IRISH LAND LAW BILL [Lords.]

HC Deb 02 August 1887 vol 318 cc945-1035

[BILL 308.]

(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 1st August.]

[SEVENTH NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Equitable Jurisdiction.

Clause 24 (Statement of particulars).

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

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

On the part of the Government, I have to say that we are prepared to drop this and succeeding clauses, on the understanding—and I hope that our motives will not be misinterpreted—that hon. Members who desire to extend the scope of the Bill by themselves bringing forward clauses of importance will meet the Government on their part, and will not prolong discussion upon extraneous suggestions.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, & c.)

I very much regret that these clauses are to be dropped. I have taken a very great interest in the Bill; but the interest has been very much diminished since the measure has been so much emasculated, because I find that hon. Members from Ireland will not give up one jot or tittle of the pound of flesh of any one of the creditors. In my opinion, the intimation which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has given of the intention of the Government to drop out the Bankruptcy Clauses will render necessary some other provisions relating more particularly to arrears, for that is a matter which must necessarily be dealt with, I am, therefore, unable to enter into any undertaking whatever not to move Amendments.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

I am quite prepared to intimate that I have some Amendments which ought to be discussed. There is one Amendment particularly which I shall feel obliged to put to the Committee, in order that the improvements of the leaseholders shall not be confiscated. I consider that to be an absolutely vital question.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, That Clause 25 (Power in certain cases to continue tenant in his holding notwithstanding bankruptcy); Clause 26 (Power to appoint an additional staff of Judges for bankruptcy); Clause 27 (Sittings); Clause 28 (Summary punishment for perjury and frauds); and Clause 29 (Officers), stand part of the Bill, put, and negatived.

Clause 30 (Appeals).

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

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland intends to withdraw this clause, as simply antecedent to others which it is proposed to withdraw.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

We propose to retain the clause, and to make it applicable to the other parts of the Bill.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the Committee what the object of this clause is apart from the rest?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (Liverpool, Walton)

Hon. Members below the Gangway have constantly been in the habit of saying that they do not trust the County Court Judges; and we, therefore, provide that there should be an appeal, on both sides, from the decision of County Court Judges. Taken in connection with Section 22, this may be a matter of vital importance.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that this clause is merely an appendage to Clause 22. Now, I challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say under what other clause of the Bill, except Clause 22, this clause can be operative. Then what necessity is there for inserting the clause? The Act of 1881 permits an appeal from the decision of a Judge, including a County Court Judge. [Mr. GIBSON dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I hope I may be permitted to claim to know as much about the practice in the Courts as he does, and I say that there is an appeal at the present moment from every decision of a County Court Judge under the Act of 1852. If Clause 22 is the only clause afflicted, it will merely be necessary to insert a Proviso in Clause 22 without enacting a distinct clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is now raising an important question, upon which, I think, it is quite possible my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) will have something to say. I would, therefore, ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell us under what other clause of the Bill, except Clause 22, this power of appeal can he operative?

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out that the hon. Member is not discussing the Question before the Committee The question he raises can be discussed on the distinct Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 30, to leave out all the words after "The Civil Bill Courts (Ireland) Act, 1851."

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

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

As there is no question of principle involved, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to let this clause go now, and on the Report stage to add to Clause 22 all the words that are necessary. I think that would facilitate very much the proceedings of the Committee.

MR. GIBSON

I think it will be better to insert the clause as amended.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 31 (Court valuers in county courts).

MR. BLANE (Armagh, S.)

I beg to move, in lines 41 and 42, to leave out the words "subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant." My object is to provide that the Land Commission may, from time to time, appoint independent valuers, who will not be subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant, as stated in the clause.

Amendment proposed, in page 20, lines 41 and 42, to leave out the words "subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant."—(Mr. Blane.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (Liverpool, Walton)

I think it is desirable that this power should be exercised, and for this reason—that it may be necessary for the County Court Judges to appoint a valuer, having regard to Clause 3 of the Bill.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

The feeling in Ulster against Court valuers has been so strong that the valuers have had to be withdrawn. These gentlemen have been trained up to the raising of rents in Ireland, and they are in the constant employment of the landlords, which fact has been the cause of much of the trouble which has arisen in Ireland. Such a thing as the appointment of an independent valuer is impossible, and if the Government do not wish to make the whole Bill inoperative they will strike this clause out.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I have not a word to say against the County Court Judges. The object of the clause is to allow the County Court Judges to appoint valuers subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant. I trust for the sake of the tenants, the peace of the country, and the interests of the British taxpayer, that these mischief-making officials will not be appointed.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

I would appeal to the Government not to waste any further time, and I would suggest whether it is worth their while to adhere to the clause at all.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

If any machinery of this kind is provided, we shall leave the Court without any means of forming an independent judgment. It seems to me, though, that if a Court valuer is appointed, he must be employed by the County Court Judge, whether he likes it or not. I apprehend that that is not the case. There are valuers paid by the job if the Court thinks that their services are required. The valuers appointed by the Executive Government will be paid only when their services are required, so that any apprehension that the County Court Judge, who knows all the facts of the case, will be obliged, against his will, to take the opinion of the Court valuer, who may know less about the matter than himself, is altogether illusory. I hope, however, that there will be no attempt to deprive the County Court of the power of securing, when necessary, the services of a Court valuer.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order ! The discussion is now being taken upon the whole clause, and not upon the Amendment.

MR. CHANCE

May I point out that if the Lord Lieutenant is allowed to appoint the Court valuers, the Government will be preventing the County Court Judge from obtaining what, at least, he may deem to be the opinion of an independent Court valuer?

MR. O'NEILL (Antrim, Mid)

The words "subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant" make the clause nothing more than a patronage clause. Court valuers appointed under such circumstances would be entirely the creatures of the Executive Government, and, therefore, I hope that these words will be omitted.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Personally, I have no objection to leave out the words.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)

That would make the matter fifty thousand times worse. I am opposed to the Amendment, and I hope the Government will not consent to it. I would rather give the Lord Lieutenant the power of appointing a Court valuer on the application of the Land Commission. But does the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary think that the clause is absolutely necessary, and is it worth while fighting over it? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this offers a fair opportunity to the Government for showing that they are not indifferent to the expenditure of public money? To take power to appoint persons who may not be wanted is hardly an economical way of administering the public funds. I do not think we should put in a clause of this kind, unless it is perfectly clear in our own mind that these officials will be wanted. I therefore appeal to the Government either to drop the clause or to bring it up again on the Report stage, or to strengthen it by giving the Lord Lieutenant power to appoint Court valuers on the application of the Land Commission, or to alter the entire structure of the clause.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

My noble Friend says that Court valuers will not be wanted, and he objects to waste the public money on persons whoso services may never be called into requisition. Now, as I understand the matter, it is simply when the Court requires the services of a valuer that the valuer will be paid. He will only be paid when he is wanted. I quite sympathize with the view of my noble Friend as to economy in connection with the administration of the public funds; but I must remind the Committee that these men are not going to eat off their heads in doing nothing, and that we are not going to saddle the Exchequer with payment for services that are not required. If we were, I should entirely agree with the view of my noble Friend. I think, however, that he misunderstands the meaning of the clause; and the effect of rejecting it would be to deprive the Court of services which it may stand very much in need of.

MR. BLANE

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary gave up the whole contention some time ago. We all know how the influence of patronage is likely to work.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman is now straying away from the Question, which is that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the the clause.

MR. LEA (Londonderry. S.)

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary what the method of procedure is if the County Court Judge think he requires the services of a Court valuer? Is he to apply to the Lord Lieutenant, who is then to nominate a Court valuer, who is to place his services at the disposal of the County Court Judge? I think that is a very roundabout way of doing business.

CAPTAIN COLOMB (Tower Hamlets, Bow, & c.)

I do not think that any sensible man can object to the County Court Judge having power to call in a valuer in a case where he thinks it desirable, in the interests of justice, that a valuer should be appointed. That I understand to be the only meaning of the clause.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I do not think there is any such person as an independent valuer either on one side or the other.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary just now to state that he would accept the Amendment; but since then he seems to have reconsidered his decision. I should like to know what he is really going to do.

MR. A. J. BALFOUE

I said that, so far as I was personally concerned, I had no objection to omit the words "subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant;" but since then I find that the Committee are not at all agreed upon the subject.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

MR. MAURICE HEALY

The question involved in this clause is not whether the County Court Judge should have the power to call in a valuer, but whether the valuer when called in should be paid by the State or by the litigants. I think that is a material point. The clause appears to be taken from one of the sections of the Land Act, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief (Secretary has told us that under the existing law the County Court Judge has no power to call in a valuer. Now, that is not the fact; and I say so not merely from my knowledge of the Act of Parliament, but from my knowledge of the practice of the Courts. I have seen a dozen cases of this kind before the County Court. The County Court Judge says that he requires a valuer; and having made that intimation to the parties, a valuer is appointed, and the cost is divided between them. Anybody who reads the clause will see that it is proposed to be inserted not for the purpose of enabling the County Court Judge to do what he has the power of doing now, but to enable litigants to secure the service of a valuer free. The only defence which can he put up for it is that it will assimilate the practice of the County Court to that of the Land Commission. That is, no doubt, true; but but I say that it ought to take the converse form, and the Government ought to assimilate the practice of the Land Court to that of the County Court. I think I am borne out in the contention by the history of the Land Commission. What is that history? In the first place, the appointment of a valuer by the Land Commission is only used in the case of an appeal; he is never used in the Court below, and for a very good reason—because in the Court below there are two Sub-Commissioners, gentlemen who are not supposed to be lawyers, but persons conversant with the value of land, who go on it and inspect it and make the appointment of a valuer unnecessary. Certainly, the power of calling in a land valuer in connection with the Land Commission is only exercised in case of an appeal. Every day that has passed since the Land Act came into operation has tended more and more to discredit the system of calling in a land valuer. There have been three different periods in the history of the valuer of the Land Commissioners' Court. For the first couple of years after the Land Act passed, a valuer was appointed as a matter of course, at the expense of the State, with the result that the landlords appealed by thousands. They knew, whether they wanted valuers or not, that they would get the report of the valuers free, and then they were able to decide within a few days before the case came on for hearing whether they were likely to gain anything by going on with the appeal or not. That was the first era, and it had the effect of multiplying appeals enormously. In the second period the Court made the parties pay the expenses. They passed a rule that no valuer should be appointed unless at the request of one of the parties, and the party so requesting the appointment was required to pay the expense of the valuer. That state of things continued for about a year, and then the third period came. The Land Commissioners arrived at the conclusion that they would not have any valuer at all, and that state of things has existed for the last 12 months. With such a history as that with regard to the Land Commission, why should the Government seriously propose to go back on the experience of that Commission? Nothing has tended to discredit the Land Commission more than the use of those valuers. Over and over again, by a device of some sort or other, the Land Commissioners have endeavoured to make the Court valuers popular, and they have always failed. The provision for the appointment of valuers really fell still-born. The provision has never been put in force, because nobody has had the slightest confidence in a Court valuer. I therefore think that is a monstrous proposal to attempt to thrust upon the County Court Judges a valuer of this kind.

COLONEL WARING (Down, N.)

I hope the Government will not give way upon this clause. I think it would be improper to take away any portion of the protection which in common fairness has been given to the landlord. The hon. Member has moved the Amendment solely in the interests of the tenants. Where the property of the landlord is concerned, I think that it should be dealt with by persons who understand what they are doing, and it is quite certain that a lawyer whoso experience of the law may be very large may have very small capacity for forming a judgment as to the value of land. There may be some of the County Court Judges who to some extent are acquainted with the value of land; but with regard to a largo number of them, they are as unfit to give an opinion upon the value of land as they would have been to take command of the Meet that was assembled at Spithead the other day.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I hope that this discussion will not degenerate into a wrangle as to the comparative interests of landlords and tenants. The Government do not recommend the proposal in the interests of the landlord, but simply to enable the Judge to take the advice of an expert, because without that advice he would in many cases be rendered helpless.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

He can got it already.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No doubt, in the case of an appeal to the Land Commission, a valuer is sometimes sent down. That is constantly done, I believe.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

It has not been done for 12 months.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes, very recently.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

The Land Commissioners have passed a Rule against it.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

All that is asked is that if there is a dispute in regard to value, it shall be submitted to some practical agriculturist. Surely, we ought not to deprive the County Court Judge, who is only a lawyer, of some means of arriving at the value of agricultural land, in regard to which he may have had no evidence before him at all.

MR. CHANCE

I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be wrong to deprive the County Court Judge of the power of getting independent evidence, but our contention is that he already possesses that power, and the hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) may rest perfectly satisfied that there does exist such a power under Section 37 of the Land Act of 1881. By Sub-section 6 of that clause ample power is given to the Court, whether it be the County Court Judge of a Sub-Commissioner, to require that the valuer should investigate the circumstances of the holding. The whole point we are fighting now is whether the County Court Judge himself should have the power of appointing the valuer which he has at present at the expense of the parties, or whether the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland shall be entitled to appoint the official who is to be the sole official the County Court Judge may employ. Now I would ask, on every principle of fair play, if it is not more desirable, even in the interest of the landlords themselves, to allow the County Court Judge on the spot, who knows the valuers in the district, and is acquainted with the men who would be most suitable, to appoint the valuer, and also whether it will not be fair play, when such person is appointed and the valuation taken, that the expense shall be paid by the persons who require the valuation to be made? I think we should be introducing a new and dangerous principle, if we require the Executive Government to appoint the valuer and then call upon the State to pay the cost. I do not see why, on the same principle, the State should not be called upon to pay for the evidence which may be given between a plaintiff and defendant in a breach of promise case. That would be a most extraordinary principle to adopt, and I cannot see how it would be possible to defend it. I maintain that the County Court Judge has already sufficient power, under the 37th section of the Land Act of 1881, to appoint a valuer and compel the parties to pay the expense. I trust that in the interests of the tenants, as well as of the landlords and taxpayers of the country, the County Court Judge will not be deprived of the power he now enjoys. I would appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) to corroborate my statement that the County Court Judge has already the power of appointing a County Court valuer, and when appointed such valuer; is to be paid by the parties requiring his services. I would further appeal to the hon. and gallant Member for North Down, if my statement is corroborated and if it is shown that the power does exist, that he will not insist upon the clause being adopted as it stands. If it is adopted without alteration, I am satisfied that nothing but friction and illwill will be created.

COLONEL WARING

I have no intention of encouraging friction between the landlord and tenant. I have no wish to enter upon the subject in a controversial spirit; but I cannot agree that a local valuer, whose interests are certain to be mixed up in some way with those of the landlord or tenant, will discharge the duties in a more impartial way than a valuer appointed by the Lord Lieutenant.

MR. CHANCE

I did not say "a local valuer." The County Court Judge might appoint a local valuer, if he thought a person in that position would be the best man to obtain, but, on the other hand, if he liked he might appoint a valuer 500 miles away.

COLONEL WARING

I most certainly think the most advisable course to adopt will be to give the Executive Government the power of appointing the most qualified and suitable person.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN Stirling, & c.)

I would venture to appeal to the Government not to press this clause, and to save the Committee the time that will be occupied in further discussing it. It appears to me that the two separate grounds of objection which have been made against the clause have not been answered. In the first place, it has been shown very clearly by hon. Members below the Gangway that the County Court Judge has already the power of calling in an export to his assistance, where bethinks it necessary. In the second place, it has been said that the employment of valuers has been objected to in many quarters of Ireland, and that they are no longer used by the Court of Appeal.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That is a mistake They are employed.

MR. CAM.PBELL-BANNERMAN

At any rate, they have been greatly objected to, and their appointment has been a source of considerable friction.

Then, again, on the ground of expenditure, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary finds some security in the fact that those who are appointed by the Land Commission will only be paid by the job. Now, the word in that phrase which I am afraid remains in my oars is the last word, I think the valuer will be paid not only by the job, but as a job. I have a perfectly vivid recollection of the details of the Irish law charges, and the general system upon which expenditure of this sort is incurred in connection with legal proceedings in Ireland, and that recollection makes me very suspicious of any arrangement of this kind. Therefore, as this provision involves a considerable charge being thrown upon the Public Treasury, and as the County Court Judge has already all the power that is necessary, and seeing that the experience of the past in regard to the appointment of valuers has not been found to work very satisfactorily—upon all these grounds I hope the Government will not press the clause.

MR. GIBSON

At present the County Court Judge, when he is assisting the Land Commissioners to settle the decision of a fair rent, has the power of appointing a valuer, but only for that purpose. That valuer is appointed by himself. He is not taken from a select staff of valuers and appointed subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant, but he is a valuer directly appointed by the County Court Judge. He is directed to deal with land questions in the best way he can. What I wish to call the attention of the Committee to is the fact that the Legislature has declared as a necessity, in order to enable the County Court Judge to perform his functions, that he shall be assisted by a valuer fully acquainted with the valuation of land. For instance, a case of this kind may occur—a tenant says that the land is only worth 5s. an acre; the landlord, on the other hand, says that it is worth 40s. an acre. How is the County Court Judge to judge between the two? In order to enable him to perform his functions properly he has the power of appointing a valuer; but that power is subject to the circumstance that the valuer is to be appointed by himself on the spot, and not taken from a select class of valuers. In regard to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I may say that there is no power in the County Court Judge to appoint a valuer to decide questions that may arise under Clause 22, and I rather gathered from the remarks which have boon made on both sides of the House that hon. Members contemplate that the appointment ox a valuer will be necessary in such cases. If a valuer should be appointed to deal with such cases he ought, undoubtedly, to be a man of great independence, and able to resist any pressure that may be brought to bear upon him. We have no desire to give advantage to one side or the other. Nothing is further from the intention of the Government. Hon. Members must know that the County Court Judge very rarely knows anything about the land. Of course, the agricultural members of the Land Commission do visit the land, but the County Court Judge does not. Without having soon the land and hearing a mass of contradictory swearing, what means has the County Court Judge of deciding where the truth lies without having the evidence of an independent witness? After what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, and hon. Members on the other side of the House below the Gangway, I hope it may be possible to secure that the expenses shall be thrown upon the litigants, and not upon the State. I think the charge ought to be borne by one of the litigants. The matter, however, is one winch, in my opinion, ought to he left to the discretion of the County Court Judge so that he should, in every case, direct how costs are to be borne.

