ORDINARY CONDITIONS OF TENANCIES.

HC Deb 29 June 1881 vol 262 cc1546-89

Amendment of Law as to Compensation for Disturbance.

Clause 5 (Repeal of part of s. 3 of Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, and enactment of New Scale).

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. William Henry Smith.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'or upwards' stand part of the Clause."

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

wished to say a few words on the Amendment now before the Committee. It raised a point in which he had taken some interest. He had stated, the other day, that it was not his intention to raise over again any question which had already been directly or indirectly raised. He was anxious not to prolong the proceedings of the Committee further than was necessary; but, nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith), by the Amendment he had moved, had raised a point so germane to that which he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had ventured to raise, that he felt it impossible to avoid saying one or two words. In regard to the Amend- ment before the Committee, to which he was bound to confine his observations, he perceived that the Government had themselves placed some Amendments upon the Paper, and it seemed to him that those Amendments were a great improvement upon the Bill. They afforded another proof of the desire of the Government to consider fairly and impartially the reasons and suggestions offered to them, from whatever part of the House they might proceed. As he understood the Government suggestion, it was in the same direction, though in greater detail, than that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Its object was to carry out the compensation scale in greater detail, so as not to give so very great an inducement to a large tenant—such a tenant, for example, as the one described by his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand), to make a claim against his landlord, in what might be called a vexatious manner. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite could not be considered apart from the persons to whom it was to apply. The result of the discussion of the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) yesterday was this. It showed that the general contention of the Government was that in cases where compensation for disturbance under the 3rd sub-section of the 3rd clause was asked for, the Court should have power to award such compensation. He wished to know if he was right in his understanding of the circumstances under which this claim for compensation would arise, because the question was a very complicated one, and he was desirous that there should be no misunderstanding upon it. As he understood it, the tenant would be able to obain this increased compensation for disturbance if the landlord raised the rent, and the tenant refused to pay it. The landlord might then serve a notice to quit upon the tenant; and if the tenant did not exercise the option he had of selling the tenancy, or of going to the Court for the statutory term, but decided upon falling back on his right to compensation for disturbance, then, if he understood the matter aright, the origin of this proposition was to be found in the Minority Report of the Richmond Commission. It was stated yesterday, but he thought wrongly, that neither the Minority nor the Majority Report of the Richmond Commission made any mention of compensation for disturbance. He thought the Prime Minister would bear him out when he said that that was a mistake, and that Lord Carlingford in his Minority Report did mention cases in the West of Ireland, where the circumstances might be so unfavourable to the tenant, that the land and tenancy would fetch, very little in the market; that it was desirable to prevent the tenant from being turned out upon the world with nothing at all, and, therefore, this alternative was offered to him. There were cases which occurred within his (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice's) own knowledge, during the terrible winter of 1879, where the tenant right in some districts sank nearly to zero, and if these poor people had been turned out by an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the landlord, they would have realized hardly anything at all, notwithstanding their right to sell. He gathered that the object of this clause was to strengthen, the position of the very small tenants, and he offered no objection to it in such, a case. But the circumstances would be altogether different when they came to consider the case of a large tenant, like the one described yesterday by his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand). Large tenancies were the exception in Ireland; but, nevertheless, there were large tenancies, and, under this clause, taken in conjunction with the sub-section of Clause 3, a large tenant might make a vexatious claim, and might be able to extort from his landlord a larger sum in the shape of compensation for disturbance than he would get if he wont into the market merely to sell. He was not, on the whole, prepared to take an alarmist view of the effect of the sub-section; but he would suggest that it would be as well to modify the clause, and he believed that the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton, Cross) proposed some words in this direction which would guard the landlord against a vexatious claim. But if it was the opinion of the Government that that point was already sufficiently covered by the Bill he would be quite ready to give way. Nevertheless, it was a matter of great importance in regard to the large tenants; and he must remind the Committee that it was gone into, at very great length, in 1870, and its importance generally recognized. The limit, in regard to large tenancies, was inserted in that Act on the Motion of the Government. Lord Carlingford, who was then Chief Secretary, and had a seat in that House, moved to insert words placing alimit of £150 on the present tenancies; and when the proposal was made, his; right hon. and learned Friend the present Attorney General for Ireland spoke strongly in favour of the absolute necessity of affording protection in the case of a large tenant. Lord Carlingford said— Holdings above the value of £100 were occupied by farmers so independent that they were able to take care of themselves … They would, however, enjoy the protection given them under Clause 4."—[3 Hansard, cci. 40.] MR. Dowse also said— They were convinced that persons with holdings valued at £100, which was equivalents to a rent of £120 or £130, not only were well able to look after their own interests, but often were really more independent than the land lords themselves."—[Ibid. 42.] Nobody knew Ireland better than the present Mr. Baron Dowse. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) hoped the Government would see their way to making these points more clear; and if the recommendations of the Bessborough Commission were adopted, giving the tenant a right to sell his whole holding, the present complicated machinery for providing compensation for disturbance would be unnecessary. The Bessborough Commission, after examining into the whole matter most carefully, came to the deliberate opinion that the machinery for providing compensation for disturbance was unnecessary. He hoped the Committee, would look at these points very closely, and would ask themselves, either now or on the Report, whether this clause could not be struck out of the Bill altogether; and he would ask the Government, in a friendly spirit, whether it would not simplify the measure to take that course?

MR. GLADSTONE

Until I heard the last two or three sentences of my noble Friend's speech, I was prepared to agree very much with the proposition he has laid down; but in regard to what is contained in those last sentences I must record my dissent. My noble Friend says it is desirable to simplify the details of the Bill; but it is not at all correct to say that it would be materially simplified by striking out this clause. The reason why my noble Friend is induced to regard this clause as au excrescence in the Bill is that it is detached from the general framework of the measure, and that it has very little connection indeed with the general complex structure of the measure. So much, for the question of simplification; but my noble Friend has himself given one or two reasons, with great clearness, which justify the Government in having, after duly considering the matter, decided upon introducing this clause. And here I will refer to an observation made by my noble Friend about the Bessborough Commission. It was really a repetition of some references which my noble Friend previously made to that Commission. He assumes that we have taken the Bessborough Commission not only as a leading, and important, but as the paramount authority in the framing of this Bill. I do not want to enter into any discussion upon, that matter. We are indebted to the Bessborough Commission as well as to the Richmond Commission; but anyone who reads the Report of the Bessborough Commission will see that it is a great mistake to suppose that this Bill has been so framed as to give effect to the recommendations of that Report as they stand. In our opinion, the modifications are modifications of a serious and important character, cutting deep into the provisions of the Bill. It is quite impossible to suppose, however well the Members of any Commission may have been selected, whatever talent they may have shown, and whatever diligence they may have applied, it is quite impossible, in a question of this magnitude, both administrative and political, that the recommendations of any Royal Commission could be allowed to diminish, much less to remove, the responsibility of the Government. No doubt, they form important elements and materials in the case. In some instances, where the question was a technical question, the Commission and the Government had no opportunity of becoming acquainted with it. 'The Commission may have formed almost a conclusive authority; but in such a case as this the Members of the present Government, being responsible for the Act of 1870, found it impossible to shift that responsibility from off their own shoulders, or to apologize for any recommendation that we could not defend upon its own merits by saying that it came to us on the authority of this or that Commission. No doubt, the Report of the Commission was a most important element and carried great weight with it; but it could not relieve the Government of their individual responsibility. One reason for this clause, upon which my noble Friend has touched, is that in some shape or other it was essential to provide protection for the rights of the smaller tenants.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said, what he meant was this. He was not proposing to repeal any part of the Act of 1870; but he was alluding to the change of the scale introduced by the clause.

MR. GLADSTONE

If my noble Friend does not propose to repeal the clause of the Act of 1870, I do not see what becomes of the question of simplification. So much in regard to the smaller tenancies. In my opinion, the necessity is urgent for making some provision for the lower grades of tenancies, in reference to compensation for disturbance. With regard to the higher grade of tenants, I have already mentioned the main consideration which weighed with the Government in determining to introduce this clause. Undoubtedly, the effect of the very sharp and rapid descent in the rate of compensation, as was the case under the Act of 1870, was to throw many men of influence into the ranks of agitation for a change of the Land Law; and we thought it material, if it could be shown that the compensation in some of these cases was a very inadequate compensation, to remove that temptation out of the way. But it is impossible to abandon the principle of compensation for disturbance, and it is impossible to withdraw from the Act of 1870 altogether as it is. I think the clause we now propose will be found a reasonable enactment. We have found a difficulty in the case of large tenants, and to that consideration we have endeavoured to give due weight. These are the two reasons upon which we shall defend the clause. I do not know that it is necessary to prolong the discussion upon this particular Amendment; but I hope the Committee will come to a conclusion upon the question on the clause itself.

