SETTLEMENT OF ARREARS OF RENT.

HC Deb 14 July 1882 vol 272 cc458-504

Clause 1 (Settlement by Land Commission of arrears of rent).

CAPTAIN AYLMER moved, in page 2, line 17, to leave out Sub-section (4), which provided that a remission by the landlord of the whole or any part of the rent payable in respect of the year expiring should be deemed to be a satisfaction of the amount of rent so remitted. There were many cases in which it was quite possible the landlord might have made a remission of the rent which, under altered circumstances, he would not have made. He could himself mention a number of cases in which, under existing circumstances, there had been a remission, which remission, under the operation of the present Bill would never have been made, and he did not think the landlords should be bound by remissions they had made under very different conditions.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 17, leave out Sub-section (4).—(Captain Aylmer.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section 4 stand part of the Bill."

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

said, the Government were altogether unable to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH moved, in line 17, after "landlord," to insert— In writing under his hand, according to a form to be prescribed by the Land Commission. He explained that his object was simply to secure that the remission should have been made with some kind of formality, so that the Commission might be fully satisfied in regard to it, and also that there should be some additional security against collusion between the landlord and tenant. He thought that a little formality would be very advantageous for this purpose.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 17, after "landlord," insert "in writing under his hand according to a form to be prescribed by the Land Commission."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

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

COLONEL NOLAN

said, the Amendment seemed to him to be of a totally different character from the explanation of the right hon. Baronet. Under the clause as it would stand, if the Amendment wore adopted, it would be necessary that any remission of rent by a landlord to a tenant should have been specified upon a written form. Although the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet did not actually state so, any remission made in any other way would not be taken into account. Of course, in regard to the future, the Amendment would be of little consequence one way or the other, except that it would impose a condition of formality which would give trouble. He considered it an unnecessary formality, but not one that would be of importance in its consequences. In regard to past remissions it might, however, have a very prejudicial effect.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, that as a matter of principle the Government entertained very much the same view as the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan). He did not gather whether the right hon. Baronet proposed to make it a condition of the remission that the landlord should have had a certain written form at his hand before ho granted it; but if the right hon. Baronet did, then the Government certainly could not accept the Amendment. Any landlord who had made an abatement in the past must be bound by it now. It would be very hard to ask the tenant to produce a paper before he was enabled to obtain the advantage of the clause, when the abatement had been a substantial and a bonâ fide abatement.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he did not wish to press the Amendment.

MR. FINDLATER

said, he thought it would be objectionable to harass the tenants by documents of this kind. It was quite clear that the Land Commission would ascertain the fact that a remission had been made before they consented to entertain the application.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he would withdraw the Amendment; but ho hoped the Government would draw the attention of the Commission to the matter, so as to provide that there should be no collusion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GIBSON moved, in page 2, line 18, to leave out "expiring as aforesaid," and insert "for which such remission was made." The Amendment was directed to a question raised last night, and he had understood the Prime Minister to accept the principle of it. The object of the Amendment was to prevent an injustice being done by the Bill as it stood. Sub-section 4 of Clause 1, taken in connection with Sub-section 3, would enable remissions made for 1879 and 1880, of a large character, to be transferred to the year 1881, in respect of which year the landlord had never dreamt for a moment of making a remission. That was palpably absurd and unjust, and the Prime Minister was so impressed with the matter that he said he was willing to accept any Amendment that would prevent such a consummation being carried out. If the Government did not accept the Amendment, it would be necessary for him to state the arguments in support of it at some length, so as to make it overwhelmingly apply. Indeed, the matter was so plain that that fact constituted the difficulty of explaining the argument; but when be mentioned it last night, the Prime Minister accepted it in principle. He should be glad if any Member of the Government would now say whether they intended to accept the Amendment or not. As no one rose to give the assent of the Government, he presumed they were not prepared to accept the Amendment, and they must take upon themselves the responsibility of the delay which must be occasioned by putting him to the necessity of explaining over again what he had stated with clearness last night. He still maintained that Subsection 3 was a mass of confusion; but under that sub-section it was not only the possible but the necessary construction, taken in conjunction with Sub-section 4, that if the landlord in the year 1881 made a remission and settlement of arrears due in 1880, and said to the tenant—"I have now wiped off the arrears of 1880, and I am willing to allow you to start clear, and let bygones be bygones; if you are willing to give me 50 per cent for last year, I am willing to cry quits"—he could understand such a transaction, because it would be perfectly intelligible. But the effect of this subsection was violently to transfer that arrangement from the year 1880 to the year 1881, and to compel the landlord to treat a remission made in respect of 1879 under entirely different conditions, and to transfer it violently to 1881, which was a good year in Ireland, and in respect of which the rent was completely secured. The object of the Amendment was to secure that a remission of rent made by the landlord should be attributed to the year the persons themselves intended; and he ventured to think that that was so patently just that nothing to the contrary could be urged against it. The way in which the provision stood at present was this. The sub-section was a very short one, and it said— A remission by the landlord of the whole or any part of the rent payable in respect of the year expiring as aforesaid shall be deemed to be a satisfaction of the amount of rent so remitted. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND: Hear, hear!] The Solicitor General for Ireland cheered that statement. He (Mr. Gibson) did not know why, but, as the hon. and learned Gentleman did cheer it, he supposed he thought there was some mode of explaining it other than that which he had stated. [The SOLICI-TOR GENERAL for IRELAND: Hear, hear!] All he (Mr. Gibson) could say was, that he did not know what it was, and he would now proceed to show why it was he did not think it possible. The construction of Sub-section 3 was this. An artificial meaning in the earlier portion of the Bill had been given to the expression "the year expiring as aforesaid." That artificial meaning was contained in Sub-section a of Clause 1, which gave to the words "the year expiring as aforesaid" a definite and fixed meaning. Under Sub-section 3, every payment made by the tenant to the landlord "in or subsequent to the year expiring as aforesaid" was deemed to have been made on account of the rent payable in respect to that year; and then, in Sub-section 4, the remission by the landlord of the whole or any part of the rent payable in respect of the year "expiring as aforesaid" was to be deemed a satisfaction of the amount of rent so remitted. It followed that if the payment made under Sub-section 3 was to be attributed to the year 1881, then the remission must equally be attributed to that year. That, in short, was the plain legal and sole possible construction of the words. It appeared to him that the Government refused to deal with all the words taken together, and, therefore, it was uncertain how they proposed to deal with them in the ease of this sub-section. The proposal he now made was to insert in the sub-section words which, the Secretary of State for War and the Prime Minister, in clear and unqualified terms, last night said was the meaning and object of the Bill. The Prime Minister had taken up his (Mr. Gibson's) words, and said that the consequences he had pointed out were so patently unjust that he would accept any words to prevent such an injustice. He (Mr. Gibson) regretted that the right hon. Gentleman was not present. Although the right hon. Gentleman was a very difficult Minister to argue with, he, nevertheless, thoroughly understood the consequences of an argument, and rarely consented to run away from thorn. [A laugh.] Did the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) intimate by that utterance that he was of the same opinion?

MR. SYNAN

said, no; ho had looked upon the statement as a complimentary one to the Treasury Bench generally.

MR. GIBSON

said, the hon. Member would not compel him to withdraw the admission he had made. Taking up the Amendment, and assuming that the Government meant what they said, and that it was to be an honest provision, honestly worked, he could not understand why there should be any hesitation in accepting the Amendment. The reason ho proposed to leave out the words "expiring as aforesaid" was that the Committee might be able to get out of the technical difficulty of having the interpretation violently transferred from Sub-section 3 to Sub-section 4. By Subsection 3, payments made in antecedent years were to be transferred to the year 1881; and under Sub-section 4, the remissions made in antecedent years would be equally transferred. ["No!"] Well, that was a matter of opinion, and he would not surrender his own views unless his judgment was convinced in the matter. He asserted that that was the only construction the words wore capable of. He had considered the matter repeatedly, and until he heard arguments he had not yet heard, he should unquestionably maintain the opinion he had formed. Supposing the Government felt themselves in any difficulty, he would ask them to add, at the end of the clause, words which exactly carried out what was declared to be their intention —namely, the words of which he had given Notice further on— Provided such remission is actually made in such year, and on the actual amount of such rent, and no remission made for any previous year shall be credited to the year expiring as aforesaid. The last words in that Proviso were the words uttered by the Prime Minister last night. He (Mr. Gibson) had taken the very words of the right hon. Gentleman, and had put them in an Amendment before the House rose; and if that was the meaning which the Government attached to the clause and represented the desire which prevailed in their minds, why not put it into plain English so that everyone could understand what their meaning was, a meaning which, he must admit, would meet the justice of the case? He would reserve any further arguments until he heard the expression of the views of the Government, and it must be very different from what he expected before he would consent to surrender his own opinions.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 18, leave out "expiring as aforesaid," and insert "for which such remission was made."—(Mr. Gibson.)

