CONSIDERATION. ADJOURNED DEBATE.

HC Deb 06 August 1887 vol 318 cc1454-92

Clause 1 (Leaseholders).

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [5th August], on Consideration of Bill, as amended.

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

Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

Question, "That the word 'any' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the word 'his' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. SERJEANT MADDEN (Dublin University)

said, he begged to move an Amendment to correct what appeared to him to be an error in passing the Bill through Committee. In the Bill, as it came from the House of Lords, the clause provided that a lessee should be deemed to be a present tenant in like manner and subject to like conditions and the same right of resumption "as if his lease had expired." In Committee in this House the words quoted had dropped out, and he submitted that the meaning and intention of the clause evidently required that they should be reinstated.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 17, after the word "resumption," to insert the words "as if his lease had expired."—(Mr. Serjeant Madden.)

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

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

thought that the words "in like manner and subject to like conditions" must refer in some way to the expiration or the determination of the lease; but, while inclined to look favourably on the Amendment, he suggested that the subject should be discussed on the broader issue raised in a subsequent Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton).

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

submitted that the section should be left just as it was. This was an Amendment which might lead to mischief.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

said, the words "as if his lease had expired" were most dangerous, and would have a most disastrous effect upon the interests of leaseholders. In the North of Ireland alone it would affect 100,000 leaseholders and £20,000,000 of property, in houses, buildings, and farms, all of which would be transferred at one swoop to the landlords from tenants whose rents would be proportionately raised. If the clause were amended as the hon. and learned Member proposed, he (Mr. O'Doherty) would strongly advise no leaseholders to go into Court. It would be sheer folly and madness to do so. At the same time, it was absolutely necessary, in the interests of the leaseholders, that the 1st clause should be materially modified. There could be no doubt that the intention of Government was to put the leaseholders into the enjoyment of their rights under the Land Act of 1881; but if the Amendment were adopted, everything of value would be taken from them, and the Bill would become a mere mockery and snare. If the Government chose to retain the clause without any provision for the leaseholders' improvements, the whole measure, so far as the leaseholders were concerned, would be unworthy of consideration. It would simply provide that any leaseholder, when he went into Court, should get the benefit of a fall in prices, but not the benefit of his own improvements.

MR. GIBSON

said, the adoption of the Amendment would, simply have the effect of enabling the discussion to be more satisfactorily conducted on the subsequent Amendment of the hon. Member for West Belfast.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

said, he did not think the House ought to treat the speech of the hon. Member for North Donegal (Mr. O'Doherty) with in difference, seeing that the hon. Member was dealing with a subject with which he was intimately acquainted. He thought the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Serjeant Madden) would incur great responsibility if he succeeded in carrying his Amendment. It would amount to this—that the property and fortunes of a large number of tenants in Ireland, whose condition had been weighed, sifted, and scrutinized for weeks, were now to be sacrificed at the eleventh hour. The Amendment would altogether change the meaning of the clause, and he would, therefore, appeal to the hon. and learned Member not to persist with it, but to allow the discussion to take place upon the Amendment of which he (Mr. Sexton) had given Notice. If the only object of the hon. and learned Member was to make the meaning of the clause clear, it was obvious that that object would be more effectually secured by the acceptance or rejection of the subsequent Amendment.

MR. SERJEANT MADDEN

said, he was sorry he could not accede to the suggestion. It was of essential importance, in the first instance, to decide one way or the other whether or not the tenant was to be considered as holding after the expiration of his lease. When that condition was clearly defined it would be competent for the House to engraft any further provision upon it.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 60: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No. 361.)

MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to replace the words "the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," by the words "this Act," thus extending by six years the period provided by the Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 22, by leaving out the words "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," and inserting the words "this Act."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

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

said, he must object to the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. MAURICE HEALY moved to insert the following words in line 26:— A lease limited to continue for any life or lives with any term of years concurrent or in reversion, and a lease limited to continue for any term of years with any life or lives concurrent or in reversion (not being any such convertible lease as aforesaid) shall also be deemed to be a lease so expiring, provided that the term of years in any such case does not exceed 99 years from the passing of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.' This, he contended, was an Amendment to which, in Committee, the Government had practically consented.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 26, after the word "expiring," to insert the words—" A lease limited to continue for any life or lives with any term of years concurrent or in reversion, and a. lease limited to continue for any term of years with any life or lives concurrent or in reversion (not being any such convertible lease as aforesaid), shall also be deemed to be a lease so expiring, provided that the term of years in any such case does not exceed ninety-nine years from the passing of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.' "—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

MR. GIBSON

said, that this was not exactly the case; but he would accept the principle of the Amendment if a few changes were introduced into it. As the Amendment stood, it might give the tenant the lives which might be worth 60 years in addition to the 99 years. If that difficulty could be obviated without drafting a very long clause, they would be willing to meet the views of the hon. Member.

