph, M.	Cameron, D.

Campbell, J. A.	Hill, Lord A. W.
Cartwright, W. C.	Hill, A. S.
Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.	Holland, Sir H. T.
Chaine, J.	Home, Lt.-Col. D. M.
Chaplin, H.	Jackson, W. L.
Churchill, Lord R.	Kennard, Col. E. H.
Clive, Col. hon. G. W.	Kennaway, Sir J. H.
Close, M. C.	Kingscote, Col. R. N. F.
Cobbold, T. C.	Knight, F. W.
Coddington, W.	Knightley, Sir E.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Lawrance, J. C.
Collins, T.	Leatham, W. H.
Compton, F.	Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.
Corry, J. P.	Lee, Major V.
Crichton, Viscount	Legh, W. J.
Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.	Leigh, hon. G. H. C.
Dalrymple, C.	Leigh, R.
Davenport, H. T.	Leighton, S.
Davenport, W. B.	Levett, T. J.
Davies, D.	Lewisham, Viscount
Dawnay, Col. hn. L. P.	Loder, R.
De Worms, Baron H.	Long, W. H.
Dickson, Major A. G.	Lowther, hon. W.
Digby, Col. hon. E.	Mac Iver, D.
Donaldson-Hudson, C.	Macnaghten, E.
Douglas, A. Akers-	M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.
Dundas, hon. J. C.	M'Lagan, P.
Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.	Makins, Colonel W. T.
Ecroyd, W. F.	Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.
Egerton, hon. W.	Master, T. W. C.
Elcho, Lord	Maxwell, Sir H. E.
Elliot, G. W.	Miles, Sir P. J. W.
Elliot, hon. A. R. D.	Monckton, F.
Emlyn, Viscount	Moreton, Lord
Estcourt, G. S.	Morgan, hon. F.
Evans, T. W.	Moss, R.
Ewing, A. O.	Murray, C. J.
Feilden, Major-General R. J.	Newdegate, C. N.
	Nicholson, W.
Fellowes, W. H.	Nicholson, W. N.
Fenwick-Bisset, M.	Northcote, H. S.
Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B.	Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.
Filmer, Sir E.
Finch, G. H.	Norwood, C. M.
Fitzmaurice, Lord E.	Onslow, D.
Fitzpatrick, hn. B. E. B.	Paget, R. H.
Fitzwilliam, hn. H. W.	Patrick, R. W. C.
Fitzwilliam, hn. W. J.	Pell, A.
Fletcher, Sir H.	Pemberton, E. L.
Floyer, J	Percy, Earl
Foljambe, F. J. S.	Phipps, C. N. P.
Folkestone, Viscount	Phipps, P.
Foster, W. H.	Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.
Fowler, R. N.	Portman, hn. W. H. B.
Fowler, W.	Price, Captain G. E.
Fremantle, hon. T. F.	Puleston, J. H.
Galway, Viscount	Ralli, P.
Garnier, J. C.	Ramsay, J.
Gibson, rt. hon. E.	Ramsden, Sir J.
Goldney, Sir G.	Rankin, J.
Gordon, Sir A.	Ritchie, C. T.
Gore-Langton, W. S.	Rodwell, B. B. H.
Gorst, J. E.	Ross, A. H.
Grantham, W.	Rothschild, Sir N. M. de
Greer, X.	Round, J.
Grey, A. H. G.	St. Aubyn, W. M.
Hamilton, I. T.	Sandon, Viscount
Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.	Schreiber, C.
	Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.
Harcourt, E. W.	Scott, Lord H.
Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.	Scott, M. D.
	Seely, C. (Lincoln)
Herbert, hon. S.	Severne, J. E.

Smith, A.	Warburton, P. E.
Smith, rt. hon. W. R.	Warton, C. N.
Stafford, Marquess of	Watkin, Sir E. W.
Stanhope, hon. E.	Whitley, E.
Stanley, rt. hn. Col. F.	Wilmot, Sir H.
Talbot, J. G.	Winn, R.
Taylor, rt. hn. Col. T. E.	Wolff, Sir H. D.
Thomson, H.	Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
Thornhill, T.	Wroughton, P.
Thynne, Lord H. F.	Yorke, J. R.
Tollemache, hn. W. F.
Tottenham, A. L.	TELLERS.
Wallace, Sir R.	Fitzwilliam, hn. C. W.
Walpole, rt. hon. S.	Heneage, E.
Walrond, Col. W. H.

NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Courtney, L. H.
Agar - Robartes, hon. T. C.	Crum, A.
	Cunliffe, Sir R. A.
Agnew, W.	Daly, J.
Allen, W. S.	Davies, W.
Amory, Sir J. H.	De Ferrieres, Baron
Anderson, G.	Dickson, J.
Armitstead, G.	Dilke, A. W.
Arnold, A.	Dilke, Sir C. W.
Ashley, hon. E. M.	Dillwyn, L. L.
Balfour, Sir G.	Dodds, J.
Balfour, J. B.	Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.
Balfour, J. S.	Duckham, T.
Barran, J.	Duff, rt. hon. M. E. G.
Barry, J.	Earp, X.
Bass, A.	Edwards, H.
Bellingham, A. H.	Edwards, P.
Biggar, J. G.	Egerton, Adm. hon. F.
Blake, J. A.	Errington, G.
Bolton, J. C.	Farquharson, Dr. R.
Borlase, W. C.	Fawcett, rt. hon. H.
Brassey, Sir X.	Fay, C. J.
Bright, J. (Manchester)	Ferguson, E.
Bright, rt. hon. J.	Findlater, W.
Broadhurst, H.	Finigan, J. L.
Brooks, M.	Flower, C.
Brown, A. H.	Foljambe, C. G. S.
Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.	Forster, rt. hon. W. E.
Bruce, hon. R. P.	Fowler, H. H.
Bryce, J.	Fry, L.
Burt, T.	Fry, T.
Butt, C. P.	Givan, J.
Byrne, G. M.	Gladstone, rt.hn. W.E.
Caine, W. S.	Gladstone, H. J.
Callan, P.	Gladstone. W. H.
Campbell, Sir G.	Gourley, E. T
Campbell, R. F. F.	Grafton, F. W.
Campbell - Bannerman, H.	Grant, A.
	Grant, D.
Carington, hn. Colonel W. H. P.	Grant, Sir G. M.
	Gray, E. D.
Cavendish, Lord F. C.	Hamilton, J. G. C.
Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.	Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir
Cheetham, J. F.	W. G. V. V.
Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E.	Hartington, Marq. of
Chitty, J. W.	Hayter, Sir A. D.
Clarke, J. C.	Healy, T. M.
Cohen, A.	Henderson, F.
Collings, J.	Henry, M.
Collins, E.	Herschell, Sir F.
Colthurst, Col. D. la T.	Hibbert, J. T.
Commins, A.	Holms, J.
Corbett, J.	Holms, W.
Cotes, C. C.	Hopwood, C. H.
Courtauld, G.	Howard, E. S.

Howard, G. J.	Otway, A.
Howard, J.	Paget, T. T.
Hughes, W. B.	Palmer, G.
Hutchinson, J. D.	Palmer, J. H.
Illingworth, A.	Parnell, C. S.
James, C.	Pease, A.
James, Sir H.	Peddie, J. D.
James, W. H.	Pennington, F.
Jenkins, D. J.	Philips, R. N.
Johnson, W. M.	Power, J. O'C.
Kinnear, J.	Power, R.
Lalor, R.	Pugh, L. P.
Law, rt. hon. H.	Rathbone, W.
Lawson, Sir W.	Redmond, J. E.
Laycock, R.	Reid, R. T.
Lea, T.	Richard, H.
Leake, R.	Richardson, J. N.
Leamy, E.	Richardson, T.
Leatham, E. A.	Roberts, J.
Lee, H.	Rogers, J. E. T.
Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.	Roundell, C. S.
	Russell, C.
Litton, E. F.	Russell, Lord A.
Lloyd, M.	Rylands, P.
Lubbock, Sir J.	Seely, C. (Nottingham)
Lyons, R. D.	Shaw, W.
Macfarlane, D. H.	Slagg, J.
Mackie, R. B.	Smyth, P. J.
Mackintosh, C. F.	Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.
Macliver, P, S.	Stanton, W. J.
M'Carthy, J.	Stewart, J.
M'Clure, Sir T.	Storey, S.
M'Kenna, Sir J. N.	Story-Maskelyne. M. H.
M'Laren, J.	Sullivan, A. M.
M'Minnies, J. G.	Summers, W.
Maitland, W. F.	Synan, E. J.
Mappin, F. T.	Talbot, C. R. M.
Marjoribanks, E.	Thomasson, J. P.
Martin, P.	Thompson, T. C.
Martin, R. B.	Tillett, J. H.
Marum, E. M.	Tracy, hon. F. S. A
Mason, H.	Hanbury-
Meldon, C. H.	Trevelyan, G. O.
Molloy, B. C.	Walter, J.
Monk, C. J.	Waugh, E.
Moore, A.	Webster, Dr. J.
Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.	Wedderburn, Sir D.
Morley, A.	Whalley, G. H.
Mundella, rt.hon. A. J.	Whitbread, S.
Noel, E.	Wiggin, H.
Nolan, Major J. P.	Williams, B. T.
O'Beirne, Major F.	Williams, S. C. E.
O'Brien, Sir P.	Williamson, S.
O'Connor, A.	Willis, W.
O'Connor, T. P.	Wills, W. H.
O'Conor, D. M.	Wilson, I.
O'Donnell, F. H.	Wilson, Sir M.
O'Donoghue, The	Wodehouse, E. R.
O'Gorman Mahon, Col. The	Woodall, W.
O'Kelly, J.	TELLERS.
O'Shaughnessy, R.	Grosvenor, Lord R.
O'Shea, W. H.	Kensington, Lord

