CONSIDERATION.

HC Deb 05 August 1887 vol 318 cc1383-450

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed in respect to an Amendment to Clauses 10 and 24 respectively."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

said, the Motion just made ought to have been accompanied by some statement from the Government. He had that morning examined the Amendment Paper, with great anxiety, to see whether the Government placed on the Paper any Amendment which would raise again the question of arrears. He confessed that he was deeply' disappointed to find that no such Notice to that effect appeared in the Paper. He did not suppose that any Bill had ever passed through Committee which had been so radically altered in its passage as this Bill. It was. in fact, so altered that it was difficult to recognize it as the same Bill. While he was perfectly prepared to admit that the Bill was valuable in some important particulars, it was true that in one vital point it had been altered in a very extraordinary fashion. When the Bill was first introduced, the Government said that the chief object of it was to abolish harsh and unjust evictions. The condition of things with which they were now face to face was that, while the Government had yielded to urgent pressure to reduce the judicial rents, all those provisions in the Bill which were originally shaped with the intention of preventing harsh and unjust evictions in the immediate future were completely struck out, and nothing appeared in their place. He had always maintained that the original provisions known as the Bankruptcy Clauses, which were intended by the Government to prevent evictions, would fail in their object. It had been always put forward on behalf of the Government, that it was to this portion of the Bill they looked to put an effectual check to those evictions, Now, the Bankruptcy Clauses in Committee went by the Board without a single voice being raised in their favour except from the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). Nothing had been put in their place; and now they found that a Bill which was said to have been introduced for the purpose of preventing evictions would fail to do so, Thus, a most important grievance was not dealt with at all. They had urged on the Government that the question of harsh evictions would be best dealt with by the extension of Clause 22 (now Clause 26). He could not understand how the Government were prepared to defend their position. If no machinery was provided in the Bill for the prevention of harsh evictions, the result would be that an immense number of people—probably between 20,000 and 30,000 families—who were under ejectment decrees for arrears which they could not pay would derive no benefit from the Bill. So far as he could judge, this Bill, on which so many hopes were founded, would bring no relief to a large class of tenants during the coming winter—in fact, not before the 31st of March next. It certainly would not bring great relief to anybody now in danger of eviction, or to any of those tenants for whom the Bankruptcy Clauses were intended. The only hope for those tenants was in the extension of Clause 26.

MR. SPEAKER

said, that the Motion before the House was the re-committal of the Bill for a specific purpose in respect of Clauses 10 and 24, and the remarks of the hon. Gentleman would not be in Order in referring to other Clauses.

MR. DILLON

said, that under those circumstances he would move the re-committal of the Bill with respect to Clauses 7 and 26, if that were in Order. He did not desire to prolong debate. His only object was to enable the Government to give such information as might shorten discussion. The Government having admitted the most important principle that the judicial rents had become unjust and should be reduced, how could they hope to introduce law and order by enforcing those rents, when, by doing so, they would be brought face to face with an enormous number of people evicted for unjust rents? He must say that if the Government were prepared to do that they were rushing on their own ruin. The leaseholders, who were now admitted to the benefits of the Bill, had been placed in a most cruel position, for, having paid enormous sums to get leases, they had been held all these years to the old rents. After six years, it was now admitted by the Government that it would be unjust to hold those men to excessive rents, and therefore, instead of denying the tenants, of whom there were hundreds and thousands in arrears, any remedy, the Government should endeavour to open some read by which they would be enabled to get out of this impasse. There was nothing which had surprised him (Mr. Dillon) more than the action of the Liberal Unionists in this matter. That Party based their existence in politics on this theory—that they were determined, to do justice to Ireland. They had a meeting all to themselves, and with the approval of the Leaders of the Party, certain Amendments were put on the Paper. The Irish Party thereupon adopted a tone of conciliation, for they saw that the Amend ments of the Liberal Unionists to Clause 22 would go a long way to remove a very serious defect in the Bill. But the Liberal Unionist Party, in every instance in which they put down an important Amendment, ran away when it came to the scratch, and left the Irish Party in the lurch. They withdrew the Amendments, and supported the Government in the Division Lobby, whilst they sent the two Ulster Liberal Unionists (Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Lea) to support them in the company of the Irish Party. If that was to be the basis of Liberal Unionism, it would be a very long time before Irishmen would become reconciled to the Union, and he (Mr. Dillon) would take particular care during the coming autumn that the action of the Liberal Unionist Party, as compared with their professions, should be understood. The Irish Members had now placed on the Paper the Liberal Unionists Amendments on Clause 22, and he asked would they now support those Amendments? The Unionists taunted the Irish Members with the assurance that, in doing justice to Ireland, the National Party would be extinguished. Now, here was their opportunity to crush the National Party, and ensure their own success by doing this act of justice to the Irish tenants. The First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) said on Wednesday that it was most important that the Bill should pass at once, and that 48 hours' delay in doing that would be dangerous to the interests of Ireland. Would the First Lord of the Treasury explain what he meant by that statement, for he (Mr. Dillon) could not understand it? There was no clause in the Bill as it stood which could substantially alter the position of the Irish tenant for many months to come, except the 7th clause, and that altered it for the worse. If, by that, the right hon. Gentleman intended that there should be a vast number of evictions carried out under Clause 7, he would tell the right hon. Gentleman that his plea for urgency would have an effect the reverse of what he contemplated. When the First Lord of the Treasury begged the House not to delay the Bill for 48 hours, he was probably thinking of the coming election in the Northwich Division of Cheshire, and of others that had just taken place which threatened to be the ruin of the Party, rather than of any immediate good which would he done to the Irish tenant by the Bill. His only regret was that he had not mot the clause with greater resistance, and that the Irish Representatives had not pressed more Amendments upon thin clause which was now Clause 7 of the Bill, which was all the worse because the evil it would work was insidious, and because, while avoiding the open scandal of evictions which had done so much to damage the Government, it would make them easy and bring them about in the dark, by moans of a printed paper, and would deprive the evicted tenant of the comfort which the presence of a crowd of sympathizing neighbours afforded to those who were evicted by force. The opposition of the Irish Representatives to the clause in Committee had been diminished by two considerations—one being the rather cruel threat of the Government that pressing Amendments would lead to the loss of the Bill, and the other being the promise on the part of the Government that the operation of Clause 22 would be largely extended, so as to afford ample protection to the Irish tenant. The intention of Clause 7 was evidently to make evictions easy, while the scandal of putting them openly in force was avoided in view of approaching elections. In conclusion, he would demand, for the last time, that the tenants now so much in arrears should not be deprived of the benefits of this Bill. He begged to move that the Bill be re-committed in respect of Clauses 7 and 26.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words "and also in respect of Clauses 7 and 26."—(Mr. Dillon.)

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

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

said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down appeared to have founded his ideas upon a total misapprehension of what the Bill did and what it did not do, and there never was an imputation less warranted than that the Government were thinking of elections in their desire to pass the Bill. The greater part of the hon. Member's speech had been directed against Clause 7, and he accused the Government of having introduced that clause, with the view of tiding over the next few months in order to facilitate the elections which might be held during that time in England and Ireland. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) might at once say that the Government had not introduced the clause into the Bill with that object. Their object in framing the clause had been to avoid the wholly superfluous and unnecessary sufferings which were caused at present by evictions, in eases where agreements were ultimately entered into between the landlord and the tenant. The hon. Member then went on to make the astonishing observation that no relief would be given to the tenant under this Bill until some nine or 10 months had elapsed. [Mr. DILLON: No substantial relief.] The hon. Member had said that no part of the Bill, except Clause 7, would come into operation until the lapse of nine or 10 months. Let the House consider for a moment what the Bill did at present for the relief of the Irish tenants. In the first place, every leaseholder who chose, and every tenant who had not had his judicial rent fixed, in the course of the next three months could apply to have a judicial rent fixed, which would operate as regarded the rent, which would become due next September. [Cries of "No!"] There was no doubt whatever upon that point. ["Hear, hear!"and an hon. MEMBER: What about the hanging gales?] The hanging gales affected only a very small part of Ireland. The Bill further made a provision for the revision, of judicial rents, which would also affect the rents due next September. Then, with regard to Clause 26, it would come into operation at once, not only as regarded every ejectment after the passing of the Act, but as regarded all ejectment decrees which had been obtained for months past, whether they were 10,000, 15,000, or 30,000 in number. Other parts of the Bill would give the tenants immediate relief, and the criticism of the hon. Member was the very height of injustice. Indeed, it was impossible to conceive how, in the face of these facts, any hon. Member could make the statement that the Bill would not come into operation until after the lapse of nine or 10 months. With regard to the bankruptcy provisions of the Bill, he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had never concealed Ms regret that the action of the Committee had compelled the Government to drop them, as he believed that, oven as they had been modified by the House of Lords, they had formed a very valuable part of the measure. He was glad to find that his regret at the absence of those provisions was now shared by hon. Members opposite, although they had not taken the opportunity of expressing a favourable opinion with regard to them while the Bill was in Committee. Objections had been taken to those clauses on the ground that the word "bankruptcy" was an invidious one; but the Government had been prepared to pledge themselves to drop that word, and to adopt any form of clause which would bring in all creditors of the tenant on an equal footing. Was it fair to reproach the Government, after they had shown their readiness to drop the Bankruptcy Clauses or to modify them, with having brought forward a Bill without provisions which they had dropped in obedience to the wishes of hon. Members opposite? The Government had done their best to relieve the Irish tenant from the load of debt from which, according to the hon. Member for East Mayo, the Irish tenant was suffering, and if they had been defeated in this object it was owing to no fault of their own, but to the action of hon. Members on that side of the House. While saying that, he did not wish to be thought to imply that the Bill, even as at present without those provisions, was a useless measure for the tenants of Ireland. He thought that it was very much the reverse, and he believed that under the operation of Clause 22 or 26, whichever they chose to call it, as a matter of fact, a settlement would be come to over the whole of Ireland. They had been told that this Bill gave no relief with regard to arrears. But the Government had done a great deal with regard to arrears; they had given the County Court Judge absolute power to spread the payment over an indefinite period. He assorted that, though the Bill had been so far maimed by the action of hon. Members from Ireland, yet it did give immense relief in regard to arrears. What relief had been 'given in this direction by their Act of 1881? The hon. Member for East Mayo told the Government they had admitted that the judicial rents were unjust, and that therefore they were logically bound to make the action of the clause retrospective over the period during which the alleged injustice had existed. What were the rents now alleged to be unjust? They were rents fixed by the Courts. In 1881 the rents were what hon. Members opposite asserted had been exacted by harsh and unjust landlords out of their tenants by working on their affection for their homes, and by threatening them with the loss of all improvements on their holdings, unless they consented to these rents; and yet the relief given by Clause 26 had never been dreamt of in 1881. He denied the premisses upon which the hon. Member proceeded. He did not admit that the rents which they proposed to reconsider were unjust in that sense which alone would allow of the argument that any action taken with regard to them ought to be retrospective. A rent might be too high without being unjust. A contract might be too bard without being inequitable, and he would not say that those rents were unjust until hon. Members conceded to him that a contract solemnly entered into between the two parties, which the progress of time had caused to bear hardly on one of the parties, could be described as being an unjust one, and that any action taken with regard to it ought to be retrospective. He maintained that they had no right to use any other words with regard to these rents than they were prepared to use with regard to any other contract, fairly and honestly entered into, which the lapse of time or any other circumstances might have rendered difficult of fulfilment by either of the parties. The Government were not prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Mayo; they could not withdraw from the position which they had taken up with regard to this point in Committee. They were not prepared to start from the admission that the judicial rents were unjust, and acting upon that to apply a procedure to the diminishing of the debts from the tenant to the landlord different from that which was to be applied to the debts of the tenant to the shopkeeper and the gombeen man. The responsibility for the loss of the Bankruptcy Clauses must rest with the Irish Members; but the Bill gave considerable protection with regard to arrears; and he thought that the hon. Member for East Mayo would admit that the Government were trying to do their best for the good of Ireland, and that the measure in its present form was one of the largest measures of relief ever given by that House to any class of the community cither in Ireland or in England.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