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

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

said, his right hon. and learned Friend had expressed his views in forcible language, and had declared that he did not understand the meaning and intention of this sub-section of the clause. Now, notwithstanding the assertion of his right hon. and learned Friend, it appeared to him that the Amendment proposed by his right hon. and learned Friend would merely have the effect of confusing the Bill and destroying the plain meaning of the clause. Subsection 3 and Sub-section 4 dealt with two entirely different things. Sub-section 3 dealt with imputed payments, and not to rent which had been remitted. As to what his right hon. and learned Friend said in regard to being treated unfairly, so far from there being anything unfair in the transaction, it was stated last night that, under Sub-section 3, all payments on account of rent made in or subsequent to the year expiring as aforesaid, should be attributed to the year 1881. But Sub-section 4 dealt with a totally different matter. It dealt with reputed omissions, and it simply stated— A remission by the landlord of the whole or any part of the rent payable in respect of the year expiring as aforesaid shall be deemed to be a satisfaction of the amount of rent so remitted. That was not at all what was meant by imputed payment or otherwise, and an artificial meaning was given by his right hon. and learned Friend to the words "expiring as aforesaid." The real meaning of the sub-section was this. A remission by the landland of the whole or any part of the rent payable in respect to the year 1881 should be deemed —so far as the landlord was concerned— a satisfaction of the rent so remitted. It seemed to him to be impossible to explain the meaning of the sub-section more clearly.

MR. HEALY

asked how long this kind of discussion was to be continued by a small knot of Members above the Gangway, who brought forward the same arguments night after night? The Committee had now been four days upon this clause, and yet they still found the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) pursuing the same obstructive course and wasting the time of the Committee by repeating the same arguments over and over again. As the Prime Minister pointed out the other day, if a similar course had been taken by the Irish Members they would have been very summarily dealt with. He would suggest to the Chairman that the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), whose persistent obstruction of the Bill everybody knew should be Named.

MR. GIBSON

said, he was not in the slightest degree surprised at the arguments of his righthon. and learned Friend opposite; but he entirely failed to follow them. It appeared to him to be as clear a proposition as possible, that if this sub-section stood as it was it would lead to the most absurd and ridiculous consequences. He would repeat, as shortly and as concisely as he could, his arguments to show that the clause would cause endless confusion. Under Subsection 3, all payments made by the tenants of the rent of 1881, "expiring as aforesaid," were to be considered to be made in satisfaction of that year's rent. "Satisfied" was the Government word, and it had been pointed out that satisfaction could be given in either of two ways, partly by payment and partly by remission. Sub-section 3 dealt with questions of payment transferred from antecedent years—for instance, a payment made in 1880 to the year 1881. Pro tanto, that payment was a satisfaction. He now come to Sub-section 4; and the Committee would see that, in addition to an imputed satisfaction, there was an imputed remission—a remission by the landlord of the whole or any part of the rent payable "in respect of the year expiring as aforesaid." He would pause there. Under the previous sub-section the year "expiring as aforesaid" was given an artificial meaning. Payments made for 1879 or 1880, provided they were made in the year 1881, were deemed to be made "in the year expiring as aforesaid." They were, therefore, in this position. In Subsection 4, "the year expiring as aforesaid" meant the year expiring at the last gale day of the year 1881; whereas, under Sub-section 3, an entirely different meaning might be given to it, because it was there provided that any payment made in 1881 was to mean a payment in respect of the year just expiring. Therefore, in Sub-section 4, there might be two meanings—first, a natural meaning, and then an artificial meaning, and if nothing was done to amend the clause it would lead to endless confusion. Ho should, therefore, feel called upon to divide the Committee upon the point.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, that his right hon. and learned Friend had repeated his argument so often, and his meaning differed so much from the view which he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) conceived to be the only proper construction of the clause, that he had tried to discover what the object of his right hon. and learned Friend really was. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had carefully studied the clause more than once; and, after the best consideration he was able to give to it, it appeared to him to be absolutely free from the doubts which his right hon. and learned Friend attached to it. He would give his reasons very shortly for the opinion he held. The 3rd sub-section dealt with cases of the payment of rent. Pay- merit made in 1881, although not intended to apply to 1881, would apply to 1881 under the Act. The word "payment" was used because no question arose under Sub-section 3 as to satisfaction at all. It was not a question of remission, but of payment. They were transferred as payments to the year 1881. That was done as a matter of course. He now came to the 4th sub-section, which dealt not with the question of payment at all, but with the question of remission exclusively. What was to be included in remission by the landlord?— A remission by the landlord of the whole or any part of the rent payable in respect of the year expiring as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be a satisfaction of the amount of rent so remitted. What was meant by the words "the year expiring as aforesaid?" They could only mean the year 1881, and, therefore, the sub-section meant that the remission by the landlord of the whole or any part of the rent, payable in respect to the year 1881, should be deemed a satisfaction of the amount of rent so remitted. That was to say, that wherever there had been a remission of rent in the year 1831, it should be deemed to be tantamount to the payment of rent. But his right hon. and learned Friend maintained that the remission of rent in 1881 was the remission of rent for 1879 and 1880. Now, that he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) distinctly denied. The words were as clear and as plain as they could be; and the subsequent Amendment could not be accepted because it was quite contrary to the intentions of the sub-section. The words of that Amendment were— Provided such remission is actually made in such year, and on the actual amount of such rent, and no remission made for any previous year shall he credited to the year expiring as aforesaid. In other words, a remission now made in 1882 in respect of the rent of 1881 would not come within the clause. The Amendment, therefore, was extremely unsatisfactory. His right hon. And learned Friend stated that the Prime Minister had declared that his view coincided with that of the right hon. And learned Gentleman. No doubt, that was so. The Prime Minister said that if such a construction were to be placed upon the clause, it would be necessary to guard against it; but the Prime Minister never said, nor did he think, there was any necessity for altering the words of the Bill. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) was clearly of the same opinion, and he should, therefore, oppose the Amondmont.

MR. GIVAN

said, that payment made on account of rent, or receipts given on account of rent, would apply to last year's gale, and the clause would do away with the reprehensible practice which existed among some landlords of crediting the payment to other years. He would point out to the Government that the words "on account of rent," introduced in the 3rd. sub-section, might be said to have the same meaning as the words "on account of rent" in the Act of 1860, and, consequently, receipts given up to a particular period for rent in 1881 would not be said to apply to the year "expiring as aforesaid." It was important that the words "payment on account of rent," should not be taken to mean "payment on account" in that way.

MR. GIBSON

said, he would not divide the Committee upon the Amendment; but ho would allow it to be negatived, and he would take a division upon the last Amendment, slightly altering it so that it would read as follows:—"Provided no remission made for any previous year shall be credited to the year expiring as aforesaid."

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

said, that the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) was one that deserved consideration, and he would endeavour to deal with it before the Report. He did not think it would be necessary to make any alteration in the words as they were drawn in the Bill, but he would certainly consider the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. GIBSON

said, he begged to move, in line 19, after "remitted," to insert—"Provided no remission made for any previous year shall be credited to the year expiring as aforesaid."

MR. HEALY

rose to a point of Order. He wished to know if this Amendment could be moved now that the Committee had negatived the previous one, which, to his mind, expressed the same idea? The right hon. and learned Gentleman now proposed a Proviso that no remission made for any previous year, should be credited to the year expiring as aforesaid, and he contended that the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to do exactly the same thing by this Amendment as was proposed by the Amendment which had just been negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN

I should like to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation before the Amendment is put, but I will propose the Amendment to the House now.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 19, after the word "remitted," to insert the words "Provided no remission made for any previous year shall be credited to the year expiring as aforesaid."—(Mr. Gibson.)

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

MR. GIBSON

said, the mere fact of the Chairman proposing the Amendment showed that it was in Order, and he could not see any point in the objection which had been raised by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). He proposed to omit from the Amendment the words "such remission is actually made in such year and on the actual account of such rent." He thought that omission would obviate all mistakes, and the Amendment would then provide that no remission made for any previous year should be credited to the year expiring as aforesaid.

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

said, he understood his right hon. and learned Friend to submit this Amendment originally as a consequential one; but it was now proposed to the Committee as a distinct Amendment. In its altered form it met with the view of the Government, but he did not think that it made the matter at all more clear. The clause was sufficiently clear as it stood.

MR. GIBSON

said, he thought that it made the clause very much clearer.

MR. HEALY

said, the Committee had not yet seen the words proposed by the hon. Gentleman.

MR. GIBSON

They are on the Paper.

MR. HEALY

No.

THE CHAIRMAN

The words moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman are—"Provided no remission made for any previous year shall be credited to the year expiring as aforesaid."

MR. HEALY

said, he saw no reason why these words should be inserted. He did not think they made the clause any clearer at all; and he entertained a very natural suspicion of any words which came from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He would, therefore, suggest to the Government that they should adhere to their own words, and not accept the Amendment.

