ORDINARY CONDITIONS OF TENANCIES.

HC Deb 17 June 1881 vol 262 cc773-816

Clause 2 (Devolution of tenancies).

MR. GREER

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper which he thought would be an improvement, and which, if adopted, would make the clause read thus— Where the tenant of a tenancy to which this Act applies has bequeathed his tenancy to one person only, such person shall have the same claim to be accepted as tenant by the landlord as if the tenancy had been sold to him by the testator. The words he proposed to strike out were quite unnecessary, for in the natural course of things the executors, or "the personal representatives of the tenant," would have to transfer whatever they received to the person to whom the property had been left by the testator. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland thought the clause would be legally complete without the words "and the personal representatives of the tenant have assented to the bequest," it would be better to omit them.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 23, leave out from "and" to "bequest" in line 24.—(Mr. Greer.)

MR. HEALY

said, he had an Amendment precisely similar to this, and he therefore trusted the Government would accede to the hon. Member's proposal. There was no reason in the world why the words in question should be retained, for they were never insisted upon in other cases.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that both hon. Members misconceived the meaning of these words. A legatee had no title at all to the property until the executor or administrator had assented to the bequest. It was the executor's or administrator's assent which passed the property to the legatee; therefore, to omit the words would be to leave the clause in a most incomplete state.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HEALY

said, he wished to move a Proviso at the end of the first paragraph of the clause to the effect that the regulations in case of a sale, contained in the 1st clause, should not apply to these bequests. The reason for this was obvious. As the clause stood, it would render all those unfortunate exceptions contained in Clause 1 applicable to this section. For instance, it would render applicable the Proviso to the effect that, on receipt of notice, the landlord was to have the right of pre-emption, and the Proviso which said that, where the tenancy was made over to some other person than the landlord, the latter might refuse to accept the tenant. He did not think it was the intention of the Government that these conditions with regard to sale should apply to cases of bequest; therefore, he brought forward this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 26, after "testator," insert "Provided that the regulations in case of a sale by the tenant of his tenancy contained in the first section of this Act shall not apply to any such bequest."—(Mr. Healy.)

MR.MARUM

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper to the same effect, and that Amendment he would read to the Committee— Clause 2, page 3, line 26, after 'testator,' insert 'Provided always, That the transmission of a tenancy by bequest to a husband or wife, or to any one child or grandchild, or to any one brother or sister, or to any one child or grandchild of a brother or sister of the tenant, or the devolution of the tenancy by operation of law upon an intestacy or marriage, shall not entitle the landlord to a right of pre-emption therein, or to any refusal to accept such person as tenant within the meaning of this Act.' The question was whether these words were necessary. If they were not, he should not press them. Very likely, as the property mentioned in the bequest was to be dealt with as though it were sold, the first portion of his proposal would be unnecessary. He had taken the words from the 13th section of the Land Act.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he was sorry to say he could not accept the Amendment. The hon. Member (Mr. Marum) was right in supposing that the restrictions -would not apply to a legatee. One of the provisions in Clause 1 would indeed apply to the case as mentioned by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy)—namely, that which recognized the possibility of their being reasonable grounds on which a landlord might refuse to admit a tenant; but all the other restrictions would be excluded. There would be no question whatever about pre-emption, for the tenancy would be treated as though it had been sold by the testator. It took up the tenancy as sold, and it could only be in that position after the landlord, having had the required notice of intention to sell, had waived his right. The landlord would have the power of objecting to the legatee, as he would have the power of objecting to a purchaser in the case of a sale, and the Government thought that right of the landlord ought not to be disturbed. It existed now in Ulster. They should not allow an objectionable person to be forced upon a landlord; and if the provision were right in the case of a sale, it was right in this case also.

MR. HEALY

said, that, under the circumstances, he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LALO

said, he had an Amendment to strike out the last two paragraphs of the clause, which were as follows:—

" Where the tenant of any such tenancy has bequeathed his tenancy to more than one person, or dies intestate, his personal representatives shall, if the landlord requires a sale to be made, within twelve months after the death of the tenant sell the tenancy, and in case of their default the landlord might sell the same. Where the tenant of a tenancy dies intestate, and without next of kin, such tenancy shall pass to the landlord."

If the clause stood as it was, in many cases great hardship would be done to a family, for it was customary in Ireland for small farmers, and even sometimes large farmers, to die without a will, and leave their property to several members of their family, perhaps to the wife and one of the children, or to the eldest son, as guardian over the remainder. The members of the family in such, cases lived for years happily together, and conducted their business properly; and it would be a very great hardship to prevent such an arrangement, and throw the younger children on the world, and, perhaps, cause great confusion and unpleasantness in a family. He would, therefore, move that this portion of the clause be omitted.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 27, leave out from "where" to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Lalor.)

MR. BIGGAR

thought this was one of the most important Amendments which could be proposed to the Bill. The measure as it at present stood, and as the Government seemed at present inclined to carry it, would have a great tendency to consolidate holdings; in point of fact, the Bill seemed to go on the principle that holdings might increase in size, but never should get smaller. He held it to be a pernicious thing to prevent, in the case of a large farm, members of a family being partners in it. The evils which were said to flow from the Law of Primogeniture and Entail would, unless the clause were amended, in a marked degree hold good in regard to tenancies at will in Ireland. What would be the practical result of the clause? First of all, all the members of a family but one would be driven out, and the consequence would be that they would get less than the share to which they were entitled from the holder of the farm, or the latter would be obliged to mortgage it to such a degree that he would not be able to work the land properly. There were some very large and some very small farms in Ireland. He did not argue that subdivision should go beyond a certain point; but their experience in the North of Ireland was that a farm that could be worked by a man and his own family was the most profitable, as tested by what they brought in the market. Some farmers had a desire to accumulate property, and it was not at all uncommon to find persons who had bought several farms and put them into one holding. Well, if the clause passed in its present shape there would be no possibility for these persons to re-distribute the land into its former proportions. Under other circumstances a prosperous man might be inclined to acquire a number of farms, in order to leave one each to his sons.

This the clause would prevent, as such. a man would be forced to send out all but one member of his family into the world to make their living elsewhere, and the holder of the land would have to borrow money at ruinous interest in order to buy them off. The clause would lend an improper stimulus to emigration. They had had a discussion on a collateral Amendment the other night; but it had not been pressed, as it had been thought undesirable to get an adverse decision from the Government as to one branch of the case. Here, however, the case was different.

THE CHAIRMAN

Is the hon. Member speaking of an Amendment he has considerably further down?

MR. BIGGAR

said, that was not the case. He was only endeavouring to show the difference between the principle raised by the Amendment disposed of a night or two ago and that raised by the present Amendment. The former Amendment went to test the question whether the tenant should have the power to sell first one part of his holding to one person, and then the remaining part or parts to other parties; or whether he should sell a part and retain a part. But the present case was different, as the Amendment took into consideration the question whether a person when he died should have power to divide his farm amongst the different members of his family, so that they might all continue to be farmers in Ireland; or whether only one person should inherit, and the rest of the family be forced to emigrate.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he could not entertain the Amendment, for the reason that if the words were struck out of the clause, there would be an unlimited power to divide the tenant's interest in all holdings, however numerous the family might be. If the family consisted of 12 persons, they would all be able to take their share in the holding, however large or however small it was. The Committee had considered this question, under limited circumstances, the other night, and had decided the main principle. They had declined to entertain the principle, even where it was a case of deliberate transaction inter vivas, of allowing the tenant right to be sold piecemeal. They now wanted to give to the executors of a dead person the power they would not give to the living man.

When a man died without making a will—which might be entirely owing to neglect—it would be most inconsistent with the decision arrived at with regard to living persons that there should be a division of the holding without the consent of the landlord. He would point out that the clause did not prevent a joint succession; it only put it in the power of the landlord to defend himself, if he thought fit, against the breaking up of an estate, which he had let as one estate, into two or three estates.

MR. SHAW

said, he could not support the Amendment, because he thought it would be unfair to raise the question of sub-division of a farm on the present occasion. But he hoped the Government would give favourable consideration to a clause further down, which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy), which proposed to give the family interested 12 months to select a person to succeed the deceased as tenant.

