§ Clause 5 (Repeal of part of s. 3 of Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, and enactment of New Scale).
§ MR. FITZPATRICK,in moving in page 5, line 26, at the beginning to leave out from "there" to "land" in line 37, both inclusive, said, that the 1517 tenants who accepted this clause of the Act of 1870 did so with their eyes open; and he, therefore, objected to the new and increased scale of compensation which the clause now provided. It would increase the maximum very largely, and, by placing the new tenants under the new scale, it would inflict a very large loss upon the landlords. He would instance a case to show how the purchase of the tenant right would be affected. Supposing that a man bought a farm under the Act of 1870 at a valuation of £100, taking one-third more as the real valuation above Griffiths', the value would be about £130; and the landlord, if he wished to evict the tenant, would have to pay £130, or one year's rent. If the full maximum was awarded, he would have to pay £250; but now, under the new scale, he might become liable to pay the sum of £390. He had always been under the impression that the scale laid down was to enable the tenant to go out of a farm with capital in his possession, and he was not at all unwilling that the scale secured by the Act of 1870 should still be retained. But he saw no reason why they should increase the scale of money compensation towards tenants who held farms of above 100 acres in extent. In many cases the tenant was actually a richer man than the landlord himself, and to improve the new scale would be to penalize the landlord to a very considerable extent. Of course, the smaller tenants were more at the mercy of the landlords; but the large tenants were perfectly able to make a contract and to look after their own interests in the best possible manner. Therefore, it would be most unjust to bring in this new scale of compensation in regard to the larger farms, and he was very anxious to know what the reason of Her Majesty's Government was for proposing this change. He took the text of this Land Bill to be the Bessborough Commission, and, turning to the Report of that Commission, he found that in Ireland there were 32 County Court Judges, but only 10 of them were examined as witnesses, and only three of those asserted that the scale was too low. The other seven were of opinion that the scale was fairly reasonable; and it was not the practice even now to award the maximum. Mr. Darley said—"I think the scale of payments is fair and rea- 1518 sonable, and in only two cases did I award the maximum. "Mr. Burgess said that, in the case of capricious eviction, a higher amount would probably be awarded; and Mr. Greer stated that he had never found it necessary to award the maximum.
THE CHAIRMANI wish to point out to the hon. Member that, if we take this proposal, and if he intends to submit it as it appears on the Paper, the effect would be to leave out a large portion of the clause, and to leave the rest without any meaning at all. The hon. Member proposes by another Amendment to leave out another part of the clause; and, therefore, practically, he proposes to negative the clause altogether. This, however, is not the right place to do that; but when the question is proposed that the clause shall stand part of the Bill, it will be perfectly competent for the hon. Member to object to that Question and to negative the clause. But his present proposal, considered in connection with his future Amendment, is to destroy the clause without substituting anything for it.
§ MR. FITZPATRICKsaid, he had intended to alter the Amendment slightly, and to propose the insertion of different amounts in the Schedule.
THE CHAIRMANThere is nothing to show that that is the intention of the hon. Member, and unless he alters his proposal altogether, I cannot put the Amendment, because it practically destroys the whole clause.
§ MR. FITZPATRICKintimated that he would withdraw the second Amendment.
THE CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member withdraws the second Amendment without also withdrawing this, he will leave the whole clause nonsense.
§ MR. FITZPATRICKremarked that, if he was out of Order, of course he would submit to the ruling of the Chair.
THE CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member will hand in a new Amendment, I will inform him whether it is in Order or not; but at present it would be impossible to put the Amendment which stands in his name on the Paper. The hon. Member will be perfectly justified, when the clause is called, in objecting to it and in refusing the whole of it; but, at the present stage, such a course would not be in Order.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he had now to submit an Amendment to the Committee—namely, to insert in page 5, line 26, after the word "repealed" the words—
In relation to every tenancy to which this Act applies, and which has not become subject to a statutory term.The Amendment he had to submit was practically raised in a slightly different form from that of his hon. Friend; but it altogether raised the question of the policy and principle of the clause. He himself was opposed to the entire clause, and he should vote against it at the end. He thought it right to say this at the outset. He was of opinion, with great deference to Her Majesty's Government, that the clause was an entire mistake, and that it was quite out of place. He thought it was illogical and opposed to the remaining portions of the measure; and that, as a matter of fact, it was entirely unsupported by any principle on which any scale of compensation for disturbance was originally applied by the Act of 1870. That Act provided that it was desirable and expedient, under the then circumstances of Ireland, to give an opportunity to the minor and smaller class of tenants—it being supposed that the rich tenants were able to take care of themselves—to give to the smaller class of tenants with small rents and small valuations something in the shape of compensation when they were dispossessed of their holdings, so as to enable them to seek new homes. That was the principle which underlaid the whole of the legislation of 1870. It was necessary, however, to look at clauses sanctioning claims for disturbance with great jealousy, because they knew that what was the avowed intention of the Act of 1870 had been largely departed from. As the Prime Minister put it last night, it was not perceived by anyone during the passing of the Act of 1870 that the foundation of tenant right was being laid. The House was not only unconscious of what it was doing, but the object of the Land Act of 1870 was to fine the landlord on eviction. The case was very different now. They were now giving to the tenant the right of selling the tenant right. It was necessary, therefore, to scrutinize with great care any advance in this direction; because they might be told five or ten years hence that what was not intended now, by the logical sequence of facts, had become the further basis of 1520 an advance of tenant right. This Bill was a Bill to amend the Act of 1870—not by restoring the intention proclaimed in 1870, but by enforcing, as a matter of new law, what was disclaimed as being then the intention and foundation of the Act. All the speeches in support of the Bill were based on the necessity of giving some security for the tenant's tenure. This might be accomplished in two ways, each absolutely and strictly independent of the other. It might be done by breaking all contracts and converting all tenancies into tenancies of 15 years, with the power of renewal; or it might be done by increasing the scale of compensation for disturbance, and so checking