§ Clause 3 (Increase of rent to attract statutory conditions or enhance price on sale).
§ MR. HEALY,in moving, in page 3, line 35, to leave out the words a present, in order to insert the word any, said, that he had moved this Amendment on Friday; but it was necessary that he should do it again. It was considered on Friday that the matter was too important to be allowed to be disposed of at a late hour of the evening, and therefore Progress was reported in order that the question might be considered to-day. He understood the Government to make this concession—that there should be no future tenancies arising out of present arrears, and also, in general terms, that they would consider the question of the leaseholders. It was, however, most desirable that the Amendment should be discussed before the matter was finally disposed of. The point on which he desired information in regard to a leaseholder was this. After the passing of the Act, unless the landlord permitted him to go on as at present and accepted the rent from him, a future tenancy would be created. When a lease expired the owner of it had no further right to the land. If the landlord wanted to make the man a future tenant he would at once serve him with a notice to quit and refuse to accept rent from him; but if he accepted rent from a man who had been a leaseholding tenant, he would then become a present tenant. ["No !"] That was a matter of opinion. His (Mr. Healy's) opinion was that if the landlord accepted the rent from a leaseholder the leaseholder would become a present tenant. At the 862 expiry of a lease the leaseholder would have no further rights, because the landlord might, if he chose, evict him; and he wished to get a distinct understanding from the Government on that point. In the case of judicial leases every man, on their expiry, would become a future tenant. He did not see why it should be distinctly laid down that the holder of a farm who had a judicial lease should be a future tenant. But the real importance of the matter was that there had been, as everybody knew, a series of bad seasons in Ireland, and, in consequence, the tenants were very much in arrear of rent. Yet, in every case where a notice had been served, the tenant, if evicted and reinstated after the Act passing, would become a future tenant. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said there would be six months for redemption. That was perfectly true; but it was a mockery to tell a man who had not 1d. in the world that he might redeem by paying up arrears in the course of six months. At the Easter Sessions he believed that some 3,000 notices to quit had been taken out, and the entire amount of the debt outstanding thereupon amounted to not more than £80,000—£80,000 upon 3,000 holdings. He presumed that the tenants were in a position to pay half the amount due, and, whether or not, the Government within the last two months had spent more than twice that sum in marching and counter-marching troops in order to insure the serving of the notices. Let the Government, then, make up the balance to the landlord. It was imagined that there was a wish to do the Irish landlords some injury. There was nothing of the sort. He had no objection to their getting as much compensation out of the Imperial Treasury as the Imperial Treasury would give them. The late Conservative Government proposed to give the insurgents of the Rhodope Mountains, as a present, the sum of £100,000 in aid of their necessities; and surely Her Majesty's present Government might boldly make an offer to pay this amount of indebtedness of the Irish tenants out of the Treasury. He did not think the demand was an extraordinary one, because the State, in times past, had constantly had to relieve the necessities of the people by making extensive grants of public money. That, however, was 863 really one branch of the question. The fact was that these arrears did exist, and if the Government did not relieve the distressed occupiers of the land by making them present tenants and giving them some advantage under the Bill there ought to be some alternative proposal. The fact was that they could not pay the arrears, and if they were unable to do so they must, by the Bill as it stood, be left as future tenants unable to take advantage of the provisions of the measure. He was anxious to have a statement from the Government upon the question of these arrears, and unless he got a distinct intimation that something would be done to provide for the case he had mentioned he should certainly feel bound to press the Amendment to a division.
§ 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."
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the observations which had been made by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) were somewhat general; but still they were relevant to the substance of the issue before the Committee. And it was a very important issue indeed—namely, whether or not there was to be a distinction drawn between present and future tenants. He understood that to be the issue upon which the hon. Member was anxious to obtain an opinion from the Government. In the debate upon the second reading he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) declared that upon this matter there was no halfway house; they must either accept the Report of the O'Conor Don, and the minority of the Commission, and the principles which underlie that Report, or they must have the courage of their opinions, and go on and admit future tenants to the benefits of the Bill. They had now reached this point—by the 1st section of the Bill, future tenants were admitted to the right of free sale; and, therefore, he was bound to say, when he considered the question in detail, that on the whole, in regard to the exception of future tenancies, they were contending more for a shadow than a reality. Although it was not his intention to vote against the Government, whatever their 864 decision might be, nor to annoy them by setting up issues which he knew to be unnecessary, because he knew the difficulty of the task they had undertaken, he desired to express his individual opinion that Her Majesty's Government, in making a concession, would not meet with much opposition from those who, on some points, had been obliged to take an independent line from them. He had already said that, in his opinion, those who were contending for the reception of future tenancies were contending for a shadow rather than a reality, and he wished to explain what he meant by that. How could a future tenancy arise? As far as he understood this rather complicated clause of the Bill, the future tenancy could only arise in one of four ways—either by the expiration of the lease, by one of those acts which constituted a forfeiture, and which were mentioned in Clause 45, or in a case where mesne land now unlet was let by the landlord, or in a case in which the landlord had exercised the right of pre-emption. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that in the last two cases, the case of mesne land, and land in regard to which the landlord had exercised his right of pre-emption, the question was raised by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) on the 1st clause. His hon. Friend was met in a cordial and conciliatory manner by the Prime Minister, who undertook to deal with the matter on the 17th clause by giving the landlord and the tenant full right of contract. In these two cases the landlord would be in possession of the land, and would be able to fix his own contract. Therefore, future tenancies would be in reality, for all practical purposes under the Bill, confined to the cases of leases and forfeiture. The case of the leaseholders was one on which a great deal might be said, and when the Committee reached the clause at the end of the Bill that dealt with leases, they would be able to consider all questions arising out of a lease, and the termination of a lease. Speaking for himself alone, he was anxious to meet the Committee on this point in a perfectly fair and candid spirit. He was informed that there might be some existing leases in Ireland which it would be desirable to bring under the the purview of the Court. Therefore, although he was not 865 anxious to pledge himself upon the question, he wished to allude to it in order to show that he was not proceeding in anyway with his eyes shut. He had no desire to see the Bill passed into law without giving the Court power to put an end to the burning sores which now existed on the question. He knew that some hon. Members were always ready to put an unfavourable construction upon everything that came from that (the Liberal) part of the House; but he was anxious, if possible, to meet those who believed that some of these leases ought to be looked into, and that in all these cases it was not desirable that the tenant should be relegated, at the end of the lease, to the position of a future tenant. Upon all these points he was open to conversion. Lastly, he came to the case of forfeiture, which was dealt with in Clause 45. Forfeiture was to constitute a termination of the present tenancy and the beginning of a future tenancy. In the discussion raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had himself said, and he would repeat it again, that, in his opinion, the acts of forfeiture mentioned in Clause 45 ought not necessarily to terminate the present tenancy. There was not that cessation of continuity that arose in other cases. It would be hard for a trifling act of neglect of duty on the part of a tenant to expose him to the risk of losing the rights which his neighbour on the other side of the road enjoyed. There would, undoubtedly, be a danger of having a certain number of small patches of territory scattered over Ireland where one tenant would be excluded from the right of applying to the Court, while his neighbour on the other side of the road, and all around him, would possess that right. By enacting a provision which would constitute such a state of things instead of allaying the present agitation they might unwittingly create a new one. He had thrown out these suggestions in the hope that, on the whole, the Committee would be able to arrive at some way out of the difficulty; but if Her Majesty's Government decided to stand by the present framework of the Bill he should not go into the Lobby against them, because he knew that their task was a difficult one, and he had no wish to embarrass them.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI think it is important, before we go any further into this matter, that we should know distinctly what the views of the Government are on the question of present and future tenancies. I confess that I was not entirely clear on the last occasion as to the intent and meaning of some of the language used by the Prime Minister. It seemed to me that my right hon. Friend left the question more open than was altogether convenient. As far as the matter had gone, I understood the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) was prepared at that time to withdraw his proposed Amendment. I do not understand that he now proposes to withdraw it, but he engages that there shall be no distinction between present and future tenancies; and I understand the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) to incline to the same opinion, subject, however, to the view which the Government may take of the matter. Now, this Bill is drawn throughout on the assumption that there is to be a distinction between the present and future tenants; and in discussing it upon the second reading and in Committee, the discussion has proceeded on the assumption that there would be a different treatment of those who are called "present tenants" and those who are spoken of as "future tenants." This may make a very material difference in the way in which we look at the Bill, because there are some things in the Bill which we have great difficulty in accepting at all. We shall, undoubtedly, feel that difficulty very much increased if we are told that we are to accept these proposals, not only to meet a temporary and special emergency, but that we are to accept them as being part of the law which we intend to lay down as the general law in regard to the relations between landlords and tenants in Ireland. Now, it does seem to me that if the Bill is to be placed upon that footing, and, as the Prime Minister pointed out the other day, if Amendments are to be introduced which would carry with them the amalgamation and the identification of present and future tenancies, we should be taking so serious a step that we should have carefully to consider what our course is to be on a good many questions that may arise. I therefore hope that the Committee 867 will be made acquainted as early as possible with the views and intentions of the Government on this very important point.
MR. GLADSTONEI should be very sorry if, through any error of my own, I failed to convey the opinions and intentions of the Government with sufficient clearness on Friday last; but I think my right hon. Friend who has just spoken must have somewhat misapprehended the effect of what fell from the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), which was, in point of fact, a mixture of minor and major questions, in which certain bye questions were mixed up with questions of great weight and importance, relating to the structure of the Bill at large. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment on that occasion thought fit—I do not find fault with him, although I did not see the object of the proceeding—the hon. Member thought it his duty on that occasion to mix up the distinction between present and future tenancies with questions which, however important in his view, are separate and bye questions—first of all, as to arrears; and, secondly, as to the position in which certain persons would be placed under the Act of 1870 when the leases expire. What I stated—and, I hope, stated clearly—on Friday was that, undoubtedly, the Bill was framed throughout on the assumption of a distinction between present and future tenancies; and either to efface that distinction generally, or to bring it into a state of confusion, would be a matter of so much importance, that I trusted no propositions would be made having that tendency, without full consideration of their consequences and effect. I also certainly intimated that the Government, having framed the Bill on that assumption, had no change of intention to announce in respect of it, and that it was our intention to adhere to the distinction. Of course, when we come to the application of that principle in detail, although adhering to the distinction, we may give effect to it in different ways. A variety of points in regard to which discussion may arise may be raised by different Amendments as to what is to constitute future tenancies, and what may be the incidents of such future tenancies. I am not speaking of these now in detail; but I am speaking of 868 the general distinction between the two classes of tenants which was undoubtedly in our mind when we framed the structure of the Bill. What I stated on Friday, and what seemed, I was glad to see, to produce some effect on the mind of the hon. Member for Cork—although, for once, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was scarcely willing to accept what I thought very good advice—what I stated on Friday was that the Government were of opinion that upon the whole it was not desirable that future tenancies should arise out of past arrears, or that where a tenant had contracted to sell the conditions of his tenancy before the passing of the Act, any proceeding arising out of that purchase of the conditions of the tenancy should not apply to future tenants. Now, in a difficult matter of this kind, I do not think it is desirable that the Government should tie themselves absolutely to the terms of any given change, until we come rather more near the time when they can be adopted. What is desirable is that, in the first place, the Government should make sure that they know exactly their own meaning and their own grounds, and then state the words in which they desire to give effect to them. With respect to the other point—the point having reference to leaseholders—I must say that it is a question that ought to be settled in a general discussion. A discussion of some nicety may arise as to leaseholders under the Act of 1870; but it really has no connection with the clause now under consideration. I stated to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) that it must of necessity come up for discussion again, and that when it did so I should address myself to it in an impartial spirit. It does not touch the general construction of the Bill, and I think it will be much better to wait until we can hear the arguments fully stated on the relative Amendments. That would be the most convenient course; and I must therefore decline to discuss the question on the present occasion. The present discussion is confined, I understand, to the distinction between present and future tenancies.
THE O'DONOGHUEthought the Amendment raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy; was one of very great importance, and 869 congratulated his hon. Friend upon having secured the valuable support of the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice). Personally, he confessed that he could not view without serious apprehension the distinction it was proposed to draw between present and future tenants. That distinction constituted, beyond all doubt, a blemish in the Bill. In the course of his introductory speech, the Prime Minister referred to a time when he hoped Ireland would return to the principle of free contract; but it occurred to him (the O'Donoghue) that that period would never arrive, and, indeed, he made that remark at the time to an hon. Friend sitting near him. It was clear that the Bill, as it now stood, placed in the hands of the landlord the power of creating future tenancies, and that he would be anxious to exercise the power from a desire to get a class of tenants with whom he might deal as he pleased, upon the vital question of rent. In passing the Bill as it stood, Her Majesty's Government would be placing at the disposal of the landlord the machinery for establishing the very state of things which the measure was brought in to do away with—namely, the creation of a class of occupiers who would be very liable to be rack-rented. When it became known in a district that a tenant was about to sell his tenancy, the landlord, no matter how poor he might be, would find the means of purchasing the tenancy. He would be assisted by a number of persons, who would offer him money for the purpose of paying for the holding and coming into possession of the tenant right in the place of the outgoing tenant. The Bill conferred upon the future tenant every advantage except that of having the rent fixed by an independent authority; and that in itself would stimulate what had been called "land hunger," and induce persons to come forward and offer money to the landlord, taking their chance as to what amount of rent might be imposed upon them, and trusting to future agitation to place them in the position of present tenants at some not very remote period. It was perfectly clear that the Government contemplated the creation, by the landlords, of future tenancies, because upon turning to the 45th section of the Bill he found, by sub-section 2, that— 870
Where a present tenancy in a holding is purchased by the landlord from the tenant in exercise of his right of pre-emption under this Act, and not on the application or by the wish of the tenant, or as a bidder in the open market, then if the landlord within fifteen years from the passing of this Act re-lets the same holding to another tenant, the same shall be subject from and after the time when it has been so re-let to all the provisions of this Act which are applicable to present tenancies.Now, it was plain that there were difficulties thrown in the way of the landlord in creating a future tenancy; but it seemed to him that the landlord would always be able to bid himself, or find somebody to bid for him, in the open market. He should certainly be glad if the Government could see their way to doing away with any distinction between present and future tenancies; and he hoped, in any case, that his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would press the Amendment to a division.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLbelieved that a considerable step forward was taken by the present measure, in comparison with the Act of 1870, in respect of present tenancies. He hoped that the distinction between present and future tenancies would be maintained; but he thought the Government were acting rightly in providing that future tenants should have reasonable security for their improvements and against disturbance. He certainly failed to see, where a present tenant parted with his holding, why the purchaser should be looked upon as a future tenant.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEthought there would be some difficulty in dealing with this Amendment after the way in which the Prime Minister had spoken a few minutes ago. The proposal of the hon. Member for Wexford. (Mr. Healy) was to omit the words "present tenancy" and substitute "any tenancy." If it were rejected, the words "present tenancy "would remain in the clause, and it would not be possible at a later period to raise the question whether there should be a distinction between present and future tenancies or not. He, for one, looked upon this question as one of the most important in the whole Bill. It had been pointed out from that (the Opposition) side of the House, and admitted on the other, that this particular matter affected the whole framework of the Bill. The Bill 871 was drawn up on the clear understanding that there should be a distinction between present and future tenancies; but he confessed, for his own part, that he regarded the distinction as a mischievous and unnecessary one. The existence of the distinction seemed to have reconciled some hon. Members to the other provisions of the Bill, notwithstanding that the measure interfered with the freedom of contract, and gave unprecedented powers to a tribunal to make contracts between party and party. It seemed to be thought that these extraordinary provisions were the less mischievous because the Bill contemplated that they would be temporary. It seemed to him, however, that that would aggravate the mischief rather than reduce it. They were doing that which was admitted to be wrong in principle for the sake of a temporary advantage. But he was of opinion that the distinction between present and future tenants would be productive of serious mischief in the future. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) was quite right when he said that directly this Bill came into operation it would begin, in one way or another, the creation of a new Class of future tenants, who would be occupying holdings side by side with present tenants enjoying very large rights under the Bill. Future tenants, holding the same description of holding, nearly contemporaneous in their occupation of their farms, but differing in the fact that they had separate and inferior legal rights, would be certain, in the course of a very few years, to raise up a fresh agitation. The future tenants would be constantly increasing in number, and would year by year become a more important class, acquiring a larger amount of political power. It would, therefore, be inevitable that an agitation would spring up, and they would have the old dismal story of discontent and dissatisfaction increasing and growing in vigour year after year, in order to induce Parliament to expunge the distinction the Government were now proposing to establish. It must not be supposed that he was speaking as a friend or supporter of the Bill. On the contrary, he should very much like to see it defeated; because he regarded it as mischievous, and thought that it did, by complex and troublesome means, that which might be done in a 872 much more simple manner, and without interference with the freedom of contract. But, on the assumption that it was to pass, he desired to express the opinion he entertained that the distinction between present and future tenancies would have a very injurious effect in the future. He was, therefore, anxious to ascertain from Her Majesty's Government upon what Amendment it would be most convenient to argue the matter out and to take a division. He could understand the course proposed to be taken by the Government if it were intended that the words in the clause should stand as they originally appeared, and if the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury were then to point out the section upon which the question would be dealt with subsequently; but he thought there would be a difficulty in dividing upon the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wexford, after the somewhat ambiguous language of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and in the absence of information as to the manner in which the question could be raised hereafter.
