ORDINARY CONDITIONS OF TENANCIES. (Hansard, 21 June 1881)

§ DR. COMMINS
said, the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper 995 was, practically, merely a verbal one. It introduced no new principle whatever, and only purported to carry out what he understood to be the object of the framers of the Bill—namely, not only to give to the tenant his interest in his own improvements, but to render him quite capable of taking away buildings and substituting others for them, or allowing them to go to ruin if they did not suit him. Under the clause as it at present stood, a tenant who had erected a house or a wall, or any other building, and afterwards found it of no use to him, would, nevertheless, be compelled by the landlord to keep it in repair or forfeit his tenancy. He proposed to insert words in the clause to prevent the eviction of a tenant for such a cause as that.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press the Amendment. It was admitted on all sides that the landlord was interested in the preservation of the premises in a good condition, as he had a reversionary interest in them; and he (the Attorney General for Ireland) thought it was undesirable that there should be any relaxation of the Common Law rules, by which a tenant was bound to keep all buildings on his holding in repair. No doubt, they had the security that the tenant would keep these buildings in repair for his own sake; but that was not enough to protect the property. As to the fear of actual eviction, there would be a provision in the Bill to enable the Court in fit cases to relieve the tenant from the forfeiture. He did not think that it ought to be punished as waste for a tenant to pull down an old building for the purpose of erecting a new one.

§ MR. HEALY
wished to draw a comparison between the manner in which Amendments coming from the Irish Members and those coming from other hon. Members were treated. Hon. Members sitting near him proposed 996 Amendments in the interest of the tenant, some of which were extremely reasonable; but the Government met these Amendments with the statement that they were not required by the equity of the case, or that the object for which they were advanced had already been effected; and no enthusiasm was excited in the minds of the Liberal Members, who were willing to leave the matter in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. The Liberal Party had no enthusiasm in the interests of the tenant; but the case was very different when they came to deal with the interests of the landlord. Amendments against the tenant, and in favour of the landlord, were proposed and were disposed of merely by a nod. He (Mr. Healy), for one, was not content to allow this sort of thing to continue. They had been dealing a little too softly with the Government, and had got nothing for their pains. The Government had not opposed this Amendment on its merits, but had made one of those excuses that the Committee were continually hearing. For the future, when the Irish Members brought forward a reasonable Amendment, they should insist on it, and, if the Government refused to accept it, divide the Committee upon it. He himself had brought forward half-a-dozen reasonable Amendments, and only in one case had he gone to a division; but, owing to the way in which the Irish Members were being treated, it would be necessary to change these tactics. He would, therefore, advise the hon. and learned Member to go to a division on the Amendment.

MR. GLADSTONE
I cannot allow the statement made by the hon. Member who has just sat down to pass without a reply. So far as we are concerned, it is without the smallest foundation. He said the right hon. and learned Gentleman near me (the Attorney General for Ireland) did not oppose the Amendment on its merits; but, so far as this is concerned, he is wrong in his statement of fact. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not attempt to exaggerate the situation; but he said that the Amendment was a reversal of the principle of Common Law, and he laid down that the landlord had an equitable interest in the efficient condition of the entire holding, in which the tenant had a joint partnership, and in 997 which he received, or is to receive, tenant right. Therefore, it was upon the merits that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposed the Amendment. I beg the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) to believe that there is a strict and undeviating effort made by us to judge every Amendment according to its merits, without the smallest regard for the quarter of the House from which it comes.

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
said, the Attorney General for Ireland entirely missed the point of the Amendment, which was with regard to buildings to be erected by the tenant himself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken as though it related to buildings which were the property of the landlord.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he could not agree with the Prime Minister as to the manner in which Amendments were received from different parts of the House. They had had an illustration only last night of the kind of thing to which the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had objected, for directly after a reasonable Amendment, proposed by an Irish Member, had been rejected by the Government, a similar Amendment, coming from another quarter, was accepted by a nod. That was not the way to treat Amendments "on their merits," and some reason should have been given by the Government for their change of front. The formula of all Liberal Associations in the Kingdom was that this Bill was an honest attempt to deal with the Irish Land Question; but it appeared to him to be nothing but a splendid attempt to sit upon two stools—to make it appear that they were giving something very considerable to the tenant, when, in reality, they were giving him little or nothing. What had occurred in regard to this Amendment?—

THE CHAIRMAN
Just as the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) sat down, I was about to say to him that he had spoken for some time, but had not alluded to the merits of the Amendment before the Committee. I must call the attention of the hon. Member for Cavan to the fact that he is not discussing the Amendment.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he was not speaking upon the general question, but as to the mode in which Amendments were received by the Members of the Govern- 998 ment. In the present instance, the Amendment had been met by a quibble. When a man signed a lease he contracted to keep in good repair all buildings on his holding; but it was a well-known fact that in Ireland there were very often no buildings on the land when the tenant entered into possession. The tenant himself built the houses, and there was no contract as to what repairs should be done. The clause, as it stood, without Amendment, would introduce an entirely new law, and would attach a penalty upon that which, in times past, had not been in any way penal. Some tyrannical landlords, without having spent 1d. on the farm buildings themselves, would avail themselves of the powers of the clause, and, taking advantage of every lapse on the part of their tenants, prosecute them and treat them unfairly. That which belonged to the landlord was merely the land in its natural state. The buildings belonged to the tenant, and, under the powers of this Bill, he would have the right to sell them. If he allowed any dilapidations to occur it was to his own injury, and-not to the injury of the landlord. The Government imagined a contingency which never would arise, for the parties who would ultimately get the land would be the tenant's heirs or his creditors; but certainly not the landlord.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, that by the law as it stood the tenant from year to year was bound not to commit voluntary waste. That was all they said the tenant in this case should not do. They did not oblige him to keep the premises in repair; but, in cataloguing his obligations, they made him responsible for the buildings on his holding just to the same extent as the ordinary tenant from year to year was at present.

§ MR. MARUM
said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. It must be borne in mind that the buildings on a farm did not belong to a' tenant, although he was entitled under the Act to compensation for them. He could wish to see some equity clause framed, whereby there would be some means of preventing the grievances that hon. Members imagined would arise.

§ MR. LEAMY
said, that, as he understood the principle of the clause, it was not one of Common Law at all, but of feudal law, which gave everything at- 999 tached to the land to the owner of the freehold. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland said the Amendment would interfere with that principle; but that principle had been interfered with over and over again. It had been interfered with by all the enactments dealing with fixtures, and it would be interfered with by this Bill, which would enable the tenant to sell his improvements. He would ask the Government whether they proposed that the landlord should be able to treat persistent waste by the tenant of buildings which he (the tenant) had himself erected as a breach of statutory conditions entitling the landlord to claim forfeiture, or that he should go before a magistrate and obtain an order against waste, disregard of which on the part of the tenant would render that individual liable to a month's imprisonment, which was already the law under a re-enactment of an Act of Geo. IV.? This old law was a strong protection to the landlord. What was waste? A tenant built houses on his farm, and, perhaps after three, or four, or five years, he took it into his head to knock them down for the purpose of erecting new buildings. This would be called waste, for which the landlord could claim forfeiture; and this, it appeared to him, was extremely unreasonable. The landlord should only be protected so far as buildings he himself had erected were concerned. By the Bill they were giving the tenant the right to dispose of his own improvements, and it was exceedingly unlikely that he would allow those improvements to get into a state of dilapidation and become valueless to himself. He submitted, therefore, that the Amendment was one which might very reasonably be accepted by the Government, and one which would not in any degree prejudice the landlord.