MR. HINDE PALMER

thought that what had fallen from the Prime Minister was quite sufficient to show the impropriety of striking out these words from the clause. If the clause were retained—as he presumed it would be—something appeared to be necessary at the end of the 2nd paragraph. The paragraph concluded with these words—"and in case of their default the landlord may sell the same." But there was no provision pointing out what the landlord was to do with the produce of the sale. There should be something added to tell the landlord what he was to do with the money realized by the sale.

MR. GREGORY

said, the Amendment raised an important point. It would not only apply to one tenant, but a succession of tenants. If the Amendment were agreed to, one man might divide the farm amongst his children, and they, in their turn, might divide it amongst their children, and so sub-division might go on in perpetuity. That point seemed to be already disposed of; but he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) whether the words of the clause sufficiently provided for beneficial interests? A property might be devised to one person in trust for a family or a number of persons in a family. That bequest to one person would come within the terms of the Bill as it stood; but, as a protection to the landlord against subdivision of the interest in the farm, it would be wholly illusory.

MR. MACNAGHTEN

said, it seemed to be assumed that if a man died intestate, there must be more than one relative left to succeed to the property. The tenant might die without a widow, leaving a sole next of kin, an only child, for instance. Why should there be a sale in that case?

MR. MARUM

wished to know whether, if only a partial bequest was made, the estate would lapse into intestacy?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Macnaghten) had pointed out a defect in the clause which it would be necessary to correct; but a few words would set it right. With regard to the illustration which had come from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Biggar) of alleged injury to the tenant's interest, in the case of a farmer who had bought up several holdings and thrown them into one consolidated farm; all he (the Attorney General for Ireland) could say was that, if a man wished to do it, no one could prevent him. It would, however, be easy for such a person to provide for the different members of his family; for, suppose he had a dozen separate tenancies, although he had cultivated them as one farm, they would still remain separate holdings, and he could leave them singly to his children as he chose. Consolidating his several holdings into one large holding at one rent would be a perfectly gratuitous act on his part. Then it was said—"Suppose the farmer dies leaving a large sum of money to several of his children and the tenancy to one." Well, nobody had anything to do with that. There was only one tenant, the tenure was not divided, and the landlord, therefore, had no right to interfere. While the tenancy remained in the hands of one person, whether he was a person farming the land for his own benefit or only as a trustee, no one had a right to interfere.

DR. COMMINS

said, there was a defect in the clause, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Carrick fergus (Mr. Greer), for which no remedy had been even suggested. If they looked at the clause, they would see that it divided itself into three parts. The first dealt with a bequest—

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. Member that we are not discussing any Amendment to the clause, but the omission of its sub-sections.

MR. HINDE PALMER

said, he understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Law) to say that the objection to the clause he had pointed out was provided for; but he should like to know how it was provided for?

THE CHAIEMAN

We have not come to that part of the clause yet. The question is the omission of the latter part of the clause.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's (Mr. Law's) contention was very good as to the action that would take place after the Bill passed into law, because the parties who let their land would take care that the holdings were kept separate. But the case was different with regard to holdings that had been let in times past. They knew that many landowners had allowed several holdings to be consolidated into one large farm; and unless these could be broken up Ireland would become more and more depopulated. He wished to see Ireland increase 60 per cent in population; but the effect of this clause would be to bring it down considerably during the next 10 years. There was another matter to be considered, which, again, raised the right of pre-emption by the landlord. The landlord would, in some cases, allow changes to take place; but he would do it, after having levied a fine, in the form of a sum of money, or in the form of increased rent, either of which was particularly objectionable, as it would be giving something to the landlord to which he was not entitled. There was no reason why the landlord should be allowed to have a sum of money for permitting that division of the property which the late tenant had thought most desirable for those who would be left behind him. He had heard no argument from the Government to show why they should stick so firmly to this clause as it stood.

MR. LALOR

understood that the Government intended to accept an Amendment lower down; therefore, he would withdraw his proposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the following Amend- ment made:—In page 3, line 28, after the word "intestate," insert "leaving more than one person entitled under the Statute of Distribution to his personal estate."

MR. LEAMY

said, the next Amendment on the Paper stood in his name, and the Government, he thought, assented to it.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 28, after "intestate," insert "and the legatees in case of a will, or his next of kin in cases of intestacy, are unable to agree among themselves that some one person shall succeed deceased as tenant."—(Mr. Leamy.)

MR. GIBSON

said, no one could have known what line the Government intended to take, except from the gestures of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law). The hon. Member (Mr. Leamy) had stated that he understood the Government assented to the Amendment; but he could only have understood that from their gestures. Well, he (Mr. Gibson) should like to know on what ground the Government had accepted the Amendment, or how they could show that it would be any improvement whatever to the existing provisions of the Bill? To his mind, the existing groundwork of the Bill was better than the provision would be if amended as proposed, for the alteration would substantially confuse and delay the ascertainment of the landlord's position. In a case of testacy the landlord had only to read the will, and if he did not like sub-division to take place he could ask for a sale within 12 months. That was clear. The clause did not prevent a joint bequest to two, or three, or four persons; but it gave the landlord the right, if he thought proper, to refuse his assent, and to call for a sale. That was not as difficult a case as one of intestacy. They all knew how people residing in Ireland had relatives residing in England and America and elsewhere, and difficulties in this respect would occur, not one or twice, but hundreds of times. When a tenant died intestate some of his relatives might be in foreign countries, others might be minors, some might be labouring under other disabilities; and what machinery was there provided for the landlord ascertaining whether or not they agreed as to who they should present to the landlord as the future tenant? Because, according to the Amendment, the landlord would not know who was to be his tenant until he had gone into the complicated process of investigating who were the next of kin. The clause, as it stood, contrasted most favourably with the Amendment; and for his own part, he was strongly of opinion, as at present advised, that the Amendment—certainly without large qualifications as to the time when the election of the tenant should be made—would, in the highest degree, disturb the position of the landlord.

MR. LITTON

said, the clause, if amended, would read thus— Where the tenant of any such tenancy has bequeathed his tenancy to more than one person or dies intestate, and the legatees in case of a will, or his next of kin in cases of intestacy, are unable to agree among themselves that some one person shall succeed deceased as tenant, his personal representatives shall, if the landlord requires a sale to be made, within twelve months after the death of the tenant, sell the tenancy, and in case of their default the landlord may sell the same. The additional words did not fit in exactly, because a different class was mentioned in them to that referred to in the paragraph. The early part of the section dealt with legatees, and the Amendment ought, therefore, to come in there. He would propose that the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy) should bring forward the Amendment as a substantive proposition when they came to the end of the clause.

MR. GORST

thought the hon. Member (Mr. Litton) was wrong in saying that the words would not come in here. The Committee was indebted to the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) for having prevented the hasty adoption of the Amendment, and for having pointed out the difficulty that would be experienced by the landlord in ascertaining the wish of the deceased's relatives. The landlord would be obliged to have some evidence that the legatees or relatives were unable to agree amongst themselves before he could sell; and what evidence did the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland propose should be necessary? There was nothing in the clause as to the kind of evidence the landlord would be entitled to ask for. Was he to be satisfied with verbal evidence? Suppose he was told by one of the executors, or by someone else, that all the legatees had agreed that Pat was to be the tenant. He might accept Pat; but, then, next day, someone might come forward and say—" This is all a mistake; we have not agreed at all." Or one of the legatees, who was supposed to have agreed, might revoke his agreement, or some fresh next-of-kin might turn up; and, in fact, unless there were some safeguards, the matter would be in such a condition that it would he impossible to make out a satisfactory title by which the landlord or anyone else would be able securely to possess himself of the property.

MR. PLUNKET

said, the Amendment simply supposed a case in which the next-of-kin, in cases of intestacy, were unable to agree among themselves, that some one person should be accepted as tenant. There was this inconvenience. It would be perceived that, in the first paragraph, the new tenant who came in, succeeding the testator, was only to be accepted as though the tenancy had been sold to him by the testator. It did not at all follow that this new person would be let in—would be accepted—in the same sense. If the Amendment were accepted at all, it should be rendered much more clear.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that the objections taken by hon. and right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite could be met in a complementary Amendment to another part of the clause.