evictions. The first mode of action was a substantial interference with all the existing contracts from year to year, as its effect was to expand the tenants into tenants for 15 years. That was the modus operandi adopted in regard to the present Bill; and he ventured to think that in making this great change in favour of the tenants, and in giving them this great statutory security, it would be illogical and out of place at the same time, and in the same Bill, to go back upon the 3rd section of the Land Act of 1870, and increase the compensation for disturbance. In point of fact, he thought, if this Bill became law, there would be little or no scope for the operation of that section, and that, practically, the scale for disturbance would be very little applied. He believed that that was the opinion of almost everyone who had carefully studied the Bill. How would this section affect the future? He failed to see the necessity of putting in a strong section for the development of a very objectionable principle, when they were unable to show that it would have anything like a large practical operation. He would ask the Committee to consider how this section could be imagined by anyone to have any operation upon the different classes of tenancies which might by possibility come under its operation. He did not propose to criticize the various Amendments which followed his; but there was one point which he thought was important in connection with this clause, and it was that it dealt with rent and not with rating. If one thing had come out overwhelmingly clear in all the Commissions it was this—that the valuation had been proved conclu- 1521 sively to be a wholly untenable and unreasonable test. Therefore, he thought the Government were quite right in taking the rent rather than the rating. As to tenancies, there were two broad classes of tenancies to which, by a possibility, this new scale might apply. What were they? The ordinary tenancies were the tenants who would practically have declined to avail themselves of the Bill—tenants who had abstained from asking for a statutory term, or from having a judicial rent fixed. He admitted that eviction was possible by a notice to quit; but a tenant of one of these ordinary tenancies would have the remedy in his own hands. He could invoke the other machinery of the Bill, and could apply at once for the other equities which were provided for him in the Bill. In other words, he need not go, but could have his rent measured if he thought it unreasonable, and have it fixed as a fair rent, and thus have his tenancy turned into a statutable term of 15 years. Consequently, the remedy was in his own hands if he did not wish to be evicted. Then, what was the necessity that existed for this clause? He had so framed his Amendment to leave ordinary tenants who had not got statutable terms the benefit of the scale that might be adopted; but as to the other classes of tenants who might come under the operation of the new scale, he thought they would have no right, in reason, or in common sense, or in justice, to have any scale at all. Now, what was the position of a tenant with a judicial rent and a statutable term? He was a man who could not be evicted capriciously. Capricious eviction was absolutely out of the case. A man with a statutory term was subject to statutory conditions, and within the four corners of those statutory conditions they would find contained every single right of the landlord to evict. What would be the probability of the tenant of a statutory tenancy invoking the aid of this increased scale for disturbance, and where would be its justice? He could only be evicted on a notice to quit for the breach of a statutory condition. What were the statutory conditions? He need only mention two or three of them. A tenant could only be evicted by his landlord on notice to quit for breaches of three broad statutory conditions, every one of which went to his ordinary, decent, quiet conduct as 1522 an ordinary tenant. The first of these was if the tenant had persistently committed voluntary waste. Now, what right had a tenant, who persistently insisted upon committing voluntary waste, to get damages for disturbance on any scale? The next case was where a tenant persistently obstructed his landlord in the execution of his usual and necessary rights. Again, he asked where was the right of a statutory tenant to persistently obstruct his landlord in the performance of his usual and necessary rights, and then to invoke the aid of a scale for disturbance? The last case was where the landlord had been compelled, owing to the sub-division and sub-letting of the holding, committed by the tenant in clear breach of his statutory obligations, to invoke the aid of the Bill in order to obtain his legal rights. There, again, what right had the tenant, who, contrary to the law, sub-divided and sublet the holding, and thereby contravened the clear statutory condition—what right had the tenant to receive one farthing upon an increased scale of disturbance? There was one other point he might mention by way of illustration. In Clause 13 of the Bill power was given to the landlord, on breach of the statutory conditions, to serve notice to quit, and to evict the tenant if the tenant did not elect to sell. But they were told that it was the intention of the Government, in this same Clause 13, to further favour the position of the tenant by proposing that when a tenant was served by the landlord with notice to quit for a breach of statutory conditions, he should have power to appeal to the Court not to allow him to be evicted, but to measure the amount of damage to which it was considered the landlord was entitled. What, then, would be the position of the tenant who, under this clause, would be permitted to receive the increased compensation for disturbance? He must, in order to apply for the increased scale for disturbance, have violated some one of the statutory conditions just referred to. He must afterwards, under the new statement of the Government's intentions, have failed to satisfy a Court of Equity that it was not within the landlord's right and duty to get rid of him; and he must have failed to satisfy the Court that damages would be any compensation. Therefore, the clause, as it stood, was framed on a monstrous piece 1523 of absurdity—namely, that a tenant who had failed to satisfy the Court of the justice of his proceedings should, nevertheless, compel his landlord to pay him upon an increased scale for disturbance. He did not propose to go over all these topics again. The matter had now, he imagined, been fully and fairly stated by him. He had not considered it necessary to weary the Committee by going into details upon the Amendment he had now to submit; but he had simply told the Committee shortly what his grounds were. He would repeat again, so that there might be no misconception about it, that at the proper time, when it was proposed that the clause should stand part of the Bill, he should vote against that proposition; and he did not think that there would be any interference with the scope and efficiency of the Bill if the clause were struck out. His Amendment was only directed to this point—that whatever case there might be established for giving the increased scale of compensation to an ordinary tenant, there was none whatever for giving the increased or any scale for disturbance in the case of a statutory tenant, who could only be asked to leave the holding for a breach of his allotted duties.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, line 26, after "repealed" to insert "in relation to every tenancy to which this Act applies and which has not become subject to a statutory term."—(Mr. Gibson.)