MR. SYNAN

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not divide the Committee, because the Amendment would now set the Government view of the matter beyond all question. It was contended that there was an ambiguity in the clause as it stood, and he was of that opinion himself. The object of the Amendment was to show that remissions made in the year 1880 should not be applied to the year 1881, and that was only common sense and common justice.

MR. SEXTON

said, the Amendment would limit the discretion of the landlord himself. Suppose the landlord was willing that a remission made in a previous year should be credited to the year 1881—and the case was quite conceivable, for the landlord in numerous cases might have accepted 80 per cent of the rent for 1879 or 1880, and would be quite willing that the abatement should be made applicable to "the year expiring as aforesaid"—if he were willing to allow the abatement in that manner, he should be allowed to do so.

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

said, there was no fetter imposed in the least degree. The remission would be a remission of the rent of 1881.

MR. HEALY

said, he really thought the Government were doing a dangerous thing in accepting an Amendment of this kind without any consideration whatever. The clause ran— A remission by the landlord of the whole or any part of the rent payable in respect of the year expiring as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be a satisfaction of the amount of rent so remitted. And the friends of the landlords now proposed to fetter the landlord's discretion by inserting the Proviso— That no remission made for any previous year shall be credited to the year expiring as aforesaid. He wanted to know why the remission on the part of the landlord should be tied by an Act of Parliament? If he wished to make it credited to the year expiring, why should he not be allowed to do so? As far as he was concerned, he should divide the Committee against the Amendment.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOB IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

If credited by the landlord as against the year 1881, it becomes a remission of rent for the year 1881.

MR. GIVAN

asked what would be the effect of the Amendment upon a remission made last year or the year before? Suppose a remission of 50 per cent had been made, was the landlord to revoke that altogether, or include it in the calculation of the rent of the Year 1881.

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

said, the Amendment did not touch that matter at all.

MR. FINDLATER

said, that, according to the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, unless the abatement was actually made in 1881, it would not be included, because the Amendment distinctly said—"provided such remission is actually made in such year."

MR. GIBSON

said, ho had struck those words out of the Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 213; Noes 31: Majority 182.—(Div. List, No. 261.)

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, it was generally admitted that there were some bad landlords in Ireland, and that being so, it was monstrous that these should be placed in the same category as the good landlords, and actually profit by the injustice they had committed. In those cases, when the Land Commission had fixed the judicial rent below the rent which the tenant had been previously paying, he proposed by the Amendment he was about to move, that the tenant should be allowed to deduct the amount that the Court decided to be in excess of the fair rent from the one year's rent which he was required under this Bill to pay to the landlord. Supposing that a man was rented at £30, and that another man, under a fairer landlord, was rented at £20 for a holding of the same value, it would be unjust that the land- lord who charged the £30 should have the benefit of the excess in the payment made by the tenant for the one year's arrears. It might be said that he was interfering with contract; but he need hardly say that this argument was actually exploded. The Act of last year interfered with contract, and so did the present Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] It was a development of political life, and they must stand to it. He therefore dismissed the argument at once, and asked the Committee to consider the Amendment on its own merits. He thought hon. Gentlemen opposite would agree that it was only fair and reasonable that a man who had charged a fair rent for his land, should not be in a worse position than the man who had charged an excessive rent.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 19, after the word "remitted," to insert as a new sub-section the words—"If in the case of any holding in respect of which an application under this section is made, the judicial rent of same has been fixed prior to the date of such application, and the amount of the judicial rent is less than the rent previously payable in respect of such holding, the tenant shall, in satisfaction of the rent payable in respect of the year expiring as aforesaid, be entitled to deduct from the amount thereof the difference between the amount of the judicial rent and the amount of the rent actually paid in respect of such holding for each of the six years prior to the date of such application."—(Mr. Lubouchere.)

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

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, In line 3, to leave out from the word "application," to end of the Amendment, in order to insert the words "the judicial rent shall be the rent payable for the year expiring as aforesaid,"—(Mr. Givan,) —instead thereof.

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

MR. GIVAN

said, he would remind the Committee that in the Act of last year the judicial rent did not come into operation until the gale day subsequent to the fixing of the rent, and, therefore, the old rents—the rack rents and excessive rents—would be in force for the purpose of "the year expiring as aforesaid." If, then, the tenant was to have relief, he should have relief of the kind indicated.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he appreciated the motives which induced his hon. Friend to bring forward this Amendment. He believed be wished, as far as possible, to make the Bill auxiliary to the Land Act of last year. It was impossible for anyone interested in the recent legislation not to consider the connection between the two measures; and it was equally impossible for anyone anxious that the Land Question in Ireland should be settled on a good basis not to wish that the present measure should induce people to apply for the benefits of the Land Act. But, after having considered this question very carefully, the Government had come to the conclusion that it would not be possible to introduce a provision that would affect the Act in the manner proposed by hon. Gentlemen. For Parliamentary reasons which were not of the lightest, they could not adopt the Amendment before the Committee. With respect to the argument of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), it was impossible not to wish that the landlord who had charged a moderate rent for his land should be placed in no worse position than the rack-renting landlord. But the hon. Member not only distinguished between these two classes of landlords; it must be allowed that he also distinguished between two classes of tenants. It had been said on frequent occasions that the Bill was a discouragement to the honest and hardworking tenant, and an encouragement to tenants of the opposite sort; but it seemed to him that the Amendment of the hon. Member would give a great advantage to the prudent and lucky tenant over the tenant who, though equally prudent, was less lucky; for the tenant who happened to be placed high on the list of applicants, and had had the judicial rent in his case fixed early, would have the opportunity of availing himself of the Amendment, while others less fortunate would be excluded. It had to be remembered that the operation of the Land Act would not be so rapid as they hoped the operation of this Bill would be when it passed into law, and, therefore, the fact of the judicial rent not having been fixed would exclude many from the benefit of the clause, and the effect of this would be largely to increase the discontent which was spread over the country. But the Government had a stronger reason for objecting to this Amendment. It was impossible for them to depart from the principle of not interfering with the contracts of the past. Although the interesting allusion of the hon. Member for Northampton to the tendency of modern legislation was cheered by hon. Members opposite and by some hon. Members on that side of the House, he would point out that the landlord's right to receive the annual rent which he got before the case came before the Land Commission was the same as that under which he received the reduced rent under the operation of the Land Act.

MR RYLANDS

said, he acknowledged the great difficulty which his right hon. Friend had expressed on the part of the Government of dealing with an Amendment of this kind. Probably, in the exact terms in which the Amendment was proposed, his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton would not be likely to press it; but it must be borne in mind that the rents in Ireland were being reduced under the decisions of the Land Court 25 per cent. Now, he believed the entire rental of Ireland was estimated at £16,000,000, and this percentage of reduction would consequently represent a sum of £4,000,000 a-year; but, even if it were only £2,000,000 a-year that the Irish tenants had boon paying in excess of the total fair rent, anyone must see that this must have a very material effect on the arrears due from them to the landlords. His hon. Friend was anxious, if possible, that, in dealing with the arrears, there should be an equitable regard to the circumstances under which the arrears had accrued. He said that, while they were most anxious to protect the landlord at the expense of the tenant with regard to the tenant right, they ought also, if possible, to do something for the tenant in the unfortunate position in which he was placed in consequence of the arrears which had accumulated through rack-renting. He was not prepared to say exactly in what form this was to be done; but the subject was one well worthy of the attention of the Government, that, in dealing with the arrears, some attention should be paid to the circumstances under which those arrears had accrued.

MR. SYNAN

said, he had no objection to the benefit which the hon. Mem- ber for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) intended to confer on the Irish tenants. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had said one word in reply to the argument of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) in support of his Amendment. The only allusion to it on his part was when he said that the tenants who had not had the good fortune to get a judicial rent fixed for their holdings would be jealous of those who had. But he maintained there would be no jealousy of the kind in Ireland on this subject. On the contrary, ho said that those who had their judicial rents fixed would be complimented by the tenants who had not had that good fortune, He could see no difficulty whatever in the way of the Government saying that if a judicial rent were fixed, the judicial rent for 1881 should be the amount payable by the tenant who availed himself of the relief afforded by this Bill. It appeared to him that both justice and reason were on the side of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan), and he presumed the hon. Member for Northampton would be disposed to withdraw the latter part of his Amendment.

