CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS.

HC Deb 08 August 1882 vol 273 cc1150-97

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, in rising to move that these Amendments be now considered, I think it will be found, for the convenience of the House, as the scope of the Amendments is limited and capable of being drawn to one head and centre, that I should state, at once, the course which the Government proposes to take in regard to those which they consider as in the least degree material; but I shall not take any notice, in making this brief statement, of changes of a character plainly secondary or purely verbal. On occasions such as this, Sir, when grave and serious differences of opinion arise between the two Houses of Parliament, they are attended with various inconveniences. One of them is that they tend to revive controversies and to set going discussions of various theories which it is better, for the peace and progress of the country, should be let sleep—["No, no!"]—and another is—["Oh, oh!"]—well, I am not going to ask the House to vote upon the question; but hon. Gentleman will see why I refer for a single moment to the subject—the other inconvenience is that they undoubtedly appear, on such occasions, to pave the way and lead to the promulgation of extraordinary, novel, and exceptional doctrines. I understand, for instance, that on this very occasion a doctrine has been set up, entirely new, so far as my knowledge goes, and not likely, I think, to receive any countenance from this House, which is that the House of Lords is not only entitled, as it undoubtedly is entitled, to impose an absolute veto upon a measure sent to it from this House of Parliament, but that it is likewise entitled to lay down the doctrine that such a Bill is not likely to be ever received from the existing House of Commons, however long that House of Commons may sit and hold to it, however often it may think fit to revert to the subject again and again, and from year to year, such a measure shall never be received by the House of Lords from the existing House of Commons; Well, Sir—[Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: That is not the case.]—I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; I do not know why he interrupts me. I have stated, what I have heard and understood, that such a doctrine had been put forward. If that doctrine be supported here, it is a doctrine that we shall be prepared to contest. I refer to it for the sake of excusing myself for not taking any detailed notice of it, because I think no advantage to the country and ourselves can arise from entering upon subjects of that class, and my desire is upon the present occasion to pass them altogether. The duty of the Government is to approach a question of this kind with a firm resolution on no account, whatever pressure maybe exerted upon them, to swerve from the great public objects they may have in view; but, while remaining faithful to that principle, to avoid, as far as they can, and eschew all reference to matters which can do nothing but promote angry controversy. That is the intention with which we have addressed ourselves to the consideration of the Amendments of the House of Lords, and that is the intention with which we have considered the whole of them, from the beginning to the end. The first Amendment in this Bill is the Amendment which introduces, in a somewhat complex form, the principle of joint or concurrent action of the landlord and tenant as the means of setting the Bill in motion, in lieu of the sole action which was the basis on which we recommended it to the House of Commons, and upon which it was adopted by the House of Commons. The form in which this Amendment has been introduced is, as I have said, one rather of complication. In the first place, it appears to us to contain, perhaps as a consequence of haste and inadvertence—of that I know nothing—but, at any rate, it does, in our view, contain a change in the Bill which is faulty upon the ground of its placing the two parties, not upon a footing of equality, but subjecting the landlord to an absolute disability in respect of the initiative. As the Bill left this House, the two parties were treated with entire impartiality, and either the landlord or the tenant could put the Bill in motion; but, as the Bill came from the House of Lords, the landlord cannot put the Bill in motion at all; and as we are of opinion that there are many cases in which it may be desirable that the landlord—[An hon. MEMBER: The tenant.]—I beg your pardon, the landlord, as the Bill has come down from the House of Lords, cannot put the Bill in motion at all—and what I say is, that as we are distinctly of opinion that there are many cases in which justice to the landlord requires that he should have the power of putting the Bill in motion, that is one of the grounds upon which we shall ask the House to substantially dissent—not to disagree, but substantially to dissent from the main object of the Amendment, as regards the tenant having the right to put the Bill in motion, subject to the veto of the landlord. The introduction of this Amendment into the Bill has made it our duty to consider whether we can make what we think would be a very injurious change in the Bill, and, in fact, I need not hesitate to say, one quite fatal to the Bill; whether we can make that change the occasion of introducing into it any Amendment not at variance with the objects of the Bill as we ourselves sent it to the House of Lords, and we are of opinion that such an Amendment can be made in this way, by restoring both parties to that equality which we gave them when the Bill passed through the House of Commons, and by requiring either of them to give to the other previous notice of his intention to go into Court and take advantage of the Bill. According to our proposal, he would be perfectly free to go to the Court and take advantage of the Act, subject to the conditions of it; but he must give previous notice to the other party. A notice of 10 days is what we should require. I do not know whether it is necessary or convenient that I should state the exact words at the present moment; but that can be done, I think. The Lords Amendment is rather complicated, but substantially the words we propose are these— It shall be open to either of them, after 10 days' notice in the prescribed manner by the landlord or his agent to the tenant, or by the tenant to the landlord or his agent, to go into Court. That is the form which the Amendment will take, if the House adopt it according to the proposal of the Government. I will assume, therefore, that the question lies between the Amendment in that shape, and the Amendment as it came to us from the House of Lords. I wish the House to consider in this discussion, and I must say I hope the House, without any distinction of Party, will be disposed to consider what is the real nature of the change that has been made. There is no doubt whatever that the landlord has in equity, and I believe there is not the smallest doubt that he had, accord- ing to our Bill, a locus standi in reference to the application of the tenant. If tenants who are able to pay the whole of their arrears under this Bill seek to obtain an exemption from apart of them, that would be, as we think, an injustice to the landlord. One of the essential conditions of the Bill is the inability of the tenant to pay. We have done everything we could to make the investigation into his inability a real investigation. We have embodied in the Bill the right of the landlord to be heard. The landlord will be, in this investigation, the natural defender of his own interest against the tenant really able to pay, who endeavours to take advantage of a measure not intended for him, but intended for other people; and the landlord, in this respect, will be the ally of the State, and the public interest will run in the same direction as his interest. He will, therefore, be the natural ally of the State in the case of a tenant able to pay. Therefore, we hope that the Bill is perfectly effective for the purpose of giving a fair and open field to the landlord; but then it is something over and above this that the Amendment of the House of Lords desires, and what is it? It is this—that in the case of a tenant unable to pay, it shall rest with the landlord to determine whether he shall or shall not come under the Bill. I wish most carefully to avoid all semblance of exaggeration. I beg that the terms of my proposition may be strictly tested. I affirm that the effect of the Lords Amendment, as distinguished from and going beyond that which we are ready to agree to, and have embodied in the Bill, is to assume to the landlord the right of preventing a tenant unable to discharge his arrears from going into the Court, and from reaping the benefit, for the sake of securing which benefit to him Parliament has been content to confront all the difficulties and the disadvantages of the objections which I admit to attach to such a Bill as this. After having confronted all this, we are to be met, it appears, by the simple veto of the landlord, founded upon what I might almost call his arbitrary will, but which I will call his private choice. Now, Sir, if that be so, and I believe it to be strictly and literally so, surely it is impossible that such a claim can be seriously advanced, and can be made the basis of conflict between the two Houses of Parliament. That is the case with regard to the first Amendment, and I have not thought it desirable to enter at any great length into it, for I believe that the simple explanation of its effect, the simple interpretation of the Act as it would stand, if that Amendment were adopted, is better than any amount of argument, however clear, which it would be possible to advance in respect to it. The second Amendment is not one without difficulty; but it is of a less formidable character, and that Amendment we shall ask the House not to reject, but to amend. It gives to the landlord the right, in the event of a sale of the holding subsequently to the operation of the Act, to charge his arrears of rent upon the proceeds of the sale. Now, Sir, here there are arguments which tell both the one way and the other. Against the Amendment there tells the great desire we have always had that the operation of the Act should be a clear, decisive, and final operation. On that account, when my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Goschen) proposed to retain a charge for the State on the holding in the event of a sale, and when, afterwards, from the opposite side of the House, it was proposed to retain this charge for the landlord, to neither of these propositions did the House agree. I admit, however, that there was something to be said on the other side, and that is, that in Ulster, under the old custom of the Province, the landlord has had a lien on the proceeds of the tenant's interest in case of this sale, and he has been able to recoup himself from the proceeds of the sale for his arrears of rent; and when we proposed last year that a legal tenant's interest should be created and recognized all over Ireland, we pointed out the great advantage that, in ordinary circumstances, the landlord would derive from having that tenant's interest as a new security for his rent. I do not admit that it would be reasonable in any way to recognize that claim upon the tenant's interest irrespective of the amount of arrears, because, again, in order to have a true comprehension of this subject, we must fall back upon the fact that a practice has existed in Ireland on certain estates—not very few in number, but far from being the generality—of keeping alive arrears for a course of years, not so much regarding them as an asset capable of being com- pletely realized, but rather, perhaps, retaining them as a powerful leverage over the tenant, by which to obtain any object which the landlord might desire. It is, therefore, only to a certain extent, and when reaching over a moderate term, that arrears can be regarded as representing in Ireland a true and substantial asset. The Bill, independently of the Amendment I am now considering, has made provision for the recovery of the two years of arrear. It may be said that bonâ fide arrears may, in certain cases, go a little beyond that, and we are content to recommend to the House to accept this Amendment, amended as follows:— That in the case where the tenant right is sold within seven years from the application of the Act to the holding, the claim to arrears shall be a lien on the proceeds to the extent of one more year's rent; so that in such a case where the tenant right is so sold, the landlord will have received, or may have received, in the way of compensation for arrears of rent a sum equal to three years' rent. There is another limitation which we propose to place on the Amendment, which would only, we think, be material in cases of very small holdings, and in times of very great depression; such cases, for instance, as the Donegal holdings may have presented two or three years ago—that is, that the one year's rent so payable to the landlord shall not exceed one moiety of the value of the tenant right. Those who are conversant with tenant right in Ireland are aware that, in general, the rule would be inoperative; but I believe it is a rule that does exist already in Ulster—to what extent I cannot exactly say—and I think it would be a just and beneficial rule in reference to a certain class of holdings under certain circumstances. That Amendment, therefore, we propose to accept subject to three limitations—that the sale of the holding must be within seven years; that the amount of the landlord's claims upon the proceeds shall not exceed one year's rent; and that the one year's rent shall not be