§ MR. MARUMsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had overlooked the fact that the clause was in strict accordance with the Ulster tenant right custom, which it was the object of the Government to extend by the Bill to the other parts of Ireland. By the Ulster tenant right custom, a tenant who was evicted at Common Law for the breach of conditions involving forfeiture could, nevertheless, obtain the benefit of the redemptory clause, and, under the Ulster Custom, would be allowed to sell and get the benefit of the value of the tenant right, notwithstanding that he had committed a breach of the conditions involving forfeiture. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had pointed out that there would be a less number of tenants who would come under the forfeiture, or under the operation of the 1524 provision for disturbance. That had been abundantly proved by the fact of new legislation being called for by that House. It had been abundantly proved that compensation for disturbance had been inadequate; and, therefore, it was necessary now to come to Parliament for the present measure. It had been shown that by enacting penalizing clauses such was the competition for land in Ireland that they had very little effect; and unless the measure touched the tenure it would not provide a remedy for the grievances complained of. The experience of the past had proved that the present amount and weight of compensation for disturbance was insufficient for the protection of the tenant. He understood, however, that all these questions would be more completely raised on the 7th clause by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin).
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Marum) that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had raised a bogey for the purpose of slaying it. He did not suppose that a tenant who had obtained a statutory term, and could not be turned out except for a breach of statutory conditions, would be entitled to compensation under the clause; but only those tenants who were compelled by their landlords to sell their tenancies. If a tenant were got rid of for a breach of his statutory conditions, he certainly ought not to be entitled to compensation for disturbance.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, it appeared to him that the effect of the Amendment would be to debar the tenant who once became subject to a statutory term at the expiration of that statutory term, providing he did not feel disposed to enter into a new one—the effect of the clause would be to debar such a tenant, if he became again an ordinary yearly tenant, from obtaining compensation for disturbance. From that point of view, although it was true that a tenant in the enjoyment of a statutory term would not be entitled, and could not in any way be entitled, since he could not be disturbed, the provisions of this Bill were unnecessary. Yet, at the same time, as regarded the contingency that he had just pointed out, the contingency of a 1525 tenant who at the end of the statutory term became an ordinary yearly tenant, if the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were accepted, it would, practically, debar all such tenants from having a claim for compensation for disturbance.
MR. GLADSTONEI have no hesitation in saying that the Government accept the general principle on which the Amendment is founded—namely, that inasmuch as under a statutory term a tenant would be evicted only for a breach of conditions, it is not necessary and it is not right that he should be able to claim compensation for disturbance. I believe that the remarks which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) has made are open to this observation—that he has mixed up together, rather inconveniently, the question whether the scale for compensation for disturbance should be increased and the question of what tenants it should be applicable to. Now, the question raised by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), whether, in the event of resumption by the landlord, the tenant should be able to claim compensation for disturbance, is a different question; and I do not wish to say anything upon that subject now. But with regard to the Amendment, I think it is further open to the objection raised by the hon. Member for the City of Cork that a tenancy once having become subject to statutory terms, would thereafter, though it ceased to become subject to them, be excluded from obtaining compensation for disturbance. Now, I do not think that that is intended; but I have also another doubt—namely, whether that is the right way of attaining the object which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in view. The effect of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment would be, I apprehend, to leave the old scale of compensation applicable to the present statutory term. It is quite clear that that ought not to be so; and I think it would be better that we should get rid of the Amendment at the present moment on the distinct understanding that we assent to it in principle. It is only plain justice that a man evicted for a breach of a statutory condition should not be entitled to compensation for disturbance, either under the old scale or the new; but we believe that that will 1526 be the effect of the Bill as it stands at present.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he had no desire to prolong the discussion. He was quite satisfied with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and he would therefore withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that the Government would draw up words to give effect to the intention expressed by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. H. R. BRANDwished to say a few words before the Amendment was withdrawn. He confessed that he did not understand what the object of the clause was at all, and he believed that the Bill would be just as effective without it as with it. It would be unjust that an old tenant for a statutory term should be able to obtain compensation for disturbance when he was turned out for a breach of statutory conditions. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) said the case he wished to present was that of a tenant who, having been a statutory tenant, had become an ordinary tenant. His (Mr. Brand's) answer to that was that an ordinary tenant under the Bill would be able to sell his interest, and therefore the question really came to this—In what cases would this clause relating to compensation for disturbance be operative? As he understood, it was provided by the Bill that compensation, for disturbance, first imposed by the Act of 1870, should be a penalty upon the landlord for eviction. By this Bill it was constituted a penalty in perpetuity, and the tenant would be allowed to sell the value of that penalty. If the tenant had a right to sell the value of the penalty when he was evicted, why should he have the option as well of obtaining from the landlord compensation for disturbance? In what cases would it act? It could only act when the tenant was evicted, and when his rights had been run so far down that his interest which had been left in the farm had no value whatever. Why, in such a case, should the landlord be called upon to give compensation for disturbance, especially where the tenant, by breach of statutory conditions, had so depreciated the value of the farm that he was unable to sell his interest in the open market?
THE CHAIRMANI wish to point out to the hon. Gentleman that he is now discussing the whole clause, and 1527 not the Amendment before the Committee.
MR. H. R. BRANDsaid, he bowed to the decision of the Chair; but he wished to ask the Government this question—whether the Bill would not be quite as effective without this clause as with it?