SIR HENRY JAMES (Bury)

I understand that there is power given to the County Court Judge by the Act of 1881 to call in an independent valuer. The question is whether or not the Land Commissioners should be allowed to appoint valuers. I am not myself competent to give an opinion on the practical question raised, but if the rule under the Land Act has worked well, why not apply the principle in this Act? If you trust the County Court Judge at all, you can also trust him in the matter of appointing a valuer.

COLONEL WARING

I point out that, as hon. Gentleman opposite must know, only two or three County Court Judges have called in valuers; and where that was done the result was found to be eminently unsatisfactory to the parties concerned.

MR. CHANCE

I think the suggestion thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) is eminently satisfactory. The effect of this clause is that the Lord Lieutenant is himself to supply evidence on which the Court is to decide whether the rent of the tenant is to be reduced or not. Now, however fair the arrangement may be it will undoubtedly be said by the tenant if the rent is raised, "Castlereagh raised my rent,"or" prevented my getting a reduced rent," as the case may be. Well, I think it is most undesirable that this consideration should be brought into every potty case—that you should have the Lord Lieutenant coming down from his exalted position to mix personally in questions between landlord and tenant. On the other hand, the County Court Judges are familiar with the land in the district, and I think that the decisions they give would be eminently satisfactory. The system has worked well, and by this clause it is going to be altered in the most irritating manner, and at the expense of the State. I would appeal to the Government to get rid of this miserable wrangle by agreeing to our proposal, so that we may pass on to more important Business.

MR. O'DOHERTY

I point out that we are wrangling about a matter which can only arise in a few instances, and that it is quite unnecessary for the Government to occupy the time by resisting the wish of Members on these Benches. According to the Rule now in force a tenant cannot be forced into the County Court if he wishes to have his case tried by the Land Commissioners. I point out that the decision of the question as to how much rent shall be paid will depend on the fall in prices, and on that ground there is ample means for the County Court Judge to form his opinion. It is only with regard to the Act of 1881 and the earlier sections of this Act that the County Court Judge would be required to exercise his judgment. The hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) has said that the action of the County Court Judges in the cases which he referred to did not give satisfaction to the landlords, and I can say with equal certainty that it did not give satisfaction to the tenants. I never advise a tenant to go before a County Court Judge. The introduction of this irritating matter into the Bill will have the effect of producing a great deal of dissatisfaction among the tenants, who well remember what occurred in Ulster. It gave rise to an enormous amount of irritation when it was found that some military gentleman, or a person who had served his time in an office in Dublin, and knew nothing whatever about the district in question, was sent down to make a valuation. I remember well the dissatisfaction caused by this. I say that the independent valuer has never been discovered yet, and he cannot be looked for among this class. If you want the tenants to abandon all idea of application to the County Court Judges, then you are right in putting this clause into the Bill; but if you wish them to take advantage of the County Court for getting a settlement of disputes with the landlords, I say you should strike it out. Do not have valuers who have no local experience. Is it not well known that the valuation in one parish is totally different from that in another? It would be perfectly absurd to send men from England to value land in Ireland, and in the same way it would be perfectly absurd to send men from one district in Ireland to value land in another, because they will be entirely ignorant of the conditions of agriculture there, and of the cost of production and carriage. Now, if you appoint for the purpose of valuation a man who has local knowledge, I say that it would be the best course to pursue, because he would have the confidence of both parties. I ask the Committee to consider this point of extending to the present Bill the power of the County Court Judges under the Act of 1881 to select valuers.

MR. T. C. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)

I think the Government will do well to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James). We have pointed out the difficulty in which the County Court Judge is placed by the hearing of the evidence of a valuer on the part of the Lord Lieutenant, and the evidence of a valuer on the part of the tenant. If the County Court Judge is not himself acquainted with land, and has to form his opinion of the value of land on the judgment of another person, I think it would be of the greatest importance that the County Court Judge should be satisfied with the integrity and character of the person appointed. I think it is a mistake to appoint a man who is an utter stranger to the land, on whoso opinion with regard to its value the Judge will have to decide—and that solely on the suggestion of a man of whose character he has no means of judging. The idea is to me almost nonsense that you can hops to secure an independent valuer out of a class of men who will hang on until they get a job. It seems to me that if you are to appoint a man to administer justice under the Act, you must, at all events, put him in a position to judge of the integrity and character of the man with whom he hag to act.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 154; Noes 103: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 342.) [7.45 P.M.]

Clause 32 (Rules, orders, & c, for bankruptcy matters. Fees, costs, and charges).

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

A noble Lord once said in this House that half the evictions in Ireland were due to the solicitors' costs. As a man of some experience in this subject, I say that I agree with him to a certain extent. It is a monstrous thing that the costs of the Sheriff and others should amount to £3 or £4, and that the decree should cost from £2 to £2 10s., whore the rent is £15 and less. I therefore propose to leave out the 1st sub-section of this clause Section 2,I think, ought to be retained, as it is in favour of the tenant.

Amendment proposed, in page 21, to leave out sub-section (1.)—(Mr. O'Doherty.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (Liverpool, Walton)

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the wish of the Government is that the procedure in these cases should be as cheap as possible for the parties concerned. We think, however, that the sub-section would be useful which the hon. Member proposes to leave out; but I am willing1 to agree to the omission of the words— And of fixing the percentage fees and stump duties, find of framing scales of fees, costs, and charges to be paid to counsel and solicitors.

If the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment I will move the omission of these words.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed,

In page 21, line 5, leave out the words "and of fixing the percentage fees and stamp duties, and of framing scales of fees, coats, and charges to be paid to counsel and solicitors."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed,

In line 34, after the word "bill," to insert the words "and the ejectment shall bear a stamp of the same amount as an ordinary Civil Bill."—(Mr. O'Doherty.)

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

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

I cannot agree to a diminution of the fees without consulting my Colleagues, and without further examination of the question.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I think that an express proposal on the subject in this Act is unnecessary. The fees of the County Court are fixed by the County Court Act, and it is quite in accordance with practice to change the orders from time to time. It will be, therefore, quite within the practice to review the fees fixed in 1887.

MR. GOSCHEN

I will undertake to look into the matter.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I am encouraged, by what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to ask him to look into another matter connected with this subject. I sea that the 2nd sub-section of Clause 32 deals solely with the expense of evictions through the County Courts. I know perfectly well that in many parts of Ireland agents, and also solicitors, have practical interest in suing tenants for rent. They use the hanging gale for that purpose; and I have known, in some cases in the West of Ireland, a tenant to be sued four times for his rent, the case being compromised each time, and the tenant paying the full amount of costs. You have in Ireland country solicitors agreeing with agents that if they send a certain number of writs they will be paid a share of the costs. It is in this way that the tenants are robbed; and I say it will be an effectual step in the direction of stopping evictions if you cut down the cost of proceedings, so that it will not be made a lucrative occupation to sue the tenant. I am afraid that I see the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland giving rather bad advice on this subject to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury; but I appeal to him not to be altogether governed by legal considerations in this case. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that he can stop many harsh evictions, without interfering with the landlord's right, by cutting down the charges to such an extent that it will not be a brilliant speculation to sue 300 or 400 tenants. I know that many landlords know nothing of the ejectments on their estates; I know also that some districts are deluged with writs simply for the purpose of getting costs out of the tenants. I trust that a good landlord, such as the hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Colonel Waring), will bear me out in saying that there is no greater hardship than what I have described, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will say that he will take some steps to put an end to the miserable business of evicting tenants for the sake of the costs.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A.,T. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

If the hon. Member for South Kilkenny is right in his opinion, I think he has not described the practice of issuing writs for the sake of the costs in too strong terms; I cannot conceive anything more sad than that the agents should be parties to such transactions, and that the tenants should become victims under those circumstances. I confess that I am so unfamiliar with the whole machinery of costs in the Superior Courts as to be unwilling to say off-hand whether it is possible to carry out the suggestion of the hon. Member. But I trust the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland will see how far it is possible to carry out that object, on which both he and I are entirely in accord with the hon. Member.

MR. CHANCE

I think in this matter we ought to go further than the Act of 1881. I do not see why these unfortunate tenants should be practically driven to the Superior Courts when they can go before the County Court Judges. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will suggest to the authorities the desirability of making this process of eviction an absolutely unprofitable transaction.

MR. O'DOHERTY

After the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33 (Amendment of 48 & 49 Viet. c. 73, ss. 10 and 13) agreed to.

Clause 34 (Definitions), amended, and, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35 (Short title) agreed to.

Postponed Clause 21.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

The Government do not propose to reproduce this clause; and, that being so, I venture to hope that hon. Gentlemen will withdraw the clauses they have put down in connection with the subject with which it deals. I heard with dismay that the hon. Member for Cork intended to raise the whole question in connection with the case of "Adams v. Dunseath;" but I venture to appeal to him to reconsider his position in that respect.

Question, "That Clause 21 stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

New Clause, page 2, after Clause 1, insert the following Clause:—

(Perpetuities may be set aside.)

In case of a lease or grant existing at the date of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' and executed since the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, of a holding bona fide in the occupation of the tenant or grantee, and to which, but for the length of the term, section one of this Act would apply, if the Court is satisfied that the acceptance thereof by the tenant or grantee was procured by the landlord by threat of eviction, or undue influence, or other inequitable means, the Court may, upon the application of the tenant or grantee made within six mouths after the passing of this Act, declare such lease or grant to be void as and from the date of the order, upon such terms as to costs and otherwise as the Court may deem just, and thereupon such tenant shall be deemed to be tenant of a present ordinary tenancy from year to year at the rent mentioned in such lease, and subject to such conditions thereof as the Court may deem just."—(Mr. A.J. Balfour.)

—brought up, and road the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause,

In lines 2 and 3, to leave out "and executed since the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

The Government have introduced this portion of the clause in accordance with the recommendation of the Cowper Commission. I understand that the reason for the recommendation was that the pressure exercised, and which it is intended to cure, was exercised under the receding shadow of the Act of 1870. the Government are not, under the circumstances, prepared to assent to this Amendment.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I do not know what the Commissioners had in their mind; but I do not think they contemplated any special legislation with regard to long leases. the Amendment would only operate where it is proved that an unfair contract has been made; and I submit that where this is shown it ought not to matter a row of pins why it was made.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

If there had been any question with regard to perpetuity leases, I think it would have been brought to my notice. But I do not consider the clause will be of much effect in this respect, and therefore think the extension might be made.

MR. MARUM (Kilkenny, N.)

In dealing with this Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved for me in my absence, we must consider the circumstances which gave rise to the limitation in the Act of 1881. Before the year 1870 there was no protection whatsoever for tenants; immediately after the Act of 1870 was passed several noblemen and large proprietors proceeded to have leases drawn up with a view of defeating that Act—among them the Duke of Leinster. These leases were drawn up under advice of counsel; and I remember the late Mr. Butt telling me that he had been asked to draw up a lease with the object of defeating the Act, and the copies of that lease were in use in Ireland afterwards. Again, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) described those leases as a fraud and misuse of the Act. But the case of the tenant now is not that there has been any misuse of the Act of Parliament, but that there has been a revolution in rent which makes it necessary to quash these contracts. In the ease of judicial rents you have agreed to set aside what has been the solemn adjudication of the Court; but in regard to the cases contemplated by this Amendment you refuse to set them aside, although there has been no solemnity whatever connected with them.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

The Government will see that the Amendment I am about to propose is a compromise between two extreme views. I do not take up the line that every tenant who alleges his rent to be unfair should go into Court. I think there is an intermediate term between that and the proposal of the Government—that no one shall go into Court except he can show that the acceptance of the lease was procured by threat of eviction, undue influence, or other inequitable means. The line I take is that any tenant shall get the benefit of this clause if he can show that his rent is exorbitant. I think I can show a precedent for this in the Act of 1870. That Act set out that if a tenant could show that his rent was exorbitant he could claim the benefit of that part of the Act which allowed an evicted tenant to claim compensation for disturbance. Now, my proposal is cognate to what was proposed in that section of the Act of 1870. I ask that if the rent of any tenant can be justly described as exorbitant he shall be excluded from the general exception which the Government propose to insert in the clause. There are few Members probably who have taken an active interest in this question who have not, since the Government announced their intention with regard to these leases, received letters from tenants stating that they were excluded from the benefits of the Government proposals. I have received a letter from one of my constituents in which it is stated that the rent under a lease for 300 years was largely in excess of the Government valuation, and that he was satisfied that if he went into Court he would obtain a large reduction. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) has also received an application of a similar character; and there have also been letters on the subject in the public Press. These are additional reasons why the Government should assent to the proposals I make.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have considered the Amendment which the hon. Member has placed in my hand, and I point out that the first clause on the Paper with regard to exorbitant rent has been thrown out. The hon. Member appears to wish to revive that.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

The first clause had no reference to the ground of exorbitant rent. Whatever we did, we did in the case of all leaseholders of 99 years. That being so, if it is not out of order for a leaseholder to get the benefit of the clause, I think it was out of order to deal with perpetuity leaseholders. I do not know, Sir, that, I have succeeded in bringing conviction to your mind, but I submit that the points that I have raised are worthy of consideration.

MR. MARUM

It was I that promoted the proposals with regard to perpetuity leases in the first clause; and, when I did so, the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) recommended that the 99 years' leaseholders should I have precedence, and I thereupon withdrew my Amendments. In that way the perpetuity proposals have not come into application—nothing, in fact, but the limitation of the 99 years. Therefore, the Perpetuity Clauses are loft. I should like to see the counsel who would advise a tenant to go into Court in order to set aside a perpetuity lease on the grounds here mentioned. You say that the tenants are forced into the perpetuity tenure—is that, on the face of it, credible? I should like to sec i the counsel having the direction of proofs who would submit that, and I should like to see such an opinion signed by counsel.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

The marginal note to this clause seems to be illusory. It says—" Perpetuities may be set aside;" but there is nothing in the clause to justify those words.

THE CHAIRMAN

There was an Amendment, I think, which dealt with this question which was negatived—an Amendment to accept all leases but leases for ever. That being so, the question of the universal introduction of perpetuity leases would be unacceptable. This Amendment would deal with the case of leases which, but for the length of their duration, would be affected by Section 1. Though excluded from Section 1 they are to be admitted within the Act when the leases have been acquired by duress or threat of eviction. I do not know what is loft out, and to what the Amendment can apply.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I thought I mentioned in my observations a form between that of the proposal which would admit all leases over 99 years and the form of the Government. I would not propose that all leaseholders of over 99 years should now have the right to go into Court. I propose that a certain proportion of them—namely, those who can show that their rents are exorbitant—shall have that privilege. There is a very substantial distinction between a rent that may be unfair and a rent that may be exorbitant.

MR. MARUM

Technically speaking, that does not concern the perpetuity lease as a rule, because a lease of 99 years is not a perpetuity lease.

THE CHAIRMAN

The question does not turn on that. There are leases expressly excluded from Section 1, whether they are for 99 years or for perpetuity, and the question whether any of these can now be included on the pica that they are obtained under duress. I say that I know of no other class of those leases which would then be excluded.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

My hon. and learned.Friend says that the tenant may seek the benefits of this clause, apart from those considerations.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

I would appeal to hon. Members whether this question is really worth arguing any farther? It would be impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment, mid the only result of proceeding with the consideration of this Amendment would be further discussion and delay. I hope the hon. Member will be content to withdraw the Amendment, as it seems to be very doubtful whether or not it is in Order,

MR. MARUM

I should be very sorry for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to think that I treated this clause with contempt or anything of the kind, or that we did not desire to give proper attention to the claims of all parties. I should think it an injudicious tiling to vote against the clause altogether. I would rather withdraw the Amendment; and with regard to the application of the Amendment——

THE CHAIRMAN

The question of the application of the Amendment is not under consideration. I rule that the Amendment is out of Order.

MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)

I beg to move in lines 7 and 8 a clause to leave out the words "all other inequitable means." I believe that the introduction of those words in this Bill, which are contained in the Act of. 1881, will lead a great number of tenants to believe that they have an advantage under this measure which, as a matter of fact, they have not. I believe it would induce many to enter into legislation under a false impression, and would, consequently, cause thorn a large amount of unnecessary expense.

Amendment proposed, to amend the proposed New Clause, in lines 7 and 8, by leaving out the words "or other inequitable means."—(Mr. Macartney.)

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

MR. MARUM

I would just say hoi c that it is perfectly immaterial whether those words are omitted or not, for this reason. We do not make a ease here against the landlord that by inequitable means, or by any fraud or threat of eviction, he has forced a perpetuity lease upon a tenant. I know many cases which bear upon this point. I had only yesterday a communication from three priests, who mentioned the ease of a number of perpetuity leaseholders in my own locality, who not only pay much more than Griffith's valuation, but who are rented over the standard or scale of judicial rents in their district. The grounds on which I would rest my case are purely economic grounds, and I would not rest it on the grounds mentioned here.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF IRELA.ND (Mr. GIBSON) (Liverpool, Walton)

(who was indistinctly heard) was understood to resist the Amendment, on the ground that a misrepresentation might be made of the tenant's interest. It was not that such a thing would happen; but there ought to be general words in the clause which the Court might act under if it thought there was a case for the exercise of the jurisdiction. he urged the hon. Member not to press the Amendment.

MR. MACARTNEY

thought that cases of "fraudulent misrepresentation" would, be provided by for the ordinary law of the land.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I would propose another Amendment on line 8, after the word "means," to insert the words "or was owing to the fear of eviction on the part of the tenant or grantee." the point of that is this, that I think it was found—and the right hon. Gentleman will bear me out—in the corresponding Act of 1881, on the analogy of which this clause was drawn, that in many cases, though it was beyond question that pressure had been put upon the tenant, the tenant found it impossible to prove an express threat. There are a great many ways of killing a dog other than by hanging him; and, unfortunately, the landlord is always able to put the tenant out without flatly saying to him—"Unless you take this lease, out you go." I would, therefore, ask the Government to mitigate to some extent the stringency of the clause by adopting my Amendment. If the Court is of opinion that the acceptance of the lease was owing1 to fear of eviction on the part of the tenant or grantee, though he is not able to prove the exact threat, which is often a very difficult thing to do, it should be able to adopt a consideration of the kind I propose under the clause, which 13 sadly in want or some elasticity.