more than a moiety of the whole proceeds. The third and the last of the Lords Amendments relates to a controversy which was also raised in this House. The Bill as it went to the House of Lords provided that the Commissioners, in considering the question of the tenant's ability or inability to pay, might, if they should think it reason- able, "take into account the interest of the tenant in his holding." My hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) moved an Amendment against those words; and he proposed to substitute for the words "may, if they shall think it reasonable," the words "shall, so far as they think it reasonable." That was the point upon which we joined issue in this House. We were opposed upon that by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, of course, by my hon. Friend (Sir John Lubbock); but I do not recollect whether any other hon. Gentleman voted in the minority from this side of the House; but that was the issue joined in this House. Now, the House of Lords have struck out the whole of the words "may, if the Commissioners think it reasonable," and have inserted the simple word "shall." Now, in our opinion, that is distinctly too stringent, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case. Be it remembered that most of these holdings are holdings which, at the present moment, cannot be said to have a tenant right at all, because the man, being in arrear, is liable to eviction, and because, being in arrear, he has never had the power of having a judicial rent fixed, which is the only natural basis of his future tenant right. In a multitude of these cases, of small holdings particularly, it will happen that there is no assignable value which can be attached to the tenant right; and I think I may say that was the universal feeling of this House, because the demand made in this House was, not that the Commissioners "shall" take the interest into account; but that they "shall take it into account so far as they think it reasonable." But being anxious to accommodate all controversy that we can, without vitally impairing the enactments of the Bill with reference to its purposes, we are prepared to accept the view then sustained by the minority in this House, and to agree to ask the House to substitute for the words "may, if they think it reasonable," the words "shall, so far as they think it reasonable." That will leave the Commissioners with a sufficient discretion, not as wide as that we obtained from this House, but still a discretion with which we think they may safely be invested. The next Amendment of the Lords I will read if the House thinks fit; but the simplest description of it will be "Lord Waterford's Amendment," or the "hanging-gale Amendment." This hanging gale has been a subject of much trouble and vexation to many of us in the various stages of the present Bill. Nor can I think that their Lordships have been perhaps as successful as we were in our attempt to comprehend the question, and to deal with it in an appropriate manner. We cannot ask the House to adopt this Amendment, and I will give three reasons why we are driven to that conclusion. The Amendment has been considered very carefully indeed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland; and, so far as it is possible to convey to a non-legal mind a legal question, they have put me in possession of what appears to me a very good reason against the Amendment, and it is this—that this Amendment is subject to the most dangerous ambiguities and uncertainties of construction. It is quite conceivable that it might be construed in a sense in which it would leave the Bill precisely as it was when it left this House. It provides substantially that the rent, which, in any holding, by the custom of that holding, ought to be paid in 1881, shall be, for the purposes of the 1st clause of this Act, the rent for the year 1881. Now, we are advised that it is perfectly possible that that might be construed to mean that it should be the rent for 1881, in such a sense as to prevent the landlord from obtaining any other rent for 1881; and, if it is so construed, why, then the Amendment has no effect or operation whatever on the Bill as it went from this House. My first reason, then, for objecting to the Amendment is, that it is subject to a most dangerous ambiguity of construction, it being liable to a construction which reduces it to zero; and also to another construction, which magnifies it to very dangerous and formidable proportions indeed; and that second construction, so far as I can understand, is undoubtedly the construction which it was intended to bear by the House of Lords. According to that construction, the rent which ought to be paid in 1881—and here I had, perhaps, better suppose the case of an estate where there is a double hanging gale, or a gale extending over 12 months—the rent which ought to be paid in 1881 on such an estate as that in November or December would be taken as the rent of 1881, simply and solely for the purpose of enabling the tenant to enter the Court and make an application to obtain the benefits of the Act. That is the other construction, totally contradictory, absolutely and immeasurably remote from the construction I before described; but I believe the least sustainable on the words of the section. I will now enter into a detailed explanation of the consequences of that construction; but I will say this, upon the part of my right hon. and hon. and learned Friends and myself, that we are prepared to show, I think undeniably, not by argument, but by simply setting forth the operation of the words of the Bill, that if that be the true construction of Lord Waterford's Amendment, then, under this Bill, it will be open to a landlord, as to a 12 months' hanging gale, to obtain as compensation for two years' arrears, either two years and a-half, or even three years' rent, and as compensation for three years' arrears, either three and a-half years' or four years' rent. Now, these are words that are not used lightly and unadvisedly by us. We have carefully, and with much pain and labour, closely examined into the operation of the Bill; and I would almost undertake to appeal to an enlightened and intelligent mind like that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), to say whether that would not be the result of the Lord's Amendment; and then I would ask him, whether he could commend it, and was prepared to contend for it? That is my second objection, and I think a pretty strong one; but the third objection is this, and it will be one which will be at once intelligible to the whole House. If there was one thing more clearly than another proposed by us, and accepted by the entire House as the basis of this Bill, it was that we should relieve the tenant absolutely from all liability for rent down to a certain date, and that date was by consent made the 1st of November, 1881. I do not consider the concession we have made about a lien on the produce of the tenant's interest is an infringement of that principle, because that is a claim which only arises when a man is going to leave his holding; and the object of this Bill is not that he ] should leave it, but that he should continue in it. If there was one thing more distinctly understood over the whole House than another, by hon. Gentlemen on that Bench just as by those on this Bench, it was this—that up to or down from a certain date, whichever you like to call it, by the operation of the Act, the tenant should be absolutely set free from all claims with respect to rent. Well, if this Amendment were adopted, if it be construed according to the intentions with which it is quite evident it was introduced, the tenant, instead of being set free from rent, would be liable for a claim of rent anterior to the date of November, 1881, and the pledges of the Government would be utterly falsified, and the purposes of the Bill would be destroyed. Therefore, I am obliged to ask the House to disagree to that fourth Amendment. The fifth Amendment that I have to name is rather low down in the second page of the Paper of Amendments distributed to the House. The first thing to which I need call attention is the insertion in line 30, after "Sub-Commission," of the words "being a barrister-at-law." Now, the substance of this Amendment we are prepared to concede; but I wish to make two Amendments in it—at least, one Amendment, and another strictly consequential upon it—but I have not the least doubt those Amendments will be approved. We take it that the object of the Amendment made by the House of Lords is that there shall not be a single person to whom a delegation is made by the Land Commission, unless he is a legal person; but we wish to specify "being a barrister-at-law, or a solicitor." [Mr. GREGORY: Hear, hear!] I am glad, Sir, to find that the hon. Member for East Sussex is prepared to stand or fall with his order—a very good order, an order as essential to the existence of a well-constituted society as any other order in it. Well, we propose, as consequential upon that, to introduce another Amendment, as we do not believe it was the intention to exclude the delegation of the duties to a single member of the Land Commission itself—it was not the intention to exclude Mr. Vernon, for instance. That clearly was not intended, though it would be an accidental consequence of the Amendment, and we shall, therefore, propose an Amendment providing for it. The next Amendment is in line 33, after the word "shall," to insert— Subject to an appeal to the Land Commission on, and in, such conditions and circumstances as may he prescribed. We certainly do not consider that Amendment is an admissible Amendment. There is not sufficient ground for it, and the burden of it in reference to the amount of money that would generally be in question would really be enormous; and, wherever that is the case, the power of the appeal, intended for equity, really becomes an instrument of oppression, enabling the power of the stronger party to be exercised upon the weaker. We must, therefore, ask the House to virtually reject the Amendment, and to stand substantially to the arrangement come to before—that is, to confine the appeal to an appeal upon points of law which, we think, may be justly granted, and which is an essential change in the character of the proposal. Sir, there is only one other point which I have to name, and it is one which only requires a word of explanation. There was a clause, Clause 17, as it went from the House of Commons, which related to certain payments in respect of which there was to be a recoupment allowed to the landlord. That clause was passed in this House in great haste, and at the last stage; but when it came to be discussed in the House of Lords, it was agreed there by the Government that the clause had better be dropped, and an amended clause inserted in the House of Commons. We shall, therefore, bring up an amended clause, which we shall ask the House to insert in the Bill in place of the old Clause 17. We only ask it for the sake of clearness; and though it is a change made in the Bill as it came from the House of Lords, we shall, in fact, only amend our clause, adapting it to the purpose we have in view, instead of dropping it entirely. It is not a substantial difference from the Amendment arrived at by the House of Lords. Now, Sir, I need not trouble the House any longer on this matter. I have gone through the different Amendments, and I hope I have gone through them in the spirit I expressed at the opening of my remarks. I set aside all questions of general controversy; I will not enter into that wide and dangerous field. We have not taken this matter in hand in what I may call an huckstering spirit—giving something, and retaining in our hands a little more, to be given up under a little more pressure. We have endeavoured to go at once the whole length we feel to be admissible, and both to endeavour to make these Amendments the occasion of introducing any secondary improvements that might be practicable into the language of the Bill, and likewise to offer every reasonable concession which we could make without impairing the substance and purpose of the Bill. As to that substance and purpose, I need not remind the House how vital and significant in our view they are. This is a Bill, not to relieve distress, but partly to prevent evictions, partly to afford access to the Land Court; and, in both the one capacity and the other, intimately and vitally associated with the great question of peace, order, and tranquillity in Ireland. Nothing, therefore, can be more clear than the limits that are imposed upon our powers of concession, and these limits must be observed. What we offer, we offer freely, and desire to offer without the slightest invidious remark or observation; we desire to offer it in the way which, by men of experience and knowledge, it is most likely to be accepted. We desire to lighten as much as we can the responsibility that must rest upon ourselves, if, needlessly, we carried this House into conflict with the other; and we likewise desire to declare that if conflict arises, it is well understood that the responsibility does not rest upon us. I will not refer to that subject; I will only reiterate to the House the assurance I have already given as to the purpose with which we have examined these Amendments, and with which we make our present proposal; and I conclude with the fervent wish, for the sake of all Parties alike, for the sake of England, and for the sake of Scotland, and for the sake of Ireland, that these proposals may be accepted by the goodwill of the House, and may take their place as law on the Statute Book of the land.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments to the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