said, that the most important point was that they should understand in what position they were placed with regard to Clauses 7 and 26. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated, in his (Sir William Harcourt's) opinion not at all accurately, the position in which the Irish tenants was placed under the 26th clause as it now stood. The pressing question which they had to consider, was, what the situation of the tenants, whether leaseholders or holders under judicial rents, would be in the course of the autumn and winter in respect to arrears, which he feared were very general, and almost universal in consequence of the bad times. That was the real point, and the question was, what did this Bill do for these people? If it did nothing for them, what would be the situation in Ireland under the Bill in the course of the next sis months? What were the Government going to do? This clause affected, to a certain degree probably the larger proportion of some 300,000 tenants—200,000 under judicial rents and 100,000 leaseholders—who owed one or two years' amount of a rent which was admitted to be too high. He was not going into the metaphysical discussion between a rent which was too high and a rent which was unjust; they might depend upon it, though the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was very acute and metaphysical, that that was not the point of view from which the Irish tenant would regard the question. What the tenant would say to himself would be, "Can I pay this rent, and, if not, what will happen to me under the 7th clause?" he could not see why a distinction should be made between the relief in futurum which the Bill was to give, and the relief from the rent which had been too high previously. He thought that the boasted Equity Clause of the Government did no equity at all and was not worth the paper it was written upon, for this reason. A man was called upon to pay two years' rent; he was allowed to pay this by instalments, but each instalment was a fraction of an exorbitant rent, and he did not think that anyone would ha gulled by the clause. This clause was an inequitable clause, and the Government were trying to palm it off on the country and on the Irish people as an Equity Clause. What was the result of it? They ordered a man in distress and paying an exorbitant rent to pay successive instalments of this unjust rent. That would involve the payment of exorbitant instalments, and it was plain that the time would come when he could not pay the instalments. It was possible that the man might pay the first and second instalments; but if he could not pay the third, the moment must arrive when he would be evicted. The clause, in effect, said that without benefit of clergy, without power to the Court, he was to be instantly evicted, and the Court was to give him no relief whatever. A more unjust, a more inequitable, he was almost going to say a more iniquitous, clause, it was impossible to conceive. Then a provision was introduced in Clause 26, with reference to fieri facias. But they confined fieri facias to the sale of the tenant's interest; the landlord was left to do as he liked with reference to the whole plant and stock of the tenant The landlord could sweep the farm bare. He was told that they were doing that most extensively in Ireland now. Suppose a landlord wished to get rid of a tenant. It was not necessary for him to sell the tenant's interest—he could go to the farm and sweep away the little stock left to the tenant everything by which the family could live The clause gave no protection whatever, it left the tenant absolutely at the mercy of the landlord in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition proposed no alternative to the Bankruptcy Clauses. They had done so. There was an alternative proposed in the Amendments on Clause 22. They were now reproduced on the Taper, and if the Government would only accept them now, then the treaty of peace would be signed at once. They were the Amendments of the Liberal Unionist Party. Where was the Liberal Unionist Party that evening when this matter was being discussed? They were away enjoying themselves; but they had got to consider whether the tenants of Ireland, whose cause the Liberal Unionists had undertaken, were also enjoying themselves. He thought the tenants of Ireland would remember the line of Pope— Wretches hang that jurymen may dine. The hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) had proposed an Amendment in substitution; but what was its fate? The hon. and learned Gentleman was supported by the right Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain); but the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) threw the Amendment overboard, and with it the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). But the hon. Member was used to that. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had said—Only propose a substitute for the Bankruptcy Clauses, and we will be glad to consider it, and, perhaps, adopt it. Well, this was the substitute for the Bankruptcy Clauses, and the Opposition now proposed them. That was the object of the Motion.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

What I said was, that any provision of relief bearing the marks and subject to the conditions which I explained were absolutely necessary—that all creditors should be treated alike—we should be glad to consider, and possibly accept.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the proposal seemed to him to involve a profound fallacy. The right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) pointed out that the Bill only made the Irish landlords do what the English landlords did voluntarily. That was the basis of this legislation from 1881 onwards. It was an attempt, difficult, arduous, and generally unsuccessful, to make the Irish landlord do what the English landlord had done voluntarily. When the English landlord found prices had fallen and that rents were too high he reduced his rent in the proportion which he thought fair to his tenants. But he did not commit such an absurdity as to go to the tenant and say—"I will not reduce your rent unless your butcher, your baker, and all the rest of your creditors, reduce their bills." The tenant would think he was a fool to propound such an argument as that; but yet that was the fundamental principle of the Government, which they insisted on. It would not bear examination for a moment. The Liberal Unionists, after all, were more intellegent men than the Government they supported. They made no proposal of that kind. They put their Amendments down dealing with rent alone. But the Liberal Unionists had run away from their colours, and loft only the hon. Member for South Tyrone——

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

And the hon. Member for South Londonderry (Mr. Lea).

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Oh, well, there are two of them then; but "where are the seven?" He supposed the fact was that the Government had adopted the doctrine of the Duke of Abercorn, and demanded that "the Irish landlords are not be sacrificed to the base excuse of maintaining the Union." That was the description of the policy of the hon. Member for South Tyrone by the Duke of Abercorn. He entreated the Government not to listen to the Duke of Abercorn, not to listen to the landlords of Ireland, who, after all, thought uncommonly little of the Union, but a great deal of the rent. The question was, whether by the Bill the Government were going to send a message of peace to Ireland. The hon. Member for East Mayo and the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) had said that they did not wish to prolong this agrarian quarrel, but that the urgent question in Ireland was that of the arrears of exorbitant rents. More or less—probably more—of these 300,000 tenants were in arrear, and for that the Bill offered no remedy, except to enforce, by a new and insidious process, the payment of exorbitant rents by spreading the instalments over a period of time; but that did not remove the taint of injustice which attached to the exorbitant rents What was proposed by the Opposition was the simplest of all remedies. It was to substitute for the Government Bankruptcy Clauses, that the County Court should in settling this question of arrears and instalments have an equitable jurisdiction to deal with the amount due. Could there be a more simple, or more fair and reasonable proposal than that? The hon. Member for East Mayo promised them peace in Ireland if they did that. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman opposite smiled at that; but, surely, he wished for peace in Ireland as much as anyone did. Their Bill, however, gave no remedy except the combination of the tenants against their unjust law. The Irish Members said they did not desire that; but wished them by law to give a just and an equitable relief, and they proposed to leave the Court to say on those arrears what reduction should be made. It was said they had shut the back door against eviction; but that door was still left ajar, because the landlord could go and sweep off the whole of the tenant's stock under the Bill, and thus eviction would come about, he hoped that even at the eleventh hour the Government would see their way to making a composition on the 26th clause. If they did so, they would make the Bill a just and reasonable Bill, and one that would give satisfaction to the tenants in Ireland. That was a result to which every man, to whatever Party he belonged, ought to do his best to contribute. When the Court gave judgment it should give judgment on the arrears and on the whole matter, and should pronounce what was fair and equitable between the parties. He hoped therefore that the Government would not be induced to stand out in that matter, for if they did they would unquestionably be deprived of all the advantages which they expected from that Bill, and their measure would not be accepted in Ireland in the spirit in which everybody desired that it should be.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Lancashire, N.E., Darwen)

said, he did not think that the right hon. Member for Derby would be able to persuade the British elector that a Bill which remitted rents to the extent of 20 per cent was a measure which gave no relief whatever to Irish tenants. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: I said in the next six months.] Between allowing a remission in future and allowing a remission of arrears there seemed to be a very large distinction to be drawn. If the Government were to agree to remit the arrears of the judicial rents, they would have to deal with the very difficult case of the tenants who had already paid, for it would, at any rate, be unjust to remit in the case of those who had been lax in payment, and not to give any remedy to those who had paid up to the time. He was glad that the Government had announced that they would not make a concession in that respect. If they did, he considered it would be another stop in that very dangerous and disastrous path on which the Government, he regretted to say, had already entered. On a former occasion the right hon. Member for Derby had referred to him (Viscount Cranborne), and spoke of the sancta simplicitas of the noble Lord who hoped that the Government would not give way, and the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government immediately afterwards did give way. Now, he (Viscount Cranborne) admitted that the Government did act in direct antagonism to a speech which he had previously made; but the sancta simplicitas to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded was shared by a very large number of the hon. Members who sat around him. He regretted more than he could say the concession which had been made. No doubt, if prices rose they had reason to hope that the rent of the landlord would rise under the proposal of the Government. But he feared that if they established a sliding scale for rent, they would establish a scale under which rent would slide down, but would not slide up again, and it would, to a large extent, affect the credit of the tenants of Ireland when the Purchase Bill came before them. He had hoped that they had reached the limit of concessions in this respect, and that the Irish tenants, recognizing that the Act of 1881 was a final settlement, would have looked no more to Parliament for a further relief from their contracts. Some hon. Members did not seem to recognize the fact that Irish tenants must go through some tribulation before they again learned the inevitable lesson of economic laws and the necessity of adhering to their contracts. The time must come when those economic laws would assert themselves, and the tenants would have to bear the brunt of it. Why had those concessions been made? [Laughter ] They need not laugh; he was going to answer the question. The concessions had been made not, he believed, with the advice of many hon. Members who sat around him, but in the teeth of the declarations of the Unionist Leaders on both sides of the House, and a large number of Members on that (the Ministerial) side did not agree with them. But the reason for them was this—The Government was not a Government in a majority; and whilst he would not say a word against the Liberal Unionist Party, whose I patriotism and consistency he fully recognized, and to whom he felt that the Government owed a great deal, yet, undoubtedly, they had the power to turn out the Government. He could not for a moment blame Her Majesty's Government if—when they considered the terrible confusion into which all affairs, both at home and abroad, would be plunged by a defeat of the Government in this House—they shrank from those consequences. But though he did not blame them, he could not agree with them, and he could not think that the course they had taken was most conducive either to the prosperity of Ireland or to the good of the public life of this country. These were sentiments which were largely held by hon. Members sitting around him, and he had waited to see whether someone of greater weight than himself would rise and say words to this effect; but as no one had risen he thought it right to say this much. Great changes had been made in the Bill; but he was only anxious that it should be fully understood that many Members on his side of the House would not be held responsible for the 26th clause, and that the country would put the saddle on the right horse.

MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

said, he was decidedly of opinion that unless something was placed in the Bill in lieu of the Bankruptcy Clauses the Bill would not be effective. He could not see what good any Land Bill would effect in Ireland which did not provide, in a satisfactory manner, for the liquidation of arrears. He, therefore, still hoped the Government would consent to make the necessary alterations in their measure, and he would ask them, at the eleventh hour, whether they would not consider the question of allowing the County Courts equitable jurisdiction, and thus make the Bill a really healing measure. The majority of the House desired it should be done, and the Government would have been defeated if the Liberal Unionists had voted according to their opinion, instead of abstaining in view of other concessions.

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

said, the first object of the speeches he had listened to of the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) and of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) seemed to be to discount the value of the Bill, as much, as possible, before it went to the country; and, in the second place, to misrepresent and injure the Liberal Unionist Party. It was quite true the Liberal Unionists were absent that night, and he was not sure that, for all the good done up to the present, they were not quite as well where they were. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear! and loud Opposition laughter.] He was speaking of the proceedings of that evening. He would venture to state what was really the action of the Liberal Unionist Party in the matter; but, at the same time, he was not responsible for the action of the whole Party. He had taken a line of his own, and what he had said in that House he had said at Devonshire House. The Government had made great concessions, and he was not afraid that the action of the Liberal Unionists should be judged by Irishmen of any Party. He had been bantered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby because the Liberal Unionists did not follow him into the Lobby. He had done his best to carry the Party with him on all the main considerations. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: How many voted?] He thought something like 15, and they were about equally divided. He bad done what he thought to be his duty to his constituents, and he did not think he ought to be bantered for that by the right hon. Member for Derby, or any other Member of the House. He had ventured to lay before the Liberal Unionist Party, clearly and distinctly, what were the Amendments he thought necessary in regard to the Bill. Before the meeting of the Liberal Unionist Party, he had spoken on the second reading of the Bill perfectly plainly, and nobody could say that his advice to the Liberal Unionist Party was not advice that was given in the House. He had held from the first that with respect to Clause 1 the option should be given to leaseholders, and that no restriction should be put on the clause. He held that the judicial rents, in view of the facts and the evidence placed before the Cowper Commission, were impossible rents, and would have to be reduced; and he stated that more was in peril than the landlord's rent if that course were not adopted, and he recommended that the back door should be closed. All those points Lad been conceded, and more, because they had got relief from the town parks, which had been swept away in South Tyrone and many other parts of Ireland, and they had the Equity Clause made retrospective. Under those circumstances, he was not afraid to have the action of the Liberal Unionists judged by hon. Members of either side. The right hon. Member for Derby said that all the Party did not vote with the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Friday). Was the right hon. Gentleman never a Member of a Party which did not vote in its entirety? The hon. and learned Member for Inverness did what he thought was right, and he (Mr. T. W. Russell) supported him, as he should do again; but they were not responsible for the whole Party. With regard to the Equity Clauses, he read Clauses 7 and 26 together; and it appeared to him that this was what would take place. No tenant in Ireland could suffer eviction, which was what they wished to avoid, until the matter had come before the County Court. The landlord could not take those notices and scatter them broadcast on his own motion. He must go to the Court and get an order, and the moment he went there for the order the tenant went for protection, and the 26th clause would be put into operation. He was desirous, in common with the hon. Member for East Mayo, that the clause should go further. The County Court Judge had the right to give time to the tenant to pay, and to arrange the instalments, and he also had the power, if he could bring the parties to terms, to arrange a composition. He (Mr. Russell) believed that in 80 per cent, of the cases composition would actually take place. ["Hear, hear!"] They believed it? If they did believe it, they were bound to enact it. He did not say that all Irish landlords were unreasonable; but it was for the 20 per cent of cases, where the composition was not made, that legislation was wanted. It was required to force the Clanricardes and the O'Callaghans to come to terms. There was a percentage of Irish landlords—tho Clanricardes and O'Callaghans—who would take their pound of flesh, and therefore he (Mr. T. W. Russell) wished for a provision, authorizing the Chairman to compel these Clanricardes and O'Callaghans to come to terms. He would say that these people had no right to throw the whole country into a state of seething excitement in order to get their unjust rents. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that he (Mr. T. W. Russell) and his Friends proposed no substitute for the Bankruptcy Clauses; but in his speech on the second reading, while he condemned the Bankruptcy Clauses, in the case of small tenants, and hold them, in the demoralized state of Ireland, to be positively dangerous, he also stated that if they were to be abandoned it would be necessary to put something in their place, and he hold that an extension of the Equity Clauses was necessary. The noble Viscount the Member for the Darken Division of Lancashire, had raised a point against any further concessions being made on account of those tenants who had paid their rent, and were not in arrears. There was, he (Mr. T. W. Russell) would admit, some force in that; but he did not think it was a good reason why this small boon should be refused in the present state of Ireland. It would only affect about 20 per cent of the cases; but it would bring contentment and peace; it would enable this measure to work freely, fully, and fairly. He believed that the whole peace of the country depended oil the Bill. He hoped it would have the desired effect, and he now pleaded at the last moment, even although he was a Liberal Unionist, and in the absence of his Party, who would be there when the Division Bell rang, that the Government would reconsider the question, and see if they could not give way on the most reasonable proposal that was submitted to them.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)