§ MR. GIVANthought the acceptance by the Government of the principle involved in the Amendment might place the Committee in an embarrassing position. He understood the concession of the Government to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) was to depend upon the committal of a breach of statutory conditions, and that such a breach of statutory conditions was absolutely to be a bar to a claim for compensation. But might not that be converted into a premium to the landlord to seek for a breach of statutory conditions, and in that way to impose a penalty upon the tenant? As he understood the 15th clause of the Act of 1870, there was an adequate protection of the landlord, because, under the Equity Clause, the Court had power to take everything into account in calculating the scale of compensation the tenant was to receive. It was therefore open to the Court to consider everything that could be brought against the tenant, and if the tenant had been guilty of any unreasonable conduct, either in reference to dilapidations or anything else that was detrimental to the holding or the interest of the landlord, it would be brought against him when he came before the Court. Personally, he was cognizant of many claims which had been made for disturbance; and he never yet knew, except in one or two instances, of a case in which the maximum had been awarded. Therefore, if this Equity Clause in the Act of 1870 continued unrepealed for the protection of the landlord, he thought it exceedingly dangerous that the Government should now commit itself to any undertaking not to award the tenant compensation for disturbance, even where there had been some trifling breach of a statutory condition. He was of opinion that the landlord ought not to be afforded any opportunity or facility for improperly getting rid of his tenant.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he had no wish to continue the 1528 discussion, but must acknowledge that he had never read this section of the Bill as covering the cases which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) seemed to think it was intended to cover. He was glad to hear what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, that it was never the intention of the Government to enable a tenant to recover under those vexatious circumstances. If he was not mistaken, the cases it was intended to cover were those that were mentioned in the sub-section of Clause 3.
§ MR. CHAPLINwished to have the opinion of the Chairman upon a point of Order. He had ruled just now that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) was out of Order because he was discussing the whole clause. He wished to know if hon. Members were to be precluded from referring to any part of the clause except those lines which the Amendment covered?
THE CHAIRMANIt is within the province of any hon. Member, by way of illustration, to refer to another part of the clause; but it is not in Order to discuss any part of the clause not affected by the Amendment until the Chairman puts the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not wish to be misunderstood upon the matter. In saying what he had just now, he was under the impression that, as the Bill stood, a tenant, when he became a statutory tenant, if he was evicted for a breach of statutory conditions, could not claim compensation for disturbance. That was his impression of the construction of the Bill as it stood. He was told, however, by some of his hon. Friends who were learned in the law that a tenant, under such circumstances, would be able to claim from the Court compensation for disturbance. Of course, if that were the case, he should not be willing to lessen the right of the tenant under the Bill.
§ MR. MARUMasked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether, if a tenant committed a breach of statutory conditions, such as the non-payment of rent, he would be entitled to claim compensation for disturbance?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the remedy the tenant would have in such a case 1529 would be to sell his holding; and if he was foolish enough not to claim a sale, he certainly could not come in for compensation for disturbance if there had been a breach of his ordinary duties.
§ MR. BIGGARasked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland under what provision of this Bill a tenant would be authorized to sell his tenant right if he was served with notice to quit?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)The 13th.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. PLUNKET,in moving, in page 5, line 28, to leave out from "compensation" to "and" in line 30, said, that the part of the clause which repealed the declaration of the Act of 1870, that in no case should the compensation paid to the tenant exceed £250, was quite independent of the remaining portions. The reason why he had put down an Amendment for striking out the words to which he referred in his Amendment was that neither in the Reports of the Commissioners, nor in the evidence given before them, had he been able to find any statement whatever in support of the proposal contained in this clause. He was quite unable to make out on what grounds the proposal was made to repeal that portion of the 3rd section of the Act of 1870, which restricted the amount of compensation to be paid to the tenant. All the clauses of the Land Act of 1870, all the particulars of the scale of compensation, were most carefully debated during the passage of that Act through the House. Moreover, there was very little in the Reports of either of the Royal Commissions to support any part of this clause; and, as he had said before, nothing at all that he could find to support this particular portion of it. He found in the Report of the Bessborough Commission a statement that the security given by the 3rd clause of the Act of 1870 was not sufficient, and that an alternative scheme was proposed; but when they came to deal with the suggestion that the clause should be increased in stringency, the Commissioners said that the change should be effected without placing the landlords at an unfair disadvantage in the exercise of their legitimate rights. Again, neither in the Report of the minority nor of the majority of the Richmond Commission was there any reference at 1530 all to the subject of repealing any portion of the 3rd section of the Land Act of 1870. As a matter of fact, some of the County Court Judges did say that the compensation for disturbance at the lowest grade of the scale was not sufficient; but they carefully guarded themselves from any suggestion that it was not sufficient at the upper end of the scale. But there was very little in this; and he challenged any person to show in any of the authorities he had referred to one word pointing to the repeal of this particular sub-section of the Act of 1870. The sub-section in question was not in that Act as it was originally introduced into the House of Commons; it appeared first as an Amendment to the Bill, and received the support of the Prime Minister. His argument was that there was nothing in the Reports or in the evidence submitted to the Royal Commissions to support the present clause of the Bill as repealing the particular sub-section referred to therein of the Act of 1870; that the arguments in support of that portion of the Act of 1870 remained untouched; and that, therefore, the limit of £250 should be adhered to. He was quite unable to understand why they should now be asked to repeal on any ground the sub-section deliberately and unanimously adopted in the Act of 1870.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, line 28, to leave out from the word "and," to the word "pounds," in line 30, both inclusive.—(Mr. Plunket.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, in his opinion, the non-appearance of a recommendation for the repeal of this portion of the 3rd section of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, was no argument worth introducing into the debate. The Commission of Lord Bessborough did not undertake to re-consider the Act of 1870. It was perfectly natural that at that time there should have been a maximum for the fine on the landlord. They had now, however, to consider the just interest of the tenant in regard to compensation quite apart from the interest of the landlord, and having given the tenant the right of realizing the full value of his tenant right, the amount of compensation which he could claim ought 1531 to have relation thereto; consequently, there was no reason in fixing any limit to the operation of the scale.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 235; Noes 110: Majority 125.—(Div. List, No. 272.)
MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he was very anxious to expedite the passage of the Bill, and should therefore be very brief in stating the point of the Amendment he was about to move. That Amendment was framed in the interest of the fair-dealing landlord, who allowed his tenants to occupy their holdings on what he should call livable terms. The Act of 1870 provided that compensation should be awarded to the tenant with reference to the loss sustained; and hon. Members would see that in the case of the tenant who held his farm on livable terms, there would be a greater interest than in the case of a man who was under a rack-renting landlord. Now, the effect of the 3rd section of the Act of 1870 was that the fair landlord was mulcted, while the rack-renting landlord was let off completely. The object of his Amendment was to rectify this inequality.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, line 37, after "waste land," insert "and the said section three shall hereafter be read, as if from such section were omitted the words 'for the loss which the Court shall find to be sustained by him by reason of quitting his holding,' so that the said section shall he read as providing that the tenant therein mentioned shall be entitled to such compensation as the Court, in view of all the circumstances of the case, shall think just, subject to the scale of compensation hereinafter mentioned."—(Mr. Charles Russell.)
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he did not see any objection to this Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, although, so far as the 3rd section of the Act of 1870 was concerned, he did not see how it would practically affect the operation of the clause as now administered.
§ MR. PLUNKETsaid, he was astonished at the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He was sure he would agree that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk constituted a pure departure from the construction that had always been placed upon the Act of 1870. In a treatise of the highest autho- 1532 rity, it was clearly laid down that it was impossible to regard the damages paid to the tenant as being for anything but the loss sustained by quitting his holding. Of course, it was quite possible for the Government to depart entirely from that principle and establish that departure by means of their majority. If the Government thought fit to take that view, and alter the language of the Bill, in order to put an entirely new construction on the Act of 1870, let them do so; but let them not say that their view was the true interpretation of the 3rd section of the Act of 1870.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he was unable to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, inasmuch as he thought quite a different construction to that which he supposed would be put upon the words he proposed to introduce. If you allowed the tenant's interest in his holding to be measured by the amount of compensation, it was quite clear that his interest was larger at a low rent than at a high rent; and, therefore, great injustice would be inflicted on the landlord who let his land at a low rent.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought that the position of the case was exactly the reverse of that pointed out by the noble Lord. The real intention of the Amendment was that the tenant should get compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Bill. It was the case in the North of Ireland, when a tenancy under the Ulster Custom was sold, that if he was paying a moderate rent the tenant received a large sum for his holding; but if, on the other hand, the tenant was under a grasping landlord, who charged him more than a reasonable and fair rent, his interest sold for a very small sum; and, if the landlord evicted the tenant, he was able to get off with the payment of a comparatively small amount of compensation. In that way the landlord received a double benefit. The Amendment was one which he should be glad to see carried out in connection with other parts of the Bill.
§ MR. WARTONpointed out, in reference to the observation of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), that he brought forward his Amendment in the interest of liberal landlords, that the meaning of a fair rent was that which was 1533 fair and just to both landlord and tenant, whereas the term liberal rent implied one which was more in favour of the tenant than the landlord. A landlord who charged the tenant a liberal rent would now have to suffer in two ways—first, by the loss of rent which he ought to have had; and, secondly, by the increased sum given to the tenant for compensation because the rent had been moderate. The effect of the Amendment would be to expand the action of the Courts to an unnecessary degree. His hon. and learned Friend was perfectly aware of the doctrine of consequential damages, and they would probably find not only that the tenant was compensated for disturbance, but also for the removal of his furniture, as well as for a number of things which were not down in this 3rd section.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he would now move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell).
THE CHAIRMANpointed out to the hon. Member for Cavan that the hon. Member for the City of Cork was in the House, and could, therefore, move his Amendment if he desired to do so.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the Amendment in his name had for its object to give tenants, especially the smaller tenants, an alternative to that provided by the Bill, so that they might elect to apply to the Court for compensation for disturbance in case of ejectment for nonpayment of rent instead of selling their tenancies. The proposal was, however, one which would give rise to much contention, and to which he feared it would be difficult to get the Government to agree. Therefore, as the Session was so far advanced, he did not intend to move it.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that anyone who had gone through the evidence given before the late Royal Commissions upon the subject of leases could not but be impressed by the way in which leases had been forced upon tenants in Ireland upon the knowledge that if the landlord gave them a lease of 31 years there would be no compensation. Instead of taking warning from what had taken place, the Government were now about to do very much the same thing as was enacted in 1870. He pressed 1534 upon the Government the desirability of considering whether that portion of the Act of 1870 which gave no compensation to the holder of a lease of 31 years should be continued. He did not know why it should be considered right that, if a landlord entered into a contract to let his land to a tenant for 31 years, the tenant should not be entitled to compensation. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, line 37, after "land," insert "and so much of the same section as enacts that a tenant of a holding under a lease made after the passing of the said Act, and granted for a term certain of not less than thirty-one years, shall not be entitled to any compensation under the said section."—(Mr. Healy.)
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he was quite unable to understand why the Government had not paid any attention to the subject referred to by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), which was one of very great importance. The operation of the Act of 1870, in the case of the holders of leases of 31 years, was very unfair to the tenant, because when a tenant obtained a lease of this kind, he probably laid out money in improvements at the early part of his tenancy which would not be exhausted at the end of the term; nevertheless, the landlord got the full benefit of them without paying any compensation for disturbance. The question as to whether or not the tenant would have compensation at the end of his lease had given rise to great difficulty in Ireland. He trusted that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford would be accepted.