MR. LONG

said, that, considering the hour which had now been reached (10 minutes to 12), he thought it would be a favourable time for the Committee to rest from its labours. He would therefore move that Progress be reported.

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

MR. GLADSTONE

opposed the Motion, and expressed a hope that it would not be pressed.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE,

who had given Notice of an Amendment in page 3, line 21, at end of Clause, add— The provisions of this section shall not apply in the case of any tenancy in a holding which is valued under the Acts relating to the valuation of rateable property in Ireland at an annual value of not less than £100, unless such holding is subject to the Ulster tenant right custom, or to a usage corresponding to the Ulster tenant right custom, said, he did not think he should consult the convenience of the Committee by moving the Amendment at so late an hour. But he must not be understood to be withdrawing from it. What he hoped the House would do would be to consider it upon the Report of Amendments.

MR. E. STANHOPE

moved, in page 3, line 21, at the end of Clause, add— (14.) Where any tenancy to which this section applies is sold under or in pursuance of any process of law, such sale shall be made under the provisions of this section, and for such purpose the sheriff or other officer charged with the duty of selling such tenancy shall be deemed to be the tenant. He said the Amendment could be explained very briefly indeed. They had been engaged for a considerable time in discussing the differences under which sales were to be carried out, and they had endeavoured to deal with the matter in a way which would be satisfactory to the tenant, while it would not be inconsistent with the rights of the landlord. Having done that, surely it was just that all tenancies should be subject to the same condition, however they were going to be sold. If not, they would have this anomaly, that one property upon one estate might be sold, during the currency of a tenancy in the ordinary way, under all the safeguards which were provided by the clause, while an adjoining property sold under legal process could be sold without any of those safeguards. As the clause now stood, that might be the effect of its wording, and he hoped the Government would consider the desirability of adopting the Amendment which he now proposed.

Amendment moved, In page 3, line 21, at the end of Clause, add: "(14.) Where any tenancy to which this section applies is sold under or in pursuance of any process of law, such sale shall he made under the provisions of this section and for such purpose the sheriff or other officer charged with the duty of selling such tenancy shall be deemed to he the tenant."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.) Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

opposed the Amendment, pointing out that it was wholly impossible that the sheriff, who was bound to sell right off, should be placed in the position of a tenant simply because he was carrying out the law. The sheriff must, of course, do his duty, but could not be reasonably subjected to any such responsibility as the Amendment could impose upon him. Sheriffs' sales and other Court sales must be left as they were at present.

MR. E. STANHOPE

quite admitted that there might be objections to the wording of his Amendment, and therefore, with the permission of the Committee, he would withdraw it for the present; but he should consider the subject, with a view of bringing up other words at another time.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GRANTHAM