said, he had not intervened before in the discussions upon that Bill, but he had followed them with great interest; he had seen that the discussion was in excellent hands, and that the question wag moving in the right direction, and he had been desirous to see the proceedings expedited. The position, however, was now so peculiar that he felt it necessary to say a few words. They might safely go to a Division on the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), who, however, had directed a part of his speech to the justification of the Party with which he was connected, and which had assumed the name of "Liberal Unionists." The hon. Member, he thought, had not had a difficult task in reviewing the conduct of that Party during the last week, so far as he was himself concerned. But, when he said that on a matter which he deemed vital to the interests of the Irish tenantry, he was not, on a sanguine estimate, supported by more than one-tenth of that Party, he (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) did not think that his vindication, of the Party, as a whole, would inspire in the minds of critics a vehement desire to retort upon, or to object to, what had been said by the hon. Gentleman. When the action of that Party came to be a matter for serious consideration, it appear d to him that their difficulty would not lie in the details of what had taken place within the last few weeks. Their difficulty would he to answer this question—How came it that, in the months of August and September of last year, with full warning of what was coming, when moderate proposals were made with respect to judicial rents, which would at least have given time to tenants unable to pay, until their cases had been examined by the Land Commission, how came it that the whole body of Members calling themselves Liberal Unionists deliberately joined the Government in refusing a reasonable concession? That was a stiff and difficult question, and if anyone could answer it in a satisfactory manner, it was the hon. Member for South Tyrone; while as to the question more immediately before the House, the answer supplied to the speech of the Chief Secretary by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was absolutely conclusive. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said he greatly regretted the omission of the Bankruptcy Clauses, and he attributed their omission to the squeamishness or fastidiousness of hon. Gentleman on that side of the House with regard to the term "Bankruptcy." But speaking for all for whom he could presume to speak, and tie thought also for the last speaker, he would say it was not a question of a word, or of a form. It was that, in their judgment, the relief given by the Bankruptcy Clauses, valuable as it was in itself, was rejected because it was given on a condition which was absolutely dishonouring and demoralizing to the tenantry of Ireland. This was not a ques tion of a legal term, or even of legal I status, but it was an objection of substance. The proper substitute for the Bankruptcy Clauses was indicated in Committee by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, when they were objected to; it was now again before them upon the Notice Paper, in a form as to which he (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) still entertained the hope that the Government would give it a favourable consideration. The Chief Secretary said he was ready to give any relief in respect of arrears to tenants who came before the Court under judgment in ejectment, provided that the relief was proportionately shared by all their other creditors. But could that ground be held as a solid and substantial ground for legislation? Were the cases parallel in the view of the public, and in view of legislation'? it was going to be declared, on the invitation of the Government, that a number of rents which were to be examined in Court were excessive, exorbitant, and unjust; was it proposed to make such a declaration with respect to the other debts of the occupier? Was Parliament going to declare that the tradesman who supplied tools, or any other creditor of the tenant, was in the relation to him of a creditor exacting an excessive and exorbitant price for what he had supplied? Nothing of the kind. It was only landlords' rent that Parliament proposed to declare excessive. What, then, became of the principle, on which they were invited to take their stand, of the absolute equality of the landlord and the ordinary creditor? On what imaginable ground could they be invited to place other creditors on an equality with the landlords, when the fundamental inequality was that the tenant was to be invited to go into Court to obtain a judgment that his rent was excessive, while other creditors were untouched by the action of the Legislature? Let them consider a case that was certain to happen. There could be no question that, after the heavy fall in agricultural valuation and the way it had operated in Ireland, a large number of occupiers, both leaseholders and judicial renters, after the passing of the Act would go before the Court to obtain a revision of rent; and, in the case of leaseholders, it was possible it might be declared that their rents were not only excessive, but unjust and exorbitant in an extraordi nary degree. Nothing was more remarkable than the number of instances which, had been disclosed by the examination of particular estates, in which rents had been paid for a long series of years enormously above what any impartial tribunal would declare to be fair arid just. When the Land Act was passed, one landlord of good repute, who had no idea that his rents were excessive, went into the matter with his agent, and found cases in which rents that were excessive by 10 per cent had been regularly paid for 64 years. Such cases occurred in Ireland, but were not to be found in any other country. There would probably be such cases among leaseholders. Suppose a leaseholder went into Court and obtained a large reduction? A half-year's rent might be coming due; but he might, at the same time, be in arrear for the previous half-year. A judgment in ejectment might be obtained against him, and this Bill would greatly facilitate his being deprived of his status as a tenant by eviction, notwithstanding that a public authority, under the direction of that House, had declared to be exorbitant the rent in respect of which he was going to be evicted. That was to say, an occupier was to be deprived of his status for non-payment of rent that had been declared to be excessive, and which was just as excessive two years before. Was is not likely that there would be many such cases declared by the Court, and that the arrears would be impossible for the tenant to liquidate? It was their interest, and they were all anxious, to send a message of peace to Ireland; but, in order to do that, there ought to be some consistency in the proceedings of Parliament; and it would be a proceeding clearly inconsistent if, while abating the rent, in consequence of a strong necessity—which never ought to be done, except in circumstances which admitted no other alternative—we were to shrink from the legitimate consequences of such a proceeding. It was perfectly intelligible, as the Bill was introduced especially with respect to the judicial renters, that the Government should say—" We will have no dealing with arrears in respect of the Equity Clauses, except as to the time to be allowed for their repayment;" because the ground which the Government took up at that time was that the rent was a sacred thing. But now that ground was cut away; the rent was no longer a sacred thing; it was to be judged by its adaptation to the circumstances of the holding, and to what a solvent tenant could make out of the holding. In that ease, how was it possible to say that the tenant was to receive an immediate relief to enable him to remain in the holding, and, at the same time, that he was to be subjected to an excessive rent in the shape of the arrears to be added on to the rent which he had to pay? Why, then, did not the Government accede to the moderate and reasonable demand which was made in this matter? The Bill as it stood was in most respects a Bill of great value and importance. There was the 7th clause, which in the main might be justly called the landlord's clause, as it enormously improved the position of the landlord with respect to the exaction of his rent. Now, he (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) did not object to improving the landlord's position with respect to the exaction of his rent, provided they took reasonable securities that it should be a just rent. The Government had admitted by their deliberate action that it was their duty to take such securities; how, then, was it possible for them to say they would keep alive the old obligations, which, by the voice of the Legislature, all men had solemnly condemned, by adding to the fair rent those old obligations in the shape of instalments, and thus placing the tenant under a joint weight of two heterogeneous burdens, which, taken together, must crush him, and destroy the beneficial results which otherwise might have been experienced from this Bill? It was sometimes said that they had adopted principles and rules in regard to Ireland which they would not think of adopting in England or Scotland. Well, the principle on which the Chief Secretary for Ireland took his stand was the necessity for dealing alike with the creditors and the occupiers. Was that the view of legislation on this side of the Channel? No; he hold in his hand an Act of last year, entitled, "An Act to amend the Tenure of Land by Crofters," and the 4th sub-section of Clause 5 of that Act contained the very principle for which they on that side of the House were contending, and it showed that Parliament a year ago denied it, and refused to pro- ceed on the ground on which they were now asked to proceed. The sub-section directed the Commissioners to take into consideration all the circumstances which had led to such arrears, and to decide whether the whole or what part of such arrears should be paid. The principle which they were asserting, that of giving relief solely against arrears of rent, thus had the solemn and deliberate sanction of Parliament within the last 12 months and that not on behalf of Ireland, but on behalf of Scotland, the very last country that would ask them to depart from sound principles to meet a temporary emergency. He hoped that the Government would not, when they came to the Amendments on the Notice Paper, refuse to complete the good work that they had taken in hand, and thus, by one of the greatest errors in politics, commit the fault of marring a great work by unworthily grudging and refusing some minor, but, from circumstances connected with it, some vital and important concession which was necessary to give it completeness and security.

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

said, that what the right hon. Gentleman asked them to do was to give away something which belonged to other people, and to do so in no grudging spirit; he asked them to surrender principles which that House had uniformly asserted and maintained with great advantage to the State up to the present time. The right hon. Gentleman said—"Let this legislation be retrospective; let a special formal composition be applied to one particular form of debt which shall not be applied to other kinds of debt." Those were new principles which Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to accept. The right hon. Gentleman had only referred to one exception in the whole course of our legislation up to the present time. But what was the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman in fixing a fair rent in 1881? That rent was not to run from the year 1881, nor from the date of the application to the Court; it was to date from the period at which judgment was given by the Commissioners. Were principles which were held to be just in 1881, and which had regulated hitherto the trade and commerce of the United Kingdom, to be safely violated in 1887? The Government had been consistent in what they proposed. They offered to put every creditor in the same position before the law, and that if any composition was to be effected, it should equally apply to the debts duo to the landlord and to every other creditor. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Bankruptcy Clauses as dishonourable and demoralizing. Was it not dishonourable and demoralizing to relieve a man from a contract into which he had deliberately entered, and which had been judged to be a just contract by a Court of Law, simply because there had been a change of circumstances since the contract was entered into which made it more onerous to one of the parties. No system of commerce, no system of trade, no system of justice could be maintained under a principle of that kind—a principle the assertion of which would strike at the root of the trade and credit of the country, where articles continually changed in value. But it was now assumed that if there had been a change in value, it was right to relieve a man of his liabilities with respect to those articles in which a change of value had taken place. The proposal of hon. Members opposite was that an exception should be made with regard to one particular class of contracts, and that the change in the law, which was to apply to one particular class of debts, should not apply to all classes of debts equally. It was attempted to support that proposal by asserting that the debts which should alone be affected by this change in the law were those which arose from arrears, and which were the result of unjust rents; but he could not assume that those rents were altogether unjust when they had been fixed by a competent authority appointed by the Government of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. With regard to the case of the leaseholders, it was argued that they were suffering from excessive, exorbitant, and unjust rents; but those leaseholders were expressly excluded from the legislation of 1881 by the action of the right hon. Gentleman himself, who held that these were contracts entered into by the parties with their eyes open, and were of so sacred a nature that, under no circumstances, were they to be disturbed. It was a most dangerous doctrine to lay down that a man who was in arrears was to receive a benefit that they denied to another man, simply because he was not in arrears. If the principle contended I for by hon. Members opposite was maintained in Parliament, that any contract; might be interfered with when a change of circumstances had supervened from the period when it was entered into, it; would be impossible to resist the demand for the rescinding of any kind of contract. The Government had made a fair and reasonable offer in this matter, They had no desire to affix the stigma I of bankruptcy upon the tenant seeking relief, neither did they desire to compel him to do anything dishonourable, or that was inconsistent with the position of an honest man. All that they said to him was, that if he was unable, to pay; his debts, he must avail himself of the facilities which were offered to him for fairly distributing his property among his creditors. This was a principle well known and established by the English law, and it was one from which the Government could not depart.