§ DR. COMMINS
said, it was not a tenant from year to year that a landlord could evict for dilapidation; therefore, the Attorney General's argument fell to the ground. The landlord had never had power to evict for dilapidation; but this clause purported to give it to him, and not only did it give him that power, but it gave it to him in perpetuity—power to evict for dilapidations of the tenant's own property, and which the tenant could go into the market and sell if he thought proper. The principle 1000 introduced in the clause might be used for most oppressive purposes by the landlord. One of the objects of this Bill was to take away the landlord's power of oppression; and, while he did not desire to deprive them of one farthing of their right in their property, he was anxious to take away from them every right that they could use oppressively.

§ MR. SHAW
asked whether the Government could not introduce words which would, in some way, meet this case? No doubt, there was something in the objection of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Dr. Commins). He himself had known cases where buildings had been allowed to fall gradually into decay. There was such a thing as changing the style of farming and having no use for buildings in the second method that were valuable in the first. The question was, whether the Government would not introduce some words which would prevent a landlord bringing before the Court dilapidations that did not involve any substantial injury. It would be a very serious thing if, for an alteration that could do no injury to the landlord, and no injury to the farm, such a severe penalty as forfeiture could be imposed upon the tenant.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, that one of the complaints in Ireland was that the landlords indulged in interferences which were unreasonable, and unnecessary, and troublesome. The late Lord Leitrim would not allow his tenants to make improvements on their farms without first obtaining his permission. In one instance the tenant had gone to the trouble and expense of building a new house; but the landlord's permission had not first been obtained, and the result was that when his Lordship saw the structure he insisted upon the tenant's pulling it down again. This was, no doubt, an extreme case; but, according to this clause, which the Government seemed disposed to force upon the Committee, it would be within the power of every landlord in Ireland to act as Lord Leitrim had done. There were still, in some parts of Ireland, landlords who acted as Lord Leitrim had done—Mr. Ogleby, of County Mayo, for instance. This gentleman was another edition of Lord Leitrim, and had made all sorts of rules for his tenants, keeping them in a constant state of 1001 anxiety and turmoil. The effect of the Amendment, if it were accepted, would be to give the tenantry throughout Ireland a feeling of security and independence.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
said, he did not wish to give his vote without some explanation. He supposed that if a landlord had erected a building on a farm, persistent waste would he to allow that to go to ruin; but did the Attorney General for Ireland mean that if a tenant took a farm on which no building existed, and, say to-morrow, built a house upon it, and, five years hence, allowed that house to get into a condition of dilapidation, that the landlord would be able to evict him? Where, he would ask any Member of the Committee, was the justice of a law which would permit such a thing as that?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, the matter seemed to be getting into a grave state of confusion. There were two kinds of waste known to the law. One was permissive waste, where the tenant did nothing, but the thing went, as all things would in time, to decay. That was not within this clause at all, whether the building belonged to the tenant himself or to the landlord. By the Common Law of the land a tenant from year to year who got a loan of a thing for a time, though not bound to keep up buildings and make good natural decay as a leaseholder would be obliged to do, was still bound not to destroy anything. He was bound not to commit voluntary waste, and with that alone this clause dealt. There seemed to be a little misapprehension on the subject. A tenant built a house on his farm; he could not sell that house apart from the farm, and when they talked about his owning the improvements and being able to sell them what they meant was that he could sell his tenancy with the improvements on it, but whatever was attached to the soil belonged to the owner, of that soil, though he should pay the value of such addition. A landlord built and let a farm, and the hon. Member opposite supposed that the tenant let it go to decay. It was said—"For that, under the Bill, the landlord can claim forfeiture;" but that was not the nature of the clause at all. That was what was called "permissive waste;" but if the landlord let the farm with a 1002 building on it, and the tenant persisted in knocking that building down in spite of having received notice from the landlord that he was not to do so, that constituted "voluntary waste," for which he could be proceeded against and forced to quit. As to the manner in which these conditions were to be enforced, he had already stated that, acting in the spirit of an Amendment proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), they proposed to enable the Court to refuse to declare a tenancy forfeited and to deal with each case on its merits and award damages, or nothing, as might be just. They merely enacted in this clause what was a Common Law obligation in regard to yearly tenancies. By enlarging the powers of the Court and rendering them more flexible, they hoped they would be able to secure justice both to the landlord on the one side and the tenant on the other.

§ SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY
said, that the fixing of rent by the Court would be governed by all the incidents of the tenancy existing at the time.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, that not only was it not a matter of common sense that what one man put on the soil belonged to another, but it was directly contrary to it. That seemed to be an oppressive law—a remnant of the feudal system. If the landlord let a farm with buildings on it and the tenant pulled them down, it was right that he should be punished for it; but, on the other hand, if the tenant put up buildings and pulled them down again himself, it was contrary to common sense that he should be punished for it. When one man purchased a holding from another he might find buildings on it built by his predecessor which were not suited to his wants, and might pull them down for the purpose of erecting the kind of premises he required. Surely it would be very hard to punish him for doing that.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
said, that although this seemed a very small matter on the surface it was really very important. In Ireland, in 99 cases out of 100, it was the tenants who erected all the buildings on a farm. Changes might be made in the character of farming in that country; indeed, it was very likely that they would be made, looking at the immense cattle trade between Ame- 1003 rica and this country. The Irish farmer might have to go back to tillage, and all the cattle sheds and cow houses might have to be pulled down. Would such a demolition be considered waste? It might in the future be necessary for the proper working of a farm that buildings of this character should be removed; and yet, if he understood the clause aright, a tenant might be evicted for such "voluntary waste." He knew of a case where there was an old mill on a farm. If the landlord were to compel the tenant to keep that in repair all his profits would be swallowed up, in a few years it would fall down from sheer old age, and the tenant would have lost all his "improvements."

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, that there would be no forfeiture in cases of permissive waste, but only in the case of wilful waste. It was suggested that there ought to be no condition of this kind except in the case referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins); but there were cases in which the landlord should be protected which were not covered by the Amendment. The buildings that the landlord had erected might be pulled down in order that similar structures might be put up in another and more convenient part of the holding. These buildings would not have been erected by the landlord, still they would be the only buildings for the purposes of the farm, and it would be unreasonable to allow the tenant to destroy them at will. But there should be no right to evict where the landlord could be completely protected by the payment of damages. The Government intended to protect the tenant in this way by giving the Court, in all cases, ample power to restrain ejectments.

§ MR. PARNELL
wished to know what was the advantage of retaining this portion of the sub-section if they intended, as it appeared they did, by a subsequent Amendment, to enable the Court to impose a fine on the tenant for wilful waste. The landlord, as had been shown by several legal Members, was fully protected already. He had a variety of remedies, and it was entirely unnecessary to give him the additional one provided by this sub-section. The Solicitor General had announced that the Government proposed to give the Court power, 1004 as an alternative to this sub-section, to inflict a pecuniary fine.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
No, to give compensation.