MR.O'DOHERTY

said, that there was no question of principles at stake, the difficulty being purely one of drafting.

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

expressed a hope that a compromise would be effected.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

withdrew his proposal, and moved it in an amended form.

Amendment, by leave, withrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. MAURICE HEALY, the concluding paragraph of Section 1, bringing leaseholders within the purview I of the Act, was amended as follows:— This section shall apply only to leases expiring within 99 years after the passing of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' and every lease limited to continue for any life or lives, and every lease existing at the passing of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' for any life or lives then existing for a period not exceeding 99 years where such term is concurrent, or 31 years where such term is in reversion, and not being renewable in any case,

MR. O'DOHERTY

, in moving to add the following sub-section after Clause 1:— On the hearing of an application under this section, the Court may, if it thinks it just and reasonable, deem any person in occupation of a holding, which is held under a lease to which this section applies, to be a lessee of such holding if such person pays the rent and is bound by the covenant and conditions in such lease; said, that those words were copied from words of the Government in a subsequent section. The Land Commissioners had found some difficulty in making out titles to tenancies, and had been unable in such cases to effect sales under Lord Ashbourne's Act. Difficulties arose in cases where lessees died without making assignments, and through the loose way in which leases were dealt with in Ulster. Tenants obtaining leases under the Ulster custom cared nothing for those leases; many of them never took the accounts out of the office, but left them behind, where they were to be seen as fresh as the day they were effected. Many hard cases had arisen under these circumstances, and he appealed to the Government to meet them as they had done in the case of the tenancies which came under Lord Ashbourne's Act. The same facilities should be given to leaseholders as were given to yearly tenants to enable them to buy their holdings. He only asked that a person who was treated as a tenant should be allowed to make applications under the Act without esta- blishing along title. He trusted that the result of the consultation he saw going on at that moment on the Front Ministerial Bench would be the acceptance of his Amendment. At any rate, it was reasonable to hope that the Government would give a favourable answer to his appeal.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 4, at the end of Clause 1, to insert the words "on the hearing of an application."—(Mr. O'Doherty.)

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

MR. GIBSON

said, there were here two questions to be dealt with. The first was the case of a lessee dying and having no representative. That case was dealt with by the existing law. The second case was where some one was in possession and paying the landlord rent; and although he was not a lessee, he was still a lessee by estoppel. It was admitted by the hon. Member that the present law was adequate to deal with the first case; and, as regarded the second, if the lessee, by estoppel, made a claim to the Court, there was no doubt whatever that the County Court Judge would say that he must be recognized, and that he would act accordingly. This Amendment, in his judgment, would throw doubt on the existing law, which was sufficient and ample to deal with the situation. The Amendment might also, in certain circumstances, be dangerous because it would affect leaseholders only; and it must be remembered that the questions which arose with regard to that class would arise equally in the case of all other tenants, and that the same difficulty which had been pointed out arose in the South of Ireland as well as in Ulster. If he was not right in his view, and if the words of the Amendment really would add something to the existing law, it would enable a man who was not a lessee at all perhaps to come in and break a lease which was not his property at all; and that would probably lead to very serious danger and very serious loss. That appeared to him a serious objection to the Amendment; and if the Amendment were accepted by the Government, having regard to the struggle which took place in these debates, to prevent the landlords from breaking the tenants' leases, he was not sure that difficulty of a substantial cha- racter would not be created. He would ask the hon. Member not to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

, in moving to insert the following section at the end of Clause 1 (leaseholders):— Where, in the case of any lease which has expired prior to the passing of this Act, an application for resumption has been made and is pending at the passing of this Act, this section shall apply in like manner as if such lease had expired after the passing of this Act, said, there were some hard cases which would be favourably affected by this Amendment, such, for instance, as where a lease expired a month or couple of months, or three months before the passing of the Act. He had taken pains to limit the action of the Amendment to those cases he wanted to cover. The Attorney General for Ireland would see that if the leases to which he referred had continued for two or three months the leaseholders would not have been shut out from the benefits of the Act.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 4, at the end of Clause 1, to insert the words—" Where, in the case of any lease which has expired prior to the passing of this Act, an application for resumption has been made and is pending at the passing of this Act, this section shall apply in like manner as if such lease had expired after the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he sympathized with the object the hon. Member had in view; but this Amendment illustrated some of the difficulties which beset the Government by trying to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite by concession. In Committee the hardships of allowing immediate resumption of the holdings on the part of the landlords was referred to, and in order to meet that as far as they could they had said, "We will strike a rough average, and the right of resumption given to landlords shall not take place until the expiration of a certain number of years." Well, in consequence of that, it was now sought to extend the concession in a retrospective sense. The Amendment proposed was retrospective legislation of a serious kind, and violated the principles that governed the action of the House in these matters. He pointed out that there would be an extremely small number of leases to which the Amendment would apply in its protective sense, for the reason that money was extremely scarce in Ireland just now, and landlords would not be inclined to resume the holdings where the leases fell in. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