THE CHAIRMAN

I wish to point out that if this Amendment is negatived, it will be impossible to put the Government Amendments in the form in which they now stand, because they are in an earlier part of the clause. If the Government Amendments are to be put it will be necessary that this Amendment should be withdrawn and not negatived.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he thought that the observations of the Prime Minister would require very careful consideration by the Committee. He was much more concerned with small tenancies than large, and in the few observations he proposed to make he should refer to the small tenants in the first place. The Bill, as it was framed, contained the vicious principle which intercepted the good effect of the Land Act of 1870, that there could be compensation for the disturbance of small tenants. The amount of compensation proposed to be given, where the rent was £30, was seven years' rent. But there were thousands and hundreds of thousands of tenants in Ireland whose rent was not more than £4, £5, or £6, and he wished to ask the Prime Minister what compensation it would be to give to a tenant in the West of Ireland whose rent was only £5, if the landlord took possession of his holding and gave him £35 and said to him—"You must go away now by Act of Parliament, for that is the compensation that is to be awarded." It was said that the tenant might obtain the statutory term if he liked; but the statutory term lasted for 15 3'ears, and at the end of the 15 years the tenant would be placed in exactly the same position as he was at this moment. He would have no statutory term left. [An hon. MEMBER: He could renew it.] When the time came for renewing it the tenant would look upon the matter just as he did at this moment. In point of fact, the clause would legalize eviction on payment of seven years' rent, "which, in the case of a small holding, was no compensation whatever.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is now going back to a previous part of the clause. We are now upon the 5th line of the clause.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he thought that the Prime Minister spoke in reference to the general bearing of the clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

The time for a general debate upon the clause is when it is proposed that the clause should stand part of the Bill. The noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) made one remark upon the general question which I thought at the time was irregular. It is quite irregular to discuss the clause generally now.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he would bow to the ruling of the Chair and would discontinue these observations; but, at the same time, he could not understand why the noble Lord should be permitted to refer to the general question and that he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) should not. The matter was a very important one, and, as he understood, they were really debating the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson).

THE CHAIRMAN

No; the Amendment now under consideration is the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith).

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he had been of opinion that it was necessary to watch the course of the Government in reference to this clause, and, therefore, he had come down to the House early; but he had certainly had no anticipation that they intended to make another change of front. He had understood the Government to say last night that the largeness of the tenant's farm did put him in a superior position to that of a small farmer in regard to a question of contract, but that it made no difference in respect to a claim for compensation. He wished to know how the right hon. Gentleman would be able to reconcile his statement last night, that the largeness of the farm did not alter the position of the farmer upon the question of compensation, with the change of front which he now made? The right hon. Gentleman, adverting to a very sensible observation made by the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) that in many parts of Ireland, owing to the distress of 1879, the tenant right of many of the small farmers came down to zero, gave his assent to that proposition. A man who was forced into a sale, under those circumstances, would be practically left without any compensation for his interest, and, at the same time, would be deprived of his farm. But if a large number of the small farmers of Ireland had had their tenantright reduced by bad times to zero, how could the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that proposition with the proposition made nightly by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that most of the tenants who were being evicted were justly evicted? He knew that the right hon. Gentleman was not accountable for the assertions of the Chief Secretary. He would be very sorry if the right hon. Gentleman were; but he should certainly like to see him make some attempt to reconcile this proposition with the Chief Secretary's assertions. Judging from the course the Government were pursuing in reference to this clause, he had arrived at the conclusion that the Conservative Party had only to consume a certain amount of time, and to get a little encouragement from Members on the Whig Benches, in order to induce Her Majesty's Government to surrender almost everything at discretion. He had no sympathy with the difficulties of the Prime Minister. All that the right hon. Gentleman had to do was to stick to his original proposition, and his obedient and obsequious followers would have taken his word as gospel, and, with the exception, probably, of one or two Whig Members, would have followed him into the Lobby like a flock of sheep. He often asked himself how it was that the Whig Members sat behind the right hon. Gentleman? [Cries of "Question ! "] He concluded from these interruptions that the Whig Members did not altogether relish his remarks. Probably they sat behind the right hon. Gentleman for the same reason that Casca went behind C æ sar—namely, that they were able to stab him more effectually in that position. The statement just made by the Prime Minister was altogether antagonistic to the principle he had laid down last night, and should have been made in the first instance. One of the propositions raised was whether a large farmer should have a right to compensation for disturbance as well as a small farmer. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to compensate a tenant not only for the capital he had invested, but also for his right of occupancy. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had been about to rise in his place and propose to ask the right hon. Gentleman the ex-First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith) if he had really been present at any of the discussions which, had taken place upon the Bill; but he now found the Attorney General for Ireland coming down and placing Amendments on the Paper on behalf of the Government which amounted to an entire change of front, and were intended to cement the unholy alliance which existed between the Front Opposition Bench and the Whig Members and to disarm their hostility. For his part, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was prepared to resist the proposal now made in such a manner as to make the right hon. Gentleman be cautious in future how he accepted such propositions.

MR. GLADSTONE

I do not perceive any variation in the statement which I made yesterday and that which I have made to-day. What I stated yesterday was that the largeness of the tenant's holding would not in the slightest degree affect his title to realize his property, and by that statement I am prepared to abide now. I applied that principle in all its breadth; but there is an alternative mode of realizing property—namely, the normal mode of realizing it by sale. That is an alternative mode which, in our view, is of the greatest possible consequence to the smaller and minor tenants—to all except the larger tenants. The possession of this alternative mode becomes of very much less importance as it goes up in the scale, because the tenant right of the large tenants is more visibly manifested in permanent improvements of an appreciable kind, and although that tenant right may be depreciated by bad times, there is no apprehension that it will be brought down to anything like zero, which is not an exaggerated description of the condition to which the tenant right of the small tenants in Donegal was reduced in 1879. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) charges us with a change of front. Whenever the Government make alterations in a sense which hon. Members below the Gangway do not like, and, in deference to the suggestions of Gentlemen on the opposite Bench, they are always designated "a change of front." We are not open to the same charge when we make alterations in deference to the views of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. [An hon. MEMBER: You never do.] We certainly did make one when we agreed to substitute the word "ascertain" in regard to the value of tenant right, and several other points which I could mention. But the lion. Member for Galway says that we have nothing to do but to stand firmly in the presence of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and decline to accept whatever they may propose, and that the majority sitting behind us will support us through thick and thin. I feel very grateful for the loyal and steady support given by hon. Members in the delicate business of passing this Bill through Committee; but I will tell the hon. Member for Galway this—that that support would melt away and become totally unavailable if it were not for the conviction which prevails among the majority that the Government are honestly attempting, to the best of their ability, to treat every Amendment offered to us without respect to persons, and without respect to any quarter of the House from winch it may come, with the single and honest desire to accept whatever may conduce to improve the Bill.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, the remarks of the hon. Member for Galway seemed to him to be dictated by a relentless hostility to the Government and the Bill. It was the first time that the hon. Member, or any of his Party, had got up to say a word in favour of the large tenants, whom they called "land grabbers," whom they held up to be execrated, and who were always excluded from the Bills of Mr. Butt. [" No, no ! "] At any rate, that was his opinion. It was idle for the hon. Member to get up now and ostentatiously take up the defence of the large tenants who had been held up to execration all over Ireland. He would only make this remark to the hon. Member for Galway—that it appeared to him (Lord Randolph Churchill) the reason why the Government considered favourably Amendments which emanated from the Front Opposition Bench was because they knew that Members on that Bench were anxious to facilitate the settlement of the Land Question, and the reason they resisted the proposals which came from the hon. Member's Party was because they knew that those hon. Members were not anxious to promote a reasonable settlement of the question.