moved, in page 3, line 21, at end of Clause, add— (15.) When any tenancy has been sold under or in pursuance of any process of law by the sheriff or other officer charged with the duty of selling such tenancy in manner by this section provided a certificate of such sale under the hand of such sheriff or other officer shall authorize the purchaser forthwith to take possession of such tenancy, and shall be effectual to pass to the purchaser all the interest of the outgoing tenant in such tenancy discharged from all rights, titles, charges, and incumbrances whatsoever of such outgoing tenant, or any person claiming through or under him and affecting such interest, but subject in the case of sale to some person other than the landlord to the payment of the rent payable in respect of such tenancy and' the observance of all the terms and conditions of any agreement expressed or implied between the landlord and the outgoing tenant affecting such tenancy immediately before the sale of the same. And any person who resists, interferes with, or obstructs the purchaser in taking possession of such tenancy or in the exercise of any of the rights so purchased by him as aforesaid under the authority of such certificate as afore- said, shall be guilty of contempt of the Court under or in pursuance of whose writ order, or decree such sale was made; and on proof of possession of such tenancy being refused to such purchaser such Court shall order the sheriff forthwith to put such purchaser in possession of such tenancy. The hon. Gentleman said his Amendment was different from the one which had just been withdrawn; but, although it was somewhat complicated in its character, a few words would explain its object. When a tenancy was sold, it often happened that great delays, unfortunately, took place before the purchaser was able to get possession. Now that they were endeavouring to improve the relationship between landlord and tenant it would be as well if the process of the law could be made more speedy; and the principle he wished to lay down was that, when a sale took place, the very fact of the sale should practically be the authority of the purchaser to take possession.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

regretted to be obliged to say that he could not accept that Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had moved the Amendment knew perfectly well that when the sheriff seized and sold, he sold and conveyed only whatever legal interest the tenant had; but if it so happened that the tenant had no legal interest, but only an equitable interest, the sheriff, who had no means of inquiring into or ascertaining the facts, might seize and sell, but could really transfer nothing. Suppose the sheriff seized and sold an interest subject to a mortgage or other charge—in other words, some interest that he had no business to sell—the Amendment would destroy the right of the man who really owned the farm in favour of the man who was only the apparent owner. It was clear that the man in possession might have, and very frequently had, only an equitable title to the tenancy—that was to say, an interest which could not be legally seized or sold; and yet the Amendment would operate to vest in the purchaser the property of the mortgagee, or other legal owner, behind his back, and without the possibility of redress.

MR. GIBSON

said, the principle of the Bill had been readily stated by the Prime Minister; but there should be some simple procedure by which, when a judicial price had been fixed, the pur- chaser of the holding, when there was no legal obstacle, could get possession without being left, as at present, to a roundabout process, which might not be heard for many months, and which might even then be defeated and postponed. He quite agreed with much that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said as to the difficulty of drafting; and his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment stated fairly that he only wanted to; bring the principle before the Government, and was not particular as to the form of words. He thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), which stood on the Paper earlier, would have dealt with the matter in a more simple and more satisfactory manner, because that would have invoked the judicial machinery of the Court, from which a process would issue, and which would decide whether that process should be followed by speedy execution. But as that was not now before the Committee, he felt the weight of the drafting objections; but the principle was an important one, and he should not be surprised if it was again presented to the Committee.

MR. GIVAN

mentioned that the County Courts Extension Bill gave additional power to the Courts, and said he thought the Amendment necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, the object of the Amendment he wished to propose was to insure that no sale of a tenancy, not subject to the Ulster Custom, should take place in any secret manner between the incoming and the outgoing tenant, and that the incoming tenant should be liable to the consequences of his own act, if he was a party to any such arrangement. The Amendment gave a general power to the tenant to go to the Court if aggrieved, and to the Court to decide between the parties and give such relief as they thought fit; and also, if it considered the application reasonable, to give costs. It might be possible that in some cases the landlords, without being aware of it, would find that the holdings had thus become saddled with heavy charges. The Amendment would meet such cases, and it also would meet the objection of the Attorney General for Ireland to laying down hard-and-fast lines on points which the Court could then settle.

Amendment moved, In page 3, line 21, at end of Clause, add: "(16.) Where any tenancy to which this section applies, and which is not subject to the Ulster tenant right custom, or any usage corresponding to the Ulster tenant right custom, is sold otherwise than under the provisions of this section, the sale shall be void; and where a tenancy to which this section applies, and which is subject to any such custom or usage, is sold otherwise than under the custom or usage to which the same is subject, or under the provisions of this section, the sale shall be void."—(Mr. Tottenham.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

observed, that the hon. Member had given a construction to the Amendment which was beyond the scope of the words. He had said its object was to give discretionary power to the Court to award costs and prevent any unreasonable action being carried out; but he moved nothing to that effect in the Amendment, and there was no other Amendment before the Committee. Earlier on in the evening he had himself given an undertaking upon this matter, and he would suggest that it should be dealt with in the manner promised.