, in moving to add, at the end of Clause 1— In this Act the word 'lease' includes an agreement for lease, as also any contract of tenancy not being a yearly tenancy, or a tenancy less than a yearly tenancy, and not being a judicial lease or a fixed tenancy. The word 'lessee' includes the successor in title of any lessee, said, if this Amendment was not acceptable to the Government he would not press it, but, as a matter of fact, the word "lessee" had a technical meaning and did not include the assignee of a lease.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 4, at the end of Clause 1, to insert the words—" In this Act the word 'lease' includes an agreement for a lease, as also any contract of tenancy not being a yearly tenancy, or a tenancy less than a yearly tenancy, and not being a judicial lease or a fixed tenancy. The word 'lessee' includes the successor in title of any lessee."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

MR. GIBSON

pointed out that it had been decided that a lessee meant a successor to a lease and the assignee of a lease. Were they now to make a declaration in this Act it would suggest that the decisions upon which the practice was based under the Act of 1881 were erroneously arrived at. He thought the Amendment was an unnecessary one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SEXTON

in moving to add at the end of Clause 1:— On the hearing of any application to fix the fair rent of a holding, the lessee of which has become a present tenant under this section, the Court shall, as regards improvements, deal with such application as if during the occupancy of the holding by the tenant or his predecessors the tenancy in the holding had been a tenancy from year to year. said, the importance of this Amendment was obvious, but, nevertheless, he hoped that he might be able to explain it to the House in very brief terms. The object of the Amendment was to place the leaseholder who, under this section, came into Court to have a fair rent fixed, in the same position with regard to his right to be free from a rent levied on his own improvements as was occupied by a tenant from year to year under the Act of 1881. The position of a tenant from year to year who applied for the fixing of a fair rent under that Act was fixed by sub-section 9 of Section 8 of that Act, which provided that no rent was to be payable in respect of improvements made by the tenant or his predecessors in title for which the tenant should not have been compensated by the landlord or his predecessors in title. That rule had, no doubt, he regretted to say, been cut down and mutilated by the Courts of Law in Ireland, and more especially by the decision in a well-known case; in fact, the contention of the Legislature in framing that section had been practically defeated. The late Lord Chancellor Law, who was more closely acquainted with the intention of the Legislature than any other Judge in Ireland, or, indeed, perhaps than any other person living, was notoriously in favour of a more extensive interpretation of the section, than the Court placed upon it. However, that section, although it was interpreted in this restricted manner by the Courts, had placed the tenant from year to year in a position of great advantage as compared with the leaseholder. Under the present section, unless the Amendment which he had moved was accepted, the right of the leaseholder would be governed by the clauses of the Act of 1870. Now it must not be forgotten by the House that that Act was passed 11 years before the principle of the right of any tenant in Ireland to have a fair rent was accepted. Again, it must be remembered that the Act of 1870 was passed 17 years before the right of the leaseholder to have a fair rent fixed was recognized. That being so, it would be seen that the clauses of the Act of 1870 in regard to the improvement of the leaseholder were not intended to have any bearing on the question of a fair rent, but were only intended to afford a test of the value of the improvement to the leaseholder when he was about to quit his holding. The provisions of the Act of 1870, to which he had just referred, were not therefore intended to have any bearing on the question of a fair rent. That being so, if the present Bill passed in the shape in which it then stood, the tenant from year to year would have a great advantage over the leaseholder. The tenant from year to year would by law have in his favour the presumption that the improvements on his holding were made by himself or his predecessor in title, while on the other hand the presumption of law on that point would, as the Bill now stood, be against the leaseholder. Why should that be? He not only saw no reason why it should be so, but he saw what seemed to him to be good reasons why it should not, be so. If the tenant from year to year had the right to a presumption of law in his favour, surely the leaseholder had a far greater right to have the advantage of a similar presumption; and for this very obvious reason, that, as compared with the leaseholder, the tenant from year to year did not make very extensive improvements. Let him ask why did the leaseholder like leases? Because, as a general rule, they had made valuable improvements on the holdings. That was to say, tenants took leases and paid value for them because they had built houses or outhouses, had made fences, or had otherwise improved their holdings. Therefore on that score the presumption that he had himself made the improvements ought to be in favour of the leaseholder. But in addition to that there was the fact that if the leaseholder got a leasehold, in a large number of cases he made costly drains and reclamations, or erected houses or outhouses. Therefore, on this