MR. SHAW

said, he did not think the time had arrived for totting up the losses and gains upon the Bill, and the discussion of the subject was only wasting the time of the Committee He had watched the progress of the measure as closely as any hon. Member, and he believed that real concessions had been made in favour of the tenant, and that no concessions had been made to the landlord that would materially damage the Bill. He knew that certain newspaper organs in Ireland had spoken in a different manner; but he was satisfied that any exaggeration or minimizing of the concessions made could not, in the long run, do the slightest good.

MR. W. H. SMITH

thought it might be for the convenience of the Committee if he were to state the course he proposed to take. He was not satisfied with the Amendments which had been placed on the Paper by the Government, and he intended to propose to amend those Amendments. He begged, therefore, to withdraw his Amendment, in order that the discussion might take place on the Amendments of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland.

Question proposed, "That the Amendment be, by leave, withdrawn."

MR. HEALT

said, the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) had once more appeared as the advocate of the middle course, his favourite rôle, and was to be congratulated upon the course he had taken. One piece of advice he would like to give to the Government, and that was that they should send their Bill to the trunkmaker's

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment before the Committee. He must not speak to the general merits of the Bill.

MR. HEALY

said, he proposed to speak to the Amendment. The Amend ments which the Government had received had so materially altered the Bill for the worse that it should be sent to the trunkmaker's

THE CHAIRMAN

I have already drawn the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that his observations are addressed to the general merits of the Bill. He must speak to the Amendment before the Committee.

MR. HEALY

said, he did not wish to move to report Progress. He only wished to express his opinion on the conduct of the Government. Last night they took up a position of direct antagonism towards the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), and this morning they had practically accepted it, acting very much like the lady who Vowing she would ne'er consent—consented. Yesterday he showed the Government that to the small tenants, whose cause the Government seemed to have so much at heart, this Amendment, instead of raising the scale of compensation, actually reduced it. He quoted the case of a man whose rent was £30 and whose valuation was £10, and in that case he showed how this scale would reduce instead of augmenting it. But, on the motion to decrease compensation to the large tenants, the Government displayed their sympathy for that class; and meanwhile the hon. Members below the Gangway on the other side sat mute as mice, and allowed the Bill to be frittered away. He believed that what was said by The Standard was true—there really was no enthusiasm for the Bill according to that journal. Not a constituency in the Three Kingdoms cared a straw for the measure, and that was proved by the attitude of English Members who let the Government do their will—

THE CHAIRMAN

Is the hon. Member speaking to a Motion to report Progress?

MR. HEALY

No, Sir.

THE CHAIRMAN

Then his observations are out of Order.

MR. MARUM

said, he could not agree with the observations they had just heard, that the Bill should be reduced to a hard-and-fast line, and nothing should be yielded to argument. He did not approve of lowering the rate of compensation to the higher class of tenants. As a matter of fact, the Bessborough Commission reported that the scale of compensation outside the Ulster Custom was somewhat inadequate, and that it was frequently possible for the landlord to evict a tenant and recoup himself for the expenses of compensation, and to put money in his pocket and admit the incoming tenant at the same rent. In estimating this fair rent, the scale for Ireland was as for England, and the larger class of tenants needed protection as well as the small class, perhaps even more, for the large farmer had his credit involved, while the small tenant did not care, and could easily re- move his stock. The large farmer could not make the same resistance, and, in some sense, was in a worse position, for the great rack-renter was American competition, and the American trade, extended from grain to cattle and meat, had, under the Free Trade influence, struck the large farmers severely. They needed protection equally with the smaller class.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must remind the Committee that the Question just now is—" Is it your pleasure the Amendment be withdrawn? "The whole subject will come up under the Amendment to be proposed; but, at the present moment, there is nothing before the Committee but the withdrawal of the Amendment.

MR. MACDONALD

wished to make a reply to what had been said by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), in reference to Members below the Gangway—

THE CHAIRMAN

I have already pointed out that the remarks of the hon. Member for Wexford were of a general character and were out of Order. Any reply to them would be equally out of Order.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, he did not wish to continue the discussion; but he would make an appeal to hon. Members. They would have this very question raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) in another form on the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland; and surely it could be discussed then, and discussion now was only preventing with fatal effect the progress of the Bill.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the hon. and learned Member seemed in a great hurry, and if the Bill were a good Bill he would join with him; but he thought the Bill was on an inclined plane, and the further it got the worse it became day by day. He did not see any real, object gained in affording the Government facilities simply that they might; be enabled to say at the end of the Session that they had passed something they called remedial legislation. It was the statement of the Prime Minister on the introduction of the Bill that if material alterations were made in the Bill in Committee, any large alterations, the House of Lords would say

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment before the Committee. The Question is—" Is it your pleasure the Amendment be withdrawn? "

MR. GLADSTONE

reminded the Committee that if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman were not withdrawn it would prevent the putting of the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland; and he asked the Committee, if a withdrawal were prevented, what possible construction but one could be put upon the conduct of those who prevented it?

MR. HEALY,

in reply to the Prime Minister, said, the only construction was that they wanted to defeat the Attorney General's Amendment, and that was their object.

Amendment negatived.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

moved, in page 6, line 5, after the word "upwards," to insert" and not exceeding three hundred pounds." It was, in the view of the Government, a reasonable proposal, that in cases where the rent exceeded £300 compensation should not exceed three years' rent.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 5, after the word "upwards," to insert the words "and not exceeding three hundred pounds."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

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

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he wished to amend that Amendment by substituting "two" for "three," so that the compensation of three years' rent should be limited to tenancies not exceeding £200, instead of £300, as proposed by the Attorney General for Ireland. He did so on these grounds. It was admitted that tenants of large farms ! in Ireland were well able to take care of themselves. It was admitted that I such a tenant occupied his land, at; present, subject to the conditions of the I Act of 1870. He did so with his eyes I open, fully knowing his own position, and that the maximum of his compensation would be £250. Under this Bill, the maximum would be raised to £600, a distinct gift, therefore, of the difference between these sums, £350, to a man who made his contract with his eyes open, under a law with which he was perfectly conversant. He could not see how a man could be entitled to this, and the sum thus transferred to the tenant must come out of somebody's pocket, who could be no other than the landlord. He could see no reason for such a transfer in favour of a man fully capable of looking after his own interest, and with perfect freedom to enter into his contract. His power was secured to him by the Act of 1870. He proposed to follow up this Amendment by substituting "three" for "five" in the latter part of the Amendment, and to provide that in no cases should the sum for compensation exceed £500, and that was double the amount the tenant would be paid under the Act of 1870.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "three," in order to insert the word "two,"—(Mr. William Henry Smith,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the right hon. Gentleman had fairly stated his view; but he had considered the matter with the desire to go as far as he could, and he could not again alter his proposal and make the important change proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. It was a sound policy that induced the Government to think that it would not be wise to import a rapid descent in the scale of compensation, and to leave the larger tenants in a position in which they must be struck by the great disparity in the compensation, and which would lead them to take every opportunity to disturb the country by seeking for changes in the law. As to injury to the landlord, the right hon. Gentleman very truly said the money must come out of somebody's pocket. He would not enter into that question now; but, speaking generally, it would come out of the pocket of the incoming tenant. It could only come from the landlord, by any possibility, assuming the propriety of the judgment of the Court when the conduct of the landlord was unreasonable. It was a fine that would vary from a certain maximum down to nothing, according to whether the conduct of the landlord was reasonable or unreasonable.