Mr. Speaker, I need not say that I do not rise for the purpose of following the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) into the details of the Amendments which he has just described to the House. I admit, however, that it has been exceedingly convenient that we should be given in a general view an account of the course which Her Majesty's Government propose to the House to pursue. But it is perfectly clear that the Amendments, and the mode of dealing with the Amendments which he has suggested, must require careful attention on the part of the House, and that we shall, therefore, do better to discuss them as they arise, and when we have them properly submitted to us. I only wish to express my own earnest hope that the discussion of these Amendments will be conducted in the same spirit as that which has characterized the greater part of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. At the same time, I must say it is true that there were one or two expressions at the opening of his speech which, I admit, filled me with some uneasiness. He spoke of his unwillingness to open old controversies, which had better be let sleep, and there I quite agreed with him. But it did seem to me that he was a little tempted, if he laid aside old controversies, to spring upon us some new controversies, for he told us that there were extraordinary and novel doctrines promulgated; and he instanced as one of them some doctrine he had read or heard of somewhere, that the House of Lords was entitled to lay down the doctrine that such and such a Bill should never be received from the present House of Commons. I do not know from what source that statement was derived; but, to me, it is a novel and extraordinary doctrine. What I do think the House ought to bear in mind, and it ought to govern their consideration of all this matter, is this—that in discussing this Bill, and especially in its final stage, we are engaged in a complicated and difficult matter. The largest possible additions have been made to the Bill since it was first introduced; and it is enough to point the House to the first copy of this Bill as it was brought into the House of Commons, and the last copy as it went to the House of Lords, and to the fact that the Bill had actually doubled in its length—a Bill of 12 clauses becoming one of 24, and that, from time to time, grave matter arose in the course of our discussions. It was not, therefore, to be wondered at that the House of Lords, in coming to examine a Bill which went through so much modification in this House, when they saw how important were many of the principles which it contained, and the principles which underlie these provisions, it was not at all unreasonable that they should deal in such a manner as they thought proper, and thought it to be their duty to do, with the provisions of the Bill. The House is aware of the Amendments which the House of Lords have suggested. I do not wish to make any statement or observation with regard to these Amendments, as a whole, which would in any way hamper or impede the action of the House in considering them. I only hope that they will be considered with candour and with fairness; because it is very easy indeed to get up prejudice—to get up a cry—and as we have seen quite enough of in various parts of the country, and in various organs of the Press, most extraordinary statements, which seemed, if they meant anything, to mean that this House would not be free to consider the Amendments of the House of Lords upon their merits; but that we were to be hampered by predictions of the most mysterious character as to what might happen. It seems to me—and I claim to exercise in the discussion of these Amendments the same freedom as in the discussion of the Bill in its earlier stage—if the suggestions of the Government commend themselves to us, of course they are such as deserve consideration and assent. On the other hand, if they do not commend themselves, we have a perfect right to maintain our position, and to refuse to agree to them. I hope the House will not be led into any general discussion of this sort. I have felt bound to say what I have done in consequence of the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman. I hope I have said nothing which can in any way impede or hamper the House in its proceedings; and, for my part, I shall be very glad that we should go into a business-like discussion of these Amendments, and that we should endeavour to see what is their real meaning and effect when we have them really and substantially before us, and in what way it will be possible for us to deal with them.

MR. PARNELL

I have heard, Sir, with very great regret, and, I confess, with considerable misgiving, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, descriptive of the concessions which he proposes, at this very early stage in the proceedings, to make to the action of the other House. Even if we had been told that the right hon. Gentleman had now announced his finite judgment upon the Amendments of the House of Lords, and if we could forget the history of the Land Act of last Session, when concessions, made upon the stage of that Act similar to that of the one we are now engaged on, were followed, at a subsequent period, by much more important concessions, we should still regard the very important concessions which the right hon. Gentleman now makes to the House of Lords with the utmost misgiving. I look upon these Amendments which have been foreshadowed as, in all probability, likely to he most mischievous to the operation of the Bill. I do not propose now to examine them in detail; but I hope and believe that, when the time comes for doing so, we shall be able to show this House reasons of a very important character against the adoption of several of them. I do not wish to refer to the special Amendments which we shall be obliged chiefly to deal with; but what I wish to do is to ask the Prime Minister, in regard to the statement he has now made that he is going to stand by his concessions in the further stages of the Bill, whether, in the event of this Bill being returned from the "other place," as the Land Act was returned last year, he has told us his mind, and his whole mind, upon the present occasion; and, whether, if we support him, as regards these Amendments, by our votes, and in every way we can on the present occasion, we may feel confident he is going to stand by the announcement he has now made to the House, and that he is not going to be impelled any further into the mischievous course, which, I regret to say, he has adopted, of whittling down this valuable measure to suit the dictates and the feeling of an irresponsible Body in that "other place?"

MR. GLADSTONE

I do not think it wise or prudent at this stage, notwithstanding what has fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Parnell), that I should enter into further details; because, when I stated that we would not enter into the discussion of the Amendments to this Bill in a huckstering spirit, and disclaimed such a mode of going to work, I would he understood as not using those words for the purpose of mere declamation. When I stated that we asked ourselves, as strictly as we could, what Amendments we could reasonably agree to, I thought I had made a full and ample disclosure of the general mind of the Government.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered.

The following Amendments agreed to:—In page 1, line 10, leave out "either;" and in line 11, leave out "or," and insert "and."

Page 1, line 11, after the word "holding," insert the words— Or of the tenant with the assent of the landlord (such assent to be presumed on the expiration of ten days from the service upon the landlord in the prescribed manner of notice of such application, in the absence of any notice of dissent from such landlord or his agent), —the next Amendment, read a second time.

Amendment proposed to the said Amendment— To leave out after the words "or of," to the words "from such," inclusive, in order to insert the words "either of them after ten days notice in the prescribed manner by the landlord or his agent to the tenant, or by the tenant to the,"—(Mr. Gladstone,) —instead thereof.

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

MR. GIBSON

said, that the Amendment now proposed by the Prime Minister made a material alteration in the Bill as it had left that House. The Amendment of the Prime Minister introduced the element of notice, and also recognized the independent right of the landlord, as well as the tenant, to resort to the Court. With regard to notice, it was a distinct improvement upon the original drafting of the Bill as sent up to the "other place," because it would secure that the landlord should have notice of the tenant's application, so that he would be informed of what he meant to do. But, beyond enabling the land- lord to make certain inquiries as to the tenant's circumstances, there was nothing of a very efficacious character in that concession. Something more was, however, required; and, as the Lords held, it was only fair, reasonable, and expedient that the landlord should have, not merely notice, but some potential voice in reference to the application. "When the Bill was in that House, his (Mr. Gibson's) right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition urged that the landlord should be given the power of concurring in the application. The Lords were more moderate, and they had considered the question from a most temperate point of view. They proposed that the landlord should have the power of joining with the tenant if he pleased; but that the application of the tenant in default of such concurrence should not be sufficient. Well, no doubt, that left a power of veto with the landlord which might, in exceptional cases—such as where he considered it would be for the interest of the tenant and the good of the estate—be made use of; but Parliament did not legislate for exceptional cases, and it seemed to him (Mr. Gibson) that there were sound arguments adducible in support of that veto. The Lords Amendment, it seemed to him, was, on the whole, fair and reasonable. It would remove, to a great extent, if not entirely, the confiscatory character of the proposal. It would enable the landlord or his agent, who knew the property and the position and character of the tenant, to take care that neither the landlord himself was defrauded, or, what was as important, that the taxpayers were not defrauded by claims put forward by tenants who had no right to make them. It had been objected that the veto removed one of the cardinal principles of the Bill—gift and compulsion. He could not see the connection between them. At present the Bill in some of its most important provisions was voluntary—for instance, in the landlord's acceptance of the one year's rent, which he might, if he pleased, remit, and in his joining with the tenant in an affidavit for the latter's benefit. This latter provision was a most important one, and would, he believed, tend largely to obviate that litigation which was a rock ahead to the Bill. A further instance of the essentially voluntary character of the Bill as latterly drafted was, that the landlord had to join with the tenant to enable the latter to avail himself of the very important Loan Clauses. Now, surely, if the voluntary element was recognized throughout the Bill, it was no great stretch of principle to apply it to the Amendment now under consideration. It might be said that the landlords would abuse the power proposed to be given to them. That might happen in exceptional cases; but, as he had already remarked, it was the business of Parliament to legislate, not for isolated individuals, but for the masses. To his mind the Lords Amendment seemed to be perfectly just and reasonable, and he should feel bound to support it with his vote.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that he thought it his duty to say that, from the experience he had had in the spring and winter, and from carefully watching this question, he was convinced that the acceptance of the Lords Amendment, as it was sent down to them, would defeat the real object of the Bill. He would not trouble the House with the arguments he used in support of the original measure on its second reading, except in so far as to state his belief that they were now dealing, not with those small tenants who were able, though unwilling, to pay; but with the class of poor and small tenants who were really unable to pay. It was the latter class that the House had declared, by a large majority, they wished to relieve. The other House also wished to relieve them. They were the very class who, in the two or three years of undoubted great distress, had accumulated arrears which they were unable to pay, and which prevented them from being able to go into Court. To the landlords had been given the power of evicting such tenants, and of clearing their estates, if they thought it necessary to do so. It was to meet the case of such tenants that the present Bill was introduced. He did not wish to blame individuals, much less classes; for it must be expected that all persons would, to a certain extent, act according to their interests. The consequence was that they found evictions largely increasing, and that was a great cause of anxiety to him when he held Office, and he felt sure it must cause anxiety to his Successor, for they would be mainly evictions of poor cottier tenants for non-payment of arrears. One great object of the Government was to stop the evictions, and the other was to enable the tenants to get into the Court; and, in connection with those two points, what would be the effect of the Amendment under notice? Why, it would put it in the power of any landlord to prevent them from getting into the Court, and to evict them from the estate. In some cases, it was the interest of the landlord, and not mere caprice, to prefer getting possession of the land and to get rid of the tenant, instead of obtaining one year's rent from the taxpayers and one year's rent from the tenant. He need not now go again into the argument as to whether the landlord ought to be prevented from so securing his own interest. He had watched carefully what had been said in both Houses, and he did not find that anybody had advocated that the landlords should take that course. He heard the remarks of Lord Salisbury, who had taken the most prominent part in this question in the other House, and who treated any attempt by a landlord to clear his estate as a matter of caprice and wantonness, of hardship and of violence, which his Lordship did not believe any landlord would commit. But there were many landlords who would consider it merely their duty to improve their estates by evicting those who were unable to pay their rents. But what they had to consider was, whether it was for the interest of the State, for the interest of peace and order in Ireland, that there should be these evictions on a large scale? Parliament had come to the conclusion that it was not, and had called on the people of England, through their Representatives, to make every possible sacrifice in order to prevent these evictions. The Lords Amendment would make that sacrifice of no use. It would put it in the power of a landlord to act just as if the Bill had not been passed, for many of the cases for which the Bill had been brought in would be the very cases in which this Amendment would be brought into operation. He could not say how glad he was to see the spirit in which this matter had been dealt with by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson). He was convinced there was a general feeling that this was not a matter for any great political crisis, or for any grave quarrel between the two Houses. It was hardly sufficient for that, although he thought it was quite clear, at the same time, that it was a matter in which the Government could hardly be expected to go further than they had gone. He only alluded to the possibility of another result on account of what he could see would be the most serious and alarming consequences in Ireland. At present, matters were better in that country, and he must congratulate his right hon. Friend and Successor (Mr. Trevelyan), who, he thought, had an easier time before him. Sometimes he fancied he saw symptoms of considerable improvement in the state of Ireland. But would hon. Members consider what would be the effect in the immediate future if, after the Government had thought it right to bring forward such a Bill as this, to meet the particular cases which he had described, the Bill were lost altogether—which he was glad to think was practically impossible—or that it should be so amended in the manner desired by the House of Lords, as really to lose all its power, and lead to the eviction of tenants who were unable to pay, not through dishonesty, but simply from the great distress with which they had been visited two or three years ago?

