ORDINARY CONDITIONS OF TENANCIES. (Hansard, 23 June 1881)

§ MR. BRODRICK
, in moving, in page 5, line 5, after the word "landlord" to insert the words "formally given," said, that the Amendment was not altogether different from the Amendment which was discussed at the close of the last Sitting on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), and which was sprung suddenly upon the Committee at a time when it was impossible to consider it thoroughly. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would see that there was a real principle involved in it. He had brought the Amendment forward with the view of preventing future litigation. The state of the law under the Bill would be simply this—that the tenant might get the leave of the landlord to sub-divide his holding. But it was desirable that there should be no future difficulties as to the consent of the landlord; and any future difficulty might be avoided by having witnesses. It would then be impossible for the landlord, or the landlord's successor, to raise the question 10 or 12 years afterwards, because the tenant would have the power of calling a witness to show that the permission was given to him. He would remind the Government that this provision would only apply to a very small part of a holding, and that it was calculated to prevent unnecessary litigation.

THE O'DONOGHUE
said, he rose to a point of Order. He wished to ask if the Amendment was not substantially the same as that which had already been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) and negatived by the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN
As I understand the Amendment already decided, it was that the consent should be given in writing. The words of the present Amendment are that the consent shall be "formally given;" and, therefore, there is a substantial difference.

§ MR. BRODRICK
said, the hon. Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue) forgot that the point now contended for was not that there should be a notice in writing of the consent of the landlord, but that there should be a notice of some kind, so as to prevent, 10 or 12 years afterwards, any contention that the tenant had rightly exercised the permission 1125 given to him. He thought there should be some security for the tenant after the permission had been given.

MR. GLADSTONE
I must say that the Amendment already disposed of would be very much better than the one now proposed. I think it would be more satisfactory to provide that the consent of the landlord should be in writing than that it should be "formally given." But the position which we take up on this matter is that, if anything can be intrusted to the Court, it is perfectly plain that this is a power which it ought to exercise. There is a clause already in the Bill which I think the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) can scarcely have noticed—namely, Clause 42, page 24 of the Bill, in which it is provided, among other things, that the Court shall deal with the mode in which the consent on the part of the landlord, agent, or other persons, may be signified under the Act.

MR. MACARTNEY
regretted that the proposal made by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was not adopted the other evening, and hoped that the Government upon Report would be induced to re-consider the matter.

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is not in Order. This question has already been decided by the Committee, and cannot be now re-opened.

MR. MACARTNEY
said, he only wished to say that there would be very great difficulty unless some plain and simple mode was devised of ascertaining whether the consent of the landlord had been given or not. Half-a-dozen witnesses might come forward and swear that the consent had been given, whilst the only witness who could prove that the consent had not been given might be dead.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
agreed that it would have been very much better to have accepted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), which required that the consent of the landlord should be in writing. But, unfortunately, that proposal had been rejected by the Committee, and, as they could not have the best of two things, they must have the worst. He certainly 1126 thought it was desirable that there should be some record of the mode in which the sub-division, of a holding was given. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to point out that in Clause 42 the Court was to deal with the mode in which the consent on the part of the landlord, or his agents, or other persons should be signified under the Act; but he thought there ought to be some record in order to guide the Court, and he understood that that was the object of the present Amendment. As the Bill was now drawn, no provision was made for any record whatever of the consent of the owner to the sub-division of a holding.

§ MR. GIBSON
thought there was a great deal of force in what the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said, and that it was quite fair that the power in this matter should be left to the tribunal to make rules upon. But he wished to point out that in most cases where the Court was to make rules the word "prescribed" was mentioned in the Bill; and, therefore, he thought there could be no objection to the words "consent of the landlord given in the prescribed manner."

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he saw no objection to the insertion of the words suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson).

§ MR. BRODRICK
said, that under these circumstances he had no objection to withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. WARTON
thought that considerable danger would arise if they left too many things to the determination of the Court. He certainly knew that in some cases the provisions of the Judicature Act had been completely overruled by the rules laid down by the Court. He, therefore, did not think it desirable that everything should be left to be framed by rules, especially as it was most likely that they would see nothing of such rules until the middle of next year.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he rose to a point of Order.

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! There is really no Question before the 1127 Committee. An Amendment has been proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) to insert, after the word "landlord," the words "in the prescribed manner."

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he understood that the Question before the Committee was that the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) should be withdrawn. He was not aware that the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Surrey had, as yet, been withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN
I must inform the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that that Amendment was withdrawn, and it is now proposed to insert these words.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, the 42nd clause applied to rules which might be framed under the Bill for carrying the Act into effect. It seemed to him that the words "in the prescribed form" were not at all necessary. The practical result of introducing these words would be that every one of the conditions would be likely to give rise to more or less litigation owing to some negligence in regard to a mere matter of form. In consequence, much practical injustice might be done. How was the tenant farmer to know what was the nature of the forms prescribed by the Land Court in a matter of this kind? The farmer went to his landlord, and the landlord said, in direct terms—" I give you leave to divide your holding." The tenant would, very naturally, go and do so, and the landlord might afterwards say—"True, I gave you verbal consent, but I did not do it in the prescribed form; and I will, therefore, take advantage of that fact." This clause gave the landlord the power of entirely destroying the tenant's interest in the holding simply because he had acted contrary to some stipulation contained in the Bill, and of which stipulation he was entirely ignorant. He, therefore, thought that the Government would do well not to agree to this Amendment.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, he had a question to put upon this point which he thought was one of very considerable importance. It was of the highest importance that any arrangement between 1128 the landlord and tenant should be perfectly clear, and that it should not give rise to any future litigation. The point he wished to bring before the Committee was this—In the case of a future tenancy where, owing to a rise of rent, a statutory term was proposed and statutory conditions were imported, and the rise of rent being assented to by the tenant, what would be the state of the agreement between the landlord and the tenant? He assumed that there was no desire to take any advantage and the increase of rent agreed to. Was the original agreement between the landlord and tenant to remain in force, or was a new agreement to be made? This was a case which might be of frequent occurrence in the future, and it was of the utmost importance to have it inquired into now.

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment before the Committee. The Amendment before the Committee is whether the words "in the prescribed manner" shall be inserted.

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
said, he was endeavouring to draw attention to the necessity for a legal definition of the arrangement between landlord and tenant, especially where there were any arrangements which were not consistent with the statutory conditions under the Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN
The Question before the Committee at this moment is simply whether the consent of the landlord should be given to sub-letting "in the prescribed manner." The Question is that these words be here inserted.

§ MR. P. MARTIN
said, he objected to the introduction of these words. He thought they were highly objectionable. The words "written consent" were words everyone understood; but the Committee had already negatived those words, and he trusted that they were not going now to add the words "in the prescribed form." It must be recollected that this prescribed form was a form which it was wholly impossible that the tenant should know, unless he was acquainted with the rules which might be laid down by the Land Commission; and under circumstances of this character there might be a Common Law forfeiture of the tenant's interest by reason of his ignorance of some form which the Land Commission might prescribe. He trusted that the Committee would not 1129 consent to the Amendment. He should prefer that the question should be dealt with, on the Report, and that the words "written consent" should be inserted. They were undeniably preferable to the words now proposed, and he hoped that the Government would meet the question boldly.

An hon. MEMBER
The words are "in the prescribed manner," and not "in the prescribed form."

§ MR. P. MARTIN
said, those words, though less objectionable than the words "in the prescribed form," were still open to many objections. A landlord might allow a tenant to do a thing by acquiescence. For instance, the landlord might be living on the spot, and see the tenant about to sub-let without expressing anything more than a verbal consent to the transaction. Under circumstances of that character, would they propose that the tenant's holding should be liable to forfeiture under this Common Law condition, and that he should be left subject to an ejectment brought against him by the landlord? He admitted that the Equity Section, which came in a subsequent part of the Bill, might materially mitigate many of these hardships upon the tenant; but he thought that the Committee ought to so frame this clause as to prevent, so far as might be possible, the insertion of vague words likely to occasion litigation, ill-feeling, and irritation, and ought not to leave everything to this Equity Section. He trusted that the Government would carefully consider the matter before they hastily accepted the counsel which had been given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson).

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
said, he had been very much struck by an observation of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. P. Martin). He wished the Committee to consider this point—who was most likely to make a legal mistake, the tenant or the landlord? They were asked to guard the landlord against the consequences of a legal mistake on his part; but the probability was that the landlord would take care not to give his consent except under conditions which were of a satisfactory character. There was no necessity to protect the landlord by saying that his consent should not be acted upon, unless it was given in a specified manner. On the other hand, 1130 a large number of the tenant farmers of Ireland belonged to a class of people who were not likely to become acquainted with the manner in which the Court would prescribe rules for obtaining the consent of the landlord. He would suppose a case—namely, that of an illiterate small farmer. He went to his landlord and asked the landlord to allow him to sub-let. The landlord patted him on the back, or shook him by the hand, and said—"Yes, certainly." The poor man went away, and for anything he knew he had got the full consent of his landlord. But, as there was no provision in the Bill for a case of this kind, the tenant would find that by carrying out a subdivision afterwards he would have forfeited his farm. Therefore, very serious difficulties might arise, unless there be an arrangement, by some simple means, to meet a case of this kind, so as to bring the knowledge home to every tenant in every part of Ireland.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, he thought it was not desirable to pursue this matter further. It would be necessary to deal with it under the 42nd section of the Bill; and his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) was prepared to withdraw the Amendment and raise the question afterwards. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) thought the argument of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) was a very strong one, and there was no doubt that there should be some mode prescribed in which the landlord's consent should be given. The instance suggested by the hon. Member was an illustration of what might arise to a tenant in consequence of no formal consent being given. It was quite clear that a mere parole consent might cause the interests of the tenants to be very seriously prejudiced. His right hon. and learned Friend was therefore willing to withdraw his Amendment for the present.

THE CHAIRMAN
The next Amendment stands in the name of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar); but I must remind him that under the Devolution Clause—Clause 2—the question was very fully discussed as to the sub-division of holdings up to £15, and negatived after a division. I do not know whether, under these circumstances, the hon. 1131 Gentleman intends to raise the question again.

§ MR. BIGGAR
, said, the two cases were very different. In the one case, it was provided that if a tenant wanted to sell part of his holding and the landlord refused his consent the sale would he invalid, and the tenant would hold the same tenancy he possessed before. In this case, he proposed to provide that the tenant should not, without the consent of his landlord, sub-divide or sub-let his holding, so that either part should be of less value than £15. The penalty in regard to selling part of the holding under the previous clause was a very heavy one, and a sale could not take place without the consent of the landlord. The landlord had simply to say—"I will not consent to the sale," and the proposed purchaser would, in that event, decline to fulfil his part of the contract and refuse to pay the money. In this case he did not propose to raise any question with regard to sub-letting. But he did think that with regard to sub-dividing, the punishment, as it stood in the Bill, for doing that without the consent of the landlord was very severe. If a tenant held a large holding, and was anxious to divide part of it among other members of his family, he ought to he allowed to do so. He would, therefore, move his Amendment.

MR. GLADSTONE
I think the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) is technically entitled to raise this question, because it is technically different from that which has already been decided. But our arguments against the former Amendment proposed under the devolution and sale of the tenant right hold in all their force and all their breadth against this proposal. We should certainly not be willing to admit, except in very special cases, the general principle of the right of sub-division.

§ MR. A. M. SULLIVAN
felt that the question had already been decided, although in a manner which he thought was very deplorable. He had himself an Amendment very much to the same effect as this a little lower down; but he did not intend to move it, for the same reason which induced him to ask 1132 his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) not to proceed with his Amendment—namely, that the question really had been practically disposed of As the Government opposed the Amendment he thought there ought to be an end of the matter.

§ MR. LEAMY
said, those who represented Irish constituencies were of opinion that, in the interests of the Irish tenants, they should take every opportunity they could of showing that they were opposed to the consolidation of holdings in Ireland. There could be no doubt that this Bill would tend very materially towards the consolidation of holdings, and the only way in which they could meet this evil was by making provision for sub-division. It must be borne in mind that the farmers who had been ruined by foreign competition were not the small formers, but the large ones.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, the practical result of passing the Bill as it stood would be that the population of Ireland would be diminished by at least 1,000,000 during the next 25 years, and that was a result which he and other hon. Members who represented Irish constituencies did not wish to bring about. They did not want to drive the people away; but, on the contrary, to increase the population of the working farmers, and that was the very class which his Amendment proposed to make provision for. In the country which he represented, at least half of the farmers were rated at less than £5 a-year. He did not wish to bring the principle of sub-division below a certain point; but he did think it might be allowed down to a reasonable point. The clause, as it stood, proposed to put a heavy penalty upon the tenants, and considerable difficulty might arise to the farmer who might hereafter give up a part of his farm to one of his sons, as the landlord might regard it as a case of sub-division, and the result, in the end, would be the forfeiture of the holding.

§ MR. GIVAN
remarked, that he had an Amendment lower down on the Paper to provide that if the landlord should unreasonably refuse his consent, the Court might, in the case of holdings containing 30 acres and upwards, and the rateable value of which was not less than £15, grant such consent and make such order as to the Court should seem 1133 just. Perhaps, under these circumstances, the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would withdraw his Amendment until the proposition which he (Mr. Givan) had to make could be laid before the Committee.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, that as the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) was of a similar character to that which was now under consideration, he was quite ready to withdraw it in favour of that of his hon. Friend.

THE CHAIRMAN
I may state now, for the information of the Committee, that it is impossible to put the two next pages of Amendments in the order in which they have been printed. I would, therefore, ask the Committee to be good enough to trust me, and I will put them in proper order. The next Amendment in order is that which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope).

§ MR. E. STANHOPE
, in moving, in page 5, line 6, after "holding," to insert— Or enter into partnership with any person as to his tenancy or the cultivation or management of his holding, said, his Amendment had been placed on the Paper before he saw that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but he did not desire to anticipate or to take away anything; from the discussion which would hereafter take place in regard to the question of sub-division. He thought they were all substantially agreed in the desire that sub-letting should be checked, and that the tendency should be as far as possible to prevent sub-letting. He therefore proposed after the word "holding," to insert words that would prevent any evasion of the principle of sub-letting by entering into partnership.

MR. GLADSTONE
A tenant will have no power to enter into a partnership. By entering into a partnership 1134 he would constitute the person he took as a partner a part tenant, and he cannot do that under the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, there is no necessity for this Amendment.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
asked if the Bill would prevent a man from employing another to manage his farm? The words of the sub-section of the clause as they stood were—"A tenant shall not, without the consent of his landlord, sub-divide or sub-let his holding"; and the Amendment, as he read it, would prevent a tenant from engaging a manager to cultivate his farm. He hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment, which would impose a very great restraint upon the action of the tenant farmers.

§ MR. PARNELL
asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether that was a correct interpretation of the Bill—namely, that a tenant would not be permitted to enter into a partnership with any person? Because, if that was so, he thought that such an interference with the rights of the tenants would be most injurious to the proper cultivation of the soil. In the case of grazing land, there were many tenants who might not have a sufficient amount of capital to cultivate their holdings properly, and they would, consequently, be unable to produce the full amount of food which their holdings were capable of producing. If the effect of the Bill would be to prevent a tenant from entering into a partnership, he apprehended that it would be a very important restriction, and one upon which he should certainly wish to move an Amendment, in order to take the sense of the Committee. The distinction between entering into a partnership and a joint tenancy and a subdivided tenancy was very clear, and what he held was that a holding cultivated by two tenants jointly was not a sub-divided holding, but a holding held in partnership; and the question of partnership was entirely separate and distinct from the question of sub-division. He wished to know, therefore, from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland if this was really the construction of the Bill, and whether, if a tenant entered into a partnership with regard to the cultivation of his holding, he would alienate his rights?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, it would not be competent for a tenant to create a joint tenancy in his holding after the passing of the Bill any more than it was at present. The result of a joint tenancy would be that the landlord would be quite uncertain which of the joint tenants would survive. It would, be impossible to say who would ultimately be responsible to the landlord. In point of fact, it would be allowing transfer of tenancies without the consent of the landlord.

§ MR. E. STANHOPE
said, a very curious construction had been placed upon his Amendment. It was suggested that it would prevent a farmer from employing a manager. He had no intention of the kind, nor did he think that the Amendment would have any such effect. At the same time, after what had taken place, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, but would withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. MARUM
asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland if, under the clause, it would not be competent for the tenant to enter into an equitable arrangement for a partnership which would have an equitable claim in regard to the rights of a tenancy?