MR. LEAMY

asked under what circumstances this fine would be imposed? It was a fine under the Act of 1870; but last night, in refusing the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster, the Prime Minister stated it was no longer a fine, nor ought to be treated as a fine, but it was an equivalent for property taken. If that was so, there was no use in arguing against the Amendment of the Attorney General and of the right hon. Gentleman, because the Prime Minister argued conclusively against them last night. He confessed he was greatly surprised, after the speech of the Prime Minister last night, to find the Amendments of the Attorney General on the Paper. It was no longer a fine. It might have been, under the Act of 1870, a fine for capricious eviction; but it was so no longer. They were told that the Act of 1870 was to give the tenants certain interests, and the object of this Bill was to make those interests unquestionably clear, and that the landlord, if he assumed that interest, must pay an equivalent; and he asked was £300 a fair equivalent for a property rented at £100 a-year? A fair value of his interest would be something like £500. But that was beyond argument, for the Committee had the statement of the Prime Minister last night.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he thought the hon. Member could not have been in the House throughout the discussion. As to the expression, a fine upon the landlord, he had not so used it. He had spoken of the possibility, not even of the probability, of its coming out of the pocket of the landlord; and, when he said that, he added, upon the judgment of the Court upon the conduct of the landlord.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

regarded the position of the large and small class of tenants as altogether dissimilar, though he agreed that each were entitled to protection for their interests. But he thought it would be found that the larger tenants were under special contracts, and that they were very much on the same footing as the large tenants of England and Scotland. The scale of compensation had received careful attention from the Government, and he was not prepared to say it was other than reasonable, and he should support it.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, if the scale of compensation was meant as an equivalent and not as a fine, it would have been framed on the same principle for large and small tenants. But it was in no sense meant for an equivalent; it was really meant as a deterrent to the landlord to prevent him from evicting. As the farmer emerged from the position of peasant, and was more and more able to take part in commercial dealings, he was certainly more able to take care of himself, and there was an essential difference between small and large tenants. This compensation was never meant to be a measure of rent, nor was it intended that rent should be a measure of it; it was merely a deterrent to the landlord, which became the less necessary, as the landlord had dealings with larger tenants. There was another reflection that had Borne influence with him, and which he would submit to his hon. Friends. They were anxious, not merely to prevent the consolidation of land into large farms, but they were also anxious to bring about a state of things that would facilitate the sub-division of large into small farms. Looking at the proposal under discussion, it must be considered that if they rendered it more difficult for the landlord to divide large holdings, of course they diminished the chance of small holdings being created. If they imposed on a landlord a provision which, in the case of a large tenant, would be absolute forfeiture of a landlord's interest, then, pro tanto, they threw difficulty in the way of creating small tenancies out of large ones. That was a reflection that seemed to him of some importance. Therefore, he would not reject the principle of the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland; but he was bound to say that' when they came to deal with tenancies with rents above £100, and under £300, he thought a sum not exceeding three years' rent was by no means an inadequate sum for compensation for disturbance.

MR. SHAW

said, the Amendment could not be claimed to be perfection; it was merely a step in the scale. If the tenant had fixity of tenure, valued rents, and liberty of sale, then compensation might be abolished. He thought it was perfectly right to give some scale of compensation; and he saw no objection to fixing a limit in the case of the large tenants, within which the Court could exercise its judgment. The evidence given before the Bessborough Commission showed that large tenants as well as small were subject to injustice; they had no power to resist. He had one case in his mind of a farmer in Cork, rented at £400 a-year, who, if ejected by the landlord, would, under this clause, get nothing like a fair compensation. For his own part, he objected to the scale altogether, and could not see the value of it in the Act of 1870. The proper way, in his opinion, was to give the Court, in the case of large tenants, a maximum within which they should grant what was fair and just. When they came to the second Amendment he should move to leave out "not exceeding £500."

MR. PLUNKET

said, he would like to say a word or two as to what had fallen from the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) with regard to the Bessborough Commission. The Prime Minister, it would be remembered, had said that the Government were not bound to rely entirely on the Reports of the Royal Commissions—either that of the Bessborough or of the Richmond Commission. Of course, no one on that (the Opposition) side of the House had ever said the Government were bound to rely on those Reports; but what had been argued by his hon. and right hon. Friends was that the Government, having adopted a great principle and policy in the Act of 1870, after very grave, and careful, and full consideration, when the time came at which it was proposed to make a great change in that Act—to alter the policy it had proceeded on, and to repeal the words of important parts of the measure—they had to look somewhere or other for a new reason and for fresh evidence on which to found the new measure by which they desired to alter their original policy. At this juncture hon. Members naturally turned to the two Royal Commissions he had named, and to the evidence obtained by those Commissions, upon which a great deal of the policy—he would not say the whole policy—of this Bill was founded. This was the extent to which he (Mr. Plunket) and his Friends had relied on the evidence and Reports of those two Royal Commissions. They had not said that those Commissions had not found that the scale enacted by Clause 3 of the Act of 1870 was not effective; but they had argued that the reasoning employed by the Commissions did not support the particular changes which the Government proposed to make; and he would say again that there was not a word in the Reports of those two Commissions or in the evidence they took that was in favour of the removal of the maximum of £250 imposed by Section 3 of the Act of 1870. But turning to what had been said a few minutes ago by the hon. Member for the County of Cork as to what was the policy recommended by the Bessborough Commission, the case stood in this way—they directed the whole point of their argument in favour of the plan they wished to have adopted—namely, one which embodied the principle of what was called the "three F's;" and when they spoke of the principle of compensation for disturbance as enacted in the 3rd clause of the Act of 1870, their whole argument was against it. It would be found by reference to the Bessborough Report that they did argue against it; and therefore it would be in vain to say that the Bessborough Commission did not go against that part of the policy adopted in the Act of 1870. But what he contended was, as he would repeat to the Committee, that neither in that Report, nor in the evidence which accompanied it, would anything be found, except in certain isolated cases, that was in favour of the limit of compensation for disturbance as fixed in the Act of 1870 being extended. It would be found that the witnesses examined, with scarcely an exception, said the only fault they had to find with the scale settled by the Act of 1870 was with regard to the small tenants. This was the case both as regarded the Bessborough and Richmond Commissions. He merely said this much in regard to the arguments that had been adduced on this question from the Reports of those two Commissions. With regard to his own opinion, he was very glad that the original proposal of the Bill with reference to the alteration of the scale of compensation was to be modified in the manner proposed by the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland; but he should certainly support the further Amendment that was to be submitted by his right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith). He admitted that he was unable to understand the principle on which the new scale of compensation was to be applied.

MR. GIVAN

desired to say a word or two on this question. In his opinion, both, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster and that of the Attorney General for Ireland were unnecessary; and he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) that they would work injustice to the tenants. He begged to remind the Committee that there were many large tenants in Ireland who had occupied their farms for a great number of years, and who had continued and had improved their tenancies by their own industry and reclamation of the land; and he thought it hardly fair that men of this class should be so dealt with that they would practically be deprived of the benefits to which their own labour had entitled them. There were thousands of instances of this kind in Ireland. He would put the case of a man who had been a tenant of land rented at £90 a-year for 8, 10, 20, or even 30 years, and who, by increasing the value of the holding, had increased the rent to £100 a-year. Such a man would come under.the scope of the Amendment before the Committee—indeed, he would come under the operation of the clause altogether, and, instead of having improved his position with regard to his landlord in case of eviction, he would find that he had, in reality, diminished his right to compensation for disturbance of his holding. He might suppose the case of a man whose tenancy was originally rented at £50 a-year, and who had so reclaimed 100 acres of land, the greater part of which was at first almost useless, that he had raised the value to £200 or £250 a-year, which was not at all an unusual occurrence in Ireland. Why, he asked, should such a man be put off with a compensation of £300? He held that if the principle laid down with regard to small tenants were good, it was still stronger with respect to such tenants as he had instanced. It might be said by the Attorney General for Ireland that, under the 4th section of the Act of 1870, the tenant might be entitled to compensation for reclamations; but if he had taken his holding 20 years ago he would not come under that section at all. He wished to know why a tenant who had had his rent increased in consequence of his reclamations should be deprived of his claim to compensation, because of a lapse of 20 years? He submitted that the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland was unjust. and that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster was still more unjust, as creating a scale that would be unnecessarily and unjustly against the interests of the tenant, instead of providing that the landlord should pay him that amount of compensation which was reasonable.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, in considering the question of the compensation to be paid to the higher class of tenants, it seemed to him that the Government had forgotten one essential point, and that was, whether the tenant was or was not resident. A resident tenant, in real bond fide occupation of the soil and cultivating it himself, was equally entitled to protection, whether he paid £200 or £300 a-year, or a less sum; consequently, he thought the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland was not just, and he should decline to give it his support. Many of the best tenants in Ireland were those who paid rents varying from £100 to £200 and £300 a-year, and he could see no reason why the discretion of the Court should be fettered in regard to the amount of compensation they were to be awarded. But when they came to tenancies beyond these cases—to tenants who had, besides their own holdings, other farms in different parts of the country, from which small tenants had been evicted in the course of the last 20 or 30 years—he wanted to know what justification there could be for dealing with them in the same way as the tenants he had referred to? There were in Ireland tenants who paid rent to the amount of several thousands a-year. He had received, only the other day, a letter from the lord lieutenant of a county in reference to a tenant in whom the writer was interested, and he stated that that tenant paid rents amounting to nearly £10,000 a-year. Were they, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) asked, going to give such a tenant more than one year's compensation if he broke off with his landlord? He was ready to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite and to go with them in voting against this Amendment, because he thought it was not a fair Amendment; and when they came to the higher scale he was prepared to meet them by giving facilities for breaking up large grazing farms.