MR. GLADSTONEI thought I had plainly indicated that it was undoubtedly our intention to affirm the distinction between present and future tenancies; but we do not affirm all the particulars as they stand in the Bill, and propose that they should be discussed more in detail on a subsequent portion of the Bill.
§ MR. LITTONsaid, the argument of hon. Members on the other side of the House was that there ought to be no distinction whatever, but that there ought to be all present and no future tenancies. To himself, personally, it certainly seemed that this was not the proper place to raise that question, and he would call the attention of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) to the fact that there was a Definition Clause in the Bill, and that the question might be properly raised when they came to consider that clause, without putting the Committee to the trouble of a division now. It appeared to him that the present difficulty arose solely upon the definition of "a present tenant." He was one of those who maintained the advantage of drawing a distinction between the present and future tenant as stated in the Bill; but, in saying that, 873 he was clearly of opinion that the term "present tenant" ought to go further than it was thought it would, having regard to the definition contained in the present clause. It ought to include those who were subjected to the effect of present arrears, as well as those who continued and succeeded iu presenttenancies. Such persons ought to be included in the benefit conferred upon present tenants. Going still further, he thought that leaseholders, on the expiration of their leases, should have the benefit of a present tenancy, and he was prepared to argue that question when the right time came. But, beyond that, he maintained that according to the whole structure of the Bill, and according to the principle that underlay it, the maintenance of future tenancies should be preserved as between persons—he would not call them landlord and tenant—but between owners and proposing tenants as a matter of contract. He would ask the attention of the Committee to the definition in the Bill of "a future tenant," because he thought the whole difficulty arose from that definition, and it was upon that ground that he asked the hon. Member for Wexford to postpone the consideration of his Amendment until they arrived at the Definition Clause. That clause provided that a present tenancy should mean a tenancy subsisting at the time of the passing of the Act, while a future tenancy meant a tenancy after the passing of the Act. He would suggest to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland that he should bear in mind the discussion that had now taken place, and make the definition of a future tenancy run something in this way—" That a future tenancy should be a tenancy created after the passing of the Act on a holding which had not been subjected to a present tenancy at the date the Act passed, or for 15 years prior to the creation of the tenancy, where a present tenancy has been purchased out by the land"-lord." That would exclude from the future tenancy every case of a subsisting holding. As regarded the general structure of the Act, and the principle underlaid in it, he was clearly of opinion that the position must be maintained of a future tenant in regard to those owners of lands who had never let their land or who had acquired by purchase the occupier's rights.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLthought the object of the Government, in establishing this broad distinction between present and future tenants, was a very excellent one, and was intended, as far as possible, to mitigate the evils more or less inherent in any interference with freedom of contract between landlord and tenant. As far as regarded the existing landlords of Ireland, he thought the distinction was a thoroughly sound one. But there was one point in respect of future tenants which he should like to suggest to the Government, and have their opinion upon. It was impossible to consider any Amendment in a Bill of so complicated a nature without considering the effect the Amendment would have on other portions of the measure. They had in the second part of the Bill a large provision for the creation of owners by transforming occupiers into owners of land, and he imagined that that portion of the Bill was not prepared as a blind, but that it was meant to be worked out in a bonâ fide manner, and with something in the shape of liberality. He took it, therefore, for granted that there would be a great and rapid increase of owners of land in Ireland; and he wished to point out that the small owners, from 10 and 20 to 100 acres, would sub-let, and in this way they would create future tenancies. It was not only certain that they would sub-let, but it was equally certain that they would rack-rent. He would point out to the Government the effect of that operation. They were intrusting small owners of property, from 10 acres to 100, with a power which they refused to give to the great landlords of Ireland, such as the Fitzwilliams, the Lansdownes, the Dukes of Devonshire, and landlords of that stamp. What they said was this—" We will not intrust you with the power of making a free contract with your tenant; you are not to be trusted. But we will say to the little man who comes in in consequence of this Bill, and who has none of the experience of the landlords of large property, and whose end, and aim, and sole object is to rack-rent the property as highly as he can—' You shall create future tenants. That is the power we give to you, but we will not give it to the present landlords of Ireland.' "He would suggest to the Committee that that would prove a serious difficulty, and 875 that in the step they proposed to take they were, undoubtedly, laying the germ of considerable future agitation. He did not suppose that that was purposely done; but hon. Members who were acquainted with real life—for instance, a man who had to undertake the repair of his own house—knew that it was the custom of the bricklayers, the carpenters, and the builders he engaged to leave something or other that should be defective in order that a future generation of bricklayers, carpenters, and builders should have something to do. It appeared, therefore, to him that they were purposely laying a nest egg for future agitation in providing for the creation of future owners who would be rack-renters, and in this way tenants would be absolutely deprived of any protection whatever. He certainly thought that that was a point well worthy the attention of the Government.
§ MR. VILLIERS-STUARTsaid, he hoped that the principle of the Amendment now before the Committee might be accepted by the Government. He thought the very object of creating a Land Court was to prevent rack-renting, and that object was as important as regarded future tenancies as in regard to present tenancies. There was, of course, the objection, from a landlord point of view, that if the future tenant had access to the Court it would deprive the landlord, to a certain extent, of the power of benefiting by his right of preemption; but he thought that it was very desirable that the landlord who took advantage of the privilege of preemption should recoup himself by a fine rather than by imposing an increased rent. He knew by experience that the form of repayment an Irish farmer most strenuously objected to was that which took the shape of increased rent. He was satisfied that the nearer the principle of Irish land tenure could be brought to the form of fixed tenancies the more satisfactorily it would be found to work. In the case of future tenants, there must, of course, be an initial rent; and he would suggest that in such cases if, at the end of three years, a tenant was dissatisfied with his rent, he should have free access to the Court in order to show that he was rack-rented, and he would give the benefit of that principle not only to leaseholders, but to all persons who occupied the position of future tenants.
§ MR. MARUMsaid, he would quote a few statistics to show the number of leaseholders who would be materially affected by the changes proposed to be introduced by the Bill. There were 63,759 leases for terms under 31 years, 47,623 for terms above 31 years, 13,712 tenancies in perpetuity, and about 10,000 other leases—making altogether 134,000 leases that would come under the operation of the Act. This composed the area which was to be excepted from the operation of future tenancies. One of the statutory conditions which constituted a present tenant was the payment of rent. The non-fulfilment of that obligation would render the tenant liable to ejectment, and he could only be rehabilitated and continue in the position of future tenant by paying up the arrears. In regard to the other tenants, in what position would they stand? At Common Law, and before the Ejectment Code was established, the rule of law was that a Court of Equity might interfere, and equitable jurisdiction would attach wherever forfeiture had been incurred, and upon reasonable compensation the broken statutory condition could be repaired. It was upon that understanding that a large number of statutes, commencing with the Statute of Anne and going down to the Decies Act, had been passed. He certainly wished to have the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown whether, under the present Bill in the case of a broken covenant, the same equitable jurisdiction would apply; and whether, under a broken statutable condition, the tenant would not have an equitable right to be rehabilitated in his status as a present tenant on satisfying all the demands against him. If that were so, the number of tenancies which would be brought under the statutory conditions would be materially diminished. There were two species of statutory conditions, of one of which the tenant might have availed himself, but not the other; and being merely a tenant from year to year he might be placed at a disadvantage. But if he was in a position to rehabilitate himself, he apprehended that the tenant would have the right to institute a suit in equity. In his opinion, the present Bill ought to deal with that question, and should not deprive a tenant of the relief which would be given to him by a Court of Equity. He believed there was 877 an Equity Clause in the Bill—Clause 8—and if that were taken in conjunction with the 18th Equity Clause of the Land Act, adequate provision might be made in the present measure. By this means a great deal of the objection now taken to the Bill would be removed, a good deal of hardship would be diminished, and a large number of tenants who had broken the statutory conditions under which they occupied their holdings would be prevented from becoming future tenants. He certainly trusted that neither in Ireland nor in any other country wherever a partnership existed the time would arrive when one partner would be able to come in and seize and confiscate the share of his brother partner. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government, before they decided absolutely to reject this Amendment, would consider fully whether they intended to withdraw this very large class of persons from the equities of the clause.
§ COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) to consider whether, after the opinions which had been expressed, he would not forego a division upon his Amendment? The support which the Amendment had received from the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) and the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke) did not come from those who were in favour of the Bill, but from those who, in his opinion, desired to throw upon it a certain amount of ridicule, and who did not wish it to succeed. He agreed that it was a misfortune that the Government should have introduced in this clause a distinction between the present and future tenant. Still, he thought it was necessary to take matters as they stood, and endeavour as far as they could to mitigate any hardship that might arise, by taking care that the number of future tenants should be as small as possible. It had been stated that the Bill was merely a temporary measure, because at a future time tenants would pass from under its operation. But that, he contended, was not the case. Even as the Bill was drawn the great majority of tenants would always be present tenants, because future tenants could only be created by certain breaches of contract, under their present occupations. He appealed to the hon. Member not to press his Amendment to a division, but 878 to wait and see whether the Prime Minister would not deal with the question in a satisfactory manner.
§ DR. COMMINSthought the hon. Member for Wexford ought to take the opinion of the Committee upon the Amendment. The clause applied to leaseholders quite as much as to non-leaseholders. The definition of the term present tenancy in the 44th clause—namely, that it meant "a tenancy subsisting at the time of the passing of this Act," undoubtedly included all leaseholds, or ought to do so. Why was this provision introduced at all, if not for the purpose of establishing fair rents between the landlords and tenants in Ireland? It was introduced because freedom of contract did not exist between these parties, and there was less freedom of contract between leaseholders and their landlords than there was in the case of that body who were tenants-at-will or from year to year; the acceptor of a lease was as little a free agent as was a person obliged to submit to whatever rent the landlord imposed. The clause, as it stood, would therefore exclude some 135,000 persons, many of whom were leaseholders, from the benefit of the Bill, and would thereby inflict serious injustice upon them, leaving the worst portion of the evil intended to be done away with still in existence, and sowing the seeds of future discontent, which would render it necessary, at some future time, to take up the whole question again. Further, if the tenant was to be deprived of the benefit of the provision for fixing the rent, the result would be a tendency on the part of the landlord to take advantage of every forfeiture, and of the provisions of the 45th clause, which provided that a tenancy, subject to the operation of the Act, should cease to be subject thereto as soon as there was a breach of any of the statutory conditions, one of which being that the rent should be paid when due. One of the evils sought to be guarded against was the evil of eviction; but he ventured to say that if the present clause was left in its present form, and if no alteration was made in the 45th clause, there would be quite as many evictions after the passing of the Act as there were at the present time, because every landlord would try to get his tenancies under statutory conditions, the breach of any one of which would, 879 according to the 45th clause, determine the tenancy. Therefore, he contended, it was not wise or just to continue the distinction made by the clause as between present and future tenancies.
MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he entirely disagreed with his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Colthurst) with regard to the reasons urged by him upon the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) for not putting this Amendment to a division. His hon. and gallant Friend seemed to think that because it had been supported by some hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, bon. Members on that side, who were in favour of the Bill, should not press the Amendment. For his own part, he considered that both this and other Amendments should be considered by the Committee upon their merits. He agreed that the Amendment would work a considerable alteration in the structure of the Bill; but he considered that the effect of that alteration would be, on the whole, grateful to the Committee, because it would tend to the simplification of the measure. He was not prepared to say, and he wished to guard himself from being supposed to say, that it might not be necessary to consider some distinction in. certain cases between existing and future tenancies; but he did disapprove of this wide and sweeping line of demarcation between them. What was the logical basis on which the Bill rested? It was that the tenants of land in Ireland being, generally, weak and helpless, should be placed under the protection of some independent tribunal; and if they were to draw a distinction between present and future tenants, they must, in order to make it a logical distinction, satisfy the Committee that the future tenant would not be weak and helpless in the matter of tenancy contracts. Take the case of tenants who were under ejectment not yet executed for a large amount of arrears. It was true that if within the redemption period they could discharge the arrears, they would be admitted to the rights and status of present tenants; but supposing they were not able to pay and desired to enter into a bargain with the landlord, say for the part payment of arrears, they would not to so admitted. To leave this broad distinction as it stood in the clause would be to offer a number of inducements to the landlords for ending and breaking 880 up existing tenancies. The experience of the working of the Act of 1870 threw some light upon this point. Many hon. Members might, perhaps, not be aware that the cases bearing upon the question of the termination of present tenancies, and the creation of future tenancies, ran very fine indeed. It had been decided in Ireland by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, and afterwards by the Court of Queen's Bench, that where a landlord had said he could not allow a tenant to continue unless he had some security, and the tenant brought in a guarantor as one of the lessees, that this was an ending of the old tenancy and the creation of a new tenancy. Again, it had been decided in the English Courts that if a landlord gave a tenant notice to quit the tenancy was thereby determined; and, further, if the landlord waived that notice, that this was not a continuation of the old tenancy, but the creation of a new tenancy. Then take the cases referred to by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum), which involved the breaches of statutory conditions other than that for the nonpayment of rent. The landlord, seeing the lever these would put into his hand, would be ready to bring his action for ejectment, because he knew that this would enable him to create a fresh tenancy. The broad distinction, therefore, contained in the clause would not only create difficulty, but, in his opinion, injustice and hardship. He submitted to the Prime Minister that, if he desired to maintain in this Bill, or leave open in the future, freedom of contract—a remote thing, as he (Mr. Charles Russell) feared, in transactions of this kind in Ireland—the logical way would be to exempt all tenancies within a certain limited period—say 21 years—after the passing of the Act. This would give an opportunity for seeing whether cases had arisen in which the action of an independent tribunal was necessary.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he had listened with the greatest attention to the arguments adduced in the course of the lengthened discussion which had taken place upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford. He had read the clause with all possible care, and heard the statement which the Prime Minister had made that evening; and, upon the whole, he was in favour of re- 881 taining the distinction in the clause between present and future tenancies. He had arrived at the conclusion that this was almost the only prospect of a return to anything in the shape of freedom of contract between landlord and tenant in Ireland. They were not then discussing the question in its entirety; but, at the same time, it must be borne in mind that if this distinction were obliterated in the 3rd clause, it would have necessarily a most substantial bearing upon the whole progress of the Bill. It would practically necessitate the redrafting of the Bill in some of its most salient features, while it would unquestionably interfere with the proceedings of that night. While he forbore to express any opinion upon the views indicated by the Prime Minister, with which it was possible he might not agree, he was obliged to observe that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had hardly approached the question at all, in suggesting that there were difficulties and injustices which would be created by drawing an apparently arbitrary line of distinction between the two classes of tenancies. The hon. and learned Member had shown no reason why there should not be a distinction.
MR. GLADSTONEThe observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) have been strictly upon the point now before the Committee. We are considering simply the question as to whether there is to be a distinction; and therefore no hon. Member, even who votes for the Amendment, would be committed to the extent of particulars. With respect to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) I submit that it was entirely a statement of particulars, and he himself admitted that there must be a distinction. Again, one hon. Gentleman has said that future tenancies ought not to be allowed to grow up on account of breaches of contract; another that existing leases should not be excluded. But all these are questions of detail which must be gone through in a series. The question now is whether there is to be a distinction at all. I must point out that if no distinction were made the Bill would become excessively stringent and severe, in eon-sequence of the exceptional character of some of its provisions. For instance, 882 to say that no hitherto unlet land should be brought under letting at all, except upon the very peculiar conditions which we propose to establish for present tenancies, is, I think, a proposition, so extreme that the Committee would not for a moment entertain it.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, had it not been for the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), he would not have thought it necessary that the Amendment should go to a division. But the speech of the hon. and learned Member had put a great difficulty in his way, and he believed it would be found that the hon. and learned Member was the only Irish Member who approved the distinction set up by the clause; and were it necessary to demonstrate that to the Committee, there could be no question as to the propriety of dividing, because it would show an unanimity amongst Irish Members in favour of the Amendment, which was hardly ever exhibited upon any other subject. The whole of the Irish Members who had practical experience in the matter were against this fine drawn distinction between present and future tenancies. His hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Colonel Colthurst) had criticized the support given to the Amendment by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he was bound to say that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke), inasmuch as it was the speech of a lawyer, had given him great satisfaction, because it was in favour of simplifying the Bill. But the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone had framed a most elaborate and extraordinary clause in connection with the subject, which he had no doubt would give ample field for discussion in the Law Courts of Dublin. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) asked why should not the Bill be made simple from the first? It was as clear as possible to his mind that this distinction between present and future tenancies was the offspring of English opinion; the fact was that the Bill before the Committee was the work of one of the most distinguished English draftsmen—Sir Henry Thring—and he ventured to say that had it been drafted by Irish lawyers the distinction insisted upon and accepted by the Prime Minister would never have had its place in the clause. Let the Committee consider that they were legis- 883 lating for persons who did not very easily appreciate a distinction, and that they were about to set up a most complicated number of exceptions to the general principle. The Irish tenantry would understand perfectly well the meaning of a Bill simply worded; but they would understand with difficulty, and nobody amongst them had asked for, a distinction between present and future tenancies. Now, the Prime Minister had promised what he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) thought was very characteristic of Irish legislation in that House, especially of advanced legislation—namely, a whole heap of exceptions for the purpose of minimizing this distinction. That proposal on the face of it, was, in his opinion, fraught with danger to the Bill. He contended that the matter should be made simple at the first, and he made these observations in consequence of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone, because he thought it necessary to convince the Committee and the country that Irish Members were almost unanimously in favour of abolishing the distinction set up by the clause.