MR. PARNELL (Cork)

Sir, every argument that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has used against the proposals of my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) might be used with equal effect against there-adjustment of rents, which the Government, under the pressure of circumstances, at the eleventh hour adopted. The reason why Parliament has interfered in the case of dealing between landlords and their tenants is, that admittedly there is not freedom of contract in Ireland in respect of land; but with respect to other things there is freedom of contract. In respect of everything which the tenant buys from a shopkeeper, there is perfect freedom of contract. If he cannot get his agricultural implements or his food upon satisfactory terms from one shopkeeper, he can go to another. I greatly regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will not deal with this question, the only question left likely to interfere with a satisfactory settlement of a temporary character during the coming three years in Ireland. This question of arrears of rent was one of the questions which I took trio liberty to point out to him in the debate on going into Committee. I spoke of the date at which re-adjustment of rent should take effect, of the question of arrears, and of the question of evicted tenants. The Government have partially met us re- garding the date at which re-adjustment of rent is to take effect, but they have not met us at all upon the question of arrears, or upon the question of evicted tenants. The question of evicted tenants is not such a large matter as this question of arrears, for that question is undoubtedly a large matter, which may very seriously disturb the settlement proposed to be effected by the Bill. Now, I would ask the Government whether it is worth their while to take their stand upon what they consider to be a principle, but which nobody else in the House can discover to be a principle—the question as between landlord and shopkeeper. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has told us that he would accept any plan which would place all creditors on an equal footing. His meaning is, that if a landlord presses his debtor, the tenant, and drives that tenant into Court, that all the other creditors shall be also compelled to come into Court also and press the tenant in. the same fashion. Now, Sir, we are at issue as to the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman gives the words; but as to what he lays down, we are not at issue with him. We are not at issue with him as regards the words which he has used. So far as we read his words, we are as one with him, and we are willing to make him an offer. We say that, though we greatly prefer that the appeals should only be dealt with by the Court of Equitable Jurisdiction, still we should be willing, in order to close the question of arrears, and prevent it from impeding a settlement and creating trouble during the winter and summer, to allow the Court to deal with all debts, whether duo to the shopkeeper or to the landlord. We only take issue with the right hon. Gentleman as regards the adoption of bankruptcy provisions. We assert that bankruptcy provisions are not necessary to deal with the crisis, and that we have gone as far as we can be expected to go when we say—" As; creditors bring their debtor into Court, deal with the claim of each as it arises." If the Government will agree to that I principle, there need not be a particle of difference between us on the point; but if the Government insist upon driving I all the tenants into bankruptcy proceedings, then, Sir, there is a chasm which it; would be impossible to bridge over. Sir, I trust that this question of arrears may be settled when it is readied by the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo to-night or to-morrow, and that we may have, as the issue of this Bill, a settlement worthy of this question, which will really promote the peace of the country, and which will not take away with the one hand that which is given by the other. It would he impossible for this House to claim consistency in its conduct if, while admitting that these rents are unjust and have been unjust for the past twelve months or two years, they compel the tenant to pay the old unjust rents, while they go through the mockery of offering him the chance of going into Court to got the unjust rent reduced. Unless there be some satisfactory provision in regard to this question of arrears, you will undoubtedly have the landlords in multitudes in Ireland taking advantage of the 7th clause to destroy the titles of the tenants, and the equitable jurisdiction which you have given under the 26th clause will break like a reed in the hands of the tenants. I would earnestly entreat the Government to reconsider this question before it is too late. The question is one that cannot really hurt the landlords as a body, because those arrears are absolutely irrecoverable. It can only give rise, if you leave the position as it is, to further confusion and trouble, necessitating next year the passing another Arrears Act, just as the failure in the Act of 1881 to legislate on the question of arrears necessitated action by Parliament, after a winter of confusion and trouble, crime and outrage, to pass the Arrears Act of 1882. I do trust that the Government will be warned by what has gone before. I speak in no threatening sense, and I think also that the necessity and justice of the position require that you should make a clean settlement of the business, and that you should not leave these tenants to be crushed down by the weight of arrears which will reader for many of them your pro posed legislation a mockery and a delusion.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,

said, he hoped the Government would seriously consider the proposals made to them, seeing the great; necessity that existed for accepting the compromise which had been offered by the hon. Member for Cork.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 180: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 353.) [8.0 P.M.]

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill re-committed in respect to an Amendment to Clauses 10 and 24, respectively.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 10 (Reduction of interest on loans under 33 & 34 Vic. c. 46, s. 45; 35 & 36 Vic. c. 32, s. 1).

Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 4, after sub-section (1), to insert the following sub-section:— Within six months after such notification any person liable to pay the annuity, or otherwise appearing to be interested therein, may apply to the Commissioners of Works for an extension of the term fixed by the order, and the said Commissioners may grant such extension of the term as they think just, So that the term shall not in any case exceed forty-nine years from the date of the advance, and shall adjust the annuity and vary the order accordingly."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

Question proposed, "That the said sub-section be there inserted."

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I am sorry that the Government, in carrying out their promise, have adopted the form of this Amendment. What we complained of was that the tenants, under the Act of 1870 and under the Act of 1881, were treated in a different way from the glebe purchasers under the Laud Purchase Act of last year. I quite admit that, so far as the substance is concerned, the Amendment does carry out the promise of the Government; but what I complain of is that, instead of dealing with the matter as they dealt with glebe purchasers, they require the tenant to obtain two different orders, whereas the globe purchasers made one application and obtained an order. Under this clause the Land Commissioners first make an order in one sense, and if the tenant or purchaser wishes to be put on the same footing with glebe purchasers, then he has to make a subsequent application to get an order of the Court for it, and the term is extended. I would ask the Government to reconsider this point between now and our reaching this clause on Report. It is not open to me now to move Amendments—at least, I could only move to amend the Government Amendment, not other parts of the clause, and I will only ask the Government to consider the desirability of putting the two classes of tenants on exactly the same footing. It really is a great waste of energy, and will involve extra expenditure to the tenant, if this second order is made necessary. Why not do as you did in the case of the glebe purchasers, and let the Land Commissioners make an order once for all and conclude the matter? I acknowledge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met us in a fair way, and with the most liberal spirit; but I would ask him, when he is making a concession at all, to go the whole length, and place all purchasers on the same footing.

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

In reply to the hon. Member, I must say I do not see how we could meet the point in better language. Though the second order might be necessary——

MR. MAURICE HEALY

It is absolutely.

MR. GOSCHEN

NO; the Commissioners, in the first instance, might give an order that would be satisfactory. The hon. Member will remember that I said a discretion must rest with them. If the hon. Member will be content to leave the matter as it is now, I will, in the interval, before the Bill is sent back to "another place," consider the matter, though I must say I think that the clause can hardly be improved, and that the form in which the discretion is given is scarcely liable to objection.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely mistaken in the matter. The clause leaves the Commissioners no discretion; it enacts specifically that the annuity shall be a 4 per cent annuity, and there is no discretion whatever in the matter. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter between this and Report, and he will find that the Land Commissioners have no such discretion. Two orders are absolutely necessary.

MR. GOSCHEN

I could not accept an alteration without a very careful consideration of the language, such as I do not think I could give on the Report stage; but the hon. Member evidently did not hear my remark that it shall be considered with a view to seeing whether, in "another place," a re-arrangement can be made.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 (Reduction of interest on loans under 44 & 45 Vic. c. 49).

Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 41, after sub-section (1) to insert the following sub-section:— Within six months after such notification any person liable to pay the annuity, or otherwise appearing to he interested therein, may apply to the Irish Laud Commission for an extension of the term fixed by the order, and the said Commission may, if they think the special circumstances justify it, grant such extension of the term as they think just, so that the term shall not in any case exceed forty-nine years from the date of the advance, and shall adjust the annuity and vary the order accordingly."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

Question proposed, "That the said sub-section be there inserted."

MR. GOSCHEN

The same engagement holds good as regards this Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported.

Bill, as amended, considered.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.) moved to insert the follow-New Clause, after Clause 11, expediting proceedings on sales:— Whenever a holding has, either before or after the passing of this Act, become forfeited to the Commissioners of Works under section forty-four or forty-five of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' and no legal proceeding in respect of such forfeiture has been taken by the said Commissioners, they may, with the consent of the Treasury, if it seem fit, after notice to all persons appearing to the Commissioners of Works to be concerned, order that the holding shall he released from the forfeiture as from the date at which it accrued, and shall vest in the person named in the order discharged from all claims on account of the alienation, sub-letting, or other act, on account of which the forfeiture was incurred. Such order shall have full effect and be binding on all persons interested in the holding; after the holding, alter the date thereof, shall cease to be subject to the conditions imposed by the sections above in this section mentioned, and shall be subject to the conditions imposed by section thirty of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1881,' and that section shall apply with the substitution of the Commissioner of Works for the Land Commission.

Clause (Release of forfeiture incurred by purchaser to whom money advanced, 33 & U Vic. c. 45, ss. 11, 45.)—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,)—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.), (Kirkcaldy,

in rising to move, in page 1, to insert the following New Clause before Clause 1:— On the passing of this Act there shall he substituted for the statutory term of fifteen years provided by 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' a term of five years; and in all provisions regarding the said statutory term the word 'five' shall be read instead of the word 'fifteen.' When the fair rent of any holding has been fixed for a statutory term, such rent shall not be afterwards altered, except on the ground that either (1) the value of the produce; or (2) the productive powers of the land have been increased or decreased otherwise than by the agency or at the expense of the tenant or by his default, said, the clause was founded on the recommendations of the Cowper Commission, and as the outcome of the experience gained in India on this subject for 100 years. His clause summarized the law in India on the subject. He did not believe in the purchase scheme contemplated by the Government. A purchase scheme could only deal with the mass of the Irish tenants if they got cheap money at 3 per cent; and they could not get that except upon the credit of the British taxpayer. But if the Government attempted anything of that sort they would fail. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) had tried to put that burden on the back of the British taxpayer, and the British taxpayer had kicked him off; and if the present Government tried to do anything of the kind they would also be kicked off. Nobody would believe in a purchase scheme until they saw it; and, therefore, he now submitted his Amendment, which was based on the Report of the Cowper Commission, and backed by the experience of India. The hon. Member concluded by moving the clause.

Clause(Fair rent.)—(Sir George Campbell,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he would not follow the hon. Member into the question of an Irish purchase scheme, or into that of the land tenure of India. The hon. Gentleman proposed to adopt the suggestions of the Cowper Commission; but he had not provided any machinery by which they were to be carried into effect.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, that would follow, and he was quite ready to put the necessary provisions on the Paper.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, it was now really too late for that, and, moreover, it would interfere with the whole structure of the Bill. It was out of the question for the Government to think of adopting a clause without seeing how it was to be brought into operation, and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press the clause to a Division.

Question put, and negatived.

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

in moving, in page 2, after Clause 1, to insert the following New Clause:— This Act shall apply to all leases and grants of land in perpetuity made to any person previous to the passing hereof, and under which, or under the provisions of any Act of Parliament by virtue of which the same was made, the grantor or the grantee is entitled from time to time and at the expiration of certain periods of time to require the variation and revision of the variable rent payable under such leases or grants; and in every such case the following provisions shall be in force and have effect with respect to the variation and revision of such variable rent, and shall supersede and be in substitution for all and every the provisions in that behalf contained in such leases or grants, and in any Act of Parliament with reference thereto:—

1. "(a.) The grantor or grantee shall be entitled, six months before the expiration of any prescribed period, to require a revision of such variable rents, and to apply to the Court to fix the same, and, in such case, the party desiring the revision shall serve a revision notice upon the other party;
2. "(b.) In every case where, before the passing of this Act, any revision of such variable rent has taken place in pursuance of the leases or grants, or of any Act of Parliament with reference thereto, the grantor or grantee may, at any time within the prescribed period, serve a revision notice upon the grantee or grantor, as the case may be, and in such case the prescribed period then current shall be deemed to have expired at the gale day next after the end of six months from the service of such notice;
3. "(c.) Whenever the grantor or grantee has served a revision notice and the parties agree within three months after service of such notice as to what shall be the amount of variable rent to be payable 1415 during the prescribed period next following, they may fix the amount of the variable rent to be payable during such prescribed period;
4. "(d.) Whenever the grantor or grantee has served a revision notice and the parties do not within three months after the service of such notice agree as to what shall be the amount of the variable rent to be payable until the variation and revision of such variables rent nest following, then and in every such case the amount of the variable rent to be payable until the variation and revision of such variable rent shall be fixed by the Court in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act;
5. "(e.) In all cases where one Or more under grants in perpetuity have been made of any lands, the service of a revision notice shall have the effect of also bringing before the Court the interests of the under grantors and grantees in perpetuity; and, if any variation of the variable rent should be made, the variation shall simultaneously apply to and affect the variable rent of all such grantors and grantees according to their respective interests under their grants or under any Act of Parliament having reference to or regulating the same:
6. "(f.) Before fixing the variable rent of any such lands the Court shall take evidence as to the then letting value of such lands, and such value is hereinafter referred to as 'the present letting value,' and shall take evidence as to the letting value of such lands at or about the time when the grant was made, and such letting value is hereinafter referred to as 'the former letting value.' and shall preserve the same proportion between the present letting value and the variable rent to be paid by the grantee until the variation and revision of such variable rent next following as existed between the former letting value and the variable rent payable by the grantee immediately after the making of the grant: Provided always, that the grantor shall not be awarded any increase of variable rent by reason of any increase in the value of such land which is due to any buildings or improvements except in so far as the grantor has contributed to the same. The variable rent fixed by the Court under this Act shall be the variable rent payable under the leases or grants until the same shall be again varied and revised;
7. "(g.) In this section the words following shall have the meanings respectively attached to them, namely, 'person,' includes corporation whether aggregate or sole; 'variable rent,' means a rent subject to variation and revision; 'prescribed period,' means the period at the expiration of which a variation and revision of the variable rent payable in respect of any lands leased or granted in perpetuity may be required, in pursuance of any lease or grant of the same, or of any Act of Parliament, or this Act; 1416 'revision notice,' means a notice in writing, signed by the person giving such notice, and requiring a variation or revision of any variable rent; 'grantor,' means the person to whom such rent is payable; 'grantee,' means the person by whom such rent is payable,"

said, he did not intend to press it. It related to the Trinity College leases—one of the most complicated subjects that he had ever considered. He had, however, satisfied himself that there existed a bonâ fide grievance in the case of the holders of those leases, and he hoped that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would look into the matter, and grant a Committee nest year to examine into it.

Clause (Perpetuity leases.'—-Variable rents,)—(Mr. T. W. Russell,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, that he could not go the length of promising the hon. Member a Committee next year; but be would himself try to master the difficulties of that complicated subject, and to see whether there was a case for going any further with it.

MR. SERJEANT MADDEN (Dublin University)

said, he could not admit the existence of the grievance which had been alleged in regard to the Trinity College leases.

MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)

said, he felt bound to press the question on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who, he thought, when the matter was examined, would see that there were strong grounds for granting a Committee of Inquiry.

Question put, and negatived.