MR. CHARLES RUSSELL

said, he thought there was a good deal of force in some of the objections urged by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). His hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan) was correct in saying that the Chief Secretary had not addressed himself to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan), and the reason was probably because it was not on the Notice Paper. That Amendment appeared to him both moderate and reasonable, and he trusted it would be adopted. Hon. Members would be aware it had been anticipated that the landlords and tenants would meet and settle their differences without going into the Land Court; but that had proved not to be the case, and it was now known that a great length of time must elapse before judicial rents could be fixed for all the holdings. The effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan was simply that where the judicial rent had been ascertained, then for the purpose of considering the amount of the rent for the year in arrear, which had to be paid by the tenant under this Bill, the standard of rent judicially ascertained should be referred to, and not the rack rent previously paid. It seemed to him that this proposal was a sensible one, involving no interference with the object of the Government in keeping the lines of the two measures distinct, and, therefore, he trusted it would moot with the approval of the Committee.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he did not attach much weight to the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had used against his clause. One of those arguments was, that because you could not do justice to all you ought not to do justice to some. The other argument was an old friend—"the sanctity of contract;" and practically it amounted to this, that because the Government had most legitimately taken away a large amount of property from Irish landlords, therefore they ought to regard what remained as doubly sacred. He preferred his own Amendment to that of the hon. Member for Monaghan; but, as he always wished to consult the wishes of the House, he was willing to withdraw it. In doing so, he ventured to suggest that the Committee should accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan, and that then, if the sub-section were not accepted with the Amendment as it stood, they should go to a division upon it.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, that almost all the arguments in favour of the Amendment were grounded upon the erroneous supposition that the landlord was to be paid the whole of the arrears of rent. But it was well known that only one year out of the three, or six, as the case might be, was to be paid under the Bill, and, therefore, the question only involved the difference between the judicial rent and what was called the rack rent for one year.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) practically ordered that the one year's rent should be paid to the landlord in its reduced shape before it became legally due. The Government could not make the clause retrospective for the benefit of one class of tenants— they must adhere to the lines of the Bill as it then stood.

MR. HEALY

said, the Government did not appear to have much faith in their own Bill. The Irish landlords had been proved to be, on the whole, a set of thieves——

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

rose to Order. He asked the Chairman to rule that expressions of the kind made use of by the hon. Member for Wexford, in the present state of Ireland, were disorderly. They led to the commission of murder and other crimes.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member for Wexford used the words upon his own responsibility. The question of Order did not arise. If, however, an hon. Member heard strong words used, it would be competent to him to move that they be taken down.

MR. HEALY

said, the reductions of rent made by the Land Commission showed that the landlords had been robbing their tenants.

MR. FITZ-PATRICK

said, he would move that those words be taken down.

Motion made, and Question, "That the words 'the landlords have been robbing their tenants' be taken down,"—(Mr. Fitz-Patrick,)—put, and negatived.

MR. HEALY

said, he had met the statement frequently made in that House, that there were dishonest tenants, by the statement that there were also dishonest landlords. This Amendment, he said, was intended to meet the case of the dishonest landlords who had been rack-renting and robbing their tenants. The country had declared that this system should not continue; and the Amendment proposed to enact that where the rent was shown to be unfair, that unfair rent should not be paid by the tenant for the purpose of this Bill. It appeared to him a remarkable thing that the Government should refuse to adopt this Amendment in view of the fact that the rents paid by the tenants were declared to be unfair by the Land Court.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, although the words of the hon. Gentleman might not have been technically out of Order, he thought they should not be allowed to pass without comment, and, therefore, he called on the Government to express their opinion as to the propriety of such language being used in that House.

MR. TREVELYAN

said, he thought no one could have any doubt as to the opinion of the Government with refer- ence to expressions of the kind they had just heard. The hon. Member for Wexford had, in his opinion, used an expression unworthy of the House and unworthy of himself. He said unworthy of himself, because, although the hon. Member allowed himself a certain license of expression, he sometimes made valuable contributions to the debates. Although he regretted much the particular expression which the hon. Member for Portarlington (Mr. Fitz-Patrick) had moved to be taken down, he must say that there might very well be some difference of opinion as to whether it came within the extreme category of expressions contemplated by the Rules and customs of the House. He had heard expressions equally strong made use of in that House in times of great political excitement—words of strong and exaggerated metaphor. But with regard to the epithet used by the hon. Member, he made no reservation whatever. He hoped the hon. Member, whatever might be the strength of his own feelings, would see the propriety of withdrawing the particular epithet used towards the Irish landlords.

THE CHAIRMAN

I think it right to state why it was that I could not rule the expression of the hon. Member out of Order. The question was one for the House, and not the Chairman, to consider. I thoroughly agree with the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that the word employed was extremely improper to be used in debate, and I trust the hon. Member will withdraw it.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, he felt, of course, as the Chairman had expressed it, that the word was one which it was improper to use in debate. He objected to it on that ground, undoubtedly; but he also objected to it on the ground that, in the present state of Ireland, such words applied to the Irish landlords as a body in that House, by a Member of the House, and allowed to pass unchallenged and unrebuked, were likely to have a very prejudicial effect, and even to encourage and suggest criminal and violent conduct. He thought it the duty of hon. Members to protest against such words being used on account of the bad impression which might go abroad if they were allowed to pass unchallenged.

MR. CHAELES RUSSELL

said, he disapproved of expressions of the kind made use of by the hon. Member for Wexford, not only because they might have an injurious effect out-of-doors, but because they weakened the force of the argument of the hon. Member who employed them. There were few Members of the House, in his opinion, more capable than the hon. Member for Wexford of supporting their views by cogent arguments. But, he asked, was it worse to say that the landlords were robbers than to say that the tenants were dishonest? For his own part, he deprecated the application of such terms equally to both classes.

MR. HEALY

said, he desired to acknowledge the courtesy of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but with regard to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), he must point out that, while ho took exception to words used on those Benches, hon. Members above the Gangway on that side of the House were in the habit of speaking of himself and his hon. Friends as thieves, assassins, and robbers. There was scarcely a Member of the Conservative Party who had not used most hurtful expressions with regard to Irish Members. As the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) had said, they heard continually of dishonest tenants. It was not a week ago since they heard of Irish tenants going off to America with their plunder. Those men, however, had not been proved to be dishonest, although it had been proved in the Land Courts that the landlords had, to the extent of 25 per cent, extracted unjust rents from the tenants.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

wished to know whether the hon. Member withdrew the words which he had been directed by the Chairman to withdraw?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he had expressed a hope that the hon. Member would withdraw the expression made use of; but he could not direct him to do so.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, as he had always been in favour of the judicial rent dating from the time of application, so that the tenants might all stand on the same footing, he should vote for the Amendment before the Com- mittee in the form proposed by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan). For the Amendment as originally put forward he could not have voted. He was inclined to believe that, if matters were left as they were, a great many landlords would make a settlement with the tenants with regard to the one year's rent which had to be paid to obtain the benefit of the clause; but that if the rule that the tenants were to pay on the judicial rent were once laid down, the landlords would hold out for the judicial rent on all occasions, and this he did not think would be for the benefit of the tenant.

Question put, and negatived.

Words inserted.

Question put, That the words 'If in the case of any holding in respect of which an application under this section is made, the judicial rent of same has been fixed prior to the date of such application, the judicial rent shall be the rent payable for the year expiring as aforesaid' be there inserted.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 231: Majority 181.—(Div. List, No. 262.)

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, as it was desirable that all persons interested in the amount paid by the tenant into the hands of the Land Commissioners should have notice of the amount being about to be paid over by the Commissioners, he begged to move words which would give persons interested an opportunity of being heard on the subject when necessary.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 27, after the word "shall," insert "having first given public notice in the prescribed manner."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 28, leave out "as landlord."—(Mr. Givan.)

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

MR. TOTTENHAM

said, as he understood the Amendment next on the Paper in his name could not be moved in its present shape, he would not trouble the Committee with arguments in favour of it on that occasion; but he expressed the hope that the Government would consider the propriety of inserting some words in the Bill which would prevent the incidence of public taxation on those portions of the rent which the landlord was compelled to forego under the provisions of this Bill.

MR. CHILDERS

said, although he was not prepared to express a decided opinion upon the point then, the matter should receive consideration.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, if the Amendment he was about to move were not necessary, the Attorney General for Ireland would probably be able to state the reasons. In the case of the Parliamentary grant in relief of the Lancashire operatives in 1862, the question was raised by Mr. Bernal Osborne as to whether persons in receipt of public bounty were not thereby precluded from exercising the Parliamentary franchise? On that occasion Sir George Grey replied that under the Common Law persons in receipt of bounty or money given in charity by the State were disfranchised by the 3rd section of the Poor Act of 1832. Persons in receipt of parochial relief were disqualified also, that provision being extended to counties in the Act of 1857. He knew the Amendment would be regarded in some quarters as being vindictive; but he begged to assure the Committee that it had about it nothing of that character. The simple object was to ascertain whether persons who received charity, for it was nothing else, under the Act would be disfranchised? The Bill had been spoken of by the Government as a measure for the relief of poverty. The Prime Minister himself had stated that this was the object of the Bill, and he (Sir Herbert Maxwell) wished to know what was the difference in respect of the franchise between persons who received relief under this Act and those who received parochial relief? He had no wish to cast any discredit upon persons who obtained the advantage offered by the Bill; but he thought it should carry with it the disqualification imposed by the Common Law on persons who had recourse to the State in order to meet their private obligations.