§ MR. PARNELL
Well, to give compensation. Surely that was sufficient. As the clause now stood, it furnished an inducement to the landlord to enter upon harassing law suits. The Attorney General for Ireland had explained that this sub-section was only intended to deal with persistent waste—that was, waste actually committed by the action of the tenant and not by the neglect of the tenant; and he had said that surely no landlord out of a lunatic asylum would bring a suit against his tenant where the persistent waste committed was of a beneficial character. But they were entitled to reply—"Surely no tenant out of a lunatic asylum would commit wilful waste of his own improvements, unless that wilful waste was of a beneficial character." It was a fact that many landlords in Ireland refused their tenants permission to remove any permanent improvement whatever—that was to say, in the nature of a wall, fence, or building. That part of the Bill which the Amendment was intended to veto would keep alive that power, which was one of a very objectionable character. Illiterate men, as many of the Irish tenants were, would not find it easy to describe the improvements they intended to execute in such a way as the office of the great landlord desired. It would be difficult for them to make maps of them and to indicate the expense and their exact nature beforehand; therefore it was desirable that they should not give the landlord power to initiate an expensive law suit against the tenant merely on account of an act which, by the converse of the argument of the Attorney General for Ireland, no tenant out of Bedlam would be guilty of. He thought the case for the adoption of the Amendment had been fully made out.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
said, that if they were making a law which was to regulate the relations between landlord and tenant it ought to be made as plain as possible to both. It ought to be made plain to the landlord that the buildings he had erected were his own, and that if the tenant injured them he was liable to all the penalty; but it ought also to be made evident to the 1005 tenant that he was master of his own farm, and had a right to erect and pull down any buildings that he pleased. What were they doing? In the Bill they were doing precisely what caused, in so great a measure, the failure of the Act of 1870. They were making provisions of an absolute character and then putting in some extraordinary equity clauses, which were to undo those provisions. What would happen here? The tenants were ignorant men; the agent of the landlord might go to one of them and say—"You pull down that building or do anything to injure it, and you are guilty of waste, and we shall proceed against you." It was all very well to say that the Court would get all the facts brought out, and proceed to award damages. Going to the Court meant enormous exertion and great anxiety on the part of the tenant, great expense and a very uncertain result, because the Committee knew perfectly well that what one Court had decided another was very apt to settle in an opposite way. Why, in the name of common sense, could the Government not make it clear in the clause that if the buildings belonged to the landlord, having been erected by himself solely, or with the assistance only of his tenant, he had a claim to them; whilst, on the other hand, if the tenant erected them they were his, and he had a right to do what he liked with them? This clause would act as a direct discouragement to tenants to improve their farms. The Irish tenants were a suspicious class—and naturally so from what they had suffered—and were not likely to improve their farm buildings. They would never attempt to improve their houses, which was the great object to be obtained; they would not put up farm buildings when they were told—"You once put that up, and you have no power of altering it or pulling it down, otherwise the landlord may proceed against you for ejectment, and the Court will have to decide whether you were entitled to pull it down or not." It might seem absurd to English Members to hear this matter argued; but the cases were without number in Ireland, where the agents of landlords had refused most reasonable permission to tenants to erect or alter buildings. The proceedings on Lord Leitrim's estate ought to be a beacon to guide the Government in dealing with 1006 this matter. What had been done on that estate might be done elsewhere. If the matter was taken to a division, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) should certainly vote for the Amendment, regretting deeply that the Government had not met the hon. and learned Member in some way.

§ MR. WARTON
was sorry to see such a great waste of time owing to the determination of hon. Members below the Gangway not to be convinced. After the very clear and lucid statements of the Attorney General for Ireland and the Solicitor General for England, he should have thought there was no room for argument; but the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had twice risen to show that he was unconvinced. The clause only dealt with voluntary waste—persistent voluntary waste.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, he was unable to reconcile the statements made by the Attorney General for Ireland and the Solicitor General for England with what they had all along—or what he had all along—understood to be the spirit of the clause. The clause introduced statutory conditions and enacted what, practically, amounted to fixity of tenure; and they were, therefore, importing a new principle into their English legislation. This novel, dangerous, and mischievous principle of fixity of tenure was, he understood, qualified by certain conditions, a breach of which would bring the tenancy to an end; but they now heard that a breach of those conditions would only entail a nominal fine. The Amendment was only another illustration of the futility of the attempt to establish a co-partnership in land in Ireland. As the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) stated, the Government were trying to sit between two stools; and he should not be surprised if, before long, they came to grief between them.

§ MR. E. COLLINS
said, that the tendency of the law in Ireland had been to award damages for breaches of conditions. Was there anything in the subsection they were dealing with that would interfere sensibly with the spirit of those decisions—did the sub-section carry new conditions that did not involve damages?

§ MR. DALY
said, that, in a case where a person had bought a tenant's improvements and interest in a farm, and proceeded, for reasons of his own, to throw down some of the buildings constructed 1007 by his predecessor, the landlord, if this sub-section was not amended, could serve him with, a notice, and, if he persisted in the operations, claim forfeiture of the tenancy. Every protection should be given to the tenant, who, of the two parties—the tenant and the landlord—was the weaker.

§ MR. WIGGIN
wished to point out that, where a farmer bought up the tenant right of a farm adjoining his own holding, he very likely would not have use for the house on the newly acquired land, for which rates and taxes would be charged, and might desire to pull it down or convert it into a cow-shed or barn. If he followed his inclination in the matter, surely it would be very hard to punish him for it.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, that for merely allowing buildings to go out of repair or to fall down the clause did not propose to inflict any punishment at all. There might be cases where a landlord let a piece of land on condition that certain buildings should be erected on it, and if those buildings were erected and subsequently demolished by the tenant, it would be very hard if the landlord had not a legal remedy. With regard to the case that had been put to him of a tenant buying an adjoining farm, it might be assumed that it would not be regarded by the landlord as waste to pull down some of the buildings; but, even if it was, the matter would have to be' gone into in Court, and the tenant could make out his case. Hon. Members would remember that this clause did not deal at all with the remedy; it merely stated what were the obligations of the tenant. The clause said the tenant should pay his rent, and should not commit actual and positive waste by pulling down buildings or doing other damage after receiving caution from the landlord. The remedy for these breaches of condition was in the 13th clause. There, it would be seen, the Bill said that for non-payment of rent the landlord must proceed by ordinary process of ejectment, and for the other breaches by notice to quit, and they proposed to add that the Court should have the power to say whether there was any, and, if so, what amount of harm done, and to award damages accordingly.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, the arguments of the Attorney General for Ireland con- 1008 clusively proved to him that the language of the clause should be altered. He learned, for the first time in his life, that "dilapidations" meant wilfully pulling down buildings after notice from the landlord to desist. With submission to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he understood that to be destruction. Persistent waste by dilapidation could mean nothing else than permissive dilapidation—that was to say, not keeping in repair. He certainly hoped that the interpretation given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not be adopted by the Committee.

MR. GLADSTONE
We understand that the Amendment, in its present form, would assert the principle that improvements which have been effected by the tenant were so absolutely the property of the tenant that he may do with them exactly what he liked, without anyone calling him to account. But that is not our view. Our view is that when a tenant puts improvements on a holding, they become part of the holding, and that both the landlord and tenant have an interest in them—the tenant a limited interest in respect of his tenant right, and the landlord a permanent interest as owner of the whole. We have noticed that objection has been taken by the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), and that the point has been raised that there may be dilapidations which in themselves are really improvements—where, for instance, a tenant might destroy an old building in order to supply a more suitable or better building—and it is said an operation of this kind ought not to become the subject of presumptive forfeiture, or even of the first stage of an operation of the kind. Certainly, there is wanting a distinction between dilapidations that are mischievous and those that are beneficial; and, therefore, we should do, I think, quite right to insert after the word "buildings" the words "to the prejudice of the holding."