§ MR. HEALYremarked, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had not confined himself strictly to the point. The distinction in the clause was practically that one man was to have the right to apply to the Court to decide the fairness of the rent, and another was not. He contended that if it were a good thing for a man to call in an independent arbitrator in 1880, it would also be a good thing for him to do so, under like circumstances, 20 years hence. He suggested that the Government should define the term future tenancy to be a tenancy commencing 15 years hence. To say that the day after the Act passed there should be a whole series of exceptions made was contrary to the object contemplated in the Bill.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 301; Noes 59: Majority 242.—(Div. List, No. 257.)
§ MR. BRODRICKsaid, he had an Amendment in line 35—after the word "tenancy" to insert "to which this Act applies;" but the words seemed hardly necessary; therefore, he would not go on With the Amendment.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the next Amendment was in his name, and it was one which he did not suppose the Government would object to. He merely wished it to be stated in which portion of the Act the landlord had power to increase the rent of a present tenancy. It was not desirable that the Bill should be allowed to remain loosely drafted; therefore, he proposed to omit the words "hereinafter in this Act mentioned," and insert'' in the seventh section of this Act mentioned."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 36, omit "hereinafter in this Act mentioned," and insert "in the seventh section of the Act mentioned."—(Mr. Healy.)
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the hon. Member was quite right in the view he took as to the part of the Bill referred to; but it was not desirable to refer by number to a section, because sometimes the numbers were altered in Committee; consequently, considerable inconvenience might be caused.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment now, on the understanding that the Government would have no objection to it at a later stage—when the Bill assumed a definite shape.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, they would see about it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. ERRINGTONsaid, the next Amendment, and one that stood in his name a little further down, were very important. Their object was to make plain that which the Bill either did now or would do—namely, provide that to all intents and purposes the landlords should not be able to raise their rent, except by means of the Court. This, however, was hardly the time at which the question could best be raised, especially after the decision which had been just arrived at; therefore, he did not intend to move either of the Amendments.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that in the absence of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), he would ask to be allowed to move the Amendment which stood in his name. It seemed to be a reasonable one, and one that it was desirable to insert in the Bill, seeing 885 that further on in the clause the Government proposed that the landlord should go into the Court to obtain an increase of rent, which should be subjected to statutory conditions.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 39, after "increase," insert "or where the rent has after demand of an increase by the landlord been fixed by the Court in manner hereinafter in this Act mentioned."—(Sir George Campbell.)
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the object of this Amendment was provided for in a subsequent clause.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the 7th clause was as to present tenants; but the Amendment would deal with future tenants. After the landlord and tenant had gone into Court to fix what was a fair rent, and the matter had been settled, it was only right that the amount should remain for a time fixed under statutory conditions.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)pointed out that the hon. Member could raise the question as to whether the section should apply to future tenants when they came to the 7th clause.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that though the next Amendment, which was in his name, was an important one, he did not wish to dwell on it a moment more than was necessary. He proposed to substitute for the 15 years in the clause 31 years; and the latter period, it seemed to him, would possess advantages which would not flow from the term as it at present stood. In the first place, once the rent was fixed, it would give a period of rest to the country likely to last long enough to allow a settled and new condition of things to arise, and it would have the further advantage that it would fit in with the prevalent idea in Ireland as to the duration of leases. Hon. Members from Ireland would tell the Committee that the term of 15 years was not a term that was common, or even known in that country at all, as applicable to agricultural holdings; and he would, therefore, submit to the Committee that this was an alteration which the Government might very well accept. But he wished to add—he was bound in candour to say it—that he did not find unanimity in 886 Ireland on this subject. He found in some quarters a prepossession in favour of the shorter term and in opposition to 31 years, and he knew there were some Members on the Liberal side who entertained that view. But, at the same time, the preponderance of opinion that he had heard expressed had been in favour of the longer term. The matter had been discussed at a very important representative meeting in Belfast—a meeting, he might say, representing the whole of the farmers of the Province of Ulster—and the unanimous decision come to was that 31 years would be the most satisfactory term. He wished to point out that a lengthened term was not inconsistent with shorter periods for revision of rent. He submitted his proposal to the Committee, and he should be determined as to whether or not he should press it by the views of the Government and the Committee which he should gather in the course of the discussion.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 40, leave out "fifteen" and insert "thirty-one."—(Mr. Charles Russell.)
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there was always something a little open to doubt in discussing a numerical question of this kind; and it would be impossible to give any demonstrative reasons for any particular number that might be a little higher or a little lower. On the whole, he was disposed to think that 15 years was a reasonable period. The consideration drawn from the interest of the landlord was this—that, according to the Bill as it stood, all resumption of the land on the part of the landlord was suspended during the first statutory term—he meant resumption as distinct from change of tenancy that would result from the sale of the tenant right—and it would be rather hard on the landlord that resumption should be suspended over a period so long that reasonable changes might be expected to take place within it—he meant great alterations in the value of the land for building purposes and that sort of thing. It would be also in the interest of the tenant to retain the 15 years. He was not one of those who expected to see a fundamental revolution in regard to land in Ireland; but there was enough of novelty in the position in which this property would be placed to make bargains for a moderate term preferable to bargains for a 887 long term. There were other objections to the Amendment to be drawn from the Bill; but he thought, on the whole, he had said enough to show the desirability of retaining the period fixed in the Bill.
§ MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, that but for an indisposition to crowd the Notice Paper with Amendments to the Bill, he should have put down a proposal to reduce the number of years to five instead of increasing it to 31. He was in favour of the shorter period because, although it was desirable that there should be a period of rest in Ireland, anyone who would contemplate for a moment the economic principles and forces now in operation to bring down the price of agricultural produce would see the undesirability of allowing a period so great as 15 years to elapse before the rent could be equitably re-adjusted. He also thought that a long period would work to the injury of the landlord fully as much as to the injury of the tenant. If the tenant got his rent reduced to an equitable figure during a rising time he had 15 years of clear sale before him before the landlord could come down upon him; and he would put into his pocket every penny of advantage he would derive in the rising time. But mark what followed if it were in a falling time. The tenant was not obliged to remain on his holding a day longer than he liked. The landlord was always bound to the tenant, but the tenant was not bound to the landlord. If the tenancy was broken, the tenant quitted and the landlord lost his grasp of him, and any advantage that might have accrued to him in having let his land at the commencement of a falling time. Real equity, as between landlord and tenant, would point to a shorter period than 15 years. Owing to scientific improvements—the development of the refrigerating apparatus, improved facilities of transit and other things—he was not afraid to say, having given some reflection to the subject, that they were on the eve of a revolution in the transit of food from the most distant parts of the world to our food markets, and it would, therefore, be a most serious thing to tie down the Irish peasantry to this period of 15 years. The tenant farmers, at the present moment, were succumbing one by one—nay, score by score, in some of the agricultural counties of England; but not until they had manfully fought 888 the wolf from the door for four or five years. They had had some comfortable store to draw upon, and, like honest men, they had never come upon anyone else whilst they had anything to pay out of their savings. But the tenantry of Ireland had had no such store to draw upon, and two bad years had been sufficient to break them. He felt some alarm, therefore, at the proposal to fix the period at 15 years. Certainly the period fixed by the Bill ought not to be increased.
§ MAJOR O'BEIRNEpointed out that it would have been almost ruin to the tenants if they had been obliged for four years to pay a rent fixed in 1876. On the other hand, it would be equally hard on the landlord if the rent were fixed just before the commencement of a cycle of good years. In the interest of both landlord and tenant, the rents ought to be revised at short periods.
§ MR. LITTONsaid, it was quite true that if all the land in Ireland was arable and capable of being tilled productively by the agriculturist, it would be a matter of great importance, having regard to competition from America, that there should be a renewal or revision of rent at short periods. But, unfortunately, there was a great deal of land in Ireland that was reclaimable, and a great deal that was improvable; and, as to this land, the considerations that had been urged up to this moment in favour of the term of 15 years did not apply. The rent that would be fixed at the commencement of the term would be a low one, no doubt—perhaps 2s. or 2s. 6d. an acre; but, with the tenant, the question would be, was it prudent for him to commence the tedious process of reclaiming and improving and making the land more productive, seeing that in 15 years' time there would be a revision of the rent paid for that portion of his holding? He agreed that in the case of au agricultural holding of arable land there should be a revision at as short periods as possible; but as to improvable land it was quite the other way. The term of 15 years was an arbitrary term—all these terms must be arbitrary; and there did not seem to him to be any reason why 15 years should be adopted any more than 31. He did not place reliance on this as an argument, however, and the question was—how would they steer clear of the advantages on the one 889 side and the disadvantages on the other? If Ireland was an agricultural country, composed of nothing but arable land, he should be content to accept the term in the Bill. Those who knew most about this matter were those personally interested; and the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had pointed out that the farmers, at a large representative meeting in the North of Ireland, were strongly of opinion that a shorter period than 31 years would be prohibitory to the improvement of their reclaimable or improvable land. He might call the attention of the Committee to a document that ought to have great weight with them—namely, a Petition presented some time ago by the Presbyterian ministers of the North of Ireland. The Petitioners declared themselves of opinion that—
A fair and judicial rent having been fixed, no alteration of rent should take place at less intervals than 31 years.To afford encouragement to the tenant who becomes a holder under the statutory term, to encourage him to improve and reclaim land, a longer term than 15 years should be allowed. The tenants constantly urge that they, at all events, had the impression, that at the end of the 15 years there would come, probably, an increase of rent. Therefore, with reference to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, it was a strong argument in favour of a longer period during which matters should remain undisturbed that it would afford greater inducement to the tenant to proceed with his improvements and reclamations of the land.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURthought if the argument used had any value at all it proved that the Bill was so much waste paper. If on improvable land a tenant, if not given more than a 15 years' lease, had no inducement to improve his farm, because the rent might be raised on account of improvements, the Bill would be worthless. When the Bill came into effect the tenant might improve without any fear whatever; he would have the same inducement to improve his holding, however long or however short might be the statutory term, for this simple reason—that the statutory term was renewable for ever. He had an Amendment on the Paper in favour of diminishing the term to 10 years; and though he did not think it was 890 of transcendent importance, he did attach weight to what was said by the hon. Member behind him—namely, that in the present state of agriculture it was impossible to foresee with any amount of certainty how far farming would be a profitable operation. When they expected a tenant to carry out substantial improvements on his farm it might be proper to give him a long lease, because in the end, no doubt, the rent was raised on his holding. In Scotland leases, as a rule, were for 19 years, and the landlord did the improvements; but the landlord expended the money on which the tenant paid interest for the term of his lease. Where they had that sort of arrangement there was justice in giving a longer term than 10 years; but when, as in Ireland, the length of the term would have no effect whatever on the length of the tenancy; where the tenant would have the same inducement to improve under a short as under a long term, there was no reason whatever for giving him a long term. He hoped the Government would either maintain the proposal they had themselves made, or accept his Amendment, which would reduce the term from 15 to 10 years.
§ MR. SHAWsaw that the differences of opinion among Irish Members on the subject might induce the Government to make no change in their proposal. Personally, he was in favour of the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell). He had attended farmers' meetings since this Bill was printed, and he had letters day after day from the farming class; and they all, the working class of farmers especially, concurred in asking for an extension of the term to 31 years. The Prime Minister said it was important to the landlord to have the term fixed at a moderate length; but he was afraid that the improvements indicated in the right hon. Gentleman's speech would occur in very few cases in Ireland—namely, that the land would be raised in value by the extension of buildings and other operations. Unfortunately, instead of an increase the opposite went on. The tenant would have before him, at the end of a short term, the probability of his rent being raised, and he must make all his arrangements with that probability hanging over him. If the tenant were in the same position as the tenant in England or Scotland, no doubt the 891 period indicated by the hon. Member opposite would be desirable; but the Irish tenant was not so placed, and the direct effect of the clause would be to discourage improvements and bring them to a standstill all over Ireland. One of the objects he looked to as among the most important in the Bill was the giving to the tenant for a number of years freedom from the fear of his improvements being meddled with in any way. The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A.M. Sullivan) said, in favour of a shorter term, that changes took place in the value of agricultural produce especially in view of American competition; but it must be remembered that it was not a rack-rent that would be fixed, or even a competition rent, but a rent that was below the ordinary market rate. The object of the Court would be to fix a moderate rent, and it would be in the interest of the landlord that it should be moderate, because in a term of years he would be more sure of getting his money than if the land were rack-rented. In fact, he looked upon the clause in the Bill that empowered the tenant to arrange with his landlord for perpetuities as one of the most important in the Bill. But he did not suppose that his hon. and learned Friend, in view of the differences of opinion among Irish Members, would be induced to carry his Amendment further; but he could not let it pass without expressing his strong and decided conviction that the term his hon. and learned Friend proposed was preferable, and that any shorter term would be an injury to Ireland.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to ask the Chairman for his advice and assistance, and to make a suggestion to meet a difficulty that arose out of the position of several Amendments on the Paper. There were five such Amendments suggesting four different terms of years. Now, if the Chairman put the first Amendment in the usual way the Committee would be tied down to a choice between the two terms—15 and 31 years. It was singular to observe the order in which the Amendments were placed, and he did not understand if they were so placed in order of time, or if they were left to the discretion of the printer; but the effect was that the Committee was confined to the first placed Amendment as an alternative for the term in the Bill. He wished to sug- 892 gest to the Chairman that he should, instead of putting the Question in the form of—"That 15 stand part of the Clause"—he should put it—"That 31 be inserted"—and so the sense of the Committee might be taken on each proposal.
THE CHAIRMANI must point out to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) that it is quite impossible to put the Amendment as he suggests. If the Committee is of opinion that 15 is not right, then that number will be negatived; and thereupon the Committee would determine what number should be inserted. There is no other way of putting the Amendment than that of the Question that the words in the Bill stand part of the clause.
§ MR. LAINGsaid, he held the opinion that a longer term than that in the Bill was indispensable as an inducement to tenants to effect improvements in the property. In Orkney there were instances of agricultural improvements being successfully carried out by tenants farming 10, 20, 30, or 40 acres; and he could say positively that a shorter period than 21 years would be insufficient to induce such tenants to make these improvements. By the rotation of crops a tenant would get no profitable return within the period of 15 years; and he hoped the Government would consider whether some extension of the period they proposed might not be adopted.
§ SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, hon. Members seemed to forget that tenants were provided with money for improvements outside this clause altogether; they would be paid for improvements, no matter what number of years was put in the clause.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLadmitted there was a good deal of force in the arguments in favour of the longer term; but so, also, there was much force in what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan). His own experience with regard to large tenants in Scotland was that, under a fixed lease, they find extreme difficulty in carrying on the lease in bad years; and one cause of the failure, so far as there was a failure—he would rather say a difficulty—in the operation of the Act of 1870, was the unexpected depression in agricultural produce, during which the tenants had the greatest difficulty in meeting 893 their rents; then followed the agitation, and its result was this Bill. Suppose, following a succession of prosperous years, they had leases at high rents, and at the end of 15 years bad years come again, then the mass of small farmers must break down, and the agitation would be removed. Where tenants were put on long leases there would be the greatest difficulty in bad times, and it was indispensable that provision for bad seasons should be made. He was under the impression that if the Government insisted on a long term without any machinery for reducing the rent with reference to the prices of produce, it was inevitable that there must be from time to time something to propose upon the principle of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill of last year—that was to say, something in the nature of machinery by which the tenant could be relieved from the effect of very bad years. One mode by which this could be effected would be by a system of "fiars" prices such as was known in Scotland, according to the average of agricultural prices; but it would be impossible to introduce anything of that kind without serious alterations in the structure of the Bill.
MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he did not want to be responsible for waste of time with no promise of a result; and, seeing there was some difference of opinion among Irish Members and the Committee generally, he did not hope for a successful division; therefore, unless the Government saw some advantage with respect to other Amendments that induced them to object, he proposed to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. GLADSTONEwas quite willing to allow the withdrawal of the Amendment; but doing so might lead to some misunderstanding. The Government wanted the 15 years affirmed, and the only way to do that was by taking a decision on his hon. and learned Friend's Amendment. He did not, in fact, think that anything would be gained by changes in either direction; and if the Committee did not affirm the 15 years now, there might be a great deal of discussion on other proposals to alter the term.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, it would have been better if the Amendment, instead of proposing to substitute 31 for 15 years, had proposed to give the tenant a very much longer lease—say, 100 or 894 even 200 years—with the right to either party to demand a revision of rent according to prices at very much shorter periods. The great difficulty of any system of fixing the rent the tenant should pay; by the Court, was to arrive at a valuation from which to fix a starting point. If such a rent was arrived at by the Court with the consent of both parties, and on a known basis, then there would be very little further trouble. If the Court, in the first instance, on the application of the landlord or the tenant, succeeded in fixing a rent that was satisfactory to both parties—that was to say, a fair rent that the tenant was willing to pay and the landlord to accept—he could not see what possible need there" was for limiting the period during which the statutory agreement should continue. He could not see why it should not continue for 1,000 years as well as 15, giving to either party the right of claiming a revision according to the basis of prices from time to time. If the prices that were produced on the holding were known when the initial rent was fixed, there would be no difficulty whatever in satisfying the landlord and tenant by adjusting the rent according to future prices at any time hereafter. But under the system in the Bill everything would be left uncertain and vague, and nothing fixed; neither tenant nor landlord would know upon what basis the rent would be fixed at the end of 15 years, all being left to the discretion of the Court. The Government had fallen into this mistake simply because they would not give a long statutory term to the tenancy. It was a pity they did not proceed on a different principle, and endeavour to fix a fair rent in the first place; and, having got that initial rent, declared that it should not be departed from except on the application of either party, showing that an alteration was justified by the variation in the prices of the produce of the holding at the time of the application. In that way a self-acting plan would be created—after having once fixed the fair rent a very simple rule of arithmetic would do it. Assuming, for the sake of clearness, that the Court would fix a fair rent, either party would know at any time hereafter whether he would be justified in bringing a case to the Court for the diminution or increase of the rent by referring to the table of prices at the time the rent was fixed. A 895 simple rule of three would decide how far in either direction the rent should be altered. But under the Bill, at the end of 15 years, all was confusion again, nobody knowing to what he was entitled, neither landlord nor tenant knowing on what basis to calculate; and the Court would also be in the dark on again entering upon this difficult question of fair rent. The tenant would fear to make improvements, because he would not know how they would be regarded by the Court when the period for revision came round.