ground, as on the one to which he had already called attention, the presumption that he had himself made the improvements was stronger in the case of the Irish leaseholder than in the case of the Irish tenant at will. He, therefore, asked the House to say that the presumption on a leasehold holding should be that the improvements were made by the tenant and not by the landlord. Let the House, too, recollect that if the landlord did in any case make the improvements it would be easy for him to rebut the presumption in favour of the tenant, and to prove his own case by books, by accounts, or by the evidence of agents. The claim of Her Majesty's Government in that House and in the country in regard to that Bill was that they were placing the Irish leaseholder on an equal footing as to the proprietorship of improvements with the tenant from year to year. But if the Amendment he was now proposing were not agreed to, the claim of the Government would be a mere delusion. The Court would, in the absence of that Amendment, hold that the buildings on a holding were not the tenant's own property, and he would be rented on them. He would thus, if he did not receive the protection to which he was entitled, and which this Amendment would confer upon him, be liable to be rented upon the expenditure of his own capital and his own labour. Surely that was most unjust. Then there was another point. 90,000 out of every 100,000 leaseholders had built their houses before they took their leases. In fact, they had taken their leases in order to get security for their expenditure upon their houses; but now, if this Bill passed as it stood, they would be compelled to pay rent on the houses they had built. Then, a tenant from year to year was not compelled to pay rent on any improvements that had been made before the last 20 years; but the leaseholder, unless the Amendment were adopted, would be compelled to pay rent on improvements made before 31 years. Even if his Amendment were carried the leaseholder would still labour under some disadvantages as compared with the tenant from year to year. Surely it was bad enough that he should labour under these disadvantages without others being imposed on him. Unless the two classes were placed on an equal footing as regarded improvements, the Courts would have to proceed on two different and contradictory principles in fixing fair rents for each class of tenants. The tenant, from year to year, would have his rent fixed on a fair and the leaseholder upon an unfair basis. The effect on the public mind would be very unfortunate. And, in addition to that, the effect of such a state of the law as he had described would be very injurious to the carrying out of the Government policy of purchase. It was deeply rooted in the minds of the Irish farmers that it was impossible to give effect to a system of purchase unless you first ascertained the fair annual value of the property, and fixed a fair rent. If they were not satisfied on this point the 100,000 leaseholders scattered all over Ireland would oppose, and would defeat by inertia, a policy of purchase, for it must not be forgotten that they would carry with them the tenants from year to year by whom they were surrounded. A policy of purchase could not, in fact, be carried out without the assent of the leaseholders, and in the sale of their estates lay the sole hope of the landlords. Moreover, they knew that they could only sell to the tenants now in occupation. The interest of the landlords would, therefore, not be served by defeating this Amendment, and thus rendering nugatory any policy of purchase that might be adopted. It was a great misfortune for Englishmen, in dealing with Ireland, that in every job they put their hands to they surrounded their legislation with so many restrictions and modifications as to prevent the Act coming into operation. If this Amendment were then refused, it would have to be accepted before a scheme of purchase could be carried out. Both in the interest of the landlords, and of the policy of purchase, he would, therefore, recommend the Amendment to the most favourable consideration of that House.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 4, at the end of Clause 1, to insert the words—"On the hearing of any application to fix the fair rent of a holding, the lessee of which has become a present tenant, under this section, the Court shall, as regards improvements, deal with such application as it during the occupancy of the holding by the tenant or his predecessors the tenancy in the holding had been a tenancy from year to year."—(Mr. Sexton.)

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

MR. GIBSON

said, the Government would not accept the Amendment. The Amendment still left the tenants within the mischief of the decision of "Adams v. Dunseath." The Act of 1870 provided that a yearly tenant's right to compensation for improvements was to be regulated by conditions, so that a tenant who had made improvements when a fair rent was being fixed under the Act of 1881 was not necessarily entitled to credit in his rent if the improvements were of such a character that they had been extinguished by the express terms of the contract of tenancy and by the express terms of the Act of 1870. He did not see why a tenant who was getting his lease broken under this Bill, and who had made improvements, should be exonerated from the liability imposed by the Act of 1870 of showing that he, or his predecessor in title, had made those improvements. The hon. Member said that if a lessee put up buildings upon his holding, and he came within the operation of the first section of the present Bill, he would not get compensation and a reduction in his rent as if he were an ordinary yearly tenant.