MR. CHAPLIN

said, the right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken (Mr. W. E. Forster) seemed to base his objections to the Lords Amendment on the effect it would have on the poor tenants who could not pay their rents; but he (Mr. Chaplin) failed to see how the case of the poor tenants would be made worse by the Amendment. One of the essential conditions of the Bill was that they were to pay down a twelvemonth's rent. How was it possible they could pay that if they were in the position described by the right hon. Gentleman? If that were the case, the sole ground of the right hon. Gentleman's object would be cut away. He (Mr. Chaplin) should support the Amendment of the Lords on another ground, because it removed what, according to the admission of Members of the Government themselves, constituted the most demoralizing tendency of this measure. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) was now advocating the principle of compulsion, when, with his own mouth, he told them last Session that any measure of compulsion was not only demoralizing, but very demoralizing. So far as he (Mr. Chaplin) remembered, the sense of the words used by the right hon. Gentleman were—"To force upon either Party a measure of this kind would not only be demoralizing, but very demoralizing indeed." Those words of the right hon. Gentleman were well known.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

remarked, that he had used these words in regard to a measure in which there was no necessity for proof of inability to pay.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, that raised another question. It was quite true that all of the essential conditions of the Bill were proof of inability to pay; but that was also a question to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded last Session. But what was his view upon that point? Why, that to give to the Court, or to anyone, the power of ascertaining who could or could not pay would be to impose upon the Court an impossible task. On that ground, also, he (Mr. Chaplin) should support the Amendment, because he was anxious to see this provision of inability a real, and not a sham, condition to the benefits of the Bill, and he thought that might be effected by the House accepting the Lords Amendment. If the joint application of the two parties were required, probably the information obtained from the landlord would be the best evidence procurable of the tenant's ability to pay. When hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House declared that this measure was absolutely necessary in the interests of peace and prosperity in Ireland, they must forgive hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Opposition side if they did not place implicit trust in their promises. Ever since he (Mr. Chaplin) himself had been in the House, when Irish measures had been introduced by a Liberal Government, they had always been accompanied by assurances of perfect success, and in every instance, he might say, the results had been disastrous.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

said, he did not see any objection to the proposal of the Government, requiring a 10 days' notice from either of the parties, seeing that it was reasonable in the interests of both, and a proposition which could not generally lead to injurious consequences. But, as regarded the graver question, whether the Bill should be put in motion only upon the action of the landlord and tenant, if they were to adopt the Amendment of the Lords, that would completely deprive the Bill of any force or efficacy. When it was said it was impossible to adduce evidence of the ability or inability of a tenant to pay, it was forgotten that the Judges of the High Court of this country were every day engaged in inquiries of that kind. In Chambers, particularly, they had to deal with judgment debtor summonses, which raised questions that it was now contended it was impossible for any tribunal to decide; and not only so, but they did it under conditions that were by no means favourable, for the evidence consisted mainly of affidavits, while those who administered this Bill would have every means of sifting the cases—they could summon witnesses and obtain whatever materials they thought necessary to the formation of an accurate judgment. Moreover, it was, in the first place, a primary condition of the application of the first clauses of the Bill, that the inability of the tenant to pay should be established to the satisfaction of the Court; and if the inability of the tenant was clearly proved, was the landlord to be able to deprive the tenant of free access to the Court under the Act of 1881? Was it to held that the landlord should be allowed, to the detriment of, and interference with, the peace of the country, to pursue the strict limit of right which the law had given him? It was said that in dealing with questions which affected large classes, Parliament should not legislate for exceptions, but for majorities; but it was also admitted by a noble Lord in "another place" that the Lords Amendment would not touch 99 out of 100 cases; and at the Conservative meeting held yesterday at Hatfield it was said by the Marquess of Salisbury that the question raised was not one of great practical importance. And it was certain that in Ireland the Amendment would be regarded with the greatest possible distrust, therefore he did not see why the House of Commons should be asked to adopt it. Having regard to the action of the House of Lords with reference to the Land Act of 1870 and the Compensation for Disturbance Bill of 1880, which Ministers responsible for the government of Ireland thought necessary for the preservation of the peace of the country, any yielding now on the part of the House would have disastrous consequences. The Bill was not brought forward in the interests of landlords only or of tenants only; and, from the letters he had received, he did not believe that any considerable section of landlords in Ireland viewed the Amendment of the Lords with great favour. The Bill subserved the interests of both landlords and tenants, and it was proposed, above all, in the interests of tranquillity. After the disastrous years experienced by Irish farmers, it was incumbent on Parliament to give Irish tenants the chance of a new starting-point, as proposed by the Bill; and for that reason he hoped the House would reject the Lords Amendment. Remedial legislation had not yet had a fair chance, for these arrears obstructed the entrance to the Court, upon which everything depended, and until that was secured the position to those who owed arrears was the same as if the Land Act had never been passed.

MR. RAIKES

said, there was one consideration which had not been pressed very much by hon. Gentlemen from his (Mr. Raikes's) own side of the House, and that was the taxpayers' view of this question. It seemed to him that, by the measure, they were asked to be generous to a certain class of people in Ireland; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) seemed to forget the importance of being just before they were generous. They were asked to deprive themselves of the best method they could possess of sifting the claims made upon the British Exchequer and determining that public money should be used only to meet destitution. If they could secure, on the side of the Government, the natural self-interest of the landlord, they would have the best protection they could have for the British Exchequer. But if they were to rely, as the Government proposed, upon the judgment of the Sub-Commissioners, who could not know as much of the circumstances of the tenants as the landlords did, they would lack the perfect security of the enlightened self-love of the landlords, who would not refuse a good composition in the case of a tenant whom they knew to be insolvent. But there were some landlords of a different kind—what were called improving landlords. These landlords were suspected of a rather hard-hearted desire to improve their estates, irrespective of the results to their tenants. He would not venture to say a word in defence of such landlords, certainly not a word more than had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford; but it was a question of political economy how far they were justified in giving temporary relief to the tenants of such landlords. A gift of £10, £5, or less, would not rehabilitate a man in a state of destitution; so that this question would come up again year after year, and they would have Session after Session devoted to further remedial legislation, which might be avoided by adopting the Lords Amendment. The result would be that before long they might wish they had relieved themselves of the responsibility they were now undertaking.

COLONEL NOLAN

said, that he was among his constituents when the Bill was in the House of Lords, and he was assured that it would not be worth having with the Amendment of the Lords in it. If it were allowed to remain, the Bill would be worse than useless.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he did not question the motives of the House of Lords in regard to the Amendment; and, so far as it was intended to secure that only those tenants who really could not pay should take advantage of the Bill, he sympathized with it. It was said that if the landlord could get 10s. in the pound, he would be willing to take it; but he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) could assure the House that there were many landlords to whom the exercise of absolute power was much dearer than the pecuniary benefit to be derived from the payment of 10s. in the pound. On the other hand, concessions-were refused to tenants from mistaken notions of duty; and, in either case, the retention of the Amendment would operate most injudiciously. He knew landlords who, considering they were trustees for their infant children, would refuse to make any concession, on the ground that, by so doing, they would be perpetrating a fraud on their children. By disallowing the Lords Amendment, the House would not be casting any imputation upon the motives which prompted it.