MR. PARNELL

rose to Order. He asked whether the proposed Amendment came within the four corners of the Bill? It appeared to him that the hon. Mem- ber proposed to disqualify certain persons from the exercise of the Parliamentary franchise, whereas the title of the Bill was, "A Bill to make provision respecting certain Arrears of Rent in Ireland."

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he had considered the point of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and had decided, looking at all the circumstances of the case, that the hon. Baronet could move.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, so far from intending to impose any disqualification on the tenant who received the benefit of this Act, if the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would read the first line of the Amendment, he would see that the proposal was to exempt the tenant from what might be the bearing of the Common Law upon the case. He was speaking in comparative ignorance of what was the bearing of the Common Law upon the case, and he awaited the explanation of one of the Law Officers upon the point. But if, as he supposed, a person receiving relief under this Act would be disqualified from exercising the franchise during the year in which that relief was given, then he proposed to release him from that inability in consideration of his paying up his just debts accruing to the 31st day of December last year. He trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would inform the Committee what was the bearing of the Common Law on this subject.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 33, after sub-section (6) insert,—"(7) Any tenant in whose behalf antecedent arrears may be extinguished shall be subject to the same disabilities, in regard to the Parliamentary franchise, as persons receiving relief from the public funds, unless and until they pay the gales of rent due up to the making of the order on their behalf by the Land Commission, and subsequent to the last gale day of the tenancy in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one."—(Sir Herbert Maxwell.)

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

MR. CHILDERS

said, that the Bill implied that the tenants who had their arrears extinguished were not reduced to a state of poverty, because they would continue to work their farms in an effective manner. It was true that the tenants would be benefited by the Bill; but it was the landlords who would receive a sum of money from the State; and therefore it seemed to him that it was they, if anybody, who should be disfranchised. He could not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, and trusted it would not he pressed.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, he had already quoted the Prime Minister as describing the Bill to be a measure in relief of poverty. Now, he put it to the Committee whether, in making use of that expression, the right hon. Gentleman intended to convey that the Bill was for the relief of the landlords or of the tenants? If the Bill were really for the relief of the landlords, he did not think Gentlemen sitting on that side below the Gangway would have been found so readily voting for it. He asked for information as to the bearing of the existing law upon the position of those tenants whose obligations, under this Bill, were to be met for them by the State.

MR. CHILDERS

said, the Government were of opinion that relief of the kind contemplated by the Bill certainly did not disqualify. When he was asked whether the Bill was for the relief of the landlord or the tenant, ho could only reply that it was in relief of both. Ho was personally acquainted with Irish landlords who were hoping for the passing of the Bill; but, whatever might be the correctness of that view, ho was satisfied that the question could not be dealt with by the Committee in the manner proposed by the hon. Baronet.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, he was satisfied with having moved the Amendment, and with having obtained the reply that the relief would not disqualify the tenant who obtained it. With the permission of the Committee, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, after sub-section (6.) add:—(7.) "The onus of proving his inability to discharge antecedent arrears under this Act shall rest with the tenant."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

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

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

said, although he saw no difficulty in the way of accepting the words moved by the right hon. Baronet, yet, as they appeared to him to be quite unnecessary, having regard to the clause as now framed, he suggested that the Amendment should not be pressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PARNELL

said, the Amendment he was about to move was intended to apply a remedy to a practical defect in this Bill, which if allowed to continue would render the Bill, so far as its compulsory character went, useless. If the Amendment he proposed to move, or something amounting to it, were not accepted, it would result that those landlords who might have been disposed, under a compulsory arrangement, to permit their tenants to have the benefit of the Arrears Clause of the Act of last year, would arrange with their tenants under this Act, while those landlords who were not disposed to extend any mercy to their tenants would be in a position to deprive them of their holdings. As the law stood there was no power in any Court to stay proceedings for the recovery' of rent by action or otherwise. The County Courts had the power of postponing the issue of decrees and the execution of ejectments if an application were made by the tenant and good cause shown.

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

, interposing, said, it would be in the recollection of the Committee that he had undertaken to bring up a clause on Report dealing with cases where proceedings were pending. The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member went in the same direction. The Government, he repeated, had prepared a clause, which they would submit on the Report, and which would cover almost the entire ground taken up by the hon. Member.

MR. PARNELL

said, he thought it would be better that the whole subject should be dealt with in one clause; but after the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman he should not move.

MR. W. H. SMITH moved to add at the end of the clause the words— Any application by a tenant under this section shall set forth the property of which the said tenant was in possession, or to which he was entitled, when the arrears accrued due, and the property of which he was in possession, or to which he was entitled, on the date of his application. His object was to prevent collusions as far as possible in a matter of this kind; and he thought that if the tenant was called upon to make a statement in writing he would carefully consider what it was that he put down. He had no wish to cast any imputation upon the tenants generally; but there might be a disposition on their part to make very wild statements as to their capacity to meet the obligations they had entered into, and an unwillingness to conform with strict truth to the actual facts of the case when they found themselves dealing with the money of the State and the money of the landlord. The Bill was one which, undoubtedly, would tend to the demoralization of the tenant. There was very little doubt that it would have that effect, and it should be the endeavour of Parliament to diminish that demoralizing effect as much as possible. He hoped that everyone who was entitled to relief under the Bill would obtain it, but no one who was not entitled to relief ought to obtain it; and, therefore, the machinery by which the Bill was to be carried into operation should be distinct and clear, and the mode of procedure prescribed without any doubt or hesitation. Every tenant making an application for relief under the Act ought to be called upon to make a distinct declaration in Court as to the property of which he was in possession, so that there should be no mistake. He trusted the Government would see the necessity of inserting some such condition as this, and he would, therefore, move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, at end, add,—"Any application by a tenant under this section shall set forth the property of which the said tenant was in possession or to which he was entitled when the arrears accrued due, and the property of which he was in possession or to which he was entitled on the date of his application."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)

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

MR. CHILDERS

said, he did not think the words would come in very well in the place suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith). He entirely agreed with the object of the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not think it was necessary to set out these words. The Commissioners would be the persons who should say what information ought to be required before they were in a position to arrive at a decision in reference to any particular claim. If the Amendment were adopted they might be required to go into transactions which occurred six or seven years ago. If it were necessary to introduce these words at all, they would be more properly introduced into the 7th clause. He did not think any such provision was necessary in the Bill at all; but if it should be necessary, then the Land Commissioners would be the proper persons to set out the nature of the information required. He hoped the right. hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he was ready to admit that there was some analogy between this case and an ordinary case of insolvency; but he wished to point out that when they had to deal with something like 100,000 cases the analogy between such a vast amount of cases and the few cases which went into the Bankruptcy Court ceased altogether, and the forms which applied to the application should be made as simple in their details as possible. He had no doubt that the Court would prescribe comprehensive rules, and that they would insure some mode of dealing rapidly with the case, so as to prevent delay in the working of the measure. He was afraid that the adoption of the Amendment would only occasion delay.

MR. GBEGORY

said, he was of opinion that the Committee should prescribe, as far as possible, all the directions for the instruction of the Land Commissioners. He was of opinion that they ought to indicate to the Commissioners that an application for relief should be made in writing, and that they should be made in a prescribed form. The Bill might contain a Schedule giving the form.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

wished to point out to the Committee that the setting forth of the information referred to in the Amendment might tend very much to mislead the Court, because it proposed that the tenant who made an application under the section should set forth the property of which he was in possession, or to which he was entitled, when the arrears accrued due. But that would leave an important element in the case out of consideration altogether, because, although he might be possession of, or entitled to, certain property, the condi- tion did not require him to set forth what his liabilities were; and it was, therefore, only a one-sided representation that was contemplated by the Amendment, which, instead of being a guidance to the Court, would tend to mislead it as to the circumstances of the tenant. He thought that was a fatal objection to the Amendment.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, the object of the Amendment was to apply to the payment of rent, and not to any liabilities or any other purposes; and, therefore, it was not necessary for the liabilities of the tenant to be set forth. If it were intended to make the measure a Bankruptcy Bill, then, of course, the observations of the hon. Gentleman would be relative. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to assent to the principle of the Amendment, but to object to its introduction in the present place.

MR. CHILDERS

said, he had pointed out that if it were necessary to insert the Amendment at all, which he did not think it was, the proper place for inserting it would be in the 7th clause, and not in the present one.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he confessed that he attached considerable importance to information of the tenant's condition at the period when his arrears accrued due. The Land Commission would not be doing their duty if they did not ask and ascertain from the tenant what had become of any property he possessed at the time he ceased to pay rent. He intended to cast no aspersion upon anybody whatever; but it was only right and proper, when they were dealing with public money, as they were dealing with it here, and dealing with public morality, that they should follow up the matter strictly and carefully, and he should certainly not be satisfied unless some provision were made in the Bill in the manner he had suggested.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the Amendment?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he was willing to withdraw it at that stage.