MR. LEAMY

said, he did not wish to throw any obstacle in the way of making progress with the Bill; but he did not think there could be any serious objection to accepting the Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentlemen the Members for the University of Dublin and the hon. and learned Member for Chatham made suggestions which referred to the second portion of the clause, with which they were not now dealing.

DR. COMMINS

supported the Amendment, and pointed out that such words as these would meet the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for County Antrim (Mr. Macnaghten)—namely, where a person died intestate, leaving only one as his next of kin. That was completely out of the section. [" No, no!"] Well, he was not aware of any Amendment that would meet the case.

MR. COHEN

thought that, by using the words "sell or transfer to anyone person," the objection of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunket) would be got over.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he was unable to see the point that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cohen) had raised. The personal representatives of the tenant would not transfer without getting something for the tenancy; but this did not touch the point, so far as the nomination of the person was concerned. Apart from the question whether it was desirable to adopt words to effect the object of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment (Mr. Leamy), the particular form suggested he considered to be objectionable. The acceptance of these words would settle the whole question; whilst their rejection would leave it open for a more practical settlement of the question a little further on.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that, no doubt, the object the hon. Member (Mr. Leamy) had in view was a proper one; but it was very inconvenient to be called upon to frame a clause unexpectedly in this way. What he would suggest was, that the presentation of a single tenant should be made by the personal representatives who had control over the personal estate. If the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) would, at a later stage, suggest words that would run something like this— That if the personal representatives shall serve notice on the landlord that some one of the legatees or next of kin shall succeed to the tenancy, such person shall have the same claim to be accepted as tenant by the landlord as if the property had been sold to him. Those words, or something like them, he thought, would carry out the views of all parties.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GORST

wished to know whether it was to be understood that Her Majesty's Government would consider the case mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Antrim (Mr. Macnaghten)—the case of a person dying intestate and leaving only one relative behind?

MR. GLADSTONE

Yes.

MR. GREGORY

said, that with regard to the Amendment the Committee had been discussing, he did not concur in the principle, because he believed it would lead to sub-division of the property. It was very difficult to carry on farming for other people, and anyone who had had experience of farming or conducting a commercial undertaking under such circumstances knew how glad one was to get rid of the responsibility. The difficulty where the legatees were numerous and where they were poor would be very great.

MR. WARTON

wished to point out to the Government the great dangers into which they sometimes ran by being too hasty to accede to Amendments.

THE CHAIRMAN

I want to ask the Committee to be kind enough to assist me in regard to the Amendments. It is exceedingly difficult, even with the printed Amendments, to keep them in order and prevent them from clashing with one another. But Amendments are being showered on me written in pencil on scraps of paper, so that it is almost impossible for me to judge of their relation to other Notices. Members of the Committee have a perfect right to put in manuscript Amendments; but I must ask them kindly to copy them in ink on sheets of paper of a convenient size—say, at least, the size of a sheet of note paper.

MR. BRODRICK

said, that in the absence of the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke), he wished to move the Amendment standing in the hon. Baronet's name. It was entirely in agreement with the spirit of the clause. After what had just passed—the feelings of so many Members of the Committee having been expressed in favour of avoiding a sale, wherever it was possible—he did not wish to seem to be moving an Amendment in opposition to the general view; but, at the same time, he thought it was a matter of justice, not only to the landlord, but to the tenant, to take this Amendment into consideration. Under the present circumstances of the Bill, there was very great facility for borrowing given to the tenant. No doubt, the tenant would, by his tenant right, have a security on which to borrow money more specifically than ever before, and he would be encouraged in that way to carry out improvements on his land to a considerable extent. That had occurred in the North of Ireland in connection with the Ulster tenant right, and they must expect such things in the future; but he should like to show the Committee that that might be aggravated when each tenant quitted his holding. It had been stated that in the case of a farmer who died intestate, leaving 12 children behind him, the value of the holding would be divided amongst those children, and no one of them would receive more than a 12th part of it. A tenant who did not die intestate might leave his holding to one of his sons, with injunctions to divide the value of the tenant right with the rest of the family. Each of the children would then have a charge on the estate, which would come to a very heavy sum for the man who succeeded to the land to pay. He could not help thinking that those in charge of the Bill would agree with him that in such a case the sale should at once take place, and that the tenant designate should realize without delay what was left to him, rather than attempt to occupy a holding with an insufficient capital, and, after failing, leave his tenancy with debts which he would be unable to pay. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would recognize the fact that the Amendment was entirely in keeping with the clause, and would give it his best consideration.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 28, after "intestate," insert "or has bequeathed his tenancy to one person, and such tenancy is subject to charges which in the opinion of the Court are of such amount that the legatee would be unable to hold and properly farm the holding while subject thereto."—(Mr. Brodrick.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the one person was already provided for; and it must be borne in mind that whatever would be a "reasonable objection" to the acceptance of a purchaser on 'the part of the landlord would be a "reasonable objection" to the acceptance of the legatee. He saw no reason why they should make an exception to the general provisions of the Bill in this case. Therefore, he could not accept the Amendment.

MR. BRODRICK

said, that after the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he was content to withdraw his Amendment; but he was bound to say, that as he had never been satisfied with the references to the Court in the 1st clause, he was not satisfied now in this matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MARUM

said, he had an Amendment to propose to the effect that the personal representatives of the intestate person should act "subject to the discretion of the Court." The object of the Amendment was to control the power of the landlord. There were Amendments on this subject also in the names of the hon.and learned Members for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) and Tyrone (Mr. Litton) on the Paper, and, as he wished to facilitate the proceedings of the Committee, if either of the subsequent Amendments were deemed better than his, he would withdraw it.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 29, after "shall," insert "subject to the discretion of the Court."—(Mr. Marurn.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he could not accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the next Amendment standing in his name raised a question which had been discussed some time ago, and on which, he thought, a concession had been made. The principle laid down in the Bill and defended by the Government that, whatever the economical interests might be, no holding should be reduced in size, was preposterous. It was desirable that Ireland should be peopled by a population of working farmers. They objected to the principle of having in Ireland large grazing farms, which gave no employment except to one single herd over a large number of acres. They objected to the system by which a farmer had a large number of labourers, and they desired to see farms of such a moderate size that ambitious and industrious labourers might easily themselves become farmers. If the present system were continued, the result would be that the farms would become larger and larger, and a premium would be given to eviction. Ireland would get into a worse state than ever; there would be a revolt of labourers, and a melancholy condition of things would ensue. He had not heard from the Government any argument against the principle for which he contended, and he therefore thought it his duty to move the Amendment. Whether or not he should divide on it would be influenced, more or less, by the discussion; but he was convinced that the matter was one of great importance, and that his Amendment, or one similar to it, should be agreed to. At least half the holdings in Cavan were of less size than £15 valuation; and if, in times past, that county had been able to keep up and hold her own, he did not see why, by artificial means in the Bill, farmers should be forced to increase the size of their farms and the population of the country should be steadily decreased. The hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum), in a former Amendment, had endeavoured to leave the matter with which he dealt "subject to the discretion of the Court; "but he (Mr. Biggar) did not see any necessity for that in this case. The arrangements should rest with the parties who had to do with the property. The Amendment would not interfere with the security of the landlord in the matter of his rent. The tenant would simply leave his interest in the holding to his children, as he thought best.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 29, after the word "shall," to insert the words "if either of the shares of a less yearly value of fifteen pounds and."—(Mr. Biggar.)

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

MR. WARTON

I rise to Order. I submit that these words really require some little revision. As they stand they are nonsense. I take it that they should stand—" if either of the shares be of a less yearly value of fifteen pounds and."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he could not accept the Amendment, which was simply another form of an earlier proposal.

MR. A. MOORE

said, the question could be raised later on.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that the Government had given no reply to his contention; therefore, he thought he should have to ask for a division.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 329: Majority 307.—(Div. List, No. 256.)