MR. SYNAN

said, he thought the Committee were discussing the point at issue at unnecessary length. The proposal was an Amendment to amend another Amendment, and to substitute £200 for £300 a-year. This was a narrow issue. The supporters of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster were in favour of £200, and everybody else was in favour of £300. ["No, no!"] At any rate, everybody else was in favour of rejecting £200, and he did not see what necessity there could be for further extending this debate. One hon. Gentleman who had spoken had gone into the question of compensation for reclamation and improvement of the soil; but he (Mr. Synan) was at a loss to see what that had to do with the question whether they should reject £200, which was the point now at issue. He thought they had got into some misapprehension with regard to what would happen in reference to compensation for disturbance. The fact was that almost every tenant in Ireland would sell his interest. The matter was one of election for the tenant himself, and was not really worth the time that had been wasted on it.

MR. FITZPATRICK

said, the hon. Gentleman who had complained of waste of time had just made his second speech on this subject, and he did not think that such a course tended to shorten the discussion. For his own part, he did not propose to detain the Committee at any length on this subject; but he should like to direct attention to the opinions expressed by the County Court Judges, which, he thought, might be fairly cited in reply to the arguments used by the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) in favour of an enlarged scale of compensation. The statements he proposed to read, as made by the County Court Judges, appeared in the evidence taken by the Bessborough Commission, before which 10 of. those Judges were examined. He found that out of those 10 gentlemen only three had stated that the existing scale was too low, while the majority had said they had never awarded the maximum amount. Mr. Trench, Q.C., who had been for 32 years a County Court Judge, said— I think the maximum is very full indeed for the smaller holdings; and if there is to be a change, it ought not to be in the direction of an increase where there is not a home taken away. Mr. O'Connor Morris said— I have always thought the scale rather high. I do not think I ever awarded the maximum. I entirely dissent from the opinion that any presumption is to be made in favour of the maximum. Now, though he (Mr. Fitzpatrick) was willing to believe and listen to the superior wisdom of the Prime Minister, the drafter and originator of this Bill, he was convinced that the opinions of practical men, who had been working for years in carrying out the provisions of the Act of 1870, were entitled to the very highest consideration, and should not be put aside without overwhelming evidence being opposed to their own.

MR. J. N. RICHARDSON

said, he only wished to make one remark in reply to what had just fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite, and that was that the Committee must be very well aware that both the tenant farmers in Ireland and the tenant-right Representatives had no confidence whatever in the County Court Judges.

MR. BIGGAR

said, in reference to the charge made by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan), that they were unnecessarily occupying the time of the Committee, he begged to say that, so far as he (Mr. Biggar) was concerned, he had not yet spoken on the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had afforded them a good reason for being more or less in favour of the large tenants, for he had said that if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster were carried it would have a tendency to induce the large farmers to join the agitation at present going on in Ireland for the reform of the Land Laws, and thus to assist the Land League. However, he had not much to say with regard to the question of large tenancies, as he believed there were no large tenancies in the county of Cavan; by which he meant no large tenancies in the sense of the Amendment before the Committee—no tenancies, such as had been referred to, coming up to thousands a-year. At the same time, those with whom he acted, and whose opinions were entitled to considerable weight, were strongly opposed to both the Amendments, and for this reason. They argued—and this was the opinion of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), whose views were entitled to great deference from him (Mr. Biggar)—that if the rate of compensation for disturbance in the case of large farms were made too low, they gave an inducement to the landlords to consolidate the small farms, seeing that they would have to pay compensation on a lower scale than in the case of smaller tenancies; and if this argument were a sound one, as he believed it to be, the result must necessarily be in favour of that tendency to consolidate small farms into large holdings, to which he and his Friends took great exception. There was another argument against these Amendments, to which he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. The valuator, who valued the holding, must first ascertain the value of the rent, and then the interest of the tenant in the holding, deducting that interest from the gross total, so as to determine the difference to which the landlord was entitled; but if the valuation was made on the principle laid down in these Amendments, the valuers would hold that the occupiers ought to pay a substantially greater rent than before, and this would operate very injuriously to the tenants, while it would certainly be an inducement to the landlords, on the majority of the farms, to make the holdings very large. They would know that in that case, when the tenants came before the Court to have the rent fixed, it would be fixed with reference to the number of years compensation for disturbance named in the Amendments. He thought, therefore, the Amendment was far more serious than at first sight it appeared to be; because it would have a tendency to give a less sum to the tenant when dispossessed of his tenancy, and would likewise have the further tendency to induce the landlords to consolidate their small farms into large holdings, and not to allow that amount of sub-division which he and his Friends considered necessary in the interests of the tenants at large.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I am very anxious to save, as far as possible, the time of the Committee. I wish to state, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, what is the course he proposes to take with regard to these Amendments. We on this side of the House consider that my right hon. Friend has done very good service by calling attention to the point which is chiefly at issue in regard to this clause, and the principle for which he has contended has been ceded by the Government, though only to a limited extent, and, as we think, not in an adequate manner, so as fully to meet the difficulty to which attention has been called. The principal object of my right hon. Friend was to put a limit to the extreme fine, or whatever else you like to call it, that was to be imposed on the landlord under this clause, or to the extreme present that was to be made to the tenant by the clause as it originally stood. To a certain extent the maximum is limited by the Amendment of the Government as it stands on the Paper; but we are of opinion that the limit it will impose is decidedly an inadequate one, and that it would be really absurd and contrary to all principles of equity that there should be an extreme limit. If we are to deal with the matter as to the question what is the tenant's right, and if we are to ascertain what the amount of that right is by a reference to what was done, intentionally or unintentionally, by the Act of 1870, we then see that in no case under the Act of 1870 can a greater amount of compensation be given than the maximum of £250 which is there enacted. We say we are ready to increase that, as my right hon. Friend proposes later on, to £500, and on that point, when the proper time shall have arrived, we must take the opinion of the Committee; but, at the present moment, the question is with regard to the particular valuation of the scale leading up to that maximum. We think that the scale proposed by my right hon. Friend is better than that proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland; but we do not intend to take up the time of the Committee by dividing on the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. We shall give our voices for the scale which my right hon. Friend has proposed, and reserve any challenge of the decision of the Committee till we come to the question of what is to be the maximum amount.

MR. HEALY

said, he believed the Prime Minister, supported by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) wished the Committee to believe that it did not matter what the scale was, because the tenant would always prefer to sell his interest. There was an important matter hinging on this. Supposing a man was about to be evicted, and he had to sell his interest, the landlord would probably have in his eye who the incoming purchaser was to be, and he would say—" You need not give a penny more for the holding than the Compensation Clause allows, but leave the whole matter to be arranged between us; "thus measuring the purchase money of the incoming tenant by the compensation scale. The hon. Member for Limerick had made a forcible appeal to the Government; but the views he had pressed were not those of the Irish Members generally, who considered the Government had thrown over the idea of justice with regard to the Land Question.

MR. SYNAN

said, what he had said was that the purchase money for the goodwill bore no proportion to the scale of compensation under the Land Act of 1870, and that it would not bear any proportion under the present Bill. He had known cases in which the goodwill had been sold for three, four, five, and six times the amount of compensation. These were cases in which the tenant was in a bad position, and would not be able to give information as to what he would be entitled to. The landlord would be charging him greater rent, and on each occasion he would have to come before the Court. Of course, the tenant would show that previous tenancies had sold for a larger sum. He did think the Government were acting very improperly in admitting these Amendments, and he would like again to mention the mischievous effect this would have in fixing the rent. The tenant would be prejudiced in the opinion of the Judge by the increased amount to which he would be entitled for disturbance.