Amendment proposed, to the proposed Now Clause, in line 8, after the word "means." to insert the words "or was owing to the fear of eviction on the part of the tenant or grantee."—(Mr. Maurice Healy,)

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

MR. GIBSON(who was inaudible)

was understood to oppose the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I have another Amendment to line 8, to insert after the words "tenant or grantee," the words "or of the successor in title to the tenant or grantee." As the clause is drawn it could not operate if there were any change in the tenancy between the time the lease is forced on the tenant and the date of the application to the Court. That would not be plain as regards the word "tenant" alone, because the word tenant would include "successor." But it is plain so far as regards the word grantee. I can hardly conceive that the Government will contend that where duress has been practised, and the person immediately the victim of it is dead, that his successor should not have the benefit of this clause.

Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, in line 8, after the word "grantee," to insert the words "or of the successor in title to the tenant or grantee."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

MR. GIBSON

assented to the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I beg to move an Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name. I think I can make I out a case for this proposal which will I commend itself to the Government. There are hundreds of perpetuity leases in Ireland with clauses empowering the tenants to have a variable rent. I do not refer to the College leases at all, for they are specially exempted from this Amendment, i have not included them because it would open up a large ques- tion, which I do not desire to open up on this Rill. But in all Church leases, for instance, there are clauses which authorize a variation of rent according to prices; but the machinery is so cumbrous and expensive that the tenants have never been able to avail themselves of it. My case is that where the leases themselves actually contemplate a variation of rent according to prices, it is not out of place to ask the Government to ask for that form of lease to come under the operation of the clause. I know this Amendment would cover several hundreds of perpetuity leases.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Now Clause, at end to add— Provided also that in all cases of leases or grants in perpetuity, no matter when executed (other than those provided for in the Trinity College, Dublin Lousing; and Perpetuity Act, 1851) in which variable rents are provided for, this section shall apply, and the holder of any such lease or grant may apply to the Court to have a fair rout fixed."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

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

MR. GIBSON (who was indistinctly heard)

was understood to say that the variableness of the leases referred to was provided with the object of increasing the rents; but it had not been thought worth while to go through the cumbrous process for the object of effecting that purpose. the Government could not accept the Amendment, which appeared to him to involve a principle which the Committee had already decided.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

I wish to point out that there are eases where the landlord has sold to the tenant a halt-rent, where the tenant has given 25 years' purchase—half a rack-rent in order to be relieved from the future payment of that rent. The half-rents which have continued to be put down now become full rents by reason of the fall in prices, and the landlords have pocketed the whole of the 25 years' purchase of the half. These rents have been actually purchased by the tenants who wanted to got out of bondage. It has been a case of ransom. They have put down the money, and to say that they are not to get relief seems to be a monstrous proposal.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I quite concur with the hon. Gentleman that those who are interested in this leasehold question have seriously suffered during the last few days, because perpetuity leases have been ruled out of the clause. During the last six months I have had hundreds of letters with regard to leaseholders; and it struck me, seeing that the introduction of the principle of revision of rent was contemplated in regard to land held under judicial lease, that this was an Amendment which the Committee would accept. I think I should be neglecting my duty to my constituents, many of whom are involved in this matter, if I did not take the sense of the Committee upon the proposed Amendment.

Question put,

The Committee divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 139: Majority 40.

AYES
Allison, R. A.	M'Cartan, M.
Atherley-Jones, L.	M'Donald, P.
Biggar,J. G.	M'Kenna, Sir J. N.
Blane, A.	Mahony, P.
Broadhurst, H.	Marum, E. M.
Buxton, S. C.	Mayne, T.
Campbell, Sir G.	Molloy, B. C.
Campbell, H.	Montagu, S.
Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H.	Mornan, O. V.
	Murphy, W. M.
Chance, P. A.	Nolan, Colonel. J. P.
Channing, F. A.	Nolan, J.
Clancy, J. J.	O'Brien, P.
Cohen, A.	O'Brien, P. J.
Condon, T. J,	O'Connor, J. (Kerry)
Connolly, L.	O'Connor, T. P.
Conway, M.	O'Doherty. J. E.
Corbet, W. J.	O'Hanlon, T.
Cox, J. R.	O'Kelly, J.
Cozens-Hardy, H. H.	Pickard, B.
Cremer, W. R.	Pickersgill, E. H.
Crilly, D.	Pinkerton, J.
Deasy, J.	Provand, A. D.
Dillon, J.	Pyne, J. D.
Esmonde, Sir T. H. G.	Quinn, T.
Esslemont, P.	Rathbone, W.
Fenwick, C.	Redmond, J. E.
Finucane, J.	Redmond, W. H. K.
Flower, C.	Reynolds, W. J.
Flynn, J. C.	Roberts, J. B.
Fox, Dr. J. F.	Roe, T.
Gilhooly, J.	Rowntree, J.
Gill, T.P.	Samuelson, G. B.
Harrington, E.	Schwann, C. E.
Harrington, T. C.	Sexton, T.
Harris, M.	Sheehan, J. D.
Hayden, L. P.	Sheehy, D.
Hayne, C. Seale-	Sheil.E.
Healy, M.	Stack, J.
Hooper, J.	Stansfeld, right hon. J.
Hunter, W. A.
Joicey, J.	Sullivan, D.
Jordan,.J.	Sutherland, A.
Kennedy, E. J.	Tanner, C. K.
Kenny,'C. S.	Thorburn, W.
Kenny, J. E.	Tuite, J.
Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.	Wallace, R.
Macdonald, W. A.	Warmington, C.M.
Mac Neill, J. G. S.	Will, J. S.

Wilson, H. J.	TELLERS.
Woodhead. J.	Lea, T.
Yeo, F. A.	Russell, T. W.

NOES.
Agg-Gardner, J. T.	Goschen, rt. hn. G. J.
Ainslie, W. G.	Gray, C. W.
Aird, J.	Hamilton, right hon.
Amherst, W. A. T.	Lord G. F.
Anstruthur, Colonel R. H. L.	Hanbury, R. W.
	Hardcastle, F.
Ashmead-Bartlett,E.	Heath, A. R.
Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.	Heaton, J. H.
Barry. A. H. Smith-	Herbert, hon. S.
Bates, Sir E.	Hermon-Hodge, R. T.
Baumann. A. A.	Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.
Beadel, W. J.
Bentinck, Lord H. C.	Hoare, S.
Bond, G. H.	Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.
Boord, T. W.
Bristowe,T. L.	Holloway, G.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.	Howorth, H. H.
	Hozier, J. H. C.
Brookfield, A. M.	Hughes, Colonel E.
Burghley, Lord	Isaacs, L. H.
Campbell, J. A.	Jackson, W. L.
Carmarthen, Marq. of	Jeffreys, A. F.
Charrington, S.	Jennings, L. J.
Clarke, Sir E. G.	Johnston, W.
Coghill, D. H.	Kelly, J. R.
Colomb, Capt. J, C. R.	Kerans, J R.
Commoroll, Adml. Sir J. E.	Kimber, H.
	King -Harman, right hon. Colonel E. R.
Compton, F.
Cooke, C. W. R.	Knowles, L.
Corbett, J.	Lafone, A.
Corry, Sir J. P.	Lees, E.
Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.	Leighton, S.
Cranborne, Viscount	Lewisham, right hon. Viscount
Cross, H..S.
Dalrymple, Sir C.	Long, W. H.
Davenport, H T.	Macartney, W. G. E.
De Lisle, E.. J. L. M. P.	Macdonald, right hon. J H. A.
De Worms, Baron H.	Maclean, J. M.
Dimsdale, Baron R.	Madden, D. H.
Dixon, G.	Mallock, R.
Dixon-Hartland, F. D.	Marriott, right hon. W. T.
Dorington, Sir J. E.
Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.	Matthews, rt. hon. H.
	Maxwell, Sir H. E.
Evelyn, W. J.	Mills, hon. C. W.
Ewart, W.	Morrison, W.
Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.	Mount, W. G.
	Mulholland, H. L.
Field, Admiral E.	Norris, E. S.
Fielden, T.	Northcote, hon. H. S.
Finlay, R. B.	O'Neill, hon. R. T.
Fisher, W. H.	Pelly, Sir L.
Fitzgerald, R. U. P.	Plunket, right hon. D R.
Fletcher, Sir H.
Folkestone, right hon. Viscount	Powell, F. S.
	Price, Captain G. E.
Forwood, A. B.	Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.
Gathorne-Hardy, hon. J. S.	Reed, H. B.
	Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.
Gent-Davis, R.	Robertson, J. P. B.
Gibson, J. G.	Robinson, B.
Giles, A.	Round, J.
Gilliat, J. S.	Sidebotham, J. W.
Goldsworthy, Major-	Sidebottom, T. H.
General W. T.	Sidebottom, W.
Gorst, Sir J. E.	Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

Stanhope, rt. hon. E.	Wharton, J. L.
Stanley, E. J.	Wiggin, H.
Stephens, H. C.	Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
Stewart, M. J.	Wright, H. S.
Temple, Sir R.	Wroughton, P.
Theobald, J.	Yerburgh, R. A.
Tomlinson, W. E. M.	Young, C. E. B.
Trotter, H. J.
Tyler, Sir H. W.	TELLERS.
Waring, Colonel T.	Douglas, A. Akevs-
Webster, Sir R. E.	Walrond, Col. W. H
Webster, R. G.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

I beg to propose the following New Clause:— A tenant shall, for the purpose of 'The Lund Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' and of this Act, be deemed to be in bonâ fide occupation of his holding notwithstanding that he has sub-let part thereof, provided the subletting is for the use of labourers bona fide employed and required for the cultivation of the holding, and the Court deems such sub-letting reasonable and sanctions the same. The land comprised in each such letter shall not exceed half an acre in extent, and the Court shall have regard to the size and character of the holding, and may prescribe such terms as to rent and otherwise with regard to the part sub-let as it thinks fit. A tenant may also be deemed in occupation of his holding notwithstanding; that part is sub-let whore the sub-letting is of a trivial character, and the Court deems the tenant to be substantially in occupation of the holding."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

New Clause (Sub-letting to labourers and others) brought up, and read the first time.

Question, "That the Clause be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I beg to move to insert after the word "is," in line 4, "or was originally." The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson), if he has had any experience of the Land Court of Ireland—and I think he has—wilt see the importance of this Amendment. My experience is that in a great many of the eases in which the tenants were excluded from. the benefit of the Land Act, it arose from the fact that, although the original sub-letting was a sub letting to the labourer, the state of things had changed previous to the application to the Court owing to the transmission of the tenancy from the original labourer to his wife or some other member of his family. I am sure it is not the intention of the Government that because the tenant does not turn out the widow of the labouror who happens to die on the holding, or his son, or his daughter who may happen to remain in occupation afterwards, the tenant is to be excluded from the benefit of the Act. I expect the Government will accept these words—"or was originally." Any subletting clause which is restricted to the case of an actual labourer will fail to have this effect, because there are a largo number of cases in which, though the letting was originally a letting to a labourer, owing to one cause or another, owing to the labourer having died, the state of things has changed. The original letting was a letting to a labourer; but a state of things will be found to exist at the passing of this Act which will prevent cases coming within the terms of this clause.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Now Clause, in line 4, after the word "is," insert the words "or was originally."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (Liverpool, Walton)

This proposal of the hon. Member it is impossible for the Government to accept. The provisions of the Act of 1881, as the Committee are aware, are founded upon this—that the benefit of the Act of 1881 should be enjoyed by occupying tenants only. There are certain qualifications and exceptions to that principle, some of which are to be found in the provision respecting the landlord's consent to certain subletting. There is also a provision in the Act of 1881 as to the authorization of certain sub-letting by the Court. If the proposal of the hon. Member is to be sanctioned by the Committee, the result will be this—that when a man made a letting to a labourer, and when that labourer died, the family of the labourer might remain on without doing a stroke of work on the holding, and then new lettings would have to be made for the benefit of the labourers actually required on the holding. There would have to be several sub-lettings, and that is a state of things to which we cannot consent. The limit which we propose in this clause is of a two-fold character; if the sub-letting is against the landlord's will, and without his consent, it is forbidden under the Act of 1881; as I have said, it is an essential condition of the Act of 1881 that the benefit of the Act shall be limited to tenants in occupation and not enjoyed by middlemen. One of the objects we have had in view in dealing with this question of sub-letting to labourers is the necessity of protecting the labourors against exorbitant rents, because in cases I have seen come again and again before the Land Courts of, Ireland, it has been painfully impressed upon my mind that under the guise of labourers men have been put upon holdings and charged rents which were absolutely exorbitant in comparison with the rents the tenants were paying to their landlords. This sub-letting without the landlord's consent, in violation of the Act of 1881, should be guarded by the provision that the letting should be for the purposes of actual bonâ fide labourers required on the holding. I assure hon. Members that my sole desire in framing these Amendments, as they will probably see, is to do what I consider real and reasonable justice in the case. I do not think any hon. Gentleman can say there has been any attempt on the part of the Government not to confer substantial benefit by this Bill. We cannot possibly accept the proposal of the hon. Member.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I am not going to discuss the spirit in which the Government proposed this Amendment. I assume the spirit was a proper spirit, and that they had some real intention of dealing with what is an admitted grievance; but with great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman I toll him—and I can speak with some experience—that this clause will not apply to two out of five cases of the character ordinarily known as sub-letting cases. I appeal to the good feeling of Members of the Committee whether it is possible to defend the principle which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has laid down? That principle is that if a man has a labourer on his holding, as very often happens, for 20, 30, 40, or 50; years, and the labourer dies, because I the moment the labourer dies the farmer does not immediately proceed to turn the widow out-of-doors he is to lose the benefit of the Land Act. That is nakedly the effect of the clause of the Government as it stands, and that is nakedly the state of things which the right lion, and learned Gentleman attempts to defend. Now, Sir, I do not shut my eyes to the fact that if this clause were not hedged around with restrictions some such danger as that pointed out might arise; but let me point out that the Court must decide that the sub-letting is reasonable, and must sanction the subletting. I ask, is that not sufficient protection? Has the right lion, and learned Gentleman no confidence in the Court which is to administer the Act? I am willing to meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman in any way; but I claim I have aimed at a distinct blot in this clause, and one which will operate in a very injurious way upon the working of the Act. We are now considering a clause which is as important as any other one clause of the Bill. We are upon a clause which is intended to remedy one of. the greatest grievances which have arisen under the Land Act of 1881. There was no decision of the Land Court of Ireland which spread so much consternation among tenants as the decision upon sub-letting; and I say that, if the Government do not meet in an adequate way the difficulty' which arose under that Act, they will rob this Bill as the Land Act was robbed of half t of its efficacy. I earnestly ask the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to direct his mind to this matter. I do not wish to ask for anything unreasonable. I do not ask that the tenant shall get any privileges. I am willing that any right of sub-letting should be hedged round with any such restrictions as the right hon. and learned Gentleman can devise; but this I do ask—that the tenant shall not be excluded from the benefit of the Act because he behaves, in a humane manner to the family of I a labourer who, perhaps, has worked for him all his life. It is no theoretical case; it is one which arises every day. It is not the practice of tenants to turn out the family when the labourer has ceased worked on the farm; and I think they would be justly denounced if they acted in so inhumane a manner. My Amendment does not leave the matter at the discretion of the tenant. If it is not proper that the tenant should leave the family of the labourer in occupation, the Court will have power to hold that he has acted unwisely; and all I ask is that if the Court considers that the circumstances are such that the letting is reasonable, and they are induced to sanction it, the tenant shall not be excluded from the benefit of the Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman directed his argument entirely to my Amendment as if this clause were drawn upon quite a different plan, and as if the Court had not the power of sanctioning sub-letting. i am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not desire that this Act shall be frustrated by any technicalities; and I claim that he and those who sit around him will believe that our Amendments to this clause have been framed with the object of making it workable. They are framed from a very considerable experience, and I ask that they shall receive fair consideration. the right hon. and learned Gentleman adopts a sort of non possumus to Amendments proposed from this quarter of the House. Now, I claim that Amendments proceeding from this part of the House ought to be received in a fair spirit, because we have had very considerable practical experience in the working of the Land Act, and many of us have necessarily had a great deal more experience than the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself can have had, because his practice has been restricted to the Superior Courts, and especially when our Amendment strikes, as this one does, at a distinct blot in the Act we ought to be fairly met.

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) has made out an unanswerable case. You have chocks to excessive sub-letting, which ought to be sufficient for all your purposes. In the first place, as the hon. Member for Cork has pointed out, the clause provides that the Court should deem the sub-letting reasonable, and shall sanction the same; on the other hand, you have, in the very nature of the case itself, the highest possible guarantee that there will not be any excessive subletting. Take the case which the right hon. and learned Gentleman put himself. A labourer who has boon employed 30, 40, or 50 years dies, leaving a widow and some children. It will be considered a great hardship if imme- diately upon his death Ins family is to be turned out of the holding. It will obviously be to the interest of the farmer or the tenant cultivating the land to see that there is no excessive sub-letting. Does it not strike any reasonable man that the ordinary motives of Christian charity will suggest to the tenant that he should leave- the widow of the labourer in the holding, and that, at the same time, the ordinary motives of self-interest will effectually prevent the tenant from an excessive multiplication of cases of sub-letting. Under these circumstances, I think the case made out by my hon. Friend is very reasonable. He speaks of the majority of the Members on this side of the House as having an intimate—a painfully intimate—acquaintance with all the blots and defects of the Laud Act of 1881. We saw the manner in which largo numbers of deserving people were kept out of the benefits of the Act. We saw that every possible variety of excuse ingenuity could suggest was brought up for keeping one class of the tenants out of the benefits of the Act of 1881. Our Amendments are intended to meet cases in which injustice has been done, and do not spring from any unreasonable desire of pressing the Government unduly or too far in a matter of this kind. We recognize the good intentions of the Government in proposing this clause, and we only ask that when we point out a blot they will try to remedy the defect.

MR, CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

Before we go to a Division I desire to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland as to whether he will accept any modification whatever—as to whether he will not do anything to grapple with this matter? There are a large number of cases in the North of Ireland where the holdings were originally let to labourers, but in which, on the death of the tenant, the widow became tenant, the son as he grew up doing a substantial amount of work for the tenant. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary whether he will make a concession in order to cover such a case? It is a case within the spirit of his own clause, for the tenant is really the labourer, although not technically. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to lot us know whether he will not accept some modification which will cover these and other substantial cases, and remove what will otherwise be a burning grievance in the North of Ireland?

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 157: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No. 344.)

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I have a verbal Amendment, to insert in line 4, after the word "of," the words "a labourer or."

Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, in line 4, after the word "of," to insert the words "a labourer or."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

MR. FLYNN

We have no desire to press the Government too far, or to debate this clause at unreasonable length. We desire, however, that there should not be loop-holes and crevices through which all the solid advantages given to the leaseholders and other tenants will fall through. We want to fill up the crevices, and to make the provisions of the Bill practically useful, and I hope the Committee will see that in that view the Amendment I now propose is perfectly reasonable. I propose to leave out the words "bonâ fide employed and required for the cultivation of the holding." It is obvious to everyone who knows anything about agricultural life in Ireland that the labourers reside in or near the holdings on which they are employed. Exceptional cases may arise from time to time—cases of a temporary nature—whore it would be extremely hard on the tenant in bonâ fide occupation of his holding to lose his free sale advantages, or any other advantages that it is intended to give by the Bill to the tenants in Ireland, through a breach—or an apparent broach—of this part of the clause that I propose to strike out. It often happens that on a farm of a certain size there may be a couple of cottages occupied by labourers working on the farm. Well, the farmer changes the nature of his farm, puts all the laud which previously had been cultivated under pasture, and no longer requires the services of these labourers. Well, the result of leaving those words in the clause would be, under these circumstances, to deprive the farmer of the benefit of this clause. My Amendment aims at this—it provides that the fact that a labourer living in the farmer's house is employed upon some neighbouring property shall not deprive the ten- ant of the privileges of the Bill. It provides that the more fact of a little bit of the holding being sub-let to the labourer1: under these circumstances shall not put the tenant so sub letting outside the Act. the Committee will see that there will still be ample protection in regard: to all other cases of sub-letting in the fact that the Court must doom these sub-lettings to be reasonable, and must sanction thorn. You must either have confidence in the Court or you must not. I believe that the Court, taking all the circumstances into consideration, will be the best judges of a transaction of this kind; and you may rest assured that, constituted as the Courts are in Ireland, and from what we know of the County Court Judges, it is not likely that the proceedings will be unfairly prejudiced against the landlords—it is not very likely that the balance will he unduly held in favour of the tenant. I trust the Government will accept this Amendment, as it is one which will help to carry out the object they have in view.

Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, in lines 4 and 5, to leave out the words "bonâ fide employed and required for the cultivation of the holding."—(Mr. Flynn.)

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, it seems, are not content with looking a gift horse in the mouth, but they make a most minute examination of every one of the grinders.

MR. CHANCE

He has false teeth.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am bound to say I think the action of hon. Gentlemen opposite unreasonable. We were promised by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) that we should have the Committee stage of this Bill concluded to-night. Well, I submit that there are most important questions, questions of a largo character, still to be discussed; and we may very reasonably ask whether hon. Members think it worth while to discuss small verbal Amendments such as the one now proposed, which may or may not be advantageous thereby de- ferring for a considerable period the consideration of those other important Amendments. With regard to this particular clause and this particular Amendment, I would ask whether the hon. Member has made himself acquainted with the Act of 1881? If he had any acquaintance with that Act he would have seen with what a much larger measure of generosity we have dealt with this question of sub-letting. If hon. Members will look at the minute and arithmetically laid down provisions on this subject in the Act of 1881, and if they will take into consideration the aspects in which that Act is regarded on all sides upon this matter, I think they will see that they have got a great deal of that which they desire. We have drawn this clause upon very wide lines, and I, therefore, trust that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment further.

MR. COX (Clare, E.)

I can illustrate the point at issue by some facts within my own experience. I happen to know a tenant farmer who will come under this Bill, if it becomes law. the person I have in my mind is a leaseholder, and a very charitable gentleman. He had two widows on his property, one of whom he loft on the holding at a rent of 2s. 6d. a-year. Wanting the house the other widow was living in, he built a fresh residence for her and her children, and charged the nominal rent of 2s. 6d. a-year. Well, I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland——

THE CHAIRMAN

the hon. Gentleman is entering upon the discussion of an Amendment which has just been disposed of.

Question put, and agreed, to.

MR. CHANCE

I propose the next Amendment, in order to elicit some reply from the Government. It is to insert, in line 5, after the word "holding," the words "or the rent or a substantial part thereof has been usually paid in labour," This is to cover the case where a labourer is dead, and his [widow or her son remain in occupation. This practice prevails to a largo extent in South Deny. In cases such as this the persons in occupation are not bound to labour on the holding, but may pay rent in money—6d. or 1s. a-week perhaps. As a matter of fact, the rent is usually paid in labour, the occupants of; the cottages putting in a day or two now I and then: but, strictly speaking, these, people are not labourers. This Amendment is not a prospective alteration, but; only deals with cases that are now in existence If the Government do not feel inclined to entertain this Amendment now, I trust, at any rate, they will promise to consider the matter before Report. If you do not consider this case, and deal with it in this Bill, whore there are sub-lettings of this kind the result may be that those widows and orphans may be turned out on the roadside, in order that the tenants under whom they hold shall not be deprived of the advantages of the Act.

Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, in line i>, after the "word "holding," to insert the words "or the rent or a substantial part thereof has been usually paid in labour."—(Mr. Chance.)

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

MR. GIBSON

Her Majesty's Government are unable to accept this Amendment, the effect of which we imagine would be this—that though labourers may not be bondâ fide, employed and required for the cultivation of the holding, and are really required by neighbouring farmers, and even where the sub-letting is against the will of the landlord, still those cases would be considered to be within this clause if occasionally the occupants of the cottages pay a certain amount of the rent in labour. There is one thing which underlies every line of the Land Act of 1881, and that is that the tenant in occupation of a holding shall not sublet or sub-divide that holding. If he gets his landlord's consent, then, notwithstanding the sub-letting, he is doomed in occupation of the holding; but if he lets in defiance of the landlord's consent, he must let for the use of labourers bonâ fide employed and required for the cultivation of the holding, and it would be a very serious matter if that principle were to be departed from, and if you were to allow sub-lettings to labourers employed upon other farms. There is no doubt in the world that that would give rise to very grave and serious abuses. The clause is framed so as to be as wide as possible.

It has not been our object to frame a niggardly clause, in order that, as hon. Members point out their shortcomings and their defects, we may be able to make concessions with a show of generosity. If hon. Members point out unmistakable defects we shall be very willing to consider them; but we cannot accept Amendments which go to the very principle upon which the clauses were conceived. We have very important matters to go into. As hon. Members know very well, we have given way on some most important points. I trust that, in view of this fact, they will allow us to make progress with the remaining now clauses. We have, as I say, framed these clauses in a broad and generous spirit, and I now appeal to hon. Members to assist us in finally disposing of this Bill, which it is believed on all sides will confer such enormous benefits upon the Irish tenant. The sooner the Bill passes into law the better it will be for the tenants of Ireland.

MR. CHANCE

It seems utterly useless to press Amendments while the Government are in their present mood; but I submit that the proposal now before the Committee would only bring technically within the clause what is really within the spirit of it. I do not accuse the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, or the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, or their Colleagues, with having framed their clauses in a niggardly spirit; but it must be remembered how narrowly all these Acts are scanned, and how literally they are administered in Ireland, so far as the benefits they confer upon the tenants are concerned. The sole easel want to deal with is this—where a man is not bound to labour on the holding, and therefore is not bondâ fide employed within the technical meaning of the clause; but where, as a matter of fact, he does labour on it, and does pay almost all his rent in labour, with the exception of, perhaps, 2s. 6d. once or twice a-year, or thereabouts. I trust that before Report the Government will consider this point, and will endeavour to make some concession in order to prevent the people in whose interests I am moving being turned out upon the roadside. I trust the Chief Secretary will do that, [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!'] Very well. I have no desire to interfere with the spirit of the clause; and as the right; hon. Gentleman seems inclined to consider the matter favourably before Report I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MOLLOY

On behalf of my lion, and learned Friend the Member for North Kilkenny (Mr. Marum), I bog to i move, inline 7, to omit the word "half." the clause says—"The land comprised in each such letting shall not exceed half-an-acre in extent." the effect of this Amendment would be that the subletting might be an acre in extent. In many eases, sub-lettings of this kind are an acre in extent. The right boa. Gentleman opposite must bear in mind that half-an-acre upon some estates is better and more valuable than an acre or oven more upon other estates. I think the Amendment is one which the Government should have no difficulty in accepting.

Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, in line 7, after the word "exceed," to omit the word "half."—(Mr. Molloy.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'half stand part of the proposed New Clause."

MR. GIBSON

Under the Act of 1881 the amount was half-an-acre, and that is the amount fixed in all the Labourers' Acts, of which we have had no less than four in this House, the last of them being passed last year. The amount of land which can be lot as holdings to labourers by the Poor Law Guardians is half-an-acre. The question is, to what is the ideal amount of land which, should be apportioned to a labourer? is a question which may very fairly be discussed in the future; but all I can say is that in this Bill it would be a very wide measure, and a very questionable proceeding, if we undertook to go beyond the principle laid down in previous legislation dealing with labourers, and were to enlarge the amount of land allowed for holdings.

MR. T. C. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland will see that there is no proper parallel between the limit of land allowed to a labourer under the existing La- bourers' Acts and the amount he should be entitled to hold under this Bill without disentitling the farmer to the advantages of this Bill. It must be remembered that under the Labourers' Act the grants of half-an-acre were made to labourers out of the public purse; and there is no comparison between that case and the case of a voluntary letting of a piece of land to a labourer. In the future, if this Bill is passed in the form in which the Government propose, if an unfortunate labourer holds an acre of land with, the consent of the tenant, and it may be with the consent also of the landlord, the result will be that he will have to surrender half of his holding. The effect of passing this clause in its present shape will be that, instead of improving the position of the labourers generally, you will be seriously injuring a large number of them. We do not wish to raise the standard of all sub-divisions of holdings; but we desire that a limit shall be fixed such as will prevent the shutting out from this clause of a large number of deserving people.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I move to add, at the end of the proposed new Clause the words— Where a portion of a holding is sub-let, the tenant of such holding shall nevertheless, for the purpose of the said Act, and this Act, be deemed to he in occupation of the same, if the portion sub-lot does not in itself constitute a holding to which the said Act applies, and if the Court deems the sub-letting reasonable and sanctions the same. The object of my Amendment is this—it is to prevent a tenant being excluded from the benefit of the Act because he has a house on his land which he may sub-let, say, to a blacksmith. We all agree that any sub-letting that leads to the land of a farm being unnecessarily split up is unreasonable; but we all know that in some rural districts houses are very scarce, and I therefore think it only reasonable that in such a place a tenant should not be excluded from the benefits of the Act because he sublets a house which he has upon his land. The sub-letting of such houses, under these circumstances, is a matter of very common occurrence. I had a ease myself some time ago in which there was a house on a farm, one which had boon on it for more than 60 years, and because the tenant let the house altogether with that land, although, as I say, the sub-letting Lad lasted for 60 years, he was deprived of the benefits of the Land Act, and was unable to obtain a reduction of his rent, as all the other tenants were able to do. That is a very hard case, and one the evil of which I think we are in duty bound to remedy. I cannot see that any damage to the landlords could result from the acceptance of this Amendment. I do not propose that the holding should be one to which the Land Act applies—I only propose that it should be a house. I insert also the safeguard that the Court shall deem the sub-letting reasonable, and shall sanction it; and there is another condition which I lay down, which will probably recommend my proposal to the Government, which is that the sub-letting should have taken place before the passing of the Act of 1881. I beg to move my Amendment.

Amendment proposed,

At the end of the Clause, to add the words—"Where a portion of a holding is sub-let, the tenant of such holding shall nevertheless, for the purpose of the said Act, and this Act, be deemed to be in occupation of the same, if the portion sub-let does not in itself constitute a holding to which the said Act applies, and if the Court deems the sub-letting reasonable and sanctions the same."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

MR. GIBSON

This Amendment proposes that even if the sub-letting is not for the purpose of accommodating labourers employed on the holding that the sub-letting can take place without being deemed a breach of the statutory obligations of the tenant. To illustrate the effect of the Amendment, I would say that under the Act of 1881 a cottier's holding of half-an-acre does not come within the perpetuity section; accordingly, it would come within the provision which would exclude it from the moaning of the Act. That cottier, according to the hon. Member's Amendment, would not exclude the tenant of the land from the benefits of this Bill, notwithstanding- that ho, the cottier, might pay to the tenant 10 or 15 or even 100 per cent over a fair rout, and over what the tenant pays to the landlord. This Amendment proposes that the cottier, who has been made a cottier in violation of the Act of 1881, without the consent of the landlord, and who can got no relief against an exorbitant rent, who does not do one stroke of work on the holding, and although he pays an appreciable portion of the rent which the tenant hands over to the landlord, shall not be constituted a breach of the terms of the Act of Parliament. It proposes that the subtenant should remain in occupation if the Court should be of opinion that under all the circumstances of the case he should be allowed to remain. We do not think that a proper state of things. We all know that in the case of small sub-lettings, especially at the expiration of a lease, the landlord has been able to insist that the tenant is not in bondâ fide occupation of the holding, and that the sub-letting, although it may be trifling, is contrary to the provisions of the lease. That matter we have dealt with at the end of this clause. Whether we are right or wrong in our contention we cannot accept this proposal. The Amendment would give a dangerous discretion to the Court, and we think that the Court should not be allowed to work on this question of sub-letting at large, but should have guides and landmarks to assist it. We think the Amendment would be inconsistent with what we have already done; and, having said so much on the subject, I trust the hon. Member will withdraw his proposal.

MR. T. C. HABRRINGTON

The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have a great deal of sympathy for the unfortunate cottier who has to pay a very high rent. He has told us of cases where they have to pay exceedingly high rents for cottages of this kind. Well, I must say the right hon. and learned Gentleman adopts an extraordinary method of offering protection to the cottier, when he gives the tenants of Ireland an inducement to shut them out of their holdings. If it be true that in certain districts cottages are let to labourers without land, it must be for the reason that houses are very scarce there. No cottier would pay a rout three or four times more than it should be for a cottage without land, unless it were impossible for him to get better terms in I the district. But the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is this—that the farmer, in order to obtain his rent, shall be obliged to cast out any unfortunate cottier on his holding homeless and adrift on the world.

He seems to make it a condition that the tenant should not be able to got any relief from the Court unless be casts out his unfortunate sub-tenants. Take the case of a blacksmith who has no other connection with the farm than holding a forgo on one corner of the land. In order to enable the tenant to go info Court to obtain the benefit of the Act it will be necessary for him to turn out the smith, and to compel him to look for a place on which to sot up his forge somewhere else, where it may be extremely inconvenient and, at times, impossible for him to obtain it. I should like to point out that the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is based upon a complete fallacy as to the exorbitant rents charged. If an exorbitant rent is charged for cottages placed on the holding, there is a provision in this very clause we are discussing to enable the Court to reduce it. There is a provision enabling the Court to deal with that rent just as it deals with the rent of the tenants.

MR. GIBSON

Only in the case of labourers.

MR. T. C. HARRINGTON

We have been endeavouring to extend the provision to all such cases, and we have no objection to the provision being extended so far. We think the effect of this will be that unless a man incurs a great amount of unpopularity by casting out an unfortunate widow, or some smith who wants a piece of land for his forget—that unless a man runs a risk of that kind he is bound to be turned out of Court, and is unable to obtain a readjustment of his rent.

MR. M'CARTAN (Down, S.)

What is asked by this Amendment? We simply ask that the labourers in the North of Ireland, for whom so little has been done by the Labourers' Acts that have been passed—because they have scarcely over been put in fores—shall have a roof to cover them, and that the farmers who give them their homos shall not lose their right to go into Court through having done so. the proposal here made cannot touch or affect prejudicially the interests of the landlords; and that being so, and as it will be a convenience for the tenant and for the labourer', surely this Government, which professes to have the interests of the labourers so much at heart, will, on reflection, see the desirability of accept- ing this proposal. If they were not inclined to do so before, I trust that having heard the evidence of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) on behalf of the labourers they will now be induced to accept the Amendment.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

Before the Committee go to a Division upon this Amendment I should like to express extreme regret that the Government have found it necessary to hedge round this new clause. There seems to prevail great misapprehension on this question of sub-letting. Some Members of the Committee seem, to think that our object is to encourage sub-letting, but nothing can be further from the facts of the case. This Amendment can only deal with cases of sub-letting which are actually now in force. Therefore, there can be no question of encouraging sub-letting when we only deal with sub-letting that now exists. In all cases of sub-letting there should be reductions given to the sub-tenants as well as to the tenants. We not only desire that the clause should be put in operation where small portions of land are sub-let for the sake of the farmer, but we think it equally desirable for the sake of the labourer or householder. I cannot understand what object the Government have in fencing the clause round with these provisions. the Government have given no reason for their position. As I have said, there is not a shadow of a foundation for the aspersion that we desire to encourage sub-letting. Our proposal, we maintain, would have a precisely opposite effect. Whatever effect it will have will be to do that justice to all parties which we desire. All the arguments in favour of applying this clause to farms on which there are no sub-lettings, except to a few labourers, apply also to estates upon which there are sub-lettings. The position of the Government is this—according to the contention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, that -where there are sub-lettings the sub-tenants are charged a monstrous rout from which they get no relief, and that so long as that continues the heal tenant is not to be allowed to come into Court to obtain a fair rent-That means, then, that the head tenant is to go on paying a rack-rent, and is to go on charging a rack-rent to his tenant.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

I want to know who are the friends of the labourers to-night. There is no cry which has boon more frequently raised than that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson). and some hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, whom I need not further describe—a cry that they are the true friends of the labourer, who have rescued him from the ruin sought to be imposed upon him by Gentlemen on these Benches. That, I think, comes rather strongly from men who during the whole course of their political existence have never done a thing for the labourer, or who, if they have over done any good to him, have only done it by chance. When an opportunity is presented to these hon. Gentlemen to do something for the labourer, the loud mouths of those labourers' friends are still—these hon. Gentlemen sit in solemn silence. For the last hour we have been endeavouring to press upon the Government, not that they shall enlarge the present rights of the labourers, but that they shall not cut them down. At the present moment, with all due respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, the question is not that of enlarging the scope of the Labourers' Act, hut of carrying out the spirit of the legislation on those Acts. The effect of rejecting this Amendment will be that large numbers of farmers in Ireland, in order to escape from rack-rents, will be compelled to subject a large number of labourers, or labourers' widows in Ireland, to the misery and hardship of eviction. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman deny that? Are we asking anything unreasonable when we ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Colleagues not to punish the farmer for carrying out the spirit of previous Acts of the Legislature for the relief of the labourers? How does this case stand? In a great many parts of Ireland the labourer has given to him a small house—sometimes it is a forge, or some other convenience—by the farmer. Might I, through you, Sir, ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) not to embarrass the discussion of this important question by speaking in a tone of voice so loud as to be hardly in accordance with that decorum of which the right hon. Gentleman is so distinguished an advocate in this House? What will be the case if this Amendment be not accepted? The result will be that the farmer, in order to get relief himself, must inflict hardship upon the labourer to whom he wishes to act in a fair and proper spirit. While this great act of injustice is being done both to the farmer and the labourer in Ireland, the labourers' friends opposite sit glued to their seats; the Government are allowed to adopt this inhuman, harsh, and prejudicial course without remonstrance, I trust this appeal will meet with some response, and that before rejecting this Amendment the Government will find some better argument against it than that which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has advanced.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 122; Noes 194: Majority 72.