THE CHAIRMANI must point out that the question of fair rent comes on later, and cannot be discussed now.
§ MR. PARNELLsubmitted that it really did come under the point for present consideration. Unless some such principle as he had proposed were adopted, it would be better to leave the term a very short one; but if his principle were adopted, the term should be extended to a much longer one. The statutory term might be increased with advantage to 31 years; but he could not see what the difference of term mattered if it was provided that there should be times for revision, not accompanied, as would be the case under the Bill, with confusion and uncertainty.
§ MR. LEAsaid, so far as he could gather the opinions of tenants in the North of Ireland, it was a matter of indifference to them whether the term was fixed at 15 or 31 years if the Bill provided clearly and distinctly that for the future tenants' improvements should not be re-valued. If, at the end of 15 years, the landlord was to have the power to come in and re-value, then the tenants were not in favour of a 15 years' term. At present there was some doubt as to the effect of the Bill, founded partly on the failure of the Act of 1870, and partly on the doubtful words in the Bill itself. The tenant did not feel perfectly confident in making his improvements, and therefore desired 31 years rather than 15; and on the same account would prefer 100 years to 31 years. If the Government would express a distinct opinion that at the end of 15 years the tenants' improvements would not be revalued, then the tenants in the North of Ireland would not object to 15 years.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that to relieve any apprehension that might be 896 felt on the point, he would state that it was not the intention of the Bill that, under any circumstances, the tenant's own improvements should be valued when fixing a fair rent.
§ MR. MARUMthought the views of the tenantry in Ireland should be considered to some extent, and he mentioned that, at a conference held in 1865, a 31 years' clause was agreed to in a Bill which he drafted; while the late Mr. Butt had adopted '21 years in his Bills. But since then, and during the Recess, he had visited his constituents in Kerry, and he found that, owing to the present fluctuations in prices and to the general uncertainty, the farmers were not disposed to enter into long terms, but rather into a shorter term such as was mentioned in the Bill. Some even would be in favour of a seven years' term. Notwithstanding the answer of the Attorney General for Ireland to the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Lea), the change that had been made in the 7th clause did not give the Irish Members that confidence with regard to the security of the tenants' improvements which they expected.
§ MR. A. M. SULLIVANobserved, that what the tenants had in their minds, in regard to a 31 years' or a 41 years' tenancy, was fixity of tenure; they wanted to grasp the land for the longest possible time. This question of tenure came before three gentlemen in Ireland, of whom he was one, 11 years ago in a very practical way. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had some difference with his tenantry, and he asked them to name three arbitrators in whom they had the greatest confidence to settle the whole question. The three gentlemen selected went down and settled the question very much in the direction of the way suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). They gave the tenants a statutory term of 9,999 years, starting with an initial valuation which was perfectly satisfactory to the landlord; and on the back of each lease they endorsed the registered price of 10 articles of produce. They decided that every 10 years the rent should be increased or decreased as the value of those 10 articles increased or decreased; and he believed there had been no further difficulty in the matter. Some of the tenantry desired a longer and some a shorter period; but 10 years 897 were adopted as a medium period which should best meet the wishes of the landlord and the tenants.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. HEALYwished to propose an Amendment, which, though it looked very slight, was one of considerable importance. He proposed to move, after the word "continuance," to insert the words "at the end." As the clause at present ran, the tenant would be a present tenant; but it was not clear that at the end of the statutory term he would be entitled to go to the Court, or would then be only a present tenant. It might be held that, having been a statutory tenant, he had then become a future tenant; and the object of the Amendment was to make it clear that at the end of the statutory term of 15 years he would have the right to go to the Court and ask for a renewal.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 2, after "continuance," insert" and at the end."—(Mr. Healy.)
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, there would be no fear of those who were entitled to go to Court being excluded. The tenant was a tenant from year to year; but he was protected for 15 years against the disturbance of his yearly tenancy, the statutory term prohibiting any alteration of the tenancy during that period. There was no possibility of preventing the tenant from getting another statutory term in any proper case; he could go to the Court to get his tenancy renewed, and, therefore, as the Bill stood, he would not be excluded. The words proposed would not really alter his position, nor could the same rule be applied to the future and the present tenant, because the present tenant would have a right to go to the Court when the term was nearly expired—in the 14th year, though not before that, and any time afterwards. During the 15 years there were certain conditions to be observed on both sides; but all through the tenancy would be, strictly speaking, one from year to year.
§ MR. HEALYremarked, that the Attorney General for Ireland had said the Court might hold that the tenant, having held from year to year, a new tenancy could not be created; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance was 898 not enough, considering the extraordinary decisions that were given by the Judges.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the Courts had laid down the principle that the mere alteration of rent did not by itself constitute a new tenancy, and accordingly, though a judicial rent was fixed, a present tenancy would remain a present tenancy to the end. The 15 years were called a statutory term because the tenant would be entitled to protection against disturbance during that period. It might, perhaps, have been better called a statutory period than a statutory term, as the latter word suggested something in the nature of a lease which would, of course, be a new tenancy.
§ MR. HEALY,after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman that the object of the Bill was the same as that of the Amendment, would withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. MARUMsaid, he wished to move an Amendment, and he pointed out that the last two clauses were "enabling clauses," enabling the landlord to come to an arrangement with the tenant if he was disposed to do so; but they were not compulsory, and he thought that facilities should be given for going to the Court where a decrease of rent was demanded. He, therefore, proposed that—
Where the tenant of a present tenancy demands a decrease of rent from the landlord, except where he is authorized by the Court to decrease the same as hereafter in this Act mentioned; or the tenant of a future tenancy demands a decrease of rent from the landlord beyond the amount fixed at the beginning of such tenancy, then, where the landlord accepts such decrease until the expiration of a term of fifteen years from the time such decrease was made (in this Act referred to as a statutory term] such tenancy shall (if it so long continue to exist) be deemed to be a tenancy subject to statutory conditions, with such incidents during the continuance of the said term as are in that behalf mentioned.
THE CHAIRMANWill the hon. Gentleman bring up the Amendment? At the same time, I must mention to the Members of the Committee that it is scarcely possible for me to find out whether Amendments of which Notice has not been given interfere with other Amendments or with the construction of the Bill. I hope hon. Gentlemen 899 will send in Amendments beforehand, in order that I may know if they interfere with other Amendments.
§ MR. MARUMexplained that his Amendment only occurred to him after the speech of the Prime Minister on Friday; but he would withdraw it now and bring it up again on Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 4, after the word "tenant," insert "of any future tenancy."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought it would be convenient if the Government would state what they meant by sub-section 2. The landlord was by this clause permitted and encouraged to go to Court; but he would go to the Court with a rope round his neck. Then, if a tenant went to the Court to get a fair rent fixed, the parties would not come together as they expected; the tenant would have to sell, and the Court would have to consider how far the selling value of the tenancy had decreased by the action of the landlord. He thought it would be much more simple to lay down that the parties going to the Court should be permitted to come together, and to go on upon the fair rent fixed.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, in the case of a future tenancy, the tenant had no power, under the Bill, to go to a Court to insist upon a fair rent; but the present tenant, in the event of an increase of rent being demanded at any time, could go to Court to have a fair rent fixed; or, if he wished to sell, but did not wish his tenant right to be depreciated, he could go to Court and get a fair rent fixed, and then sell. Or, again, though there had been a demand for an increase by the landlord, and the tenant sold his tenancy, the incoming tenant, notwithstanding what the landlord had demanded, could go to Court and ask for a fair rent. Therefore, the present tenant was absolutely protected. But the future tenant had not that power of going to Court, and the value of the tenancy might be damaged by the demand of the landlord. As the Bill now stood, it did not protect the future tenant.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he should have preferred to give the future tenant access to the Court; 900 but as the Government preferred to retain the framework of the Bill as it was, he thought the Amendment would be a great improvement in every way.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLproposed to move an Amendment for the purpose of enabling people who did not want to part to come together on the fair rent fixed by the Court.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, line 4, after the word "increase," omit all the words to the end of the sub-section (2), in order to insert "either the landlord or the tenant may apply to the Court to determine what is a fair rent within the meaning of this Act, and if the tenant desires to continue his tenancy at the rent so fixed, it shall continue on the same terms and on the same conditions as if the tenant had accepted the rent demanded by the landlord."—(Sir George Campbell.)
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)was unable to accept the Amendment, because the view of the Government was that in this respect there ought to be a distinction between present and future tenancies. The Amendment, he thought, would, in any case, be much more appropriately proposed in connection with sub-section 4.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLexplained that his Amendment was intended to enable landlord and tenant to make terms with each other when the landlord did not wish to turn the tenant out and was willing to go into Court. He wished to avoid the necessity of litigation in such a case.
§ MR. GIVANsaid, it was curious that with, respect to the future tenant, that he should be excluded from the power of going to the Court to have the rent fixed. If they referred to the beginning of the 3rd clause, they found that if a tenant of a present tenancy accepted an increase of rent proposed by the landlord, or if a tenant, proposed by the present tenant accepted a fixed rent, then a statutory term commenced. There was no difference between the case of a future tenant and a present tenant there. But, then, although it precluded the future tenant from going into the Court to have a rent fixed at the determination of the tenancy, it absolutely required a Court to fix his rent, because the penalty that was put upon a landlord for demanding of the 901 tenant of a future tenancy an excessive rent depended upon the Court first ascertaining what the fair rent was for that tenant; and if it were compulsory upon the Court to ascertain for the future tenant what a fair rent was, surely, then, any future tenant should have the power of electing, and saying—"I won't take the compensation as given to me; the Court having fixed the fair rent, I shall hold on by that rent—I shall retain that holding, and keep it under statutory conditions." He, therefore, submitted that the whole framework of this sub-section contemplated dealing with the present as well as the future tenant; and when that fair rent had been ascertained he did not see why a future tenant should not accept it.
CAPTAIN AYLMERhad gone carefully through the clause, and he considered that it must have only referred to present tenancies in the first place. It tad been an after thought to bring in the word "future," because the Prime Minister had told them that he desired, if possible, to see freedom of contract the rule of the landed estates in Ireland—in other words, that the Court should take no part in the affairs of future tenancies. But, in this sub-section, the Court must come in in every case. As the clause stood, he agreed with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) in his Amendment.
§ An hon. MEMBER objected to the Amendment being put, as it was not on the Paper.
§ Another hon. MEMBER wished to protest against the assumption that because an Amendment was not on the Paper that therefore it ought not to be put. He had himself an Amendment to propose, and he could not get it on the Paper, because the Prime Minister only published his Amendments late on Friday night, and hon. Members did not get them until late on Saturday morning; and, therefore, it was impossible to have his Amendment printed. He hoped the Committee would allow Amendments to be moved which were not on the Paper if they were consequential.
§ Amendment negatived.
902
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, line 5, after the first word "tenancy," insert "same shall be sold subject to the increased rent."—(Mr. Mulholland.)
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he accepted the words.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
§ MR. GREGORYmoved, in page 4, line 6, after the word "receive," to insert these words—" at the discretion of the Court." What was proposed by the words as they stood was that the tenant should be entitled to receive 10 times the amount of the increased rent, and it would follow that the excessive rent might be over the fair rent.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he could not accept the insertion of the words here, because he did not understand what the discretion of the Court was to be exercised upon. Were they to have power to reduce it below 10 times? "At the discretion of the Court" seemed so very vague a notion.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. LITTONsaid, that the next Amendment on the Paper stood in his name, but he proposed not to move it.
§ MR. PLUNKETproposed to move an Amendment, which would be the same as had been dropped by the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton). He proposed that all the words after the word "receive" inline 6, down to "custom "in line 11, be omitted, and the clause would then read—
Where the tenant does not accept such increase and sells his tenancy, in addition to the price paid for the tenancy he shall be entitled to receive the amount (if any) by which the Court may decide the selling value of his tenancy to have been depreciated below the amount which would have been such selling value if the rent had been a fair rent.He submitted this on this simple ground—that he had never been able to understand why 10 times the amount of the difference was to be taken from the landlord under these circumstances. He considered that what the tenant was entitled to receive, and what the landlord 903 ought to be obliged to pay according to the equity of the policy contained in this sub-section, was that by which the tenant would be damnified by the proposed action of the landlord. He could not see why he should get any more; and why he should get 10 times the amount was out of reason as it appeared to him.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 6, leave out from "receive" to "custom," in line 11.—(Mr. Plunket.)
§ MR. SHAWsaid, he hoped the Government would consider the propriety of accepting this Amendment, as it would simplify the relations between landlord and tenant. He could see no reason why the principle adopted in this matter with reference to the Ulster Custom should not be followed here.
§ MR. LITTONsaid, the reason why he did not move the Amendment standing in his name was because he saw that certain words were to be moved by the Prime Minister to which, he presumed, the Committee would agree. The clause would then run—
In addition to the price paid for the tenancy he shall be entitled to receive from his landlord ten times the amount of increase, or such sum as the Court may determine.The alternative given by the proposed Amendment of the Prime Minister would, if it were accepted, rule the clause.
MR. CHARLES RUSSELLconsidered that the Amendment before the Committee proceeded on an intelligible principle. It was obvious that the sum named was an arbitrary one, and there was no reason why it should not be five or 20 times the amount which might be determined to be the excess of the rent demanded over a fair rent. In his opinion it would be just that the landlord should pay the tenant the amount of depreciation sustained by reason of his act.
§ MR. BIGGARthought that any Amendment which could be made in the clause would be an improvement that would make it more intelligible.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, as there seemed to be a general agreement on the part of the Committee, and as he could not help thinking that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman oppo- 904 site would have the effect of simplifying the clause, he was willing to assent to it on the part of the Government.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ On the Motion of Mr. GIBSON, Amendment made, in page 4, line 12, after the word "may," by inserting "on the application of the landlord or tenant."
§ On the Motion of Mr. LITTON, Amendment made, in page 4, line 14, by leaving out all the words from "rent" to the end of the sub-section.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he was about to move an Amendment which was consequential on the Amendment proposed by the Prime Minister. He proposed to add to this clause the words which were in Clause 7, and which ran thus—
Or in the event of the rent demanded being less than the rent declared to be fair by the Court, the landlord shall be entitled, on application to the Court, to receive out of the purchase moneys of the tenancy such amount as the Court may think just.He believed the Amendment would operate more in favour of the tenant than the landlord. As the Bill then stood the rent of future tenancies did not come within the cognizance of the Court except in this section; and he thought it must be the intention of the Government that whenever a question of rent in reference either to future or present tenancies did come within the cognizance of the Court, it should be treated on the same conditions, and that the landlord should receive the same treatment by the Court as under Section 7, if the rent which the landlord demanded was less than the fair rent in the opinion of the Court—namely, that when the tenant sold, the landlord should be entitled to deduct, upon application to the Court, from the sum paid to the tenant, the rent supposed to be an equivalent to the difference between the amount imposed and the fair rent. If some such words as those proposed were not put into the section, he thought the result would be most disastrous to the occupiers of future tenancies, because it must be recollected, so far as he could make out after reading the Bill, that the only rent which did not come within the cognizance of the Court was the initial rent of future tenancies—that 905 was to say, wherever a future tenancy was created it would be competent for the landlord to impose any rent he might choose. It must be born in mind, with regard to future tenancies, that the tenant could sell his interest under any contract which the landlord entered into with him; and, therefore, the greater the forbearance shown by the landlord the larger the sum the tenant would be able to receive. It appeared to him that the Government offered a positive inducement to the landlord as regarded future tenancies to impose the maximum competition rent as the initial rent of those tenancies, because, under this section, the landlord received no compensation, as in the case of Clause 7, if the rent demanded was less than a fair rent. Therefore, he submitted that the words which he proposed to add to this section would be an inducement to the landlord to put on a low and moderate rent, because he would know that if, hereafter, he wished to increase it and the tenant objected he would receive exactly the same treatment from the Court as if he came under Clause 7. But if he found he had no chance of increasing his initial rent, it was perfectly clear that the tenant of a future tenancy would have to pay the highest possible rent as initial rent. Therefore, he thought that the words proposed to be introduced, although they seemed to favour the interest of the landlord, would, in effect, be beneficial to the tenant.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, line 14, after the word "rent," to add the words "or in the event of the rent demanded being less than the rent declared to he the fair rent by the Court, the landlord shall he entitled, on application to the Court, to receive out of the purchase moneys of the tenancy such amount as the Court may think just."—(Lord George Hamilton.)