MR. SEXTON

said, he was referring to buildings put up before the lease was made.

MR. GIBSON

said, he had misunderstood the hon. Member. In his opinion the law of Ireland was that if there had been a tenancy of a practically continuous character, the mere fact that that part of the title was covered by a lease did not necessarily extinguish the tenant's right to compensation, unless it could be shown by the landlord that there was a break as if the lease was granted as the result of a bargain, the consideration given by the tenant for the lease being the improvements previously made by him. He had no doubt that if there was a yearly tenancy, and then a lease, and then a yearly tenancy afterwards, and a building had been put up during the first yearly tenancy, under the present law the yearly tenant who had succeeded the lease, provided there was a substantial continuity of title, could claim for the building in reduction of rent, and he did not think that there was anything in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath" inconsistent with what he said. What the Government did was this—they brought a numerous class of tenants within benefits of the Act of 1881, and said to that class—" You must take the Act of 1881 and the Act of 1870 as you find those Acts." It might, of course, in future years, be necessary to consider how those Acts might be modified. Where a lease existed for 31 years it excluded from certain improvements, but it did not exclude from buildings, reclamations, tillages, and manures, and advantages of that description. The principle of the Act of 1870 was that a man who got a lease for 31 years was only to be compensated if he made improvements of a permanent character, of which he might not be expected to get the value during the lease; but if he made temporary improvements of which he got the benefit during the lease, the Legislature said why should that man be compensated as if he had a perishable tenure. He asked the hon. Member not to press his Amendment, in view of the fact that time was of such importance.

MR. O'DOHERTY

said, that this new clause was rendered necessary by the decision of the Judges in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath." He had never listened to a more direct perversion of the whole case of the leaseholders than that contained in the speech to which they had just listened. The Irish Members had called the attention of the House and the country to the matter, and if the effect proved disastrous to the administration of the Act, the Government would have to take the responsibility.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,

said, he had delayed going out of town this afternoon in the hope of seeing this Bill through, but they had already spent two and a half hours and were still at the first clause. He thought that hon. Members below the Gangway might well forbear to strive to improve still further the position of the comparatively well-to-do leaseholder's. The Bill was an exemplification of the principle, "To him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." The measure would benefit leaseholders, solvent tenants and purchasers, but would do very little for the mass of small tenants who were hopelessly in arrear with their rents, and yet hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway devoted so much time to the care of leaseholders.

Question put,

The House divided:—Ayes, 97; Noes, 145: Majority,48.—(Div. List, No. 362.)

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 (Perpetuities may be set aside).

MR. DILLON moved to insert after the word "satisfied," in page 2, line 10, the words "that the rent reserved in such lease or grant is an exorbitant rent or." The object of the Amendment was to enable the Commissioners to break perpetuity leases in cases where they were satisfied the rent was exorbitant. It was very desirable this question should be raised once more, or at least that he and his friends should make a protest against the principle upon which the Government had proceeded. He had received letters during the List few days, from the North of Ireland particularly, pointing out that there was a considerable number of tenants holding perpetuity leases at an exorbitant rent. He received a letter on the day before yesterday from the County Antrim begging him to impress upon the House the absolute necessity for breaking perpetuity leases. The writer was one of the tenants of four townlands in the County Antrim who held perpetuity leases at a rent of one and a half of Griffith's valuation. There was one particular estate in the North of Ireland, he was told, on which, by way of joke between the professional men, the leases were made for 9,999 years. He wished to know whether the Government could give one single substantial reason why a man paying an excessive rent under a lease granted for 999 years should get no relief whatever?

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line line 10, after the word "satisfied," to insert the words "That the rent reserved in such lease or grant is an exorbitant rent or."—(Mr. Dillon.)

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that, as the hon. Gentleman was probably aware, the Government had refused to deal with leases in perpetuity, because in their opinion such leases were simply another form of purchase. He did not propose to discuss the question again, and he hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with the discussion that had already taken place.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause 3 (Sub-letting to labourers).

An Amendment made.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 34, after the word "holding," to insert the words—" Where portion of a holding is sub-let under a sub-letting existing at the passing of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' and it is proved that the sub-letting was made by the tenant with the knowledge of the landlord, or of his assent or bailiff, or that such letting has been permitted to subsist with such knowledge, and that the landlord has not called on the tenant to determine such sub-letting, or otherwise taken steps to cause same to be determined, the land- lord shall in such case be deemed to have consented to the sub-letting, and the tenant shall, notwithstanding such sub-letting, be deemed for the purposes of the said Act and this Act to be in occupation of the holding, if the Court considers such sub-letting reasonable, and sanctions the same."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

MR. GIBSON

said, he could not accept the Amendment.