AYES.
Acland, C. T. D.	Grey, Sir E.
Allison, R. A.	Harrington, E.
Anderson, C. H.	Harrington, T. C.
Asquith, H. H.	Harris, M.
Atherley-Jones, L.	Hayden, L. P.
Blanc, A.	Healy, M.
Bradlaugh, C.	Hooper, J.
Broadhurst, H.	Hunter, W. A.
Burt, T.	Joicey, J.
Buxton, S. C.	Jordan, J.
Campbell, Sir G.	Kennedy, E. J.
Campbell, H.	Kenny, C. S.
Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H.	Kenny, J. E.
	Kenny, M. J.
Chance, P. A.	Lawson, Sir W.
Charming, F. A.	Lea, T.
Clancy,.J. J.	Lefevre, right hon. G. J.S.
Condon, T.,J.
Connolly, L.	Macdonald, W. A.
Conway, M.	Mac Neill, J. G. S.
Conybeare, C. A. V.	M'Arthur, W. A.
Cossham, H.	M'Cartan, M.
Cox, J. R.	M'Donald, P.
Cozens-Hardy, H. H.	M'Ewan, W.
Crawford, D.	M'Kenna, Sir J. N.
Cremer, W. R.	Mahony, P.
Crilly, D.	Mappin, Sir F. T.
Dillon, J.	Marjoribanks, rt. hon E.
Duff, R. W.
Esmonde, Sir T. H. G.	Marum, E. M.
Essalemont, P.	Mason, S.
Fenwick, C.	Mavne, T.
Ferguson, R. C. Manro-	Molloy, B. C.
Finucane, J.	Montagu, S.
Flower, C.	Morgan, O. V.
Flynn, J. C.	Morley, A.
Fox, Dr. J. F.	Mundella, rt. hn. A.J.
Gilhooly, J.	Murphy, W. M.
Gill T.P.	Nolan, Colonel J. P.
Gourley, E. T.	Nolan, J.
Gray, E. D.	O'Brien, P.

O'Brien, P. J.	Schwann, C. E.
O'Connor, J. (Kerry)	Sexton, T.
O'Connor, T. P.	Sheehan, J. D.
O'Doherty, J. E.	Sheehy, D.
O'Hanlon, T.	Sheil, E.
O'Kelly, J.	Shirley, W. S.
Parker, C. S.	Stack, J.
Pickard, B.	Stansfeld. rt. hon. J.
Pickersgill, E. H.	Sutherland, A.
Picton, J. A.	Swinburne, Sir J.
Pinkerton, J.	Tanner, C. K.
Plowden, Sir W. C.	Tuite, J.
Pyne, J. D.	Wallace, R.
Quinn, T.	Warmigton C.M.
Redmond, J. E.	Will, J. S.
Redmond, W. H. K.	Williams, A. J.
Reynolds, W. J.	Williamson, S.
Roberts, J B.	Wilson, H. J.
Roe, T.	Woodhead, J.
Roscoe, Sir H. E.	Yeo, F. A.
Rowlands, J.
Rowntree, J.	TELLERS,
Russell, T. W.	Biggar, J. G.
Samuelson, G. B.	Sullivan, D,

NOES.
Agg-Gardnor, J. T.	Cranborne, Viscount
Ainslie, W. G.	Cross, H.S.
Aird, J.	Dalrymple, Sir C.
Amherst, W, A. T.	Davenport, H. T.
Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.	Davenport, W. B.
	De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.
Anstruther, H. T.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.	De Worms, Baron H,
Balfour, rt. hon. A. J	Dickson, Major A. G.
Barry, A. H. Smith-	Dimsdale, Baron R.
Barttelot, Sir W. B.	Dixon-Hartland, F. D.
Bass, H.	Dorington, Sir J. E.
Bates, Sir E.	Duncan. Colonel F.
Baumann, A. A.	Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.
Beadel, W. J.
Bentinck, Lord H. C.	Edwards-Moss, T. C.
Beresford, Lord C. W.	Egerton, hon. A. J. F.
De la Poer	Egerton, hon. A. de T.
Blundell, Col, H. B. H.	Elliot, hon. A. R. D.
Bond, G. H.	Elton, C. I.
Boord, T. W.	Evelyn, W. J.
Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.	Ewart, W.
	Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.
Bristowe, T. L.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.	Field, Admiral E.
	Finch, G. H.
Brookfield, A. M.	Finlay, R. B.
Bruce, Lord H.	Fisher, W. H.
Burghley, Lord	Fitzgerald, R. U. P.
Campbell, J. A.	Fetcher, Sir H.
Carmarthen, Marq. of	Folkestone, right hon. Viscount
Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.
Chaplin, right hon. H.	Forwood, A. B.
Charrington, S.	Fowler, Sir R. N.
Clarke, Sir E. G.	Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.
Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N.
	Gent-Davis, R.
Coghill, D. H.	Gibson, J. G.
Collings, J.	Gilliat, J. S.
Colomb, Capt. J. C. R	Goldsworthy, Major- General W. T.
Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E.
	Gorst, Sir J. E.
Compton, F.	Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.
Cooke, C. W. R.	Gray, C. W.
Corbett, J.	Grimston, Viscount
Corry, Sir J. P.	Gurdon, R. T.
Cotton, Capt. E. T. D	Hall, C.

Hambro, Col C. J. T.	Morrison, W.
Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.	Mount, W. G.
	Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.
Hamilton. Lord C. J
Hanbury. R. W.	Mulholland, H. L.
Hardeastle, F.	Murdoch, C. T.
Heath, A. R.	Norris, E. S.
Heatheote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-	Norton, R.
	Paget, Sir R. H.
Heaton, J. H.	Pelly. Sir L.
Heneage, right hon. E.	Plunket, rt. hn. D. R.
Herbert, hon. S.	Powell, F. S.
Hermon-Hodge, R. T.	Price, Captain G. E.
Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.	Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.
	Rankin, J.
Hoare, S.	Rasch, Major F. C.
Hobhouse, H.	Reed, H. B.
Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.	Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T.
	Robertson, J. P. B.
Holloway, G.	Robinson, B.
Hornby, W. H.	Round, J.
Howard, J. M.	Sandys, Lieut-Col, T M.
Howorth, H. H.
Hozier, J. H. C.	Saunderson, Col. E. J,
Hughes, Colonel E.	Seton-Karr, H.
Isaacs, L. H.	Sidebotham, J. W.
Isaacson, F. W.	Sidebottom, T. H.
Jackson, W. L.	Sidebottom, W.
Jarvis, A. W.	Sinclair, W. P.
Jeffreys, A. F.	Smith, rt, hon. W. H.
Johnston, W.	Stanhope, rt. hon. E.
Kelly, J. R.	Stanley, E. J.
Kennaway, Sir J. H.	Stephens, H. C.
Kenrick, W.	Stewart, M. J.
Kenyon, hon. G. T.	Swetenham, E.
Kenyon - Slaney, Col W.	Tapling, T. K.
	Temple, Sir R.
Kerans, F. H.	Theobald, J.
Kimber, H.	Thorburn, W.
King- Harman, right hon. Colonel E. R.	Tomlinson, W. E. M.
	Trotter, H. J.
Knowles, L.	Tyler, Sir H. W.
Lafone, A.	Vernon, hon. G. R.
Lawrence, W, F.	Walsh, hon. A. H. J.
Lees, E.	Waring, Colonel T.
Leighton, S.	Webster, Sir R. E.
Lewisham, right hon Viscount	Webster, R. G.
	Weymouth, Viscount
Long, W. H.	Wharton, J. L.
Low, M.	White, J. B.
Macartney, W. G. E.	Whitley, E.
Macdonald, rt. hon. J H. A.	Wiggin, H.
	Williams, J. Powell-
Maclean, F. W.	Wodehouse. E. R.
Maclean, J. M.	Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
Maclure, J. W.	Wright, H. S.
M'Calmont, Captain J	Wroughton, P.
Madden, D. H.	Yerburgh, R. A.
Mallock, R.	Young, C. E. B.
Marriott, rt. hn, W. T
Matthews, rt, hon. H.	TELLERS.
Maxwell, Sir H. E.	Douglas, A. Akers-
Mills, hon. C. W.	Walrond, Col. W. H.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

The reception my Amendment has met with has not been very encouraging to us to endeavour to amend this clause, but we must not be discouraged by that fact, seeing the responsibility we have in this matter. I have another Amend- ment to propose at the end of the clause, as follows:— Where portion of the holding is sub-let, and if the sub-letting existed at the passing of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," the landlord shall be deemed to have consented to such sub-letting until the contrary is proved, The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will see that this Amendment does not in any way enlarge the provision as to sub-letting; it simply puts upon the landlord the burden of proof that he did not consent to the sub-letting. There have boon two decisions recently in the Irish Court of Appeal bearing very strongly upon the practice of subletting—two decisions of the utmost importance, which have placed the tenants of Ireland in considerable difficulty. I refer to the cases of "Flannery v. Nolan," and "M'Conky v. Robinson." I hold in my hand a letter from the junior barrister engaged in those cases, and perhaps it may be satisfactory to the Committee that I should toll them what this Gentleman says. He says that up to less than a year ago it was understood that an express consent was necessary on the part of the landlord, and that consent could be implied from very slight circumstances. The knowledge of the landlord of the fact of their being a sub-letting, and his making no objection, was held to be sufficient to justify such sub-letting. If it had been otherwise, the Act, except in regard to small holdings, would have boon a dead letter. But now, in consequence of these two decisions, it may be taken that unless there is an express consent by the landlord, his consent cannot be assumed. In one case it was settled that if a holding was let to a tenant, with a sub-tenant then on the land, it could not be brought within the terms of the Land Act unless the express consent of the landlord, in respect of that sub-letting, were shown. Such is the view of this gentleman who wrote to me; and I would point out that it is not at all the view of the Nationalist, but the view of a barrister of large experience with the working of the Act. I should be happy to pass this letter on to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, who, I believe, knows the writer intimately. Under the circumstances, I ask the Government, at any rate, not to oppose this Amendment. It does not enlarge the tenant's right of sub-letting, but merely provides that whore sub-letting existed at the time of the passing of the Land Act of 1881 the landlord shall be assumed to have consented to them, unless proof is given to the contrary.

Amendment proposed,

At the end of the Clause, to add the words,—"Where portion of a holding is sub-let, and if the sub-letting existed at the passing of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' the landlord shall he deemed to have consented to such sub-letting until the contrary is proved."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

MR. GIBSON

The hon. Member has referred to two cases in illustration of his view. I am at a loss to understand how, if sub-lettings existed at the time of the passing of the Act of 1881, and the consent of the landlord has not been proved, it should be assumed that the landlord has given his consent. I myself was engaged in the case of "McConky v. Robinson," and the facts of the case are these. The tenant, who paid a rental of £100 for 120 acres, had sub-let half-an-acre of land for which he charged £5. The landlord of the middleman, who was a rich trader living in a town, was not aware of the sub-letting. There was no evidence in the case to convince the jury that the landlord was acquainted with the fact of the letting, and it was impossible for them to have arrived at any other conclusion than they did. The hon. Member asks that where a portion of the land is sub-let, and the sub-letting existed at the passing of the Land Act of 1881, the landlord should be deemed consenting to such sub-letting until the contrary is proved—that is to say, that the landlord shall be doomed to have consented, although everyone might know to the contrary. This is asking that the Court shall adopt a different standard of proof in these particular cases, and to this the Government are not able to consent.

MR. MAURICEHEALY

My Amendment provides that the sub-letting must have been in existence at the time of the passing of the Act of 1881. Until that Act was passed it was competent for a tenant to sub-let as much as he liked. I ask the Committee to realize the state of things which the right hon. and learned Gentleman defends. He defends the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case referred to, and he says it would have been a great injustice to the landlord if any other decision had been arrived at. He admits in that case that the tenant had a holding of 120 acres, that he had sub-let half-an-acre, and on that account he was shut out from the benefit of the Land Act; and he says it would have been a great injustice to the landlord if it had been otherwise. I am not going to defend the letting of half-an-acre of land at £5 a-year. We are here to defend both labourers and farmers, and, if necessary, I say lot the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary take power to deal with and regulate the amount at which land shall be sub-let.

MR. GIBSON

I never said that the case would apply under the present law, because, if the letting appeared to be of a trivial character, it would not affect the case.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

In this case the landlord was examined and proved that he did not assent; but by my Amendment it is assumed that the subletting was with his consent until it is proved to the contrary. I assert that it was a gross injustice that the tenant should be shut out of the benefits of the Land Act in the case in question, and it is an interesting commentary on this Bill when the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that such a state of things is right.

MR. SERJEANT MADDEN (Dublin University)

There was nothing decided in the case of "Fleming v. Nolan," in the Court of Appeal in Ireland, antagonistic to the principle laid down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland—namely, that the Court could infer consent from the dealings of the parties and the circumstances of the case. I was counsel in the case before the Court of Appeal in Ireland.

MR. CHANCE

The point is that under the clause before the Committee the tenant is required to bring homo to the landlord absolute knowledge that the sub-tenant has paid rent. Of course, it is impossible to prove that a person knows of an agreement made between two persons when he was not present. This clause is intended for the relief of tenants who would not, up to the present time, be able to get a fan-rent fixed; under Clause 1 they are on-titled to apply to the Court for that purpose What would be the position of a tenant under this clause sub-letting a small portion of land? His position would be this, that before going into Court he would be compelled to evict. his sub-tenant—that will be the effect of a Bill brought in for the purpose of preventing harsh and illegal evictions. The leaseholder will be forced to evict these unfortunate sub-tenants, and no doubt there will be very little difficulty in doing that, because they hold weekly or monthly, or very seldom yearly.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

It is hard that we should be placed in the position of appearing to object to this clause; but we are unavoidably drawn into that position by the provision inserted in it by the Government. As far as I can understand the interpretation put on the matter, it is that a tenant who has sub-let is not deemed to be in occupation. This objection to sub-letting was never heard of before the Act of 1881. It is true that in the Act of 1870 there was a provision which allowed the landlord to use the notice to quit for the purpose of putting down the sub-letting to which he objected; but from 1870 to 1881 there was no owner in Ireland who could put an end to sub-letting without compensation. From 1870 to 1881, and since, innumerable sub-lettings have occurred, and in respect to these the Courts in Ireland have not held that the mere fact of a landlord not using the machinery of the Act of 1870 did not amount to consent. A case came before the Court of Appeal in Ireland relating to the estate of one of the London Companies. I had in my hand the original valuation made for the purpose of fixing the rent for a 21 years' lease; the lease had expired, and the tenant became a tenant from year to year. He was then entitled to come into Court and claim a fair rent; he did so, and the sub-letting which was set forth in the valuation, and which was one of the factors on which the rent was based, was the very letting in respect of which the claim was dismissed. We urge strongly on the Government the injustice of: allowing a sub-letting of that kind to prevent a man from having the benefit of the Act. Will the Government bring up a clause on Report to prevent the landlord from using this for the purpose of keeping up an unjust and unfair rent? They surely cannot object to a man placed in the position I have described getting; the benefit of the Act. Surely it is right that we who are the Representatives of the tenants in Ireland should be listened to on a proposal of this kind, which is made simply in the interest of justice, and which cannot injure the landlords the extent of one farthing. The clause of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would have the effect of clearing all holdings of sub-tenants before the tenants could go into Court. In the North of Ireland, when a parent became incapacitated for work, the old system was to give him an acre of land, a cow's grass and other matters; but now the effect of the clause will be that every man who makes provision in this way for his aged parent will be shut out. There is no harm to anyone in subletting land; I might say that no harm would be done if in the West of Ireland the land was sub-divided into square yards. It is perfectly unreasonable for the Government to suppose that they can put a stop to these old customs, and I strongly urge the right hon. Gentleman to assent to the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 214: Majority 85.—(Div. List, No. 346.)

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

New Clause—

(Exceptional provisions for certain leaseholders.)

A lease to which section one of this Act would otherwise apply, shall be deemed to be within the said section if made after the passing of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' and before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, where the lessee had boon tenant in occupation of the holding under a contract of tenancy expiring after the twenty-ninth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and eighty, and had thenceforward continued in such occupation as tenant or caretaker, or otherwise, to the time of the malting of such lease: Provided the court, having regard to all the facts of the case, is of opinion that the making of such lease was deferred with the object of evading the provisions of 'The Land Law (Ireland).Act, 1881,'"—(Mr. A.J. Balfour,) —brought up, and read the first and second time.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

The Amendment I desire to move to this clause is similar to an Amendment the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) proposed at an earlier stage of the discussion. Upon the 1st clause of the Bill it was explained that an Amendment similar to this was intended to refer to cases where, though a contract had been verbally agreed upon, it had not been carried out in a lease for a month or two after January, 1883, it should take effect. I find that has been omitted, and we are quite certain it has been omitted by mistake. The hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) explained the other night that an agreement in writing is itself a lease, and therefore I hope the Government will accept what has previously been decided upon in Committee.

Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, after the word "made," in line 2, to insert the words "or made to take effect."—(Mr. O'Doherty.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) (Liverpool, Walton)

The Government accept the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, but would prefer some such words as these—"or agreed to be made orally, or in writing."

MR. O'DOHERTY

I shall be glad to substitute the words suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the proposed now Clause, after the word "made," in line 2, to insert the words "or agree to be made orally, or in writing."—(Mr. O'Doherty.)

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

DR. KENNY (Cork, S.)