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, in dealing with this Amendment it would be well to say a few words on the original conditions in the sub-clause. It was to this effect—that where the tenant of a future tenancy did not accept the rent demanded and sold his tenancy, the sale should be subject to the increased rent, and in addition to the price paid for the tenancy by the purchaser the tenant should get from the landlord the amount, if any, 906 by which the selling value of his tenancy had been depreciated below the amount which would have been such selling value if the rent had been a fair rent. The whole section, it would be remembered, hinged on the fact that an increase of rent was demanded. If the tenant sold at the increased rent he would be entitled to nothing, unless the Court ascertained that the selling value of the tenancy had been depreciated by the landlord's demand of more than a fair rent; but he (the Attorney General for Ireland) did not see why the landlord should get a lump sum out of the purchase money because the tenant had been forced to sell by the landlord's demand for an increase of rent, even though the demand was less than it might fairly have been.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he had moved the Amendment because it illustrated the great objection which he and many hon. Members on that side of the House had to one of the features of the Bill—namely, that the landlord would not be able to protect his interest except by raising the rent. The principle involved was most unpopular amongst landlords, many of whom were very anxious to keep their rents low. But as the Government did not seem to see the force of his argument, and as he had no wish to trespass unduly on the time of the Committee, he was willing to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. MACNAGHTENsaid, it was not clear whether the tenant referred to in sub-section 3 was a tenant of a present or of a future tenancy. But, in either case, he should move the omission of the subsection, because it seemed to him that there was no fair reason, seeing that the tenant had the opportunity of selling as well as applying to the Court, why he should obtain compensation for disturbance if the tenancy was not sold.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, leave out sub-section 3.—(Mr. Macnaghten.)
MR. GLADSTONEWe have introduced into this Bill an alternative method of selling the tenant right on behalf of the tenant, as affording a more elastic method of procedure. On the other hand, 907 the sale of the tenant right is not, under all circumstances, a very eligible method, and cases might occur, as in Donegal last year, where the value of the tenant right in the market at a particular moment was reduced to almost nothing, if advantage might be taken of this state of things to put out the tenant. We found the tenant invested with a certain right under the Act of 1870, and we simply keep a live that right which affords a remedy against the mischief of taking advantage of a state of things in which the tenant right is abnormally depreciated.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he was in favour of the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Macnaghten), because he believed that as the sub-section stood at present it was impossible to put anything like a reasonable meaning on it. The subsection applied to the two classes of tenancies indicated at the outset of the clause. They had already dealt in the previous sub-section, as he considered, adequately and sufficiently with present and future tenancies. The contract between the present tenant and the landlord was perfectly free, and the former could pay as much rent as he thought proper. If, after having entered into that contract, the landlord should afterwards suggest that he had a reasonable ground for raising the rent, the tenant could agree to pay the additional sum, and he would then get a 15 years' term. Then came the case of the future tenant, and the clause said that when the tenant was not satisfied with the advance of rent asked for, he could submit his case to the Court, and, having sold his tenancy, could ask the Court to give him, in addition to the purchase money, the sum by which the value was depreciated owing to the amount asked for being in excess of a fair rent. Was it necessary, then, to have further provisions for the benefit of the present tenant? The present tenant could agree or not to the rise asked by the landlord, if he agreed cadit quœstio; if he did not agree he had a wider right than the future tenant—namely, he could ask for the intervention of the Court at once to measure what would be a fair rent in all the circumstances of the case. That, he considered, was quite sufficient for the protection of the present tenant. He thought it only tended to confusion and complication to go into remote cases, such as that alluded 908 to by the Prime Minister in giving his reasons against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Antrim.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he agreed with very much that had been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson), but pointed out that without this sub-section there would be no provision against capricious evictions.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not think the Chief Secretary for Ireland quite apprehended the point. In one sense, if the Amendment he (Mr. Gibson) intended to propose was adopted, it would only carry out what was in the mind of the Government; it would practically leave the law as it stood. The subsection read thus—" Where the tenant does not accept such increase"—that was quite clear—"and is compelled to quit his tenancy "—that was doubtful, because how was he to be compelled to quit his tenancy? If he was to be compelled to quit for rent, that, he thought, was not the intention of the Government; therefore, he had proposed the words "by notice to quit," to make the matter clear. If the tenant was compelled by notice to quit, then the Act of 1870 at once touched him, and he would be entitled to compensation.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)replied, that he thought there was no substantial difference between the Government and the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but they thought it better not to leave the matter open to ingenious argument, and the sub-section did not alter the law.
§ MR. GREGORYthought the inference from the words of the sub-section would be that the tenant was compelled to quit because he declined to pay an increased rent, and that, therefore, he would be entitled to compensation. But that was not what he understood to be intended. The increase he refused to pay would be what the Court had fixed as a fair rent, and he would be entitled to compensation, not because he refused to pay that rent, but because he received notice. The tenant's right might be maintained under the Act of 1870; but that should be done in a proper way, so that he should not be entitled to compensation 909 under the Act because he refused to pay the increase.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the Government proposed to accept the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), and, therefore, he thought it unnecessary to continue the discussion.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. GIBSONmoved, in page 4, line 17, to insert the words "by or in pursuance of a notice to quit," after the words—
Where the tenant does not accept such increase and is compelled to quit the tenancy, but does not sell the tenancy.He thought it was only fair that landlords should pay compensation for disturbance if they demanded increases of rent in violation of equity.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 17, after "tenancy," insert "by or in pursuance of a notice to quit."—(Mr. Gibson.)
§ MR. GIVANsaid, it appeared to him very reasonable that if, in regard to a future tenancy, the Court should decide what the fair rent should be, the tenant might them select whether he would accept that rent or take the compensation provided under the subsection. If he was at liberty to have his rent fixed by the Court, why should he not have the power to accept that if he chose?
THE CHAIRMANIt is difficult for me to know on what the hon. Member is speaking. If the hon. Member is speaking on line 15, that is passed.
§ MR. GIVANsaid he was speaking to the first Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson).
§ MR. GIBSONpointed out that his first Amendment would only carry out the intention of the Government, and they were willing to accept it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. GIBSONmoved, in page 4, line 18, to insert after the word "shall" the word "not." This Amendment was, in his opinion, consequential to the principle just accepted by the Government. What was that Amendment, and what was the 910 position of tenants under sub-section 3 as it at present stood? A tenant was asked to pay an increased rent, but declined to pay it, and said he would put the landlord to his notice to quit. The landlord then would serve the notice, that being his only way of enforcing his rights; and, under the clause as it now stood, the notice having been served, the ejectment would proceed and be executed, and at the proper time the tenant would make a claim for compensation. He did not question that claim as reasonable, because it was the law under the Act of 1870, and he did not seek to displace or undo the equity of that Act; but the Court, when asked to give compensation, should have an opportunity of saying to the tenant that having refused to accept the landlord's increase and compelled him to serve the notice, if the landlord was right and the increase was fair and reasonable, it would not compel the landlord to pay compensation. Was not that common sense and common justice? If the tenant had been asked to accept an unreasonable rise of rent, and said he could not afford it, and the landlord served a notice upon him to quit, the Court might then say, if the tenant preferred a claim for compensation, that the landlord was unjust, and therefore they would give the tenant the fullest measure of compensation. He did not seek to touch that. But, on the other hand, if the Court said the landlord was reasonable and the tenant had unreasonably refused to pay the increase, in the name of common sense and common justice would not the landlord be right to hold that his action was reasonable?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)thought, after all, there was a difference between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government. They believed that, as the law stood, the equity clauses of the Land Act did all that was necessary. Under that part of the Act, a tenant refusing to pay a fair rent was disentitled to compensation for being therefore compelled to leave. The Amendment was quite unnecessary.
§ MR. SYNANobserved, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had not displayed his usual ability in proposing this Amendment, for, having moved an Amendment which would bring the tenant within the Act of 1870, he 911 now proposed the word "not," in order to take him out of that Act.
§ MR. MORGAN LLOYDthought that the Amendment would reduce the clause to an absurdity; though if the word had been "unless," he could have understood the argument.
§ MR. GIBSONadmitted that, as the Amendment stood, a word appeared to have been omitted; but with regard to the Attorney General for Ireland's explanation as to the landlord having his equities under the Land Act, he would point out that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave here a clear and distinct definition of law perfectly new as to the tenant, and then he left the landlord to stir up the old law. If they left the tenant to the same equity clauses as the landlord he should be satisfied.
MR. GLADSTONEmentioned that the equity clauses of the Act of 1870 provided that if the landlord was willing to permit the tenant to continue on just and reasonable terms, and such terms were refused, the claim of the tenant should be disallowed.
§ MR. GRANTHAMsuggested the introduction of a word or two providing that the tenant's right to compensation should be as in the case of disturbance.
§ MR. GIBSONaccepted the suggestion as a compromise, and would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 18, after the word "to," to insert the word "claim."—(Mr. Gibson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'claim' be there inserted."
§ MR. A. M. SULLIVANappealed to the Government to stand by the same phraseology as that in the Land Act of 1870, observing that if there was anything ambiguous in saying a tenant should be entitled to compensation, there was more ambiguity in saying he should be entitled to claim. Although the Act said a tenant should be entitled to compensation, there were scores of tenants who got nothing at all; and there could be no mistake if the phraseology now on the Statute Book was adhered to.
MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, it did not need a statute to give a tenant the right to claim, for any man might 912 claim anything he liked. As the section stood, it referred a tenant's claim, at once to the equity clauses of the Act.
§ MR. BRODRICKsaid, there had been great differences of opinion as to the Land Act. One or two County Court Judges had held that it was necessary to give compensation, according to the wording of the Act, wherever compensation was claimed, while the majority of County Court Judges had considered that in any case it was open to them to refuse compensation altogether. He thought it was desirable to clear up this doubt, and that the word "claim" would give great satisfaction to all parties.
§ MR. BIGGARsupposed that no one would agree to the Amendment, because it was absurd. As the clause stood, it would be in the power of the Court to give compensation, and anything that would weaken that provision would do injury and lead to litigation.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEunderstood that the Government had assented across the Table to this Amendment. It was important to introduce the word "claim," because otherwise the sub-section would contain a declaration that the tenant was entitled to compensation.
§ MR. GIVANexplained, that in order to bring a claim for compensation before the Court, a tenant had to file what was called "a claim; "and, therefore, the proposed word would be superfluous.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEreminded the Committee that the phrase throughout the Act of 1870 was "claim compensation."
§ MR. GRANTHAMsaid, there was a difference between a title to compensation and a title to claim compensation; and if the word'' claim" was inserted, that would show that the tenant must go to the Land Act of 1870 to prove what his claim was.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEthought the proposed word unnecessary, for the words in the clause were "he shall be entitled to compensation," and then "as in the case of disturbance." If County Court Judges had been foolish in interpreting the Act of 1870, no words could prevent them from making mistakes again.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 194; Noes 41: Majority 153.—(Div. List, No. 258.)
913§ MR. HEALYmoved to report Progress, on the ground that the Irish Members found themselves dealing with Gentlemen whom the Prime Minister, on the second reading of the Bill, described as "persons who did not know their own minds, and whose opinions should not be deferred to." A number of Amendments were proposed by Gentlemen above the Gangway, and to which the Government generally acceded. Of that he now made no complaint; but this particular Amendment had been brought before the Committee, and before anyone, except a few Gentlemen on the Front Benches, knew what was about to be done, the Chairman declared that the "Ayes" had it. Now, he did not know that the Government had assented to that Amendment; but a series of conversations went on across the Table, and because Gentlemen on the two sides of the Table agreed in the recesses of their own minds, the rest of the House were barred from speaking. The Amendment just agreed to might be a very small one; but a series of small Amendments of this character, if agreed to by the Government, would minimize the effect of the Bill. They would be the grit in the wheel, and the dust that would clog the machinery. The Bill, as it originally stood, declared that the tenant was entitled to compensation; but now it would only delare that he might "claim compensation." The Government knew what had been the result of acceding to these small Amendments. In the Act of 1870 they had led them into the mess they were in in Ireland. What he complained of was that although the Irish Members had been watching the progress of this Bill with the closest attention, they were not allowed to know anything about the acceptance of this Amendment, and that was not a fair way of treating Members of the House.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Healy.)
MR. GLADSTONEapologized to the hon. Member, admitting that he had assented to the Amendment by a nod or in. some such way. It was one of the necessary conditions of carrying on the Business that, while the Committee constantly involved references to matters of 914 the broadest and deepest consideration, they frequently had to descend to minute details and conversation; and it did sometimes happen, as it evidently had happened in this instance, that hon. Members who were perfectly entitled to know were not precisely cognizant of what was going on. He blamed himself for not having risen in his place to state that the Government agreed to the word "claim," and to give their reason, which was that the Amendment was intended to dispel an apprehension entertained by hon. Gentlemen opposite, needlessly, as he thought, but evidently sincerely and honestly. He was very sorry that he had not made that plain and clear.
§ MR. BIGGARremarked, that while the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) was before the Committee, the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Grantham) suggested another Amendment as an alternative, and on the faith of some wink or nod across the Table, the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was withdrawn, and that of the hon. Member for Surrey moved. The Government spoke against the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), and then some Member on that side of the House stated that the Government had agreed to the alternative Amendment on condition that the first was withdrawn. That having been done, the Government ceased to persevere, but did not give any reasons for their change of front. They simply spoke on one side and voted on the other. That was not the way in which Business should be carried on, and he protested against it. He did not know whether the Prime Minister approved of that or not.
§ MR. GIVANsaid, it was regretable that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Healy) had not understood; but they on that (the Ministerial) side distinctly understood that the Government had agreed to the Amendment.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLcould not help expressing to some extent his sympathy with the hon. Member for Wexford, or his irritation at the continual conversations between the two Front Benches. He thought the Government would do wisely to get rid of what the Prime Minister had described as a nod. It might be perfectly intelligible to the right hon. Gentlemen on 915 the Front Benches, but unintelligible to Members below the Gangway. They had quite as much right as the Members on the Front Benches to take an interest in the Bill; but he hoped the hon. Member, after the warning he had given to the Government, would not press his Motion.
§ MR. REDMONDdesired to ask the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) to withdraw his Motion without further delaying the Business; but, at the same time, he thought the hon. Member had done good service in making that Motion. On several occasions the proceedings had been conducted in such a slip-shod manner, and observations made across the Table in such an undertone, that they who were most interested in the ultimate shape in which the Bill would pass were utterly unable to follow the arguments. In calling attention to this, in the only practical way open to him, the hon. Member had done good service; but the hon. Member had no desire, nor had any of the Irish Members any desire, to impede the progress of the Bill. If, however, the Bill was to proceed in an orderly way, and to be made a better Bill, it was absolutely essential to conduct it in such a manner that all the Members could understand what was going on. While he hoped the progress of the Bill would not be retarded by other Motions of this kind or by further debate on this Motion, he trusted the Government would take warning from the Motion, and in future decide points of agreement or disagreement between the Front Bench in such a way that every Member could understand what was being discussed.
§ MR. HEALYreminded the Government that the Amendment was not on the Paper, and said, that after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman that he agreed to it by a nod, and as even Jove sometimes nodded, he would withdraw the Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, line 20, before "The," insert "where the tenant does not accept such increase, the landlord or."—(Mr. Grantham.)
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he could not accept the Amendment. The land- 916 lord's access to the Court to fix a fair rent would be dealt with in the 7th clause.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEhoped the words proposed would be accepted, because they would effectuate what he understood to be the intention of the Government in this matter. It had been conceded that the right of appealing to the Court should belong equally to the landlord and the tenant, and he understood that it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, when the 7th clause was reached, to say that the landlord equally with the tenant might invoke the assistance of the Court. But it was necessary, as this clause stood, that the landlord, in order to claim protection, should go to the Court in the first instance; and it was only completing the intention to say that the landlord might give notice of the proposed increase. If the tenant did not accept the increase, he could be dealt with in the mode prescribed in the 2nd or 3rd section. The Court would fix what the tenant should pay; but why should not the landlord have the power of asking the Court to say whether the tenant should pay him so much more rent? To omit these words here would leave the section manifestly one-sided, giving protection only to the tenant, when the Government intended to put both tenants and landlords on an absolutely equal footing. This was the best place in which to insert these words. MR. W. E. FORSTER observed, that the clause was necessarily one-sided, and must be so, because it had regard to the action of the landlord. It was the landlord who demanded the increase. The proper place for these words would be the 7th clause.
§ MR. GRANTHAMpointed out that the landlord would make his demand believing that he was entitled to an increase; but he would not know until the tenant objected that the increase was not to be accepted, and it would only be then that he found that there was a dispute, and that would be the time for him to determine whether he would go to the Court. It seemed to him that his Amendment would carry out the intention of the Government better than Clause 7, and far better than by Clause 7 only, because this clause would indicate that where the 917 tenant objected to the demand he might go to the Court; while Clause 7 provided that the landlord might go to the Court. The two clauses would be contradictory. He doubted whether this clause did, by itself, express the object and meaning of the Bill.