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
thought that the suggestion of the Prime Minister was a reasonable one, and that the discussion might now very properly be allowed to terminate.

§ MR. MARUM
reminded the Committee that the late Mr. Butt, in drawing his Bill, had made use of the word waste in the same way as it was used in this Bill.

§ MR. T. C. THOMPSON
said, the Government did not appear to include permissive waste in the Bill, and he called the attention of the Committee to the fact that permissive waste included dilapidation—it meant, in the case of a building, that it was falling to pieces. Again, deterioration of the soil unquestionably meant permissive waste—that was to say, not attending to the crops. It did not mean active waste. He suggested that the Government should recast the clause in such a manner that ordinary persons engaged in farming in Ireland could understand it. They were contemplating a period when not noble Lords, but the tenantry of Ireland, should be owners of the soil. He thought the clause should be put in such a form that there could be no possibility of a mistake with regard to it.

§ MR. LITTON
said, he sympathized with the spirit of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins). He, however, regarded the word "principally," in connection with the last part of the phrase, as too strong, and suggested that the word "partly" should be substituted for it in the Amendment, the first line of which would then run—"Buildings which, have been wholly or partly erected by the landlord." If that alteration were made, he thought the Committee might then proceed to a division.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that, in considering the provisions of this Bill, which, limited the rights of tenants, it should never be forgotten that one of the probable effects of the measure under the Purchase Clauses would be the creation of a large number of average sized owners, and that very possibly many of these new proprietors would after a time become anxious to let a portion of the farms of which they had become owners. It therefore became all the more necessary that Parliament should not provide these new proprietors with any of the feudal remedies which were given under the old system to the old landlords. These new proprietors would be men living on the spot and looking after their interests very narrowly; and he thought it would be disastrous if, by increasing the number of limitations, the number of law suits should also be increased, which would come before the Court established by the Bill. The Prime Minister had drawn a distinction 1010 between the interest of the landlord in the tenant's improvements, and the interest of the tenant in such improvements. That was a distinction of which they had that evening heard for the first time, and constituted rather an alarming disclosure. He had supposed that the Bill purported to confer on the tenant the sole right to the beneficial interest in his own improvements; but it now appeared that the landlord was to have a beneficial interest in the improvements also. He should therefore like to know what that interest was to be; how it was to be defined; and whether it was to be maintained by a number of harassing conditions, such as abounded in the Bill, or in some other way? There had been a suspicion that the Bill would not secure to the tenant the full right to his improvements, and they now found their worst suspicions verified by the statement of the Prime Minister, who now admitted that the landlord had an interest in the tenant's improvements. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon should withdraw his Amendment, the Government on their part agreeing to the insertion of the words "to the prejudice of the holding." But he (Mr. Parnell) thought the exigencies of the case would be better met by a slight addition to those words, and that the words to be inserted should be "to the prejudice of the interest of the landlord in the holding."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
saw no objection to the words suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork.

§ DR. COMMINS
said, that, as the Attorney General for Ireland had adopted the words suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, which provided for the mischief he wished to guard against, he was in favour of the Amendment being withdrawn.

§ MR. BIGGAR
wished to refer to a remark of the Attorney General for Ireland—namely, that the present clause 1011 was influenced by the 13th clause of the Bill. By the present clause the landlord might serve the tenant with notice to quit on the allegation that injury to the land had taken place. That would, no doubt, be fair if the improvements were the work of the landlord; but it was, of course, notorious that the greater part of the improvements on farms in Ireland was the work of the tenant, but it was perfectly impossible for any casual observer to know to what extent they had been executed by the tenant. He contended that if the landlord could not show that the improvements had been made by him that he should not have the powers which in this particular case were conferred by the clause. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
was understood to say that the Amendment could not be accepted.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, the questions of deterioration of the soil and of dilapidation of buildings stood on an entirely different footing. He was not able, therefore, to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend, if he went to a division.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, as there appeared to be a feeling that it was undesirable to proceed with his Amendment, he was willing, with the permission of the Committee, to withdraw it.

§ SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY
said, that both the Bessborough Commission and the Duke of Richmond's Commission had reported in favour of the improvements of the tenant in his holding being taken into account in fixing the rent. The 7th clause of the Bill, also, empowering the Court to determine the rent, laid it down that the Court, in fixing the rent, should have reference to the improvements effected by the tenant or his predecessor in title. If that was so, it was quite clear that these improvements, when taken into consideration, ought not to be disturbed except the landlord received compensation. He 1012 was unable to see the necessity of retaining the words— After notice has been given by the landlord to the tenant to desist from such dilapidation or deterioration of soil.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, the Government must retain these words. The meaning of "persistent waste" was not waste simply, but a continuance of the mischief after the landlord had given notice that it should stop.

SIR ROWLAND BLENNERHASSETT
remarked, that the Committee last night had agreed to retain the word "persistent." There could be no persistent waste until notice to desist had been given by the landlord to the tenant. No doubt it would have been better and plainer that the sub-section should simply state that the tenant should not commit waste. This expression would have been quite intelligible and adequate, like the requirement of the French law, that the farmer should cultivate his land "en bon père de famille."

§ MR. GIBSON
admitted that the waste committed by the tenant after notice to desist had been given was "persistent waste;" but that was not the question involved here. It was whether the clause was so framed as to supply the landlord with reasonable, fair, and equitable protection against the destruction of his property. The sub-section was so framed that it might be that a wasteful tenant behind the back of the land-land, and before the latter had time to give notice, would destroy the buildings on his farm. Such a case as that was entirely uncovered by the clause. Every tenant knew that in committing downright real waste he would be doing that which the landlord would stop him in doing. On the other hand, the tenant would know perfectly well that certain methods of dealing with the land, which would secure him, perhaps, remunerative results, were in themselves positive and direct waste. His objection to the sub-section was that there was every- 1013 thing in it to intimate to the tenant that he was safe provided the waste could be committed before the landlord gave him notice. It was a warning to the tenant to be quick with his waste, if he did not wish to be too late; it was as much as to say—"If you want to burn the turf of pasture land, you have only to go out and do it before the landlord has served notice, and then you are within the statutory conditions, because no notice has been served." As the clause stood, unquestionably a farm might be ruined in respect of buildings and soil before the landlord had an opportunity of serving notice upon the tenant to desist. If the sub-section remained unaltered, he was of opinion that this statutory condition was so much waste paper to the landlord, and that the notice required, instead of being a protection to the landlord, was a beacon to the tenant warning him against the shoals and quick-sands which he had to avoid in order to commit waste with impunity.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
said, he was in favour of the elimination of the words proposed to be omitted by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sir Gabriel Goldney). He thought that when once a tenant was placed in possession of his holding he ought to be held responsible for its preservation in good order, and that the fewer the occasions on which he had to look for notice from the landlord the better for both parties. The tenant would, of course, know that he would be doing wrong in pulling down buildings, and he would also know that he ought to abstain from such an act, without receiving notice from his landlord to desist. Evidence had been given before the Commissioners that one of the strongest reasons why the soil of Ireland had deteriorated was the burning of the soil, which caused heavy crops to grow. It was stated that the persons in possession of land where that baneful practice was carried on reaped extraordinary harvests for a time, and that it was only by the most watchful care on the part of the landlord that it could be prevented. He thought that everyone would allow that the burning of the soil was a great deterioration of it, and that the tenant should not be placed in the position to say—"I can do this because my landlord has not given me notice to desist." He objected to the landlord's having to 1014 give notice to the tenant that he was doing something wrong.