MR. WARTON

regretted that there was so strong a disposition on the part of the Government to leave everything to the Court. Such important matters as those raised by the right hon. Gentleman laid at the root of the tenant's right to have this relief, and the conditions under which the application was to be made ought to be distinctly stated in the Bill, and not left to be settled by the Commissioners under the 7th section. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would bear in mind that it was of the utmost importance that as little as possible should be left to the Land Commission in the shape of framing rules; and he trusted that as this particular question laid at the very root of the tenant's right to get relief, it would be borne in mind by the Government when the 7th section came under consideration.

MR. FINDLATER

said, he trusted that the Government would not allow a proposal of this sort to be entertained.' He thought it ought to be left to the Land Commission to frame what rules they would require in regard to evidence on matters of this sort. According to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, it might be thought that the tenant was making a statement of his affairs in the matter of his bankruptcy.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, that if the Bill was really to be carried out, and the inquiry was to be a real one, as the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had asked the Committee to make it, then there ought to be an inquiry similar to that proposed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith). He trusted that at the proper time his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) would again propose his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, this would be a legitimate opportunity to review the clause, and to state the feelings which hon. Members on that side of the House entertained with regard to it. However, he would assure the Committee that it was not his intention to go again into questions which had already been fully discussed; but simply to say that, as far as his judgmeut was concerned, no alteration had been made in the clause which at all removed the objections he entertained to it. It was true that an important Amendment had been introduced by the Prime Minister, by which some direction was given to the Land Commission as to the mode in which they were to consider the tenant's interest in deciding upon his ability to pay; but, as far as he could judge, that direction was so vague that one-half of its usefulness would be lost. Gift and compulsion were the two pillars on which the measure had been said to rest. These pillars still remained embodied in the clause, although it seemed, from last night's declaration on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that both were to be ignored in another part of the Bill. He felt so strongly the great objections that existed to the clause that he should say "No" to the Question that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that before the clause passed he wished to take that opportunity of removing a misapprehension which he found prevailed the other day in regard to some remarks of his respecting the Land Commission. His attention had been called, through the medium of a friend, to the fact that the Chief Commissioner had felt himself aggrieved by some observations which he (Mr. J. Lowther) had made, which he thought placed an unfair construction on a speech of his (Mr. Justice O'Hagan's) delivered upon the opening of the Land Commission. He (Mr. J. Lowther), in moving that the words "Land Commission" be struck out of the clause, had referred to what he considered to have been the lâches of the Land Commission; and he was reported to have said that the Chief Commissioner had laid down the doctrine that a tenant, apart altogether from his industry and capacity, should be able to live and thrive. He (Mr. J. Lowther) at first was only supplied with a brief report of the remarks the learned Judge was alleged to have made; but he had since been supplied with an exact report of what Mr. Justice O'Hagan said, and he found that what the learned Judge stated was this, that— A rent which might be fairly paid, and yet permit a tenant not deficient in those qualities of industry and providence which are expected in any walk of life to live and thrive. He was glad to have an opportunity of correcting the matter, and without, at the present moment, expressing any opinion as to the propriety of those remarks, ho must observe that the qualification introduced into them seemed in the case of Professor Baldwin and other Sub-Commissioners to have been re- garded very much in the light of a well-known intimation —"Don't nail his ears to the pump." However, he was glad to have the opportunity of making this explanation, and of removing any misapprehension which might have arisen from what fell from him on a former occasion. The report of his (Mr. Lowther's) speech had been somewhat condensed, and to that fact was due some of the misapprehension which had arisen. In regard to the clause, ho entirely agreed with what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). He had no wish to make a second reading speech on this occasion, and he did not intend to avail himself of this opportunity for making one. Ho had not, as a matter of fact, made a speech, except a few observations partaking more of the nature of a personal explanation, either on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill or on the Motion "That the Speaker do leave the Chair;" and as the Government had promised to give further consideration to the question as to how far the tenant's interest in his holding could be rendered a security for the landlord and for the British taxpayer, he would not now discuss the clause. He would not, upon the present occasion, even say whether it was right or wrong that the property of the landlord should be taken away and handed over to his tenant without compensation. That was a matter of a very debatable character. He hoped the Government, at a later stage, would bring up words to enable the recently-acquired property of the tenant to be made available for the liquidation of his debts and the protection of the British taxpayer. In regard to the clause, they had been promised several Amendments at a later stage. He was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War state just now, in reply to his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith), that the present condition of the tenant's financial affairs was the only thing to be considered by the Government in framing their Amendments. What was necessary for the purpose of the protection of the taxpayers as well as the landlords, and was also necessary as a protection from the demoralizing effect of the Bill, was that it should be clearly proved to the satisfaction of the tribunal constituted under the Act that the tenant was incapacitated by what might be called misfortune from paying his debts at the time those debts became due. That should be clearly borne in mind, and he thought that what the Secretary of State for War had said was a falling-off from the intimation which the Prime Minister had conveyed at an earlier stage—namely, that the tribunal must be satisfied that the tenant was incapable of paying rent at the time the rent accrued due. He hoped that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman were not to be taken as betokening any falling away from that position so far as the clause was concerned. However it might be amended his objections to it would not be pared down in the slightest degree. His objection to the whole Bill, he was bound in candour to add, was one of principle, and in no shape or form could any of its details be amended so as to remove his objections.

MR. CHILDERS

remarked, that what ho had said, or intended to say, was that the words that were proposed would carry the inquiry back six or seven years, and that what had to be investigated was the present inability of the tenant to pay. He did not know what the nature of the inquiry might be, or how far it might be carried; but ho thought that all matters of that kind should be left to the Land Commission. It would be quite out of the question to compel a tenant, who might have been in trouble since the famine year, to prove what his circumstances had been every half-year. Ho would not, however, continue the discussion, but would follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), and avoid entering into contentious matter. He was glad to hear the statement of the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) in reference to the speech of Mr. Justice O'Hagan, because the misunderstanding in regard to what Mr. Justice O'Hagan had said had not been limited to that House, but had been carried further.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 (Modification in case of evicted tenant when restored to holding).

MR. HEALY

said, he had given Notice of various Amendments to this clause; but although they appeared formidable on paper, they were merely in the nature of verbal Amendments. He proposed now, in line 6, after the word "aforesaid," to insert the words "and full costs." The clause said that the Court should deal with the case as if the tenant had paid all arrears of rent up to the last gale day in the year expiring as aforesaid; but, otherwise, should proceed in manner directed by the Act of 1860. The Act of 1860 was the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act, or commonly known as Deasy's Act; but Deasy's Act, which this clause proposed to carry out, did not use the words at all. On the contrary, the words in Deasy's Act were "rent and costs," and unless the word "costs" were put in the 71st section of Deasy's Act it would not be put into operation. Deasy's Act required the tenant to have paid all rent and costs. He presumed that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland would soon be sitting as a Judge; and if a case came before him in which it was shown that the tenant had only paid the arrears, and not the costs, then, undoubtedly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would decide that he had not complied with the terms of Deasy's Act. Ho thought that this Amendment was necessary in order to make Deasy's Act operative.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 6, after "aforesaid," insert "and full costs."—(Mr. Healy.)

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

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

said, he was unable to accept the Amendment. The effect of the proposal would be to place the tenant who had satisfied his rent in the same position as if he had paid both rent and costs. The Amendment did not even provide that the costs should be paid by the Treasury or the State. Now, the provision of the Bill was that the landlord, having incurred costs in getting a judgment, the tenant was only to be reinstated after paying the rent and costs; but if the Amendment were adopted, it would place the tenant who had only paid the rent in the same position as another tenant who had paid both rent and costs, and, in the first case, the landlord would be out of pocket to the extent of his costs. A I proposition of that nature he considered to be altogether unreasonable.

MR. HEALY

said, the misapprehension of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the effect of the Amendment was a natural one, because, in point of fact, although his Amendment alluded to the question of costs, it did not in reality touch the question of costs at all. Deasy's Act said it should be lawful for a tenant to be reinstated on payment of rent and costs, which was to say that the tenant was to fulfil both conditions of paying rent and costs. But in this section no mention was made of the word "costs" at all, and, therefore, Deasy's Act could not be brought into operation. A Judge sitting in Court would say the Act required the Court to deal with the case as if the tenant had paid all arrears of rent; but if the tenant had only paid up all arrears of rent under Deasy's Act the Court would do nothing at all. He must have paid not only the arrears of rent, but costs as well. It did not prejudice the landlord in the slightest degree, because if the Court was not satisfied that the tenant had paid the arrears of rent and costs it would do nothing at all. If the Government thought the section carried out the law he would be quite satisfied; but his own opinion was that it did not.