I beg to move to leave out "eighty three," in line 4, and insert "eighty six." The reason I have for doing this is that it is perfectly notorious that the limitation to 1883 is on the whole an unjust limitation to a large number of tenants in Ireland, It is notorious that in the four years subsequent to the passing of the Act of 1881, many tenants have been forced by the landlords to take leases under very distressing circumstances. I had recently a case occurring in the Division of Cork I have the honour to represent brought under my notice. A tenant from year to year had two daughters, both of whom married. He let a portion of his farm between his two sons-in-law without the landlord's acknowledgment of the tenancy. It so happened that one son-in-law failed to pay the rent of the farm which had been given to him, and when the other son-in law tendered the rent to the landlord, he was met with a flat refusal unless he undertook to pay the rent of the entire farm. The farm is already rack-rented, and it was as much as the man could do to pay the rent of his own portion. The landlord threatened to evict him unless he would accept the land at an increased rent, and at the present moment the man is holding at an increased rent. I could multiply such instances without number. It is perfectly notorious in Ireland, whatever Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench may say, that such cases as this are frequent. We regard this as a perfectly fair Amendment; and we think that, considering the exceedingly depressed time for agricultural labour and agricultural produce in Ireland, the Government should agree to accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, in line 4, to leave out the words "eighty three," and insert the words "eighty six," in lieu thereof.—(Dr. J. E. Kenny.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'eighty three' stand part of the Clause."

MR. GIBSON

The proposal which is made by the hon. Gentleman is one which. I think would create a very large and undesirable extension of time. As mentioned in a previous discussion in this House, it was provided under the Act of 1881 that if there was an actual tenancy subsisting when that Act passed, and if there was a letting made some time before the 1st of January, 1883, that letting so made might be treated as a present tenancy and not as a future tenancy. The Committee will recollect, of course, that a present tenant is entitled to all the benefits of the Act.

It is quite plain that we must fix a limit, and the one we have adopted we consider is a reasonable one, and will cover all the cases which should be covered. I do trust that this concession of ours, which is a bonâ fide attempt to meet the difficulty, will be accepted by hon. Members. I do not suppose that hon. Members will think it goes quite far enough; but after all we have done to meet the difficulty which was suggested, I trust that hon. Members will meet us in a fair spirit, and allow us to proceed with the clause.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I quite admit the right hon. and learned Attorney General has made a valuable concession, and I only rise to ask him why he omitted from this clause the Proviso which he himself attached to the 4th clause relating to a lessee?

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

This clause as it originally stood was intended to enfranchise a certain class of people. I think the Government have done more than they were asked to do, and that, therefore, it is not fair to press them unduly upon this point. But there is, however, one point in the Proviso to which I hope the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland will turn his attention. How is the tenant to prove that the delay was for the object of avoiding the provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881? I think there would be great difficulty about that. The mere fact that the lease ran out and was not renewed until after the passing of the Land Act ought to be sufficient. I acknowledge the liberality of the Government in framing the clause, but I think the Proviso is a bad one.

MR. GIBSON

I will state as fully as I can our views upon this matter. In regard to what fell from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy), I will only say I have no objection to incorporate the Proviso to which he has referred. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), it appears to me the Proviso to this clause is a necessary one in order to show the principle upon which we go. In my opinion, this Proviso will in no way frustrate the benefit of the operation of the section. It is essential to show that where a man has ceased to be tenant the landlord should not be, ipso facto, bound by a present tenancy when he has made a future letting merely from motives of charity. He has allowed the man to remain in occupation, and made a subsequent letting-. I think it would be a very strong thing if a tenant had any right whatever, under an expired lease, to become a present tenant, because the landlord without any indirect object, or from motives of kindness, allowed him to remain in occupation as caretaker, and because afterwards a member of his family came from America, or some now circumstance intervened and occasioned a letting, which had not been in the contemplation of the landlord when the lease dropped. That is the principle of our Proviso. Lot me say why the Proviso will not have the effect the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone anticipates. As originally drawn, the Proviso might have been open to the hon. Gentleman's objection. I assure him that my object in drawing this clause under the guidance of my right hon. Friend has been bonâ fide to act upon principle, and where principle has not been violated to make the measure as extensive as possible. It has been no object of ours in dealing with this matter to cut it down and to be niggardly. The Amendment as it originally stood might have been open, as I say, to the criticisms of my hon. Friend, but what does it provide in its present form? It provides that— The Court, having regard to all the facts of the case, is of opinion that the making of such lease was deferred with the object of evading the provisions of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.' It may inquire whether the lease was deferred with a particular object. I will give an illustration. Supposing a lease fell in on the 25th of March, 1881, and the holding is a fairly prosperous holding, the tenant is a fairly comfortable tenant, and the landlord, having no avowed object in deferring the letting, leaves the man as caretaker for a year, and then makes a lease. If the Court has to draw an inference, the Court will gay—"You have in a wholly inexplicable way allowed the man to remain inoccupation until the Act was passed, and I say your object was to get out of the Act." I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone will possibly be satisfied with the explanation I have given. As I have said already, hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway may not think the clause goes far enough, but we have done the best we can. and we are not prepared to abandon the principle upon which we have acted. I do not think hon. Members can, looking at the clause, say that we have not conscientiously striven to make the measure of relief as large as possible. We have introduced the word caretaker so as to meet the difficulties suggested by hon. Members, though, in my opinion, the word "occupation" was already sufficient. I think hon. Members ought to show the same spirit of concession to our views as we have shown to theirs.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I beg to move to omit all the words from "as," in line 8, to "lease," in line 9, inclusive. We recognize that, in this particular clause, the Government have made a very important concession; but we consider it a great hardship that the Government should require that a tenant, in order to take advantage of this concession, shall remain in continuous occupation. They have recognized the fact that if the tenancy is broken by means of the excution of an ejectment decree, that is not to deprive a tenant of the right, in case a new letting is made, to come into Court to get the benefit of the clause. If the tenant is only out of the holding one week he will lose. I ask the Government is there any reason for a provision of this kind. Under the circumstances, I hardly suppose the Government will refuse my Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, to leave out all the words after the word "as," in line 8, to "lease," in line 9, inclusive, to the end of the Clause."—(Mr. Dillon.)

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

MR. GIBSON

Our intention is that the occupation should be continuous; and, therefore, it is impossible for us to accept the Amendment.

MR. DILLON

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertake to think the matter over between this and Report?

MR. GIBSON

I think there is a very important principle at stake, and there- fore I do not see how we could meet the views of the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DILLON

I now beg to move to omit all the words after "lease," in line 8. Very great objection exists to the wording of this Proviso. There is very great fear on the part of many Members on our side of the House that this Proviso will have the effect, in many instances, of cutting out an enormous number of the very people to whom it is intended to give relief. The difficulty might be overcome by a very slight alteration of the Proviso. The Proviso might, with advantage, be made to run—"Provided the Court, having regard to all the facts of the case, is of opinion that the making of such lease was deferred with the effect of evading the provisions of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act 1881.'" I do not think the Government can really see any serious objection to such an alteration in the wording of the Proviso. It is enormously difficult in a Court of Law to prove the object in men's minds.

Amendment proposed, in line 8, to leave out all the words after the word "lease," to the end of the Clause."—(Mr. Dillon.)

Question proposed,

That the words 'Provided the Court, having regard lo all the facts of the case, is of opinion that the making of such lease was deferred "with the object of evading the provisions of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' stands part of the Clause.

MR. GIBSON (who was indistinctly heard)

was understood to resist the Amendment.

MR. DILLON

The observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman have thrown a now light upon the matter. Take the ease of two estates lying side by side in Ireland, each held by a leaseholder. Suppose the landlord of one is a lunatic. The Government surely are not going to maintain that Proviso for the purpose of depriving tenants, not through their own fault, but because their landlord happens to be either a lunatic, or away travelling in South America or anywhere else, of any hope of remedy under the benefits of this Act. The statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman strongly confirms my opinion in favour of this Amendment.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I take a very strong view as to the effect of this Proviso, and I think I could prove to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that that effect would be to repeal the clause. I do not say that as a figure of speech, but I say it intending to convey the literal meaning which the words bear. Is say that, for this reason, what the clause proposes is that the tenant may take the relief if the Court is of opinion that the making of the new lease is apparently for the object of evading the Act of 1881. But if the tenant has a lease it does not matter whether it was made before or after the passing of that Act. Take it this way. The tenant must prove that the landlord has deferred the making of the lease with the object of evading the Act; but the landlord may come into Court and say—"That cannot be, because whether I met the lease before or after the passing of the Act of 1881, the effect would have been the same, because the Land Act contained a provision excluding leases from its scope." That is what he may say where the landlord agrees to granting the tenant a new lease; it does not matter whether it was made before or after the passing of the Act; and the landlord may come and say—"The fact that I have given this tenant a lease is a conclusive proof that I did not do so with the object of evading the Land Act, because, even if I met it before the passing of the Land Act, it would have the effect of excluding the tenant from the benefit of that Act." If we were dealing with the yearly tenancy there would have been some meaning in this indictment. If all the landlord intended to do was to make a yearly tenancy, it would have made all the difference whether he did it before or after the passing of the Act, but it would not make a bit of difference where there was a lease. In the Act of 1881 there was a clause excluding leases. I submit that the effect of this Proviso is simply to repeal the clause.

MR. O'DOHERTY

I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland is retaining the very objection which destroyed that part of the Land Act of 1881, by insisting upon a Proviso of this description. What would be the effect? Take the fact of a good easy tenant and a good easy landlord, where one tenancy expired, say about 1881. Neither party is in a hurry to make a renewal of the I lease as the tenant is on good terms with I the landlord, holding under an arrangement which is perfectly satisfactory to him; but as time goes on it appears to the landlord impossible to continue that arrangement. Such a tenant as that I say will be deprived of the benefits of this Act. I would mention to the Committee the case of the tenant holding under a lease from the Irish Society. Suppose the lease expired before the 25th March, and before the Land Act was passed—it was passed in the month of August—such a tenant is at the mercy of the public. The man has remained a tenant for four or five years, and has got his tenant right recognized, which is a fair thing, and he is now a tenant under an agreement of the 25th of March this year. In any ease of that description which occurred up to 1883 I between an honest tenant and an honest landlord they will be excluded by the Act. The only case that the right lion, and learned Gentleman contemplates is the ease where a tenant is allowed to remain in possession with the object on the part of the landlord of depriving him of the benefits of the Act. The landlord may say that it was not in his mind to give him his lease. I say with my hon. and learned Friend that the second clause is completely destroyed by the Proviso. What we want to protect is the tenant's interest, which existed in 1880. In 1880 certain persons thought of tenant right, and the landlords waited to see the effect of the Laud Act of 1881. An agreement was made until after that when there were discovered certain technical objections in the measure preventing the tenant from getting the benefit of it. Under such circumstances, the tenant is at the mercy of the landlord, who would comply with the Act of 1881. It only applied to tenancies in existence in August, 1881. Where anyone can show that the tenancy had expired previous to that date, the landlord at once is cleared of having had any such object as that pointed out, because he did not deprive the tenant of anything. The landlords deprived the ton-ants of the benefits of the Act of 1870 in the North of Ireland. There, at the expiration of the tenancy, the tenant had a right to full compensation for the value of his tenant right; but he had not the right to have a fair rent fixed. The common case in our experience that we seek to guard against is the case where the landlord, taking advantage of the Act of 1881—not evading it, that is the whole point of the case—taking advantage of the casus omissus in that Act contracted with his tenant for some years, and deprived him, not of his rights under the Act of 1881, but of his rights under the Act of 1870. It seems to mo that this Proviso could not be more ingeniously drawn for the purpose of defeating the entire clause. And with this Proviso in it I would give the Government a present of the clause. It is worth nothing at all, and is a mere mockery.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 193; Noes 110: Majority 83.—(Div. List, No. 347.)

MR. O'DOHERTY

I have no hopes of carrying my Amendments to the clause after this decision; but I want the Committee to understand what it is I propose It was that in all cases of leases executed after the expiration of 1882, if the object had been on the execution of the lease to evade the Act such leases should have the benefit of this measure. That would extend the protection of the clause intended for leaseholders to those who had no interest in the matter. As it is the clause is worth nothing. I believe that the whole Act will be known by the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is at present engaged in passing it. But that it will not have the same flavour as that known as Ashbourne's Act.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I wish to propose the words that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he would accept at the end of the clause, adding these words— In this section the word 'lessee' shall include the person who would have been the predecessor in title under the original contract.

MR. GIBSON

I do not think those are the exact words I proposed, and before the hon. Member moves them, I would ask for a further opportunity of considering them. The words I should propose to insert are not at this moment present to my mind. I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman is not quite right; but I do not think that those are exactly the words I mentioned. I should like to consider the matter if the hon. Member will be good enough to leave the matter over.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I have written them out afresh; but, to the best of my recollection, they are the same the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed. However, I will not move them now, but will bring them up on Report.

Motion made, and Question "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

New Clause—

(Reduction of interest on loans under 33 and 34 Vic. c. 46, s. 45; 35 and 36 Vic. c 32, s. 1.)

Whereas by section forty-four and section forty-five of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' and by sub section three of section one of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1872,' the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland (in this Act referred to as the Commissioners of Works) were authorised to agree to advance to a tenant purchasing his holding a sum not exceeding two-thirds of the value of the holding, and such advance is to be repaid by a charge made by virtue of the said sections, or by a security from the tenant, of an annuity of five pounds for every hundred pounds of such advance, payable to the Commissioners of Works for thirty-five years. And whereas in calculating such annuity interest was reckoned at the rate of three and one-half per centum per annum, and it is expedient to reduce the annual amount of the annuity by reducing the rate of interest and extending the term of the annuity; Be it therefore enacted as follows:—

1. "(1.) As from the gale next day after the passing of this Act any annuity charged on a holding under section forty-four or section forty-five of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' or section one of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1872,' shall (save as hereinafter mentioned) be reduced from five per cent, to four per cent, on the amount of the advance; and shall be payable for such term as the Commissioners of Works may by order declare to be necessary for the repayment, with interest at three and one-eighth per cent, per annum, of so much of the advance as has not accrued due for payment on the said gale day, and the order shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, be made and notified by post or otherwise, in manner directed by the said Commissioners, to the person appearing to them to be the tenant of the holding;
2. "(2.) Where on the gale day next after the passing of this Act there are unpaid arrears of installments of the annuity in excess of the installment duo on the said gale day, this section shall not apply to such annuity except upon such order of the Commis- 1010 sioners of Her Majesty's Treasury (in this Act referred to as 'the Treasury ') as hereinafter mentioned;
3. "(3.) Where the Treasury are satisfied upon the report of the Commissioners of Works that in the case of the purchaser of a holding whose installments are so in arrear, the special circumstances are such that it is equitable to apply the provisions of this section to such purchaser, and to make such provision as hereinafter mentioned for the arrears, the Treasury may, if they think fit, order that on payment within the time limited by the order of a portion of the arrears, not being less than the amount of the installments of the annuity for one year, if so much be due, the remainder of arrears shall be repayable by such addition to the amount of the annuity for repaying the advance as will repay the said remainder with interest at the rate of three and one-eighth per cent, per annum within the period at which the last-mentioned annuity will, by virtue of this Act or otherwise, terminate, and upon such order being made, and portion of arrears paid, this section shall apply, and the Commissioners of Works shall make an order accordingly, and by order charge the holding with the annuity for the repayment of arrears, and such charge shall have the same priority as the charge on the holding of the annuity in arrear;
4. "(4.) An order of the Commissioners of Works under this section shall be deemed, according as the case requires, to form part of the order under section forty-four or section forty-live of the recited Act, or of the security or deed charging the annuity,"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,)

—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now road a second time," put, and agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has some Amendments to this clause; but I must point out that the Resolution passed this evening, when the Speaker was in the Chair, gives power to the Committee in regard to the part of a certain portion of any arrears due, to provide that the remainder of such arrears shall be payable by an addition to the amount of the annuity, and the words the hon. Member proposes to exclude seem to be a necessary condition to the payment provided for in the clause. The Committee has no authority except that conferred by the Resolution.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

May I be allowed to say that this evening, when the Speaker was in the Chair, the Resolution was reported to the House. I could not hear the terms of it; but fearing that something of this kind might arise, I appealed to the right I hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen), as there were Amendments down dealing with this subject, and I asked him if he could tell the House whether these Amendments would be in Order under that Resolution. I can assure you, Sir, that he stated that these Amendments could he discussed under the Resolution. If any technical mistake has occurred, I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will not allow us to he damnified, seeing that we accepted Iris statement. A mistake has been innocently committed, and I trust that the Government will, therefore take steps to put these Amendments in order.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

I can assure the hon. Member that I will do justice to him and his Friends in this matter. I had no idea that the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo would he excluded by the terms of the Resolution. There was no desire on the part of the Government to prevent the Amendments being fully discussed. I scarcely know how the questions the hon. Member for East Mayo wishes to raise can be dealt with at the present stage. I do not know whether you, Sir, can suggest any method.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Committee has no authority beyond that conferred upon it under the terms of the Resolution of the House to-day.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

I would suggest that we should discuss the question of the proposed new clause. It will be quite open to the hon. Member to object to any portion of it, and if he is successful in his objection the clause can be altered later on.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

If we enter upon this discussion handcuffed, what is the use of taking part in it at all? I must say that if I had had the slightest idea that the Resolution read from the Chair to-day covered what it is now declared to cover, I should have objected to it on the spot. No one could hear what it was as it was read, and I submit that it is too bad that those who are concerned for the interests of he glebe tenants should he absolutely handcuffed when they are called upon to discuss this matter.

MR. GOSCHEN

When the Resolution was on the Paper, the hon. Member could have examined it. He should have done so, and probably he would not have used such language. He would probably have come to a different conclusion. The Government are most anxious to meet the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), and to have this clause discussed. I see no course open to us, under the circumstances, than to drop the clauses for the present, if hon. Members object to going into the consideration of them handcuffed. We will adopt whatever course hon. Gentlemen opposite think most favourable to the development of their own views upon the matter. We will either drop the clauses, taking another opportunity, if it can be taken, of proposing them or following the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, and discussing the clause, and then adopting whatever course is necessary afterwards to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen who think they are prejudiced by the particular form in which the clauses are brought on.