MR. PLUNKET

moved, to add, at end of line 30, the words— To some one person who shall have the same claim to be accepted as tenant of the landlord as if the tenancy had been sold to him by the testator or intestate. It did not appear from the paragraph that the landlord was to have the same rights as to acceptance or otherwise as the tenant. He therefore proposed to insert the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, at end of line 30, to add the words "to some one person who shall have the same claim to be accepted as tenant of the landlord as if the tenancy had been sold to him by the testator or intestate."—(Mr. Phmket.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that, having regard to what happened a little time since, he hoped his right hon. and learned Friend would not press this Amendment, because he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had stated that he would put in words that were almost identical with these; but he could not put them in here. If his right hon. and learned Friend would accept his assurance that this point should be attended to, he would repeat his promise to deal with the point in the way desired.

MR. PLUNKET

Of course, I accept the assurance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LEAMY

moved, as an Amendment, to insert in page 3, line 30, after "tenancy," the words "for the best price he can obtain." His object, he said, was to ensure that in case of compulsory sale the tenant should obtain the highest possible price. There was a difference between sales effected under this section and those made under other parts of the Bill; because, under the 1 st section, the sale was the voluntary action of the tenant; but in the particular cases that came under this section, it would be in the power of the landlord to compel the tenant to sell the holding. It might happen, and would often happen, that the purchase money would be all that could be divided among the children. It was therefore desirable that the highest possible price should be obtained for the holding.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 30, after "tenancy," to insert the words "for the best price he can obtain."—(Mr. leamy.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, it would be the duty of the Court to see that the highest price was obtained, so that the Amendment was not necessary.

MR. LEAMY

That being so, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. LITTON, Amendment made, in page 3, line 31, at end, after "same," insert the words "under the direction of the Court."

MR. WARTON

proposed an Amendment which, he said, would take the shape of a new paragraph, between paragraphs 2 and 3 of the clause, and it was for the purpose of calling the attention of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to the distinction between the position of the landlord under sub-section 1 and his position under sub-section 2. It was provided for by the Amendment that the landlord should have the same right of pre-emption as he had under the 1st sub-section of the Bill. He moved, to add to line 31, the words "the landlord shall have the same right of pre-emption."

Amendment proposed, In page 3, at end of line 31, to add the words "the landlord shall have the same right of pre-emption."—(Mr. Warton.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he could not assent to the Amendment. He had just expressed an opinion that it ought not to be made.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HEALY

moved an Amendment providing for paying over the produce of such sale to such personal representatives.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 31, at end, to add the words "paying over the produce of such sale to such personal representatives."—(Mr. Healy.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

That has been provided for already.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BIGGAR

moved, as an Amendment, that lines 32 and 33 be left out. The lines were— Where the tenant of a tenancy dies intestate and without next of kin, such tenancy shall pass to the landlord. These lines, he said, proposed to make a change in the existing law in that regard, and it seemed to him much more reasonable to omit the Proviso.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, "Leave out lines 32 and 33."—(Mr. Biggar.)

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

said, the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) appeared in a new character in proposing this Amendment as a supporter of the rights of the Crown—[Alaugh]—because the proposal in those two lines was a lessening of the power of the Crown. He would suggest to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland that there seemed to be an omission in the clause, in that it made no provision for the debts and liabilities of the deceased tenant.

MR. GORST

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would show why the Government had put these two lines in the Bill. He should listen with great curiosity for the reason the Government might give for placing them there. The only reason he could give was that it showed the belief of the Government, in the bottom of their hearts, that this property did after all belong to the landlords, and that they were giving to the tenants what was not really the tenants' property, but was the landlords' property. That cropped out in these two lines. If this were the tenant's property it ought to revert to the Crown. What reason was there that the Government should give this property to the landlord? Because they believed in the bottom of their hearts that it was the landlord's property. Though they stripped the landlord of what they knew to be his property for the benefit of the tenant, they would not go so far as to give the property of the landlord to the Crown.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) would permit him to enter a general protest and caveat against this and all theories which he might hereafter promulgate. The history of the matter was not difficult to tell. The question was considered whether in these cases property should go to the Crown or should go to the landlord as the ultimate proprietor of incidents arising in respect to what at- ached to the soil, and it was on purely dry legal ground that the question was determined. He would, however, have no objection to bring in the word "Crown" if these lines were struck out.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

submitted that the question was one as to the equitable distribution of money arising not from real property, but on the disposal of the interest of the intestate in his tenancy. The question which his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) raised was whether the tenant's interest was to be viewed as subject to his debts, irrespective of whether the residue was the property of the Crown or of the landlord. He wished to make this clear to the House. The words as they stood appeared to him to leave it questionable whether, on a claim raised by creditors to the property of a deceased man, the right to sell or appropriate the tenant's interest lay with the Crown or with the landlord under the clause now before them.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

remarked, that he did not think the Prime Minister was serious. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) merely wished to get the grounds on which the Government gave the property to the landlord. He did not wish to assert that it should not be done. He could not imagine, after the statement that the matter had been carefully considered by the Government, and that they had taken the highest legal opinion—namely, that of the Lord Chancellor—that the Prime Minister would be prepared really more out of pique than anything else to transfer this property from the landlord to the Crown.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

observed, that when he first saw this clause in the Bill, he tried to find out the reason for it; but only when the Prime Minister spoke did he discover it. He did think the two lines were quite consistent and that they ought to be retained, on the ground that the Crown could not become the occupier, and that the right of occupancy must cease when the tenant had no nest of kin, and for that reason alone.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

hoped there would be no long discussion on the Amendment. The lines in question contained a principle analogous to that of the English copyhold.

DR. COMMINS

said, the object of the section was to provide that where the tenant died intestate, the tenancy should pass to the landlord; but it would be necessary that the creditors should be protected. It would be the right of any creditor whatever to take out administration of the personal effects of an intestate; but everybody knew that the personal representative would have to account to the widow for the third part of the property after payment of all debts. He thought that these two lines in the clause were entirely unnecessary.

MR. GIBSON

said, the matter would be settled at once if the Prime Minister would say that he was prepared to stand by the words in the Bill.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he had not heard a single argument in favour of the retention of these two lines, and he understood the Prime Minister to say that he was prepared to give them up. ["No, no ! "] He might have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but it seemed to him that the Prime Minister said he would not stand by these lines. If he (Mr. Biggar) had any cause for complaint, it was that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law), speaking across the Table, in reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland, should make observations in an undertone which did not reach the body of the House. He should certainly feel inclined, under the circumstances, to go to a division.

MR. HEALY

said, he would appeal to his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) not to divide. His hon. Friend had already satisfied his conscience with one division, and it was not necessary to take another.

Amendment negatived.

MR. M'COAN

moved, in line 33, after "tenancy," to insert "after payment of the debts, if any, of the deceased up to its market value." He said that the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), with his usual clearness of reasoning, had stated the arguments in support of the Amendment, so that all that was left for him to do was to move it.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 33, after "tenancy," insert "after payment of the debts, if any, of the deceased up to its market value."—(Mr. M'Coan.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

pointed out that there was a later Amendment which covered a larger ground.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

moved, in page 3, line 33, at end of Clause, to add "subject to the debts of such intestate."'

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he would accept the Amendment with the addition of the words— And to the satisfaction of the claims which the widow, if any, of such deceased tenant has upon his personal estate.

MR. M'COAN

expressed his approval of the words suggested by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

said, that as it was a mere question of words, he was quite willing to accept the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

moved to amend the clause by adding the words— Subject, however, to any debts due by the deceased tenant, and to the satisfaction of the claims which the widow, if any, of such deceased tenant has upon his personal estate.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 33, at the end of the Clause to add "Subject, however, to any debts due by the deceased tenants, and to the satisfaction of the claims which the widow, if any, of such deceased tenant has upon his personal estate."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

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

CAPTAIN AYLMER

wished to call the attention of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to the fact that the good-will and tenant right of the deceased might only be worth £200; while the debts might amount to a good deal more, and might make the landlord liable for a heavy responsibility.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the words in the clause would meet that point.

Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. WARTON

(who rose amid cries of "Oh !") said, that he did not know why he should be received with a groan. He thought the clause ought to be recast altogether, in order to give the landlord the power of objection.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 (Increase of rent to attract statutory conditions or enhance price on sale).