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

said, he regarded the Amendment as so important that if the hon. Member for Cork was disposed to give way, he should himself press for a Division.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 138: Majority 36.—(Div. List, No. 363.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Exceptional provisions for certain leaseholders).

MR. DILLON

said, he proposed in page 2, line 42, the omission of words which would deprive any tenant who had been for any time out of the occupation of his holding of the benefit of this clause. As the clause was drawn, if a landlord evicted a tenant and left him in possession as caretaker, and then, while he had him at his mercy, compelled him or induced him by pressure to sign a lease, depriving him of the benefits of the Act of 1881, that clause would remedy it and allow the man to come under the Act. But if the landlord removed him from the occupancy of his holding, even for 24 hours instead of leaving him in as caretaker, he would be denied the right of receiving any benefits from the Act. The Amendment had been drawn up with the view to remedying such a state of things. What difference could there be between the two classes of tenants, and why should one class enjoy benefits which were denied to another class? The clause as it stood actually put a premium on the landlord who acted harshly, and penalized the landlord who acted humanely.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 42, to leave out from the word "eighty" to the word "Provided," in page 3, line 2."—(Mr. Dillon.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'and had thenceforward continued in such occupation as tenant or caretaker,' stand part of the Bill,"

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, the subject of which had already been twice discussed and twice decided by the House. He asked to be allowed to take that opportunity of appealing to hon. Members. He understood that a pledge was given that the Bill should finish that day, which meant that there then remained about two and a-half hours for accomplishing the work which remained to be done. If they were going to discuss questions, however important they might be, which had been already discussed and decided, he did not see how that pledge could be carried out. The state of Public Business was such that if the Bill were not disposed of that afternoon, its consideration could not be resumed next week, and hon. Members were aware that if the Report stage of any measure were to be adjourned for some eight or 10 days at this period of the Session, the House would not only he put to much inconvenience, but the existence of the Bill would be imperilled. It must, moreover, be recollected that Irish landlords were pressing their eviction decrees into execution; and that, therefore, every day's delay in the passing of this measure might deprive Irish tenants of the advantages which they might otherwise have obtained under the provisions of this Bill. The responsibility, in these circumstances, of discussing and re-discussing the clauses of the Bill at this stage was a very heavy one, and he would earnestly press upon hon. Members below the Gangway, not merely in deference to the pledge which had been given, but in deference also to the interests of Irish tenants, to refrain, as far as they could consistently with what they regarded as their duty, from re-discussing matters which had been already disposed of in Committee, however important they might deem the points which they raised to be.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 1, to leave out the word "otherwise."—(Mr. Serjeant Madden.)

Question, "That the word 'otherwise' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

MR. DILLON

said, he rose to move the omission of the Proviso to this clause, to the effect that the Court in dealing with a lease should have regard to whether the making of the clause was deferred with the object of evading the Land Act of 1881.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 2, to leave out from the word "lease" to the end of the Clause."—(Mr. Dillon.)

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

, in opposing the Amendment, said, he would not weary the House by urging the arguments he had previously advanced against a similar Amendment.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

suggested to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway whether it would not be worth while to select one or two of the most important Amendments on the Paper on which to make a final appeal to the Government, and drop all others. It was quite evident the Government did not intend to give way, and they had a majority present. He disliked this Proviso, and believed it would work nothing but mischief, and prove injurious to the tenant farmer; but in view of the statement of the Chief Secretary, he would be no party to imperilling the Bill. He believed it to be a good measure so far as it went, but he thought it could be improved. Still, he was not allowed to improve it, and they knew that it must be through the House that night. Unless some such arrangement as he suggested were adopted, he should decline to take any further part in the discussion on the Bill.

MR. SEXTON

said, they should make progress if time was not wasted in suggestions as to how they should get on.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. GIBSON, Amendment made, in page 3, line 5, at the end of the Clause, by adding— ' In this section the expression 'lessee' shall include the persons who would have been successors in title of the tenant under the previous contract of tenancy if such tenancy has continued and has become vested in the lessee.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Judicial rent may commence on date of application to the Court).

On the Motion of Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Amendment made, in page 3, line 16, at end, by adding— In case of an application to fix a judicial rent made before the gale day next following the pass- ing of this Act, if the judicial rent is fixed at a lower rate than the rent previously payable, the tenant may deduct from the amount of the judicial rent payable by him such sum as he may have paid over and above the amount of the judicial rent in respect of the half-year expiring on the gale day aforesaid.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Substitution of a written notice for the execution of an ejectment.)