§ MR. MORGAN LLOYDthought the Committee ought to take the clause as it now stood.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHdesired to point out that the Committee had already introduced into Section 2 a proviso that the landlord might apply to the Court in the case of future tenancies; but it appeared that by sub-section 2 a different rule was to be applied to the landlord in the case of present tenancies. It did not seem to him that there would be the least inconvenience in admitting in this sub-section the same principle which it was intended to admit in the 7th clause of the Bill. If it were intended, under Clause 7, to admit the right of the landlord, equally with the tenant, to apply to the Court to fix the rent, he could not see how any valid objection could be raised to the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
MR. GLADSTONEThe right hon. Gentleman has spoken in an excellent spirit; but what does his argument amount to? What does he say? He says—"You are going, under Clause 7, to empower the landlord to go to the Court." Undoubtedly, we mean to do that. But the right hon. Gentleman goes on to say—"As you mean to do that in Clause 7, why not do it here?" Surely this would be a very odd method of framing a Bill. According to that argument, the circumstance that you are about to enact anything in a certain clause, affords a reason of introducing the same enactment in another clause of the Bill. I should have thought decidedly not.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not think there was any real difference of principle on either side. After all, this was more or less a drafting controversy, and therefore he would only state in a few sentences why he thought it reasonable that one of two Amendments should be made in the clause. He would be satisfied if sub-section 4 were struck out altogether; or, if the Committee desired to retain sub-section 4, which was in favour of giving a right to the tenant, for the special purposes of this clause, 918 to apply to the Court, he should be satisfied if the same right were given equally to the landlord. Why did not the Government see their way to yielding to this Amendment? He could not think it was worth their while to refuse to accept the Amendment, which was certainly in accordance with justice. All the Amendment asked was, that the landlord should be permitted to arrest the hostile litigation on the part of the tenant at some stage or other of the proceedings, and to go to the Court and ask it to arbitrate between the parties and say what was a fair rent.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)admitted that this was very largely a merely verbal controversy; but his objection to the Amendment was that it would spoil the drafting of the Bill. The supporters of the Amendment wanted to force into this 3rd clause what the Government had postponed, with the consent of the Committee, to the 7th section.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he was of opinion that this was considerably more than a mere question of drafting. The Amendment would offer a premium to the landlord to demand more than a fair rent, and he could fall back on the Court to fix a judicial rent. The landlord would know that he could not suffer at all from demanding an unfair rent, because the tenant would often give way through dread of litigation. Therefore, he thought that the Amendment would be a very mischievous one.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEhardly thought it would be desirable to put the Committee to the trouble of a division on this subject, which had now been pretty fully discussed, and which could, probably, be more conveniently raised on a future occasion. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. and learned Friend would withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CHARLES RUSSELL,on rising to move the next Amendment, observed, that so many alterations had been made in the Bill that he trusted it would be reprinted as soon as possible. As he originally drew his Amendment, it raised the whole question of present and future tenancies; but as that question had already been largely discussed, and as the Committee had expressed an opinion 919 upon it, he did not propose to raise it again on this occasion. Therefore, it would be necessary to insert in his Amendment, as it stood upon the Paper, after the word "tenant," the words "of a present tenancy." The Amendment would read thus:—To leave out subsection 4, and to insert these words—
Where the tenant of a present tenancy declines to accept such increase the landlord may apply to the Court, in manner hereinafter in this Act mentioned, to have the rent fixed, and, until determined by the Court, no increase of rent shall take place.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, leave out sub-section 4, and insert "Where the tenant of a present tenancy declines to accept such increase the landlord may apply to the Court, in manner hereinafter in this Act mentioned, to have the rent fixed, and, until determined by the Court, no increase of rent shall take place."—(Mr. C. Russell.)
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he must make the same objection to this as he had made to the previous Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, line 22, at end of Clause, to add, as an additional sub-section, the following:—(5.) "Provided that the landlord shall not be at liberty to demand an increase of rent from the tenant a present or future tenancy without the consent of the Court first obtained for that purpose upon proof by the landlord that he has reasonable grounds for making such demand."—(Mr. Givan.)
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)hoped his hon. Friend would not press this Amendment. In the first place, it was open to the objection he had made to the last two Amendments, and there was also further objection to it. The Government wished to leave the landlord unfettered in demanding an increase of rent, leaving him free to take the consequences of that demand. From the tenant's point of view, he believed this Amendment would be rather injurious to him. His hon. Friend thought the landlord ought to be allowed to go to the Court in the first instance; but if a primâ facie application were made, it would necessarily be made in the absence of the tenant. In this way the Court would be, to some extent, pledged behind the tenant's back to an increase of rent, or else there would be a preliminary controversy, which would end in nothing, and the two hearings 920 would be to the disadvantage of the man with the lightest purse.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, line 22, at end of Clause, add "The provisions of this section shall not apply in the case of any tenancy where the holding in which such tenancy subsists has theretofore been maintained and improved by the landlord."—(Mr. Dundas.)
THE O'DONOGHUEwished to raise a point of Order, and asked the Chairman, whether this Amendment was not the same as one which had been already disposed of?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had some doubts whether it was exactly the same; but, undoubtedly, it was practically the same.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government would ask the Committee to exclude estates managed on the English system from the operation of Clause 7; but they did not think it wise to give to those estates the characteristic of a totally different set of provisions, in regard to the landlord, from the general law relating to agricultural holdings in Ireland. In conformity with that view, the Committee had decided that the provisions relating to tenant right should be applicable to estates managed on the English principle. Although the Government thought the ground for applying those provisions so managed was quite conclusive, yet he must observe that it was evident that the reason for exempting English-managed estates was much weaker in this case than it was in the case of tenant right. The interference by this clause with rents was much less strong than the interference as to tenant right, which the Committee had already determined upon; and, therefore, this Amendment could not in consistency be adopted.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he was not exaggerating in saying there were 100,000 tenants in Ireland who would be excluded from the benefit of the Bill, unless the Government took into consideration the question of dealing with tenants in arrears, who were in that position through no fault of their own. The Amendment did not propose to deal in any sweeping manner with all former arrears, but simply allow the tenant in 921 arrears to apply to the Court, and if he could show that the rent was excessive, the Court might reduce the amount of arrears, and grant him a statutory term during the currency of which the arrears might be paid in instalments. In determining whether the rent was excessive, the Court would take into consideration the failure of crops from past bad seasons. The Government had given some indication that they would take the matter into consideration, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would now be able to state what were the intentions of the Government with regard to this very vital question of arrears. Her Majesty's Government must be aware of the profound interest with which the subject was regarded in Ireland, and that it had been considered by almost every representative body in the country, as well as at nearly every public meeting held in reference to the Land Question. In the discussions which had taken place in Ireland it had been declared that one of the improvements essential to the Bill, unless it was intended to exclude a highly deserving class, must be that it should deal in some way with the question of arrears, and not lead to the ruin of those tenants who were in arrear through no fault of their own. He trusted the Prime Minister would be able to give some satisfactory assurance on this point; and in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow County (Mr. Macfarlane), he begged to move the Amendment standing in the name of that hon. Member.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, line 22, at the end of Clause, to add "In the case of tenants who are in arrears with their rent, and are, in consequence of such arrears, excluded from the benefit of this Act, it shall be competent for such tenant to apply to the Court, and if he can show to the satisfaction of the Court that such arrears are due to an excessive rent, the Court may reduce such arrears by such sum as it may deem equitable under the circumstances, and grant to the said tenant a statutory term, during the currency of which he shall pay up the balance of arrears in such instalments as the Court may direct. In determining what constitutes excessive rent for this purpose, the Court shall take into consideration the failure of crops from past bad seasons."—(Mr. Gray.)
MR. GLADSTONEI think the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) will admit that the term incongruous does not 922 improperly describe this addition to the clause, which hangs on to it by a thread matters of extreme delicacy as well as extreme importance. There is contained in this clause, on the one hand, all that matter of controversy which occupied us last year for four months, and which ended in what we all consider to have been a deplorable catastrophe. I am speaking of this as a reason why it would be a very serious question to approach, and not as a reason why nothing should be done. We have made a provision in the Bill which goes some way towards securing that those persons who are now under process should obtain the means of selling their property, and thereby experience a benefit from the Act. It is further signified to the Committee that, in our view, the provision should be so extended—and it would require considerable extension—as that there should be no failure in the extension, which should operate to deprive the tenant of the full benefit of that price which he would obtain for his tenant right, from the incoming tenant. That would be in itself a very important enactment, and it ought to be fully considered by the Committee, and the arguments upon it fully heard, before it would be possible to say whether any further addition ought to be made. My impression—and I think the general impression—would be that the provision indicated would be sufficient, or, at any rate, it would be the duty of those who think it insufficient, to argue the case upon it, and show the necessity for extending it. It will not be before the end of the Bill is nearly reached that the proper opportunity for testing this proposal will present itself; and, consequently, I am able now to say nothing which might go beyond the limits of that proposal. Moreover, I carefully guard myself on the question of going beyond those limits. As I do not think the time has yet arrived for discussing the question embodied in the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite, I venture to express the hope that he will withdraw it.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he felt rather disappointed with the remarks of the Prime Minister. He had hoped, from the very remarkable consensus of opinion in Ireland as to the necessity of doing something with regard to the question of arrears, that the Government would have considered the matter before 923 the 13th clause of the Bill had been reached, and that they would have considered the propriety of taking up the question themselves, and of making some announcement to the Committee beforehand, in the same way as they had done in reference to certain concessions which had been made already. The Irish tenants, for whose benefit the Compensation for Disturbance Bill was brought in last year, had very naturally expected that the present Bill would do as much for them as was intended to be done by the attempted legislation of last year. As a matter of fact, this Bill did not propose to do nearly as much for the tenant now under arrears of rent on account of the failure of crops, or on account of the nature of the rent, as was intended to be done by the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. That Bill distinctly left it in the power of the Court to have regard to the proposal made by the landlord to the tenant with respect to the arrears of rent. But no proposal was put into this Bill with regard to arrears of rent. It was true that by the 13th clause the Court would be able to fix the rent, but distinctly the clause did not go so far as the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. He admitted to the fullest extent that the question of arrears of rent was a very difficult one to approach; but he had hoped that the Prime Minister by that time would have seen his way to say something more than that the Government would take this matter into consideration, especially having heard the views of the promoters of the Amendment. Looking at the experience of the Government in this matter, he said unless they were able to make up their minds to do something with the question of arrears, it would be too late when the 13th clause was reached for Irish Members to impress their views upon them. The question was one which, in his opinion, ought not to be left to private Members; and having regard to the almost universal public opinion in Ireland, he thought the Government might fairly put their views upon paper with regard to the 13th clause, so that Irish tenants and everyone interested might know what they had to expect. He thought if it were known that the Government were going to deal with arrears, that it would be found that the landlords having to deal with tenants who were unable to pay their rent would stop 924 evicting, because they would see that it was useless for them to attempt to forestall the action of the Bill. He and his hon. Friends had been repeatedly blamed because they had not told the tenants to pay rent, whether just or not; but if the Government announced their intention as regarded this matter, the tenants who were able to pay their rents would pay them, because they would know that they had nothing to expect from the Bill, and that their case was no longer mixed up with others. If they did not pay, the landlords might evict them, and get their property clear, and the tenant who came in would come in as a future tenant. This would do more to enable the Government to discriminate between cases of ejectment than anything else, because the landlord now evicting tenants unable to pay would not persist in that conduct; whereas the eviction of tenants who were able to pay would continue, while the Government would be in a position to come to the House of Commons and give the House an assurance that unjust evictions were put a stop to. Under the circumstances, he thought the country was entitled to some information with regard to the intentions of the Government in connection with the matter of evictions in Ireland.
§ MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he regretted to have been absent from the House when the Amendment standing in his name was called, and to have lost the opportunity of hearing the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister thereupon. He thought the Amendment was intrinsically reasonable and just, and that it would be a great hardship that the tenant who happened to be in arrears, from causes over which he had no control—namely, excessive rent and failure of crops—should be debarred from the operation of the Act. It was with the object of removing that hardship that he had put this Amendment on the Paper; and he trusted that at a future, if not at the present, stage of the Bill, Her Majesty's Government would deal with the question in a very serious spirit. If the tenants in arrears were debarred from the benefit of the Bill, their exclusion would undoubtedly add 50,000 persons to the discontented remainder that would exist after the passing of the Act; and this, like all other measures passed on Irish questions, would be incomplete and insufficient, 925 and would not give satisfaction to the Irish, people.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the action of the Government with regard to the question raised by this Amendment would decide whether the Bill, then on its passage through that House, would be worth something or be absolutely valueless, so far as Ireland was concerned. Upon the Bill would depend the question as to whether there was to be peace or war between the Irish tenants and Irish landlords. The cause of the disturbance in Ireland was, that the landlords insisted in exacting from their tenants the very last farthing of rent due to them under the old conditions. He thought it was certainly too late in the day to discuss in that House whether the tenants were able to pay their full rents. He would address some arguments upon this question to hon. Members opposite; but he thought they would be entirely thrown away on the Minister who was responsible last year for the miscarriage of the Disturbance Bill, because that Bill was obtained by false pretences, unless it was true that the general distress of three years' duration in Ireland had produced a large, if not a general, inability to meet existing rents. What was the cause of the serious disturbances and collision between the landlord and tenant at the present moment but that a certain number of tenants were unable to pay their rents? A large number of landlords would be quite willing to settle with their tenants if they could receive even half-a-year's rent; even the landlords who claimed two years' rent would agree to that. But what was the condition which they made as a proviso to the settlement? It was not that the tenant was to get a full receipt for all arrears, but that he should pay half-a-year's rent down and hold himself liable for the remainder of the rent due. And it worked in this way—that even up to the present day there was retained in Ireland, from the Famine years, a hanging gale, which meant that in spite of the present Bill and the Land Act of 1870, and of all enactments whatsoever, that the landlord by keeping this claim over the heads of the tenants, held them completely in his hands. The reason, then, that they would not pay, was because they knew the Bill would be useless to them, unless some such provision as that contained in the Amend- 926 ment was introduced into it. Therefore, he said that if the Government acceded to the views of Irish Representatives in this question, they would do more for the pacification of Ireland than by half-a-dozen Coercion Acts and 50,000 soldiers or police. With regard to the Amendment before the Committee, he thought that without some such provision as it contained the good of the future tenants of Ireland would be gained at the sacrifice of that of the large body of present tenants; and he thought that he and those who sat near him would be guilty of base desertion of the men by whom this Bill had been made possible, if they did not declare that it should not, if they could help it, be turned out an utterly worthless measure. For his own part, he should vote against the third reading unless the subject of arrears was satisfactorily dealt with by the Government.
§ MR. A. M. SULLIVANhoped the Government would not, either by anger or the reverse, be deflected from what was the right course to be pursued in this matter. He appealed to his Colleagues about him, in making the present proposal, to endeavour to do so in a spirit that would lead to an amicable and conciliatory settlement. For his own part, he had determined not to refer to the bitter quarrel alluded to by the hon. Member who had just sat down, in the hope of making it possible for the Government to do right upon this question, even if they had done wrong upon the other. They were dealing with the course of action to be taken when the landlord was applying for an increase of rent, and he thought the present was hardly the place to discuss the question of arrears; and, even if it was so, he would point out to the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) that there were objections of principle to the shape in which the Amendment came before the Committee. His hon. Friend would give the Court the power to deal with these arrears; but he (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) hoped that the Irish tenants would get no such thought into their minds as that if they get a just Bill there would be any more wiping out of rents. They must be made to understand that they must pay the rent punctually and honestly. They must also get rid of the idea of eleemosynary relief being administered to them from time to time. He was, in short, for starting with a clear 927 page of the Statute Book in the matter of rents. But the unanimous feeling in Ireland was with regard to present arrears, which were destroying the tenantry of Ireland, and which had accrued by reason of excessive rent in the past. He pointed out that at present, under the process of eviction, to give the right to the tenants to sell their holdings was merely to pass a beneficial Act enabling the landlords to recover their rents. The tenant was not replaced in possession of the soil or under his own roof-tree, he was only enabled to sell for a better price; and if he did sell, the Bill enabled the landlord to stop all the extortionate arrears from the purchase money, to the prejudice of every other just creditor which the tenant might have. He was confident, therefore, that the generously-devised intention of the Government would not carry out the object they had in view. With regard to the observation of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) that the Bill would be worthless if the Amendment was not passed, he would remark that he had heard a great deal too much about the Bill being valueless without this Amendment or that Amendment, which would, if they were passed, lead to future complication undoubtedly. He believed the question of arrears involved the happiness or misery of thousands of families in Ireland, and trusted the Government would deal with it in the right spirit.
§ COLONEL COLTHURSTrose to join in the appeal of his hon. Friend, for he thought the importance of this matter could not be overlooked. To give an illustration, he knew of a property which had been sold twice or three times during the last 35 years with accumulated arrears, for the tenants were in arrears when it was first sold, and those former arrears were now hanging like a millstone round their necks. The tenants were forced to take out leases by the nobleman who owned the property at one time, but who was no longer alive; and these leases were at a high rent with the proviso that the rent should not be increased. The nobleman did not increase the rent; but he sold the property with the high rent, and that was the position of the tenants with arrears more than 30 years old hanging over them. What had happened there had also happened in many other cases; 928 and he appealed to the Government to take this matter into their consideration, and not to leave it to the efforts of private Members. He knew there were plans more or less permissible on the Paper for dealing with this question; but he was certain that Her Majesty's Government could deal with it much better than anybody else. He hoped they would give an assurance that they would take the matter in hand themselves.