§ MR. LALOR
wished to put a question to the Government with regard to present tenancies. He knew as a matter of fact that there were a large number of joint tenancies at the present moment. Now, supposing one of those joint tenants died and left a family, were his children to be shut out of the tenancy under the provisions of the Bill?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, there was nothing in the Bill to prevent a tenant employing a manager of his farm, nor was there anything to preclude arrangements which did not purport to affect the legal title to the tenancy. He understood the hon. Member to speak of what were technically and strictly speaking joint tenancies, and these would not be possible any more then than at present.

§ MR. LEAMY
understood the question put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to be this—whether, where a joint tenancy existed at present, and a tenant died and left his farm to his children, the 1136 landlord would be entitled to object to the survivor?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
was understood to reply in the negative.

§ MR. GIVAN
, in moving, in page 5, line 6, after the word "holding" to insert— But if the landlord shall unreasonably refuse such consent, the Court may, in the case of holdings containing thirty acres and upwards, and of the rateable valuation of not less than fifteen pounds, grant such consent and make such order in relation thereto as to the Court shall seem just, said, this Amendment was somewhat different from that of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and he thought it was worthy of consideration. He was free to admit that it might be dangerous to give power to a tenant to sub-divide his holding; but if the power was vested in the Court, he did not think it was likely to be exercised in an objectionable manner. It was admitted that Ireland at present was under-populated, and that it was desirable there should be an increase in the population. In several parts of the country during the last 20 years—at all events, since the passing of the Act of 1870—there had been an enormous consolidation of farms, and, as he considered, an unnecessary consolidation of farms. Although the consolidation might be a legitimate act on the part of the landlord, still there were some landlords who had carried out this consolidation to an excessive extent, and to the detriment of the tenants and of the country. Therefore, what he respectfully submitted to the Committee was this—that, when it was proposed to give extensive powers to the Court, they should also give power to deal with cases where the landlord unreasonably refused to give his consent to the sub-division of a holding. He had inserted in the Amendment a provision that the holdings thus dealt with should not be less than 30 acres, and of the rateable value of not less than £15; and he believed that, in the case of such holdings, the exercise of the power he proposed to intrust to the Court would operate in a most satisfactory manner. Therefore, without further prefatory observations, he would ask the Committee to consent to the insertion of this Amendment, and 1137 to enact a provision which, he believed, would work well.

MR. GLADSTONE
I certainly think that the provisions of the Bill, as they have been adopted by the Committee, will relieve whatever temptation there may have been under the particular terms of the Act of 1870 to consolidate holdings. But the question raised in this Amendment is, I think, of quite a novel character, having regard to the general character of the Bill. My hon. Friend argues, and states justly, that the Court is invested with very great powers over a holding. He says—" Why not invest the Court with large powers to divide the holdings under fair conditions where the landlord unreasonably refuses his consent?" Now, I think that we might trust pretty well to the landlord's own interest in the sub-division; but, beyond that, it will be seen that the power of the Court under the Bill as it stands is in every case confined to the care of a particular holding, and the conditions under which that holding is to be dealt with. If we go beyond that and say the Court is to have the power to make a holding more than a holding, we raise a very much broader question—namely, whether the Court is to become the manager of the estate. We are, undoubtedly, introducing or giving to the Court very novel powers, and we are giving the Court not only efficient and powerful action, but are very strictly limiting it to the conditions of the holding; and my objection to the present Amendment is that it extends also to the management of the holding.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
thought that the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend was very obscure. It ran thus— But if the landlord shall unreasonably refuse such consent the Court may, in the case of holdings containing not less than thirty acres and upwards, and of the rateable valuation of not less than fifteen pounds, grant such con- 1138 sent and make such order in relation thereto, as to the Court shall seem just. His hon. Friend, however, said nothing as to the extent to which a holding might be diminished; and he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) saw great danger in the clause being made use of for the purpose, practically, of securing sub-letting. For instance, in the case of a holding of 30 acres, it might be ordered by the Court to be cut up into holdings of one acre each, making 30 separate holdings of 30 separate acres. Therefore, although he did not altogether object to the principle of sub-division, he should certainly object to the Amendment of the hon. Member.

§ LORD ELCHO
said, he would like to hear an explanation of what the hon. Member meant by "unreasonable refusal." What would the hon. Member consider to be an unreasonable refusal?

§ MR. GIVAN
would answer the noble Lord in this way. Take a farm of 200 acres at a low rent, of which 100 acres had been reclaimed through the industry and judgment of the tenant and two or three of his sons. Well, those sons grew up, and they must either have a farm or go to America. In such a case the tenant, becoming old and unfit to manage the farm, proposed to divide it, leaving himself some 40 or 50 acres, and giving the rest to his sons. But the landlord refused his consent. He would consider that an unreasonable refusal, detrimental to the interests of the tenant and his family, and detrimental also to the interests of the country.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, he objected to the Amendment, because he thought that it would have a tendency to re-introduce that horrible system of middle men which had existed in bygone years, but had, happily, been now got rid of in Ireland. If a man were authorized to obtain possession of a holding and let it out in small portions, he would be, to all intents and purposes, what the middle man was in Ireland, and it would be a return to that system which, in his opinion, was one of the greatest inflictions the country had ever suffered from.

§ MR. MARUM
said, he wished to point out to the Prime Minister that the only argument which the right hon. Gentleman had advanced against the proposition was this—that he objected to the Court assuming the function of dealing 1139 with any particular holding, or the dividing of it into any number of holdings. But in another paragraph of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman would see it was provided that if the Court was satisfied that it would be for the good of the holding it might make rules for the benefit of the estate. What this Amendment said was that the consolidation of holdings should be deprecated wherever it could be shown that it would be injurious to the community at large. The Amendment merely gave a discretionary power to the Court not to shut out the tenant where the landlord unreasonably refused his consent to a sub-division. It was to the interest of the landlord that he should get as much rent as possible out of his estate, and in his (Mr. Marum's) opinion he would obtain more by having a large number of tenants. It was, therefore, desirable to give the Court the power of dealing with estates so as to secure, in the interest of the landlords, the greatest benefit that could be got from them. But, at the same time, the Court would not be allowed to carry out this object without having reference to the advantage of the community at large. It was quite impossible to make headway against the idea that sub-division would be very injurious in Ireland. In the southern portion of the county which he had the honour of representing, in the neighbourhood of the town of Waterford, there were a large number of small holdings. His right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had frequently been upon that Circuit and would be able to corroborate him when he said that these holdings were extremely email, not more than 10 or 15 acres in extent. A holding of 20 acres was considered a large holding. The land was very good land; but it had been made good by artificial means, by utilizing the River Suir, and the facilities which were afforded for manuring the land. Now, a very great number of the occupiers of that county, certainly one-third of them, were men who were very well off, and men who possessed a great deal of capital, who managed their farms well, notwithstanding that they were extremely small. He mentioned this as an instance to show that small holdings were desirable if the land was good. Of course, there might be a great tract 1140 of some hundreds of acres in a wild mountainous country upon which no family could maintain themselves; but he thought there was a very improper and unnecessary prejudice against the sub-division of land. He had been a practical agriculturist for a considerable portion of his life. He had managed over 2,000 acres of land, and therefore had some knowledge of the subject, and he was able to say that it was a great mistake to prevent the sub-division of a holding within reasonable limits. In Ireland they could not avail themselves of machinery as they could in America. In America there was no agriculture at all; it was only a man and a machine. In Ireland it was very different. It was a very rugged and tenacious soil. The climate was uncertain, and it was impossible they could avail themselves of machinery to the extent that was done in more favourable climates with better soil. He was sorry to say that scientific husbandry was rapidly going out in Ireland and falling into decay. In point of fact it was going to the dogs, and one of the reasons was that the population had been swept away, and they could not have scientific husbandry without an adequate population. They might get it on the Continent and in America; but in Ireland every practical agriculturist knew that the leaving of the population and the results of emigration had been the death knell of scientific husbandry. If this Bill was not perfectly illusory, the first effect of it would be to create a considerable demand for labour, and there would be a rise of wages of 10 or 15 per cent. Hon. Members who were anxious for the Emigration Clauses would find them quite unnecessary, as instead of emigration being promoted it would be found that the congested districts would be obliged to give up their surplus population, and that even then there would not be a sufficient number for the proper cultivation and improvement of the soil. At the present moment the population was far too small for the adequate cultivation of the soil, and, worse than that, all the young fellows were either going away, or had already gone, so that the farming of the country was left to the old and the decrepid. He certainly thought the Committee would be taking a step in the wrong direction if they promoted emigration and restrained 1141 sub-division. If there was any chance of the Government re-considering the question, and if they could see their way to the adoption of the principle of sub-division, he believed it would be of the greatest advantage to Ireland. They need not then have any anxiety about the future of the agriculture of Ireland. The agriculture of Ireland would take care of itself. They had no commercial interest there, but they had to stand or fall by the land. All their interests and sympathies, therefore, ought to be with the tenants, and he was not yet without hope that the Committee would be induced to take a non-Party view of the question, and allow some reasonable sub-division. Time would prove whether he was right or not.

§ MR. LITTON
said, he wished to call attention to the fact that there was an Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the Chief Secretary for Ireland which also introduced novel principles into the Bill. He, therefore, could not see any force in the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that the present Amendment introduced a novel principle. If a novel principle was objectionable in one part of the Bill it was equally so in another. The principle introduced by the Amendment of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was that the letting of portions of land for the use of labourers employed in the cultivation of the soil should not be deemed a sub-letting for the purposes of the Act. It would, therefore, seem that the question was not one of principle, but of degree; and as regarded degree he apprehended that it would be of the strongest possible advantage to adopt this clause, or some similar clause, if the Committee would make it an enabling clause. It did not authorize the tenant in any respect to sub-let the land except with the consent of the Court; and it was to be presumed that the Court would be competent to know when it ought to give consent and when it ought to withhold it. There were many cases, he thought, in which a tenant might reasonably ask for a concession of this kind without any detriment to the landlord's interest. If a tenant was able to satisfy the Court that there were reasonable grounds for a division of the land, and that he had applied to the landlord for his consent, and. had been unreasonably refused, the Court ought to have power 1142 to deal with the case. He should, therefore, vote for the Amendment if his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) pressed it to a division.

MR. GORST
desired to make one or two remarks for the purpose of saving the time of the Committee. He was astonished that hon. Gentlemen opposite from Ulster, whilst professing a desire to see this Bill passed into law, should practically obstruct its progress by raising for the fourth time a long debate on a question upon which the Government and the Committee had already given a decision. No doubt, technically, the Amendment was in Order, because it raised the question on a different point from that on which it had been raised before; but every argument on which it had been supported, and every argument with which it had been met by Her Majesty's Government, had already been laid before the Committee three times. He, therefore, hoped that the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) would imitate the example which had been set by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and save the time of the Committee by withdrawing the Amendment.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
said, he was sure that the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and the Irish Members generally, would appreciate at its full value the advice of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). The question of sub-division was one of the most important questions that could be considered, and he regretted that it had been raised somewhat injudiciously upon a previous occasion. This, however, seemed to him to be a judicious and fitting occasion on which to raise it, and he trusted that it would be fully considered and discussed. It was of very great importance. The persons who first established sub-division, and carried it out as long as it was profitable, either pecuniarily or politically, were the landlords, and a great deal of the sub-division of land in Ireland was owing not to the tenants but to the landlords. The tenants hitherto had only been too willing to sub-divide their holdings; but the evidence given before the Agricultural Commission showed, very strikingly, that that tendency was disappearing. Evidence of this fact was given everywhere; and he thought there ought to be power given to the Court to 1143 allow the sub-division of a holding where the landlord unreasonably refused his consent. In talking with tenants both in the South and West of Ireland upon this question, he had often assured them that the reason why their agriculture was so bad was that they had too much land, and in many instances he had received this answer—" I only wish it was more divided." What he should like to see was this—he should like his hon. Friend to strike out two lines of his Amendment. He would not limit or prescribe the discretion of the Court; but he would give to the Court the power of judging upon the question just as it would judge upon all other questions of importance with respect to the holding of land in Ireland. There could be no objection to the principle of giving the Court this power, because the Government were themselves about to propose an Amendment which would allow the Court to sub-let portions of a. holding for another purpose. He hoped his hon. Friend would consent to strike out these two lines, so as to make the clause read— But if the landlord shally unreasonably refuse such consent the Court may make such order in relation thereto as shall to the Court seem just. That would have the effect of striking out the limit now prescribed by the clause. There were many cases in the West of Ireland where it was desirable that a tenant should sub-divide his holding for the advantage both of himself and of the country at large. Of course, it was not desirable that the power should be given to the tenant alone; but they guarded against any abuse by the other provisions of the Bill, and in some way they ought to allow the Court to judge whether in the event of a tenant being unable to come to an agreement with his landlord his case was a just one, and in that event the Court should have power to allow a sub-division of the holding, even although it was contrary to the original condition of the tenancy. If his hon. Friend would withdraw the latter part of his Amendment, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) would certainly vote with him.

§ LORD ELCHO
said, he thought that after what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), who was in favour of the sub-division of holdings, and who 1144 objected to the unreasonable refusal of the landlord's consent, it was still more desirable to know what the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) meant by "unreasonable refusal." He, therefore, asked the hon. Member if he would give a little futher definition of the word "unreasonable?" The hon. Member had told the Committee, in answer to his (Lord Elcho's) previous question, that he would consider it an unreasonable refusal where a tenant occupying 200 acres had reclaimed 100 of them, and wished subsequently to sub-let the holding. Now, that was the case of 200 acres, but the Amendment went down as low as 30 acres; and he wished to know what the hon. Member would consider an unreasonable refusal on the part of the landlord in the case of a holding of 30 acres? He wished to know whether the hon. Member confined the unreasonable refusal to the case of 200 acres, or whether he would bring it down as low as 30 acres?

§ MR. WALTER
said, he thought that the Committee were drifting into extraneous matter. The question of the sub-division of holdings was one of public policy; but they were not discussing the abstract question of subdivision. The Court was to be appointed to consider matters in which the interest of the landlord, on the one hand, and of the tenant on the other, clashed; but there could be no conflict of interest between the landlord and the tenant on the subject of the sub-division of a holding. If power were given to the Court thus to supersede the tenant in the management of his estate, it would be only fair to give to the landlord the option of accepting the decision of the Court, or of calling upon the State to take the property off his hands altogether.

§ MR. J. N. RICHARDSON
said, the Ulster Members would not take their views of what constituted obstruction to the Bill from the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), and with regard to the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) it must not be forgotten that in 1870 the noble Lord said—" I am not an Irishman, and I cannot profess to be conversant with Irish matters." He presumed that the noble Lord, having learned nothing, and having forgotten nothing, was in the same position 1145 now. If the Irish Members thought it would be their duty to support the Amendment and divide upon it, he would certainly follow them into the Lobby.

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
said, he had no doubt that the phrase "sub-division" was in bad odour in that Committee; but he would remind the Committee that the word might be bad or good according to the circumstances of the holding. In some parts of Ireland there might be too much sub-division, whilst in others it was very badly wanted. A considerable portion of the county of Meath, for instance, was nothing less than a large bleak prairie; and the same might be said of the county of Westmeath. It would certainly conduce to the happiness and prosperity of the Irish people if some of the enormous farms which now existed, and which were the result of consolidation, were cut up into small holdings, on each of which a family could live and prosper. His opinion was that, as they had no other industry in Ireland, the country should be cultivated like a garden, and that could only be done when the farms were allowed to be brought into a medium size. He was strongly of opinion that the inequality now existing in Ireland between moderately sub-divided farms and great tracts of consolidated farms should be redressed. Unfortunately, whatever they might have anticipated from the present Bill, the landlord would still be treated as the sole lord and master who was to have power of life and death in Ireland, notwithstanding the fact that it was admitted by the Treasury Bench that the landlord was really not in that position, but was simply a co-partner in the soil of Ireland with the tenantry of that country. Therefore, he hoped they would allow some freedom to the tenant, and hitherto he had failed to see any intention or desire on the part of the Government to give them any such power or freedom, or even fair play. The tenants, all through the measure, had too much restriction placed upon them, and it seemed to be the intention of the Government to treat the tenants as if they were monsters of wickedness, wild beasts, and the desolators of the land, instead of being those who tilled the soil and produced the food of the country. The purport of his observations was simply to show that it was desirable that facilities should be accorded for the sub-divi- 1146 sion of some of the enormous holdings which now existed in Ireland, and he did not think such facilities would be afforded unless the Court were allowed to have some voice in the matter, and allowed to put a veto upon the arbitrary and unreasonable refusal of the landlord.