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

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central),

in rising to move, in page 2, after Clause 1, to insert the following Clauso:— Where within six months after the passing of this Act, any tenant of a holding, which is valued under Griffith's valuation at fifty pounds or under per annum, shall apply to the Land Commission under section one of this Act, or under 'the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' for a judicial rent, the Land Commission, after notice to the owner or lessor of the said holding but without hearing evidence as to its value, may provisionally determine the rent for the same. For the purpose of determining such provisional rent, the Commission shall take the average rate at which the judicial rents of other holdings within the same electoral division of the annual value of fifty pounds and under have been fixed by them, with reference to Griffith's valuation of the same during the twelve months preceding the passing of this Act, and shall fix the provisional rent of the holding at the same rate with reference to its valuation. If within two months after such provisional determination of the rent either the owner, or lessor, or the tenant of such holding shall, in writing to the Commission, object to such determination, and shall require that the judicial rent shall be determined in the manner provided by 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' then the Commission, after notice to the parties, shall proceed to determine the judicial rent of such holding in the manner provided by the said Act, provided that the provisional rent shall be the rent payable till the determination of the judicial rent, and provided also that the costs of so rising the judicial rent may, if the objection to the provisional rent appears to the Commission to have been groundless, be ordered by them to be paid by the party making the objection. If within the said two months neither the owner or lessor nor the tenant shall make objection, the rent so provisionally determined shall be the judicial rent of the holding within the meaning of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881. If not more than two judicial rents have been determined by the Commission in any one electoral division within the period of twelve months before the passing of this Act, the Commission may take the average judicial rents in any larger area which may appear suitable to them for the purpose of guiding them in the provisional determination of rents within the same, said, he moved the clause with the same object in view as the clause which he moved in Committee on the Bill. His main object was to relieve the country from the enormous expenditure which would be incurred in carrying this Bill into effect, and also to relieve the landlords and tenants from the costs of obtaining the judicial determination of rents. There could be no doubt that on the passing of this Bill there would be an immense rush of tenants into the Land Courts. In a few weeks, probably, 200,000 leaseholders would apply for judicial rents. This would cause a great block in the Land Court, which would necessitate the appointment of Sub-Commissioners and load to an increase of expenditure corresponding to that which occurred in 1882, 1883, and 1881. He proposed to enable the Land Commissioners to determine the rent by the average rate at which judicial rents of other holdings of £00 and under within the same electoral division had been fixed with reference to Griffith's valuation during the 12 months preceding the passing of the Act. This Amendment was similar to the one he had moved in Committee; but he had endeavoured to meet some objections which were then urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to his proposal. He estimated that four-fifths of the tenants of Ireland had holdings under £50, and so many would come under the provisions of the clause. Neither landlord nor tenant could be injured by his proposal in the slightest degree; because, if either objected, the provisional determination of the rent would be set aside, and the proceedings would take place under the Act of 1881 in the ordinary way. The effect of the clause would be to clear away all the small cases from the Court, and to enable the Commissioners to determine the rent on the simple principle of averages. It would be also the means of saving the country an enormous expenditure of money.

Clause (Provisional determination of rents of small holdings in order to prevent a block of business in the Land Commission,)—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

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

said, the Government fully sympathized with the desire of the right hon. Gentleman that the costs should be reduced to the lowest possible scale. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was well worthy of consideration, and the clause very important; but he did not think it could be incorporated in the present Bill. It was purely a temporary provision applicable to present tenants who might have made their applications three or four years ago, but had not done so from reasons host known to themselves. A lazy or indifferent tenant would be entitled to have his judicial rent fixed in this haphazard way. The Irish tenant and the Irish landlord had a holy horror of law costs, and sooner than incur them they were very likely without this provision to come to terms. The clause of the right hon. Gentleman embodied a very useful suggestion, but it was too late at this period of the Session to enter upon the discussion of so large a question; and, as it would be impossible for the Government to accept the clause as it stood, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not press it.

MR. MAHONY (Meath, N.)

said, that it would appear as though the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) had no power to enter into a settlement of this question in the absence of his political Leaders. This clause would meet the difficulty which must inevitably arise in the Courts in Ireland after this Bill became law. There was a strong suspicion in Ireland that the good in the Bill would be strangled by the Assistant Commissioners who would be appointed by the Government to carry the provisions of the measure into effect.

MR. M'CARTAN (Down, S.)

said, that the object of the clause was to save the money equally of the tenant, the landlord, and of the State. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland was the Representative of those lawyers who had robbed the Irish tenants. Nothing had been said against the clause, even by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

MR. SHEEHY (Galway, S.)

said, he thought it was a strange reason for rejecting the clause that it was only temporary, and did not go far enough.

MR. PARNELL (Cork)

said, he could not understand why the Government should refuse the Amendment, which would save the Land Courts from a great deal of trouble. It was a mockery to tell some tenants to go into Court to make their applications, because the cost of the proceedings in many cases—as in the case of smaller tenants—say, of £10 valuation—would amount to half the rent, and in all cases to two or three times the amount of the reduction. If the Government thought the limit was too high, and if they would agree to fix the limit at £20, instead of £50, the clause might be passed in that form. The right hon. and learned Attorney General's objection that the clause was only of a temporary character was one which scarcely lay in the mouth of the Government. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would accept the £20 limitation.

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

said, he was desirous of speaking on behalf of the tenants of Kerry, almost all of whom were under the £20 valuation; and he hoped the Government would accede to the appeal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell). In many cases the tenants could not go into Court without selling their stock. The Courts were held sometimes 15 miles away from the holdings of the tenants, and the expenses to which the tenants were put in coming there and maintaining their witnesses took away all the benefits of the reduction. He considered it monstrous that when the Government professed to be acting in the interests of peace more than of justice, and reproached the Irish Party with maintaining a constant agitation, they would not take from them a fair and common-sense proposal. They might believe him that the humblest peasant that would be evicted and his home destroyed would occasion them as much trouble hereafter as if he were the largest landholder in the country.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

said, he could not accept the clause any more now than when it was introduced before. The objection of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland was not solely to the temporary character of the provision. The clause was not applicable to the particular remedy they were introducing by the Bill. It would not cheapen the proceedings, and there was no occasion whatever for introducing it. The acceptance of the clause would be to create new procedure in the Courts. He was also of opinion that the proposal was unnecessary in principle.

MR. LEA (Londonderry, S.)

said, that originally he was not greatly in favour of this clause; but by the modifications which had been introduced into it it had been divested of the objectionable features by which it was originally marked, and it seemed to him that there was no fear that it would work any injustice. It was exceedingly desirable that law costs should, as far as possible, be saved. It was beyond all doubt that small farmers could not and did not go into the Land Court for fear of the costs. A tenant could not under the existing system go into the Land Court without obtaining the assistance of a solicitor, who, of course, could not be obtained without expense. If, therefore, any scheme could be devised which would prevent the necessity of incurring these excessive law costs, it would be a great boon to the small tenants, and would materially add to the value of the Bill. He was not sure that the clause at present was quite workable; but he had no doubt that if it could be rendered workable, as he believed it might be, it would be of great use to that large class of small farmers who paid from £2 to £3 a-year as fair rent, and who were totally unable to bear the expense incurred on going into the Land Court under the existing system.

MR. MURPHY (Dublin, St. Patrick's)

said, he thought the Government would do well to accept the proposal, which would facilitate enormously the carrying out of their measure.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he felt that he must urge the Government to accept the clause. He would go even further than the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), and bring the limit down to £10. If, however, the Government were unable to accept any offer of the kind, and would not yield on the question, he should feel it his duty to divide the House.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, that the subject - matter of the Amendment, though in itself worthy of consideration was altogether foreign to the immediate scope of the Bill; but he quite admitted that any proposal for cheapening the costs of proceedings was worthy of attention. He would suggest, however, that it was not worth while to adopt a proposal to operate only for six months and for small tenants in preference to some greater scheme for limiting the cost of terminating tenancies.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

said it seemed to him that the Ministers appeared to be hardening their hearts against any concession as the Bill progressed. He should give his support to the clause.

COLONEL DUNCAN (Finsbury, Holborn)

said, hon. Members opposite did not appear to have presented this clause to the House in any spirit of hostility the Bill. He thought the Government might make some concession with reference to this clause. In his opinion, something in the direction suggested would save the money of the most miserable class of tenants in Ireland; and it would also pave the money of the landlords and of the State. The most wretched portion of the Irish people would be deprived of relief unless some concession was made. In the interest of the Bill itself he implored the Government to make the concession.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 173: Majority 63.—(Div. List, No. 354.) [10.10 P. M.]

MR. LEA (Londonderry, S.),

in moving in page 6, after Clause 6, to insert the following Clause:— From and after the passing of this Act it shall be sufficient for any occupier of land claiming any common of turbary, or any right of turbary as appurtenant to such land, or as annexed or belonging thereto, or used or employed therewith, or as included in the right of tenancy of such, occupier in any manner whatsoever, to prove to the satisfaction of the Court or Judge that the occupiers of such land have, in the course of the customary management of the estate of which such land forms part, enjoyed either for a period of ton years last before the commencement of the action, or for ten years ending on the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, the right claimed, or any like right, custom, licence, or usage of turbary, on any part or parts of the same estate; and the Court or Judge may thereupon either give judgment for the plaintiff with costs, or make such other order as in all the circumstances of the case may seem just, said, the subject with which the clause dealt was an important one, and sooner or later would have to be settled. It was a subject not without complications, and the time was not the most convenient for its discussion; but he felt it his duty to take the opportunity of submitting the plan by which the Court should take cognizance of the right, and if anyone had any better plan to propose he was quite willing at once to surrender his proposal. For the information of those English Members to whom the matter was not familiar, he would just say that to tenants who were in the habit of cutting turf for their supply of winter fuel the retention of the right was often far more important than a reduction of rent would be. Some five years ago the subject was brought under his attention in connection with the fixing of judicial rents by the fact that upon an estate in the West of Ireland some 40 tenants, after having succeeded in their application for a revision of their rents, received notices that henceforth they would have to pay for their supply of turf; and that was only an instance among many of which he had since heard of the unfair way in which tenants who applied to the Land Commission were penalized for their attempts to secure a fair rent. The principle he laid down was sufficiently clear from the wording of the clause, and it was unnecessary to accompany it with any lengthened remarks. The Court, when fixing the rent, would inquire into all the circumstances relating to turbary, and give their decision after taking into account this important element in the relation between landlord and tenant.

Clause (Proof of right of turbary,)—(Mr. Lea,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

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

said, the subject of the Amendment was well worthy of consideration. It raised one of the most complicated and difficult questions; and it was one of the most controversial connected with Irish land; it was certain to give rise to much discussion. If they once began to touch the right of turbary the discussions on the Bill would last an unlimited period. He would, therefore, appeal to the hon. Member not to press the matter now, but to bring in a separate Bill on the subject, instead of augmenting the burden on an already over-weighted measure.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

said, he felt it his duty to support the new clause. The clause clearly prevented the turf of a tenant who applied for a judicial rent being confiscated.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

said, it was the misfortune of land legislation for Ireland since 1870 that everything which the Legislature desired to do had been defeated by some device. Fair rents were to be fixed, a reduction was made, and the landlord said—"Your rent has been reduced £2; if I cannot make you pay one way I will make you pay another," and forthwith the tenant was deprived of the right of turbary. Then, a tenant was frightened to apply for a reduction of rent, being threatened that if he did so he would lose his turf. The fact that it could be done was held in terrorem over tenants, and prevented them from applying to the Court. Surely the House ought to provide a remedy to prevent its legislation being defeated in that way. He held that this question was a corollary to the fair rent, and all that was asked was that the Court, in fixing the fair rent, should see that a man was not done out of it by some move of this kind.

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

said, that when a tenant came into Court the Land Commission, or the County Court Judge, asked the landlord whether he would agree to the tenant having the right of turbary. If the landlord said no, that was taken into account in fixing the rent; if he agreed, then the right was attached to the holding. It was now proposed that where the tenant did not get the right, and where this was not taken into account, the landlord should be deprived of the right of turbary. That was to say, a property was to be taken from the landlord which was his and given to the tenant, who had never had it. That was a very large proposition, and he would venture to submit to the House that to create rights which did not exist, and to take away from the landlord rights which he at present enjoyed, was a matter of such a character that it could not be conveniently introduced into the Bill. It was extraneous to the scope of the Bill, and the Government could not consent to embark upon the question now.

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

said, that the evidence of the Cowper Commission showed that in many cases tenants were deterred from entering the Land Courts by the fear of being deprived by the landlord of the right of turbary.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)

said, that the object of the clause would not benefit the Irish tenants. The hon. Gentleman the Member for youth Londonderry (Mr. Lea) was not an Irishman, and he should recommend the hon. Member, in company with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), to study this bog question, for there was no one but an Irishman who was thoroughly acquainted with the subject. He (Colonel Saunder- son) wished to point out that if this clause were accepted, far from benefiting Irish, tenants at large, it would have exactly the reverse effect. With regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby on this and on all other questions relating to Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman was accustomed to make violent attacks on Irish landlords, and those attacks were never backed up by facts. But he would pass from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who evidently knew nothing about the subject on which he had addressed the House.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he had read the Report of the Cowper Commission.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

said, perhaps he might mention how the matter acted on his own property. Personally, he would be willing to allow his tenants to decide whether the clause should pass or not. It happened that in the County of Cavan bog was getting scarce. He quite agreed that it was a very serious question, and would probably have to be dealt with in the future. He maintained that to deal with the question in the way now proposed would be a very serious matter. One of the most serious questions the landlord had occasionally to decide was this turbary question. Most of the landlords in his own county charged a nominal rent for the right of turbary. He allowed his own tenants to remove the turf on payment of 1s. a-year. Many other tenants, however, had to bring their carts a long way to procure the turf, and it could easily be imagined what would happen when these men came down for supplies, and were told that the right had been handed over to the tenants of the landlord to whom the property belonged, and that they could not, therefore, be allowed to remove any more turf. Therefore, so far from improving the condition of the tenants, it would have the very reverse effect. His own opinion was that if any scheme brought in was to be largely successful, the State should become the owner of the bog, and that would prevent the disturbances that sometimes arose now in connection with this right of turbary. As Chairman of the Petty Sessions in his own district, he could state that a considerable number of the worst cases of crime in his county were due to disputes arising out of the right of turbary. By taking away the right from the landlords, who had it at present, and giving it to the tenants themselves to charge what they pleased for the turf, much hardship would be inflicted on the other tenants coming a long distance; and therefore the clause, so far from proving a benefit, would work an injury.

MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)

said, that the main question was this—Was the tenant who was now entitled to cut bog to be deprived of this right under the Bill, or was it to be preserved to him? The clause merely intended to preserve to the tenants a right which they enjoyed by custom.

MR. MAHONY (Meath, N.)

said, speaking from his experience as a Sub-Commissioner, that the practice of the Land Commission was that where the landlord agreed to give the right of turbary the Sub-Commissioners put an extra value on the holding in consequence; but where the landlord refused to give turbary to the tenants, the Sub-Commissioners could not deduct from the value of the holding on that account. He did not think that the fears of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) were justified. He asked the Government to consider the matter very carefully, because a landlord from the North of Ireland had stated to him that in Fermanagh the effect of the reductions of rents had been completely neutralized by the enormous price put on the right of turbary.

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

said, he must appeal to the House to come to a decision on the Amendment. If the House discussed the clauses on the Paper at the length at which they had been discussed up to the present time, there was very little chance of the understanding come to earlier in the evening being carried out.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. DWYER GRAY (Dublin, St. Stephen's Green),

in moving to insert the following New Clause, after Clause 6:— From and after the passing of this Act the landlord of any holding shall not be entitled to distrain for the rent thereof, said, he would not occupy the time of the House at any length. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ire- land seemed to think that it was a sufficient objection to any proposal to say that it was likely to be of a controversial character. If the right hon. Gentleman and the Government were consistent this proposal of his ought not, after what had taken place, to be of a controversial character. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in opposing the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), stated that the whole objection of the Government was that all classes of debts and all classes of creditors should be placed on an equal footing. The Law of Distress gave an undue advantage to the landlord for the recovery of his debt. Having taken steps to close what was called the "back door," the Government left a side door open in the Law of Distraint. He therefore proposed to abolish this right to distrain, and to place the landlord on an equality with the other creditors of the tenant.

Clause (Landlord not to distrain,)—(Mr. Dwyer Gray,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

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

said, he hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed. It could not, he thought, be said that the Law of Distress in Ireland had worked any particular hardship; and, as far as he could see, there was no reason whatever for altering the landlord's right in that respect.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

said, he was surprised at the line taken by the right hon. and learned Attorney General in this matter. The argument of the Government had all along been that the landlord and the tenant occupied the relative positions of debtor and creditor, and upon that ground they refused to deal with the arrears; but now, when they took the Government at their word and proposed to give to the landlord the same means of recovering his debt as an ordinary creditor, the Government immediately opposed a non possumus. The Law of Distraint was a most oppressive and atrocious law, which ought to be done away with. The greatest cruelties were practised by the landlords, who deliberately had the cows driven away for long distances, often as much as 15 miles, and just at the time when they were about to calve. No good and just landlord or decent man in Ireland ever dreamt of using it. Its enforcement by cruel landlords was a fertile source of disturbance and breach of the peace in Ireland.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 190: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 355.)

MR. M'CARTAN (Down, S.) moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following Clause:— And notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the eighty-sixth section of 'The Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ireland), 1860,' it shall be lawful for the justices therein named at their discretion to put a stay on the execution of their warrant for giving up the possession of the holding for a period not longer than three months from the date of the warrant.

Clause (Power to justices to stay execution,)—-(Mr. M'Cartan,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he sympathized with the object of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. M'Cartan), and agreed that something ought to be done in the direction of giving discretion to the Justices to stay execution for fresh cause shown. He thought, however, that the matter could be better discussed when they reached the Amendment on the Paper of the hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Serjeant Madden), in which the reasons in respect of which the discretion was to be exercised were stated, and which would accomplish the same object—but not quite to the extent—desired by the hon. Member for South Down.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

said, he; preferred that the matter should be dealt with by the clause now before the; Committee. He objected to its being narrowed as was desired by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and saw no ground for refusing this discretionary power to a Bench of Justices composed of landlords and their agents.

MR. SYDNEY BUNTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

said, he would recom- mend the hon. Member for South. Down to withdraw his clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.),

in moving, after Clause 7, to insert the following Clause:— A tenant on whom a notice under this section is served, or who is removed from his holding under a judgment in ejectment for nonpayment of rent, may, within the period within which an application for a writ of restitution of possession may be made, lodge the amount of the rent and costs stated in the writ of possession, or where the same has not been sued out in the judgment, with the clerk of the peace for the district in which the holding is situate; and thereupon the clerk of the peace shall, without fee or charge, endorse a receipt for the money so lodged, upon the judgment or writ of possession, and shall deliver the same to the tenant; and the judgment or writ of possession so endorsed shall have all the force and effect of a writ of restitution of possession, and shall entitle the tenant to resume possession of his holding. The clerk of the peace shall, within two days after endorsing the receipt, send through the post, directed to the plaintiff in the judgment to his address as therein described, a notice in the prescribed form of the receipt of the money so lodged, and shall, upon the application of the plaintiff in the judgment, pay the same to him, said, that he would not press this Amendment if the Government would accept one which would give the County Court Judge power to act in case the landlord was shown to be unreasonable.

Clause (Restitution of possession in certain cases,)—(Mr. Chance,)—brought up, and road the first time.

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

MR. GIBSON

said, that in nine cases out of ten landlord and tenant would come to terms. He thought it would meet the view of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny if the County Court Judge were able to give costs if the landlord were guilty of unreasonable conduct. He would accept an Amendment in that shape.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork) moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following Clause:— (1.) For the purposes of the fifteenth section of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' the state of the immediate landlord of a holding shall be deemed to be determined by the re- covery as against such immediate landlord at the suit of any superior landlord of a judgment in ejectment for non-payment of rent, including such holding. (2.) A judgment in ejectment for non-payment of rent, recovered as against the landlord of a holding at the suit of any superior landlord, shall not be executed as against the tenant of such holding; but from and after the recovery of any such judgment such superior landlord shall stand in the relation of immediate landlord to the tenant of such holding, as in the fifteenth section of the said Act is provided, and may proceed accordingly for the recovery of all rent then due by such tenant to his immediate landlord. (3.) Nothing in this section contained shall be deemed to preclude any such immediate landlord as aforesaid from redeeming his tenancy in the premises recovered as against him by any such superior landlord, in any such ejectment as aforesaid, within the space of six calendar months from the date of the judgment or decree in such ejectment: Provided that such redemption shall not affect any proceedings pending at the date thereof, at the suit of such superior landlord, against the tenant of any holding comprised in such premises.

Clause (Determination of state of immediate landlord by ejectment for non-payment of rent,)—(Mr. Maurice Mealy,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. GIBSON

said, the effect of the new clause would be to relieve the middle tenant of his obligations to the superior landlord.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, E.)

said, he considered that the Amendment was necessary in order that the intention of the 15th section of the Land Act of 1881 might be carried out, and that the rights of tenants holding under middlemen's leases might be rendered safe.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. FINUCANE (Limerick, E.)

I beg to propose the insertion, after Clause 2, of the following Clause:— 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' and this Act, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the fifty-eighth section of the said Act, be deemed to apply to any holding let to be used wholly or mainly for the purpose of pasture:

1. "(a.) If such holding is valued under the Acts relating to the valuation of property at an annual value not exceeding two hundred pounds, and the tenant actually resides on such holding, or on a holding adjoining same, or on a holding with which such holding is ordinarily used: or
1431
2. "(b.) Is such folding or a substantial portion thereof was originally laid down in pasture by the tenant in occupation of same, or his predecessor in title, at his or their own expense.

The words 'let to be used,' in the sixteenth section of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' and in the fifty-eighth section of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' shall be construed to mean 'let by express contract in writing or otherwise.' The object of the clause is to enable those farmers for whose benefit the Act of 1881 was passed to get an opportunity of having a fair rent fixed for their farms. I believe the decision come to in the Limerick Land Court in 1882 has excluded thousands of farmers from the benefits of the Act of 1881. The decision to which I refer was that in the case of "O'Cleary v Gascoyne." Mr. Patrick O'Cleary, of Limerick, served an originating notice to get a fair rent fixed. The landlord raised the defence that the farm was let solely or mainly for pasturage. The Sub-Commission, however, decided in favour of Mr. O'Cleary. His farm was a very large one, and his rent was £840. The Sub-Commission reduced the rent by £280. The landlord appealed, and brought the case before Judge O'Hagan, and the Court reversed the decision of the Court below. Mr. O'Cleary held his farm under an old lease which terminated in 1875, at a rent, I think, of 36s. an acre. Mr. O'Cleary's father had expended over £4,000 in improving the farm, and the rent was raised at one stroke- from 36s. to 63s. an acre. In that way the £4,000 invested by the tenant in improvements was confiscated. At the termination of the lease Mr. O'Cleary was compelled, under a threat of eviction, to sign a yearly lease. Among other things, this lease provided that, in the event of eviction, he should have no claim for compensation for improvements either in law or equity; and, secondly, that though he had permission to meadow his land, he could not sell the hay. It is that provision which has excluded Mr. O'Cleary and thousands of other tenants from the benefits of the Land Act. There are in my county, on one estate, very nearly 300 tenants who are unable to avail themselves of the benefits of the Act of 1881. There is not one tenant on the property whose case has not been decided by this one decision, except those the valuation of whose farms is under £50 a-year. All the other tenants have been excluded from the benefits of the Act by virtue of this decision. I believe that in County Clare there are over 2,000 tenants who have been excluded from the benefits of the Act of 1881 by this decision, and my Amendment is to give all these tenants an opportunity of going into Court and getting a fair rent fixed. If it can be proved that these tenants voluntarily entered into an arrangement or contract with their landlord, either verbally or in writing, binding them to graze their farms, then they will get no benefit. They cannot get an opportunity of getting a fair rent fixed, except in the few exceptional cases which will be met by Sub-sections A and B. If the Government oppose this Amendment, then their position will simply go to prove the truth of the proposition that a landlord has a right to charge a tenant rent for improvements. Mr. O'Cleary is paying £3 3s. an acre as rent, whereas in 1875 he only paid 36s. an acre. He expended £4,000 in improving the property, and therefore he is paying an additional rent of 28s. an acre upon his own expenditure of £4,000. I seriously ask the Government if they mean to maintain that such a state of things is equitable? If this Amendment is accepted, it will be of considerable advantage to thousands of tenant farmers in Ireland; it will enable them to go into Court and get fair rents fixed. If, on the other hand, it is rejected, we shall have to take very good care to tell the electors of England that this Government maintain that men like Mr. O'Cleary can be forced by their landlords to pay rent on their own improvements.

Clause (Amendment of 44 & 45 Vic. c. 49, s. 58, as to pasture holdings,)—(Mr. Finucane,) brought up—and read the first time.