MR. LITTON

pointed out that the Amendment would be inconsistent with the clause as it stood. Sub-section 16 gave to the tenant the option of selecting the mode in which he would sell; but, under the Amendment proposed, a tenant under the Ulster Custom would be bound to sell by the Ulster Custom, and would have no option.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have received from the hon. Member an addition to his Amendment, which proposes that the tenant may apply to any Court in which such proceedings might be commenced, &c.

MR. LITTON

said, as a point of Order, that these words were an addition, and did appear on the Paper.

MR. GIBSON

did not wish to press the point unreasonably; but he thought it would be convenient to have before them on the Paper something of the form which would carry out fairly the object of the hon. Member. He quite agreed that it would be a hardship if some men should, because of some slight breach, be excluded from the benefit of the clause; and that was the reason why his hon. Friend proposed to leave the Court some flexibility and discretion. The hon. Member had placed his proposal on record, and no doubt the Government would consider the form of it when the matter came to be considered again.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell), has three parts. The first part has been negatived in a previous Amendment. The third part was negatived on the 2nd of June in an Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), and the only part which remains for discussion is the second part.

MR. RODWELL

I will reserve that point for a future occasion.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) is also rendered unnecessary by an Amendment which has already been discussed.

MR. MACNAGHTEN

moved in page 3, line 21, at end of Clause, add— (12.) If the tenant of a tenancy subject to the Ulster tenant right custom or to a usage corresponding to the Ulster tenant right custom sells his tenancy in pursuance of this section, the tenancy, unless purchased by the landlord, shall continue to be subject to such custom or usage.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WAUGH

I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, he had understood when it was proposed by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Long) to report Progress that the Committee would take the Amendment subsequent to his Amendment; then the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy); and then his Amendment. He assumed that the silence of the Treasury Bench implied assent to that; he made no allegation against the right hon. Gentleman; but having so understood the matter, he did not think it was unfair to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) not to proceed further to-night.

THE CHAIRMAN

I may point out to the noble Lord, lest he should be under a misapprehension, that I having moved that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, it would not now be possible to move the Amendment.

MR. CHAPLIN

moved that Progress be reported.

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

MR. GLADSTONE

entirely objected to that Motion, observing that five hours had been spent in debating a point which, in the view of the Government, was one of the smallest points which had been discussed. If the Committee were in earnest in desiring to go on with the Bill, he thought they might proceed, at least, now, when there yet remained three-quarters of an hour before 1 o'clock.

MR. GORST

was astonished at hearing the Prime Minister describe this as one of the smallest points of the Bill—the point they had been discussing for five hours. No less than four speeches were made on that smallest point from the Treasury Bench, and the last, by the Attorney General for Ireland, took upwards of half an hour, and no one could say how much longer he would have spoken if he had not been pulled down by the right hon. Gentleman himself.

MR. GLADSTONE

thought it would be well if the hon. and learned Member would be more careful as to the accuracy of his statements, which tended, not to mitigate, but to exasperate conversations of this kind. The hon. and learned Member was entirely wrong in saying he (Mr. Gladstone) had described this as one of the smallest points of the Bill. What he stated was that it was one of the smallest points which had been made the subject of discussion; and that was a totally different matter.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I do not think there is anything very profitable in carrying on a discussion as to the form of a debate; but it is important to understand the position in which we are placed. I do not say it has been intentional, but the result of what has taken place must be very surprising to the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), and I think to the Committee generally. What I understood to take place was, that after the division on the last discussion, the noble Lord having the next Amendment on the Paper, and thinking it was likely to take some con- siderable time for discussion, was of opinion that it would be better to put it off till to-morrow, and that we should go on with the further Amendments on the clause. The impression prevailing was that the Amendments on the Paper must take some time for discussion; and certainly one of them, for the repeal of the 13th section of the Act of 1870, promised to be a matter of considerable importance. Therefore, as I understood, he did not move his Amendment then, believing he could bring it on when the other Amendments had been disposed of. They went off sooner than was expected; and I understood that the noble Lord would then propose his Amendment, or again raise the question as to reporting Progress. But he had not an opportunity of doing so before the Chairman moved that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill; and I wish to know whether that was irrevocable, and whether that is capable of being withdrawn, in order that the noble Lord may not be deprived of the opportunity he expected of moving the Amendment in his name?