§ MR. WARTON
asked the Attorney General for Ireland, having regard to the 8th section of the Bill, dealing with the question of reasonable and unreasonable refusals on the part of the landlord or tenant, whether, if a tenant went before the Court and stated that he had asked his landlord to let him sub-divide or sublet his holding, and that the landlord had unreasonably refused, that would be a matter of which the Court could take cognizance?

§ DR. COMMINS
said, undoubtedly there did exist, 50 years ago, an intense desire for the sub - division of farms amongst the people of Ireland; there could, however, be no greater error than to suppose that any such desire existed at the present time. After the failure of the potato crop, and the famine year, and when emigration became popular, that desire for sub-division entirely ceased, and it had not since been deemed necessary to take any precautions with, respect to sub-division by legislation or otherwise. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had said that the Court could not say what was unreasonable with regard to the refusal on the part of the landlord to sublet; but he reminded the noble Lord that the word "reasonable "was used in the 1st section of the Bill already agreed to by the Committee, which gave power to the Court to decide, incase of dispute, the reasonableness of a landlord's refusal to allow the tenant to sell his tenancy. If the Court was qualified to construe the word aright in that clause, why could it not do so in the clause under consideration? He could not understand the objections and resistance offered to proposals made by hon. Members, which, at all events, could do no harm, and might, when agriculture revived, be very useful.

MR. MACARTNEY
said, he wished to point out that at present when a landlord granted a lease he reserved several things—amongst others, that the farm should not be sub-let or sub-divided without his consent. In his opinion it 1147 was only fair, when the Government gave power to the tenant to obtain a lease, that the landlord should have power to prevent sub-letting to the injury of the holding. There was another point to be borne in mind. When the word acre was used in an Act of Parliament, it meant statute acres; but when the word was used in connection with an Irish farm it meant an Irish acre, which was a very different thing. It made all the difference whether, for instance, 30 English acres—which were only 18 Irish acres—were divided. To sub-divide a farm of 30 statute acres, which were not too much for any man to cultivate, would, he thought, be productive of great injury.

§ MR. GIVAN
said, he was willing to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) to strike out the words— In the case of holdings containing thirty acres and upwards, and of the rateable valuation of not less than fifteen pounds, and to put the Amendment in its altered form, so as to leave the Court, if the Amendment were adopted, full discretion to deal with the question. The reason why he had put in those words was because he thought it would not be prudent to give the Court power to sub-divide holdings of less that 30 acres. It was entirely in the interest of the landlord that they were inserted. On consideration, however, he thought the words would be better omitted. Notwithstanding the charge of obstruction made by the noble Lord opposite, he impressed on the Committee not to be led away from this matter, because he believed it to be one of the highest importance to the people of Ireland, and the Amendment was intended to act as a check to the drain on the population, and to the amalgamation of farms. He agreed with the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney), that 30 statute acres did not represent 30 Irish acres; but could not see in that fact any reason against the proposal he made. It was, therefore, his intention to take a division upon this Amendment, subject to the alteration suggested by the hon. Member for Galway.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the Amendment which the hon. Member had moved was now the property of the Committee, and the words in question could only be struck out by leave of the Committee.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
said, he should like to know what would be the actual effect of the adoption of these words. He would not trouble the Committee with any arguments in favour of limiting the Amendment; but he had already expressed his opinion that the process of sub-division in Ireland might be dangerously carried out. Would it be in the power of the tenant who sublet to charge any rent he pleased? He thought the Amendment in its present shape would be better calculated to promote the interests of farmers if these words were added—" at such rent as the Court may determine." That addition was, in his opinion, necessary, because one of the most pernicious systems of letting land in Ireland had been the system of sub-letting, under which some tenants who were not occupiers, but who sub-let their farms to others, extracted from the sub-tenant a much higher rent than they themselves paid to the landlord. It seemed to him that some hon. Members were hardly aware of the position in which the question stood. An hon. Colleague of his was under the impression that the question of the rent to be paid on sub-divided farms was within the discretion of the Court; but it should be recollected that this part of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan had been struck out on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), and he respectfully submitted that if the Amendment were adopted without some words limiting the rent which the head tenant might otherwise have it in his power to charge great injustice might result to the sub-tenant. For that reason he trusted the Committee would adopt the words which he had suggested, and which would leave the amount of rent to be charged by the person sub-letting to be determined by the Court.

§ DR. LYONS
said, that the hon. Member had started an important point, and one which had hitherto escaped notice. As he did not think that justice could be done to it if it were hastily discussed, he suggested that the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) should withdraw his Amendment for the present, and bring it up again for final consideration when a later portion of the Bill was reached. He thought that if progress was to be made with the Bill, an endeavour should be made to get forward without Amendments which, although they dealt with questions of importance, were collateral to the subject.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
hoped the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons) would not be adopted. The question raised by the Amendment before the Committee had already been discussed on three occasions at great length, and he sincerely trusted it would not be again postponed.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he thought that the point raised by the hon. Member for Mayo was covered by the words of the Amendment as it stood—namely, that "the Court may make such order in relation thereto as to the Court shall seem just." Those words, in his opinion, clearly provided for the Court taking into consideration the amount of payment which the incoming tenant would, have to make to the tenant who wanted to sub-divide his holding. For his own part, he did not think the right to sublet a holding ought to be given in any case. The right to sell a portion of the tenant's interest was entirely different from that of sub-letting a portion of that interest; and he regarded it as a very objectionable feature in the Amendment that it covered both the questions of sub-letting and sub-dividing. The right to sub-divide was a very beneficial one, while the right to sub-let he regarded as very mischievous; and it was upon that ground that he asked the Prime Minister to consider further before he came to a final decision upon the matter. If the Amendment were withdrawn, and if the right hon. Gentleman would kindly re-consider the subject between that time and the Report, it would, he thought, give great satisfaction to many Irish Members of the House. He felt that a prejudice undoubtedly existed in the minds of Eng- 1150 lish and Scotch Members against subdivision, which would not be there if they had more knowledge of Ireland and its requirements. It was true that many holdings in Ireland were too small; but those which he and his Colleagues wished the Court to have power to deal with, for the purpose of sub-division, were very large, and the landlords were not really deserving of the consideration which the Prime Minister wished to extend to them, because they had remorselessly evicted the tenants who formerly lived upon them. Again, it might happen that the tenant of one of these large grazing tenancies might not have sufficient capital wherewith properly to cultivate the holding, or even to pay a fair rent for it in its entirety. It was, therefore, right that the Court should have power to deal with the question of sub-division, upon which the Irish Members were almost unanimous.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, that the Court had been, in other parts of the Bill, invested with much greater powers than were now asked for; and, moreover, that not a single argument had been advanced against giving the Court power to grant sub-division where it was thought necessary to do so. But seeing that strong arguments had been advanced in favour of the Amendment, he thought the Government would do well to agree to the proposal. He was as much opposed as any Member of the House to sub-letting in the case of minors or infirm persons; but he thought that discretion might be reasonably given to the Court to deal with that question. He did not think the Court should be hindered from allowing subletting in suitable cases, subject, of course, to a review of the rent, and other arrangements which might be desirable.

§ MR. MULHOLLAND
said, he rose to protest against the view which had been expressed by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that almost all the Irish Members of the House were of one opinion upon this subject. If Irish Members on the Benches near him had not spoken upon it hitherto, it was simply because they were unwilling to speak upon a question which, upon the assurance of the Prime Minister, they regarded it as a waste of time to pursue. It was beyond his power to believe that it would be for the benefit of Ireland that tenants should be able to sub- 1151 divide their holdings. He held that the condition of the country had greatly improved during the last 40 years; no one who passed through it now would recognize the Ireland of the past. That change had been produced by the consolidation of tenancies and the reduction of the pauperism which formerly existed, and was at one time represented by a total of 2,000,000. The land was producing more; in short, the whole country was progressing, and nothing would, in his opinion, tend more to throw Ireland back than the bringing down of farms to a size at which they could not be cultivated with advantage. It Was quite intelligible that the friends of the tenants should wish for sub-division, because it was well known that a larger rent could be got for small than large holdings. On the other hand, the landlords had sacrificed a great deal of rent by consolidating their farms, and the benefit they derived from this was that they had a more solvent class of tenants on their estates. The Prime Minister had received support from hon. Gentlemen near him, on the faith of there being no interference with the rights of the landlord beyond what was necessarily connected with the structure of the Bill. What, he asked, would be the position of the landlord's rights if, without his sanction, his farms could be sub-divided and new tenants forced upon him? On the ground, then, of the welfare of Ireland, as well as upon that of the rights of the landlord, he contended that the proposal could not be justified.

§ MR. LITTON
suggested that the reason why hon. Members opposite had not taken part in the debate was, because they had the Government on their side in resisting the Amendment before the Committee, and not because they were anxious to press forward the Bill.

MR. DE LA POER BERESFORD
said, that the reason why some hon. Members for Ireland near him had not spoken on this Amendment was because they wished to facilitate the passage of the Bill through the House. He knew the county of Cavan well, a great deal better, as he believed, than the hon. Gentleman who represented it. He was connected with considerable estates, in that county, and knew that one of the principal things which the tenants wished to do was to sub-divide their holdings if possible. He hoped, however, that the 1152 Government would not give way, and allow sub-division to take place.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
wished it to be understood that they did not deny that there were estates in the West of Ireland where sub-division had been, carried too far. Their contention was that the removal of evils in those districts could only be effected by breaking up the large farms. He trusted it would not be thought that they were in favour of unlimited sub-division.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, in answer to the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Beresford), that he had not argued in favour of unlimited sub-division. What he stated was, that it should be permitted upon certain conditions, and in certain cases.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, this decision disposed of several subsequent Amendments on the Paper.

§ MR. FITZPATRICK
pointed out that unless sub-letting were carefully guarded against considerable injury might result to the landlord. The Committee might remember the case of James Lawlor, who, renting a farm of 16 acres for £18 15s. a-year, sub-let 7½ acres for £22 10s., and exacted two years' rent in advance. He (Mr. Fitzpatrick) had an Amendment on the Paper, which, he thought, would meet the difficulty and be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, the Government sympathized with the object the hon. Member had in view, but could not agree to the Amendment, believing it to be entirely unnecessary, for the subsection it followed declared most distinctly that the tenant should not, without the consent of his landlord, subdivide or sub-let his holding.

§ MR. GIBSON
said, that, no doubt, the hon. Member would accept the statement of the Prime Minister; but, at the 1153 same time, it should be pointed out that the Amendment only sought to give effect to a legitimate inference. He would consider, before the next stage of the measure was reached, whether it was necessary to introduce further words into the clause for the protection of the landlord.

§ SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE
said, he wished to propose, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, some words taken from the Act of 1870, and he ventured to think that, as they had found a place in that Act, they should also find a place in the present measure. It was unnecessary to explain his object in bringing them forward, for it must be obvious to every Member of the Committee. He could conceive nothing worse to the cause of agriculture and of the tenant farmer than sub-letting in a reckless way; therefore, he hoped the Government would accept this Amendment as a safeguard.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, he had no objection to the insertion of these words.

§ MR. HEALY
said, that if the Government were going to agree to this, it was extraordinary that they could not consent to an Amendment of a somewhat similar character dealing with a common custom which had been submitted to them. Everyone knew that conacre was always manured by the tenant, and, that being the case, what was the use of putting the words in?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, that custom as a prevailing practice was one thing, but custom or usage recognized and enforced by law was another.

§ MR. LITTON
said, the next Amendment was in his name; but he had 1154 noticed that this morning, for the first time, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had an Amendment on the Paper which purported to deal with the same subject. He did not complain that that Amendment had only been placed on the Paper this morning, but regretted that the Committee had not been allowed more time to consider it. He understood that there was some desire on the part of the Government to postpone it, in order that it might be re-drafted and considered; and, if that were the view of the Chief Secretary, he should be happy to withdraw his Amendment. On the other hand, if it was the intention of the Chief Secretary to propose that the whole clause should be recast and brought up on Report, he (Mr. Litton) thought it more for the satisfaction of those interested in the question to press the Amendment, in order that the subject might be now considered in Committee rather than on Report, when the right of debate was restricted.

THE CHAIRMAN
Does the hon. and learned Member move the Amendment?

§ MR. LITTON
said, if he understood the views of the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he withdrew it.

§ MR. W.E. FORSTER
said, the matter was very important, and would be dealt with in a separate clause.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, that, in order to enable the Chief Secretary to give his opinion on the subject, he would move the hon. Member's Amendment.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he regretted that he had delayed putting the Amendment on the Paper longer than he ought to have done, having only inserted it this morning. He was inclined to believe that it would be a great advantage if the subject were dealt with by itself, in a separate clause. He would not pledge himself to the exact words; but he would undertake to bring up a clause which would effect the object in view, and would undertake to give ample Notice of that clause, so that hon. Members could decide what course they would take. He could not help thinking that the matter would be better 1155 debated if it came up in the form of a new clause.

§ MR. BELLINGHAM
said, he had given Notice of the following Amendment with reference to labourers' cottages:—In page 5, line 6, after "holding," insert— Except for the purpose of making provision for labourer's dwellings and allotments subject to the following conditions:—

"(a.) No tenant to erect a labourer's cottage without first applying to the landlord or agent for liberty to do so.

"(b.) If the landlord consents to erect a cottage at his own expense, the tenant not to be at liberty to erect the same.

"(c.) If the landlord declines to erect the cottage, the tenant may do so after the decision of County Court Judge.

"(d.) All cottages erected for labourers either by the landlord or tenant shall be held directly from the landlord and subject to the provisions of 'The Cottier Tenant Ireland Act 1856,' and in case the tenant shall have erected the cottage, he shall be allowed out of his rent the amount paid to the landlord, or such other sum as the Court shall think fit in case of dispute.

"(e.) To every cottage erected in pursuance of this Act a garden not exceeding one acre may be attached by the tenant of said holding, and in such case such garden shall be held direct from the landlord, and such allowance therefor shall be made to the tenant as in case of disagreement the Court shall award.

"(f.) In case of disturbance of any tenant in his holding any labourer's cottage erected by the tenant under these regulations shall be deemed to be an improvement and the tenant shall be entitled to compensation therefor.

"(g.) The Court may, if it think fit, modify the structural requirements of labourers' cottages as laid down in Clause 11 of 'The Cottier Tenant Ireland Act 1856,' on the application of the person erecting the same whether landlord or tenant."
If the Chief Secretary intended to bring forward a new clause dealing with the whole question it would render unnecessary this Amendment; but he wished to explain why he had put his Amendment on the Paper. In 1870, when the Irish Land Bill was under discussion, Sir William Gregory, then Member for County Galway, brought forward the question in the form of an Amendment, and pressed it to a division. It was lost by a majority of 16, and mainly lost owing to a promise given by Mr. Chichester Fortescue (now Lord Carlingford), who was at that time Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, which promise was to the effect that the question would be taken up by the Government either 1156 during the passage of the Land Bill through Parliament or soon afterwards. The promise had not been fulfilled. Ten or eleven years had elapsed, and the Irish labourers were in exactly the same position that they occupied in 1870. Well, they ought now to have a distinct pledge from the Government that the question would be taken up and dealt with in this Bill, or, if not, that a separate measure would be introduced on the subject.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to state that I distinctly pledge myself to deal with this subject in a new clause.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he had handed in an Amendment which he should feel it his duty to move as an addition to the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. He admitted that nothing could be more benevolent than the intention of the right hon. Gentleman; but, if he understood the matter aright, the effect of the provision would not be so benevolent as its intention. If it was essential that the State should interfere, through the Court, to regulate the rent which was to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, it was still more important that the State should interfere to regulate the rent which was to be paid to the tenant by the labourer. The Amendment, of which he had given Notice, would run in this way—"And that the rent be in fair proportion to the rent paid for the holding to the landlord by the tenant."

§ MR. LEAMY
said, that he, also, had an Amendment to propose when the new clause came on for discussion. Instead of giving the labourers half-an-acre of land they should have an acre, and whenever the tenant applied to the Court to have his rent fixed, the Court should thereupon put a specific value upon the holding; and the Land Commission, in every case where the value was specified, should be empowered to advance at least half the sum to enable the tenant farmer to erect labourers' cottages. Unless assistance were given in this way, he was afraid that there would not be any labourers' cottages erected for many years to come.

§ MR. A. MOORE
hoped the suggestion of the Government in this matter would meet with the approval of the Committee, because it would be a great 1157 pity to have a short sub-section introduced in the middle of this clause dealing with such an important subject. He trusted there would be an equal code of laws between the labourer and the tenant as between the tenant and the landlord. He would move, at the end of the Amendment proposed—"as hereinafter provided in the Act," in order to bind the Committee to deal subsequently with the matter. If the Bill passed in its present form, it would be absolutely injurious to the labourers, and no one could suppose that the Government intended that to be the case.