THE CHAIRMAN

In that part of the clause— That on payment of a certain portion of any arrears due, which remainder of such arrears shall he repayable by such addition to the amount of the annuity for repaying the advance as will repay the said remainder with interest at the rate of 3⅛ per annum, the hon. Member may move an Amendment to reduce the sum to a smaller amount.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I think I can raise the discussion I desire to raise by moving to substitute for the words in the clause "one month." I think that would practically carry out our object. We are only tied down with regard to the question of the payment of a proportion of the arrears, and in all other respects we are perfectly free. I have had my Amendment on the Paper for the past fortnight. The Government's Amendment is long and complicated, but I think that in this way we can discuss fairly all the principles involved in it. I thought perhaps the Secretary for Ireland would have explained the purpose of the clause before I moved my Amendment. It seems to me the best course I can pursue in this matter will be to take the clauses as they come. Of course, the principle that is raised on the Amendment I have placed upon the Paper is to some of the clauses precisely the same—there are three or four dealing with this matter—but in others the case is different, as entirely different principles are raised. I will endeavour to explain the objects I have in view as clearly and as briefly as I can. The first of the now clauses is one having for its object to give relief to those tenants who have purchased their land under the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1870, under which the Commissioners of Public "Works in Ireland are authorized to advance sums not exceeding two-thirds of the value of the holding. The only relief proposed to be given is to reduce the amount of the annual payment by the tenant from 5 per cent on the original amount advanced by the Commissioners to 4 per cent, and the capitalization of arrears. Neither one relief, however, nor the other can be obtained unless Her Majesty's Treasury considers, on the recommendation of the Land Commissioners, that the case is a deserving one. I am bound to say that the amount of relief which the Government propose to give is extremely small, and I should, in the first place, like to ask the Committee to consider what is the position of the purchasers under the Act of 1870. We know that the tenants bought their holdings at a time when land had a high value, and I have been told that some of the purchasers under that Act of 1870 bought their land under a fear that the estate would be sold to a land-grabber who is now a celebrated landlord, the result being that consequent on the peculiar state of things which then prevailed the prices given for the holdings were enormous. Now, what I propose to do is to enlarge this relief without any additional expense, and also without any additional risk. Of course, there is at first sight an extremely small margin of additional risk; but I would undertake to prove that, so far from increasing the risk to the Treasury, my proposition would, on the contrary, have the effect of diminishing the risk; because it has been shown that these men are honest, and they will be able to go on and make their payments with some possibility of not being broken. Indeed, I contend that there is abundant proof in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) that these men are, as I have stated, honest men, who have a determination to pay as long as they can possibly continue to do so. I will now ask the attention of the Committee and of the Government to the terms of the relief I propose and the nature of the relief proposed to be given by the Government. My Amendment, first of all, proposes that, instead of reducing the installments from 5 per cent to 4 per cent on the original amount of the advance, the Commission should be ordered to discover what is the balance of the principal duo to the Treasury, and that the installments to be paid shall be 4 per cent for 49 years upon the amount of that balance, so as to place the tenants on the same footing as if they had purchased under Lord Ashbourne's Act. I contend that this would be a fair and reasonable measure of justice, and I can show that the Treasury would in no way be damnified, because these men have already paid back to the Treasury nearly half the entire amount originally advanced. This, then, I maintain would be a substantial amount of relief, and the result would be that a man who had borrowed £1,000 of original advance in 1871 would, supposing he had paid up his installments to quite a recent date and was only slightly in arrear, have paid back about £450 to the Treasury and be indebted only to the extent of £650, and by getting the relief I propose the amount of his installments would only be 60 per cent of what it would have been. Now, what, I ask, is the position of a great many tenants? They are in arrear to the extent of one or two years, and those arrears they are utterly and absolutely unable to pay. The best plan to adopt with regard to them is that which I propose, because they are admittedly extremely honest and pay to the best of their ability. What, I ask, is the use of affording relief to those men on conditions which make it impossible that they can take advantage of it? Because I consider that that is what it comes to. If you are about to offer relief do not hamper it with impossible conditions which will have no other effect than to show these poor tenants how, if they could only achieve that which, under the circumstance, is impossible, they might get out of their difficulties. With, regard to the first part of the Amendment, which provides that the annuity of 4 per cent shall he calculated on the balance due to the Treasury, and not on the original advance, I would refer the Government to Section. 23 of Lord Ashbourne's Purchase Act, the intention of which is that the payments to be made by the glebe tenants who are able to take advantage of that section shall be not on the amount of the original advance, but on the balance due to the Treasury. I do not wish unnecessarily to detain the Committee; but I might here say that I have another now clause to propose, as to which it is only fair, in order that the whole subject may be considered together, that I should offer a few words in explanation of its object. We all know that the tenants being glebe purchasers under the Acts of 1870 and 1881 were compelled to borrow from money-lenders and bankers, sums varying from one-fourth to three-fourths of the whole, and we have always contended that this was because of the ignorance of this House as to the real character of the Irish tenants; but when it became known that there existed in every tenancy in Ireland two interests, and that sometimes the tenant's interest was more valuable than that of the landlord, the Government came to us at the time of the passing of Lord Ashbourne's Act and gave the security of the tenant's interest as the security for the advance. I therefore put this question to the Government—on what ground can they refuse now, when they are going to open up this matter, to advance to the tenants the whole of the money. What I propose to do is to enact that it shall be open to the Land Commission, where they are satisfied that the money has been borrowed by the tenants and that it is still owing to the money lender or banker, to advance to the tenant the amount which is due so as to put him on the same footing as if he had bought under Lord Ashbourne's Act. This, it should be understood, is a matter of immense importance to a very large number of families, numbering in all about 10,000. It would not involve the advance of a very largo sum of money. I do not know exactly how much it I would require, but I estimate it at about £10,000. If the Committee can see their way to the acceptance of those Amendments, I believe that not only will the Treasury run no risk, but it would be able to afford substantial relief to a very largo number of families who are now in a very desperate condition.

Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause,

In line 20, after the word "reduced," leave out the words from the word "from" to the word "annuity" inline 29 inclusive, in order to insert the following words:—"In manner as in this section provided—(2) The Commissioners of Works shall, in the case of each such annuity forthwith after the passing of this Act, ascertain the amount which remains unpaid of the principal money in respect of the advance of which such annuity is payable, and shall by order declare that payment of the amount so ascertained to he duo shall he made and accepted by an annuity (which shall be in substitution for the original annuity) for forty-nine years from the said gale day, of four pounds for every hundred pounds of such amount, and so on in proportion for any less sum. Every such order shall, as soon as may be after the making thereof, be notified by post or otherwise, in mariner directed by said Commissioners, to the person appearing to them to be the person liable to pay the annuity. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. GOSCHEN

The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has suggested that the Amendments of the Government are drawn not to do justice, and our position is that we do not admit that any variation in the terms of purchase is proposed on the grounds of abstract justice, but rather as a concession made under the extraordinary circumstances of the case—not as a matter of absolute justice, but in response to an appeal as to the hardships from which many of the Irish tenants are suffering. The hon. Gentleman has argued the case mainly from a point of view which I admit it is quite natural for him to adopt—namely, that there would not be much risk to the Treasury in their accepting the Amendment he has proposed; but, in reply to the hon. Gentleman's contention, I have to state that there would be a distinct risk to the Treasury in taking that course, because if we admit that in consequence of a certain amount of the purchase money advanced to tenants having been already paid off the security is better, I hope the hon. Gentleman will admit, on the other hand, that inasmuch as the value of the land has diminished, the security, as taken originally, has, pro tanto, diminished in relation to the decreased value of the holdings. I feel sure that the majority of the Committee will take this view. We have to look at these demands which are made upon us in their bearing on the general question of advances by the State for the purchase of land, and we have to ask ourselves if, in the cause of justice, we are called on to make such tremendous variations in the terms of purchase as are suggested by the hon. Member, whether this will not have a most serious effect on the whole relations of the Exchequer with regard to any advances to be made in Ireland or elsewhere. Now, in answer to what the hon. Gentleman has said, I may state that we have, in drawing this clause, gone, substantially, as far as the Act of Lord Ashbourne went in regard to the purchasers of glebe. We have reduced the rate of interest from 5 per cent to 4 per cent, which is a diminution of 20 per cent in the rent, which, I think, hon. Members will say is a substantial reduction. If these annuities take the place of rent, it will be seen that a reduction from 5 to 4 per cent is practically a remission of 20 per cent in the rent. The hon. Member has cited a precedent from the Act of Lord Ashbourne as if that were in his favour with regard to the terms to be given. I do not think the hon. Gentleman differs from us with regard to the reduction of the interest; but what he wishes to do is to extend the term, so that the installments should be reduced; but the principle adopted by Her Majesty's Government—and it is a principle to which we feel compelled to adhere—has been that whore the State lends money the amount so lent is to be repaid within a period of 49 years from the original purchase By the Act of Lord Ashbourne it is provided, not as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, that the repayment is to date from the new order, but from the time when the installments first became payable. The hon. Gentleman wishes to create a new term after 15 years have elapsed, and give the tenants 49 years from the present time. I think I rightly gathered that that was the proposal of the hon. Member?

MR. DILLION

That is so.

MR. GOSCHEN

Well, that would in reality mean an extension of the term for the repayment of the purchase-money to 65 years. Now, I put it to the Committee that that would be to introduce an entirely new principle. We have gone a long way as it is. We began with a period of 39 years, and we then went on to 49 years; and now the hon. Gentleman suggests that we are to goon to 65, or, at least, to 60, years. If the Government were to make the concession thus asked for, it would affect the whole question of purchase and all the other cases of loans for 49 years. I am, therefore, hound to resist the proposal of the hon. Member, not on the ground of want of security to the Treasury, but upon the ground that we cannot sanction an extension of the period of repayment beyond the original term of 49 years. The next point between us is the question of arrears. We propose by this concession we are making that one year's arrears should be payable, and in this we we are going further than Lord Ashbourne's Act, under which no concession was to be granted unless all the arrears were paid up. We have, therefore, gone beyond the proposal of 1885, and we consider it already a dangerous precedent to say that arrears due to the State for purchases are to be capitalized. We admit that even our own proposal is a somewhat dangerous one; but though we do think an effort ought to be made, we cannot consent to put those tenants who have not succeeded in paying their arrears on the same footing as those who have been struggling to pay and who have paid their arrears. The sympathy of hon. Members opposite appears to be with those who have not paid up their installments; but, surely, it ought to be with those who have struggled to pay them. We say that if any distinction is to be drawn, it ought not to be in favour of those who are in arrear, and who seek to gain the advantage by not having paid of being relieved from the struggle of having to do so. To make such a distinction would be to establish a dangerous precedent. These are the reasons on which the Government feel compelled, however reluctantly, to come to the conclusion that we are bound to limit our concessions to the clauses we have put upon the Paper, and which we consider to be of a very substantial character.

LORD ERNESTHAMILTON (Tyrone, N.)

The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he proposes to extend the term of repayment from 35 to 49 years. I do not see anything in the clause about 49 years. The clause says— And shall be payable for such term as the Commissioners of Works may, by order, declare to be necessary for the repayment.

MR. GOSCHEN

The clause says— Shall (save as hereinafter mentioned) be reduced from five per cent to four per cent on the amount of the advance; and shall he payable for such term as the Commissioners of Works may, by order, declare to be necessary for the repayment, and so forth. The payments would be arranged so as to make the period 49 years.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

The point is that the Government will not give the tenants 49 years. What we say is that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is mistaken in supposing that the clause gives the tenant the same benefit as was given to the globe purchasers by the Act of 1885. That is not the fact; and our object is that the purchaser under the Act of 1870 shall have the same benefit as the glebe purchasers obtained by the Act of 1885.

MR. GOSCHEN

The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) proposes to go back to the date when the original mortgages were made under the Act of 1870, and to extend the period for 49 years from the present time.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

My hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) has made two proposals, and one of them is to extend the original date from the date of the Bill, and not take it from that of the original loan. The Government might fairly take the line of refusing to extend the term of 49 years from the present time, and yet give the tenants under the Act of 1870 the same benefit as Lord Ashbourne's Act gave to the glebe purchasers. Will not the right hon. Gentleman do that? I say that his clause does not do it. You adopt an arbitrary way of doing it. You apply the same rule to everyone. You make it an arbitrary rule that the 5 per cent shall be reduced to 4 per cent. The effect of that is that the man who borrowed in 1871 will got better terms than the man who borrowed in 1879, and the effect of that clause will be that a difference will be made in every case according to the date of the borrowing. We say that that is not a fair way of dealing with the matter. We say you ought to proceed as you proceeded in 1885—in other words, we say that instead of making this cast-iron rule that the 5 per cent shall be reduced to 4 per cent, what you ought to do is to direct the Land Commission to ascertain what amount of capital remains due, and that when you have ascertained that you should ascertain what annual percentage will be necessary to pay off in a term of 49 years either from the date of the original loan, as you say, or from the present date, as we say. Certainly, you ought not to delude yourselves by supposing that the clause will do what you did for the glebe purchasers in 1885.

MR. GOSCHEN

These two Acts do not deal with the same matter. The hon. Member probably knows that the glebe purchasers were under a totally different arrangement to the purchasers under the Bright Clauses. In the case of the glebe purchasers the loans were repaid by certain equal installments, whereas the annuity and the interest vary according to the interest paid off. In the one case you have to deal with mortgages where there was a fixed sum paid off the principal every year, and in the other you have to deal with annuities where the principal varies according to the amount paid off. Naturally, when you deal with two calculations your clauses are differently drawn. Practically, the clauses give some advantage to the purchasers, with such modifications as are necessary. Of course, there are some cases where possibly all might agree that the purchasers are not entitled to a remission which, in this case, is a remission at the expense of the taxpayer. In this ease you are dealing with money which you got out of the Consolidated Fund in the year 1885. Any remission which is made now is a loss to the Consolidated Fund and to the taxpayer. In the case of the glebe tenants the remission is made out of the Church Fund. The Treasury thinks it should exercise a certain discretion in this matter, and that the discretion should be exercised with a desire to meet all cases.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

We have been discussing for several days the amount of relief which is to be given, to the ordinary Irish tenant. We are now engaged in discussing what relief is to be afforded to the state tenants, for these purchasers are practically tenants of the State. I do not care to discuss altogether the cases of the glebe purchasers, the Bright purchasers, and the purchasers under the Act of 1881, because there are essential differences between them. I take it that, with the exception of about a dozen, the Bright purchasers are not; in arrear. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) will remember that a Deputation of the Bright purchasers waited upon him some little time ago, and in answer to a question the right hon. Gentleman addressed to that deputation, they distinctly said they were not in arrear. That assurance was convoyed to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, in the presence, amongst others, of the noble Lord who represents North Tyrone (Lord Ernest Hamilton). That is true of the Bright purchasers, but it is not true of the glebe purchasers. What I want to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to is this. In 1885, under Lord Ashbourne's Act, the glebe purchasers who were not in arrear got relief, A great number were left out. They never got any relief because they were not able to pay their arrears. If they were not able to pay their arrears in 1885, and avail themselves of the advantages of Lord Ashbourne's Act, how are they likely to pay the accumulated arrears now, in order to get the benefit of this Act? I quite understand the difficulty the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in. It is a very serious difficulty. What the right hon. Gentleman is asked to do is to put the men in arrear in the same position as those who are not in arrear. It is a very difficult position for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to occupy, and but for the pressing urgency of the case, and the perfect certainty that those men must be driven from their holdings, and must give up in despair unless they get relief, I should not press this matter upon him. That, to my mind, is the essential difference between the two classes of purchasers. I think we may really dismiss the Bright purchasers from consideration, because, as I have said, the proposals of the Government will practically help them. As regards the glebe purchasers, there are two things I am anxious about. I am anxious to know, first of all, whether all classes of glebe purchasers are included in this proposal? Take the case of the incumbents of the Church of Ireland. They purchased half of those globe lands. I think the lands were called the external globe lands. They do not make much noise——

MR. GOSCHEN

I may shorten the discussion by saying that all the purchasers of land formerly attached to residences will be included, all the purchasers of residues will be included, in fact, all except the purchasers in perpetuity who have been left out will be included.

THE CHAIRMAN

The present clause only deals with the Bright purchasers.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I am aware of that, Mr. Courtney, but one principle lies at the base of the whole thing. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) is that the new term shall run from next November for 49 years. I am bound to say I never heard that proposal made by any deputation, and I never heard of it until I saw it on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dillon), I fully acknowledge there are great difficulties in the matter, and so far as I understand the case of these purchasers, their contention is, and has been, that they should be brought under Lord Ashbourno's Act, that the period of repayment should be extended from 35 to 49 years, that the interest should be reduced, and that the arrears should be capitalized.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I only rise to say, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I do not think the distinction which he has attempted to draw between the case of the Bright purchasers and that of the glebe purchasers, has a distinction which has any bearing upon the point before us. We ask what is very material, and it is this, that what you did for the glebe purchasers last year you should do for the purchasers under the Act of 1870 and the Act of 1881, I ask hon. Members of the Committee, who have thought this matter over at all, whether it is not just to do for the purchasers under the Act of 1870 what was done last year for the purchasers in 1869? The two things stand in exactly the same line. The distinction the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the end of his researches, has attempted to draw I cannot imagine he intends seriously. The point is this, that instead of having a fixed annuity at 5 per cent, as yon have under the Act of 1870 and the Act of 1869, there shall first and foremost be interest at 4 per cent, and then that the principal shall be paid off in 32 years by yearly installments. The effect is exactly the same in both instances. You have to pay a fixed installment every year in both cases. In the one case, no doubt, the amount of interest you have to pay is reduced every year, because you are paying off your principal; it is not done by a sinking fund, and that is the whole distinction. You have an annuity which practically goes to the sinking fund, and, consequently, you have an equal installment every year; whereas, under the Act of 1870, what is done is that the principal is spread over 32 years, and you pay a reduced amount for interest every year.

MR. GOSCHEN

I will make this offer to the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). If he will withdraw his proposition dating forward the mortgage, and accept the principle that in no case shall the period of repayment extend to more than 49 years, and if he accepts the Government's view as to arrears, I will consider before Report whether these purchasers can be put precisely on the same footing as regards the term of years as the globe purchasers, retaining, of course, the discretion of the Treasury to which I have alluded.

MR. DILLON

I do not think there is much use in prolonging, to any extreme length, the discussion on this particular Amendment, which, of course, covers very much the principle of the Amendment following it. I regret exceedingly the Government cannot meet mo on the question of arrears. In regard to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we can settle the question of arrears afterwards, what I wish to say is this, that I cannot consent to withdraw my Amendment with regard to arrears. I do not know to what extent the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) with regard to the Bright purchasers is true. I have had a great number of letters from tenants in arrears, both glebe purchasers and Bright purchasers, and I cannot consent to withdraw the claim for the capitalization of the arrears, because my proposition is this, that a large number of these people cannot avail themselves of any proposal unless you meet them on the question of arrears. Having said so much, I will not trouble the Committee by carrying the Amendment to a Division.