THE CHAIRMAN

I followed the course invariably pursued. I called all the other Amendments, and nobody else rising, I then moved that the clause stand part of the Bill. After that has 'been moved, it is not possible to move Amendments. They must come on at a future stage.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

explained that he had watched the proceedings very closely, but he had not heard the Chairman call upon the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). He was waiting to get up; but when the Chairman rose, he thought the Chairman had some new proposal to make, and he did not wish to stand between the Chairman and the Committee. No doubt what the Chairman said was correct; but he felt that he had been very hardly dealt with.

MR. HEALY

said, he was aware that the Chairman called upon him, but he did not move his Amendment, because he understood that the Government intended to accept it. He might state, however, that be intended to protest against the whole clause, and to divide upon it.

MR. GLADSTONE

observed, that that was the question before the Committee, and the hon. Member would have his opportunity; but with regard to the Amendment of the noble Lord, it ap- peared to him that the contention of the Government was that it would be better to proceed by fixing freedom of contract, and that a good opportunity of raising his question would be afforded when the Committee came to consider the other provisions of the Bill. The Motion for reporting Progress being made, he felt confident that hon. Gentlemen would allow the division to be taken.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

wished to say that, after the appeal of the Prime Minister, who had pointed out that he would not be debarred from raising the question involved in his Amendment on a future occasion, he thought it would be reasonable to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. HEALY

desired to state the reasons why he intended to challenge this clause. Tenants in Ireland at the present time had every right of free sale that the Bill could confer; and the Bill, instead of conferring the right of free sale, in several instances restricted it. In his opinion, the only good portion of the Bill was contained in the first two lines, which stated that— The tenant for the time being of every tenancy to which this Act applies may sell his tenancy for the best price that can be got for the same. That was as to the statutory tenant; but with regard to the ordinary tenant the Bill imposed a series of restrictions on his already admitted right to sell. No Common Law tenant at the present time could, if the Bill became operative, say he had any rights. At the present time a tenant assigned his tenancy to someone else, even where there was an office rule, in spite of the landlord. It might be asked, then, what did the tenants want? What they wanted, and what prevented their having a fair interest in their land, was fixity of tenure and fair rent. If they had those, they could sell their tenancies for what they could get for them; but at present the tenant knew that the landlord might evict him or raise his rent; and in that way the landlord was able to restrict the right of free sale. The Bill was restrictive of liberty, and he should, therefore, divide against the clause.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 204; Noes 47: Majority 157.—(Div. List, No. 254.)

Clause 2 (Devolution of tenancies).

MR. GLADSTONE

proposed that the Committee should proceed with the discussion of this clause until some point was reached upon which there was a difference of opinion, when Progress might be reported. Some of the earlier Amendments to the clause were of a merely verbal character, and others the Government had no objection to.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

moved that the Chairman report Progress. He did not wish to stop the progress of the Bill; but as they had come to an important and rather unexpected division on the 1st clause—the principal clause in the Bill—they should not proceed to deal with another section without being allowed time for consideration. If they left off until 2 o'clock to-morrow, they would be able to come down fresh, and capable of making good progress with the clause. It would be unwise and inexpedient to proceed with the Bill at a quarter to 1 in the morning.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he had had the misfortune to be in the House ever since 12 o'clock that morning, though he had not taken part in the discussions he had been present; and he thought it was rather too hard to ask hon. Members to proceed with the consideration of a fresh and important clause at that hour of the morning.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he simply proposed that they should follow the usual course and proceed to consider the next clause until they reached some point on which there was a real difference of opinion. He did not propose to go into any contested matter. If he was allowed, he should be glad to take the course he had pointed out; but, of course, the noble Lord opposite had power, if he chose to exercise it, to prevent any further progress being made with, the Bill.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

thought the taunt of the Prime Minister decidedly misplaced. He had not taken part in any of the previous Motions for reporting Progress.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister a most reasonable one. He would take this opportunity of asking when the Government would be able to place on the Paper the Amendments they intended to propose to Clause 7?

MR. GLADSTONE

replied, that now the Committee had disposed of Clause 1 he might be able to say something on that point to-morrow. He could not, however, pledge himself to lay the Amendments on the Table at to-morrow's Sitting.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. and gallant Baronet propose to withdraw the Motion?

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

No.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 198: Majority 143.—(Div. List, No. 255.)

MR. T. COLLINS

At this late hour, Mr. Playfair, I will move that you do leave the Chair.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. T. Collins.)

MR. GLADSTONE

intimated that if the Motion were withdrawn, rather than waste time in these contests, he would agree to reporting Progress.

Motion by leave, withdrawn.

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