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

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

I suppose the reason the Land Act of 1881 excluded grass lettings was because grass farmers were supposed to be in a more solvent position than ordinary tenants in Ireland, and that they had land under such circumstances that their capital was not embarked in the venture. Whatever may have been the reason, I am bound to say that, at present, it is impossible for the Government to consider the principle of the exemptions of the Act of 1881, or to hold out any prospect to the hon. Member that it will be possible to revise the principles on which that Act of Parliament proceeded. The hon. Member has referred to the case of Mr. O'Cleary. Now, Mr. O'Cleary was a wealthy man, and, like other grass tenants, had not to expend much capital on the land. In cases whore land can obviously be used for no other purpose than grazing, there is generally no express bargain as to the use to which the land can be put, and it is not desirable that in such cases the tenant should virtually have perpetual tenure.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I wish we could believe that the only tenant in Ireland affected by the vote of the House of Commons to-night would be Mr. O'Cleary. Unfortunately, Mr. O'Cleary's case is a typical case in Ireland. There are 10,000 similar cases in the South of Ireland alone, and we can imagine no branch of the Irish Land Question that can be more properly pressed upon the attention of this House than this branch, which is well illustrated by the case of "O'Cleary v. Gascoyne." The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland tells us that it is entirely out of the scope of this Bill to deal with the exemptions of the Land Act of 1881. I think he must have forgotten to some extent what has been already proposed. Is he aware that one of the exemptions from the Land Act of 1881 was leaseholders? That was a very important branch of the exemptions from the Land Act of 1881, and I am under the impression that one of the provisions of this Bill is a provision which puts an end to that exclusion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may also have heard that town parks were excluded from the provisions of the Land Act of 1881, yet we were engaged a few days ago in framing a clause which made a great inroad upon that exclusion. If it is possible to deal with the exemptions in the case of leaseholders and town parks, what reason can there be for refusing a revision of the legislation in the Act of 1881 on the subject of grass lands? Unfortunately, we are not merely dealing with the Land Act of 1881. If the Land Act of 1881 had been administered on the same lines as the Land Act of 1870; if the Courts of Ireland, and more particularly the Court of Appeal, had construed the exclusion of pasture farms as they appeared to be in the habit of construing it under the Act of 1870, a large portion of the difficulties now felt on this subject would have been obviated. Unfortunately, ever since the Act of 1881 was passed, the Courts of Ireland seem to have set themselves the task of widening and enlarging to the utmost degree every little nook and cranny which was left in that Act as a means for working injustice and supporting the landlord. There is not a single one of the exemptions contained in the Land Act of 1881 on which decisions have not been come to by one or other of the Courts of Ireland enormously enlarging the scope of the exemptions. In regard to pasture land, we have always understood that in the case of what is called ancient pasture land there is an implied contract that the land shall not be broken up. No one for a moment contends that laud which comes under that description was not excluded from the Act of 1881. But the point of the case is, that although there was no express contract in the past, and although there was no implied contract, the Courts in Ireland—and I am sorry to say they were confirmed by the highest Court in Ireland and the House of Lords—came to the decision which the hon. Member has mentioned, and decided that neither an express nor an implied contract was necessary, and that they would come under the clause of the Land Act which enacted that land for pasture should be excluded from the operation of the Act. With great respect for the Judges, if the landlord has not himself provided by express contract as to the manner in which the land should be used, and if the land is not of such a character that the law will imply a contract as to the particular manner in which it would be used, then I say that the Court has made a mistake, and it would be a proper act on the part of the Legislature to rectify that mistake. The real importance of the Amendment is that it raises the point as to whether grazing holdings ought to be excluded from the Act. We raised the figure from £50 to £100 in the Act of 1881 when we were dealing with the question of contract, and I think that would be a very proper precedent to follow now. The sum of £50 is a very common valuation in the counties of Westmeath and Tipperary, and the effect of the provision in the Land Act is to exclude a very much larger number of cases than was contemplated by the Legislature when they were framing the Land Act of 1881. Similar proposals have been made in this House from time to time, and it seems to me that when you are making an alteration of the area to which the Land Act has been applied, no stronger case can be made than on this question of grazing land.

MR. COX (Clare, E.)

It seems that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put down his foot on this Amendment. I have heard of the case cited by my hon. Friend; but there is another very important case—namely, that of "O'Brien v. Bright," of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman will probably have heard. This case the Judges decided in favour of the tenant, who had appealed to the higher Court; and the result was that the decision of the Land Commissioners was reversed. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman maintains the position which he has taken up on this question, the result will confirm the statement of my hon. Friend, that thousands of tenant farmers in Clare, Roscommon, and other parts of Ireland will be shut out from the benefit of the Act. The lands there are such as cannot be used for any other purpose than that of pasture; they are totally unfit for cultivation. The only means of subsistence which these tenants have is derived from the cattle and sheep grazing on the land, and I ask whether these men are not to derive any benefit from this Act? In the case I have referred to, in which the decision of the Sub-Commissioners was reversed, the landlord appealed, but did not proceed further; in that case a fair rent was fixed, and the tenants are now enjoying the benefit of the Act of 1881. That being so, I ask why the tenants in the South of Ireland are to be debarred from all the benefit of the Act? I repeat that the position taken up by the right hon. and learned Gentleman will bring consternation to thousands of tenants who are expecting to receive benefit from this Act, and I have received hundreds of letters urging me to bring this matter under the notice of the Government.

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

I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to protract the proceedings. It must be perfectly obvious that, if every such clause as this be debated as if the House were engaged on the second reading of the Bill, it is impossible to say when the proceedings on this stage will terminate.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

The lecture which the right hon. Gentleman has just given us might have been better deserved if we could be sure that the Government understood the subject before the House.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I understand the object of the hon. Gentleman.

MR. O'DOHERTY

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if you consider it in Order that hon. Members should be interrupted in their arguments in the debates of the House, even though the right hon. Gentleman may understand my object. I am speaking on a matter which is of vital importance to thousands of tenants in Ireland, and I say that there has never been anything which has created so much consternation in Ireland as the case my hon. Friend has referred to. It is very hard that the Government should grudge us the half hour which has been devoted to this question, when we know that hours and days have been consumed over points of comparatively less importance. I am afraid that the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's affronts to Members on these Benches will not be to smooth or shorten the discussions on the Bill. The effect of this section might, I think, have stopped at saying that "This Act shall not apply to any holding which is not either agricultural or pastoral." It is a strange thing I say that in the case of holdings of the same kind, held for the same period, and by members of the same family, one portion of them should come within the Act and another be beyond it. We find that the man who improves his holding and has his rental raised ceases to be within the Act—he is excluded from it altogether; but another man, who has been described as the lazy tenant who waited for the passing of the Act, is to get the full benefit of this Bill. I ask the Government what they are going to do with these cases which stare them in the face, not in one district alone, but in every part of Ireland? In Ulster, where a man has invested his fortune in farm improvements he is to be subject to confiscation, just as in the case referred to by my hon. Friend. We find that one town park is to be exempted from the Act, whereas another half-a-mile away is to come within it. That is the way in which the whole of this legislation has gone, and the decisions of the Judges in Ireland have made it still worse. The improvement we seek to make is an important one—namely, that where the farm is one on which the tenant resides the Act shall apply to any holding not exceeding £200, if used or originally laid down for pasture. There is very little difference in principle between £50 and £200, so far as this part of the Bill is concerned; and if the real test is to be that which the Attorney General for Ireland has applied—namely, independence and insolvency, I think it more likely to fail at £200 than at £50. We cannot see why, in the case of two farms which have come down under similar conditions, one should come under the Act, because the tenant lives on it, and the other should be excluded, because the tenant has ceased to reside on it. There are many points in this Act which, to me, seem simply unintelligible, and I think the Government ought to show a disposition to meet the very modest proposals we make for the purpose of improving it.

Question put,

The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 180: Majority 137.—(Div. List, No. 356.) [12.35 A.M.]

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I beg to move the following New Clause to be inserted after Clause 9, in page 8:— A letting made by or under the authority of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, or any Judge thereof, shall not be deemed to be a letting for the temporary convenience, or to meet a temporary necessity either of landlord or tenant within the meaning of the fifty-eighth section of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' and the said Act, and this Act shall apply in the case of any such letting, in like manner in all respects as if such letting were a valid letting by the landlord for the time being. I should imagine that very few Members of this House, when they were passing a clause of this kind, knew that they were excluding from the Land Act a tenant who held under the Court of Chancery. Those tenants are, perhaps, not a very large class; but still there is a considerable area of land in Ireland comprised in those estates which for one reason or another are under the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. Of course, all the tenants of these estates are not excluded from the benefits of the Act by reason of their holding, but a large number of them are. I maintain that a holding for seven years ought not to be considered a holding for temporary convenience. It is not for the convenience of the owner, nor for the convenience of the tenant—the estate is administered by the Court of Chancery, and there is no one, under such circumstances, in. a position to make a valid letting to the tenant. As I have said, the number of tenants who will be excluded are relatively small; still, I hold they amount to a considerable number all over Ireland. They are a deserving class of tenants, and they have their holdings at a very high rent. The land in the Court of Chancery is put up to auction, and I hold there is no class of tenants more entitled to the benefits of remedial legislation than those holding under Chancery leases.

Clause (Law as to Chancery lettings,)—(Mr. Maurice Healy,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

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

I would point out that the temporary lettings which the hon. Member has in view were excluded from the operation of the Land Act of 1881. The proposal of the hon. Member is that in the future, when the Court of Chancery makes what it intends to be a temporary letting, it shall be a letting for over. Such a change in the law would inflict tremendous injury on minors and lunatics, on whoso behalf the Court acts; and the Government, therefore, cannot agree to it. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with having brought forward the Amendment, and I trust that he will not press it.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

The principle upon which the right hon. and learned Gentleman objects to this clause is a very curious one—namely, that, while a perfectly sane poison, who takes the responsibility of the management of his own land, has to submit to the ordinary law, therefore, because a. person happens to be a lunatic or a minor, a special Providence is to watch over his fortunes, and the Court of Chancery is to save him, under the Land Act of 1881, from all the ordinary duties of property. I cannot conceive why a minor should be entitled to evade the law, or why there should be any special exemption made in favour of a lunatic, or why the tenant of a lunatic should be in a worse position than the tenant of a sane man. However, to maintain this distinction seems to be the object of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I congratulate him upon that object. Of course, the exemptions in the Land Act of 1881 deal with those made for a "temporary purpose;" and it is a very curious thing that, under that phrase or exception, the Land Courts have held holdings which have existed for 20 or 30 or 40 years, while lunacy proceedings have been pending, to be temporary holdings. I grant you that the reign of a Conservative majority may be temporary, although it numbers over a 100; but I cannot understand this temporary principle in the matter under discussion. Under the Act of 1881 you had the case of tenants who could be put out with six months' notice; and, on the other hand, you had leases of seven or 14 or 21 years pending the recovery or death of a person who was a lunatic. These were temporary tenants, and yet the tenant from year to year who, if you like, is in the temporary possession of his holding, is looked upon as a tenant who cannot be put out of his holding. I trust that a Division will be taken upon this clause, and that Her Majesty's Government and their supporters will show by their votes in the Lobby what an extreme and phenomenal tenderness they have for those most afflicted of Her Majesty's subjects.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. HALDANE (Haddington)

I beg to move, in page 17, after Clause 21, to insert the following clause:— Where a mortgagee sells to a tenant his holding, it shall be lawful for the Land Commission, if they are reasonably satisfied that such sale is not a sale at an undervalue, or otherwise inequitable, to make such advance or advances, and otherwise facilitate the Sale to such tenant, under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts, in the same manner and to the same extent as if such mortgagee were the landlord. Under Lord Ashbourne's Act of 1885 the landlord was enabled to obtain the intervention of the Land Commission, who might make advances and otherwise facilitate the purchase by the tenant. Now, there are a number of cases in Ireland where the real landlord is the mortgagee, who, in his own interest, does not think it worth while to foreclose and make himself nominally, as well as really, the owner of the property. Such a mortgagee has of course, in ordinary cases, the power of sale; and it is proposed, therefore, to enable him to sell to the tenant, through the intervention of the Land Commission, under the Act of 1885; and it is for that purpose that I propose this clause. The landlord's interest is carefully safeguarded with a view to meet objections by the introduction of the words applied to the Land Commission—"If they are reasonably satisfied that such sale is not a sale at an undervalue, or otherwise inequitable." I beg to move this clause.

Clause (Sales to tenants facilitated in certain cases,)—(Mr. Haldane,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

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

I would point out that a mortgagee in Ireland, when he wishes to realize, has to present an application for sale, and the property is sold by order of the Court. The proposed clause would be a serious innovation on Lord Ashbourne's Act, and would give the mortgagee powers to swoop down on the property without regard to other encumbrances. There is no such thing in Ireland as foreclosure I fully recognize the fairness of the spirit in which this proposal is made; but it would be a very serious thing if the proposal were carried out. In the abstract, there is much to be said in favour of the proposal, but the practical operation would be hardly consistent with what I think is the spirit of legislation found in Lord Ashbourne's Act. I trust the hon. and learned Gen- tlernan will not think it necessary to press the clause to a Division.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I defy the right hon. and learned Gentleman to prove there is one word in this Amendment increasing the rights of mortgagees. For the purpose of his argument, it was necessary for the right lion, and learned Gentleman to make the alarming statement that a mortgagee in Ireland had to go into Court and get an order for sale before he could realize his security. Does he hold to that?

MR. GIBSON

Certainly. There is no such, thing in Ireland as foreclosure, as laid down by every text book on the subject; but there may be a power of sale in the mortgage.

MR. CHANCE

It has been said that Lord Ashbourne's Act is an Act for the purpose of facilitating sales by landlords to tenants. The title of the Act is—" An Act to provide greater facilities for the sale of land to occupying tenants in Ireland." There is not a solitary word as to whom the seller is to be. What happens under Ashbourne's Act? There are landlords in Ireland who are heavily mortgaged; but they have still an interest in the land. These men have an interest in realizing the best price they can for the land. Another class of landlords is that which is utterly ruined. These men do not sell under Ashbourne's Act to their tenants, and the reason is plain. They have no interest in the sale. They say to themselves that the utmost price realized will not be sufficient to pay off the mortgage itself. They say—" We will remain as landlords, we will stand between the mortgagee and the tenant; we will get the rents and live on as much as we can keep back from the mortgagees." I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state his views upon the present state of the law, which prevents mortgagees realizing by sales to the tenants under Ashbourne's Act.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

It is quite plain that the proper course to pursue is to allow the parties who have now the ownership in fee to part with it as quickly as possible to those whose interest is bound up in the soil.

Question put,

The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes; 166: Majority 88.—(Div. List, No. 357.) [1.35 A.M.]