MR. GLADSTONE

There are two points in particular upon which I wish to say a few words with the view of simplifying the proceedings of the Committee. This clause, as it now stands, speaks of a certain settlement of a fair rent on a certain contingency upon the application of the tenant; but it is perfectly plain to our minds that the landlord, even under the clause as it now stands, would, without being named, be able to move the Court on the subject. But, whether that is so or not, I have not the least objection to insert the word "landlord," so as to make it plain that the application may be on the part of the landlord or of the tenant. I do not believe that there would be a change of substance, but there would be no objection on my part to a change of terms. The word "landlord" could be inserted in the 2nd sub-section at line 8. I wish also to make an observation on the subject of the sub-section. The sub-section is certainly not adapted to the case of present tenancies. Under the sub-section this might happen—that the tenant wishing to quit a holding upon an increase of rent, beyond a fair rent, the Court would be called upon, on the application of one of the parties, to determine a fair rent and the amount payable by the landlord in respect of his having demanded more than the fair rent, and thereby caused the departure of the tenant. After that fair rent had been so fixed, and after the landlord having taken over the increase of rent beyond a fair rent, the tenant, in a present tenancy, might accept the tenancy and subsequently apply through the Court to fix a fair rent. That, of course, was never the intention of the clause, and I would venture to propose that the sub-section should be confined to future tenancies. That objection, then, would not apply, because the tenant would have no power to apply to the Court to fix the fair rent. I shall propose to introduce Amendments to that effect by introducing the word "landlord" before "tenant," and to provide that the sub-section should be limited to the case of future tenancies. There are other Amendments which are contemplated in the clause, and which may be proposed, with respect to which I am not at all certain whether those who intend to propose them have considered the full scope and effect to which they may go. Some of the proposals appear to me to have the effect of destroying the distinction between present and future tenancies altogether. I wish particularly to call the attention of the Committee to this point in order that Amendments of that kind may not be proposed unless they are proposed distinctly with that view, because it is a matter that touches very extensively all the general structure of the Bill. Perhaps I may be permitted to remind the Committee of the description I endeavoured to give of the view which the Government had formed of the Bill in respect of the distinction between present and future tenancies. While we recognize the necessity of introducing the action of the Court as a remedial action for the present state of things in Ireland, we sought anxiously to avoid the means of constituting a state of law in Ireland under which the action of the Court should be in all cases, and at all times, the only expedient provided for the settlement of disputes between landlord and tenant. We have endeavoured to provide for that in two ways. First of all, as to existing tenancies, 'while we give the full right of going to the Court we provide such terms of tenancy that the tenant might be content to avoid going to the Court altogether. But, besides that, we provide for the circumstances under which present tenancies should become future tenancies, and for giving them, as future tenancies, certain defences as to the increase of rent that might serve to secure the good relations between the landlord and tenant without an application to the Court. If the view of the House should be that the distinction between future and present tenancies ought not to be maintained—I do not say anything on this subject at present, although I know there is a good deal to be said upon it, nor do I intend to commit the House upon it; but, no doubt, if that were the object it might considerably simplify the structure of the Bill. But we have regard, in the first place, to the interests of the landlord in having a fair claim upon us to limit the intervention of the Court to the necessities of the case; and, in the second place, to regulate all these relations by free contract between the parties, as far as it can be done. But any Amendment proposing to dispose of questions as to the increase of rent, simply by the intervention of the Court and by no other means, of course, will have the effect of establishing the Court as the universal regulator of these transactions throughout all Ireland in all holdings within the Bill from the present moment, and in all holdings for all future time. This is a matter of very great importance, and I should be very unwilling that the question should be raised incidentally and without, perhaps, perceiving what the effect of particular Amendments may be. My special object at the present moment is to present the clause to the Committee with the alterations I propose to make. I thought it would greatly assist hon. Members in taking a fair view of the clause if I mentioned these two points and these two objections—namely, the insertion of the name of the landlord in the 2nd sub-section, and the exclusion from the subsection of all present tenancies. It will likewise be my duty to make some change in the phraseology of the section.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the Committee that, although sometimes by the indulgence of the Committee a Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill is permitted to make some explanations when the clause is called, it would be irregular to enter into any general discussion, and I must proceed now according to the Amendments upon the Paper. I have to call upon Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, that, as a matter of form, he would move "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair," in order that he might be able to ask the Prime Minister to state in what way he proposed to confine the 2nd sub-section to future tenancies?

MR. GLADSTONE

By inserting certain words.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

asked, further, if the right hon. Gentleman would say to what particular Amendments he alluded, when he spoke of the question of future tenancies? It was somewhat inconvenient, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) thought, to take them at the last moment, and then suddenly spring these changes upon the Committee. He did not quite understand why these disclosures should have been kept over until the last moment, instead of having been announced many days ago.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

MR. GLADSTONE

I have nothing to add to what I have already stated, and the matter will be quite open to discussion at the proper moment. I propose to insert the word "landlord" in sub-section 2 of this clause; but that is clearly not a change in substance, because it is quite plain to me, that under the sub-section as it stands, the landlord can go to the Court already. As to the general question, whether when the Government intends inserting any Amendment in the Bill they should give Notice of it, that would depend on many considerations that may arise in the progress of so complex a measure. I shall endeavour to ascertain the state of opinion during the progress of the discussion. But I may take this opportunity of saying, and I think it will meet the views of the noble Lord, that, as he has invited me to give an opinion, I may speak of the general intentions of the Government. I stated the case, as fairly as I could, at an early stage of the Bill. I stated what the motives were that led us to frame the Bill as we did frame it—namely, that we had a certain amount of apprehension, lest in the hands of certain landlords the Court might become an undue instrument for acting on the mind of the tenant in derogation of his just rights. I am bound to say that I do not believe that consideration appears to weigh with many Members of the Committee as much as it does with us. Certainly, there can be no objection on other grounds. Primâ facie, it is evident that the landlord should have the power of going to the Court upon the right of demanding an increased rent. But I must say that, entertaining that opinion, and weighing it as well as I can with Amendments, which are not in themselves unreasonable, we shall be prepared, when the time comes, to give way to the feeling of the Committee and allow the landlord the right that is asked on his behalf. But that, of course, although a serious part of the question, will not come on until the subsequent clause. In making that announcement I have only mentioned it as an indication that we shall be prepared to meet any reasonable wish that may be expressed in the matter. It is our desire to meet the views of the Committee, and to do everything that can be done without interfering with the main objects of the Bill. The changes I propose to make in the sub-section are really summed up in the statement I have made.

MR. GIBSON

said, he did not intend to criticize one word of the statement which had fallen from the Prime Minister; but he believed it would be of immense consequence to the Committee if the Government would put on Paper their Amendments before the Committee were called upon to deal with them. It was quite obvious that the statement made by the Prime Minister would have a large influence on the Amendments that were likely to be discussed. He had simply risen to express a hope that, on future occasions, the Government would endeavour to present the Amendments they were likely to propose, at the Sitting previous to the one at which they were to be brought forward.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

wished to point out to the Prime Minister that it would make the Bill more acceptable, if the Government would give the landlord the right of going to the Court before he fixed the rent instead of after.

MR. GLADSTONE

I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member scarcely sees the scope of his own proposal.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, he had intended to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he would be able to give an opportunity for discussing that point?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

thought it was not necessary to carry the discussion further, and would, therefore, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw the Motion.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister intended to confine the rights of the tenant, when the landlord asked too much rent, to 10 times the excess over a fair rent, to future tenancies, or whether it was to extend to present tenancies?

DR. COMMINS

asked the Prime Minister whether he proposed to make the access to the Court, both by the landlord and tenant equal; whenever a landlord had access to the Court, would the same access be given to the tenant?

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

Before the Motion is withdrawn, I wish to express, on the part of many who sit near me, a feeling that it would be of great assistance if we could see these Amendments on the Paper and be able to consider their effect and bearing on the clause, before we are called on to discuss the clause. Of course, I do not wish to interrupt the progress of the Bill; but whether that would be best done by postponing the clause, or reporting Progress, I submit would be a matter for the consideration of the Government. We are anxious to take that course which would be of the least dilatory character; but it is only reasonable and fair that we should have time to consider the Amendments before we are called upon to discuss the clause.