MR. GLADSTONEThe question as to the position of lessees at the close of their leases is one of very great importance; but it is not the question we are now discussing. We are considering whether a certain section of the Land Act of 1870, which now excludes tenants under certain conditions from compensation for disturbance, shall be repealed or not. We do not see our way to the adoption of the proposal of the hon. Member for Wexford; but I may say, with regard to the question as to the future position of a lessee at the end of his lease, that it is one which we carefully reserve.
§ MR. HEALYcomplained that, whenever an Amendment was moved by Members below the Gangway, the Govern- 1535 ment always met it with, the statement that they did not see their way to adopt it; while every Amendment that came from above the Gangway was argued out to the fullest extent. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had advanced no argument whatever against the Amendment. On the second reading of the Bill the Premier said the landlords of Ireland had been tried and, generally speaking, they had been acquitted. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The Prime Minister shook his head. But it was the right hon. Gentleman's invariable practice to shake his head whenever anyone made a quotation from one of his speeches. So far as his (Mr. Healy's) recollection of the Prime Minister's words went, they were these—that the landlords had been tried and had not been found wanting. [Mr. GLADSTONE: As to rents.] He supposed the right hon. Gentleman was acquainted with the evidence taken by the Bessborough Commission. He (Mr. Healy) had taken the trouble to go through that mass of evidence, and had cut out that portion of it bearing on leases. It was nearly a week's work; but he had found numberless cases where the leases had been forced on the tenants. The Prime Minister said he saw no reason for accepting the Amendment; but, in reply to this, he would tell the right hon. Gentleman that it was to be found in the evidence of his own Commissioners. Owing to the character of that Commission, the farmers of Ireland, generally, held aloof from it; therefore, it was a mere tithe of the evidence that might have been forthcoming that was to be found in the Blue Book. The Government had packed a jury of landlords, headed by Lord Bessborough, one of the most stringent, and, he would almost say, one of the most tyrannical agents in the whole of Ireland—he was on the Fitzwilliam property. This packed jury had taken the evidence; but, bad as was the Commission, there was plenty in the Blue Book it had furnished to justify the Amendment, and, unless he could get more satisfaction out of the Government, he should certainly press his proposal to a division. He desired a more satisfactory statement from the Government than that they did not see their way to accepting the Amendment.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, the point 1536 raised by the hon. Member had regard to the clause in the Land Act which enabled the landlord to exempt himself from liability to pay compensation for disturbance by giving a lease for 31 years, wholly irrespective of whether the lease was fair or unfair. All these contracts which had been made during the past 10 years, however fair they might be, were alike included in the Amendment of the hon. Member. This, he was sure, the hon. Gentleman would himself see would be extremely unjust.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, he had presented several Petitions to the House on the subject of leases, and the prayer of all of them was that the matter should be referred to the Commission, and not that the section of the Land Act should be repealed. If the Government made up their minds to refer all these leases to the Commission, no doubt the Commission would see justice done; but it would be a monstrous thing to repeal the section of the Act of Parliament, and thereby put fair leases and unfair leases on the same level. If there were no leases of this kind the Commission would find it out and set people's minds at rest; and if there were such leases justice would be done.
THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, that when the Land Act of 1870 was passed leaseholders in the North of Ireland were not allowed, on the expiration of their leases, to claim tenant right; but since then that privilege had been conceded to them under the Ulster Custom. He thought his hon. Friend might reasonably claim an equal privilege for leaseholders in other parts of Ireland under the 3rd clause.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he could not support the statement of the hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue). He knew cases in the North of Ireland where no allowance was given in the shape of the Ulster Custom to tenants at the end of their leases. No allowances were given on the Marquess of Donegal's estate, for instance. The Bill proposed that a ten-ant-at-will should have a statutory term—that was to say, that he should have his rent fixed for a period of 15 years. If a lease had been given in 1870 for 31 years there would be 20 years to run, or five years longer than the statutory 1537 term which would apply in the case of a tenant who took his holding after the passing of the Bill. In the one case the man would have to wait 20 years for compensation if he were to be turned out; whilst, in the case of the tenant-at-will, he, under similar circumstances, would get compensation at the end of 15 years. The tenant-at-will, therefore, would be better off than the leaseholder. He could not agree to the suggestion of the Government that they should depend on the chance of some clause being hereafter introduced to meet the cases in question. They should not allow this unjust law to continue. If they waited for a new clause, it might be pushed through the House without proper consideration, and might clash with the other provisions, with the result of making the matter worse than it was at present.
§ MR. MACFARLANEsaid, there were a great many Amendments lower down touching the question of leases. He himself had one, which proposed to transfer the matter to the decision of the Court. Such an Amendment as that ought to satisfy the hon. Member; therefore, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a division.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the question involved in the Amendment simply amounted to this—whether a tenant, at the expiration of a lease, should be a present or a future tenant. The question was to be discussed later on; therefore, he thought it would be better to put off the Amendment. He was speaking, of course, under the impression that what he had stated would be the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member. Of course, a tenant holding a lease could not be disturbed until the expiration of his term. By the Bill, as it at present stood, a man would become, at the expiration of his term, a future tenant, without a future tenant's right. The hon. Member sought to convert him, indirectly, by his Amendment, into a present tenant. The Amendment should be postponed until the clause dealing directly with the question was under discussion.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had not been aware at first of the full scope of the Amendment. He was surprised that the hon. Member should have thought of proposing that which, if carried, would amount to a direct breach of faith.