MR. HALDANE (Haddington)

Notwithstanding the presistent opposition with which every new clause has been met by the Government, I feel myself bound to move the following Clause which I have placed on the Paper for the purposes of enabling the Land Commissioners to deal with arrears. In page 20, after Clause 25, insert the following clause— When the Court on application fixes a judicial rent for a holding, the Court shall, in the proceedings on such application, take an account of the amount of arrears of rent due as at the gale day next before making of the application, and may take evidence in regard to the circumstances which have lead to such arrears, and shall decide whether, in view to such circumstances, the whole or any and what part of such arrears ought to be paid, and whether in one payment or by instalments, and at what dates the same should be paid; and the amount and dates so fixed shall be deemed to be the total amount of.such arrears due by the tenant, and the dates at which the same become payable. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House spoke of this clause as taking away from one person his property in order to give it to another. That, I think, was an extraordinary statement on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, who was a Member of this House when the Crofters Act was passed. That Act contained a clause of precisely the same effect, and it had the full assent of the Conservative Party. Now, if this clause is fair in the case of Scotland, why is it not so in the case of Ireland? It is intended to do justice to an unfortunate class of tenants in Ireland, and I think that it is the duty of the Government to place the two countries on an equal footing in the matter of arrears.

Clause—(Power to Land Commission to deal with arrears)—(Mr. Haldane,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

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

I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I decline to go again into a matter which has been debated in this House not once or twice, but many times. The Government cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but I hope he will not expect me to recapitulate all the arguments that have been urged against the acceptance of the Clause.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman state why there should be a difference between Scotland and Ireland in this matter. I point out that this clause cannot touch judicial rents. Of course, it is said that there is no reason why a tenant who has been into Court, and has had a judicial rent fixed, should be in a worse position than the man who has not gone into Court, and it has been suggested that the tenants who have not gone into Court have shut themselves out of the clause through laziness. It is always said that Irish tenants are ready to rob the landlord when they can, and yet when we ask for this clause to be accepted we are told that they are too idle and lazy. I say, without fear of contradiction, that by far the greater number of tenants who have not gone into Court are those who are labouring under enormous arrears. The landlord never assumes that any attempt will be made to reduce his arrears, and he says to the tenant—" I keep these arrears over you in order that I may have a hold on you.…Then moment you attempt to get the rent reduced I will come down on you for arrears and sell you up." If any Member of this House will look at the Crofters Act, he will find that the original term is seven years, and at the end of that time the tenant not only gets the rent re-adjusted, but gets arrears of rent wiped out under a clause precisely similar to that which is here proposed. I appeal to the Government to give us a reason why an exception should be made in the case of the Irish tenants, or not to withhold from the latter the advantages which they have so liberally and generously conferred upon the Scotch tenants.

MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)

I hope the Government will not leave this point of contention and dissatisfaction in a Bill which promises to be a settlement of the Land Question for some time to come. When a tenant goes into Court to get a fair rent pronounced for his holding, will you leave it in the power of the landlord to deprive him of all the benefits of this Act? When I raised the question of small tenants to-night, it was said that no good could be done by it; but that is the way in which the Government always meet our suggestions. Here is an enormous amount of injustice, and the Government say they will not remove it; although, as has been pointed out, they did exactly what we ask in the case of the crofters. I cannot conceive what objection the Government can have to this Amendment. It is one which will be, so far as its working is concerned, in the hands of the Government. The Government of the day will have the appointing of the Sub-Commissioners, and. the Lord Lieutenant will have the sanctioning of the appointments and what is left to the Commissioners is this—that when an application for a fair rent is made to them, they should take into account the amount of the arrears, and make such an order as they consider right which shall spread the arrears or a portion of them over a period of time within which the tenant will have to pay. Why then is this measure of justice not to be served out to the poor people on our coasts and mountain sides? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any logical basis for that? Is it his patriotism that induces him to say that the Scotch people are entitled to a higher measure of justice than the people of Ireland? I do not give the Government credit for saying that justice impelled them to pass the Crofters Act, but they felt that their scheme would be unworkable unless they adopted in it the principle of the settlement of arrears. Well, does the same principle of expediency drive them on this occasion to something in the nature of a composition of arrears? We, the Irish Members, who were elected by the free voice of the constituencies of Ireland, have we any power of impelling you in that direction? I think it is a duty incumbent upon us, and one which we should not let pass here, to record our protest and to put our fingers upon the blots in this Bill, so that when it breaks down the Government will not be able to say that we were the cause of it, or that the inherent bad qualities of the Irish people were the cause of it. The cause of the failure of all Irish legislation is, as a matter of fact, the inherent bad qualities of that legislation. I am afraid that, so far as the sea coasts and the mountain and bog districts of Ireland are concerned, the people will have no benefit from this Act. They owe so much in the shape of arrears that there will be no chance of their going into Court. No doubt they will make some mock arrangement with the landlords, but they will not really have the benefit of the Act. If you wish to place these people in a satisfactory position you should say to them—" Here is a fair rent which you can arrange upon a just and equitable basis—here is a principle under which you can start fair with your landlord in the future." If you did that, all the people would rush into Court, and you would in that way succeed in establishing that which you profess it to be your desire to establish—namely, confidence all over Ireland in law and order.

MR. MAHONY (Meath, N.)

I rejoice in the way in which this Amendment has been submitted. It puts the position of the Government plainly, clearly, and distinctly before us. Here is a grievance the existence of which I defy any hon. Gentlemen opposite to get up and deny. Every hon. Member, even those sitting opposite, must acknowledge that this question of arrears is a serious and grave one in Ireland. What is the position the present Government have taken up? Why this "Unionist" Government as it calls itself, has led us to believe that it is in favour of equal laws and equal privileges for all parts of the United Kingdom, and yet they are not ready to mete out the same measure of justice to the unfortunate Irish tenants that this House has already meted out to the Scotch tenants. Will anyone say that the circumstances are not pressing in Ireland? I acknowledge that the blame and responsibility does not rest so much with hon. Members opposite. We expect them to uphold what they call the sacredness of rent—we expect them to object to the infringement of what they consider to be the landlord's rights. But where is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain)? I understood that he had been studying this question. I understood that this question of arrears was in a sort of way especially under his charge, and that he professed to feel very deeply for the poor tenants of Ireland—that in fact so deeply was he concerned about them that he felt it absolutely necessary that they should have some relief for their arrears. Well, the banquet is over, but still we do not find the Unionists in their places to-night. I hope the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) is satisfied with the support he received from his Unionist "Friends. I hope he will be satisfied with the support he will receive for the Amendment he has on the Paper, and which he intends to move in a short time. I venture to think he will be able to count on the fingers of his hand the support he will get from Members of his own Party.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 144: Majority 58.—(Div. List, No. 358.) [1.45 A.M.]

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

I beg to move the insertion of the following clause:— Where an absolute order for the sale of land is made by a Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, it should be lawful for a Judge of the said Division to make, upon such terms as he thinks tit, a temporary abatement in the rent due or to become due from, or a remission of part of the arrears of rent due from, a tenant of a holding on such land, if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and the parties, owners, petitioners, or incumbrancers consenting or refusing to consent thereto, he thinks it equitable so to do. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has told us that within the last few years there has been a reduction of estates in the Landed Estates Court, and that purchasers cannot be found for those estates. That is, unfortunately, the fact; but I would point out that the Landed Estates Court has been established for 30 or 40 years, and that during that period its jurisdiction has been increased to make reductions of rents in the case of tenants of certain lands. I believe that last year the Court of Appeal in Ireland discovered, for the first time, that this jurisdiction, which the Land Judges had exercised to make reductions in rent, did not really exist, and that the Land Judges were no longer entitled to make reductions in rent except with the consent of the owners. The course the Judges used to take saved great trouble, and they frequently declared, when applications were made for temporary reductions, that that was a proper thing to do. I myself have heard several Judges say that that was a proper thing to do; but they hold now that they cannot do it. They say—"The Court of Appeal has decided that what our predecessors have done for the past 30 years we cannot do." Well, the object of my clause is to empower the Land Judges in such cases to make temporary abatements of rent, or to make temporary adjustments of the arrears of rent. I do not believe that the power contained in my clause will be exercised very drastically; and I have safeguarded it by directing the Judge of the Court to regard not only the circumstances of the case, but also to have regard to the parties, owners, petitioners, or incumbrancers consenting or refusing to consent. I have no doubt that if the people most interested in the well-being of the estate refuse their consent the Judge will take it into account. The clause is aimed at preventing nominal owners interposing their shallow rights between the Judge and justice, and preventing his doing what would otherwise be done.

Clause (Jurisdiction of High Court to reduce rents in certain cases,)—(Mr. Chance,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

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

The Government agree to this clause with some Amendments.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

I would move to insert in the second line of the clause, after the word "Ireland," the words, "and a Receiver has been appointed."

Amendment proposed to the proposed new Clause, in line 2, after the word "Ireland," to insert the words, "and a Receiver has been appointed."—(Mr. Gibson.)

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

MR. GIBSON

I beg to move, in the seventh line, after the word "and," to insert the words, "to the interests of."

Amendment proposed to the proposed new Clause, in line 7, after the word "and," to insert the words, "to the interests of."—(Mr. Gibson.)

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

Further Amendment made, in the last line, to omit the word "equitable," in order to insert the words, "just arid, expedient."

Clause, as amended, added.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

I think it would be convenient for us now to adjourn, considering that we have to be here again in the course of about 10 hours. The proposal that stands next upon the Paper is one of great importance, and I do not think could be properly dealt with at this late hour.

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

It would be a convenience to the House if we were allowed to finish the new clauses to-night. Of course, I am only stating what is my view of the convenience of the House. It would be undesirable that any new clause should come up to-morrow. I desire that full time should be given to the consideration of the Amendments to the clauses as they stand for to-morrow. Therefore, I suggest to hon. Gentleman that they should proceed to consider the only new clause which, I think, remains for consideration, and enter upon the first Amendment. When we got to that Amendment we will at once move that the further consideration be postponed till to-morrow.

MR. MARJORIBANKS (Berwickshire)

I trust hon. Gentlemen will finish the new clauses to-night. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) will not be present to-morrow, and I know that it is his wish that the new clauses should be disposed of at this sitting.

MR. CHANCE

I trust that we shall be allowed to adjourn now. We will not put down any new clause, except one on the same lines as the clause of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley), and that will only leave us two new clauses to take to-morrow.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I certainly have no objection whatever to the adjournment of the debate at this point, if I there is a distinct understanding that the debate on the Bill shall conclude before a quarter to sis to-morrow. I desire to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen generally, and if there is not such an understanding as I mention, it is obvious that it will be to the convenience of the House that we should proceed until we come to the Amendments.

MR. PARNELL (Cork)

I think that as we have already discussed the clause, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for North Cork (Mr. Flynn), it will only be necessary to lake a Division upon it, and that, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) does not intend to move his clause, which leaves only two clauses on the Paper, it would be the preferable course to finish the new clauses to-night.

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

I beg to move the new clause standing in my name.

New Clause— It shall be competent for the Land Commission on the application of one or more tenants on any estate, or of the landlord, to draw up a scheme regulating; the use by the tenants on that estate of any seaweed or seasand or limestone for the reasonable purposes of their holdings, any turbary, any heather or grass for thatching purposes, or any mountain grazing of which they or their predecessors were substantially allowed the use, whether by annual agreement or otherwise, for four years preceding the passing of 'The Laud Law Act, 1881:' and it shall be competent for the Land Commission to fix for each tenant a fair annual value to be paid for such use by said tenant in addition to the annual rent of his holding. Any right or rights professed to be conferred on any tenant by a scheme under the provisions of this section shall be deemed to be a right or rights appurtenant to his holding, and, in case of a judicial tenancy, the provisions of such scheme shall, so far as they impose any obligation on the tenant or limitation, of his rights, be deemed to be statutory conditions. It shall be competent for the Land Commission to make any order which they may deem necessary for the purpose of carrying into effect a scheme made under this section. Provided, that if the tenant of a holding has had, or shall hereafter have, a fair rent fixed thereon on the assumption expressed or understood that as regards rates, cesses, turbary, seaweed, seashells, mountain grazing, lime, limestone, or the like, that the practice, usage, and fees in respect thereof, theretofor on the average of four years previously in operation as regards such tenant or his predecessors, would continue during the statutory term, then if the landlord refuses to continue such practice, usage, or fees, or if the tenant fails during the statutory term, without default on his part, to have the benefit thereof, the Court shall have power to revise the judicial rent, and make such provision in lieu thereof as may be agreed on between the parties, or as to the Court shall seem right, and on the hearing of an application under this section, it shall be competent for the Court to inquire into the circumstances attending the hearing of the fair rent application, and shall not be precluded by the record from such inquiry, if an error, omission, or mistake appears to have actually occurred therein.

Clause (Regulating the use by the tenants of seaweed or limestone, mountain grazing, &c.,)—(Mr. Flynn,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

The House divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 143: Majority 64.—(Div. List, No. 359.) [2.10 A.M.]

MR. MAHONY (Meath, N.)

I beg-to move the following new clause standing in my name, the object of which is to give to the tenant farmers of Ireland power in certain cases to give to a bonâ fide labourer one acre of land:— Each letting which may hereafter be authorised under fee provisions of section eighteen of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' may comprise land not exceeding one acre in extent, notwithstanding anything in that section, contained.

Clause (Amendment of 44 & 45 Vic. c. 49, s. 18,)—Mr. Mahony,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

This question has been discussed in Committee. I suppose it is not desired it should be again discussed, and that it is simply moved by the hon. Gentleman as a protest.

MR. PARNELL (Cork)

You allow the English labourer to have an acre of land, and we feel that it is very hard that you will not grant the same privilege to the Irish labourer.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 82: Noes 135: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No. 360.) [2.20 A.M.]

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the word "any," and insert the word "his."—(Mr. Serjeant Madden.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'any' stand part of the Bill."

Motion made, and Question, "That "That this Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,)—put, and agreed to.

Debate adjourned till To-morrow.