§ MR. MACFARLANEsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) had misunderstood the object of the Amendment. There was no intention of applying it to any other tenants than those who were now in arrear. It was never contemplated that the exemption as to payment of arrears should be continuous and for ever.
§ MR. RITCHIEhad no doubt that arrears were very unpleasant things to those who owed them, and so were debts. They would all be very glad of some clause which would wipe off all the money they now owed; and many landlords would be glad to get rid of the interests of mortgagees in that fashion. But what he desired to point out was that it was the good landlord who had shown consideration for his tenantry who would be hit by this Amendment. The landlord who had insisted on arrears being paid up, and who had carried out evictions in order to obtain them, had already got his money; but the landlord who desired to show consideration for his tenantry on account of bad times and of the many disadvantages under which they had had to labour, and who had allowed arrears to accumulate, would, by this Amendment, have to pay a penalty for his kindness. He hoped the Government would never consent to such a measure of confiscation as that would undoubtedly be—a confiscation of legal debts due to the landlord. If they hampered their Bill with such a provision they would add very much to the difficulties in the way of its passing into law.
§ MR. SYNANthought the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) had fallen into an error, for the Amendment did not apply to the case of good landlords who had had fair rents; it only referred to the Court two questions for consideration—first, whether the rent was exorbitant and impossible to be 929 paid; and, secondly, what claim might arise through the failure of the crops during the bad seasons of the last five or six years. It merely gave a jurisdiction to the Court. With regard to the question of "white-washing," as stated in an ironical manner by the hon. Gentleman, there were many Acts of Parliament which enabled people to take advantage of that peculiar process; but, unfortunately, the Irish tenant had no Act of Parliament to enable him to be "white-washed," and to keep his holding and his occupation at the same time. It would be a beneficent operation if he could be "white-washed;" but he could not be freed, as other people were, from the payment of his debts. He (Mr. Synan) agreed with what had been said as to this not being the particular place in the Bill in which the Amendment should be introduced; but he thought it had been put upon the Paper at this point for the purpose of getting some early expression of opinion from the Government on the subject, and he hoped that expression of opinion would be forthcoming. He hoped the Government would consider the question of present arrears, and all matters arising out of leases drawn up since the Act of 1870, and under which advantage had been taken of the tenants to compel them to contract themselves out of that Act. He thought he heard the Government on Friday express an intention to consider this question, and he hoped that a still more definite and substantial assurance would be given by them now. No doubt, it would be idle for the Irish Members—some 50 or 60 of them—to attempt to carry any Amendment against the Government; but the Government themselves ought to take this matter up; and if they would only promise to do so the present Amendment would, in all probability, be withdrawn. He would only say, in conclusion, that this act would make the Bill more popular in Ireland than all the acts of its open or secret enemies could do to make it the contrary.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYthought that unless this question of arrears was settled in some satisfactory way there would be no peace in Ireland for many a day, however good—and no doubt they were very good—the provisions of this Bill might be. He could not do too much to impress his sense of the importance 930 of this matter upon the attention of the Government. It should be remembered that the Mover of the Amendment confined the cases in which he proposed to give redress to those of tenants now in arrear, and who showed to the satisfaction of the Court that such arrears were due to excess of rent. Most Irish Members knew that many tenants in Ireland were in arrear even where their rent was not excessive but moderate, such cases arising from the failure of the crops, and those tenants were quite as much entitled to consideration as those whose rents were excessive. It was stated at the end of the Amendment that—
In determining what constitutes excessive rent for this purpose, the Court shall take into consideration the failure of the crops from past bad seasons;but that did not apply to fair rents. Then there was the aggravation of the farmer's condition caused by the general agricultural depression which sprang out of the enormous importations of food from America. Now, there were many tenants who would not be excluded from all the benefits of this Act, and notably who would enjoy the benefit of free sale, but who, by the words of the Amendment as it stood at present, would be excluded from all benefit in dealing with the question of arrears. On that ground he thought the Amendment inadequate and insufficient; and he agreed with the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) in thinking the place suggested by the Prime Minister was the proper place for the introduction of the Amendment. As to the suggestion that the tenant, by having the power of free sale, would be placed in a better position with regard to these arrears, he thought there were many tenants now in Ireland who, if they sold their tenancies in the market tomorrow, would not recover the amount of their arrears in consequence of failure of the crops and of the agricultural depression which went along with that failure. It seemed to him, then, that there were certain elements necessary for properly dealing with this question which were not all to be found in this Amendment. In addition to the power of giving the abatement which was given here in certain cases, and to the power of spreading the remainder of the rent in instalments over a certain number of years, 931 he thought it might be necessary to provide some means by which it would be possible to advance, on public security, some money, either from the Irish Church Fund or from some other source, for the purpose of aiding tenants to settle with their landlords. If the tenants spoke plainly, and the landlord got rid of hopeless arrears by receiving one-half or two-thirds in ready money, the landlord would doubtless prefer that to getting the arrears spread over a number of years. That could be done if means were provided for getting advances from the Treasury or from the Irish Church Fund; and he (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) would never advocate such a proposal unless security was given for the repayment of the advances. He trusted that the discussion of the Amendment would be postponed to a more suitable time, and that when it was resumed the Amendment itself would be amended.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR,in reply to what had been said by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), wished to read a paragraph from the preliminary Report of the Richmond Commission. That paragraph ran as follows:—
In common with the rest of the United Kingdom, the agricultural depression of the years 1877,. 1878, and 1879, has greatly affected Ireland, and has been, to some extent, increased in that country by the absence of manufacturing industries and other sources of employment. There is no doubt that the depression has fallen with extreme severity upon the smaller farmers. We have, therefore, reason to fear that a very large proportion of those farmers are insolvent; and it is stated that the bountiful harvest of this year has alone prevented their entire collapse.That paragraph, pledging itself to the fact that a large number of the tenantry were in a condition of hopeless insolvency, had appended to it the names of H. Chaplin, C. T. Ritchie, and B. B. Hunter Rodwell.
§ MR. GRAYacknowledged that the Prime Minister was right in saying, as a matter of draftsmanship, that this was not the most convenient place for the insertion of the Amendment. He agreed also with the view that the terms of the Amendment were not sufficiently wide, and thought that the words "agricultural depression "could be advantageously substituted for "failure of crops." But a very large principle was involved in the Amendment, and hon. 932 Members who held his opinion in reference to its importance would find themselves placed in a false position if the Government were not able to give some better assurance than had been given by the Prime Minister as to their intentions in regard to it. The Prime Minister had only promised that the Government would take the question into what he (Mr. Gray) might call their "unfavourable consideration." He thought the action of the Irish Members would be thoroughly misunderstood in Ireland if they withdrew the Amendment now. There was a large section of people in Ireland who regarded the Bill with favour, but who would rather see it defeated than not have the question of arrears adequately dealt with. There were thousands of tenants in Ireland who would be ruined if the Bill passed in its present shape, for they would be sold out without any sort of sympathy, and who would be despatched with the small balance of the purchase money which remained after the landlord had been paid his unjust claims to the last farthing—a balance just about sufficient to take them across the Atlantic and out of the way. This was really one of the most vital questions in connection with the Bill; and he was confident that the vote of a large number of the Irish Members for or against the third reading would be decided by the action of the Government in regard to it. It might be inconvenient to press the question at this particular moment, and possibly the question might be prejudiced by an adverse vote; but he felt the most extreme difficulty in advising the withdrawal of the Amendment after the very unfavourable answer given by the Prime Minister.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYfelt bound to say a few words on the question, for it touched a class of tenants who, he deliberately affirmed, would receive no benefit whatever from the Bill as it stood. What benefit would be given to the small tenants of Connemara and the West of Ireland by leave to sell their holdings? None whatever. The idea that the carrying out of the Ulster Custom in Galway and in Mayo, and in portions of Kerry, would be of benefit to the tenants was an utter delusion. The only thing it would do would be to enable the landlords to get them out of the country; and every man who went 933 away under such circumstances would be another enemy added to the vast numbers of the enemies of this country who were already to be found on the other side of the Atlantic. He had understood the Prime Minister to say on a former occasion that he was prepared to deal with the question of arrears in a reasonable and conciliatory spirit, and he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had therefore regretted the proposal of this Amendment. But, the Amendment having been proposed, he quite sympathized with the difficulty felt as to its withdrawal after the speech of the Prime Minister. It would be treason to this country if those who knew what was the condition of Ireland were to let the Bill leave the House without a serious attempt to deal with the question of arrears, for in those parts of Ireland to which he had referred, and with which he was so well acquainted, such an imperfect measure would only provide a nucleus for all kinds of disturbance and discontent. At the same time, he regretted that so militant a spirit had been shown by the hon. Member for Galway City (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). Nothing was to be gained by threatening what would happen if they did not immediately get their own way. The true way to proceed was to try and convince the House of Commons that it was desirable to deal with the subject. He trusted that the Government would make some promise that they would seriously consider the question. At the same time, it was impossible for anyone seriously to propose to wipe out these arrears altogether. The landlords of Ireland required subsistence as well as other people, and to suppose that these arrears were to be altogether wiped away was to suppose that this country would commit an act of injustice such as had never been perpetrated in any civilized country in the world. But it would be quite possible to make some advance out of the Irish Church Fund—a fund belonging, not to this country, but to Ireland—which would enable the tenants to make compositions with their landlords. Numbers of tenants were in arrears, and both landlords and tenants must share in the loss from bad harvests; but it must be done in a fair spirit, and nobody with the interest of the tenants at heart would ever advocate such an impossibility as making the landlords simply beggars by 934 wiping out a great portion of their property.
MR. MACARTNEYwished, as there had been a good deal said upon one side, to say a few words upon the other. It had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) that a large body of the Irish tenants were now insolvent; and the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to maintain them in the occupation of their farms, though he (Mr. Macartney) did not know in what way. If the Government put their hands to this difficult task, they must do it upon some principle of fairness to the landlords as well as to the tenants. If the tenant was unable to pay one gale of rent down he should not be entitled to have his arrears capitalized. It was absurd to say that the rent now due should have its payment postponed, while the landlord, who had been postponing his receipt of rent out of consideration for the tenant, was without 1d. It was said that the tenants were penniless. But so were many of the landlords. They were not receiving their rents, and were living, some on advances made largely by the banks, some on loans, and some on advances from their friends in this country and in Scotland. What would be the position of those landlords if the whole of the arrears of rent were to be taken into consideration by the Court? It must not be forgotten that the tenants in Ireland were always in arrear. There was always what was called the hanging gale. The half-year's rent due in May was not generally payable until November, and, even in good years, the tenant generally took his time to Christmas before he paid it. If it was paid before Christmas it was considered quite good payment. [A VOICE: That is rack rent.] He was not speaking of rack rent at all. The whole of Ireland was not rack-rented. In the North, the part with which he was best acquainted, the rent was paid once a year, and the tenant was frequently a year in arrear. In bad years the rents fell more and more into arrear; and, although landlords had offered 15, 20, and 25 per cent reduction, the tenants had not paid, but most of them had obeyed the orders of the Land League. How was the landlord to live, unless he was to get some portion of the rent that was due to him? It was all most unfair. He thought that if the 935 Government looted into the question, and introduced some provision empowering tenants who were in arrear beyond half-a-year's rent to pay by instalments, the period for the completion of the payment being 10, 15, or 20 years, they would not be doing an unfair thing. It was said that this Bill was an act of justice—every day they heard in the House that England was now performing a great act of generosity to Ireland. But how was it to be done? The relief that was to be given to the Irish tenants was to come out of the pockets of the Irish landlords. Some hon. Members opposite suggested that it should come from the Irish Church Fund; but to that he objected, hoping that the fund would be devoted to other purposes; and if the House, in its magnanimity, and grandeur, and justice, chose to relieve the tenants the amount that was given to them should be paid out of the National Exchequer.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Member who had just sat down had exhibited a desire to speak before him, and he had given way; but he could not enter into, nor admire, the concluding sentences of the hon. Member. At the same time, he fully concurred in what he had said in the opening sentences of his speech—namely, that any proposal must not be in the interests of the tenants alone, but must also have regard to the interests of others. He (Mr. Gladstone), however, only rose for the purpose of correcting a misapprehension which appeared to exist in the minds of some hon. Members. He was represented as having arrived at an erroneous judgment, whereas all he wished to do was to avoid giving any premature pledge. There was nothing more dangerous than to give a hasty pledge on a matter of such delicacy and importance. His mind was unbiased on this subject of arrears; he had come to no unfavourable conclusion; but he was not prepared to give any pledge except the promise that the question should have that reasonable consideration which was due to it. It was necessary that the various proposals should be carefully weighed, and the subject in every way carefully examined, in order that it might be dealt with in a just and practicable manner.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, that after the assurances the Committee had received 936 from the right hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. CHAPLINsaid, he would not detain the Committee more than a minute; but something had fallen from the hon. Member for Galway in reference to the Richmond Commission which should not be allowed to pass without notice. The hon. Member had quoted a paragraph from the Report of the Commission, which would give the Committee the impression that the Commissioners believed that the general state of insolvency among the small tenants in the West of Ireland had been caused by excessive rents. The hon. Member ought to have read the paragraph which followed. As he had not done so, and as it was very short, he (Mr. Chaplin) would read it himself—
With respect to the very small holders in the Western district of Ireland, we ate satisfied that with the slightest failure of their crops they would he unable to exist on the produce of their crops, even if they paid no rents.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the hon. Member said that if the small tenants in the West of Ireland had their farms for nothing they could not live on them; and his contention, therefore, was that they should pay all their rent.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, it had been stated by some of his political Friends that he did not wish to see any Land Bill passed this Session. Well, if proper provision was made for the case of parties who were in arrear, in consequence of excessive rents, he did wish the Bill to pass this Session; but, on the other hand, unless provision was made for such people, he did not wish it to pass. No doubt, the question of fixing the rents of present and future tenants was a very important matter; but the only really urgent part of the Land Question was as to those persons who were in arrear through excessive rents. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant alleged that there were no persons who had been evicted or who were going to be evicted in consequence of non-payment of excessive rents; but he did not accept the right hon. Gentleman as a satisfactory witness in this matter, because, invariably, when questions were put to him, the right hon. Gentlemen, like all professional witnesses, remembered all that could be said in favour of one side—the landlords—and forgot everything that could be said on behalf 937 of the other side—the tenants. He (Mr. Biggar) did not argue that all parties in arrear were so in consequence of having had to pay excessive rents; but he did contend that unless some provision was made in the measure to relieve persons in arrear in consequence of excessive rentals the Bill would do no practical good, and would lead to great disappointment.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that whether this question of arrears through excessive rentals was dealt with or not, he wished to see the Land Bill passed this Session; and, in view of its passing, he wished to say this to the Government—that it was altogether in their hands whether or not the Amendments the Irish Members put forward were made in the Bill, and that, if they did not accept them, the responsibility was theirs alone. He would not offer any factious opposition to the passing of the Bill; but, as he had already said, on the occasion of the second reading of the Bill, he believed it would be altogether futile to expect that any Bill could be produced that would be satisfactory to Ireland which would, at the same time, altogether spare the British Exchequer.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Incidents of tenancy subject to statutory conditions).
§ MR. GIVANsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper which involved an important principle and would probably lead to some discussion. The energies of the Committee might, perhaps, be better employed in proceeding to the clauses than with his Amendment; and, if he could see any way in which the question could be discussed hereafter, he would withdraw it. But he had spoken to one or two Friends on the matter, and they did not see how the question could arise again. The Amendment touched a principle which ran through the whole of the Bill from beginning to end, and that was the principle of making the forfeiture of tenant's interest—in point of fact of the tenancy—a result of a breach of statutory conditions. The Bill did a great deal for the tenant; but he held that all that it would do for the tenant would be counterbalanced by this unjust and 938 uncalled for provision, which, would be an entire innovation in the law. He was not aware of any existing law by which a tenant could be ejected for breach of conditions save non-payment of rent. The law, as it at present stood, provided ample protection for the landlord, because it enabled him, in the easiest possible manner, to obtain an injunction from the magistrates to restrain the tenant from committing waste on his farm. Therefore, if the law were adequate to prevent the tenant from committing waste, it was not necessary that they should enact any additional restriction against waste. As to breach of other statutory conditions, the landlord would have the power of bringing an action against a tenant and recovering damages in respect thereof. He thought that to say that the tenancy could be forfeited for anything but nonpayment of rent would be opening the door for litigation to the landlord. Frequent attempts to terminate the tenancies would be made which would, no doubt, lead to very evil results.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, line 26, leave out from "except" to "the conditions," line 27, and insert "for non-payment of rent, and shall observe."—(Mr. Givan.)
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the Government intended to propose other provisions to effect the hon. Member's object. Whilst the possibility of what was somewhat inaccurately called forfeiture remained, the Court should, he thought, have power to deal with small breaches that might occur, by awarding damages, or absolutely staying proceedings as might be thought just.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that one of the great grievances under the Act of 1870 was that when a tenant was evicted under it he had no compensation. The bad landlord was able to evict a tenant without giving compensation; and the good landlord was forced to give compensation. There should be no such thing as ejectment for non-payment of rent; but the landlord ought to be able to obtain arrears of rent by the ordinary process of the law. The landlord should levy by distress like an ordinary creditor. He could not see why they should allow a landlord to eject a tenant for non-payment of one year's rent, while 939 that tenant's interest in the land might amount to four or five years' rent.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ DR. COMMINSsaid, he had to move the next Amendment, which was to give in reality to the Irish tenantry that protection against ejectment which they were supposed to have under the Bill. Practically, under the clause as it now stood, a tenant could be evicted as soon as he was six months in arrear with his rent. The day after the rent was due the tenant was liable to eviction, though he was supposed not to be so liable until the expiration of 12 months. The effect of the Amendment would be to give the tenant a substantial instead of a customary and nominal protection.