MR. PARNELL

said, he did not propose to discuss the question of option and compulsion at that moment, because it was manifest, from the appear- ance of the Front Opposition Bench, that the Tory Party did not intend seriously to reject the concessions which the Government had offered them on this Amendment. What he wished to know from the Irish Law Officers of the Crown was the effect of the Amendment relating to the 10 days' notice upon Clauses 2 and 13? Under Clause 2, a tenant evicted for non-payment of rent was entitled to apply for an extension of the period of redemption by three months. He wished to know whether, by the Amendment, that extended period of redemption would not be limited by 10 days? He also wished to know whether, under Clause 13, a tenant should make his application to the Court under this Bill before applying to have any ejectment proceedings then pending against him set aside? If so, it appeared to him that, during the continuance of the 10 days' notice, the Court would have no power to interfere with the proceedings, or to grant the postponement provided by Clause 13. These were matters of importance, and he hoped an answer would be given to the question.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON),

in reply, said, he had no hesitation in saying that the period of redemption would not be limited in the manner suggested by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Parnell), and that it was provided by Section 13 that the application might be made either before or after proceedings had been taken, those proceedings being stayed pending the decision of the Court.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, with reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that the state of the Front Opposition Bench showed that there was no serious objection to the proposal of the Government, it was, no doubt, a very pleasant fiction to indulge in; but he (Sir Stafford Northcote), would not like the hon. Member's challenge to pass unnoticed, and he would, therefore, remind the hon. Gentleman that in a matter of this sort, which had already been thoroughly discussed, and with respect to which the opinion of the Government was well known, the Members of the Opposition could do no more than express their dissent and argue, without taking up the time of the House by unnecessary discussions, against the views of the Government, taking a division by way of protest. They, on that side of the House, were undesirous of delaying the decision; but he, and he hoped all his Friends, intended to adhere to the sound doctrine laid down in Committee, and which was now embodied in the Amendment sent from the House of Lords. They wished that their gravest objection to the Bill might yet be removed by its acceptance. It was to be remembered that the Bill had recently been enlarged by the introduction of clauses into which the principle of compulsion did not enter; so that it might be expected to work without the retention of that principle in the 1st clause. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster) pointed to that particular class of tenants who alone were benefited by the Bill, and urged that, for the peace of Ireland, they ought not to be evicted. Now, if it was a question of the peace of Ireland, he (Sir Stafford Northcote), should like to know why these cases only were to be considered, and whether the tenants above £30 rental would not require the same indulgence? As it appeared to him, no solid reason could be put forward at any future time against an extension of the principle of the Bill, and against more violent propositions than those which this Bill sanctioned. The House might depend upon it that such propositions would be made as the conviction grew among the people that they had only to ask and to agitate in order to obtain. Compulsion might, and, as he had shown, probably would lead to confiscation; but, under the voluntary principle, no such result need be apprehended, because "volenti non fit injuria." But if the landlord was to be compulsorily overborne, a dangerous principle would be allowed, of which he would venture to say the House had not by any means heard the last application. As had been said by his right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes), they had introduced a great safeguard against extravagance in the interposition of the landlord, who knew the circumstances of the tenant. Though the 10 days' notice was important as far as it went, it did not touch the real subject of complaint; and, therefore, he should think it his duty, and that was the feeling of his Friends, to divide in support of the Amendment of the House of Lords.

MR. HEALY

said, that if a tenant had to give 10 days' notice at the time when his period of redemption was on the point of expiring, he might be ousted from his farm. It would be, therefore, only right that the Government should insert a consequential Amendment, extending the time for redemption to a period not exceeding three months and 10 days. He also wished to know whether the tenant was to be put under the liability of paying 1s. for the originating notice to be served, or whether it was to be free of cost? The Amendment of the Government had about as much relation to the Amendment of the Lords as Goodwin Sands had to Tenterden Steeple.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 157; Noes 293: Majority 136.

AYES.
Alexander, Colonel C.	Davenport, W. B.
Amherst, W. A. T.	Dawnay, Col. hon. L. P.
Aylmer, J. E. F.	Dawnay, hon. G. C.
Bailey, Sir J. R.	De Worms, Baron H.
Balfour, A. J.	Dickson, Major A. G.
Baring, T. C.	Digby, Col. hon. E. T.
Barne, F. St. J. N.	Dixon-Hartland, F. D.
Barttelot, Sir W. B.	Douglas, A. Akers-
Bateson, Sir T.	Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.
Beach, rt. hn. Sir M. H.	Eaton, H. W.
Beach, W. W. B.	Ecroyd, W. F.
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.	Egerton, hon. W.
Beresford, G. De la P.	Elliot, Sir G.
Biddell, W.	Emlyn, Viscount
Birk beck, E.	Ennis, Sir J.
Blackburne, Col. J. I.	Feilden, Maj.-Gen. R. J.
Boord, T. W.	Fellowes, W. H.
Bourke, rt. hon. R.	Fenwick-Bisset, M.
Brise, Colonel R.	Filmer, Sir E.
Broadley, W. H. H.	Finch, G. H.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.	Fitzpatrick, hn. B. E. B.
	Fletcher, Sir H.
Brace, Sir H. H.	Floyer, J.
Brymer, W. E.	Folkestone, Viscount
Burghley, Lord	Forester, C. T. W.
Burnaby, General E. S.	Fowler, R. N.
Buxton, Sir R. J.	Fremantle, hon. T. F.
Campbell, J. A.	Freshfield, C. K.
Carden, Sir R. W.	Galway, Viscount
Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.	Garnier, J. C.
Chaine, J.	Gibson, rt. hon. E.
Chaplin, H.	Giffard, Sir H. S.
Christie, W. L.	Gorst, J. E.
Clarke, E.	Halsey, T. F.
Clive, Col. hon. G. W.	Hamilton, Lord C. J.
Cobbold, T. C.	Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.
Coddington, W.
Collins, T.	Harcourt, E. W.
Coope, O. E.	Harvey, Sir R. B.
Cotton, W. J. R.	Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.
Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.
Cubitt, rt. hon. G.	Herbert, hon. S.

Hildyard, T. B. T.	Puleston, J. H.
Hinchingbrook, Visc.	Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.
Holland, Sir H. T.	Rankin, J.
Hope, rt. hn. A.J. B. B.	Repton, G. W.
Hubbard, rt. hon. J. G.	Ritchie, C. T.
Jackson, W. L.	Rolls, J. A.
Lawrance, J. C.	Ross, A. H.
Lawrence, Sir T.	Ross, C. C.
Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.	Round, J.
Leigh, R.	St. Aubyn, W. M.
Leighton, S.	Salt, T.
Levett, T. J.	Sandon, Viscount
Lewis, C. E.	Schreiber, C.
Lindsay, Sir R. L.	Scott, M. D.
Loder, R.	Severne, J. E.
Lowther, rt. hon. J.	Smith, rt. hon. W. H.
Lowther, hon. W.	Stanhope, hon. E.
M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.	Stanley, rt. hn. Col. F.
Mac Iver, D.	Stanley, E. J.
Macnaghten, E.	Sykes, C.
Makins, Colonel W. T.	Talbot, J. G.
Master, T. W. C.	Taylor, rt. hon. Col. T. E.
Mills, Sir C. H.
Monckton, F.	Thomson, H.
Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.	Thornhill, T.
	Tollemache, H. J.
Murray, C. J.	Tottenham, A. L.
Newdegate, C. N.	Tyler, Sir H. W.
Newport, Viscount	Warburton, P. E.
Nicholson, W. N.	Warton, C. N.
North, Colonel J. S.	Welby-Gregory, Sir W. E.
Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.
	Whitley, E.
Northcote, H. S.	Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Onslow, D.	Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
Paget, R. H.	Wroughton, P.
Pell, A.	Wyndham, hon. P.
Pemberton, E. L.	Yorke, J. R.
Percy, Lord A.
Phipps, C. N. P.	TELLERS.
Phipps, P.	Crichton, Viscount
Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.	Winn, R.

NOES.
Acland, C. T. D.	Briggs, W. E.
Agnew, W.	Bright, rt. hon. J.
Ainsworth, D.	Bright, J. (Manchester)
Allen, H. G.	Brinton, J.
Allman, R. L.	Broadhurst, H.
Anderson, G.	Brogden, A.
Armitage, B.	Brooks, M.
Arnold, A.	Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.
Asher, A.	Bruce, hon. R. P.
Ashley, hon. E. M.	Bryce, J.
Baldwin, E.	Buchanan, T. R.
Balfour, Sir G.	Burt, T.
Balfour, J. B.	Buszard, M. C.
Balfour, J. S.	Butt, C. P.
Baring, Viscount	Buxton, F. W.
Barnes, A.	Caine, W. S.
Barran, J.	Callan, P.
Bass, H.	Cameron, C.
Bass, M. T.	Campbell, Sir G.
Beaumont, W. B.	Campbell, R. F. F.
Bellingham, A. H.	Campbell-Bannerman, H.
Biggar, J. G.
Blake, J. A.	Carbutt, E. H.
Blennerhassett, R. P.	Carington, hon. R.
Borlase, W. C.	Causton, R. K.
Brand, H. R.	Cavendish, Lord E.
Brassey, Sir T.	Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.
Brett, R. B.	Chambers, Sir T.