§ MR. MARUM
pointed out that the landlord had already power, on suspicion of waste merely, to summon the parties supposed to have committed it, who could be brought before the magistrate, and, if found guilty, committed to prison for one month. He admitted that this power was not incorporated with this Bill; but there never had been any fear that, during the absence of notice, the tenant would commit pernicious waste. He therefore thought the Amendment was unnecessary, and hoped that it would not be agreed to.

MR. GORST
said, he could see no reason why the Irish landlord should be forced to have recourse to summary procedure and Criminal Law. It would be much better to protect him by this simple Amendment than to require that notice from the landlord should become a condition precedent to the operation of the clause for the protection of the holding. There were many cases in which this notice could not be given. The landlord might be temporarily absent; he might be a minor, or suffering from illness, or otherwise placed in a position in which he could not serve the notice upon the tenant. Then why, he asked, should the giving of a notice be made precedent to the protection which the clause was intended to give to the landlord? The Amendment was of so reasonable a character that he believed Her Majesty's Government would make the concession asked for.

§ MR. M'COAN
said, it seemed to have been forgotten that this clause positively created a new penalty against the tenant, and provided a remedy for the landlord over and above that already existing in law. No lawyer in the House, and probably few laymen, need be reminded that the proper and sufficient remedy for waste was an action. If the clause did not exist, the landlord would still have his legal remedy; and, therefore, he thought there were no grounds for limiting the clause by the omission of the words proposed to be struck out by the Amendment before the Committee. He pointed out to the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that such minors, sick persons, and others who might not be in a position to serve the required notice would still have their remedy by an action at law.

§ MR. SHAW
said, he hoped the Government would not consent to eliminate the words. It was unreasonable that the tenant in Ireland should be left subject to all the penalties of the clause without a single notice from the landlord.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, the safeguard against the penalties which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down suggested that the present clause imposed upon the tenant was to be found in the fact that the landlord could not call upon the tenant to desist, unless there was persistent dilapidation or deterioration. He did not wish to argue the question from the point of the landlord's interest or the tenant's interest, but with regard to what had been too generally neglected in those discussions—the interest of agriculture in Ireland. The retention of the words it was proposed to omit, if they were to have any practical operation, must be against the improvement of the soil of Ireland. If they had any meaning at all, it was that the tenant might persist in deteriorating the soil, until and unless he received notice from his landlord that he was not to continue this persistent deterioration. It was well known, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), that the deterioration of the Boil of Ireland by burning had been going on for many years; and the Committee were also aware that it was of great practical importance that this deterioration should no longer be continued; but, in his view, the retention of these words would encourage the tenants of Ireland who might be so disposed to persistently deteriorate the soil, in the hope that the landlord would not detect what they were about, and consequently give the notice which was necessary, according to the clause, for his protection. For these reasons, he cordially supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sir Gabriel Goldney).

§ MR. GIVAN
agreed with the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) that the Government should not consent to omit these words from the clause. Inasmuch as the acts referred to would constitute a breach of statutory conditions, he thought the tenant should be guarded by this notice against their commission, which would involve the forfeiture of his tenancy.

§ MR. PELL
thought if the Amendment were agreed to it would be necessary, in the interests of agriculture as well as in the interest of the landlord, that some words of warning should be addressed to the tenant not to commit acts by which the soil was deteriorated or injured. As the clause stood, the tenant might continue for a considerable time in a course of action which would cause permanent injury to the soil, far beyond anything the framers of the Bill contemplated. It would be of no use to give the tenant notice after the mischief had been done; and therefore he should move at the proper time that notice be given to the tenant not to commit acts which were perfectly well known to be the cause of deterioration of the soil.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, it was not an inequitable proposal on the part of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) that this notice should be given, and he was prepared to agree to the suggestion.

§ SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY
said, after the readiness expressed by the Prime Minister to agree to the words suggested by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, he was willing, with the permission of the Committee, to withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
objected to the slight protection given by this clause to the tenant being withdrawn, and trusted that the Prime Minister would not agree to the Amendment.

§ MR. T.D. SULLIVAN
said, the result of this Amendment, if accepted by the Committee, would be the serving upon the tenant of a whole series of prohibitory regulations that would leave the tenant no liberty of action whatever. For his own part, he preferred the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sir Gabriel Goldney). If it could be shown that his fears were groundless with regard to the notices of a prohibitory kind that would be served upon the tenant, he should, of course, withdraw his opposition to the Amendment.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
said, he thought there ought to be as few notices passing between the landlord and the tenant as possible. His hon. Friend opposite argued that if the tenant committed waste after notice he would ipso facto forfeit his holding. But that was not the case. The effect of the clause was, that if a tenant persistently deteriorated the soil and injured buildings the landlord could bring him into Court, and it would be determined whether the acts of deterioration had been committed, and the Court could then put the powers of the Act in operation. No notice was necessary for that purpose. He trusted the Government would agree to leave out the words relating to the notice.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, the notice would not be a general notice, but must state specifically that the tenant should desist from dilapidation or the deterioration of the soil, for instance.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he was unable to see, the tenant farmers on large estates being able to keep their lands in good condition, why the landlords should be allowed constantly to interfere with the tenants in the management of their holdings. He could not see the slightest advantage in any of the precautions which were proposed to be set up in the interest of the landlords by the clause in the Bill now under discussion. There could be no doubt that under the existing system the agents were bribed almost every day to permit the tenants to do pretty much what they pleased; and as the bribes took the form, in many cases, of whisky, it was well known that numerous instances could be adduced, if necessary, of agents who had died from drinking whisky. This must show that the system now in existence was a thoroughly demoralizing one, and one which ought not to be encouraged. The Bill under consideration would have that effect among others; and therefore he wished that the measure, as a whole, and this clause in particular, should not receive the support of the Committee. The proposals which stood on the Paper, or, at any rate, a large number of them, opened the door to a system of meddling in Irish affairs which ought to be got rid of at the earliest possible moment.

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
opposed the introduction of the words, believing, as 1018 he did, that the effect of the Amendment would be to enable the landlords perpetually to serve their tenants with notices and regulations which would, of necessity, interfere with the liberty they had a right to expect in the management of their holdings.

§ DR. COMMINS
thought the Amendment in its amended form was equally unnecessary, though not, perhaps, equally mischievous, as the original proposal. The proposal had reference to the deterioration of the soil and the buildings; but no one could suggest that any deterioration of the soil could take place in the course, say, of a single night, and it could not, therefore, be watched without an amount of vigilance which would not only be impossible, but unnecessary. Then there were the statements which had been made by a gentleman who was one of the most notorious land agents in Ireland, and who had written a book on the subject with the title, Realities of Irish Life. This book professed to give statements of fact; but the so-called facts were simple fictions mixed up with praises of the author's own vigilance in his calling, coupled with a statement that, as far as he was concerned, there had been no vexatious interference with tenants. He believed that the same vigilance was still exercised, and that no deterioration of the soil could be effected without ample notice of the fact being given to the landlords. With regard to the deterioration of buildings, there could be no doubt that the caretaker, or bog-ranger, or whatever else he might be called, would be sure to report anything of the kind to the landlord, who would have ample time to give any necessary notices to his tenants. It must not be forgotten that if the damage or deterioration did not exceed £5 there could be punishment by fine or imprisonment for a short period; but if it was beyond that amount, the offending person could on conviction be sent to prison for as long a term as two years. Was not this, he asked, sufficient for the landlords without their having in addition the power to do that which came within the scope of the Amendment before the Committee? He should certainly be very much surprised if Parliament consented to allow landlords, by means of office rules, to be continually serving on their tenants notices and regulations which would of necessity interfere with 1019 their liberty in the management of their holdings. If this Amendment was passed, in short, it would give to the landlords or their myrmidons arbitrary powers which they ought not to possess in regard both to the cultivation of the farms and what might, or might not, in strict equity, be called waste.