§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY
said, that he also had an Amendment to the clause on the subject of labourers' dwellings. It was as follows:—In page 5, leave out from "Act," line 11, to "provided," line 21, and insert— Whereas it is desirable to provide a remedy for the deficiency of suitable and decent dwellings and garden plots for agricultural labourers in many parts of Ireland: Be it enacted, whenever the Commissioners are satisfied that in any district there is a deficiency of decent and suitable dwelling houses for the agricultural labouring population which the Commissioners may deem to be usually employed or reasonably requisite for ordinary agricultural operations in such district, the Commissioners may for the purposes of this section purchase, under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts, land in or near such district and erect thereupon suitable dwellings for agricultural labourers with suitable garden plots attached thereto, and may let or sell such dwellings and plots to agricultural labourers under such rules and regulations as the Commissioners may think fit from time to time to prescribe. He was anxious that they should be clear as to where they were going. He understood that there was to be a clause brought up to deal with the question of the labourers, and that hon. Members' Amendments were to stand over until that clause was before the Committee. But he should like to know whether the Amendment before them represented all the Government intended to do on behalf of the labourers? Did they only intend to propose the provision which was inserted in the Land Bill of 1870, and struck out in the House of Lords? Because, if so, that provision, he would point out, was worthless.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, they would be glad to give the hon. Member an opportunity of taking a division on his Amendment, and on the clause also when it came up.

§ MR. MARUM
trusted that when the right hon. Gentleman brought in his clause he would not forget the benevolent intentions announced, and that he would deal with labourers employed by landlords as well as labourers employed by tenants. Also, where facilities were given to tenants for the erection of labourers' cottages, similar provisions should be extended to landlords.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he was very much afraid that neither the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) nor that proposed by the Chief Secretary would meet, to any extent, the labourers' question in Ireland. Of course, the question was an exceedingly difficult one, and its difficulty became evident to them as they saw the Amendments which had been put down and the Amendments which had been announced to those Amendments. He (Mr. Parnell) had handed to the Chairman an Amendment to the Amendment of the Chief Secretary; but he could not see that even if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment were amended, as he desired, that the difficulty would be settled or the labourers very much benefited. He wished to see effected that which the noble Lord the ex-Postmaster General (Lord John Manners) had proposed. He wished to give the Court power to fix a fair rent; but, on further consideration, he asked himself should he be doing anything for the labourers by giving the Court permission to fix a fair rent unless he gave the labourers fixity of tenure? That was the difficulty which stared him in the face, and which, he did not see provided for. They could not give the labourers fixity of tenure on a tenant's farm, unless they went behind all the principles affecting contract between capital and labour, which, he supposed, no one was inclined to do. But if the tenure of the labourer were not fixed as well as fair rent they gave him nothing, because the farmer could rid of a labourer who required an allotment, and replace him by one who did not wish for such a thing; while, if he obtained an allotment at a fair rent, the tenant could get behind that "fair rent" by tampering with his wages. The whole question, therefore, bristled with difficulties, and he did not see how it was possible of solution on the lines laid down in any of the Amendments. As he had said before, he saw no way of 1159 settling the question except by taking the labourer out of the hands of both the landlord and the tenant, as to his allotment, and giving the Land Commission, or, if they liked, the Boards of Guardians in the different localities, the same power that sanitary authorities had, under the Industrial Dwellings Act, to buy land for the purpose of building better labourers' houses, and granting small cottage allotments. If this were done they would solve the present labourers' question, for the labourers at present did not advance for themselves any very large claims.

§ COLONEL COLTHURST
said, that some part of the scheme that the hon. Member had shadowed forth would cause a complete revolution in the land system. As long as the labourer bound himself to the farmer for a year, it was impossible to do more than provide that the farmer should not charge him, as he very often did, a rack rent for his miserable dwelling; and further, he thought they might very fairly give the rural sanitary authority power to condemn dwellings which were manifestly unfit for human habitation, and throw the onus on the farmer of providing decent dwellings. But to do that they must give the farmer power to get advances from the Treasury as landlords did, for landlords had no excuse for not building labourers' dwellings, while no farmer, without a 40 years' lease, could get a loan.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he thought the Committee were rather getting away from the question before them, and pointed out that there was a clause on the Paper for effecting the object aimed at by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Colthurst).

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
said, that, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he considered it advisable that the Committee should not pass from this subject without a little clearer definition from the Government of their intentions upon the question, which was one of great importance. The point was, did the Government, in any clause they would bring up, intend to accept the principle of the State interfering between the farmer and the labourer as to the rent to be charged the labourer?

THE CHAIRMAN
I must point out to the noble Lord that we are getting into a discussion far beyond the question 1160 before the Committee. The Amendment is simply on the letting of a portion of land, and the discussion is going to a clause of which we at present know nothing.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
said, the Amendment was on the letting of land by the farmer for the benefit of the labourer, and they could not consider that without also considering the rent which might be charged.

THE CHAIRMAN
Notice of an Amendment upon that subject has been given, and when that Amendment comes on it will be right to discuss it; but it is not before the House now. The noble Lord intimated that he should move such an Amendment later; but it is not before the Committee now.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
said, Members had come down to the House under the impression that the Chief Secretary had put down his Amendment in preference to the one the Committee were now discussing; but it had been announced that he did not intend to move it. The Committee were in consequence placed at a great disadvantage. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: No, no !] The right hon. Gentleman had said he should not move it.

THE CHAIRMAN
It is not within the competence of the Committee to discuss Amendments which are not before us at this moment. The hon. Member moved this as a formal Amendment which he did not press, in order to give the Chief Secretary an opportunity for explanations; but it is impossible to discuss the full Amendment of the Chief Secretary which is not now before the Committee.

MR. GLADSTONE
observed, that no one had expressed the opinion that it would be desirable to move the Amendment at the present time, and he thought under these circumstances it would be very inconvenient to continue the discussion. He could not see what possible advantage could be gained, for they would get little light thrown upon the subject in this part of the Bill. It would be better to speak to the Amendment before the Committee.

§ MR. CALLAN
said he had moved the Amendment deliberately to give the Chief Secretary an opportunity of explaining his intentions; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman's statement was on the whole satisfactory. He had 1161 stated that the labourers' question could not be dealt with at all in this clause, and that it would be more satisfactory to deal with it in a separate clause. He (Mr. Callan) did not, however, think it could be dealt with in a separate clause, and he would still recommend that that course should not be adopted. As to the Amendment of the hon. Member, he did not think it was as advantageous or favourable to the labourer as the Amendment of the Chief Secretary, which was the same as that embraced in the Act of 1870, but which was struck out by the House of Lords. The House of Commons, on the 13th of July, 1870, was induced to agree to the Lords' Amendment striking out this clause dealing with the labourers' question, in consequence of a specific pledge given in the presence of the Prime Minister, by the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, that the question should be dealt with. That promise was broken year by year by each Chief Secretary; and how in the name of common sense were Irish Members now to pass it by upon the mere promise of another Chief Secretary? They must have a pledge, distinct and clear, that either a now clause would be brought up, or a separate Bill introduced for the purpose. He would re-commend the Chief Secretary, if he was not above taking a recommendation from some person outside the purlieus of Dublin Castle—

§ MR. CARTWRIGHT
rose to Order, and asked whether the remarks of the hon. Member were in Order?

THE CHAIRMAN
I consider that they are entirely out of Order. The hon. Member should confine himself to the Amendment he proposes, and not to other subjects.

§ MR. CALLAN
, continuing, said, he was stating his reason for withdrawing his Motion if the Chief Secretary would adopt a particular suggestion. He did not think it was in good taste for a mere English Member to endeavour to repress an Irishman who was expressing his opinion upon a question to which he had for 10 years paid some attention—namely, that of the Irish labourer. The hon. and gallant Member for Cork County thought it a bad plan for a labourer to be bound to a farmer for a year; but would they give him a monthly or a weekly tenancy? If not, how was it a bad plan? When once 1162 they gave a tenant perpetuity of tenure he became a peasant proprietor. It was said that it was the custom for farmers to charge the labourers rack rent; but that was not the case in the Northern portion of Ireland. The real difficulty was the erection of cottages; and he had that day received a letter from a gentleman who was both an agent and a farmer in Louth, who said he did not know how they could improve the labourers' position unless they made it compulsory that the labourers should have better dwellings, and gave facilities to the poor farmer for erecting proper habitations. They must also take from the landlord the power to remove a labourer in a month, or in three months, as was now the case, without ample compensation. The same gentleman also considered that there was at present too much power of evicting tenants, both in town and country, without any cause or compensation. In a newspaper which he had also received from a Southern county (Kilkenny), he saw that a meeting of labourers at the Welsh Mountains, on the previous Sunday week, had stated that what they wanted, pending the settlement of the labourers' question by Parliament, was that tenant farmers who had sub-tenants should charge no higher rates for the holdings than was levied on them for the land. That was what they wanted—to be charged no more than the tenant was charged by the landlord, because the dwellings were not erected by the farmers, but to a large extent by themselves. There were other Amendments on the Paper—one by his hon. Colleague from Louth—which he hoped would meet with strenuous opposition.

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member cannot discuss an Amendment not before the Committee. He can only discuss the Amendment he has proposed, and not an Amendment by another Member.

§ MR. CALLAN
explained that he was discussing that Amendment only in this way. He thought his Amendment should pass simply in the language in which it stood on the Paper, and that no conditions should be attached as to the consent of the landlord or the agent to the erection of a cottage.

THE CHAIRMAN
I told the hon. Member that it is not in Order to discuss an Amendment which is on an- 1163 other part of the Paper, and I must remind him that I have twice called him to Order.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, he would not be called to Order a third time; but he would suggest to the Chief Secretary that he should adopt the practice pursued by the Lord Advocate towards the Scotch Members—consult the Irish Members informally outside the House as to the best way of dealing with the labourers' question. That would save the time of the House in discussing Amendments which, though apparently drawn in the interest of the labourers, were much more in the interest of the landlords. It had been suggested that the labourer should be made independent of the farmer; but that could not altogether be done, because it was the farmer who gave the labourer employment. They must require the farmer to erect dwellings, and give him facilities for raising money at a low interest for that purpose; and in that way they would improve the condition of the labourer, and at the same time not injure, but rather enhance, the value of the landlord's property.

THE O'DONOGHUE
said, he could not but admit that the labourers were a very important class, and that lately they had received a great deal of verbal sympathy from those who had resisted all concessions to the tenants. Who were the labourers? The sons and the grandsons of men who had been driven from the soil by past evictions; and the question arose, how were they to be got back? That consideration included a variety of questions. Who was to select them? What was the rent they should pay? And what tenure were they to have? All these were very important questions, and they could only be adequately discussed when the right hon. Gentleman brought up his Amendment.

§ MR. BELLINGHAM
said, that under ordinary circumstances he should be disposed to press the Government; but after the distinct pledge of the Chief Secretary he did not see how the discussion could be pursued any longer.

§ MR. VILLIERS-STUART
entirely agreed with, the hon. Member that, after the pledge given by the Chief Secretary, further discussion of the question at this stage would be a waste of time, and only delay an all-important Bill. From what the Chief Secretary had said, he 1164 thought they would have a much fuller and more satisfactory clause later on.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
thought it was not a waste of time to carry on this discussion a little longer, for it would be no harm to inform the mind of the right hon. Gentleman of the views of the Irish Members on this question, as to the way in which it should be dealt with. His hon. Friend (Mr. Callan) was at liberty to enter into private communication with the Chief Secretary if he chose; but he (Mr. O'Connor) and several other Irish Members must decline to have any communication with the Chief Secretary except across the House. He agreed with the hon. Member for Cork that this subject bristled with difficulties; but he could not admit the principle that wages and the relations between employers and labourers could be regulated by the direct interference of the State. The real root of the difficulty was that there were too many labourers in particular spots in Ireland, and that was the thing that must be dealt with. It was the same in England—labourers were starving in one county and in demand in another. The way to deal with the difficulty was to do something to attract labourers in Ireland from parts where there was a congestion of population to other parts where the population was sparse; and that must be done, not directly, but indirectly.

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is travelling very wide of the Amendment, which is simply— Or the letting of a portion of land not exceeding half a statute acre, and annexed to each labourer's dwelling. That is the question before the Committee, and not the general question of the labourers.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he did not know whether he should improve his position by moving to report Progress; but he would formally make that Motion. His only excuse for travelling beyond what were the strict limits of the Amendment was that he was following the remarks which had been more or less put before the Committee that evening. At all events, he would not trespass on the Committee further on that point; but he would urge the Chief Secretary to encourage, directly and indirectly, the employment of labourers, though he did not know whether the 1165 right hon. Gentleman could control the selfish, endeavour of landlords to get rid of the labourers.

§ MR. DALY
expressed the opinion that it would be a waste of time for the Chief Secretary to bring up a clause which only dealt with the fringe of this question, and suggested a clause enabling the farmer to sub-let half-an-acre to a labourer. He abstained from offering any opposition to the Bill on its second reading. But the panacea for the evils of the Land Laws of Ireland would be utterly illusory unless the Bill contained provisions going very much further than the clause promised by the Chief Secretary. In a great question like this, what was the use of giving permission to the farmers to let out an acre or half-an-acre, and stopping there? It would be a waste of time to discuss such a thing. It was the duty of the Government to see that this was not a tinkering settlement of the question, but that it should embrace all the vital points of the disease. He was quite certain that if the labourers' question were omitted or imperfectly dealt with—and the Chief Secretary's promise only touched the fringe of the question—that all the exertions used by the Irish Members would have been spent in vain.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, the hon. Member for the City of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had referred to a suggestion of his for a conference between the Irish Members and the Irish Executive on this Amendment, and, as the matter might be misunderstood in Ireland, he wished to say that he had had no communications with the Chief Secretary, either on that or any other subject. There was not an Office in Her Majesty's Government to which he would go with more reluctance than to the Irish Office. There was not a halo, but one of those misty lights, which arose from that place.

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is not speaking on the question before the Committee.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, he was replying to the reference of the hon. Member for the City of Gal way.

THE CHAIRMAN
That is not the subject before the Committee.

§ MR. CALLAN
would suggest that the discussion should terminate, and that a conference should be held between the Representatives of the Irish Executive and Irish Members on either side of the House with reference to this subject, which the hon. Member for Galway said was "bristling with difficulties." He thought such a subject might be discussed at an informal conference, and save the time of the House. It would facilitate the discussion on the Land Bill generally, if Members on his own side, and individual Members on the other side, of the House were not so ready with their strictures on those who had given much time to this subject.

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
remarked, that as so much had been said as to private conferences between the Chief Secretary and the Irish Members, he hoped that no ear would be given to such a thing. The Irish Members wanted no private conversations with Ministers; and all their discussions should be across the floor of the House.

§ MR. HEALY
said, that this question, as it affected Irish labourers, was really a minor one. The Irish labourers wanted a sanitary inspector to see that their dwellings were kept in. decent order, with proper drains, to be attended to by the landlords or the farmers; and, if this were done, the question of wages might be left to regulate itself.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), that if he persisted with his Amendment it would have a serious effect in preventing the consideration of the labourers' question afterwards.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that the Amendments of the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore), of the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan), and the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), were covered by this proposed Amendment, and he supposed they would not be put.

§ MR. LALOR
moved to leave out subsection 5 of Clause 4, which was as follows:— 1167 The tenant shall not do any act whereby his holding becomes vested in a judgment creditor or assignee in Bankruptcy. If this were to stand, it would be a most cruel thing, because, in the first place, it would prevent any tenant from borrowing capital if he were in want, and where misfortune might have come upon him through failure of his crops. This subsection would give the landlords a power which they did not possess at present, and he, therefore, moved that it be struck out, in order to give the tenant protection against the landlord.

§ MR. SHAW
hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. It would be an unreasonable thing to impose upon the tenant farmers of Ireland, and it would put the creditors in a very false position.

§ MR. GRANTHAM
hoped the Government would not consent to this subsection being struck out, because, if this were done, it would place the owners of land in Ireland in a false position. As his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland knew, this was one of the best, and an almost invariable covenant in all leases with reference to land in England; and where it was not inserted it was implied that on the tenant becoming bankrupt the landlord should be enabled to take possession. He might point out how unfair this would be to the landlord; for an assignee or a trustee in Bankruptcy would be enabled to assign his beneficial lease to a pauper, and get a considerable loan by handing it over to a man who had not a single penny. The hon. Member for Queen's County said that his reason for objecting to the section was that it would not allow the tenant to borrow money; but it was when the tenant was beyond borrowing, and when he was a bankrupt, that this section came into operation. Previous to the time of his bankruptcy it might be assumed that he had been borrowing money, and in that way he had done all that he could to obviate the pressure of a bad season; and when he had got to the length of his tether, and could not borrow any more money, if this section were struck out, his property would become vested in a judgment creditor or assignee in Bankruptcy. Under these 1168 circumstances, he hoped that the Attorney General for Ireland would not yield to the wishes of the hon. Member.