Cheetham, J. F.	Henderson, F.
Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E.	Heneage, E.
Clarke, J. C.	Henry, M.
Clifford, C. C.	Herschell, Sir F.
Cohen, A.	Hibbert, J. T.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Hill, T. R.
Collings, J.	Holden, I.
Colman, J. J.	Hollond, J. R.
Commins, A.	Holms, J.
Corbet, W. J.	Holms, W.
Cotes, C. C.	Hopwood, C. H.
Courtauld, G.	Howard, E. S.
Courtney, L. H.	Howard, J.
Cowen, J.	Illingworth, A.
Cowper, hon. H. F.	Inderwick, F. A.
Craig, W. Y.	James, C.
Cropper, J.	James, Sir H.
Cross, J. K.	James, W. H.
Daly, J.	Jenkins, D. J.
Davey, H.	Jenkins, Sir J. J.
Davies, W.	Johnson, W. M.
De Ferrieres, Baron	Labouchere, H.
Dickson, T. A.	Lalor, R.
Dilke, Sir C. W.	Lambton, hon. F. W.
Dodds, J.	Lawrence, Sir J. C.
Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.	Lawrence, W.
Duckham, T.	Lawson, Sir W.
Duff, R. W.	Lea, T.
Earp, T.	Leahy, J.
Edwards, P.	Leake, R.
Egerton, Adm. hon. F.	Leamy, E.
Elliot, hon. A. R. D.	Leatham, E. A.
Errington, G.	Lee, H.
Fairbairn, Sir A.	Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.
Farquharson, Dr. R.	Leigh, hon. G. H. C.
Fawcett, rt. hon. H.	Lloyd, M.
Fay, C. J.	Lubbock, Sir J.
Ferguson, R.	Lusk, Sir A.
Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B.	Lymington, Viscount
Findlater, W.	M'Arthur, A.
Firth, J. F. B.	M'Arthur, W.
Fitzmaurice, Lord E.	M'Carthy, J.
Flower, C.	M'Clure, Sir T.
Foljambe, C. G. S.	M'Coan, J. C.
Foljambe, F. J. S.	Macfarlane, D. H.
Forster, rt. hon. W. E.	M'Kenna, Sir J. N.
Forster, Sir C.	Mackie, R. B.
Fowler, H. H.	M'Laren, C. B. B.
Fowler, W.	M'Minnies, J. G.
Fry, T.	Magniac, C.
Gill, H. J.	Maitland, W. F.
Givan, J.	Mappin, F. T.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.	Marjoribanks, E.
Gladstone, H. J.	Martin, P.
Gladstone, W. H.	Martin, R. B.
Gordon, Sir A.	Maskelyne, M. H. Story-
Gordon, Lord D.	Mason, H.
Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.	Matheson, Sir A.
Gourley, E. T.	Meldon, C. H.
Gower, hon. E. F. L.	Mellor, J. W.
Grafton, F. W.	Milbank, Sir F. A.
Grant, A.	Molloy, B. C.
Gray, E. D.	Monk, C. J.
Grenfell, W. H.	Moore, A.
Grey, A. H. G.	Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.
Gurdon, R. T.	Morley, A.
Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.	Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.
	Muntz, P. H.
Hardcastle, J. A.	Nicholson, W.
Hartington, Marq. of	Noel, E.
Hastings, G. W.	Nolan, Colonel J. P.
Hayter, Sir A. D.	Norwood, C. M.
Healy, T. M.	O'Brien, Sir P.

O'Connor, A.	Sheil, E.
O'Connor, T. P.	Shield, H.
O'Donoghue, The	Simon, Serjeant J.
O'Gorman Mahon, Col. The	Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.
	Slagg, J.
O'Kelly, J.	Spencer, hon. C. R.
O'Shaughnessy, R.	Stanley, hon. E. L.
O'Shea, W. H.	Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.
Otway, Sir A.	Stanton, W. J.
Paget, T. T.	Stevenson, J. C.
Palmer, G.	Stewart, J.
Palmer, J. H.	Storey, S.
Parker, C. S.	Stuart, H. V.
Parnell, C. S.	Sullivan, T. D.
Pease, A.	Summers, W.
Peddie, J. D.	Synan, E. J.
Pender, J.	Tavistock, Marquess of
Pennington, F.	Taylor, P. A.
Philips, R. N.	Tennant, C.
Playfair, rt. hon. L.	Thomasson, J. P.
Porter, A. M.	Thompson, T. C.
Portman, hn. W. H. B.	Thynne, Lord H. F.
Potter, T. B.	Tillett, J. H.
Power, J. O'C.	Torrens, W. T. M'C.
Power, R.	Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.
Price, Sir R. G.	Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Pugh, L. P.	Vivian, A. P.
Ralli, P.	Wallace, Sir R.
Ramsay, J.	Walter, J.
Rathbone, W.	Waterlow, Sir S. H.
Redmond, J. E.	Watkin, Sir E. W.
Reed, Sir E. J.	Wedderburn, Sir D.
Reid, R. T.	Whalley, G. H.
Richard, H.	Whitbread, S.
Richardson, T.	Whitworth, B.
Roberts, J.	Wiggin, H.
Robertson, H.	Williams, S. C. E.
Rogers, J. E. T.	Williamson, S.
Rothschild, Sir N. M. de	Willis, W.
Roundell, C. S.	Wills, W. H.
Russell, Lord A.	Willyams, E. W. B.
Russell, C.	Wilson, I.
Russell, G. W. E.	Wilson, Sir M.
Rylands, P.	Wodehouse, E. R.
Samuelson, B.	Woodall, W.
Samuelson, H.
Seely, C. (Nottingham)	TELLERS.
Sexton, T.	Grosvenor, Lord R.
Shaw, W.	Kensington, Lord

Bill read the third time, and passed.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, he proposed to meet cases where difficulty might be experienced in giving the 10 days' notice, by moving the following addition to the Amendment as amended:— Provided that, for the purpose of application under the provisions of Sections 2, 10, and 13 respectively of this Act, the Land Commission may, in respect to such notice, extend the periods in the said sections respectively mentioned, for any time not exceeding 10 days.

Amendment to said Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

The following Amendments agreed to:—In page 1, line 18, leave out "by," and insert "on or before;" in page 2, line 7, after "shall," insert "subject as hereinafter mentioned."

Page 2, line 14, after the word "security," insert the words— Provided, That, in the event of the next subsequent sale of the tenancy, the arrears of rent not satisfied by payment or remission shall be a sum payable to the landlord out of the proceeds of the sale within the meaning of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' —the next Amendment, read a second time.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he proposed to amend this Amendment in the manner he had described, by providing that the sale of the tenant right must be within seven years, and that the amount of the landlord's claim must be limited to one year's rent, and that the claim should not exceed one-half of the saleable value. He would accordingly move, as the first of these Amendments, that the words "the next subsequent," in line 2, be left out and "a" inserted.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, this was the first Amendment of the series, which would make the sub-section read as follows:— Provided, That, in the event of a sale of the tenancy within seven years from the making of such order, the arrears of rent not satisfied by payment or remission shall, to an amount not exceeding one year's arrears nor one-half the saleable value of the tenant's interest, be a sum payable to the landlord out of the proceeds of the sale within the meaning of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.'

MR. LEWIS

said, he would point out that they were dealing under this section with the proceeding of a sale, and not a hypothetical value. He would therefore suggest that instead of "saleable," the word "sale" should be inserted in the third Amendment.

MR. HEALY

said, he thought it was very objectionable to make the sale a sale according to the meaning of the Land Act; because, if a tenant desired to dispose of his tenancy, the landlord might apply to the Land Court to have the "true value" fixed. He would therefore suggest to further amend the same Amendment by omitting, after "sale," the words "within the meaning of the Land Act of 1881," and inserting the words "in open market." The provision as it stood would debar tenants from emigrating, because so many obstacles would be raised to the sale of the holding. In any case the provision should not apply to holdings of less value than £15 per annum.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON),

referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), said, the contingency which the Government contemplated in the Amendment was that of the tenant turning his tenancy into money. He therefore agreed with the hon. Member as to the necessity for substituting the word "sale" for "saleable." The Government could not agree to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). The sale would practically be in the open market, the only difference being that the landlord would have the right of preemption.

MR. GIVAN

considered it most important to have the sale in the open market. He also thought it highly desirable that the word "voluntary" should be inserted in the Amendment, because the landlord might force a sale on the tenant.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he could not accept the suggestion, because he could not conceive in what mode they could apply the voluntary state. It would be very hard to prevent the landlord from getting his arrears if a tenant were sold up by one of his creditors.

VISCOUNT LYMINGTON

thought the limitation of seven years was too long, and would much prefer the period being half the time.

MR. SEXTON

said, he fully concurred with the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Lymington) as to the necessity for shortening the period. At the same time, he hoped the Government would see the desirability of adopting the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), and insert some value below which the provision would not operate.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he presumed the Amendment before the House was the substitution of "a" for "the next subsequent."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, that this was so.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the said Amendment— In line 2, after the word "tenancy," to insert the words "within seven years from the making of such order."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

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

MR. LEWIS

hoped the Government would stand by the Amendment. To consent to reduce the time would be to nibble away the concessions of the Government. Considering tenancies frequently lasted for many years in Ireland without change, the period of seven years, instead of being too long, was too short.

VISCOUNT LYMINGTON

thought that seven years was too long a period to allow the lien to continue. He therefore moved to insert "three" for "seven."

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "seven," in order to insert the word "three,"—(Viscount Lymington,)—instead thereof.

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

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had expressed the hope that the Government would find themselves able to extend their concessions. Unfortunately, however, they were not able to do so. They could not accept the Amendment, for they felt themselves already tied up on this question. The Government had come forward, not without a great deal of consideration, and had made what they thought a fair and reasonable offer for the settlement of the matter, and they must adhere to the proposal. In Ireland the sale of a tenant right took place, on an average, once in a generation; and in that case, by this Amendment, they had taken a term of years which was about a fourth of the time for which a tenant right was ordinarily held. He did not think it was a very unreasonable number of years to fix; and, under the circumstances, he thought it most consistent with the interest of all parties that they should adhere to it.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

said, he should certainly support the Amendment of the noble Viscount the Member for Barnstaple (Viscount Lymington), for the reason that he considered the proposal of the Government highly unde- sirable, seeing that it proposed to actually keep alive, and hanging over the heads of the tenants, a debt that was practically irrecoverable under the ordinary statutory limitation, which was a period of six years. Why life should be given to those arrears for seven years he was at a loss to know; as the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had said, there were some cases in which this would operate very hardly, and in direct opposition to that in which a great many Members of that House would like to see a movement take place—he meant the voluntary movement by tenants of small holdings, who, if they could realize anything for their holding, would be willing to take the money and seek another field of labour. The majority of that House were in favour of what he (Mr. Charles Russell) would call the healthy and natural consolidation of farms by the means he had described, and he thought the proposal would exercise a prejudicial influence upon such natural consolidation. A man who was unable to farm his holding to advantage should have no obstacle placed in the way of the sale of his interest to his neighbour or some stronger man, bringing his capital and his energy to some other field.