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 1, to leave out the words "one month" and inserting the words "two months."—(Mr. MacNeill.)

Question proposed, "That the words one month' stand part of the Bill."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he thought the case was met by his Amendment to make it six weeks, where the proceedings were in the Civil Bill Court, that being the case in which it was said that a nominal month would be less than that time.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

urged the Government to make it six weeks all round.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he was willing to agree to that suggestion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. CHANCE, Amendment made, in page 4, line 1, by leaving out the words "one month," and inserting the words "six weeks."

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 2, after the word "ejectment," to insert the words "the justices may put a stay upon the issue of the warrant for any time not exceeding one month, if they think fit, by reason of illness of the caretaker or his family or any other sufficient reason. Such warrant may be executed at any time not less than seven days nor more than two months from the issue thereof."—(Mr. Serjeant Madden.)

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

Amendment proposed, in line 2 of proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "one month," and insert the words "two months."—(Mr. M'Cartan.)

Question, "That the word 'one month' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Words inserted.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 29, to leave out from the word "That," to the word "when," in line 33, in order to insert the words "on such holding being re-let at any time within fifteen years after such period has elapsed, the same shall be subject to all the provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Acts which are applicable to present tenancies."—(Mr. Sexton.)

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

On the Motion of Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Amendment made, in page 6, line 12, by leaving out from "possession" to end of Clause, and inserting— A right to be registered as a voter or to vote at any Parliamentary or other election shall not be affected by reason only of the service of a notice under this section.

On the Motion of Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Amendment made, in page 6, line 15, at end, by adding the following sub-section:— As far as possible, a return of the number of notices filed in Court under this section, and of the actual evictions in respect of such notices, shall be made from time to time to the Lord Lieutenant, and shall be presented by him to Parliament.

Clause, as amended, agreed, to.

Clause 8 (Power of surrender by middleman).

On the Motion of Mr. SEXTON, Amendment made, in page 6, line 31, by leaving out "fifteen" and inserting "twenty."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Town parks).

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 37, after the word "in," to insert the words "section sixteen of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' and in."—(Mr. Maurice Healy,)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. M'CARTAN (Down, S.) moved to insert 5,000 instead of 2,000, as the number of inhabitants in connection with the question of town parks. He observed that this had been recommended by the Cowper Commission, and there was a very strong feeling in favour of it in the North of Ireland, particularly from the county of Antrim. Of the 69 or 70 towns in Ireland which, this Amendment would except, more than one-third were in Ulster, and in this Province the question of town parks had long been a burning question. If the Government declined to accept the Amendment, he was convinced that those who would thus be excluded from the benefits of the Act would decline to allow the matter to rest.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 39, to leave out the word "two," and insert the word "five."—(Mr. M' Cartan.)

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

MR. SEXTON

said, there was no principle involved in this matter; but they desired some concession to be made in the direction indicated. Would the Chief Secretary, therefore, accept 3,000 as the limit?

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

said, he did not doubt that strong representations had been made on the subject; but he would remind the House that this question had been discussed at very great length on a previous occasion, and the Government had then gone as far as they felt able to go. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

said, this was a question which also seriously affected tenants in the South of Ireland, and he urged the Government to accept the proposal of his hon. Friend.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 11, to leave out the words "parcel of land," and insert the word "holding."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)

Question, "That the words 'parcel of land' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. Serjeant MADDEN, Amendment made, in page 8, line 12, by leaving out from beginning of line to end of section, and inserting— By reason only of the occupier coming to live in the city or town, or the suburbs thereof, or by reason only of the same devolving or being vested in a person living in such city or town, or the suburbs therof.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

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

On the Motion of Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Amendment made, in page 9, line 20, by leaving out "one year," and inserting "six months."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 (Crown rents, quit rents, and tithe rent-Charge).

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 22, after "incumbrance," insert "and the Land Commission may, if they think it expedient and just so to do, by order declare the land sold to be discharged of all in-cumbrances, and upon the making of such order the incumbrances therein mentioned shall cease to be a charge upon such land."—(Mr. Serjeant Madden.)

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

MR. SEXTON

remarked that the Government professed to be anxious to get on with the Bill without delay, and refused to make any concessions to the Nationalists. They could, however, accept insidious little proposals from their own friends, framed with a view of reducing the benefits of the Act. Such Amendments as this would not, under the circumstances, be allowed to pass without protest.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 (Temporary adjustment of judicial rents).