MR. LALOR

said, that hitherto one of the great reasons for the extermination of poor holders in Ireland was 1 that the landlords had less trouble in evicting their larger tenants. The effect of this Bill would be to give greater facilities to the landlord in evicting his large tenants. So far as this scale of compensatian was concerned, he was not much concerned, because he was firmly convinced, and he thought the people of Ireland were firmly convinced and determined, that landlordism on its old principle in Ireland must cease before the Land Question was settled in Ireland. They had not the slightest opinion that this Bill would go from that Committee in a manner to settle the Land Question in Ireland; but they believed that landlordism would have to cease in that country.

Question put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the words 'and not exceeding three hundred pounds' be there inserted."

MR. FINIGAN

said, he really hoped the Committee would take a division on these Amendments. He was very sorry these alterations were to be introduced into the Bill. He thought the Government would do well to return the whole of this matter to the jurisdiction and judgment of the proposed Land Court. He found in other parts of the Bill the Government had adopted that policy; and, seeing they had had a long discussion that afternoon, they would do well to withdraw these Amendments which had been put down in the name of the Attorney General. At all events, he hoped that on a division being taken on these Amendments, the Government might be induced to re-consider its decision, and to return to the general principle of reference to the Court.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 207; Noes 49: Majority 158—(Div. List, No. 273.)

COLONEL ALEXANDER

I am sorry to say I intended to vote with the Ayes; but I voted, by mistake, with the Noes.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

moved, in page 6, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words— Where the rent is above three hundred pounds and not exceeding five hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding two years' rent; Where the rent is above five hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding one year's rent.

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

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the first word "five," in order to insert the word "four,"—(Mr. William Henry Smith,)—instead thereof.

Question, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the words 'Where the rent is above three hundred pounds and not exceeding five hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding two years' rent;

'Where the rent is above five hundred pounds, a sum not exceeding one year's rent,' be there inserted."

MR. BIGGAR

said, it appeared to him that there were strong arguments against the Amendments to this part of the Bill. The opinion of those who were practically acquainted with the subject was against these restrictions. The idea of the hon. Member for the county of Monaghan (Mr. Givan), whose opinion on such a point carried considerable weight, was that these restrictions ought not to be put into the Bill, and that with regard to compensation for disturbance the Court should be left to decide on the evidence before it. These restrictions put a limit above which the County Court Judge could not go, but they did not fix any minimum. With, regard to the last division, he might observe that a very large majority of the Irish Members voted against the contention of th,9 Government. He thought the Government would do well to pay more deference than it did to the opinion of those who were best able to form a correct judgment on a subject of this sort.

THE O'DONOGHUE

said, he was as much opposed as any hon. Member could be to any concessions to the Tory Party that might have the effect of weakening the Bill. But they ought, at the same time, to consider the effect of these concessions. He did not believe that in Munster there were six tenants who paid £500 a-year rent, or that there were 12 who paid £300. In the circumstances, it was impossible to maintain that the proposal of the Government would inflict a serious injury on the farmers generally. Moreover, it should be rembered that in cases where a tenant who paid £500 a-year rent was entitled to get one year's rent as compensation for disturbance, he would also be entitled to compensation for his improvements.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the contention of those who objected to the Amendment was, not that very general harm would accrue from it, for in point of fact the vast majority of the farmers of Ireland would not be affected by it at all. They argued that the Amendment would be unjust to the particular parties who would be affected by it, and that it would induce landlords to consolidate small holdings and to make large ones of them, so as to get tenants who would not be able to obtain so much compensation for disturbance.

MR. LEAMY

said, he would move to amend the Amendment by inserting the words "where the rent is above £300, a sum not exceeding two years' rent." He submitted that this was not an unreasonable proposition to make, although he did not expect the Attorney General would accede to it.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member cannot move his Amendment. I must point out that in the last Amendment the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster's proposal was to leave out "five" and insert "four," and the Committee have already decided that the word "five" shall stand part of the proposed Amendment. I have now to put the Question, "That these words be here inserted."

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 231; Noes 31: Majority 200.—(Div. List, No. 274.)

MR. W. H. SMITH

moved to add to the last Amendment a Proviso—" but in no case shall the compensation exceed the sum of five hundred and fifty pounds." He proposed to add that on the principle of the Proviso which existed now in the 3rd section of the Land Act of 1870.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the Clause, to insert the words "but in no case shall the compensation exceed the sum of five hundred and fifty pounds."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)

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

MR. W. E. FORSTER

opposed the Amendment, remarking that the matter had already been fully discussed.

MR. GIBSON

observed that the Bill obliterated certain distinctions that were made by the Act of 1870. Tenants could now make a claim, not only for compensation for disturbance, but also for every kind of improvement which they might bring under the notice of the Court. Under the Act of 1870 the highest amount which could be awarded was £250. His right hon. Friend would by his Amendment allow more than double that sum to be awarded; but he wanted the principle of a limit to be introduced. The Committee would do well to remember what the Prime Minister stated in the early part of to-day's discussion, what was stated so abundantly in 1870, and what was referred to by the Commissioners—namely, that the principle of compensation for disturbance was chiefly required for the protection of the smaller classes of tenants. Bearing this in mind, it was not unreasonable that some limit should be fixed beyond which the higher classes of tenants would not be able to get compensation.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, that the only restriction in the Act of 1870, of compensation for improvements in connection with this subject, was that in certain cases of claims for disturbance there should be none for improvements other than waste land and buildings. Those between, thus left unaffected, were by far the most important and valuable improvements, so that the restrictions mentioned were more apparent than real.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 193: Majority 87.—(Div. List, No. 275.)

MR. E. W. HARCOURT

said, he had an Amendment to propose as much in the interest of the land in Ireland, a subject that he thought had been too much neglected, as in the interest of the landlord. The chief care of the tenant had but too frequently been to get as much out of the land as possible, while very little had been put into it. He believed that in view of that circumstance Her Majesty's Government would have no difficulty in adopting the Amendment standing in his name, which he begged to move.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, at end of Clause, add—"hut shall he subject in each case to such deduction, if any, as the Court may determine to be a fair compensation to the landlord for waste by dilapidation of buildings or deterioration of soil."—(Mr. Harcourt.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, this Amendment was entirely unnecessary. The clause merely enlarged the scale and regulated the Act of 1870. The point raised by the hon. Member was already provided for in the 3rd section of that Act.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he hoped the Amendment he was about to move would be accepted by Her Majesty's Government, because it was intended to do justice between the landlord and tenant. While, on the one hand, no one wished that the tenant should be evicted from his holding if a fair arrangement could be made with his landlord; on the other hand, no one wished that the landlord should be fined if he was able to show that he had done all that was fair and reasonable towards the tenant. Under the terms of his Amendment the landlord would have to show to the Court that he was willing to continue the tenant in his holding on perfectly fair and reasonable terms; that it was owing to the unreasonable refusal of the tenant that the terms were not accepted; and that it was quite clear on the principles of justice that he ought not to pay compensation under the circumstances. This proposal was so obviously just that he believed Her Majesty's Government would have no difficulty in accepting it.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 6, at end of Clause, add "Provided always, that in any case in which compensation shall be claimed under the said section three of' The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' as amended by this Act, if it shall appear to the Court that the landlord has been and is willing to permit the tenant to continue in the occupation of his holding upon just and reasonable terms, and that such terms have been and are unreasonably refused by the tenant, the claim of the tenant to such compensation shall he disallowed."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he was unable to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. He pointed out that Clause 5 dealt with compensation as payable under the 3rd section of the Act of 1870. The claim would still be under that enactment and be subject to the provisions of that Act in relation thereto.

MR. GIBSON

understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the Amendment was unnecessary because the claim for compensation must be preferred under the 3rd section of the Act of 1870. He was satisfied with that explanation, provided it appeared plainly on the Bill; but at present he was unable to see that it did so appear. He thought this was open to question, because in the 8th clause of the Bill there was a departure from the principle of the Equities Clause of the Act of 1870. The 8th clause, at all events, differed from the Equities Clause of the Act of 1870, inasmuch as it did not include the provision which was contained in this very Amendment. Therefore, he thought that some words were necessary to say that the Equities Clause of the Act of 1870 was preserved absolutely intact, notwithstanding the alteration of the scale. In his opinion, it would be well to put in words to the effect that in case of any application being made to get the benefit of the increased scale, the landlord and tenant should be entitled to rely upon the Equities Clause of the Act of 1870. The drafting of the Bill was not clear, and he contended that before the Bill emerged from its present stage it should be made plain that the landlord should not be deprived of any of the equities intended by the Act of 1870.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the Equities Clause of this Bill did not refer to claims under the Act of 1870. It referred to claims under this Bill. His chief objection to the introduction of any words of the kind suggested was that they would introduce doubts and difficulties by thus declaring that Section 8 should apply to particular cases under the Act of 1870.