§ MR. PARNELL
thought the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins) to the Amendment was a very vital, if not, indeed, a fatal, one, and was certainly one that ought to be very carefully considered by the Government. The Government had very fairly said that they did not think landlords ought to be permitted to serve notices on their tenants when they entered on their tenancies; but the Amendment now moved left it open to the landlords to serve notices on their tenants at any period of their tenancies forbidding them to do certain things under the term dilapidations of buildings or deteriorations of soil, and in this way re-introducing the whole old system of office rules. The Government had expressly stated that this was not their intention; but he did not see how, on the spur of the moment, any Amendment could be framed which would have the effect of carrying out the intentions of the Government, which was that the landlords should have the power of stopping waste whenever it was about to be committed, without, at the same time, conferring upon them power to set up a number of office rules. He would therefore suggest that the Amendment might be withdrawn, and that before the Report the Government should consider how the clause could be best redrafted in order to carry out the intention to which he had referred as being that of the Government. For his own part, he thought the law of the land as it stood provided ample and summary means for the prevention of waste by tenants of agricultural holdings. He did not think it equitable to remedy waste by allowing a landlord to put into his pocket the result of that waste, or that the tenant should be punished as a criminal because he chose to injure what, after all, was his own property. If a tenant so injured his property he was injuring the whole community; but his punishment should not take the form of a resumption of his whole interest by his landlord.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, there need be no apprehension that the Government would facilitate the setting up of office rules. If the Amendment were agreed to, he would propose a further Amendment to omit the words "such dilapidation or deterioration of soil," so that the clause should read "not to commit or desist from the particular waste specified in such notice." This was a matter which he would consider before the Report, in order to determine whether the words he proposed would not have the effect of carrying into effect that on which all seemed to be agreed.

§ MR. GILL
thought the Amendment was a very misleading one, in addition to which it was bad grammar, for it did not make it clear whether the landlord was not to permit certain things to be done, or whether the tenant was not to permit someone else to do them.

§ MR. PARNELL
suggested to meet the difficulty by inserting the word "projected" after the words "waste or dilapidation."

§ MR. PARNELL
proposed further to amend the Amendment by adding, after the word specified, the words "intends or commenced and."

MR. GLADSTONE
said, the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Member would make the clause run very awkwardly, in addition to which they were, in his view, unnecessary, because what was intended by the Bill had already been made perfectly clear.

§ MR. BIGGAR
thought the whole affair was thoroughly misunderstood, for, as far as he could grasp the matter, the proposal in its present form would give perfect freedom to landlords to re-introduce office rules, they having spies and bailiffs all over their properties, who would be constantly taking bribes from the tenants in order that they might grow their crops in such rotation as they pleased. Reference had been made to the breaking up of permanent pastures, concerning which he would only say that it was not the custom in Cavan, He 1021 hoped the Government would not defer too much of the Bill to the stage of Report, as that would only lead to further discussion and expenditure of time, without, he feared, a corresponding advantage.

§ MR. PARNELL
still thought that notwithstanding the decision at which the Committee had arrived, it would be wise, if possible, to defer the matter until the Report, in order that it might be further considered; for he could not but think that, in its present amended form, the Bill would permit landlords to serve notices in advance, specifying every possible form of waste which the tenants were not to commit, and so to bind down the tenants just as they pleased.

SIR ROWLAND BLENNER-HASSETT
thought the question before the Committee was one which would be much more appropriate to be raised on the 8th clause.

§ MR. LITTON
moved, in page 4, line 33, after "soil," insert— But if the Court, on the application of the tenant, and in case of proceedings by the landlord to determine the tenancy for such waste, shall be of opinion that justice can be done by awarding damages, then upon payment by the tenant of the amount of damages so to be awarded, or if the Court shall so direct upon the expenditure of the amount so awarded in making good the injury, the Court may stay the ejectment proceedings, and make such order as to costs as may be just.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, he agreed with the spirit of the Amendment; but suggested that this was not the point at which it should be moved. It should come at the end of the 13th clause, which prescribed the mode of proceeding for breach of these statutory conditions, and where the Government intended to provide that the Court should consider each case as it arose, in order to do justice between landlords and tenants.

§ MR. LITTON
was willing, though rather reluctantly, to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. GLADSTONE
thought his hon. and learned Friend did not quite understand what the Attorney General intended to do. The right hon. and 1022 learned Gentleman proposed to do more than the hon and learned Member proposed.

§ MR. RANKIN
wished to move an Amendment to prevent the tenants doing anything to annoy the landlords. The tenant, under the Bill, would be under no conditions for 15 years, except those laid down in Clause 4. He did not wish to insinuate that Irish tenants were more ill-disposed than others; but other landlords had the power to make their own arrangements with their tenants, such as Irish landlords had not. He would also point out that the nuisances or annoyances which he had in mind were not such as would come under the legal technicality of this clause. They might not be waste or dilapidation; but a tenant might put up a garden wall, which, though useful, might interfere with some beautiful prospect the landlord wished to retain. That could not be brought under the clause; but it might be a very serious annoyance. Again, a tenant might put up a shop near the landlord's gate, which would be a serious annoyance. In moving this Amendment, he did not wish to press for any particular form of words. It was the spirit and not the letter of the Amendment which he wished to press on the Government and the Committee. If the Government would undertake to bring up an Amendment in somewhat the same form he would not press this Amendment.

MR. GLADSTONE
thought the hon. Member had moved this Amendment under a temporary misapprehension as to the meaning of the clause. It was a very peculiar clause. It was a clause to specify not what was to be done, but to specify what were the wrongs which might be followed by forfeiture. The hon. Member would hardly say that erecting a garden wall, which would be useful, but which might be injurious to some prospect of the landlord, was a proceeding which should be followed by 1023 forfeiture. The clause proposed a general law which ought to prevail.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
suggested that a tenant might erect a public-house, which would be a great annoyance to the landlord, especially if the landlord strongly objected to public-houses.

§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY
reminded the noble Lord and the Committee that the magistrates in Ireland never granted a licence to a man to open a public-house on an agricultural holding. Therefore there was no fear of that difficulty arising; but there was this peculiarity about the Amendment—that the proposed words were not limited at all to anything the tenant might do with reference to the holding. They were very broad— Anything which may be or which may become a nuisance or annoyance to the landlord. They did not limit this to the corpus of the holding; and a man might suffer a forfeiture if he took to cursing, or smoking bad tobacco, if that was disliked by the landlord.