MR. GLADSTONE

Ample time will be given; and, in the meantime, I think the discussion might be proceeded with.

MR. W. CARTWRIGHT

said, that, as he happened to have almost the first Amendment upon the clause, he wished to ask a question to see whether he had correctly understood the Prime Minister. Did the right hon. Gentleman suggest the propriety of postponing the questions which were involved in his Amendment until a later part of the Bill, and would the sub-section which his Amendment practically proposed to excise be amended so that it would only apply to future tenancies?

MR. GLADSTONE

Undoubtedly, it is intended to confine the application to future tenants—not to raise the question of fair rents generally, but only where it is raised incidentally.

MR. WARTON

remarked, that as they had now only an hour and a-quarter during which they could go on with the consideration of the Bill, he would submit that that loss would, he as nothing compared with the gain of securing the orderly and decorous management of the Bill. It was not right that the Prime Minister should make these announcements of additional Amendments, and that he should tell the Committee that he was going to make very important alterations, after giving three or four explanations which most hon. Members had been unable to understand. That was not at all the way to make things clear; the way to make things clear was to give the Committee time to consider the Amendments by putting them on the Paper. He earnestly hoped that further progress would not be attempted with the Bill now, but that the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) would be pressed. What was the loss of an hour and a-quarter compared with teaching the Government that Members would not put up with this sort of thing, and that they were not going to have Amendments shadowed forth in this way, of which, perhaps, not one single line had already been prepared? The Government had already had a year to prepare their Bill; but they had allowed four months of murder and outrage to disfigure Ireland. He should be sorry if the noble Lord withdrew the Amendment.

MR. PARNELL

wished to say, before the Motion was withdrawn, that he thought the announcement the Prime Minister had made with reference to his intention of permitting the landlord to enter the Court was distinctly prejudicial to the tenant and in favour of the landlord; and he looked upon it as the second concession announced that day to this Conservative obstruction or opposition to the Bill. Many of them had foreseen all along that this kind of concession would be made to a powerful opposition, carried on by great numbers, to a measure of this complicated character; and that was one of the principal reasons why he had forborne, on the Second Reading, from making himself responsible for the results of the measure, so far as giving satisfaction to the Irish people was concerned. He feared very much that the concessions which had been announced that day were simply a prelude to further concessions; and that, instead of its being possible for them to make the Bill better in Committee, the result would be that it would emerge from the Committee decidedly worse as far as the interests of the tenant were concerned. He wished to remind the Committee that this Bill was brought forward with the intention of undoing some of the prejudicial legislation which had been enacted by that House in favour of the Irish landlords from the Union down to 1870. But the concessions to which the Prime Minister was yielding led him (Mr. Parnell) to suppose that, in reality, it was to be turned into a Bill for the benefit of the Irish landlords. Up to the present time, rent-raising in Ireland had been to a certain extent odious, and many landlords had undoubtedly refrained from raising their rents, and had allowed them to remain at what the Court that was to be constituted by this Bill would probably find to be a fair rent. But by inviting the landlords, in the words now suggested by the Prime Minister, to enter the Court, they would give a general sanction to rent-raising, and many absentee landlords, whose rentals were undoubtedly low, and who had allowed them to remain low on account of the feeling which existed in Ireland against rent-raising, and the odium which attached to such a course, would feel themselves encouraged to come into Court and say to the tenant—" Here is a Bill brought forward by the Prime Minister, who is your great champion. I will give you the full benefit of the Act, but nothing more. The relations that have existed between us up to the present time, prompted to a certain extent by your defenceless state, must now cease. Being now in a position of equality, I will allow you to have the full benefit of the law, but nothing more." The situation of Ireland was of a three-fold character. First, there were landlords whose rents were considerably above the general rent that would probably be fixed by the Court; secondly, there were landlords whose rents were on a par with the general rents to be fixed by the Court; and, thirdly, there were landlords whose rents were below the general rents to be fixed by the operation of the Court. Thus it happened that the only class of tenants who were to be benefited by the Bill were those who were so much rack- rented that it was obvious to everybody at first sight that their rents must be reduced. In the case of tenants whose rents were below what was considered a fair rent, the landlords would feel encouraged to come forward and exercise their full rights; and he believed the result of the working of the Act would be that instead of the total rent-roll of Irish landlords being lessened they would have it considerably increased. Certainly, he did not believe that a penny would be taken off the total rental of the Irish estates. On the contrary, their rental was likely to be greatly augmented now that the landlords, under the patronage of the Committee, were to be able to get into Court, even without the necessity of serving a notice upon their tenants. He maintained that absentee landlords, who never saw their property, had no claim to go into Court; and, having allowed their rents to remain at a certain sum for a number of years, they would have no right to come in now and increase the value of their property. Such men ought to get no advantage from the Bill, which was introduced for the benefit of the Irish tenants, and not of the landlords. He was strongly of opinion that the interests of the tenants would undoubtedly be imperilled by the operation of the Bill.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

wished to point out to the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Parnell), that if any concessions were made which were against the interests of the tenant he (Mr. Parnell) was himself responsible for them, for the hon. Member for the City of Cork had said that however much in favour of the tenant the provisions of the Bill brought in by the Government might be, they would meet, and had met, with his opposition. It was only now, when the Government had found it impossible to secure the support of those who claimed to be exclusively the champions of the Irish tenant, that they had been obliged to modify the course they originally proposed to take. In regard to the general question, it was notorious that what had been universally asked by the tenants of Ireland was that a Court should be instituted to settle the rent between the landlord and tenant, and he had never heard until that moment that the tenant objected to the landlord having the same access to the Court that he had himself. Fair play had hitherto been uppermost in the minds of the Irish tenants. They had said—"We desire to pay a fair rent. If we cannot agree upon it let the landlord refer it to arbitration, and, of course, let us have the same privilege." [Cries of "Question!"] Who said "Question?" In regard to the last point mentioned by the hon. Member for the City of Cork—the case of absentee landlords—he agreed that it stood in a totally different position to that of resident landlords; but how had the resident landlords been met? They had been met by the hon. Gentleman by a crusade against them, and by a declaration that it was the desire of himself and his Party to sweep them from the land. How then could the hon. Gentleman expect, in human nature, that if he told the Irish landlords that it was his object, in the course of a few years, if he could not attain it at the present moment, to deprive them of their property and drive them out of the land—how could he expect many of them to continue to exercise forbearance in the matter of rent? He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) believed they would exercise that forbearance, because they knew that when once these questions were settled the good instincts of the Irish people would again assert themselves, and that the principles of law and order, and of reasonable good feeling between landlord and tenant would be restored. At the same time, he hoped the Prime Minister would consider the case of the absentee landlords, because they were one of the greatest curses of the country. A landlord had no business to possess a large tract of land and absent himself from the personal discharge of the duties which its possession involved. [Cries of "Question!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that although where there is a Motion before the Committee that the Chairman should leave the Chair, considerable latitude of discussion is allowed, he is not entitled to refer to a later part of the Bill, but only to that part which is actually before the Committee.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

accepted the ruling of the Chair. He had only referred to absentee landlords because the hon. Member for the City of Cork had referred to them, and he thought that he had already said enough.

MR. GLADSTONE

I really would make an appeal to hon. Members not to impede the consideration of the clause which the Committee has now reached. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) made a Motion for the limited purpose of putting a Question, and not an unreasonable one, as to the course to be pursued in the future conduct of the Bill, when we approach the subject of the Court—namely, whether we propose to give to the landlord as well as to the tenant, in the case of a difference of opinion, the power of carrying the matter into Court? And upon that simple question a debate has been forced on—first, on that particular point, and now upon the Bill at large. I must most strongly protest against such a waste of time.