§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY
said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had stated in reply to a suggestion that the tenant could borrow money upon his tenancy, that when he became bankrupt he ceased to be in a position to borrow money. He (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) understood the clause to mean that if a tenant borrowed money and subsequently became bankrupt, his tenancy would be forfeited. The sub-clause which the Amendment of his hon. Friend proposed to strike out would, if it remained in the Bill, certainly prevent anything like the borrowing of money. But he objected to the sub-section on broader grounds. He contended that there was a great difference between the position of an ordinary English tenant from year to year, and that of the Irish yearly tenant; the latter having a much larger interest in his holding than the former. They were about to give the Irish tenant from year to year the right of free sale, which the English tenant in the same position did not possess; and certainly the Committee would deprive the property of the Irish tenant of a very important element if they took away the right of assignment to the extent which was proposed in the present sub-section. He regarded the sub-section as being inconsistent with the general tone of the Bill, and was, therefore, in favour of its omission. He was, however, in favour of a provision being made that, in case the tenant became insolvent or parted with his interest, the landlord should be saved from the possibility of a man of straw being put into the tenant's place. This might be very easily done, and should be done if there was any necessity for it; but he was entirely opposed to the right of sale being hampered or diminished by the retention of this sub-section.

§ MR. FINDLATER
, said, that he had had great experience of the cases of the kind alluded to by the hon. Member who had just sat down, and he agreed that the tenant right in farms might be swept away altogether by the sub-section, and the tenant left without the means of starting in life again. After all, however, the retention of this subsection was not of much consequence one way or other, as he apprehended it 1169 only applied to voluntary bankruptcies, and would not affect cases in which the tenant was made a bankrupt by a creditor, or where the judgment mortgage was obtained by adverse proceedings.

§ MR. GIVAN
said, there was an anomaly in the sub-section, inasmuch as although it said that the tenant should not do any act whereby his holding became vested in a judgment creditor or assignee in bankruptcy, there was nothing in it to prevent his executing a mortgage and vesting it in a mortgagee. Therefore, if the Act was to have any operation in these cases, the sub-section ought to be made stronger than it was. The sub-section left it open to the tenant to execute a mortgage and the judgment creditor could obtain an interest in the farm by getting his judgment registered and thus obtain priority over other creditors. It was exceedingly unjust to the community in general, and the commercial community in particular, that a man should stand in possession of a valuable chattel or interest on which a creditor might have advanced money, and which he was not able to realize. For instance, a farm might be worth £400 in the hands of a farmer, and certain creditors might give him credit on the faith of that. If the farmer became bankrupt the whole was swept away. Again, if he allowed judgment to be obtained against him, that ipso facto deprived him of all property in his holding, and, consequently, that class of the community who had given him credit would be defrauded by the operation of this sub-section.

§ MR. MARUM
asked what the Attorney General for Ireland proposed to do in cases of eviction where there was insolvency?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, he agreed that the words "judgment creditor" ought to be omitted. If the property had to be sold it was better that it should be sold by the assignee in bankruptcy, who would sell for the benefit of the creditors. Therefore, he proposed to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor) in so far as it related to the judgment creditor, and the clause would then run—" The tenant shall not do any act whereby his holding becomes vested in an assignee in bankruptcy."

§ MR. MARUM
wished to know the position of an insolvent tenant with regard to compensation under the 9th section of the Land Act?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, the 9th section of the Land Act would not affect the matter at all. The tenancy in the case referred to would pass by an involuntary act of assignment to the official assignee.

§ MR. MARUM
said, he accepted the observations of the Attorney General for Ireland. It was clear that ejectment in this case would be an ejectment at Common Law. He should therefore abstain from making any further observations at that moment upon the subject, which he should bring up again on Report.

§ MR. GIBSON
said, unquestionably, if the construction placed by the Attorney General for Ireland upon the 9th section of the Land Act and the 13th section of the Bill were correct, a very considerable discussion would arise when the 13th section was reached. On the whole, he regretted that his right hon. and learned Friend had not seen his way to stand by the drafting deliberately adopted in the Bill. That drafting had n6t been lightly decided upon, but had been the result of mature and elaborate consideration; and it was obvious that the words which it was now proposed to admit had been deliberately inserted, because the words of this particular sub-section might be found in the vast majority of contracts of tenancy in Ireland by lease. The words were, then, perfectly well-known and familiar. Now, supposing the words proposed to be struck out were not retained, what would be the position of the landlord if the Bill passed into law? If the tenant were to get into debt, and a- creditor got judgment against him, and then registered that as a mortgage against his holding, the landlord might find a stranger foisted upon him, about whose position he had never been consulted, and whose power he had no possibility of controlling in the slightest degree. He presumed that the object of the sub-section, as well as the policy of all landlords who desired to have moderately well-managed estates, was that they should always, if possible, have solvent tenants who were able to do justice to the landlord, themselves, and their families, and their holdings; 1171 and therefore he considered that the Government had done wisely to introduce the prohibition contained in the subsection with regard to the vesting of the holding in a judgment creditor or assignee in Bankruptcy. Supposing that the enactment remained as at present, he might get into debt; but that would not be sufficient of itself to bring this section into operation. His judgment creditor would consider well whether he would obtain judgment against him, and register his judgment as a mortgage; and this he might be very slow to do if he knew, with this clause staring him in the face, that his act would have the effect of destroying the tenant's interest in his holding. Therefore, the sub-section, as it stood, was a protection to the tenant against the creditor proceeding to extremes. On the other hand, to omit the words as proposed would be an invitation to persons, not only to give credit, but, when the debt had been allowed to accumulate for a certain time, to press for judgment against the farmer. So that if the proposed change were made, the Committee would be doing something that might lead to the injury of the tenant's interest. Again, it had been pointed out that the operation of this sub-section was not at all in the nature of forfeiture and might, at the option of the tenant, only lead to a sale. All that the landlord could do was to serve the tenant with notice to quit. But he would naturally ask himself, when he found that the tenant came under the words of the subsection, whether it was worth his while to encounter the delay and expense connected with serving notice to quit, which could not take effect for a year afterwards; and, again, whether it was worth while to go to the further expense of ejectment. The omission of the words in question, then, would amount to the removal from the sub-section of a provision which might operate largely for the protection of the tenant; while their retention would merely compel the landlord to think from time to time whether he should take any expensive and dilatory proceedings in order to bring some pressure to bear in the matter. He believed that where a fair tenant and a moderate debt were in question, even if judgment were obtained and registered against the holding, in the great majority of cases the landlord would not re- 1172 sort to the machinery of the 13th section, which would necessitate a searching examination on the landlord's part as to whether it was to his interest to adopt further proceedings. The proposal of the Attorney General for Ireland would alter the clause substantially; and therefore he had stated his views so far, in order to guard himself against being supposed to admit the arguments which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had advanced in favour of the omission of the words from the sub-section.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, that in the present case the property was not intended to go back to the landlord at all; and, therefore, the argument founded upon the analogy of English leases might be put out of the question. They allowed a tenant under this Bill to mortgage, and no one pretended that there ought to be any prohibition against that. But it was insisted by his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) that if any sum whatever were borrowed, not on mortgage, but on a bond on which a judgment was entered, and registered against the holding, a forfeiture should be incurred. His right hon. and learned Friend, no doubt, spoke truly when he said that in such cases the landlord would hesitate to put the machinery of the 13th section in force; but it must be remembered that they had not only to deal with the class of landlords which he represented, but with a class which was not represented in that House, and who, he feared, would not hesitate to put this forfeiture in force. There were two kinds of mortgage—one, the Parliamentary mortgage by registration of a judgment, and the other, a mortgage by deed; and the position of a man borrowing money under the former was the same as that of a man borrowing money under the latter. What pretence, he would ask, was there for making any difference between them as regarded the landlord's interests?

§ MR. HEALY
said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had praised the drafting of the Bill when it suited him, and had said the measure had been drafted with a great deal of care, and that the provisions had not been adopted without due consideration. But when the provisions did not please him he took up a very different position. 1173 As a matter of fact, the measure was an apology for feudalism; and if there was anything in it which, more than anything else, was an apology for feudalism, it was these two lines they were now discussing, and which would not be at all amended by leaving out the judgment creditor. They should endeavour to prevent collusion between the landlord and tenant; and if the latter got into debt, they should allow his interest in his farm to be sold for the benefit of his creditors, like all his other property. In Ireland they knew something about penal leases; but no clause in any lease would be so penal as this, unless it were amended as proposed.

§ MR. SHAW
said, he thought that, after the changes made in the clause and the explanations given by the Government, the proposal of the Attorney General for Ireland ought to be accepted.

§ MR. LITTON
said, the remainder of the clause was quite as much open to objection as that part of it the Government had, considered and amended. The right hon. Gentleman had given up the battle when he abandoned the earlier portion of the sub-section, and it was no use holding out with regard to the later portion. He would urge the Government to decide this point in the direction of economic principles.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, the arguments in support of the sub-section were extremely weak. The Committee must not lose sight of the custom of rack-renting landlords, which was to obtain their own remedy against a tenant, and to leave the remaining creditors unprotected; and they must not forget that, unless—in the case of a family left with an interest in a farm devised to one person—there were some means of retaining a hold upon the property directly a tenant became a bankrupt, the whole of the property would be swept away. The landlord was protected in every way, and it seemed to him (Mr. Biggar) that those who wished to retain the subsection were in favour of preferential payments. The principle of allowing one or two of the creditors to be paid off and the rest to get nothing was in the highest degree immoral, and he did not see how the Government could defend it.

§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN
said, the hon. Member spoke of preferences; but 1174 he would remind him that ordinary creditors could recover judgment and obtain a charge on a man's property.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, the position they stood in was this. This was a clause making statutory conditions for the maintenance of the relations between landlord and tenant; and amongst the conditions was one which, as he understood it, was an ordinary condition when parties were left to their right of free contract. The Attorney General for Ireland told them that the words "judgment creditor" were unreasonable to insert, and it was curious, under these circumstances, that the Government should have inserted them. They had seen the error of that insertion, and they wished to make a distinction between the cases of a judgment creditor and an "assignee in bankruptcy." The maintenance of that distinction might or might not be open to question; but the right of maintaining the exclusion of the case of a holding getting into bankruptcy was a right which the landlord was perfectly entitled to expect should be preserved to him. When they were making these statutory conditions they ought to have regard to that which was the ordinary agreement between landlord and tenant, and inserted in almost all leases.

THE CHAIRMAN
Since the Amendment has been moved, three Amendments to it have been given in, and that renders it necessary for me to put to the Committee only a few words at a time.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he would suggest to his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, so that the Committee could divide against the sub-section.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he had a small Amendment to propose which would improve the clause.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
assented to the Amendment.

§ MR. HEALY
complained that he could not hear a great deal of that which fell from the Treasury Bench.

§ MR. BIGGAR
wished to obtain some information as to the effect of the Amendment.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, the object of the Amendment was to express more correctly the meaning of the clause.

§ MR. BIGGAR
I move to leave out, in page 5, line 8, the words "assignee in bankruptcy."

THE CHAIRMAN
What words does the hon. Member propose to put in their place?

§ MR. BIGGAR
It is nothing to me what follows after. I simply object to these words.

THE CHAIRMAN
It is impossible to put an Amendment to the Committee which would make nonsense of the clause.

§ MR. HEALY
pointed out that the Chairman was unaware of the words the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would be prepared with when these words, "assignee in bankruptcy," were negatived. He submitted that it was competent for an hon. Member to move the omission of one or two words without being compelled to state that which was stowed up in his inner consciousness. As a point of Order, he would put it to the Chairman that the hon. Member for Cavan was quite right in the course he had taken.

THE CHAIRMAN
There is a rule of the Committee to the effect that if an hon. Member moves the omission of words so as to cause a blank in the clause, he must inform the Committee with what words he intends to fill up that blank. If that was pot done a clause might be left in a most incomplete state.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
said, the Committee would support the Chairman's ruling, because it was impossible for them to determine a question that was not fully and properly submitted to them. He had been a Member of several Committees, and his knowledge of their working harmonized with the ruling just given. If the hon. Member wished to take the sense of the Committee on this matter, they could divide on the Questions as they were put.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he would ask, before this point was decided, whether it would be competent for an hon. Member to move to leave out the two words "in bankruptcy? "

THE CHAIRMAN
That would not make sense.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he wished to speak on a point of Order.

THE CHAIRMAN
There is no Question before the House.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he would propose as an Amendment to put in the words "unsatisfactory creditor." This would be in accordance with the general policy of the Bill; whereas the policy of the words "assignee in bankruptcy" seemed to be to vest the assets of a tenant in difficulties in a very few people. His contention was, not that a tenant should obtain leave to evade his just and honest debts, but the reverse. They knew that by the law as it now stood collusion could take place, first of all between the landlord and tenant, and next between the judgment creditor and the tenant. In the case of mortgaged properties it was very difficult for anyone to sell them except a judgment creditor; and though it was perfectly true that any creditor might obtain a judgment, the ordinary creditor was not so well up in the means of obtaining preferential payments as those whose business it was, and who were doing this sort of thing every day. What he contended for was, that whatever assets the insolvent tenant had, should be equally divided amongst the creditors. Of course, where a tenant had given a special preference by deed for a special reason to a creditor, that creditor should have a preference; but, on the other hand, if he had not given a special preference, all the creditors should come in together. It was no uncommon thing when a man was known to have a judgment registered against him, for the general creditors to make him bankrupt as soon as possible; and that was fair and judicious, because there was no reason why one creditor who was more anxious to force his claims than another should obtain a preference for his claims. For these reasons there was no argument in favour of the words remaining in the clause, and they ought to be omitted.

MR. HINDE PALMER
wished to know, whether, when the Committee had decided upon this Amendment, the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) would be precluded from moving to omit the lines 7 and 8?

THE CHAIRMAN
Unquestionably. We have now advanced to line 8, and cannot go beyond that.

§ MR. A. M. SULLIVAN
appealed to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) not to divide the Committee, although he thought it a misfortune that the omission of lines 7 and 8 could not be moved.

§ MR. HEALY
observed, that the proceedings at present were a sort of farcical appearance; and, while he should not advise the hon. Member to divide on his Amendment, he could not let the matter pass without a protest.

§ MR. SYNAN
regretted that the hon. Member who had the Amendment had not been in his place to move the omission of these two lines; and explained that under the present Law of Bankruptcy in Ireland if a farmer became bankrupt his property vested in an assignee, but the landlord could apply to the Court for possession of the property and the lease, unless the assignee was such a person as would be a satisfactory tenant. That law, he thought, was sufficient to protect the landlord without imposing a forfeiture on the tenant; and, in his opinion, as the Amendment could not be moved now, the matter should be set right by the Government on Report.

§ MR. BIGGAR
could not see any weight in the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) to vote against the words "assignee in bankruptcy" standing part of the Bill, for that was the issue before the Committee; and he thought it legitimate and proper that the Committee should express their opinion as to whether these words were reasonable or not. He had been cheated by farmers who, though continuing to hold good farms, did not pay their contract creditors; but he would withdraw the Amendment now and bring it up on Report.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
, in moving to insert, after line 8, a separate sub-section, explained that having, on the last occasion when this matter was discussed, undertaken that the new section should not vary the rights of the landlord, he had been obliged to append a few words—" and the tenant shall not persistently obstruct the landlord." He had omitted the words in the original sub-section "refuse to allow," because the tenant had no longer any right to allow or to refuse to allow.

THE CHAIRMAN
Mr. Greer.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
asked whether the Question "That those words be there inserted" should not be put?

THE CHAIRMAN
I immediately called upon the hon. Member for Carrick-fergus (Mr. Greer), without putting the Question. That is the most convenient way.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
thought it would be better to place the Amendment before the Committee, and let it be amended after it had been accepted.

THE CHAIRMAN
No; it must be amended before I can put it.

§ MR. LEAMY
inquired how the tenant was to recover his "amends," and who was to decide whether the "amends" offered by the landlord were reasonable or not?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
replied, that the 1179 "amends" would be recovered in a Court of Law.