§ MR. W. HOLMS
said, it appeared to him that the sub-section, as it stood, was likely to lead to misunderstanding between the landlord and tenant. He apprehended that the object of the subsection was to define what were the rights of the landlord as to certain things he wished to do, and in order to effect that he proposed to leave out the words "the tenant shall not persistently refuse to allow;" and, if that were carried, then he would move to insert, after the word "thereby," the words "the landlord shall have the right to enter upon the holding." To avoid misunderstanding, the position of the landlord and the tenant should be as clearly defined as possible.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, he did not think it desirable that, if the landlord desired to exercise his rights, the 1024 tenant should have the dangerous power of refusing to allow him to do so. The idea, as the clause stood, was that whilst the tenant had a legal right to object, he was not to use that legal right. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment was a better plan. It was conceived in a proper spirit, but it did not come very happily in this place. It would come better where the things which the landlord might do were stated. It could then be discussed separately.

§ MR. W. HOLMS
You propose to remove the whole clause?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
Yes.

§ MR. GIBSON
suggested that the matter should be allowed to stand over for Report, and that the Government should deal with it themselves. The clause required consideration also on another point. In all Mr. Butt's Bills, which introduced statutory tenancies, words were inserted declaring that such tenancies should be deemed to contain the reservation to the landlord of all royalties, mines, minerals, &c. That was the intention of the Government, and he thought it would be better to make that perfectly clear. The Amendment would lead to confusion if it was taken out of its order.

§ MR.R. H. PAGET
thought that if words were to be inserted specifying the rights of the landlord in this particular sense, they would require very careful consideration lest they should not contain all the rights intended to be included. He wished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it was clear that when a landlord let a holding he had the right to impose conditions of his own in the contract of tenancy outside and beyond those contained in this clause?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
replied that the landlord could, of course, let land on other conditions than those in the clause, provided they were not inconsistent.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
understood that during the statutory term there might be other conditions than those expressed in the clause, although it was only the conditions therein expressed which would justify the termination of the holding.

§ MR. GIBSON
said, as he understood, the Government intended to propose some words in Clause 13 which would enable the Court to mitigate the possibilities of forfeiture. It would be too 1025 serious a thing to say that all the things which a tenant might do should not involve a forfeiture. The Committee had rejected the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), saying that the tenant should not do any of these things; but it would be unwise to say that under those circumstances should the doing of these things be a matter of forfeiture. The matter had better stand over for Report.

§ MR. T. COLLINS
suggested that the hon. Member should withdraw his Amendment and bring it up again in its proper place. He thought, however, it would be better to discuss the question in Committee than on Report.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
proposed that sub-section 3 should come in the place of this sub-section.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
inquired whether the Committee had decided to omit these words, in order to insert them in some other place?

§ MR. LITTON
could not support the suggestion to withdraw the entire subsection. He could quite understand the suggestion of the Attorney General for Ireland that these conditions would come better at the end of sub-section 4; but the withdrawal of the entire sub-section would imply that the spirit of the Amendment was accepted, and then, if the matter were taken on Report, the opportunity of discussing it would be very much restricted. Lower down there were some important Amendments with regard to timber and sporting, which would then have to be relegated to the Report stage, and that would be very inconvenient.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, his proposal was to strike out the sub-section at this place and move it again, not on Report, but in Committee.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, he thought it would be better for the Government to undertake this matter.

§ MR. PLUNKET
said, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his proposal to strike out the subsection. This sub-section stated conditions, the breach of which would form matter of forfeiture, and, as he understood, the intention of the hon. Member (Mr. W. Holms) was that the landlord's rights should be so defined that there 1026 could be no doubt about them; but he did not appear to suggest that if those rights were violated that should involve forfeiture. Then the Attorney General said there was a mistake, and he proposed to strike out the section altogether at this point; but unless the principle was to be given up entirely this was the proper place for the section, and he thought the best plan would be to proceed to consider the other parts of the clause, and afterwards, if the Government thought fit, to make any alteration that could be made on Report.

§ MR. W. HOLMS
said, that what he understood from the Attorney General was that the sub-section should be transposed to another part, and he would withdraw his Amendment and bring it up later, if that was the proper course.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, he thought there was some misapprehension on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), who wanted something more than a mere condition, and was not satisfied with a reservation of the landlord's rights. It obviously would not be consistent with the framework of the clause to insert here a declaration of the landlord's rights in the middle of the clause. But if the 3rd sub-section was left out here, it could be re-introduced at the end of the clause.

§ MR. GIBSON
pointed out that the hon. Member clearly wanted to assert here the distinct right of the landlord to do certain things, and he suggested that it would be better to let the existing sub-section stand, to provide that the tenant should permit the landlord to exercise his rights; and then, after line 11, they could bring in a clear statement asserting what the landlord's rights were. Here they were dealing with the obligation on the tenant to permit the landlord to exercise his rights, which must remain in the Bill, and might remain here as in the proper place; and the Amendment, which, he thought quite reasonable, would contain a statement that these things which the landlord might do had been clearly preserved in the statutory tenancy.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
said, he thought it would be more convenient first to reserve the rights, and then have a provision preventing the tenant from interfering with them.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
suggested that greater progress would be made by going straight on with the Bill as drawn by the Government.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, he hoped the suggestion of the Prime Minister would be accepted. When the clause was brought up again there would be two distinct points—one, a breach of conditions, which would involve forfeiture; the other, a declaration of the landlord's rights.

THE CHAIRMAN
As I understand the proposal before the Committee, it is that for the present we strike out this sub-section, which is necessary, but which we cannot postpone technically, and at the end of Section 5 re-introduce it and consider the Amendments.

§ MR. ONSLOW
inquired whether, if the sub-section was omitted, the Prime Minister intended to put in any other rights of the landlord than those in the paragraph now under consideration? If there was to be a new clause specifying all the landlord's rights he could see no end to the discussion.

MR. GLADSTONE
All that we ask is to postpone the sub-section.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he was anxious that the Committee should clearly know to what they were agreeing, and he thought it his duty to point out what he understood to be the result of such a transposition. This clause, down to line 11, was framed on the assumption that there were a certain number of statutory conditions which, if broken, were to be the subject-matter of forfeiture. But he failed to see how the clause could possibly run if they omitted this 3rd sub-section now, and then, after line 11, indulge in an abstract declaration of the landlord's rights, and restore the 3rd sub-section. That would completely break the framework of the Bill.

§ COLONEL BARNE
pointed out that to put sub-section 3 in after sub-section 5 would make perfect nonsense of the clause; because sub-sections 4 and 5 had nothing to do with the reasons for which a tenant was to forfeit his holding.

§ MR. LEAMY
understood that the Question before the Committee was that the sub-section should stand part of the Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN
That is a mistake. If this part of the section is omitted at present, the Government have undertaken to bring it up after Section 5, and consider it with all the Amendments as it stands on the Paper. That I understand to be the proposal.

§ MR. PARNELL
rose to a point of Order, and asked whether, if these words were negatived in the first part of the clause, they could be again brought up and inserted at a subsequent portion of the clause? It appeared to him that if the Committee had negatived the words as part of the clause they could not re-introduce them.

THE CHAIRMAN
The question is really practically the same. The Committee desire to postpone the section and introduce it in another part of the clause. Therefore, although it is an inconvenient proceeding, and one which can only be adopted under exceptional circumstances, it is within the power of the Committee to take that course. In fact, it has already been done in an earlier part of this Bill.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
suggested that the whole of the Amendments should be dropped here and allowed to re-appear in another place.