MR. GIBSON

said, he could not allow any principle of limitation of time with reference to arrears, other than that which came down from the other House, to be introduced without protest. The limitation introduced by the Lords had been only the next subsequent sale of the tenancy; but that had been struck out and a proposal made by the Government to introduce a strict limit of seven years. There was no reason whatever for such a limitation, and he thought it far better to leave it as it originally stood—the next subsequent sale of the tenancy. At all events, seven years was too short. These arrears had often been spoken of as irrecoverable; but that was not the case. In Ulster the tenant right, which was sometimes as much as 30 or 40 times the rent, was regarded as the security for the arrears, and on a transfer of the holding the arrears were paid in full. If this alteration of time was put in, it should be done with a great deal of caution, and with every attention to what the subject-matter was; and bearing in mind that the subject-matter was that of a debt, capable of being recovered by legal process, it was rather strange to put in such a limitation as that of seven years. He should say that the alteration should be that of the Land Act of last year, which was a term of 15 years; and it was proposed here to keep the debt alive, not merely as a debt, because to do that would give a right to recover at any time the landlord pleased, and the debt would be one bearing interest; but it would also be kept alive as a mere charge, because it could not be recovered for seven years, and might not be then, unless there was a sale at the time. Though he would not press a division on the point, he would indicate his dissent by calling out "No!" when it was proposed to insert the words in the clause.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he should greatly prefer the limitation of three years to that of seven; but, as the Prime Minister had spoken so decidedly, he would recommend the noble Viscount (Viscount Lymington) not to go to a division. If he did, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) would not vote with him; but he hoped that an Amendment, exempting tenancies below £15 a-year, would meet with more favour.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 197; Noes 83: Majority 114.—(Div. List, No. 322.)

Words inserted.

MR. HEALY,

in moving another Amendment to the said Amendment, for the purpose of exempting tenants of holdings valued under £15 from the application of the Lords Amendment, said, he did so, because he thought the tenant right of these miserable holdings were not worth carrying forward, and the only effect of doing so would be to enable the landlord to hold over the tenant's head a sort of sword of Damocles. He contended that if the liability to pay a year's rent to the landlord were to continue for a space of seven years, the tenants of holdings in connection with, which tenant right could not be said to exist would be very hardly used. He implored the Government not to put a bar on the improvement of those small holdings for the next seven years, because the tenants could not be expected to make improvements simply to give the landlords their arrears. In the event of their persisting in their proposal, he would impress upon them the necessity of excluding those cases in which the tenant right was of little, if any value. He thought it desirable that some limitation of this kind he proposed should be made on the operation of the Act, otherwise the result of the Amendment inserted just now would be to keep many unfortunate people tied to their holdings. In this way the Bill gave to the tenants with one hand and took away with the other.

Amendment proposed to the said Amendment, In line 3, after the word "rent," to insert the words "in the case of any holding exceeding fifteen pounds in value."—(Mr. Mealy.)

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

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he could not say that he felt there was any great force in the arguments of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). The hon. Member complained that they were not giving the tenant the clear receipt which they had desired to give him; but what he (Mr. Gladstone) had endeavoured to point out was, that they were giving him as a tenant an absolutely clear receipt. When he ceased to be a tenant, a reduction was to be made from the price of his tenant's interest; and the Amendment of the hon. Member was undoubtedly a serious deduction from the equally serious concession they had made to the House of Lords, and also from the concession which they had always felt, in the course of the discussions on the Bill, was [not without some ground, in their own admissions in connection with the Land Act of last year, when they said that the tenant right would be a valuable security to the landlord. He (Mr. Gladstone) assumed that the hon. Member for Wexford did not wish that Bill to be wrecked. The Government had, on full consideration of the Lords Amendments, bound itself by what was really a pledge of honour, which the hon. Gentleman must feel they were not in a position to recede from. They had promised a concession; and of that concession the hon. Member would now withdraw three-fourths by his Amendment, for of the tenants under £30 valuation, to whom the Bill would apply, an enormous majority in point of numbers, and probably not less than three-fourths in value, were under £15. After the Government had made a proposal and announced it as part of the scheme on which they intended to deal with the Lords Amendments, he need hardly point out that if they were to recede from three-fourths of that proposal, they would be giving the very best plea to those who, perhaps, desired that the measure should come to grief in "another place" for attaining that end. If they were to agree to the Amendment it might fairly be said that the Government had not kept faith with the other House, and for those reasons he could not accept the Amendment.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he was extremely sorry that the Prime Minister could not make a, concession on that point, which he did not think would imperil the Bill in the House of Lords, because he thought their Lordships really would not attach any importance to a concession in regard to the small tenants to whom the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) applied. The whole tenour of the debate in the other House showed sympathy with the miserable tenant of £4 or £5 annual value in the West of Ireland, and he believed that the Lords would have gladly made a present of their arrears to those miserable tenants, who could not, under any circumstances, obtain more than a few pounds to enable them to emigrate. In his opinion, the Government and the House had not sufficiently grasped the fact that the small tenants in the West of Ireland ought to be dealt with in a totally different manner from the other Irish tenants; whereas, by applying this provision to them, the Government would stereotype the misery that existed in that portion of the country. As he wished the Bill to become law, he could not divide in favour of the Amendment.

MR. SEXTON

said, he could assure the House that neither himself, the hon. Member for Wexford, nor any other Member of the Irish Party desired to see the Bill wrecked; but he did not think the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would have such an effect on the House of Lords as the Prime Minister seemed to apprehend, while he believed that it was required for the bene- ficial operation of the measure, as well as for the accomplishment of its professed objects. He considered the concession which the Government had made to the House of Lords would take away the benefits of the Bill from the necessitous classes in Ireland. In the West of Ireland many families, if they sold their little holdings, would not realize more than a £10 or £20 note, for the purpose of taking them where they could begin some new career. It was only that day that the Irish Members had learnt what the Government intended to do; and he must say he thought the Government had put the cart before the horse by pledging themselves to certain proposals before the House had an opportunity of considering the matter. The Government had at the last moment, and without any previous notice, proposed to give to the landlords a third year's arrears of rent.

MR. DAWSON

thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was one which the Government might accept without exciting the anger of the Upper House.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 185: Majority 62.—(Div. List, No. 323.)

MR. GLADSTONE

proposed to further amend the Lords Amendment, by providing that the sum payable to the landlord out of the proceeds of the sale of a tenancy in respect of unsatisfied arrears should be limited to "an amount not exceeding one year of such arrears, nor one-half of the proceeds of such sale."

Amendment proposed to the said Amendment, In line 3, after "shall," insert "to an amount not exceeding one year of such arrears nor one half of the proceeds of such sale."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

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

MR. GIBSON

said, he thought that the limitation proposed in this Amendment by the Government was open to grave exception, in regard to its extreme small-ness. He did not propose to discuss the limitation of time, as that had already been dealt with; but with regard to the limitation of amount, he thought that if there were four or five years' arrears due to the landlord, and some of those arrears were readily recoverable if time were given, it would be a harsh measure to tell the landlord that he was only to have a charge in respect of one of those years. That seemed to him to be a limitation of too drastic a character. He was disposed to think that the limitation could be obtained in a wiser way, and in a way less open to exception, if the latter half of the Government's alternative was taken as a basis to work upon. He would suggest that a limitation, to the effect that a certain proportion of the amount realized in the sale should always reach the tenant's hands, would be a limitation which might be worked with advantage, and would supersede the necessity of making any limitation of years. The Government could hardly expect that it would be satisfactory to the landlords, or to the other House, to put in a limitation so restrictive in its nature as to prevent a landlord, under any circumstances, from recovering more than one year's arrears of rent. He protested against the statement so constantly made in that House that arrears beyond those of three years were to be regarded as irrecoverable. It was perfectly absurd for anyone who knew the state of the facts to say that three years was the limitation that was to be taken as the rough measure of arrears that were recoverable, as distinguished from those that were irrecoverable; and he was distinctly of opinion that the limitation adopted here by the Government was entirely too narrow.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

On the Motion of Mr. GLADSTONE, further Amendment made in line 4, by leaving out after the word "of," the words "the proceeds of the sale," and inserting "such proceeds."

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Page 2, lines 15 and 16, leave out the words "may, if the Commissioners think it reasonable," and insert the word "shall,"—instead thereof,—the next Amendment, read a second time.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

(for Mr. GLADSTONE) moved to insert, in lieu of the word "shall," the words "shall, so far as the Commissioners think it reasonable."

Amendment proposed to the said Amendment, after the word "shall," insert "so far as the Commissioners think it reasonable."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

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

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, the proposed Amendment would not attain the object of the Lords Amendment. As the Bill originally stood, there was a limitation as to the extent to which the tenant right was to be taken into consideration; but there was no direct instruction to the Commissioners that it should be taken into consideration. Their Lordships had, therefore, amended it, as it now stood, and their reason for doing so was a doubt as to whether some of the Sub-Commissioners, judging from some of the decisions they had hitherto given, had so much discretion as to make it justifiable to appeal to it; and the object of it was that there should be a distinct injunction that the saleable value of a tenant's interest was to be taken into consideration, subject to the limitation that the tenant was not to be turned out of his holding or deprived of the means of cultivating it. The Lords, therefore, struck out the words "may, if the Commissioners think it reasonable," and substituted "shall." The Prime Minister did not altogether disagree with the Lords Amendment; but he proposed to insert after "shall," the words "so far as the Commissioners think it reasonable." The concession of the Government was a small one, as compared with that which would be made by the Lords; for by putting in the words proposed the discretion was again placed in the hands of the Commissioners to a large extent, and the effect of the Amendment would be to restore practically the words struck out by the House of Lords.