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

said, that, as the Bill now stood, the tenant asking for restitution would have to comply with the provisions of Deasy's Act, which were that he should have paid the rent and costs. The result of the Amendment would be that the tenant, on satisfying the rent, was to be put in the same position as if he had satisfied the rent and costs; whereas, by the clause, he would not only have to satisfy the rent, but to pay the costs also.

MR. PARNELL

said, it seemed to him that the Amendment was required in order to place the tenant on the same footing as a tenant under the Act of 1860, and unless they adopted the Amendment he did not think they would put the tenant in that position. A tenant who had not been actually evicted would be entitled to save himself from eviction on paying rent, leaving costs to remain as an ordinary debt. He was not compelled to pay costs in order to prevent himself from being evicted; but under this clause he was compelled to pay both rent and costs in order to be restored. His hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) proposed that he should be restored on the same footing, as regarded costs, as under Deasy's Act; and he gathered that costs could be wiped away, but would still remain as an ordinary debt, which could be recovered in the ordinary way. The nonpayment of costs, however, would not be a bar to the restitution of the tenant. He would, therefore, submit that if it was the wish of the Government to restore the tenant, and place him in the same position as regarded costs as the tenant who had not been evicted, they must accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy).

MR. SYNAN

said, he thought the question had been discussed under a misapprehension. The clause provided for two things. It provided what the Court of Commissioners was to do, and it provided, also, what the Court, under Deasy's Act, was to do. What the Commissioners were to do was to make an order under this Act, and the costs had nothing to do with that order. But under Deasy's Act it was necessary that the person restored should have paid both rent and costs.

MR. FINDLATER

said, he concurred in the view expressed by the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Synan).

MR. GIVAN

regretted that he was compelled to disagree with his Colleague (Mr. Findlater). He thought the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was perfectly right, and unless the Amendment was adopted the clause would entirely fail to carry out its intention. Under what circumstances would the Act of 1860 come into operation? It would come into operation by the payment of rent and costs. Under what circumstances, as the clause stood, was it intended to make the Act come into operation. By a statement which did not comply with the condition of Deasy's Act—that was to say, it fell short in one vital point, and if the tenant applied for an order and asserted that the rent only had been discharged, then the Court would have nothing to do but say—"You have not complied with Duasy's Act, because you have not paid rent and. costs, and, therefore, you have no right to come here." He considered the ob- jection of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) to the clause was a very serious objection, and that it might defeat the operation of it altogether.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, that the Bill dealt with rent, and not with costs. If a tenant were evicted under Deasy's Act, the law gave him a locus pœnitentiœ, and enabled him to come back at any period within six months on the equitable terms of satisfying all the rent due, and indemnifying the landlord for the cost of the proceedings he had undertaken. Under this Bill, it was provided that the tenant who had paid his rent, even though he were evicted by a competent Court, should be treated as having paid his rent once for all, and for all purposes, and, among others, for the purpose of obtaining restitution; but he must not only have paid the rent, hut also have paid the costs. It might be a great pity that the tenant should be required, before he was restored, to pay costs as well as the rent; but when ho obtained the order he was treated as if he had paid everything, and the Government could not consent to any Amendment that would defeat the landlord's right to obtain costs.

MR. GIVAN

said, the clause empowered the Court to deal with cases in which the tenant had paid all arrears of rent and costs. The Court had no power to deal with a tenant who had paid arrears of rent only.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL TOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, the Court would have no power to deal with a man who had paid his rent unless he had also paid his costs.

MR. HEALY

said, he was astonished that the Government would not accept the argument of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan). This Bill proposed to put in operation certain portions of Deasy's Act. Now, Deasy's Act only came into operation where the rent and costs had been paid, and this Bill said the Court should deal with the case as if the tenant had paid all arrears of rent up to the last gale day, which meant that the Court would be able to do nothing at all under Deasy's Act, because the reference to costs was left out. Then, why not put it in the Bill and adopt the Amendment? It would not damnify the landlord in the slightest degree, because the Court would insist upon the tenant paying both rent and costs. The Amendment was a technical one which did not affect the position of the landlord in any respect; but if it were omitted from the Bill he did not believe that any Judge would arrive at the conclusion that the provision of Deasy's Act had been complied with.

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

said, the only question was whether the object which the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) professed to have was not better accomplished by the clause as it stood. He would undertake, howover, to consider the matter carefully, and he would confer with the hon. Member upon it, it being understood that without the payment of costs no right to restitution should be given. If the hon. Member could convince the Government that the insertion of the Amendment was necessary there would be no objection to accept it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN

I would point out to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), before he moves the next Amendment, that it seems to conflict with another Amendment placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), which comes below.

MR. HEALY

said, that would not be found to be the case.

THE CHAIRMAN

Then the hon. Member had better explain the effect of his Amendment.

MR. HEALY moved, in line 7, after "1860," to add the following words:— For the purpose of enabling any such evicted tenant to make an application to the Land Commission under the first section of this Act, the Land Commission shall have power, on application made by him during the time limited for applications under this Act, by enlarge the time during which ho may redeem his tenancy, subject to such terms and conditions as may seem just. He said that such an Amendment was absolutely necessary in the clause, and for this reason—If five months of the term of redemption ran out, and the tenant only had one month left in order to bring the Act into operation, he would lose all claims to the benefit of the Act, because the term of redemption had run out.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 7, after "1860," to insert the words,—"For the purpose of enabling any such evicted tenant to make an application to the Land Commission under the first section of this Act, the Land Commission shall have power, on application made by him during the time limited for applications under this Act, to enlarge the time during which he may redeem his tenancy, subject to such terms and conditions as may seem just."—(Mr. Healy.)

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

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

said, the Government had no objection to accept the Amendment. He understood its sole object was to provide that where the period of redemption had nearly run out it might be enlarged by the Land Commission for the purpose of enabling the tenant to come under the Bill. He thought, however, that the last words of the Amendment, "subject to such terms and conditions as may seem just," might be altered by leaving the terms and conditions under the control of the Land Commission.

MR. GIBSON

said, he took exception to the course pursued by the Government in reference to this Amendment. It proposed, for the first time, not only to interfere with, but to arrest indefinitely, a legal process already obtained by the landlord. It was obvious that the line must be drawn somewhere in reference to this matter, because it was impossible that they could deal with every case which might be suggested was entitled to consideration. The law already allowed six months for redemption in cases of eviction for non-payment of rent on certain well-understood conditions—namely, the payment of arrears of rent and costs. The Government had already in the section dealt in the most drastic manner with the writ of ejectment; and now it was proposed to go much further. He thought that the section went a very long way, and he should have something to say upon the matter when the whole clause was put to the Committee. The Amendment proposed to go still further, and to give the Land Commission a power of indefinitely enlarging, and on some terms that might be no terms at all, the period of redemption, thus indefinitely keeping the landlord out of the possession of his farm, or the receipt of his rent. He could be no party to anything of the kind, and he should certainly divide the Committee against the Amendment, notwithstanding the fact that it was supported by the Government. His right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland said he was satisfied with the words of the Amendment, if the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would substitute for the words "such terms and conditions as may seem just," other words placing the terms and conditions under the control of the Land Commission, so as to leave the matter to the discretion of the Commissioners. Now, he strongly objected to leave everything to the discretion of the Commissioners, and he would take care, in every possible way in his power, to secure in the Bill itself provisions showing exactly what it was they wanted the Land Commission to do. He had in his mind a case which had been brought to the notice of the Attorney General for Ireland by two hon. Members behind him, as to the way in which that discretion had been already exercised, and it was a good indication as to how it might be exercised in future. He referred to a case which had occurred in Queen's County, and it went by the name of "Owen's case.' He was unable to give the name of the tenant; but for the purpose of discussion it might be called Owen's case. In that case an application was made by the tenant under discretionary powers similar to those now proposed to be given to the Land Court, and the application came within the words "such terms and conditions as may seem just." The tenant applied under that provision to obtain an extension of time. The landlord, in answer to the application, said—"If you choose, in the exercise of your discretion, to give an extension of time, then I will ask you to protect my interest by requiring the tenant, who owes several hundred pounds, to lodge something in Court as a guarantee of his bona fides." In the exercise of a discretion exactly similar to that which it was now proposed to give, it seemed just to the Land Court to make no terms or conditions at all, and the result was that before the expiration of the extended time the tenant went away without paying a farthing of rent, and the landlord lost between £300 and. £400. He (Mr. Gibson), therefore, objected to the Amendment, because he felt that the discretion might be used in the same way again, and he was of opinion, that a line ought to be drawn somewhere. They ought not to go on indefi- nitely increasing the six months' period of redemption to nine months or 12 months or 18 months. The law said six months, and the law must take its start at some point and must end at some point. It was desirable, if possible, to arrive at certainty, and that certainty must be arrived at by excluding some cases and including others which would be open to consideration. It was most desirable to end the uncertainty of litigation on the subject. There was already in the Bill a clause limiting the time for applications made under the Act—namely, Clause 11. It was limited until the last day of February, 1883; but there was a power given to the Land Commission to grant leave for an extension of time until the 30th of Juno, 1883. As he had said, the line must be drawn somewhere. The right of redemption was already given for a period of six months. Of course, it would always be said that a tenant who was near the end of the six months was not in as good a position as a tenant who was only at the beginning of it. Thus a tenant, with only two months to expire, was worse off than the one who had the full six months, and the tenant who had only one month was still worse off. But these questions wore questions of degree, and it was necessary to arrive at some degree of certainty. It would, therefore, be wiser and better, and on the whole more just, to stand by the provisions of the existing law.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)