§
Amendment proposed,
In sub-clause 1, page 4, line 29, leave out from "shall" to end of sub-section, and insert "not leave arrears of rent due by him unpaid for twelve months after notice in writing has been served upon him by his landlord. That in case of such arrears remaining so unpaid the landlord will there upon institute proceedings to compel him to quit the holding for which such arrears have remained so unpaid."—(Dr. Commins.)
§ MR. SYNANsaid, he did not think any Amendment could be more unpleasant to the Irish tenant than this, which would make it compulsory on the landlord to commence proceedings against the tenant whether he wanted to do so or not. The complaint was that Irish landlords were too ready to take proceedings; and here they had introduced an Amendment for the purpose of compelling the landlords to do that which the tenants were anxious should not be done. Perhaps he misunderstood the object of his hon. and learned Friend, but he believed it was to do away with the custom of hanging gales in Ireland. But the hanging gale was not adverse to the tenant; and if the landlord was willing to allow not only one, but two hanging gales, that would be so much to the benefit of the tenant, unless, indeed, it was made an argument for the purpose of rack-renting. Some people believed that hanging gales existed only where there were rack-rents; but that was not the fact, for he himself knew them to exist where there were no rack-rents. Landlords should be left to avail themselves of the ordinary powers of the law of the country, or he and the tenant should be 940 allowed to arrange between themselves without making it compulsory on the landlord to take proceedings where there were hanging gales.
§ DR. COMMINSsaid, his hon. Friend had not only mistaken the drift of the Amendment, but also its very words. It would appear that the hon. Member had not even read it. The 1st sub-section provided the conditions, for breach of which the eviction should take place; and the first condition was that the tenant should pay his rent at the appointed time. The "appointed time," as everyone knew, meant the first day it was due. That was the time appointed by law, and by contract, and the time appointed under the Act, so that the tenant who had not paid his rent on the day it was due, and was one day in arrear, was liable to eviction under the provisions of the Act relating to evictions in Ireland. ["No!"] But the Act said "Yes." The Amendment provided that the landlord who was about to take advantage of that breach of condition should give 12 months' notice before issuing process. It seemed to him that the thing was perfectly clear and could not be misunderstood.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, he had, next, a proposal on the Paper, which he had put down more by way of suggestion than Amendment, and which he should. not press if the Government did not agree to it. They were making a statutory lease, and attaching conditions to it; and if the words stood as they were in the Bill, the effect of it would be to prevent the attachment of any of those conditions providing the rent was not paid at the proper time. This was not a condition of the landlord or tenant, but one imposed by statute; and unless the right hon. Gentleman consented, in some part of the Bill, to give the landlord the power of continuing the conditions, it appeared to him (Sir Hardinge Giffard) that once the tenant had committed a breach by nonpayment for a single day the conditions were gone. Under the circumstances, it seemed well worthy of consideration whether some such words—he was not enamoured of these precise terms—were not worthy of acceptance. They were dealing with a lease under the statute, and if the tenant had made a breach of 941 that lease according to the present wording of the Bill the rights of the tenant would be gone.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, line 29, after "rent," insert "from time to time, when the same becomes due, or within twenty-one days thereafter, or on such day, or within such time thereafter as the landlord may from time to time appoint."—(Sir Hardinge Giffard.)
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he would consider the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who feared that if a, single hour beyond the appointed time the rent remained unpaid the condition would be gone. The matter was one of importance; and, though he did not like the phraseology of the Amendment, if, on looking carefully into the matter, he found that Amendment was wanted, he would bring up words on Report to effect what was necessary.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BUXTONsaid, as the Amendment in his name was very much to the same effect, he would not move it, and was content to leave the matter in the hands of the Government.
§ MR. M'COANsaid, that the explanation of the Attorney General for Ireland had shown that he was entirely under a misconception in putting his Amendment on the Paper. He would not move it.
THE CHAIRMANThe next two Amendments are not in their proper place. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) is next.
§ MR. PARNELLasked the Prime Minister at what portion of the Bill it would be most convenient for him that the question of arrears should be brought forward? This Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Meath led up to the question, and there were several Amendments on the subject to different parts of the Bill, and it would be convenient to know on what portion of the Bill it would best suit the Government to have the question discussed, otherwise the Committee might get involved in a series of small discussions on the question of arrears, and waste a good deal of time.
MR. GLADSTONEwas under the impression that it would be difficult to keep the substantive question of arrears dis- 942 tinct, and the best form of dealing with it would be under a new clause.
§ The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) not being in his place, the CHAIEMAN called upon the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) to proceed with his Amendment.
§ MR. A. M. SULLIVAN,entering the House at the same time, said, he was sorry he was not in his place to move the Amendment he had to Clause 4. It was—
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Gentleman's name was called, and, he not being present, the next Amendment has been called.
§ SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDrose to move, in page 4, lines 30 to 33, to leave out from the word "not," in line 30, to the word "watercourses," in line 42, both inclusive, in order to insert—
Cultivate the holding in a good and hus-bandlike manner, and shall maintain in due and proper repair all the buildings, erections, fixtures, fences, drains, and watercourses standing, or being upon the said holding, at the commencement of a statutory term, or which, at any time thereafter, may be added thereto. (3.) The tenant shall not commit, permit, or suffer the deterioration of any of the soil of said holding, or (without consent in writing of the landlord) break up old pasture land. (4.) The tenant shall not, without the consent of the landlord in writing first had and obtained, have or exercise any right of mining or taking minerals; quarrying or taking stone, marble, gravel, sand, or slate; cutting or taking timber or turf, except such timber as either the tenant or his predecessor in title may have planted and registered.This Amendment was a matter of more serious importance than the last, to which he had drawn attention. In following the words in the Bill he could hardly conceive a provision more calculated to involve continuous litigation. As the clause stood, it only provided against the commission of persistent waste by the dilapidation of buildings, or deterioration of the soil by the tenant, after notice given by the landlord. Surely there ought to be some such provision as he suggested, though he was not enamoured of the particular words, as part of the strict conditions of this 15 years lease. What the word "persistent" meant in the Bill he did not know, and he observed there was an Amendment to leave it out; but the tenant was to be subject to damages for dilapidation of buildings, or deterioration of soil; but what was involved in this was left en- 943 tirely at large. But, surely, it was possible for the Committee to point out, in a definite and distinct form, what it was that the tenant was to be prevented from doing. He had suggested these words for the purpose, and they would be familiar to his lion, and learned Friends opposite. The tenant would be required to maintain good husbandry, and to keep in repair buildings, fixtures, fences, and so on, and he would be prohibited from suffering deterioration of the soil, or, without consent, breaking up old pasture lands. This last was an extreme mischief, for which damages gave no remedy. Was there to be no power of preventing such an injury to a dairy farm as that, and there had been, threats of such injury? All there was in the Bill was the provision that the tenant should not commit persistent waste after notice not to do so, so that if the landlord did not know, and did not send the notice, an old pasture might be ploughed up, and there was no remedy under the Bill except damages. If that was the intention of the Government, he should like to hear it; if not, then some words, if not precisely those he proposed, enforcing these conditions upon the tenant under penalty of eviction, and preventing this irreparable injury to the landlord, for which damages were no compensation.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 4, lines 30 to 33, leave out from "not," in line 30, to "watercourses," in line 42, both inclusive, and insert" cultivate the said holding in a good and husbandlike manner, and shall maintain in due and proper repair all the buildings, erections, fixtures, fences, drains, and watercourses standing or being upon the said holding at the commencement of a statutory term, or which at any time thereafter may be added thereto.
(3.) The tenant shall not commit, permit, or suffer the deterioration of any of the soil of the said holding, or (without the consent in writing of the landlord) break up old pasture land.
(4.) The tenant shall not, without the consent of the landlord in writing first had and obtained, have or exercise any right of—
Mining or taking minerals;
Quarrying or taking stone, marble, gravel, sand, or slate;
Cutting or taking timber or turf, except such timber as either the tenant or his predecessors in title may have planted and registered."—(Sir Hardinge Giffard.)
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)thought his hon. and learned Friend had forgotten the 944 great distinction there must be between ordinary leases and tenancies under this clause. In the first place, it must be recollected that presumably all improvements were made by the Irish tenant; and, secondly, under the Bill, tenants would be capable of selling their tenant right, including those improvements, so that a tenant who wasted or destroyed any part of the holding would, in fact, be taking so much money out of his own pocket. The landlord would have that protection for his property that the tenant's own self-interest provided, and where free sale had hitherto obtained it was not found that the tenant had been so foolish as to destroy or wilfully diminish the value of what he had to sell. The Bill, however, provided against persistent waste by dilapidation, or deterioration of soil; but that, in the view of his right hon. and learned Friend opposite, did not provide sufficient protection; but he based his contention on the case of a dairy farm which did not come under the Bill at all. Furthermore, by the 36th section of the Act of 1870 the landlord possessed the means of stopping any waste, an effectual remedy being provided by giving him the means of obtaining an order from any local magistrate to stop or prevent the waste. The landlord, therefore, would hardly need such a condition for his protection. The Bill did not attempt to codify the whole law as between landlord and tenant, but left the general law in operation; the Court cf Chancery remained with its jurisdiction by injunction, and the power of stopping waste by a magistrate's order remained. As to the particular proposals in the Amendment, he reminded the Committee that a tenant from year to year had no right whatever to work the minerals in his holding. These belonged to the landlord, and it would be waste for the tenant to undertake mining, or quarrying, or cutting down timber. The landlord to whom these substantial rights belonged still remained the owner, no matter whether the term of tenure was fixed at 10 or 10,000 years. What was required was that the landlord should be enabled to get at those things that belonged to him without being liable to the tenant for trespass, and this the Bill provided for. The Amendment was addressed to an object amply provided for by the Bill, 945 coupled with the general law of the land, which was left wholly undisturbed. It would simply say to the tenant—"You shall not do that which now you have no right to do," while it did not preserve to the landlord what the clause proposed to give—the right of going on to the tenant's land trespass free to get at what belonged not to him but to the landlord.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, it was not the most favourable time for the discussion of a legal technicality; but the answer which the Attorney General for Ireland had just made was so remarkable that it would bear some discussion. He answered his hon. and learned Friend, first, by saying that there was a distinction between the position of tenants in England and tenants in Ireland, in that in Ireland the improvements were, for the most part, made by the tenants. Undoubtedly, in the majority of cases that was so; but in a large number of cases, and with regard to a considerable area of Ireland, the landlords had made the improvements, and there the answer did not apply. But where it did, and where the improvements were once made, was it only for the advantage of the tenant, and did it not become an element in the landlord's security for the rent of the holding, and was it not for the interest of the landlord, that the improvements should be protected? Nor was it sufficient to say that the tenant would not do such things, because they would injure the interest he had to sell. The landlord had no check on the tenant in this respect. No doubt the tenant, acting as a reasonable person and looking forward to the time of selling, would not commit waste or do those things that injured the tenancy; but he was afraid they could not deal with Ireland as if all the tenants were sensible men, and the landlord was entitled to the provision of going in and re-taking possession of the holding when he found the tenant committing waste or injury there. Then, as to the second answer, which was that in cases of wilful injury the landlord had the power of going to the Petty Sessions Court and obtaining a magistrate's summons for the punishment of the tenant. Here you take in the administration of the Criminal Law on to an estate where it was not necessary. It was said the section did not 946 suggest itself as a code of law, but was taken in connection with the ordinary law. But would it not be of the greatest value when Parliament was drawing up a section of this kind which, in future, would be the pattern for similar Bills, applicable not only to Ireland, when drawing up these definite terms that were to be the established forms of tenancy from year to year, that when drawn up by Parliament, these terms should contain conditions of at least as reasonable strictness as would be inserted in an agreement drawn up for a single tenancy? But this was not the case with the Bill. There were phrases which were exceedingly difficult to interpret. The tenant was not to commit or permit persistent waste or deterioration of the soil, or dilapidation of buildings, after notice had been given by the landlord to the tenant to desist from such action. He quite agreed that in the majority of cases a man's self interest would warn him not to do these things; but if, in certain cases, it was probable that these injuries would be done to the landlord's reversion of the holding, then the simplest way of dealing with them would be, in the first instance, to make his refraining from doing these injuries a condition of the tenant's retaining the holding, and to put in those conditions of agreement which he at least must observe—conditions such as any reasonable man would insert in his agreement.
§ MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that would be imposing upon the tenant a burden which was not imposed upon him by the general law—namely, that he should keep the premises, buildings, fences, and everything else in a state of repair. It would be introducing a covenant to repair of the strictest kind into the terms of letting, the breach of which would subject the tenant to a forfeiture of his tenancy, against which no Court of Equity would have any power to relieve the tenant.
§ MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, nothing was more calculated than this Amendment to give rise to a vast amount of litigation. The tenant was to forfeit all his rights under this Bill if he omitted to cultivate the holding in a good husband-like manner, or to maintain buildings, fixtures, erections, fences, drains, and watercourses. Here was a splendid prospect for the Profession to which, he 947 belonged. What was a fixture? Here was an ocean of litigation. Then, again, the case of drains. Suppose a tenant omitted to keep a drain in repair—a drain, probably, altogether beyond his view—was he to forfeit all his rights? He hardly thought the hon. and learned Gentleman could mean that; and, with all respect to him, he half thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was attempting a practical joke on the Committee.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend was thoroughly lawyer-like, and put forward in a common sense manner. Surely there was no difficulty in understanding it. The Committee were told that they were not dealing with perpetuity of tenure, but with a period of 15 years. If the landlord was compelled by the Bill to hand over the administration of his property for 15 years, it was only reasonable that the tenant should be subjected to the condition that he should not utterly destroy the property so intrusted to him by the State. The landlord had a right to this when, for high reasons of State, his property was intrusted to a tenant for 15 years, and he could not see that field for litigation that the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) seemed to fear. Without such an Amendment the Bill would leave the tenant for a year to go on with operations of waste; and, after all, the tenant could double back upon the landlord with a claim for disturbance.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)observed, that the whole of the matters referred to in the Amendment were, under the ordinary law, included in the word '' waste,'' which was neither made more or less by the introduction of a catalogue, each item in which might be made the subject of litigation. A tenant having committed waste could, at any hour of the day, be stopped by application to the nearest justice of the peace, and, if persisting, would be liable to the so-called forfeiture of his holding; whilst no Court in such a case would award him damages for disturbance.
§ An hon. MEMBER suggested that the words "shall cultivate his holding in a good and husband-like manner and not commit waste" should be added to the clause. He believed these words would 948 meet the objections urged by hon. Members opposite, and trusted that the Government would admit them to the clause, otherwise he should not be able to vote for it. He was quite unable to see the meaning of the word "persistent" as employed in the clause; because it was followed by the words "after notice had been given by the landlord," which would, undoubtedly, imply that unless the notice was given by the landlord no waste would be committed. Therefore, he altogether objected to the word "persistent," and trusted Her Majesty's Government would adopt the suggestion he had made.
§ SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, the word "waste" did not occur in his Amendment, although it occurred in the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite. His Amendment distinctly pointed to nothing but real and substantial waste. The maintenance of buildings was, of course, a question of degree. He did not know whether his hon. Friend behind him had ever been in a case in which a landlord was entitled to judgment for right of forfeiture against a tenant; if so, he would know that it was by no means easy to obtain a decision in the landlord's favour. No tribunal, he believed, would allow any judgment to pass against a tenant for anything but what was real and substantial injury. The object of the Amendment was not to create litigation, but to introduce into the clause that clearness of statement which prevented litigation. The clause said "the tenant should not commit persistent waste;" and, although the passage was limited by the words "dilapidation of buildings or the deterioration of the soil," those terms were left entirely unexplained. Therefore, it appeared to him that a definite exposition of the things to which the clause applied should be given.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. CARTWRIGHTsaid, the word "persistent," introduced in connection with other words in the section, created a great deal of uncertainty, which would probably invite future litigation. He thought anyone who had cognizance of agricultural matters must have had experience of the word "waste," which was a perfectly well known agricultural term; but the meaning of the word "persistent," as a qualifying term, was, 949 in this case, unintelligible. It was upon that word that issue would be taken. He submitted that in regard to an incident which was to rule future agricultural affairs in Ireland for many years, it was desirable that the expressions used should be clear, precise, and free from ambiguity. Inasmuch as the word "persistent" was likely to introduce uncertainty, he thought it better for the simplification of the section that it should be omitted therefrom, particularly as notice had to be given by the landlord to the tenant before persistent waste could take place.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 30, to leave out the word "persistent."—(Mr. Cartwright.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'persistent' stand part of the Clause."
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the Government could not agree to this Amendment. It was not their intention that a man should forfeit his interest because a single act of waste, however slight, was committed. The waste here contemplated was a deliberate act committed after attention had been called to it, and the tenant had been thus warned of his breach of duty.
§ MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, the word was unnecessary and perfectly unknown in law.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENEEAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)should have thought quite the contrary. They did not mean an act of waste, but persistent waste after notice was given.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 181; Noes 82: Majority 99.—(Div. List, No. 259.)
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.