MR. WARTON

said, the discussion had been brought on solely in consequence of the Premier making a sudden announcement of changes of which Notice had not been given.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HEALY

moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 35, to strike out the words "a present tenancy," in order to insert the words "any tenancy." The Amendment abolished the distinction between present and future tenancies, and he proposed it with a full knowledge of the effect it would have. The Prime Minister had himself stated that it was desirable to create future tenancies; and a hope had been expressed that in the future a state of things would arise in Ireland in which the landlord and tenant would be able to agree in common, and, like the wolf and the lamb, lie down together, without the intervention of the Court. But he himself was not one of those who believed that the landlords in future would be less rapacious than they had been in the past; and it was because he was of opinion that they would not exercise in any diminished degree the power which they, unfortunately, possessed, that he proposed the Amendment. If, as the Prime Minister thought, it should hereafter prove to be true that freedom of contract would be possible, it would not be difficult to bring in a Bill to repeal this provision. [Laughter.] The Prime Minister smiled at that suggestion; but he (Mr. Healy) believed it would be perfectly possible. He believed that the Bill as it stood was about to commit a wrong for the sake of a theory which existed only in the inner consciousness of the Prime Minister. He did not believe that the state of things predicted by the right hon. Gentleman would really arise. He would not leave it in the power of the landlords and their agents and bailiffs, supported by the police, and surrounded by the military, to make a tabula rasa. Only last year, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant appealed to the landlords not to exercise their full rights, or to deal too stringently with their tenants. But in the great majority of instances the landlords disregarded that appeal; and the Bill now proposed to reward the very men who had disregarded it. That was another reason why he proposed the Amendment. A further reason was that, if the Bill were passed in its present form, no matter how long the tenancy might continue, it would always be a future tenancy. After the Bill had passed, a landlord, within six months afterwards, would be able to clear all his estates, and the tenants would practically be able to get none of the benefits of the Act, because they would become future tenants, and all the evils that existed now, instead of being removed, would be accumulated. He therefore asked the Government to give the Bill something of a retrospective character by making a declaration as to arrears of rent, in which case he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 35, to leave out the words "a present," in order to insert the word "any,"—(Mr. Healy,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words 'a present' stand part of the Clause."

MR. GLADSTONE

The hon. Member intimates that he is willing to withdraw the Amendment provided we make a declaration on the subject of arrears, and the retrospective operation of the Bill. I am at a loss to see the remotest connection between the two subjects. I can quite understand the proposal of the hon. Member to abolish the distinction between present and future tenancies; but I take it that that subject has no connection with the question of arrears. It may have to be raised on a separate question; but it is not capable of being discussed on the present Amendment. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that under the Bill what are called "future tenants" will take no benefit at all. [Mr. HEALY: I said "less benefit."] I thought the hon. Member said they would take no benefit at all. They do not take the benefit of going into Court; but in respect of the other provisions of the Bill I cannot admit that they have no bearing on such a question as the increase of rent. The adoption of the Amendment would entirely alter the structure of the clause. If the hon. Gentleman wishes on this Amendment to raise the question of the distinction of tenancies, I have no objection to his doing so; but I doubt whether he will be able to do that to any purpose merely upon an Amendment on an imaginary point. I feel bound to object to the Amendment because, as the Bill has been framed, we have drawn a distinction between present and future tenancies, and we propose to maintain that distinction. Future tenants will enjoy every benefit by the Act except the right of applying to the Court.

MR. HEALY

wished to point out how the question of arrears came in. At the present moment, owing to bad seasons, the whole of the tenants were under notice to quit, and by this Bill they would all become future tenants. But if the question of arrears was dealt with, they would naturally come in as present and not as future tenants. If the Bill stood as it did now, it would come into operation before these men could have paid the arrears.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I do not wish to anticipate the discussion upon the question of arrears; but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not correct to suppose that all those who may be under notice to quit at this moment will necessarily lose their position as present tenants, because, by the 13th and 48thclauses, until six months have expired, they will have the power of applying to the Court to fix the judicial rent.

MR. PARNELL

looked upon the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) as a very important one. It would save the rights of the existing tenants and of those tenants who might be evicted and their tenancy destroyed by the act of eviction. It would also apply to tenants whose tenancies were sold, by the landlord for arrears of rent, but who were afterwards able to redeem their holdings. Surely the Government might introduce words which would prevent forfeiture in the case of tenants who were absolutely unable to pay their rents, who would be liable to eviction, and who would be unable to redeem their holdings through not having the money to do so. If any action was to be taken with regard to such tenants, it would be necessary to insert some modification as to the difference between present and future tenants.

MR. BIGGAR

said, it seemed to him that the Government did not intend this Bill to be more than a temporary measure. They seemed to expect that at the next General Election this question would be one of the cries in the North of Ireland. Suppose a future tenant had got possession of a holding, and from any cause the landlord insisted on more than a fair rent, was the landlord to have the power to rack-rent, his tenant as the landlords in the past had done? It was not pretended that the Court should fix a very low rent, but only a fair rent. The Bill was really not worth fighting for; but it was only fair to propose this Amendment.

MR. SHAW

said, if the question were as to the existence of the Bill and future tenancies, and there was any prospect of suceeding, he would vote for the Amendment. This was one of the great principles of the Bill; but it would be impossible for the Committee to expect the Government, on an Amendment such as this, to upset the whole structure of the Bill. There was, therefore, no object in the present Amendment. The Government seemed to think that the system of free sale was an advantage to be aimed at; but that would be impossible, and year after year tenancies in every district in Ireland would be dropped into the Bill. He did not suppose there was anything in the Bill to prevent a landlord and tenant from adopting the course of going to the Court in regard to any future tenancy, nor did he know that there was anything in the Bill to take them to the Court by agreement to fix a just rent. He believed that in the future every landlord would come under the Bill if he could, especially under the clause for procuring fixed rents. The evidence given before the Bess-borough Commission showed that the landlords and the tenants desired a Court to settle disputes which, arose every day; and if that was not provided for he thought it should be, so that both landlords and tenants might go to the Court.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

observed, that the Government had indicated their willingness to consider this point—whether there should be a permanent institution or not for settling disputes, on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford—and said, he did not think anything would be gained by prematurely closing the discussion; for a discussion raised in this way very often gathered together the opinion of the House and greatly influenced the Government. If the Amendment was now passed over, the point would have to be raised again. The idea that it would be possible to go back in Ireland to the English system of free contract was a chimera. Neither had he seen anywhere that the landlords in Ireland would wish that a time should come when the Court would be done away with. The general evidence given before the Land Commissions was that the landlords were willing to accept a Court to settle disputes between landlords and tenants. He wished to ask the Prime Minister why he insisted on continuing the distinction between present and future tenants? Why should he, in a matter which was so exceptional to the country for which the House was legislating, cherish the hope of going back to a state of things which might be applicable, but as to which everything else would be different in Ireland? In Ireland the relations between landlord and tenant were influenced not only by the considerations in this Bill, but by matters of religion and feeling, in such a way that it would never be possible to do away with the Court when once it had been established. They should once for all establish this Court, make it an institution racy of the soil, and settle the question for ever. He hoped the discussion would be continued, for time was not wasted in ventilating the question. They might pass it over now; but they would have to revert to it by-and-bye.

MR. LEAMY

pointed out that every tenant now holding a lease would, on the expiry of the lease, be a future tenant. This clause provided that a future tenant should have power to apply to the Court to have a fair rent fixed; but then, and any time after the commencement of the future tenancy—that was, after the expiry of the lease—the landlord could propose to increase the rent. That would be a strong inducement to the landlord, as soon as a lease expired, to rack-rent the tenant, and to exact the highest rent he could. He therefore considered the clause, as it stood, a very injurious clause.

MR. MARUM

said, that there could be no doubt that the Irish people did not desire a distinction between present and future tenants, and that the Irish Hierarchy had expressed their views in the same direction. The distinction would be one of the strongest elements against the Bill, and it ought to be aboliched.