MR. GOSCHEN

The arrears of the Bright purchasers are very small. They only amount to about £4,000, and I am inclined to think a large portion is owing by one or two men. If there are one or two men who owe large arrears, I do not think the arrears can be wiped out at the expense of the taxpayers. The Committee must be extremely jealous upon the question of arrears, because if the idea should go forth that these arrears can be dealt with with a lightness of heart, all question of further advances to Ireland for purchasers or otherwise must really vanish.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN&c.) (Stirling,

I have no desire to continue the discussion, but I cannot help rising to express the hope that this discussion may lead to some sort of a settlement of this very difficult matter. I am sure all hon. Members on this side of the House will recognize that the Government have been anxious, as far as possible, not only to meet the views of hon. Members, but to meet the requirements of what the right hon. Gentleman will call justice, but what I choose to call the demands of a hard case. We on this Bench are rather disposed to take the view of the matter which has been expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). I certainly think he makes out a very good case, but I fully recognize the necessity of caution on the part of the Government in the matter. I trust that there will be every disposition on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the guardian of the public purse, to make every concession he can, in order to achieve the object which I believe we all have in view.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause—

(Reduction of interest paid on mortgages held by the Irish Land Commission as successors of the Commissioners under "The Irish Church Act, 1869" (32 and 33 Vic. c. 42), and the Church Temporalities Commissioners.)

Whereas in pursuance of section fifty-two of 'The Irish Church Act, 1869,' the Commissioners acting under that Act, credited the purchasers of land, or interests in land, with part of the purchase money on having security for payment of the same, and the sums so credited to purchasers, or many of them, are now mortgage debts due to the Irish Land Commission as the successors of the Commissioners acting under that Act, and are secured in some cases by a simple mortgage, and in other cases by an installment mortgage, providing for the payment of the principal sum with interest by installments extending over a term of years (which installments with the interest are in this section referred to as the installments).

"And whereas the rate of interest on such mortgages was calculated at not less than four per cent, per annum, but has been in some cases reduced to three and one-eighth per cent, per annum by an order of the Irish Land Commission, under section twenty-three of 'The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act,' 1855, and it is expedient to provide in other oases for the like reduction in manner provided by this section. Be it therefore enacted as follows:—

1. "(1.) As from the gale day next after the passing of this Act, or any later date specified in an order under this section, the annual amount payable to the Irish Land Commission in respect of any such installment mortgage as above mentioned shall, save as hereinafter mentioned, be reduced by such amount as is necessary to reduce the rate of interest from four to three and one-eighth per cent, per annum, and the term may be extended by the Irish Land Commission so that it do not exceed forty-nine years from the date of the mortgage;
2. "(2.) As from the gale day next after the passing of this Act, or any later date specified in the order hereinafter mentioned, the annual amount payable to the Irish Land Commission in respect of any such simple mortgage as above mentioned, shall, save as hereinafter mentioned, be at the rate for interest of three and one-eighth per cent., and for repayment of principal of seven-eighths per cent, on the amount of principal due under such mortgage on the said day, and such amount shall be payable by half-yearly payments on the days on which the interest in the said mortgage is payable, and for forty-nine years from the said day, and the mortgage shall then determine;
3. "(3.) An order of the Irish Land Commission fixing the annual amount and the term of years shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, be made and notified by post, or otherwise in manner directed by the Irish Land Commission, to the person for the time being paying the interest on any simple, or the installment on 1026 any installment mortgage, or otherwise appearing to the Commission to be liable to pay the same;
4. '(4.) Within six months after such notification as respects any installment mortgage any person liable to pay the installment, or otherwise appearing to be interested therein, may apply to the Irish Land Commission for a variation of the term fixed by the order, and the Irish Land Commission may grant such variation as they think just, and vary the order accordingly, so that the term shall not in any case exceed forty-nine years from the date of the mortgage;
5. "(5.) Where on the gale day next after the passing of this Act there are unpaid arrears in respect of interest under any simple mortgage or installments under an installment mortgage, over and above half-yearly payments due on the said gale day, this section shall not apply to such mortgage except that if the Treasury on the report of the Land Commission are satisfied that it is equitable to apply this section to any such mortgage—
   1. "(a.) The Treasury may order that on payment within a period fixed by the order and notified in like manner as above provided of a portion of the said arrears, being not less than the amount of interest or installments due for one year, if so much be due, the remainder of the arrears shall be repaid by such addition to the periodical installments as will be sufficient to pay the said remainder with interest at the rate of three and one-eighth per cent, per annum by the expiration of the period at which the mortgage, by virtue of this Act or otherwise, will cease; and
   2. "(b.) Upon such order being made and portion of arrears paid, this section shall apply, and the Irish Land Commission shall make an order under this section with reference to such mortgage as if all arrears of interest and installments required to be paid before the making of the order were paid, and such order shall also provide for such additions to the mortgage as above mentioned;
6. "(7.) Any order of the Irish Land Commission under this section, also any order purporting to be made by such Commission in pursuance of section twenty-three of 'The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885,' whether before or after the passing of this Act, shall have effect as if the mortgage referred to in the order were modified in the manner provided by the order, and if the order provides for an addition to the debt in pursuance of this section as if the mortgage included that addition, and an addition so made shall have the same priority as the debt created by the mortgage, and any such order shall be binding on all persons interested in the equity of redemption of such mortgage.
7. "(8.) Nothing in this section shall apply to a mortgage as to which an order has been made under section twenty-three of 'The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885,' 1027 before the passing' of this Act,"—(Mr. A.J. Balfour,)—

—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time" put, and agreed to.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this Clause be added to the Bill."

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

Before this clause is added to the Bill, I beg to move to leave out "year," in line 62, and insert "month." I think this is a suitable time to raise the question of arrears due by the glebe tenants. I must press this matter on the attention of the Government, as it is one of great interest in Ireland. If the Government cannot see their way to meet us upon this point, we shall be compelled—though reluctantly—to go to a Division, Now, as has already boon pointed out by the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), a Bill wag passed to meet the case of the glebe purchasers in 1885. I cannot have any doubt that a large proportion of the glebe tenants were entirely excluded from the provisions of the Relief Act by reason of their arrears of rent. If they were unable to meet their arrears in 1885, they are undoubtedly more unable to meet them now. I respectfully urge upon the Committee that this Amendment raises a question which is of vital importance to a large number of families in Ireland. It affects 2,000 or 3,000 families at least, and therefore I must earnestly press it upon the attention of the Government.

Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, in line 22, to leave out the word "year," and insert the word "month."—(Mr. Dillon.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'year' stands part of the Clause."

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

I should like the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remember one thing in connection with these glebe tenants. So far as they are concerned, this was not a voluntary purchase, it was a forced purchase, and that constitutes a real difference between the glebe tenants and the purchasers under the Acts of 1870 and 1881. These tenants had no option but to buy or to have their holdings bought over their heads under the Church Act. I say that this fact of itself gives thorn a claim on the consideration of this House. Then, in addition to the fact that they were forced to buy, they were forced to buy under very unfavourable circumstances and at a very high rate of purchase, and they had to borrow one-third of the purchase money either from bankers or from the gombeen men, paying a very high rate of interest for the money. With all those unfavourable conditions hanging around their necks only the strong men have survived. I know a great many of these glebe purchasers personally. There are not very many in my own constituency, but there are a great many in the North of Ireland; and I believe there are not more lamentable or desperate cases than the cases of these men who have been practically forced to become State tenants, and who with a millstone, as it were, around their nock are sinking rapidly. It is not a case of freeing those men from arrears; but it is a case of capitalizing the arrears and adding them to the mortgage. If that is not done, the Committee are simply wasting time, for these men must simply go to the wall.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSOHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

The hon. Gentleman has not stated whether the arrears have just arisen or whether they are of long standing. My own impression is that they must have been accruing for a long time past, and therefore their capitalization would be a very great advantage, though they should pay an installment for one year. I think that, looking to the substantial concession that is made to these purchasers in the future, and looking to the fact that it is impossible to treat those who have got into arrear in precisely the same way as those who have not, and that this Act will go much further than the Act of 1885, it is scarcely fair to press the Government to abandon the principle that some appreciable amount of arrears should be paid.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)

I entirely sympathize with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), and also with the remarks which fell from the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), regarding these glebe tenants. Although perhaps it may not be in accordance with, the strict laws of political economy, I press upon Her Majesty's Government and upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the advisability of dealing in a generous spirit with the glebe tenants. I believe a more hardworking or a more respectable set of tenants do not exist in Ireland; and I earnestly hope Her Majesty's Government will deal in an open-handed and generous manner with this deserving class of people.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

This raises two points. In the first place, on this Amendment we are not dealing with money of the State, but with money of the Church Fund. When we were on the clause relating to the Act of 1870, we were dealing with money advanced by the State; on this clause we are dealing with a certain sum allowed to stand out at interest by the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners and the Irish Land Commission when selling their land to these purchasers. The second point I wish to draw attention to is in mercy to the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners. What is the present state of facts? The Irish. Land Commission—such is the state of bankruptcy to which those tenants are reduced—have served hundreds of processes to realize the amounts of the installments, but the proceedings are perfectly futile, as they will get no one to buy in the holdings when they offer them for sale. The Land Commission, if the Government does not come to their relief, will be in this position—that they will have hundreds of these holdings upon their hands, and will have to proceed to sell them over again at a considerably less price. That is the actual state of the case. Some of my hon. Friends during the course of this Session put Questions to the Government, and the Government told us that in several hundreds of cases the Land Commission had taken proceedings to realize the amount of their mortgages; and they could only do that by selling the holdings of those tenants, and when they do that they will simply have those holdings to sell over again at such reduced price as they can get. That being so, it seems to me a very short-sighted economy to say, "we will not interfere." These tenants are broken, and they cannot pay. If the Land Commission could derive any bene- fit by soiling them out, or when they took these proceedings to realize the amount of their mortgages, it would be something, but they are absolutely helpless; there will be a barren decree for the foreclosure of the mortgage or the sale of the holding, and the sole result of that will be to place the land again in their hands to get such price as they can. Under these circumstances, seeing we are not in this instance dealing with the money of the taxpayer, and that the State intervention is required, not only on behalf of the tenant, but of the Land Commission, I hope the Government will see their way to agree to the Amendment.

MR. GOSCHEN

I should say about the Church Fund that it is beginning to perilously approach to where the expenditure will equal the income, and that the National Funds will begin to be attacked if the Church Fund could not meet its liability. I would wish to call the attention of the Committee to this fact, that the amount received in the year 1886–7 by the Church Fund was £47,000 less than was anticipated; and that shows how the Church Fund is beginning to suffer; and I do trust that whatever hon. Members do they will not treat the Church Fund as having a large balance or surplus. In the concessions that are made, I argue not on purely economical grounds, but really in the interests of Ireland generally. I regret that it should go forth that after what the State has advanced to tenants in Ireland there should be this great pressure put on to capitalize all arrears and change all the terms upon which tenants have borrowed; I believe it is really a dangerous principle to treat the arrears in this matter in the way that has been suggested. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) realty overstates his case when he states these men are broken men, and cannot pay one year's arrears. If they cannot pay these arrears in view of the prospective assistance, what hope is there the State could get any further installments? It would be better to represent these men as men who can make some effort to pay what they owe to the Church Fund, or to the State rather than to say they are men absolutely broken.

LORD ERNEST HAMILTON (Tyrone, N.)

I think it is a strong argument for not putting this clause on a different footing to the rest of the Bill. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer these men cannot pay, though they are anxious to do so if it were possible, but they could not pay the one year's arrears; and if the Government insist upon their paying this they will deprive this class of all the beneficial results that would otherwise accrue to them. The reason for this is that they have paid an exorbitant price for the holding, they have had to borrow money at a high rate of interest, and that has been hanging over their heads ever since. I can say on their behalf they are all honest, industrious, and hard-working men, and will make every effort to pay off their arrears if they get the chance; but if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer insists upon their paying off a year's arrears, they will not be able to take advantage of the clause.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON (Devon, Tavistock)

I should like to ask if those men, whose arrears it is sought to capitalize, are in difficulties apart from their arrears to the Government; because we are told on the one hand they are hardworking, honest, industrious men, and on the other that they are broken.

LORD ERNEST HAMILTON

They may be broken.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON

Yes, and they may be both. If they are broken, it is not much good to try and keep their heads above water; but if they are not broken, they might be able to borrow the year's arrears from other sources. I do not know on what sort of terms money can be borrowed in Ireland, but if it is anything under 10 per cent, the difference between 4 per cent and 10 per cent on the amount of one year's arrears would not make so much difference in the value of the installments as to affect their chance of making a livelihood. If they could not get it under 00 per cent there is an end to the matter; but if honest hard-working men, with a prospect of a reduction of the rent, cannot get money at less than that they are in a much worse position than we expected.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I find that the Tipperary tenants were able to borrow at 6½per cent. What we moan when we say the men are broken is this. They borrowed the money from the bank or the money lender, and while that is hanging over their heads, they cannot pay the interest and the installments to the Government. They are only indebted to the State, the bank, or the money lender, and to no one else.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

Let mo point out one point that has escaped the attention of the Committee up to the present. These purchasers are paying the installments under mortgages, and what is due, and the installments are not strictly principal, but to a considerable extent interest, and what do they ask when they ask capitalization? They pay for this relief by paying fresh interest on the capitalized arrears, therefore if they are asking for a postponement of the payment of these arrears, they are absolutely paying interest on interest, and that is a substantial matter to the State when it is asked to make this small concession. Now, I ask the Committee to consider another point. From 1869 up to the present they have been paying the installments and the interest at the rate of 4 per cent, but the now loans are all 3⅛ per cent, so that they have been paying for more than 12 years ⅞ per cent more than is now required, and that fact in itself ought to give them some claim to an additional measure of relief. Suppose these men commenced to pay back principal and interest in 1869, the State now would have got back a considerable part of its money, and ought not now to insist upon its full right. In the case of a large mercantile firm what would, be the result? They would say—"We have had a considerable part of our money back; if we force a sale we shall not only ruin the debtor, but run the risk of losing the remaining portion of the money advanced; therefore, it will be better to capitalize the whole thing upon the reduced rate of interest." Under these circumstances I think the Government might allow this slight relief. The clause we are now discussing lays it down that the Treasury, as a condition preceding the relief, must insist a year's rent shall in all cases be paid. That is a special condition, and deprives the Treasury of a certain amount of discretion, and what we ask is, not that the Treasury must give this relief to every man who pays one month in arrear, but that it should have greater discretion, and that if the Treasury thinks it wise so to do, it should give this relief. This would give the Treasury greater freedom of action, and would not compel the Treasury to give the relief on the payment of one months' arrears.

MR. GOSCHEN

This discretion would not be very valuable to the Treasury in most cases, but in order to bring the matter to a conclusion, if possible, I will make this offer. I will reduce the term from a year to six months, and I do that in deference to the argument that has been used, that these men are more or less compulsory purchasers. I trust now that it will not be necessary to go to a Division upon the Amendment.

MR. DILLON

Certainly not. I think it a very substantial concession.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the proposed now Clause, in page 28, line 62, to omit the words "one year," in order to substitute the words "six months."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

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

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEW) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

I now beg to move, to add at the end of the clause, these words—"Provided, that nothing in this section shall apply to the purchasers of perpetual annuities," and I do so because the purchasers of those annuities ought not to suffer from the decrease in prices.

Amendment proposed,

To add, at end of the proposed new Clause the words, "Provided, that nothing in this section shall apply to the purchasers of perpetual annuities."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

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

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

New Clause (Reduction of interest on loans under 44 & 45 Vict., c. 49,)—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

This clause is in order to bring the purchasers under the Land Act of 1881.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny Co., S.)

In this clause I find that the same point that we have just been discussing arises; on page 34, line 45, the same provision occurs that a year's arrears must be paid, and I submit we should alter that to six months. I would point out that this would merely give a discretion to the Treasury, and would not compel them to accept the six months. I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 34, line 45, to leave out the words "one year," in order to substitute the words "six months."—(Mr. Chance.)

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

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

New Clause ("Temporary adjustment of judicial rents"),—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put and agreed to.

MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

I beg to move my Amendment to this clause for making the adjustment of rents vary according to the prices as far as we can temporarily make it. But, in going into the question with my legal Friends, I find there were objections against making the variation of rents depend entirely on the variation of prices; and I would, therefore, venture to urge the right hon. Gentleman to assent——

MR. MARUM (Kilkenny, N.)

I wish, Sir, to put a question upon a point of Order. This clause appeared on the Paper on Friday, and I then put down certain Amendments to it; but I now find that it is altogether altered from the form in which it originally applied. As it originally stood it ran— As soon as possible after the passing of tins Act, the Land Commission shall have regard to the prices of produce, commodities," &c. It now runs in another form— As soon as possible after the passing of this Act the Land Commission, having regard to the difference in prices in counties," &c. I set down several Amendments for the purpose of showing that the prices of produce should not be counted without the cost of production, of cultivation and other matters, but, as the clause has been entirely changed, my Amendments are completely knocked out. I therefore think this clause ought to be post- poned, or, if not, I am prepared to I speak to the clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire is in possession of the Committee.

MR. RATHBONE

AS we cannot finish the Bill to night, would it not be better to start this, which is an entirely now subject, to-morrow?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

There will be no objection on the part of the Government to report Progress now, if there is a fair understanding on the part of the Committee that we conclude it at the next Sitting. [Cries of "Hear, hear!'] Then the Government are quite willing to report Progress.

MR. LEA (Londonderry, S.)

May I ask, if the Bill is concluded at the next Sitting, that the Report should not be taken on Friday, as we very much desire to send the Bill to Ireland, so that it may be carefully considered?

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

I will tell the hon. Gentleman why we are anxious to take the Report on Friday; there are certain parts of the Bill that it is absolutely necessary, in the interests of the tenants of Ireland, should be brought into operation at once; and, therefore, though I admit the time is short, we are most anxious to take the Report on that day.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

Can we have a reprint of what has been done to-night? We have made substantial progress to-night; and, if we had a reprint of what has been done, we should be able to tackle the Report very much better.

MR. W. H. SMITH

We will have the Bill reprinted, if possible.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.