MR. PLUNKET

said, he did not think that the objection of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland was quite sufficient. He (Mr. Plunket) desired that words should be introduced that would make it plain that the landlord might be protected by the Equities Clauses of both Acts.

MR. W. E. FORSTER,

said, the Government were quite clear that there was no real diffculty in the point raised, and that it was provided for in another clause of the Bill. He thought the ques- tion could be fairly deferred until that clause was reached, when, if the right hon. Gentleman was still in doubt, he could bring forward another Amendment.

SIR R. ASSHETON CEOSS

said, he had still considerable doubt, owing to the way in which the Bill was drafted, that the difficulty he had referred to was met by the Bill. If, however, his right hon. and learned Friend would, at a later stage, consider whether it was necessary to insert further words for the purpose of securing the object which both the Government and hon. Members on that side had in view, he should not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HEALY

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper which he understood the Government were disposed to accept—namely, an Amendment for the repeal of the 13th section of "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870," which provided that where the sale of a tenancy took place without the consent of the landlord the tenant should not be entitled to compensation for disturbance.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 6, at end, add "From and after the passing of this Act the thirteenth section of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' shall he and the same is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Healy.)

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

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the hon. Member for Wexford was quite right in saying that the Government were willing to accept his Amendment. The Government admitted that the drafting of the clause was inconsistent with the 1st clause of the Bill which had been passed by the Committee.

MR. GIBSON

regretted that on an occasion when the Government were making a concession which was a departure from what was originally intended, no further explanation should have been afforded than that they assented to the change because the clause was improperly drafted. The Chief Secretary had announced that there had been a mistake on the part of the unfortunate draftsman; but from his (Mr. Gibson's) knowledge of the ability of the gentleman who drew the Bill, he had no doubt that, had his work been presented to the House in its integrity—before it had been subjected to mutilation by the Government—it would have been a perfectly coherent production. He objected to the withdrawal of the clause, inasmuch as such a proceeding was entirely unnecessary. He understood the argument, as stated by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, to be that it was a mistake not to have repealed the 13th section of the Land Act of 1870, because it was inconsistent with the 1st clause of the Bill. He (Mr. Gibson) held the contrary, and that it was only by giving to the clause an interpretation entirely inconsistent with its own provisions that it could be said to be at variance with that clause at all. The 5th clause of the Bill, then under consideration, was absolutely independent of every other clause in the Bill. If that clause was struck out, as he hoped it might be, it would not be necessary to change the drafting of a single line of any other clause in the measure; and why it had been introduced—unless it was for the purpose of creating discord—baffled his comprehension. The rights of the tenant under the Act of 1870 and under this Bill were absolutely untouched and unfettered by the 13th section of the Land Act, except in cases where the tenant expressed his desire to permit himself to be disturbed in order that he might make a claim for disturbance. The Government, by the present Bill, were interfering with the rights of the landlord in a manner and to an extent which he would not then stop to criticize; but he asked, with regard to this particular proposal, was it fair that he should be deprived of the protection which, under certain conditions, was extended to him by the Act of 1870? The words of the 13th section of that Act were as follows:— Where the holding in respect of which compensation is claimed under Section 3 of this Act is held under a tenancy from year to year, existing at the time of the passing of this Act, and such tenancy is assigned without the consent of the landlord, and the landlord does not accept the assignee as his tenant, no compensation shall he payable by the landlord under the said section in any of the cases following. Those words only applied to tenures which were in existence at the passing of the Act of 1870. The clause was, therefore, deemed necessary at the time for the protection of landlords of those tenancies; that was to say, it was not thought right, contrary to the practice of the estate, to have any new legislation with respect to them. But now upon the mere statement that it was inconsistent with the 1st clause of the Bill, the distinction was to be done away with, and the tenancies referred to were to be subjected to the drastic legislation proposed by the present Bill. But there were qualifications to the 13th section of the Act of 1870. Under it the landlord could not oust a tenant merely by showing that he had assigned the holding without his consent; the tenant must bring himself within the operation of the following sub-sections:— (1.) Where the rent of such holding is in arrear at the time of such assignment so as to render the tenant liable to eviction for nonpayment of rent, and such arrear is due by the tenant. He asked whether, in the case of these old tenancies in existence before the year 1870, it was not reasonable that this qualification should be maintained? If it was just then not to expose the landlords of those tenancies to the penalty of compensation, it was unjust now to expose them to the increased scale of compensation, because they had tenants liable to eviction for being a certain amount in arrear. The next qualification was— (2.) Where such holding forms part of an estate upon which the assignment of holdings without consent or approval of the landlord is contrary to or not warranted by the practice upon such estate. How was that inconsistent with the present Bill? The 1st clause of the Bill gave power to the tenant to sell his tenancy, and the 13th clause allowed the tenant under notice to quit by sale to intercept eviction. The 13th section of the Act of 1870 dealt with the case where a tenant elected to be evicted, and said to the tenant—" If you are a tenant of a tenancy dating as far back as the Act of 1870, and the practice on the estate has been not to permit assignment without the consent of the landlord, you are not entitled to compensation if you assign without the landlord's consent." He asked, was it not unjust to deprive the landlord of the benefit of that subsection? The third and last qualification of the 13th section of the Act of 1870 was— (3.) Where the Court shall be of opinion that the refusal of the tenant to accept such assignee as tenant is a reasonable refusal. Was not that right? It was perfectly obvious that every section of the Land Act of 1870 had been read when this Bill was framed with the greatest precision; and he ventured to think that until the matter was started by the hon. Member for "Wexford (Mr. Healy), it had never crossed the mind of any Member of Her Majesty's Government that it was fair or reasonable to repeal the 13th section of that Act. Finally, if hon. Members were sufficiently interested in the subject, and would look at the last part of the section under discussion, they would see that it protected the tenant from any trouble, inconvenience, and hardship by providing that the devolution of a tenancy by operation of law or by bequest should not be deemed an assignment within the meaning of the section. Therefore, he ventured to say with reference to the 13th section, deliberately introduced after much consideration by Lord Granville into the Act of 1870, that it should be retained; and that certainly no case had been made out for its summary repeal.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, that it was difficult to understand how any person who had read the 13th section of the Act of 1870, and compared it with the 1st clause of the Bill, could arrive at any other conclusion than that they were utterly inconsistent with each other. In order to make the limitation contained in the 1st sub-section of the 13th section of the Act of 1870 at all applicable as an argument in this case, it was necessary to connect that sub-section with the earlier words of the clause, which provided that where the holding was assigned without the consent of the landlord, and the landlord did not accept the assignee as tenant, no compensation should be payable in any of the following cases. That was, undoubtedly, a restriction on the right of the tenant to assign. The Act of 1870 said to the tenant—" If you assign under certain circumstances without the consent of the landlord, we will deprive your assignee of the right to compensation." But the present Bill said that every tenant should have the right to assign, and that the assignee should be entitled to compensation. He was quite unable to understand how his right hon. and learned Friend could say that the repeal of the 13th section of the Act of 1870 would work a gross injustice upon the landlord, seeing that the Committee had passed Clause 1 of the Bill. All the hardships he suggested were met by the provisions of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill? "