MR. GIVAN

said, he wished, before the discussion closed, to express the opinion of the people of the North of Ireland upon this question. The feeling there was precisely the same as in the South of Ireland, and there had not been a meeting in the North, either of ecclesiastics or laymen, to consider the Bill, at which the distinction between present and future tenants had not been condemned as an evil genius running all through the Bill. If the Bill passed as it was, a large number of future tenancies would be created by evictions for arrears and in other ways, and a bad feeling would arise through the inability of the future tenants to have recourse to the Court. He hoped the Government would see their way to dealing with the matter in a manner that would remove the evil feeling which was being created throughout Ireland.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

understood that the idea of the Government in drawing this distinction was this:—In regard to existing tenancies there was a condition of things which called for the intervention of an independent tribunal between the tenant and the landlord; but he presumed they founded the distinction between existing and future tenancies, on the argument that future tenants would be in a position of independence and freedom of contract in which the present tenants were not. But be thought that a fallacious argument; for the moment the Bill came into operation it drew a sharp distinction, and, within a few months, from forfeiture under the Act or from the expiry of leases, fresh tenancies would exist. And on one side of the hedge there would be tenants who had the right to go to the Court for protection; but, on the other side, tenants of the same class, and under practically the same conditions, except as to their tenancy being a year older, or even a day older, who had not that right. The contrast between the two states of things would soon become intolerable, and the Bill would only sow the seeds of future difficulty if the distinction were not abolished. Further, also, this clause would exclude all those tenants who had been or might be evicted, but who, although unable fully to redeem, yet might be able to make new terms, and create a fresh tenancy. Such a tenant would be a future tenant, and would not come within the Act. This touched the fringe of a big question—the condition of leaseholders. There were many cases in which the leases were nearly run out; and was it to be said that in such cases the tenants were to have no protection? He thought the Committee should have some further opportunity of discussing the question more fully.

DR. COMMINS

thought there might be some way of adjusting the views of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) with the Resolution of the Government. He quite agreed that the section, as it stood, would aggravate rather than remove the evil of arbitrary evictions, by acting as an inducement to landlords to create future tenants, and so to take the tenants outside the Act; but he would suggest that his hon. Friend should adopt the words "any tenancy not hereinafter excepted," so that it would then be possible to leave the section intact so far as it dealt with the arbitrary increase of rent, and the Committee would be able to provide further on remedies against the evil pointed out—to deprive landlords of the unfair advantage they tried to get now by proceeding against tenants for rents which they could not pay owing to calamities in the last few years.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, it was important to remember the number of tenants who would be affected by the clause. At the present moment there was one fixed number who would be excluded from the Act—namely, the leaseholders. Of the 600,000 and odd tenants in Ireland, about 80,000 were leaseholders; and those 80,000 on the expiry of their leases, which might take place next year, or within a few years, would be excluded from the benefits of the Act. And not only would they be excluded, but they would be the best class of tenants in Ireland, and, therefore, the most powerful agitators for a change in the Act. His (Mr. Macfarlane's) Amendment, as to those to be excluded through arrears of rent, would leave a considerable number who would be unable to pay; and he did not think it an excessive computation to assume that the future tenants, through the expiry of leases and the failure of arrears, would amount to 150,000, or one-fourth of the whole number of tenants in Ireland. He did not believe the time would come during the currency of existing leases, for the re-establishment of freedom of contract, but certainly it would not come within a short period; and he did not see why there should be a greater objection to including future tenants than there was in the case of private future leases. There was a clause later on providing that tenants and landlords might agree among themselves to leases extending over 31 years; but their freedom of contract was strictly limited, because they must submit those leases to the Court for revision. Therefore, freedom of contract did not really exist, and he did not see the use of keeping up a fictitious freedom of contract. For these reasons, he trusted the Government would seriously consider this question; and he believed that if some such provision as was suggested was not made, the Bill would not last many years.

MR. JAMES HOWARD

supported the Amendment, observing that the main object of the Bill was to get rid of the antagonism which had grown up between the landlords and tenants in Ireland, and that, while it tended to reduce the power of the landlords, it diminished their responsibility in a far greater degree. The distinction between present and future occupiers, it appeared to him, would simply sow the seeds of future antagonism, and probably a future agitation; and he thought it would be well if the Government would consent to bring in some Amendment in the sense of the proposal under consideration.

MR. E. COLLINS

stated that not alone in the House, but throughout the whole of Ireland, this subject had been debated since the introduction of the Bill, and the opinion had been strongly in favour of removing this distinction between present and future tenants. He appealed to the Prime Minister, who had throughout shown such a desire to conciliate differences of opinion, to allow this matter to be passed over for the present, so that opinion might be more developed upon it, and the House generally might have an opportunity of re-discussing it.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he should like to know "whether the Treasury Bench had nothing to say on the point? Up to the present, there had only been a few words from the Prime Minister and nothing from the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland or the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland. They seemed to think Amendments proposed by Irish Members unworthy of the courtesy of a reply. Had they nothing to say on the subject?

COLONEL COLTHURST

said, he took an exactly opposite view to that of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). He hoped the Government would consider the question whether, while preserving the framework of the Bill, and preserving the distinction between present and future tenants, they might not find some means of modifying the hardship by a provision to meet the case of the leaseholders and the tenants in arrear. In that way, the number of future tenants would be diminished, and also the number of centres of disaffection and discontent. He hoped the Government would not be dragged into any premature repudiation of the suggestion.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he was very much obliged to the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) for his courtesy in alluding to his speech. As to the two points raised by the hon. and gallant Member (ColonelColthurst), they were both important points, and one of them especially, that with regard to the leaseholders, was a point to which he had already referred as a matter which would require consideration during the progress of the Bill. With regard to the other consideration—that of the arrears—he was also of opinion that it was a matter deserving much attention; and he was prepared to say this much—though he was not certain that the Government knew how the object should be effected—that it would not be in the view of the Government desirable that the Bill should ultimately be so framed as that future tenancies should grow out of transactions connected with arrears of rent. The creation of future tenancies, wherever they arose from default by the tenants, should be through defaults subsequent to the passing of the Act.

MR. PARNELL

thought that, after the statement of the Prime Minister, his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford should not further occupy the time of the Committee by pressing his Amendment.

MR. GIBSON

wished to reserve his right to discuss the question; but the Prime Minister had put a far wider construction on the retrospective character of the Bill than the clause conveyed, and a vastly wider construction than he stated in introducing the Bill. The words he then used were cautious, and were in this sense—that wherever it could be proved that the tenants could not pay rents which were excessive, it was desirable that a certain amount of retrospective action should be given to enable them to apply to the Court.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

hoped the Prime Minister would allow the Committee to divide on the clause, but allow them to discuss the subject on another occasion. He moved that Progress should be reported.

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

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that the hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Amendment desired to withdraw it, and he therefore hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not press his Motion, so that they might proceed with the Amendments until they came to one upon which this question might be raised.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HEALY

thought the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had been a little too hasty in acceding to the suggestion that the Amendment should be withdrawn, for the Amendment was of wider scope than he seemed to think. It was one of the Amendments which the Irish Hierarchy had stated to be of vital importance, and was one upon which the acceptance of the Bill by the Irish Members depended. He thought that if it was undesirable to discuss the question now, a way out of the difficulty might be found by substituting for the words "present tenancy" the words "any tenancy not hereinafter excepted from the provisions of the Bill." The entire question could then stand over to a future day. The Irish Members had given silent support to the Government; but the Government were pushing their Amendments through unduly, and treating the Irish Members with scant courtesy; and it was only when the Tory Party intermingled in the debate, or some Liberal Member gave anything like support to the Irish Members, that they could obtain anything like confidence. His Amendment would not prejudice the question; and, in view of the loose phraseology of the Government, he did not feel disposed to withdraw his Amendment. With the exception of one made to the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), all the concessions of the Government had been of a restrictive sense, and the experience they had had had to-day, getting no attention until they had secured allies from hon. Gentlemen opposite, would make the Irish Members far less disposed to give that support to the Government which they had hitherto given. Before withdrawing his Amendment, he would ask whether the Government would accept the words he had suggested?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the Government could not accept the Amendment just suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Healy). They intended the clause to apply, as it did apply, to both present and future tenants. The hon. Member's Amendment would not in any way tend to achieve that purpose; and, in fact, would leave their introductory paragraph of the clause altogether unaltered in its meaning and effect. There could be no increase of the rent of a future tenant, unless the first rent had been fixed, and the Amendment, therefore, would effect no real change in the clause.

MR. BIGGAR

observed, that there had been unanimity among the Irish Members against the clause as it stood, and urged that the proper thing would be to allow the Amendment to lie over till Monday next, when there would be a better opportunity of discussing it. He, therefore, begged to move that Progress be reported.

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

And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, House resumed; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.

House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.