§ MR. HEALYprotested against the tone of the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, he should not press the Amendment after the discussion which had taken place; but, at the same time, he must point out that there was no breach of faith in the matter, or none that was not reasonable and precedented. Was it not a breach of faith against the Act of Union when the right hon. Gentleman passed the Irish Church Act? He did not mean to insist on the Amendment; but he was decidedly of opinion that where leases had been forced on tenants—and there were hundreds of such cases—the tenants should receive compensation for disturbance. He did not believe there was a landlord in Ireland who, since 1870, had given a lease to a tenant at a low rent. They had all exacted the full value of the holdings from the tenants.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he had an Amendment to propose, part of which was merely nominal, and part of which was substance. The Bill stated that the compensation payable under Section 3 of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, should be—
Where the rent is under thirty pounds, a sum not exceeding seven years' rent; where the rent is under fifty pounds, a sum not exceeding five years' rent; where the rent is under one hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding four years' rent; where the rent is one hundred pounds or upwards, a sum not exceeding three years' rent.The clause, on the face of it, proposed to increase the scale of compensation for disturbance. He did not suppose the Government meant that to be illusory, although it seemed to him that the provision, as it stood, would have that effect. He did not know why the clause had been framed in this way—why the test had been changed from valuation to rent—but, when he had heard the explanation, he would, with regard to his Amendment, take that course which seemed to him to be expedient.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 5, line 40, leave out from "holdings," to end of Clause, and insert" valued under the Acts relating to the valuation of rateable property in Ireland at an annual value of—
1539
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, with regard to the formal portion of the Amendment, he was obliged to the hon. and learned Member for correcting an error in the drafting—an error which had been observed by several persons. He would state the reasons which had guided the Government in framing the provision. They had altered the figures in the scale in such a way as considerably to extend the limits upwards; hut, at the same time, they had changed the test by which the classes were divided from valuation to rent. His hon. and learned Friend asked why that change had been made? This was the reason. At the time when the Act of 1870 was framed the rents of Ireland were so extremely unequal that it would have been impossible to found a scale on them. By basing the scale on the rents they would have given the landlord an inducement, which he would have had no difficulty in acting upon, to raise the rents. This ought to be a conclusive proof of the object of adopting the test of rates in 1870; but, since the Act of 1870, two changes had taken place. One was the change, not yet effected but contemplated, in the present Bill, a change the principle of which had received the approval of the House—namely, the power to be given to the tenant to obtain the fixing of a judicial rent. This, it was hoped, would do much to secure an approximation to equality in the rents of Ireland, 80 that they might safely assume, not that they would be absolutely equal, but that the range of their variation would be greatly contracted. Rents, therefore, would be a much better test than they were 10 years ago. Again, there would not be that inducement to the landlord to raise his rent for the purpose of taking the holding into a class where the amount of compensation would be measured by the small number of years' value given. The landlord would not be able to raise his rent without serious consequences ensuing. Then, as to valuation, they had also had considerations to take into view. In the first place, when they adopted valuation as a basis in 1870, the subject of valuation 1540 had never been one which was critical in a political sense. No attempt had been made to associate valuation with rent, or to exhibit valuation to the country as the measure of the rights of the landlord. They, undoubtedly, felt that it would be a more serious matter to trust to valuation now than it was then, from that point of view alone. And, besides that, they had clearly exhibited to the world the fact that valuation itself was extremely unequal. He would put it in this way—that the valuation, under the present Valuation Acts, as it now existed, was likely to be much more unequal than rents. In 1870, they looked upon valuation merely as a Treasury question, and they used to look forward from year to year to bringing in a Bill which would adjust the question. Since then the valuation of Ireland had become a much more serious question; and, at the present time, he did not see his way to rectify it or bring in any Bill whatever in regard to it. Therefore, under present circumstances, the Government were convinced that the rent test would be much more simple and equal than the valuation test was likely to prove.
MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he did not intend to press the part of his Amendment which was objected to by the Government.
§ MR. LITTONconsidered that an important question was raised by this Amendment in regard to the dealings of those landlords who raised their rents beyond the valuation as compared with those who, from generous motives, allowed them to remain at the valuation. There was no doubt that the landlord who had raised his rent and so brought it above the first step in the scale would get off with five years' compensation, under the Bill, as against seven years in the case of the landlord who had not raised it. He, however, was very much impressed with the arguments which had fallen from the Prime Minister; and, therefore, he did not propose to delay the Committee on the subject. Still, there was a provision which ought to be inserted in the Bill which would tend to correct the evil at which the clause was aimed—namely, a provision rendering it optional for a tenant in a higher class to claim compensation under a lower class. If this was adopted, his object would be gained,
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he tad an Amendment on this subject on the Paper.
§ MR. HEALYsaid this scale, by which it was proposed to increase the compensation, would actually diminish it. Where the valuation was £30, and the rent £50, five years' rent would be awarded under the old scale; whereas, under the new scale, only four years' rent, or £200, would be given. Under the new scale, therefore, the tenant would get £50 less than be would under the old scale. No doubt, this was an extreme case; but such cases were to be found. He ventured to say that anyone who knew the way that rental had increased on valuation could, in a very short space of time, put his hand on at least 1,000 cases in the West of Ireland, where the valuation was £10, and the rent £30. He would ask the Attorney General what he intended to do in cases where the clause, whilst purporting to increase, really brought about a diminution of compensation?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that in cases where there was such a considerable disparity between the rent and the valuation, if the latter was approximately correct, the first alteration would be to have the rent reduced. The rent might be improperly high, or the valuation improperly low, or it might be that, at the same time, the valuation was much too low and the rent much too high. All this, however, would be corrected by the provisions of the 7th section. The Government could not attempt to deal now with valuation by bringing in a Bill on the subject.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On the Motion of the ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Law) the following Amendments were made:—In page 5, line 41, by leaving out the word "under;" in page 5, line 41, after "pounds" by inserting "or under;" in page 5, line 41, by leaving out "under" and inserting "above thirty pounds and not exceeding;" and in page 6, line 1, by leaving out "under" and inserting" above fifty pounds."