MR. PARNELL

feared that the Government were about to make too great a concession. He believed that the Amendment practically made it compulsory on the Commissioners to take into consideration the value of the tenant right. As regarded the relief originally intended to be granted to them, he could not imagine an Amendment more calculated to lessen the belief of the Irish tenants in the justice of that House and the other House towards them than this Amendment, for it would have the effect of practically telling them that arrears which had accumulated over a series of bad seasons, or in respect of rent which the Land Court appointed by Parliament was every day denouncing as unjust rent, and which they had been unable to pay, that then they must borrow or sell their tenant right. If the value of the tenant's interest exactly equalled the amount of his arrears, he would, on the one hand, have nothing left if it were regarded as an asset, and, on the other, would be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. He believed such an Amendment was most unprecedented and unjust, and that it would go far to check and control the tribunal appointed from doing an act of justice to the tenants. He could not understand why the Government had brought it forward, as it was opposed to the whole principles of the Bill. He should divide against it.

MR. LEWIS

supported the compromise suggested by the Government, and thought that the Commissioners would not be absolutely bound to take the value of the tenant right into consideration. He was very glad that the Government had found the middle course, and had rejected both extremes; on the one hand, of the Commissioners being bound to take the value of the tenant right into consideration as an asset; and the other extreme, of its not being taken into account at all. The matter was placed within the unlimited discretion of the Commissioners.

Question put, and agreed to.

Words inserted.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."

The House divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 55: Majority 97.—(Div. List, No. 324.)

Page 2, line 22, leave out "that year," and insert "the year expiring as aforesaid,"—the next Amendment, agreed to.

Page 2, line 24, leave out from the word "where," to end of the sub-section, and insert the words— According to the ordinary course of dealing between the landlord and tenant of a holding, the rent of such holding has actually been paid at some time after the day on which it became legally due, the rent which according to such usual course or dealing ought to be paid in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed the rent payable in respect of the year expiring as aforesaid, —the next Amendment, read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

MR. GIBSON

said, he had listened with great attention to the Prime Minister when explaining that three out of four meanings might be given to the Lords Amendment; but he failed to follow the right hon. Gentleman, and was unable to put any of those meanings upon it. He knew that the Amendment was made in the other House with the most sincere desire to amend a section which left the House of Commons in entire confusion. He (Mr. Gibson) had spoken upon the section with extreme reluctance, and he came to the conclusion that the whole thing was in such absolute confusion that the wisest course would be to leave out the sub-section altogether. He moved that it be struck out and divided upon it; but, as often fell to the lot of public men, he was beaten. The Government must take the consequences of their own drafting, which they probably were not now so fond of as they had been. It was apparently now a choice between the confusion of their own sub-section and what they alleged was the confusion of the Amendment. He would be glad to hear the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, English, Irish, and Scotch, on the subject; and if, after listening to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland first and to his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland, giving his own independent view of it afterwards, the House was not satisfied, why, then let them leave the matter to the arbitrament of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was an authority on International questions. The Lord Chancellor, whose private and legal character they all so much respected, at one time thought he had a gleam of meaning on the question, and accordingly he rushed hastily into the fray. The noble and learned Lord thought he would clear up the whole matter by striking out one word and inserting two. But nest day the Law Officers must, doubtless, have got at him, and begged him for God's sake to leave it alone, because he was then ready to adopt those particular words, or, in fact, any others which noble Lords might suggest. Personally, he (Mr. Gibson) had, he thought, most reasonable and intelligible views upon it, and had endeavoured to state them to the House. He had considered the Government Amendment with care—no one could say he had considered it with pleasure—and he came to the conclusion that the Government drafting was so involved, confused, and hopeless in its complication that it would be better to drop the sub-section altogether. The Government, however, thought that the wise men who had to administer the Land Act would be the very men to administer it; and if they (the Government) were not satisfied with the carefully drawn Amendment sent down from the Lords, and it was so, it was impossible to say what would please them. He thought that the Lords Amendment was open to fewer misconceptions than the Government drafting, and he hoped the House would decide in its favour.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that it could not be said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) had delivered a speech couched in the extreme of Party spirit. His candour had not gone to extreme lengths in favour of the Amendment of the House of Lords. On the contrary, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had left it open to them to address an appeal to his understanding, of which he (Mr. Gladstone) need not say he had an extremely high opinion, which was not lowered when the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave play to the lighter faculties of his nature and treated the Amendment of his Friends in "another place" in a tone of humour of which he had given such a pleasant example. He would submit that the House was not now dealing with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman called the "Government drafting." Assuming now that the Amendment were perfectly clear, it amounted to this. It said that the rent which ought to be paid in 1881 by the custom of the particular estates should, for the purposes of Clause 1 of the Bill, be taken to be the rent of 1881. In the case of an estate upon which there was a double hanging gale, the landlord would get two years' rent for the years 1880 and 1881, and he should think that was about enough. But this was not all. By this Amendment the Land Commission would have to pay the landlord half of the rent for 1880, for which he had been already paid, so that he would get two and a-half years' rent in two years. This was certainly pretty well, especially in a case of confiscation. He must say it was not a bad arrangement at all for the landlord; but he (Mr. Gladstone) could hardly be expected to agree to a step which would lead to such a result. But that was not yet all, because they had now admitted into the Bill a clause providing that if the first sale of the tenancy occurred within seven years, the landlord would come forward and say it was quite true that under the Arrears Act he got one-half of his rent of 1880, but he had six months still outstanding, and he was entitled to claim that out of the price of the tenant right, so that the landlord would get three years' rent in two years through the medium of a bill of confiscation. He submitted that statement to the judgment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. [Mr. GIBSON: I have no right of reply.] That was quite true; but possibly there might be a division, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman would, by voting, have an opportunity of showing how open his mind was to the force of truth, and to demonstration little short of mathematical. Under the circumstances, it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Page 3, line 7, after the word "money," insert the words— Provided always, That where two or more parties are entitled to the arrears, the Land Commission shall have power to decide the rights of the parties, and the proportion in which the said arrears shall be divided amongst them, —the next Amendment, read a second time.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, the Government would accept the Amendment, provided the words "the said arrears" were deleted, and the following inserted, "the sum so ordered to be paid to or for the benefit of the landlord."

Amendment proposed to the said Amendment, in line 4, to leave out the words "said arrears," and insert "sum so ordered to be paid to or for the benefit of the landlord."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

In reply to Mr. GIBSON,

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

said, the opinion of the Government was that the Amendment was unnecessary, because the 4th section gave ample power to the Land Commission to determine all matters which were to be determined by them for the purposes of the Act, and also to deal with the money in their hands. The Lords, however, were apparently of opinion that the section did not meet all that was required, and therefore proposed the Amendment, and it was in order to make that Amendment intelligible that the verbal alteration was suggested.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the following Amendments agreed to:—In page 3, line 13, after "apply," insert "with the consent of his landlord in the prescribed manner; "line 27, after "restitution," insert— Provided that an order of the Land Commission under this section shall not take effect until and unless the tenant is restored to his holding; leave out lines 38 to 40; page 4, line 23, after "court" insert— The Land Commission may of its own motion, or shall on the application of any party to any proceeding pending before it unless it considers such application frivolous and vexatious, state a case in respect of any question of law arising in such proceedings, and refer the same for the consideration and decision of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland; and in lines 25 and 26, leave out from "delegate" to "any" in line 27.

On the Motion of Mr. GLADSTONE, the following consequential Amendment made:—In page 4, line 30, after "or," insert "any member."

Page 4, line 30, after the words "Sub-Commission," insert the words "being a barrister-at-law," the next Amendment, read a second time.

Amendment proposed to the said Amendment, in page 4, line 30, after "barrister-at-law," insert the words "or solicitor."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

MR. GREGORY

congratulated the Government on their proposed addition to the Lords Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Page 4, line 33, after the word "shall," insert the words "subject to an appeal to the Land Commission, on and in such conditions and circumstances as may be prescribed," the next Amendment, read a second time.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Amendment amended as follows:—In line 1, before "subject," insert "in reference thereto;" and in line 2, after "appeal," insert "on matter of law."

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the following consequential Amendment made:—In page 4, line 33, leave out "in reference thereto."

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the following Amendments read a second time, and agreed to:—In page 5, line 21, leave out "to receive any money from the Lund Commission;" and in page 10, leave out Clause 17.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the following consequential Amendment made:—In lieu of Clause 17 (omitted by the Lords) insert the following clause:—

(Exemption in respect of public charges upon arrears of rent extinguished.)

Where, in the case of a holding of which any person is owner, antecedent arrears of rent due in respect of any year or years, or portion of a year, have been extinguished in pursuance of this Act, and any public charge or tax accrued during such year or years, or portion of year or years, is due from such person as or in consequence of his being owner of such holding, then, on proof to the satisfaction of the Land Commission that the owner has, during such time as aforesaid, received no rent, or an amount of rent less than the full rent, such public charges or taxes shall, if no rent has been received, be wholly remitted, and if an amount of rent less than the full rent has been received, be remitted in proportion to the amount of rent not received. Where a person has paid any public charges or taxes which, if not paid, would be remitted under this section, the amount which would have teen so remitted shall he allowed as a deduction from any future payment or payments of the public charges or taxes of the same description, or may be recovered as a debt from the authority to whom it may have been paid. Any payment which an owner may receive under this Act in respect of arrears of rent shall, for the purposes of this section, be taken into account as rent. The Land Commission shall ascertain, for the purposes of this section, in such manner as they think best calculated to ascertain the truth, the amount of public charges or taxes due in any year or portion of a year from a person as or in consequence of his being owner of a holding. 'Public charges or taxes' means tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commission, income tax, quit-rent, or any of such charges or taxes. Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to one of the Amendments made by The Lords to the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill:"—Mr. GLADSTONE, Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, Mr. DODSON, Mr. TREVELYAN, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND, and Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR:—Three to be the quorum:—To withdraw immediately.