MR. GORST

said, he thought the Committee were entitled to some information as to why the scale of compensation had been altered. He heard his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General say that had been distinctly explained yesterday; but he regarded this as one of those cases in which an answer was given, but no explanation. It appeared to be the idea of the Solicitor General that if a Minister simply rose from the Treasury Bench and said something by way of answer to a question, it was the duty of hon. Members to sit still and not repeat the question. But the idea of hon. Members on that side of the House was that they were entitled to repeat questions to Her Majesty's Government until they received a satisfactory answer; and, therefore, notwithstanding that some Minister might yesterday have made a statement upon the subject, he thought he might ask for further information which would put the Committee in possession of the reasons which had induced Her Majesty's Government to alter the scale of compensation. A remarkable incident had taken place in connection with this scale. One of the Irish Members had pointed out that, in some respects, the scale of compensation was actually diminished, and he said that by that diminution the property of the tenant would be confiscated. He (Mr. Gorst) was astonished that this doctrine should be admitted; but there could be no doubt whatever that the property of the landlord would be confiscated if the scale of compensation were increased; and he thought the Government would have shown the same horror at confiscation in one case as in the other. The present scale gave a great deal higher rate of compensation than the scale in the Act of 1870; and he thought that no one would deny that, by giving the tenant the right to claim a higher rate of compensation, the property of the landlord was diminished. Now, if the scale was intended to be an intimation to the Court with regard to the tenant's interest, he wished to know whether the increase had been made with the ulterior purpose of enhancing the deductions from the competition rent which were to be made by the Court in favour of the tenant? An hon. Member had argued that as tenants would seldom be driven to claim compensation under the Act of 1870, it mattered little what scale was established; but he (Mr. Gorst) contended that it mattered a great deal that injustice should be done in theory even if not in practice to the rights of the landlord; and, moreover, he held that this injustice would be done if the increased scale was to be an indication to the Court of the amount to be deducted from the rent.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he was surprised at the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), because the question as to whether there should be an alteration of the scale of compensation had been debated for more than hour on the previous day, on which occasion the Prime Minister' had not given a mere answer, but a complete explanation of the reasons which had induced Her Majesty's Government to propose this change. He could not think the hon. and learned Gentleman had heard the statement of the Prime Minister, or he would not have described it as a mere answer. Her Majesty's Government had been convinced by the evidencce given before the Commission that the existing scale of compensation, as a protection to the tenant against capricious eviction, was not high enough, and ought to be increased.

MR. MULHOLLAND

said, the tenants had always preferred the right of free sale as given by the 1st clause. He could not, therefore, conceive with what object the present clause had been introduced, unless it was, as had been suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), for the purpose of laying the foundation for the definition of fair rent which afterwards followed in the 7th clause of the Bill; and certainly if that was to be given up he could not see the reason for retaining the present clause. He believed the Bill would be simplified by the omission of the clause. The Prime Minister had said that in but a few cases the money would come out of the landlord's pocket. If it was to come out of incoming tenants' pockets the best way to ascertain the price would be by sale. There was, therefore, no reason that he could see for insisting on this clause. The Prime Minister had said that the clause would not be operative if the Court decided that the conduct of the tenant had been unreasonable. The Bill would be immensely simplified if this clause were withdrawn.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

said, this question had been discussed at great length on the previous day, and he trusted that the matter might now be allowed to go to a division. The difficulty which had been suggested in regard to the increased scale was more apparent than real.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, he did not think the matter bad been too fully discussed. So far as he was concerned, he thought that, in the first place, the provision was entirely contradictory to the 1st clause in the Bill. In moving that 1st clause the Prime Minister had said that the right of free sale had grown out of the compensation for disturbance given in 1870. If that were so, he could not see the object of retaining it; but the Prime Minister had given another good reason why it should be omitted. Last year, when the Compensation for Disturbance Bill was under discussion, it was urged that where free sale was allowed compensation should not apply; but the Prime Minister replied that, inasmuch as the Bill was only for a year and a-half, the exception would not be effectual. In this case, however, the measure was permanent. Free sale and compensation for disturbance were to be given, and when the market value of a holding was low the tenant might be tempted to give trouble to the landlord in order to induce him to evict, when he—the tenant—would be able to claim compensation for disturbance.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, this was the only protection future tenants had. They could not apply to a Court to have a fair rent settled, and landlords might demand of them what rents they chose, and turn them out if they did not pay. As he understood it, compensation for disturbance would still be regulated by the Act of 1870, modified by the new measure. Tenants were able to contract themselves out of the Act of 1870, but they would not be able to contract themselves out of this.

MR. PLUNKET

said, it had been stated that this clause had been fully discussed yesterday; but that was not the fact, because, by the Chairman's ruling, they had been forbidden to discuss it on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Portarlington (Mr. Fitzpatrick). The clause was very important; and the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), although he had referred to other changes made in the clause, had said nothing about his own Amendment which had been accepted by the Government, and which in his (Mr. Plunket's) humble judgment was one of the most important changes which had yet been effected in the Bill. First, as to the clause generally, it was wholly outside the scope and policy of the measure. If it had been omitted, the general scope and policy of the Bill would not have been interfered with. It was defended on the ground that some tenancies were so small and poor that the offer of the power of selling them was no boon to the tenant at all. But the Committee would observe that, with regard to very small tenancies, there was to be no change at all. Seven years' rent was still the sum which was to be the maximum compensation. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk gave great importance to the clause. He was not going to discuss the policy of the 7th clause at all, but he was not out of Order in referring to it; and what he would say was that, as the provision originally stood, it pointed to a scale of compensation. That, however, had been left out. He should have been content had the clause stood as it was before the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member was accepted, because it would have been impossible for the Court to look at the scale of compensation in estimating the rent under Clause 7, for the reason that it was always contended that the very words that were struck out were the words that marked the compensation to be paid by the landlord for disturbance. The Prime Minister had accepted the Amendment because, he said, he no longer regarded this in the light in which it was put forward in the Act of 1870—-namely, a claim for compensation for loss sustained by the tenant for quitting his holding, but something more under tenant right. The lines "adopted in the Amendment were the first intimation given in this Bill of that on which the 7th clause was to be founded. The scale in regard to disturbance was given as a means for ascertaining what was a fair rent. The question was a most important one; and, if this were the right time, he thought he could show that for the scale of compensation for disturbance to be mixed up with tenant right was most irregular. How could they apply the scale of compensation to the tenant right? But he would not go into that matter now. He had said enough to show that this was not, at all events, an unimportant clause to introduce into the Bill. It might have most important consequences as regarded subsequent clauses in the Bill. He did not think a case had been made out for a departure from the policy laid down in the Act of 1870, and he, for one, should vote with the greatest confidence against the clause.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

wished to know whether compensation for disturbance would be regulated by the £50 contract clause, or the £150 contract clause?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the £50 limit of the Act of 1870 must, if not altered, limit the claim for disturbance, because that limit arose under the Act of 1870, and not under this Bill.

MR. WARTON

said, he rose mainly for the purpose of protesting against the principle—or, rather, the practice, for it was without principle—which prevailed on the other side of the House of shouting out "Divide! Divide!" before the question had been fully considered. When they were discussing a portion of a clause, they were told that the time for discussing the principle of a provision was when the clause was put; and then, when the clause was put, and they wished to discuss it, they were told that they had discussed it already. He, for one, was not going to submit to this kind of treatment, and he would give notice to those who interrupted that, if the practice was continued, he should feel it his duty to repeat his protest at greater length. Those who were in the House in] 870 were told over and over again by the Prime Minister that there was no kind of property created for the tenant by the Compensation for Disturbance Clause of the Act of 1870. They were told, emphatically, that the question was one of fine or damages. They were told now, however, that though it was never contemplated by the wise authors of the Act, a property had been created, and the very people who had seen that property created—who had been unwilling to create it, and who could not see how it could be created—wanted to increase it, without giving a single reason for so doing. The tenant was now hedged round with a number of privileges, and he required compensation for disturbance less now than he had ever required it before. But, because he wanted less, the Government were going to give him more.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 238; Noes 142: Majority 96.—(Div. List, No. 276.)

MR. LALOR

said, that if the clause stood in its present form, those tenants who had sold their tenancies to good and proper persons, but without the permission of the landlord, would be shut out from compensation. He had an Amendment on the Paper to rectify the clause in this particular.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 17, leave out "be accepted by the landlord as tenant in his place, and such other person is so accepted," and insert "become possessed of the holding."—(Mr. Lalor.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, the hon. Member slightly misconceived the object of the clause. It was meant to provide against an injustice in the Act of 1870, and to enable a man who had made improvements to recover compensation, even though he had accepted a new tenancy. In the matter of the transfer of the tenancy the clause carried out the object the hon. Member had in view, and it did not seem in any way necessary to alter the provision. He would accept the Amendment at once if he thought it was neccessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

DR. COMMINS

said, he would move the next Amendment, which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly). It would carry out the object of the clause throwing upon the person claiming compensation the onus of proving that compensation was due.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 26, leave out all the words after "claim," and add "according as the same may or may not be sustained by proof."—(Dr. Commins.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)

said, he could not accept the Amendment, which was quite unnecessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.