§ MR. A. M. SULLIVAN
said, he had an Amendment in line 3, to omit the words "the right," and insert the words "such rights as now belong to the landlord."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, that, under the present law, the tenant from year to year could refuse to let his landlord or anybody else come on his land, and he thought it better to give the landlord that right. The landlord might have the right to mineral and timber, but -with a yearly tenancy interposed he could not go on the land to get them.

§ MR. MARUM
rose to a point of Order, and stated that he had an Amendment going to the entire of the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland, and providing that— Nothing in this section contained shall confer on the landlord any right otherwise than he would have if this Act did not pass. Was it in order to move an Amendment which had not been put?

THE CHAIRMAN
The Amendment is before the House, and the hon. Member intends to move an Amendment in line 4.

§ MR. PARNELL
inquired, whether it was not usual in Ireland, where there was a lease, for the landlord to serve notice on the tenant if he wished to enter the land to search for minerals; and whether some notice would not be necessary in this case, at all events, in regard to mining?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
explained that if, in a lease, a landlord reserved minerals or other parts of the soil, he retained the right to get at them without another word. The reservation of "the right" was in such cases superfluous; and the difficulty here was, that although these things belonged to the landlord, the yearly tenancy interposed, and yet it had been thought so unreasonable in the tenant to object to the landlord's entering for these purposes, that the Legislature in 1870 relieved the landlord, thus prevented from entering, of all liability to pay compensation for dis- 1180 turbance, if under such circumstances he evicted the tenant.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
expressed the opinion that this was a reasonable Amendment.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he thought it an unreasonable Amendment. The cutting of clay for bricks entirely destroyed the surface of the ground, and, perhaps, caused permanent damage. In some districts, where brickmaking was carried on to a large extent, the parties letting the land made stringent conditions with the lessee that he should leave the property at a particular level, and did not allow him to dig as deep as he pleased. He had to leave the land in such a condition that it would answer afterwards for building or other purposes. Then, to make the clay useful, the bricks must be made on the spot; and the practical result might be that for a small sum, perhaps equal to half-a-year's rent, the landlord would turn the tenant farmer out of his holding. The Amendment was one which the Government should not accept, and which a large proportion of the Irish Members might oppose.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
observed, that the earth taken was that which the tenant could not make use of. It was to be taken away, and would not be made into bricks on the spot.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, it would not pay a brickmaker to carry away the clay, and he must have power to manufacture the bricks in the immediate neighbourhood. The proposed provision might give rise to annoyance, and there was no advantage in having it in the Bill.

§ MR. GIVAN
reminded the hon. Member that the clause said— He or they making; reasonable amends and satisfaction for any injury to he done or occasioned thereby. In view of that, he thought there was no chance of the tenant being injured.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
hoped the Amendment would not be accepted, for fire-clay was a mineral.

§ MR. MARUM
pointed out that the landlord was entitled to go on the land on making reasonable amends, and, 1181 therefore, he thought the hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that the landlord could go on the land and destroy the surface without giving compensation.

§ MR. A. M. SULLIVAN
said, everyone knew there was no such thing as taking brick-clay away from where it was dug up; and if the Amendment was to be of any value it must mean that the landlord was to have the power of making bricks on the farm, and that would destroy the farm.

§ COLONEL COLTHURST
said, that there was a brick manufactory near Cork which gave employment to a large number of people. He had received a letter from a person engaged in this trade, who had a yearly tenant on land from which he wanted clay not to burn on the land, but in a manufactory close to the land; he did not wish to injure the tenant, but the tenant demanded an enormous sum for going on the land. And all that the Amendment proposed was that the landlord, or the person having a brick manufactory, should be able to get the material, on paying any compensation which the Court would allow.

§ MR. BIGGAR
suggested that in such a case as this the landlord might exercise his right of preemption and buy the tenant out-and-out. Brickmaking was not exceedingly profitable, and to make a profit the brickmaker must have the manufactory and the clay near together. If the landlord would charge a moderate sum as royalty for making bricks on the holding, he thought it would be an encouragement to the tenant and profitable to all concerned.

§ MR. HEALY
felt sure that if the Attorney General for Ireland had understood the subject he would not have accepted the Amendment. He was not satisfied with the words contained in the Amendment—" He or they making reasonable amends," which would very likely give rise to litigation.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, the Amendment would leave the landlord in the same position as he was in before. If he wanted to make bricks on the superfluous part of the holding the tenant would make his own terms.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
suggested that the adoption of the words—" He or they making reasonable satisfaction or amends by paying for injury to the ten- 1182 ancy," would diminish the opposition to the Amendment.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, although the construction placed upon the clause by the Prime Minister might be the true one, it was well known that lawyers were liable to hold different views as to the meaning of clauses in Acts of Parliament. It might be that this power of searching for clay by the landlord or his deputy, would be construed as giving also the right of spreading it out over certain parts of the holding, for the purpose of drying it or of manufacturing it into bricks. If the tenant was to be paid for the injury done to the tenancy under the circumstances, he thought he would suffer less if he were paid a sum of money at once, than if the matter were kept over year after year.

§ MR. GIVAN
said, he thought that nothing could be more reasonable than that the Government should accept the Amendment he was about to propose with reference to the taking of timber and turf. He admitted that in the case of a holding where there was an excess of turf, that the landlord had a right to take some of it for the accommodation of those tenants on whose farms there was none. But it was quite possible that the landlord might take more than was necessary for this purpose, or more than the farm could afford; because it must be taken into consideration that turf was, so to speak, a limited quantity, and that the turf which could be spared at one time could not be spared 10 years afterwards. Therefore, it would not be right that at a quantity sufficient for many years' accommodation of the other holdings should be taken. Again, with regard to timber. The rent on many holdings had been raised in recent years, on the ground that the farm had become well-sheltered, and that the buildings were of an ornamental character, and in every respect suitable to a respectable holding. Why, he asked, should the landlord be at liberty to remove that shelter—no matter by whom the trees had been planted? The landlord had not any right to remove the tenant's ornaments on the farm; still less had he any right to remove the trees planted by the tenant and his predecessors in title. The Registration, 1183 Acts, which required the tenant to register the timber planted by himself within a certain time if he wanted it to remain his property, were not understood by the tenantry of Ireland. Therefore, he thought the onus of proof should he on the landlord to show his right to take timber or turf off the farm.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) was one which, to a considerable extent, the Government were disposed to accept. He thought it was a reasonable proposition that when a landlord demised to a tenant a farm with timber upon it, which contributed to its ornament and shelter, he ought not to have the power to come in the next day and cut down the trees. At the same time, no matter who planted the trees, it must be borne in mind that they belonged to the landlord in point of law. As all his hon. Friend wished was to make it clear that although the timber would remain the property of the landlord, he should have no power, during the tenancy, to diminish its attractiveness or value by cutting down trees that were either useful or ornamental. He was accordingly prepared to accept the Amendment down to the word "holding," inclusive.

§ MR. SYNAN
thought the landlord ought to prove whether the trees were planted by the tenant or not.

MR. GORST
said, he wished to point out that the clause provided not only for the cutting but the taking of timber. If the Amendment were accepted, the landlord would not have the right of taking timber that might be blown down. But, surely, in such a case, the landlord ought to be allowed to come upon the farm and take the timber away.

§ MR. GIVAN
said, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had always some very fine point to urge; but, surely, he did not argue now that if the timber was planted by the tenant the landlord had a right to it if it were blown down.

MR. GORST
said, he had simply asked whether he could come to fetch his own property which might be blown down?

THE CHAIRMAN
said, as this was an Amendment to an Amendment, it might be more convenient if the hon. Member would withdraw it, to allow the words agreed to by the Attorney General for Ireland to be put.

§ MR. GRANTHAM
pointed out that a great difference existed between timber as an ornament or shelter to the house and timber as ornament or shelter to the farm. The Amendment made no distinction at all in this respect; and if it were agreed to as it stood, the result would be that no timber whatever could be taken by the landlord. He presumed that the Amendment applied to trees that were ornamental and afforded shelter to the house, and that the words were to be inserted in that sense.

§ MR. A. M. SULLIVAN
said, the hon. and learned Member for Surrey (Mr. Grantham) appeared to have discussed the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). If that were so, he would point out that a tree which had been blown down was neither useful for the purpose of ornament nor shelter.

§ MR. E. STANHOPE
said, the words accepted by the Attorney General for Ireland introduced a very considerable change in the clause moved by him. They had taken hon. Members on that side of the House rather by surprise, and he felt they were entitled to consider whether the Amendment would not require the addition of some words to render it satisfactory.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he had known farms in Ireland out of which acres of land had been taken for the purpose of making roads, without the tenants receiving one penny as compensation. He therefore proposed that the tenant should have the right to go to the Court and claim compensation under such circumstances.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, he could not accept the Amendment.

§ MR. HEALY
said, that unless these matters were brought within the purview of the Court, they might be settled for ever by the payment of £8 or £4.

§ MR. GIBSON
said, he was afraid these words might give rise to a great deal of litigation. Who was to be the judge of what "reasonable times" were?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, the Court would be the judge. He had no objection to the Amendment.

§ MR. LITTON
said, the next Amendment stood on the Paper in his name, and he moved it because he believed that if they deprived the landlord of his right to the game—which had not so much an intrinsic as a sentimental value—they would do much to injure the good relations which should exist between landlord and tenant. The right of taking game was reserved to the landlord where a lease was executed; and as the Committee were about to substitute a statutory term for a lease, the game ought to be reserved to the landlord, just the same as if a lease had been executed.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, he was not sure that the words would fit in with the earlier part of the section.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, the Amendment reserved to the landlord every right that belonged to him at present, whereas the effect of the clause, as it stood, might be to create a right or power for the landlord which did not exist at present. Of course, it was clear that if the game was reserved to the landlord he must have the right to go on the land to look for it. The Amendment should be accepted; but he should like to know what the Government thought about it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had made a speech on the subject; but he (Mr. Biggar) had only been able to hear a few words of it, and he was not sure whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to agree to the Amendment or object to it.

§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL
said, the Government seemed to have accepted the Amendment, and he was surprised at that, after they had expressed a doubt as to the legal effect of it.

§ MR. SYNAN
said, that as fish were not ground game—[Laughter]—he failed to see the fitness or propriety of the Amendment. He thought the Committee should accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) instead of that of the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton). This Amendment was— Provided always that nothing in this section contained shall alter or effect the rights of the tenant under 'The Ground Game Act 1880.'

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, the Government could not accept the Amendment.

§ MR. MARUM
said, he had the following Amendment on the Paper:— 1187 In line 11, after "fish," to insert "Provided that nothing in this section contained shall confer upon a landlord any right which he otherwise would not have had if this Act had not passed; but the effect of this would be directly to negative the clause they were passing. He had placed it on the Notice Paper before the clause had assumed its present shape, and he only mentioned it now because it stood in his name, and some hon. Members might like to express their views with regard to it. He would leave it in the hands of the Committee.

§ MR. PELL
said, he wished to see the word "persistently" struck out. He could not see what the object of inserting it was. It was not used in the Act of 1870, and was, therefore, a complete change in the law.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, he could not accept the Amendment. It would not be reasonable to make a forfeiture out of the most temporary difficulty thrown in the way of the landlord. The obstruction might be only three or four minutes.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, he hoped his hon. Friend would divide the Committee on the Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had given them no reason for refusing it, and he should like to ask him for a word or two of explanation with regard, for instance, to obstructing the landlord in the hunting field. The right hon. Gentleman said the obstruction might be only for three or four minutes; but a person obstructed for that length of time in the hunting field might very likely have his whole day's sport destroyed. He was not raising this question as a joke, but as a serious matter. They had enumerated in the clause certain things which the landlord was not to be prevented from doing. The Government acknowledged the principle that it was wrong to prevent him from doing them; but, by insisting on the word "persistently," they enabled the tenant to obstruct the landlord in many ways with impunity.

§ MR. CARTWRIGHT
said, he had an Amendment on this very pointy to leave 1188 out the word "persistently," and insert "unreasonably," which was used in the Act of 1870.

§ MR. GREER
thought the word "unreasonably" would be likely to lead to misunderstanding and litigation.

§ MR. PELL
thought the word "obstruct" was sufficiently strong, without "persistently." The word "unreasonably," which was used in the Act of 1870, would be preferable to the word in the Amendment.

§ MR. EDWARD CLARKE
said, there was a difficulty about the word "persistently," which was a new word, altogether unknown in law, and, therefore, not defined by any decisions. It would give rise to great uncertainty. No doubt, if the framework of this measure were similar to the framework of the Act of 1870, the word "unreasonable" would answer the purpose as well, for that was used in the former Act, which dealt with the refusal of the tenant to allow the landlord to enter. The term "persistently" was followed in the clause, as originally drawn, by the word "refuse," and no doubt, in that case, the term "unreasonably" might have been used; but now the phrase had been altered, and instead of being "persistently refuse to allow the landlord," &c, which imported a deliberate action on the part of the tenant, it was "persistently obstruct the landlord," &c, which might or might not be a deliberate action. The word "wilfully" would carry with it deliberate and intentional obstruction, and he would suggest that that term should be used. If the Government would adopt the word "wilfully" in place of the word "persistently," he thought it would remove all difficulties.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, he thought it would be too severe to provide that the tenant should be forced to sell his holding on account of some temporary obstruction, even though that obstruction might be wilful. And it should be remembered that the landlord was not left unprovided for, because he could bring an action and recover damages. It was not for, perhaps, a merely momentary obstruction that he should be forced to sell his farm and home.

§ MR. PLUNKET
pointed out that the section of the Act of 1870 from which the word "unreasonably" was taken 1189 was really so serious a business that it was not now proposed to apply that word. His hon. Friend had said that the word "obstruct" was not a stronger word than the word "refusal;" but he (Mr. Plunket) thought it was. Obstructing a landlord was a very serious business indeed. For his own part, he did not very much care whether the word used was "unreasonably" or "persistently."

§ MR. TOTTENHAM
said, it seemed to him that there had been much too limited a view taken of this question by each hon. Member who had spoken. The matter had been dealt with more as a matter of hunting, shooting, and fishing than anything else; but if he read the clause aright, the saving clause or proviso at the end governed the whole of the provisions of the clause, and the consequence would be that the tenant would have the power to obstruct for a time which might be almost unlimited. The tenant might obstruct the landlord from, mining, quarrying, cutting, or taking turf, until the landlord was obliged to have recourse to expensive legal proceedings to prevent the tenant from so obstructing. He thought a sufficiently wide view of the matter had not been taken, and he hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division.

§ MR. MORGAN LLOYD
said, it appeared to him that all obstruction by the tenant should be prohibited; but persistent obstruction only should be declared to be a ground of forfeiture of the tenant's interest. The clause as it stood was ambiguous, and the rights reserved to the landlord of entering upon the land for the purposes of quarrying, mining, shooting, &c, was only impliedly reserved, and only persistent obstruction on the part of the tenant was prohibited. He thought the clause should be divided into two portions—one declaring what rights were reserved to the landlord, and the other specifying what degree of obstruction was to be a cause of forfeiture.

§ LORD ARTHUR HILL
moved to insert, in page 5, after "bankruptcy," the following sub-section:— (6) The tenant shall not, in his holding, without the consent of his landlord, open any house for the sale of intoxicating liquors, or undertake any trade or business of a dangerous or obnoxious character. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of this Bill would be able to see his way to the acceptance of this Amendment, as it only sought to do that which was practically just and practically fair between landlord and tenant. No one could say that this Amendment was what was commonly called a "landlord's Amendment," or one that was entirely in favour of the landlord, and, therefore, against the tenant's interest.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)
said, the Government could not accept the proposed Amendment. The noble Lord was quite right in saying that it was not a landlord's Amendment; but, on the other hand, it was really a proposal that had, he submitted, already been disposed of the other night on an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Rankin). The answer which was given then must, he submitted, be the answer now, that the subject was one to be dealt with by the justices at the Licensing Sessions, who were not usually anxious to open more public-houses than there was any necessity for.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
wished to hear what were the views of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) on this question. This was a temperance Amendment, and he thought the great apostle of temperance in the House of Commons ought to give it his support.

§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON
said, he would rather make progress with the Bill than enter into any discussion on this point.

§ MR. MULHOLLAND
said, he did not think it was altogether a question of temperance, and was very much surprised that the Government did not see their way to the acceptance of the Amendment. The landlords now had the power to prevent the creation of public-houses on their estates by serving notices to quit; but by this Bill the tenant would have given to him a power which he did not possess before of defying ejectment. Of course, it was right that the tenant should have power over anything that was necessary for the cultivation of the land; but the founding of a public-house upon his holding was quite a different matter, and were in no way connected with the legitimate business of his farm, and he (Mr. Mulholland) could not understand why the Attorney General should oppose the Amendment. He trusted that, upon re-consideration, the Government would accept the Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT GALWAY
thought that whatever changes might be made in the terms and conditions of the tenure of land, no public-house ought to be erected on a man's property without that man's consent. It was argued that because the magistrates were all landlords, no licence would be given against the landlord's wish; but if County Boards, or the Local Option Scheme were adopted, this argument would cease to be available.