§ MR. W. H. SMITHproposed, in page 6, line 5, to omit the words "or upwards," in order to insert" and under £150,"so as to give some limitation to 1542 the amount for which compensation might be claimed. Under the Act of 1870 it was expressly provided that £250 should be the highest amount awarded, and he thought in the higher scale of compensation not more than one year's rent should be given.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 6, line 5, to leave out the words "or upwards," in order to insert the words "and under one hundred and fifty pounds."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
MR. GLADSTONEwould not say that this proposal was in direct contrariety to the decision of the Committee that day; but the decision of the Committee was to strike out the limit which was inserted in the Act of 1870; and the principle upon which the Government were going was that although that limitation was agreeable to the view with, which compensation for disturbance was adopted in 1870, it was not agreeable at all to the view now held, because it was now proposed as an alternative form of showing the tenant's right to get money, and they could not stop at a particular point, and say that if the claim was larger than that it should not be allowed on the same scale.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHwished to know if the right hon. Gentleman contended that in addition to full compensation for improvements, the tenant was also to have a right to something, which was not money expended by him, not labour given by him, not capital embarked in his enterprize, but a something which should be equivalent to three years' rent in case of eviction?: It seemed to him to be an extraordinary statement that tenant right, independently of compensation for improvements, should consist of three years' rent.
MR. GLADSTONEobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to assume a case which led apparently to this position, that the tenant's right was confined to his improvements. The right hon. Gentleman, however, said the tenant had -not paid anything for his right; but in a great many cases the tenant had paid for it—in cases, for instance, where one tenant had been evicted to make way for another. But that was not what the Government looked to. What they looked to was to secure remuneration to the tenant for his right of occu- 1543 pancy. If it was a desirable thing—it did not signify what he had paid for it—and persons were willing to give him a price for it, then he ought to be allowed to secure such remuneration. That was not the question now before the Committee; but if the tenant was allowed to secure by the present Bill his right of occupancy, they ought not to prevent his getting remuneration when the property reached a certain value.
§ MR. GIBSONwished to mention a minor, but important, point to which the Prime Minister had not referred. Every single scale of compensation, except the last, had a limit of height beyond which it could not pass. All the Amendment of the right hon. Member proposed was that the last scale should not be exceptional, and should not be the only one without a limitation. Take a case where the rent was, say, £100."A sum not exceeding four years' rent" was fixed; but the next scale was not limited, and it was that which the Amendment touched. The clause read this way at present—"Where the rent is £100 or upwards a sum not exceeding three years' rent;" but was not that entirely opposed to the preceding branches of the scales? Suppose a tenant was paying £500, £600, £700, or £1,000, or even £1,500, a-year in rent, was it intended that the landlord should pay £4,500 in compensation? Either the limits were wrong in the earlier parts of the scale, or consistency required some limit now. The Amendment sought to draw a line, and say there must be a point in high-class tenancies where not more than a certain amount should be allowed. He did not pause on the figure, for every figure was more or less arbitrary, and the principle that underlay the Amendment was only raised on the particular figure put in. The clause, as it stood, would enable a man who was paying £2,000 a-year rent, to get three years' rent in compensation, which would be £6,000; but the Amendment proposed that the maximum should be £450, or three years' rent at £150 a-year. The maximum under the Act of 1870 was £250, and the maximum proposed by the Amendment was nearly double that amount. Whether the particular figure was taken or not, it was reasonable that in this scale, as in all the other branches, there should be the principle of limit.
MR. GLADSTONEargued, that it could not be said that the tenant should be excluded from realizing his interest on account of the magnitude of his holding; but he could admit that the man whose holding was of great size might be in a condition of greater freedom to contract himself out of the Act. The Government could not, however, accept the proposal in the Amendment.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he could understand the Prime Minister's argument in regard to the landlords of the higher class having tire remedy in their own hands, if that freedom of contracting out of the Act would apply to all existing landlords up to a particular margin; but that was not what the Government proposed to do. They took all existing tenancies, no matter how high the figure, or who the landlord was, and applied the scale to them all, and attached this limit, nolens volens, to all present tenancies.
MR. H. R. BRANDsaid, he considered this a very important question. A tenant of a holding paying £1,800, who was perfectly well able to take care of himself, would, if the landlord raised the rent, claim three years' rent for disturbance, and get £5,400, or three times the rent. The tenant rightly had an interest in his holding, and might sell that interest; but it was monstrous that he should not only have that right to sell, but should also be able to call upon the landlord, for three times the amount of his rent.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he was convinced that the Government did not intend such a result, and asked why the scale did not go on a little further? They might fix any figure; but while giving three years' rent in the case of rents of £100 or £150, they should come down to one year's rent in cases of a higher rent. He was perfectly convinced that no Cabinet Minister could contemplate giving the right to a tenant of £500 rent, which was no uncommon rent in the grazing counties in Ireland, to go to the Court on his rent being raised, and get £1,500. The Bill applied to every tenant, and how was any landlord to get a tenant to contract himself out of it? The effect of the clause could not not have been fully discussed or understood by the Government; and he asked whether the Government would undertake to change 1545 the scale, so as to make it gradually fall and approximate to the Act of 1870, in which the scale ended with one year's rent as the limit? The present provision was not only extravagant, but it was really ridiculous?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had raised a very important question as to the application of this clause to existing tenancies, and as there was then no further time to discuss the question, he thought Progress had better be reported.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)—put, and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
§ And it being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
§ The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.
§ Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
§ House adjourned at five minutes after Nine o'clock.