§ MR. TOTTENHAM
asked whether, if the proposition was negatived, it would be competent to take the Amendment in the same form again?

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
asked if it was to be understood that this course could be pursued by the Committee because it was proposed by the Government; but if it had been proposed by a private Member it could not be adopted. The proceeding was distinctly in Order or it was not, and he observed that the Chairman had said that it was an inconvenient course, which, however, might be adopted under the exceptional circumstances.

THE CHAIRMAN
As I understand it, the Government intend to propose the sub-section in another part, and with a different arrangement; and if that is the meaning of the Government they are in Order. It might be better, in order to explain such a proceeding, which is not uncommon, for the Chairman to put the Question "that these 1029 words be here omitted," instead of negatived; but that form of putting the Question has never been used.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
pointed out that, in answer to a question by himself, the Prime Minister had stated that the clause would be brought up again in the same form. If words were omitted now, how could it be in Order to move that they stand part of the clause in a subsequent part of the Bill?

§ MR. W. HOLMS
understood that although sub-section 3 was to be postponed until after line 11 had been disposed of, he would be allowed again to bring forward his Amendment. He withdrew the Amendment now, for the convenience of the Committee, on that understanding.

MR. GLADSTONE
The question is one for the Committee; and, therefore, the noble Lord misunderstands the position. There is no privilege. The difficulty simply arises in this way. What is wanted is a transposition of a certain portion of the clause in order that it may be brought up as a matter of convenience in another part of the Bill. The power of the Committee apparently does not extend to postponing part of the clause. If we could do that it would be another matter; but we have no power to do that, and the only way is to strike out the words where they now stand, and then to re-propose them. Then I am asked if we will re-propose them in the same form. We do not wish to bind ourselves absolutely on that point.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
said, it was perfectly clear from the remarks of the Prime Minister, and from the ruling of the Chair, that the course the Government proposed would not be in Order, because the Chairman had distinctly said that the Government intended to bring the clause up in another and a different sense; and he (Lord Randolph Churchill) contended, therefore, that the proposed course would not be in Order.

§ MR. LITTON
said, if the identical words could be brought up again the Committee would be called upon to restore to this clause the words which they had decided should not be in the same clause. If the Government brought up different words, and altered the language of the sub-section, what would 1030 then become of the Amendments now on the Paper?

§ MR. TOTTENHAM
urged that on so important a question the Committee should not come to a decision without understanding in what shape the subsection would be brought forward again. If the Question put from the Chair was negatived, would it be competent for the Government or any hon. Member to bring up the sub-section in the same words?

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
thought a great deal of time would be saved if the Committee proceeded with the section as it stood, and leave the particular Amendments for Report. That would not, in the slightest degree, alter the structure of the sub-section.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
asked whether it was not the rule that a clause if postponed could not be brought up again until the end of the Bill?

MR. GORST
said, if the Chairman's ruling was correct, the Committee would have no power to transpose one part of the clause. It would have been decided that the words stand part of the clause in that place, and that decision could not be reversed.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
thought the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down a great deal more clear than that of the Government; and he believed it was wholly impossible to re-introduce the same clause, or to introduce words which were substantially the same.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, the only way to try the question was whether the words should stand part of the clause. It did not signify whether it was a question of one word, or three words, or 30 words.

THE CHAIRMAN
I want to explain exactly what I understand to be the difficulty. If these words be now struck out, and brought in in another part of the clause, that will remove ambiguities which attach to them. There is nothing new in this proposal, for exactly the same thing was done in a previous part of the Bill by transposing a line, while the proposal transposes a section.

§ MR. HEALY
asked whether all the Amendments put down would re-appear on the Paper?

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
understood that the Chairman ruled that the words should be left out here, be- 1031 cause they were ambiguous. It appeared to him that they would be ambiguous if stuck in after line 11. The question had nothing to do with the ambiguity or non-ambiguity of the words, but whether there was any precedent for such a proceeding.

§ MR. W. HOLMS
suggested that his Amendment should be withdrawn in favour of the proposal of the Attorney General to transpose sub-section 3 to line 11.

§ MR. A. M. SULLIVAN
thought it preposterous that when once a phrase had been negatived in a particular part of a Bill it must never re-appear.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
wished for a distinct statement from the Government as to whether they would undertake to re-introduce the same words at the end of the sub-section. Many Members attached great importance to this sub-section.

MR. GLADSTONE
replied, that the difficulty in giving a literal answer was that a double character was to be given to this enactment, and he wished to reserve a consideration of the section before bringing it up again.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
asked whether all the subjects at present mentioned in the sub-section would re-appear?

MR. GLADSTONE
Yes.

§ MR. BIGGAR
thought the proposal of the Government unreasonable, pointing out the inconvenience of Amendments which were now in their proper place being postponed to a place where they would not fit into the sub-section. He suggested going on with the subsection as it stood, allowing the Amendments to be moved in their proper order.

MR. MACARTNEY
suggested that the difficulty might be met by a declaration of the landlord's rights being introduced on Report at the beginning of Clause 4, and that the Committee should go on with Clause 4 as it stood now.

§ MR. BIGGAR
moved to leave out the words "his landlord," in line 5, subsection 4, and insert the words "the Court." It was, he said, obviously undesirable that the landlord should have the right to come in, and to have the power of extorting a fine when the tenant found it desirable to sub-let or sub- 1032 divide his holding. He was not in favour of sub-letting except in exceptional cases; but he did not think the landlord should have the right to interfere with sub-division, further than to appear in Court and state his objections.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, that Amendment had practically been decided when it was said that there should not be subdivision without the decision of the Court.

§ MR. HEALY
pointed to the probability that a landlord might pretend to refuse to allow sub-division, although he would be glad to see sub-division if he was paid for it, and so he would practically impose a fine on the tenant. The decision should be in the hands of the Court and not the landlord.

§ MR. BIGGAR
thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was wrong in saying that a decision had been come to on this point on a former part of the Bill. This was a new clause, and he urged the Government to accept the Amendment.

§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD
said, that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), who had a similar Amendment on the Paper, had left that Amendment in his hands; but had said he did not feel he could move it, because the point had been already decided.

§ MR. MARUM
asked the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention had been directed to the 9th section of the Land Act of 1870, which would, on assignment or bankruptcy, deprive the tenant of his right to compensation for disturbance?

§ MR. LEAMY
referred to the same section of the Act of 1870, and mentioned that by that Bill a tenant could not recover compensation for disturbance if he sub-let or sub-divided without the consent of the landlord.

§ MR. WARTON
moved to insert the words "in writing" at the end of line 5, sub-section 4, and said, it seemed to him very important that the consent of 1033 the landlord should be given in writing, because disputes might arise and lead to long litigation. This proviso was inserted in many leases, and it would frequently prevent strife.

§ MR. E. STANHOPE
considered the Amendment very desirable, in order to prevent disputes as to the consent of the landlord having been given; and he should, therefore, support the Amendment.

§ MR. BIGGAR
hoped the Government would not agree to the Amendment. It might be a plausible Amendment, but it should not be accepted, because, if the matter came to be one of evidence, and the Court was not satisfied with the evidence, then there would be room for controversy.

§ MR. BRODRICK
pointed out that although the consent of the landlord might be given at the beginning of a 15 years' term, at the end of the term some dispute might arise upon which, without this Amendment, there would be no documentary evidence. He hoped the Amendment would be agreed to.