§ MR. WARTON
pointed out that they were now creating a statutory tenure of 15 years without any lease at all, and departing, thereby, from the old term of a seven or a 14 years' lease. He would venture to say—and he was sure the Attorney General would confirm the statement—that in nearly every well-drawn lease provision was made against the carrying on of any noxious or dangerous trade. In these artificial leases that they were now creating, why should not the landlord have the some protection that he had in others?

§ MR. TOTTENHAM
understood the Bill to be one in favour of small tenants and not of publicans. Everyone who knew anything of the country districts knew that the greatest mischief to the country was hatched in these rural or agricultural public-houses, and every person who wished well to the country would try to prevent the extension of those public-houses. He was acquainted with a small village containing less than 20 houses, and in that village there were 1192 no less than 10 public-houses. ["Oh, oh! "] That was not a state of things which should be encouraged by Parliament; but Parliament ought, on the contrary, to use every means in their power to suppress it. He thought the Amendment commended itself to the general judgment of the House, and if it were pressed to a division he should certainly support it.

§ MR. A. M. SULLIVAN
said, he thought the picture just given of the conduct of the Irish magistracy was a most deplorable one. If any tenant-righter in the Committee had drawn such a picture of the hon. Member for Leitrim's (Mr. Tottenham's) brother magistrates as the hon. Member had done himself, in declaring that they had licensed 10 public-houses in a village containing only 20 houses altogether, it would have been said that such a picture was a libel upon the Bench.

MR. MACARTNEY
said, he thought it very probable that those Members of the House who were magistrates were in favour of the Amendment, and that those who were not were against it. He had been sorry to see the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) throw temperance and cold water altogether on one side. The number of public-houses in Ireland was excessive; and he thought any provision in an Act of Parliament to limit their number would be most useful.

§ MR. CALLAN
happened to know the villages referred to by both hon. Members, and in one of them 10 of the licensed houses belonged to one landlord. The magistrates would only give licences to houses on the property of their brother magistrates.

§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON
said, he had the greatest pleasure in supporting the Amendment, being perfectly delighted to find that the landlords were so anxious to protect their property from public-houses.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he had listened for some argument against the proposal, but he had heard none. The Attorney General said the licensing magistrates could do what they liked; but Gentlemen who spoke for the magistrates of Ireland were extremely anxious that this Amendment should be inserted in the Bill. The Amendment seemed to him a reasonable and moderate proposal, and he hoped the noble Lord would press it to a division.

§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG
said, he was the landlord of some property in Ireland, upon which there were no public-houses at all. He hoped the noble Lord would press his Amendment, and he should give it his hearty support, for he should object to having public-houses on his property without his consent.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
thought the Committee, having heard the views of the Attorney General for Ireland on the subject, ought to hear the opinion of the Chief Secretary.

§ MR. MARUM
did not see any necessity for extending the power of the landlord, and he should oppose the Amendment.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he thought it very unlikely that the licensing authorities would make any misuse of their powers; but he admitted that there was great force in the observation that what the Bill proposed to do was to protect agricultural tenants in the prosecution of agricultural pursuits, and, looking at the rigid nature of the statutory leases, he thought it might be right to introduce some provision of this kind. The Government could not, however, agree to the Amendment exactly as it stood. They could not agree to the words "dangerous or obnoxious character;" for the Committee had already rejected an Amendment substantially equivalent to those words—namely, the Amendment that— The tenant shall not do or permit to be done anything which may be or which may become a nuisance or annoyance to the landlord or his other tenants. That, he apprehended, corresponded exactly in substance with the words "dangerous or obnoxious character." But the Government would be quite willing to propose something in the direction aimed at; and he thought the best plan would be to reserve the point for consideration, and the Attorney General for Ireland would undertake to bring up a sub-section on Report, which would have the effect of meeting the view of the Amendment as to public-houses, and also as to undertakings in which there was danger involved.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
though it would be more convenient to take the words of the Amendment at present, and then, if necessary, re-consider them on Report. They would then have on record the opinion of the Com- 1194 mittee as to the question of the sale of intoxicating liquors.

MR. HEA.LY
said, the Bill was getting more and more worthless as it proceeded. He could not help thinking the Government had been studying Lord Salisbury's lease, under which his tenants at Charing Cross were forbidden to let their premises to grocers and several other kinds of tradesmen.

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
said, he strongly objected to the words "or undertake any trade or business of a dangerous or obnoxious character." What trade might not be held by an Irish landlord to be of an obnoxious character? Possibly the sale of Liberal newspapers. He wished to see no extension of public-houses in Ireland; but he certainly objected to making the landlords the authorities in the matter. The landlords in Ireland might be very well content with the powers they already enjoyed as magistrates, without seeking new powers under this Bill.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he was willing to accept the words of the Amendment with regard to public-houses, and thought the other words could be considered afterwards.

§ MR. DALY
remarked, that this clause would put large powers into the hands of any landlord who might be unprincipled enough to extort from a tenant an exorbitant price for a thing for which he had never paid anything.

§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON
suggested the omission of the words "without the consent of his landlord," so that the clause would run—" open any house for the sale of intoxicating liquors." If he was in Order, he would move that Amendment; for he thought the tenant should not have the power to open a public-house even with the consent of his landlord.

§ LORD ARTHUR HILL
proposed to leave out the words "or obnoxious" from the Amendment.

MR. GLADSTONE
observed, that the Committee would then have to consider the Amendment further on Report; and he suggested that the noble Lord should stop at the word "liquors."

§ MR. WARTON
said, he hoped the noble Lord would persist in the Amendment, and leave it to the Prime Minister to alter it on Report. It was necessary that the landlord should have this power of restraining his tenants.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, he understood that the Prime Minister agreed to what was the main point of the discussion—to the Amendment down to the words "intoxicating liquors," and would consider what further provision could be made on Report to meet the object of the other part of the Amendment. He thought time would be saved if his noble Friend would consent to stop at the words "intoxicating liquors."

§ LORD ARTHUR HILL
was perfectly willing for his Amendment to stop at the word "liquors," as had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, but hoped the matter of the remaining part would be considered on Report.

§ MR. CALLAN
regretted exceedingly that the Prime Minister had not left the conduct of this Amendment to the Attorney General for Ireland, and trusted the discussion had taught him the lesson that it would be much more advisable, in the interest of the Bill, if he followed the procedure of the Attorney General in 1869 on the Church Bill, in resisting all Amendments except after consultation with the Members from Ireland, and not follow the practice of 1870 in accepting Amendments from parties who were opposed to the Bill. The other night the Prime Minister had gone into the Lobby against Local Option, and giving the people power to decide whether they should or should not have public-houses; yet here the right hon. Gentleman accepted an Amendment giving to the landlord that which he refused to the people—the power of refusing to have licences—unless they were well paid for their consent. He hoped a division would be taken to show how they objected to the acceptance of an Amendment of such a nature.

MR. MACARTNEY
said, he understood that the Bill dealt entirely with agricultural holdings and not with holdings in towns or villages; and as it had always been held obnoxious and objectionable to have public-houses dispersed on the roads between town and villages, he was surprised at the course taken by the hon. Member, and thought the noble Lord was doing an act of public justice by proposing this Amendment.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he held that they could not allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, and must insist upon a division. What happened when Amendments were moved was this. At first, 1196 when an hon. Member on the Conservative side proposed an Amendment, the Government took no notice. Then half-a-dozen Gentlemen got up and the Government began to consider it. A Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench followed, perhaps, and then they began to think it was a good thing, and after three or four more from the Front Bench had supported the Amendment it was accepted. But if an hon. Member from Ireland got up, the Government said they saw nothing in it, and the hon. Member was sat upon. The Tory Party being in force could enforce its Amendments; but as the Irish Party were not in force they were to be sat upon. In this case they must insist upon attempting to negative the Amendment.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he failed to see on what grounds the Government had agreed to the Amendment, and observed that the Bill was getting worse and worse, so that when it got through the Committee it would not improve the position of the people of Ireland at all.

§ MR. BIGGAR
rose to a point of Order, and pointed out that the other words of the Amendment had not been agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN
It is quite competent to propose to amend an Amendment by striking out any part of the Amendment; and when the Committee has decided whether the words shall be left out, then I put the other part of the Amendment.

§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON
asked whether the other part of the Amendment would then be open to amendment also?

THE CHAIRMAN
An Amendment is like a clause which, if amended in a later part, cannot afterwards be amended in an earlier part.

§ MR. CALLAN
Having put the Question to the Committee that these words be left out, it is not in your power now, Sir, to go back on the proposed Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN
The Question I put is on the latter part of the Amendment.

§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON
wished, if he was in Order, to move to leave out the words, "without the consent of his landlord."

THE CHAIRMAN
I have already explaind that the hon. Baronet is too late, because the latter part of the Amendment has been put, and we cannot go back to the former part.

§ MR. HEALY
asked whether any more could be said upon this matter?

THE CHAIRMAN
Certainly.

§ MR. HEALY
said, the Amendment was so important that the Irish Members could not permit it to be accepted at that time of the night. He thought the Government ought to have time for further consideration. The Irish landlords were the magistrates; and they already had ample power as magistrates to prevent a public-house being opened in any particular locality. The Government would make no other magistrates but landlords, and they would appoint evicting landlords. The proposal was so serious a one that he should move that Progress be reported.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he was very glad the hon. Member had made this Motion, for he was astounded to find that the Government had agreed to the Amendment. Could anything be more absurd than to admit in a discussion on the Land Bill the question of temperance or non-temperance? If ever there was an act on the part of the Government which helped the obstruction and slow progress of their Bill by the introduction of irrelevant matter it was their consent to this Amendment. Was this a question germane to the Bill or not? The question whether there should be public-houses on farms or not was a question that might be left to the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), who, after the manner of persons advocating unpopular movements in which they believed, was in the habit of raising this question in season and. out of season; but nothing 1198 could be more monstrously objectionable or absurd, or unwise, from the point of view of strategy, than for the Government to accept this Amendment.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, apart from any question of temperance the matter stood thus—the Court would be authorized to interfere between landlord and tenant, and to fix a judicial rent, and to constitute a statutory term of tenancy of 15 years, on the basis of a certain agricultural rent. The present proposal was that the holder should have the power of very considerably increasing the value of his holding through the trade in alcoholic liquors, to very greatly increase the value to himself if he still continued to enjoy the occupancy at the rent fixed by the Court. That, without any reference to temperance at all, was the bare answer to the hon. Member, and he could not accede to the Motion to report Progress. The allegation that it was of too great importance to discuss now was really not a fair allegation to make. If it was so, then what were all the other portions of the Bill that had been taken at a considerably later period?

§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY
trusted the Committee would arrive at a decision that night. He did not think the proposal to enable landlords to prevent the opening of public-houses on purely agricultural tenancies was any innovation on the state of things existing at present. They were about to turn into statutory tenants for 15 years many who were now tenants from year to year. Now, if a tenant from year to year opened a public-house on his holding without the permission of his landlord, the latter could serve a notice to quit and turn the tenant out; therefore, as the law stood, the landlord had the power by which he could prevent the tenant from opening a public-house, and if it was desired to preserve and not to increase the landlord's right, they must be left in the possession of the power in this respect they now have. The effect would be to enable the landlord, if the tenant did such a thing, to put him back to the position of tenant from year to year, thus dealing with the case as it now would be dealt with; therefore, no new right would be conferred on the landlord beyond what the law gave him. He confessed he had no sympathy with a purely agricultural tenant seeking to open 1199 a public-house. He had voted against every concession to landlords and every Motion for the restriction of the opening of public-houses generally; but when it came to a tenant, in the middle of a country district, opening a public-house, he could see no necessity for that being done. There were villages all over Ireland where public-houses could be opened, and there was realty no necessity for it. The Bill was legislation for agricultural utility; there would, in this point, be no interference with a tenant's agricultural prospects if, when he opened a public-house and the holding ceased to be one for purely agricultural purposes, the tenant resorted to his present position.

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
wished to know if the concession made by the landlord to a tenant to open a public-house would entitle the tenant to a licence? [" No, no ! "] It would very much limit the discussion if the Government had announced as much. It was essential for the peace and quiet of Ireland that the power possessed by Irish landlords should be reduced, not enlarged, as it would be by this proposal. Besides, he wished to emphasize what had been said by the hon. Member for Cork that it would enable the landlords to sell their consent to the tenants desirous of opening public-houses on the property. He wished the number of public-houses not to be enlarged, and he objected to the landlords being the licensing authorities in Ireland.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he always voted with the Motion of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), he voted for Local Option, and he wished there were no public-houses in England. He was in favour of temperance out-and-out; but he was not in favour of extending the power of Irish landlords. The Bill proposed to do that. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) said if a tenant now opened a public-house the landlord might turn him out; true, but then he had to give compensation for disturbance, and under the Bill, as he understood it, the landlord would not have to do that, the tenant's statutory term of 15 years would be forfeited, this being a breach of one of the conditions, and the tenant would not get 1d. When a yearly tenant was put out for opening a public-house he got compensation for disturbance; but 1200 for a breach of a statutory condition the tenant would get nothing. He certainly intended to persevere with his Motion, though charged with obstruction, a charge Irish Members were accustomed to. They got no concessions unless from first to last they kept up a continual fusillade on the Treasury Bench. It was necessary to take these measures. The Opposition generally had no need of obstruction; they had but to get up by the score, and under this pressure the Government made concessions, and there was no necessity for the Motion he had made as a protest. He hoped when the Motion was defeated some one of his hon. Friends would renew the Motion, and move that the Chairman leave the Chair, following the example of Members of the Government, when in Opposition, upon the Public Schools Bill, and when the present Secretary of State for India and the present Chief Secretary for Ireland kept the House sitting until 4 in the morning, because the then Government suddenly accepted a proposal brought forward by Lord Robert Montagu. The present Amendment had been suddenly accepted by the Government, and the Committee had no idea that it would be. It was an addition to the power landlords now have. They, as the licensing authority, had but to gather their clans and effectually quash any proposal to open a public-house. What then could be the necessity for any such clause in the Bill?

§ MR. GRAY
said, he was not disposed to support the Motion to report Progress, because he was not inclined to interpose minor obstacles to the substantial progress of the Bill. If every detail was discussed at the length to which this discussion had been carried, there would be no hope of getting the Bill through, and he was not prepared to run this lamentable risk. But he was bound to say the Government had brought this difficulty upon themselves. The argument of the Prime Minister proved nothing or it proved too much. If the Committee were to discuss this question excluding temperance in the abstract, then the Amendment should have been wider, or it meant nothing. The right hon. Gentleman said, suppose an agricultural tenant, by a trade in spirituous liquors, improved the value of his holding, he was not entitled to have that increased value; but suppose he established any other 1201 trade.—a drapery trade, a baker's shop, or any other branch of industry, and thereby increased the value of his holding, was he thereby deprived of his statutory term? If not, then it was essentially a temperance question the Committee were discussing. It was impossible to exclude it. If you do you must say any business carried on may empower the landlord to levy an increased rent. When he used his argument then the Prime Minister stated too much for his own case; still, the point raised was not of such importance as to justify the step which had been taken in consequence. He regretted the constant concessions to the Opposition, and he knew it was creating a very unfavourable impression in Ireland. While there was a feeling of anxiety to see the Bill passed, there was gradually creeping over the public mind a feeling of despondency and mistrust of the course the Government were taking, in yielding, one by one, points to the Opposition. They knew their own position best; they wanted to pass the Bill, in the belief that that was the main thing. But he thought to settle the Land Question was the main thing, and if they persevered in their present course they would fail of success in that object.