said, he did not follow the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) as to the exercise of the discretion of the Commissioners; but he would point out what his right hon. and learned Friend appeared to have overlooked—namely, that the only discretion given by the clause was a discretionary power to extend the period of making applications under Deasy's Act. If that discretion were exercised, it would require all the conditions of that Act to be observed; and one of those conditions was that a tenant could not obtain restitution without having paid the rent and all the costs, and he must also have paid and satisfied all subsequently accrued rent up to the time when the application was made. The discretion was not a discretion, therefore, given to the Land Commission to deal with that subsequent rent in any way; but it was left as a matter of law to be determined by the Court to which the application was to be made. There must not only be a certificate under the Act that the rent had been satisfied up to the time of the decree, but that all succeeding gales of rent which had accrued in the meantime had been paid. That would prevent the possibility of any injury being inflicted upon the landlord, because a decree could not be obtained until all the old arrears and all the accrued arrears were paid off. If the clause was to have any operation at all its effect ought not to be defeated by shutting out persons who would otherwise come to it. The Government had arrived at the conclusion that, under all the circumstances, the tenants should have this right, but only after they had satisfied all the rent down to November, 1881. It was provided that the application must be made early in 1883, and no tenant could get a decree until he had satisfied the rent of the accruing years, that rule of law being strict and unbending.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

said, that, if he understood the matter rightly, the main reason for this Amendment was to prevent evictions, which would be a considerable hardship. There were a vast number of tenants already under notice of eviction, who were liable at any minute to be evicted, and there were a number of others who had been evicted, and were already out of possession. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was an endeavour to extend the advantages given by the Bill, so as to cover this class of cases. It seemed to him that the main argument for the passing of the Bill was that the right of eviction had been unfairly used, and if a mode of providing a remedy could be devised, to reject that mode was to reject the main object of the Bill. He confessed that ho thought if the Bill were passed, excluding, as it would, without this Amendment, from its operation a very large class of tenants who were now under notice of eviction, and preventing them from obtaining the right of restitution, the measure would fail in one of its principal objects.

MR. WARTON

said, the proposal before the Committee was of a very serious character. It practically amounted to an unlimited extension of the period of redemption. He should be prepared to move, when the Question had been put, that the period of redemption be limited to two months.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 220; Noes 106: Majority 114.—(Div. List, No. 263.)

Amendment proposed, At the end of the Amendment, to insert the words "such enlargement of time in no case to exceed a period of two months."—(Mr. Warton.)

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

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

said, the Committee had, by the last Amendment, decided that a discretion should be left to the Land Commission as to enlarging the time during which an evicted tenant might redeem his tenancy. He saw no reason, therefore, why that discretion should be in any way limited.

MR. PLUNKET

said, he thought it would be reasonable on the part of the Government to assign some limit to the discretion which was to be exercised by these Commissioners, who were comparatively unversed in the exercise of such large powers as they would have conferred upon them by this Bill. He therefore trusted Her Majesty's Government, if they were unwilling to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), would name some alternative period which they would be willing to adopt.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, it was admitted, he believed, by the Government that the discretionary powers conferred upon the Land Commissioners by the Act of last year had resulted in the formation of precedents which they themselves were surprised at. Now, he thought that Parliament, when it imposed certain compulsory obligations on parties, as was the case in this Bill, should make up its own mind as to what it wanted to be done, and that the responsibility of making rules should not be cast upon the Land Commissioners, except, of course, in the case of those rules which related to ordinary procedure. Having regard to the experience of the last three months, he thought the Government might undertake that, before the Bill left the House, they would bring up some words limiting the discretion of the Commissioners in the direction indicated.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 186: Majority 96.—(Div. List, No. 264.)

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he wished to state, with the indulgence of the Committee, that although the division which had just occurred might be taken as absolving the Government from the pledge which they had previously given, yet, looking at the matter from the equity of the case, they were still willing to consider whether they could name a term that would serve to limit the period of redemption. It was necessary that it should be well understood on the other side of the House that the Government undertook to consider this matter solely from their conviction of the general equity of the case.

MR. HEALY

said, the object of the Amendment he was about to propose was simply that in cases where the Land Commission was satisfied that the purchase of the tenant's interest in his holding was made primarily with the object of enforcing payment of arrears, and that the holding was, at the date of application to the Court, subject to no tenancy created since the date of purchase, they might set aside the sale of the holding. He did not think it was a wrong thing to say that in a case where the tenant's interest had been sold by the landlord for the purpose of getting his rent, on the conditions set forth in his Amendment, the Commissioners might order him to be reinstated. Therefore, he said, where the Court considered that the landlord's action in selling the farm had not been for the purpose of obtaining property in the farm, but for the purpose of getting payment of arrears, that the tenant should not be in any worse position than if he was an evicted tenant. But he wished to go a step further, and to say that where no new tenancy had been created, and the interest of the tenant had been sold simply for the purpose of obtaining rent, the Court should have power to give the tenant the benefit of this Bill. He put it to the Government, as a matter of policy, whether it would not be desirable that the tenants who, by the law as it at present stood, would be excluded, should be enabled to obtain the benefit of the Bill? He trusted the right lion. Gentleman would see his way to the acceptance of the Amendment which he now begged to move.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 7, after "1860," insert, as a new paragraph—"If in the case of any holding to which this Act applies, it shall appear that the landlord has recovered judgment for any arrear of rent of such holding, against the tenant thereof, and that, under execution issued to enforce such judgment, the tenant's interest in such holding, having been offered for sale, has been purchased by the landlord, or some person representing him, the Land Commission, on the application of the tenant during the time limited for applications under this Act, and on being satisfied that the purchase of the tenant's interest by the landlord was made primarily with the object of enforcing payment of such arrear, and that the holding is, at the date of such application, subject to no tenancy created since the date of such purchase, may, subject to such terms and conditions as may seem just, make an order setting aside the sale of such holding, and thereupon, on such order being made, the tenancy in such holding which had existed immediately prior to the sale, shall revest in the tenant as if such sale had not taken place. On any such order having been made the Land Commission may, on the application of either landlord or tenant, make an order, under the first section of this Act, in the same manner as if, and such order shall have the same effect as if the sale of the holding as aforesaid had not taken place."—(Mr. Healy.)

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

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

said, the Government could not assent to the principle that where the landlord had purchased the tenant's interest in the holding in the open market, the tenant should be entitled to reclaim his tenancy. At the same time, the Government quite recognized the object which underlay the Amendment of the hon. Member, and they were not unwilling to forward it so far as it advanced on the lines of the Bill, and did no injustice to anybody. The condition upon which the Court should have power to set aside these sales should be that it must be done with the express consent of the landlord. It must, in fact, be a transaction similar to that which lately took place in the case of certain tenants who had been evicted from the estate of Lord Cloncurry. Every one of the tenants of Lord Cloncurry was reinstated after the relation of landlord and tenant had been entirely determined. That was owing, not to compulsion, but entirely to a concession on the part of the landlord. He thought if the hon. Member were disposed to alter his Amendment so that an application of the tenant should be made with the express consent of the landlord, no new tenancy having been created, that the Committee would accept the Amendment.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, that the latter part of the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was hardly intelligible. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had laid it down distinctly enough in his opening sentences that the Government could not admit into the Bill the principle that when the landlord had purchased the tenant's interest in the open market the tenant should be reinstated in his holding. But, having established that impregnable proposition, he went on to quote the case of Lord Cloncurry, who had reinstated his evicted tenants after their relations with him as landlord had been entirely determined, and suggested that the Government would consider the Amendment favourably if the reinstatement proposed took place with the express consent of the landlord. But it appeared to him that the suggestion of the Attorney General for Ireland was unnecessary, because Lord Cloncurry was able to do this without any Bill, or action on the part of the Land Commissioners. If the alteration which the Attorney General for Ireland was willing to accept provided that the consent of the landlord should be obtained to the tenant's application, and it was shown to be necessary to bring the matter within the purview of the Bill, there might be something to be said in its favour; but he pointed out that such an alteration was of a very different kind to that on the Paper, and it was certainly one of which Notice ought to be given.

And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again this day.