§ MR. BARRY
said, he regarded the Amendment as of a character so superfluous, and foreign to the character of the Bill, that he thought it his duty to offer his strenuous opposition. There was a kind of hazy idea when the Bill was introduced that its principal object was to limit and restrain the evil power of the landlords, so often misused; but the further the Bill went he found that instead of being diminished that power was gradually increased. He was as strongly in favour of temperance as was the hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson); but he strongly objected to a licensing provision of this stringent character being passed in connection with a Land Bill. Already the Irish landlords had sufficient power as licensing justices to deal with this question; and he could see no other result than that mentioned by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that the tenant would only get the consent of his landlord by paying the landlord a certain consideration. It seemed to him to be opening another avenue of legal robbery to the Irish landlord, and on that account he should give the Amendment a determined opposition.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he certainly thought the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) had clearly shown that the Amendment which had been accepted by the Government could not be defended except on the ground of a forcible maintenance of temperance principles, and he was very much of the opinion of most hon. Members that the less intemperance there was in Ireland the better; but even from the point of view of temperance principles he did not believe the Amendment would do the slightest good. The Committee might be advised and instructed by the incident related by the hon. Member for Northampton, who read a letter of a certain noble Lord who had great objections on moral and social grounds to having public-houses on his estate, but who graciously waived his moral and social objections when he received a £20 note. The Amendment accepted by the Prime Minister was certainly admirably adapted for putting £20 notes into the pockets of landlords. There would be no defence of temperance principles; it would simply facilitate mean little jobbing transactions by the landlords and, perhaps, the meaner class of Irish tenants. He was sorry such a thoroughly ridiculous and obnoxious Amendment had been accepted, and no good would result; and he should support the protest against it if called on to vote. At the same time, looking at the general character of the Bill, he did not at all object to a little Government feature of this kind being kept in it, for a good deal more would be left to be done towards settling the Land Question after the Prime Minister had done his best. He had considerable hopes, at one time, that there would be a satisfactory settlement of the question at the hands of the Prime Minister; but since Michael Davitt had been consigned to gaol the right hon. Gentleman had wandered further and further from his first high ideal.

§ MR. CALLAN
asked the Chairman whether, when the Motion to report Progress had been disposed of, the question would be put that the words— The tenant shall not on his holding, without the consent of his landlord, open any house for the sale of intoxicating liquors, be added, and would it then be competent for the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle to move that a certain por- 1203 tion of these words be left out, the Committee not having affirmed any portion of the Amendment? Could the hon. Baronet move that "without the consent of his landlord" be omitted?

THE CHAIRMAN
I have already explained to the Committee that after a portion of the Amendment has been struck out it is not competent for an hon. Member to go back on any preceding portion of the Amendment. There is no second reading of an Amendment as there is to a new clause.

§ MR. CALLAN
Has any portion of the Amendment been affirmed?

THE CHAIRMAN
The Question will be put when the Motion to report Progress is decided.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he took advantage of the opportunity this Motion presented to ask a question as to the general machinery in regard to the Bill. On Clause 19 and other parts of the Bill could private Members move that a larger sum of money should be advanced than was now by the Bill proposed to be advanced? This point would occur on Clause 19; but it would be too late then to raise it with the object of moving an increase. He also wished to know if it was in the power of a private Member to bring forward a proposition to impose various charges on the Treasury, or to propose that the Treasury should advance more money? Could a private Member do this, or what steps should be taken?

THE CHAIRMAN
I am aware that the hon. and gallant Member has previously spoken to the Speaker on this point, and that the Speaker informed him that his application should properly be made to the Chairman, and I agree with him that the question can only be put on a Motion to report Progress. I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Indemnity Resolution passed on the 31st of May, in which he will find the terms are large; but I cannot reply until I see the terms of his Amendment, whether it will come within those terms or not. On reference to the Resolution he will find the terms are large.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he would ask the question on another occasion.

§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY
said, he strongly objected to a Motion to report Progress simply for the purpose of obstructing the Bill; but he felt that that was not the course pursued now. He 1204 was extremely sorry that the Government had accepted the Amendment which had been forced upon them. The motive of the Bill was to settle the Land Question in Ireland in a great measure by altering the position in which landlord and tenant had stood for generations, and placing them on something like equal terms. It was proposed to recognise that the tenant had some property in the land, the old relation of master and servant was to be swept away, and the two were to be regarded as parties to a contract. But by this concession which the Government had made, absolute supremacy was given to one party over the other, making him complete master, and giving him the right of saying that the tenant should or should not follow an occupation he might think prosperous. This power, it was said, was to be given in the interests of sobriety; but a concession of the kind would act in the other direction, for a positive temptation would be held out to landlords to allow public-houses to be started. The landlord got the power of raising a certain property out of public-houses in the shape of tribute in return for his consent. In every way it would defeat the end in view, and do much injury to the chance of settling the whole question.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, there had been in Ireland a disposition to look friendly upon the Government Bill, and those most interested, the people themselves, agreed to the second reading, looking forward to the Bill being improved in Committee, and Irish Members, with this end in view, would do their best to assist the Government; but, instead of improving, the Bill was becoming worse, and it was a question for those who formerly favoured the Bill whether it should not now be turned out altogether. The Government had made so many additions that he really believed that no party in Ireland wished to see the Bill passed in the shape it would assume if this and other Amendments were accepted from the Opposition Benches.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, it was not his intention, nor that of his hon. Friends near him, to give anything like a strong opposition to the Amendment by moving the alternative Motion that the Chairman do leave the Chair; but before the Committee went to a final decision he would wish to say a word on the question which had been raised. He would venture to repeat the appeal made to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), and would ask him not to vote for the Amendment under the false impression that he was thereby encouraging the cause of temperance that he had so much at heart. The direct effect of the Amendment, if carried, would be to multiply public-houses. ["Oh, oh!"] He trusted he would be listened to with patience by hon. Members behind the Front Ministerial Bench. In this Amendment a distinct temptation would be held out to the landlords in Ireland to encourage the growth and multiplication of public-houses by making the issue of the right to open a public-house an act of sale on the part of the landlord and an act of purchase on the part of the tenant. He would, at the same time, draw attention to the general action of the Government and the general tendency of this measure. During the past week or two nearly every concession that had been made by Her Majesty's Government had been a concession given in the hope of buying off the opposition of the Conservative Party to the Bill. ["No, no ! "] Well, he knew the Conservatives around him denied that proposition, and that the Ministerialists denied it also. The Ministerialists denied it, because nothing that the Ministry could do was, in their eyes, wrong; and the Conservatives denied it, because their appetite for concession had grown by what it fed on, and they hoped to get a little more.

§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD
I rise to Order. There is no Amendment before the House, and I wish to ask whether it is competent for the hon. Member to continue these observations?

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is entirely out of Order.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, that having been met by these unseemly and discourteous interruptions, he would now move "that the Chairman do leave 1206 the Chair," which was, he believed, the alternative Motion. He should now be in Order in proceeding with the general remarks he was making when he was interrupted by the hon. Member opposite. The Government, by this Bill, were increasing the opportunities for clashing, contact, and conflict between the tenants and landlords of Ireland. They were confirming some of the privileges which the landlords of Ireland had hitherto claimed, and they were confirming those privileges under the sanction of a distinct and definite proposition, in place of leaving them in that indefinite domain in which, in their consideration, good feelings might enter. The object of the Government—their absolutely confessed purpose—in this Bill was not to destroy a bad system in Ireland, but to patch up and maintain that system as far as they could. It was time that the Irish Members gave the Government warning that they would not be allowed to pursue this policy of concession to the Conservatives without serious protest from the Irish Members. It was time the Government were informed that if they continued their present policy they could no longer depend upon the loyal assistance which the Irish Members had given them since the Bill went into Committee. ["Oh, oh! "] Yes, loyal assistance by withdrawing some Amendments that they might reasonably have proposed, and by abstaining more than was necessary from taking part in the discussions, although the Bill affected their country, and not England, and although they had better sources of information upon these matters than Englishmen representing English constituencies. It was quite time that they warned the Government that they would gain nothing by attempting to buy off the Opposition.

MR. GLADSTONE
I rise for the purpose of noticing a small incident in the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), who, although only very recently a Member of the House, has rendered himself a great authority on all questions of law and Parliamentary usage. I wish to recall the recollection of the Committee to what has just taken place. A Member on this side of 1207 the House rose and called him to Order, and complained that he was not speaking to any Amendment, appealing, of course, to you, Sir, in the Chair. You, in the most unequivocal terms, ruled him out of Order, whereupon the hon. Member proceeded to complain of what he chose to term "unseemly and discourteous interruption." ["No, no!"] I am speaking in the recollection of the House. If the hon. Member wishes to retract, the Committee, no doubt, would be glad to hear him.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he had nothing to retract; but he would offer an explanation. He had never said what the right hon. Gentleman attributed to him. What he had said was this—that he was met by unseemly interruptions, and what he had alluded to was not the interruption of the hon. Member for Salford, but the interruptions of hon. Members who sat behind the Prime Minister—those groans and yells that they had all heard. He would name one hon. Member who was interrupting him—the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), who, like Sir Pertinax Macsycophant, thought he could get into power by much "booing."

§ MR. SHAW
said, he thought the Amendment was altogether unnecessary. The landlords had power enough to prevent anything like an extension of public-houses without putting in the Bill a clause on the subject; and it seemed to him injudicious, in the present state of things, to be seeming to grasp at little powers of this kind that could really do no possible good, when there were some really great and important questions before them to be dealt with. He regretted very much that the Government had consented to accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment; and now, he thought, the Committee should proceed to divide upon it.

§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY
appealed to his hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) to withdraw his Motion, so that the Committee could divide on the Main Question. The "unseemly interruptionsto which his hon. Friend had referred had been those ejaculations which had come from the opposite side during the greater part of his speech. He did not think the Government would do ill if, in these debates, they endeavoured to induce some of their followers to restrain their exuberant zeal.

§ MR. HEALY
said, the Prime Minister had taunted his hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) with having only lately become a Member of the House, and having, consequently, became a great authority on law and courtesy. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that no one could learn anything anywhere but in the House of Commons, and that it was a great offence not to have been there 40 years. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was mistaken; and he (Mr. Healy) congratulated his hon. Friend in having, at least, not learnt courtesy in the House of Commons, because he would not have acquired much there—unless, indeed, he had been taught by the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), and Members of his character. The Amendments that the Government had been lately accepting had made the Bill so bad that he was afraid the Irish Members would have to vote against it on the third reading. When he had addressed his constituents some time ago he had been able to point out some good in it; but the Amendments that had been accepted, and those that were to be proposed, would have so entirely changed its character that it would not be worth the paper it was printed on. Some people in Ireland, who had not the inestimable advantage of a seat in that House, had thought that when the Bill got into Committee it would be amended and rendered more satisfactory. These benighted individuals, having had no experience of the House of Commons, thought it would be amended in a manner favourable to their interests; but, in place of Amendments favourable to the tenants being accepted, the contrary had been the result. It had come to this—that the Prime Minister was allowed, on a late occasion, without a single word of protest from the Members from the North of Ireland, to insert words in the Bill declaring, in effect, that the tenant's improvements were not his own, but that the landlord had an interest in them.

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
said, he would also join in the appeal to the hon. Member for Galway to withdraw the Motion he had just made; but, in doing so, he wished to say that at one time he had thought that the Bill before the House was to be a great measure of emancipation for the tenantry of Ireland. The great charm of it, in the eyes of the 1209 Irish people, was this—that it pulled down, to some extent, the power of the village tyrant; but, as the measure had gone on, it had set him up again, bit by bit, and piece after piece. They had thought that it would take the foot of the Irish landlord off the neck of the tenant; but the landlord's power and pride had, by clause after clause, been built up again. The landlord was now to have the power of conceding to the tenant the right of setting up a public-house on his farm; and on that broad principle, and on that alone, he objected to the whole Amendment.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division. He might very well take the advice of the Vice Chairman of his Party, the hon. Member for Longford; but, at the same time, he (Mr. O'Donnell) regretted that the Premier, who had come forward with an utterly unfounded charge, had not, after the explanation of the hon. Member for Galway, withdrawn that unfounded charge. He regretted, too, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not made some attempt to explain why he had chosen to inflict what was so much like an insult on the Irish peasantry—why he had said that in the matter of sobriety the landlords were the more sober and temperate class. He was not aware that there was anything in the history of Irish conviviality which formed a foundation for the supposition of the right hon. Gentleman. If the Irish people were, in some cases, intemperate, he was not aware that, at any period of the history of Irish society, the landlord had been any better than the tenant. The object of the Amendment was to allow the meaner of the Irish landlords to enter into miserable pecuniary bargains with the meaner of the Irish tenants, and he was surprised at the action of the Conservative Party in striving to endow their order with this base privilege. If they imagined that by pitiful bargains of that kind they could keep up the respect due to the territorial class they would find themselves mistaken. If the right hon. Gentleman allowed the matter to go to a division, he would find that the Amendment was opposed not only by the extreme men of the Irish Party—the "Irreconcilables"—but by the most moderate of his own Irish followers,

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he was willing to withdraw his Motion.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, that, before the Motion was withdrawn, he would again appeal to the Prime Minister to change his line of action with regard to the question now before the Committee and those proposals which were to be made. When the measure was introduced, the only clause in it was the 7th clause; and he understood that the right hon. Gentleman had given an undertaking, or had led the Conservative Party to believe, that he was willing to agree to such alteration of the clause as would make it of small value.

THE CHAIRMAN
It is not competent for the hon. Member to discuss the 7th clause.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he was not going to discuss the merits or details of any clause. He only wished to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to change his line of policy as to the conduct of the measure through the House of Commons, and, instead of endeavouring to make it acceptable to the Conservative Party, to allow his decisions to be influenced by Members who represented the so-called Irish Liberal constituencies who had requested him, time after time, to agree to Amendments of a reasonable nature.

§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON
said, he was not enamoured of the Amendment; but wished to give the reason why he should vote for it. The magistrates were responsible for licensing; but he should support the Amendment, because it gave an additional chance of checking the increase of public-houses. He was sorry he had not been allowed by the Forms of the House to move the omission of words, because such an alteration would have made the intention, of the House complete.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he proposed to move that the words "without the consent of his landlord" be omitted.

THE CHAIRMAN
We have passed that part of the Amendment.

§ MR. HEALY
thought this was the first time that the doctrine had been laid down that, on au Amendment being put, an Amendment could not be moved upon it.

THE CHAIRMAN
It is one of the most elementary Rules of the Committee that, when any part of an Amendment or clause has been amended in a subsequent part, you cannot amend the preceding part.

§ MR. ILLINGWORTH
said, he was unwilling to interpose, and had his hon. Friend been able to move the omission of certain words he could have had no difficulty in supporting the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite; but, as they were discussing questions of temperance, he objected that it should be left to the option of the landlord to decide on the extension of the sale of intoxicating liquors. That would really go directly in the teeth of local option. His hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle wished all questions as to whether intoxicating liquors should be sold or not to be left to the people; but this proposition actually left it to the small minority—a small class of landlords in Ireland—to say whether they would have public-houses or not. If the public-house was not adjacent to the domain, and was not a nuisance to the landlord, he feared small consideration would be shown to the tenantry, and that the consent of the landlord would be cheerfully given. As he objected to dealing with so high a moral question on such an insufficient issue as the will of the landlord, he should be obliged to vote against the Amendment.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
believed the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would admit he had been somewhat mistaken in supposing the Amendment would tend to promote temperance. In fact, it would give an inducement to landlords to make pecuniary bargains, and some agent would benefit by it, for he would grant the licence to which the landlord had given his consent for a pecuniary consideration. There were other landlords who would hope to make £50 or £100 out of similar transactions. Was it to be supposed that the landlords, who were the occasion of this Bill, and who laid a tax on every article and every privilege however small—those men who taxed the seaweed and the turf, and the very grass on the road side—would not take advantage of this mean little power being intrusted to their hands? They would go to a bench of magistrates of the same Sidney as themselves—for the most re- 1212 spectable class of landlords, the great absentee proprietors, were not the men who sat on the bench in Ireland. The bench was crammed with the agents, the understrappers, the mean parasites of landlordism. Those were the men who would licence the house over which they had already concluded their paltry bargains, and yet the hon. Baronet had said that would advance the cause of temperance. If he continued to advocate the cause of temperance in that manner, there would be a signal falling off in the numbers who voted for local option. He had observed, with great regret, after the manful and energetic rebuke administered under a misapprehension by the Premier to the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), that the right hon. Gentleman was able to check the desire he doubtless felt to rise and rebuke those behind him who contributed to render his remarks inaudible to the House. The energies of the Prime Minister found singular opportunities for exhibiting themselves sometimes.

§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON
remarked, that the few words necessary to make the law good could not be moved unless the Amendment were now carried.

§ MR. GIVAN
said, he had had a good deal of experience in licensing in the North of Ireland, and he wholly repudiated the insinuation of corruption amongst the magistrates of the North. The magistrates and landlords of the North were most anxious to reduce the number of licences, and he had never known an instance where the licence was granted without the landlord's consent, so that the words to which the Prime Minister had agreed would not affect the granting of licences, and he thought it a pity there had been so much discussion. The words would do no harm to the tenant, and might prevent the increase of these centres of drunkenness and ruin in Ireland.