Amendment proposed, In page 19, line 33, to leave out from the word "the" to the word "shall," in line 39, and insert the words "prices in counties, unions, or other areas in one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

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

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, the Government were unable to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member. The Government thought it would be throwing too great a responsibility on the Land Commission if they gave no guidance as to the grounds on which the abatement should be made.

MR. MAHONY (Meath, N.)

said, that how the Government could oppose this Amendment passed his comprehension. This was a fair compromise, which the Government would do well to accept. Instead of tying the Land Commissioners, it allowed thorn to use their own discretion, and to make reduction with regard to the fall in prices, on which basis only could any adjustment of rent be fair and reasonable. The clause, as it stood, gave up everything to the landlords. It was absurd to say that the Amendment would throw upon the Land Commissioners a heavy responsibility. It would do nothing of the kind; but the clause, as it stood at present, would compel them to work positive injustice. The fall in prices took place in 1885; but the rents of the earlier months of 1885 were not fixed upon the basis of the fall in prices, because the fall was not known at that time.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Amendment made, in page 20, after line 22, by inserting— A copy of every order made by the Land Commission under this section shall be published in the 'Dublin Gazette' The production of a printed copy of the 'Dublin Gazette,' purporting to be published by the Queen's authority, and containing the publication of any order of the Land Commission under this section, shall be evidence of the contents of such order, and of the date thereof, and that it has been duly made,

Amendment proposed, In page 20, line 22, at the end of Clause 25, to insert the words—" The powers conferred on the Land Commission under this section shall not be by them delegated to any Sub-Commission."—(Mr. Serjeant Madden.)

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

MR. SEXTON

said, this Amendment had the same moral complexion, of many others from the same source. The hon. and learned Member was animated by a sturdy desire to limit the advantages derived by the tenant from the Bill, as far as possible. It might be physically necessary for the Land Commission to delegate this power of abating rents to Sub-Commissioners. He hoped the Government would not waste any time upon the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26 (Power of Court to stay eviction).

MR. DILLON

said, he rose to move the first of a series of Amendments in this clause, all of which had the same object. The Bankruptcy Clauses originally included in that Bill had evoked a general chorus of disapproval, and the Liberal Unionists had held a meeting at Devonshire House, at which, recognizing what would be the probable fate of those clauses, they also recognized that it was the bounden duty of their Party, if they opposed the Bankruptcy Clauses, to propose a certain substitute for them, and accordingly they had put a series of Amendments on the Paper which were meant to be such a substitute. Now, the object of the Amendments which he was about to move was no more or less than to carry out the intention of the Liberal Unionist Party, and to provide the same sort of protection for the tenants as was sought to be given by the Bankruptcy Clauses. The Government had stated that their desire was to prevent harsh and unreasonable evictions; and the provisions of the Bill that were intended to deal with such evictions were mainly the Bankruptcy Clauses. Important concessions had, no doubt, been made, which, after the lapse of many months, would improve the condition of the tenantry of Ireland, especially the leaseholders; but he maintained that no substantial protection was afforded by the 26th clause, of the Bill to tenants who were unable to pay their arrears of rent. If such tenants applied to the County Court, the Court could say that the arrears should be paid by instalments distributed over a certain length of time, probably 12 months, or, at the outside, 18 months; but the Court would order payment by instalments of the arrears of the unjust rent, so that between those instalments and the new rent the tenant would be practically paying a rack-rent, as he had done before. The utmost, therefore, that he could expect to do was to drag out the misery a little longer, without the least hope of regaining his position of a solvent man. The landlord might take away his stock and his agricultural implements, so that it would be impossible for the tenant to work his farm. Thus, in the long run, after a delay which would be of no advantage to the tenant, eviction would come as surely as if the House had never passed that 26th clause at all. The Chief Secretary had said that he was willing to accept any proposal that would place all the creditors of the tenant on the same footing. For himself, he had always hold that, because rents were excessive in. Ireland, that was no reason for upsetting the entire system of credit in Ireland. In the case of many tenants in Ireland, the entire assets would not equal the landlord's claim for rent; and putting all the creditors on the same footing would amount to this—that the landlord would get a year's rent in full, and nobody else would get twopence. Rather than sacrifice the Irish tenants, he and his Friends were willing that a system should be introduced by which the County Court Judge should deal with each case on its merits as it came before him. But they would not accept any system of bankruptcy by which every creditor would be compelled to come into Court, and the whole affairs of the tenant would be wound up by a costly process of investigation. He would urge the Government to accept the Amendment he was about to propose, which was the official Amendment of the Liberal Unionist Party. He must, however, complain that the Liberal Unionists had run away from their guns in connection with the matter, for they had not supported the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay), in accordance with the decision come to at the meeting of that Party held at Devonshire House. It was true that the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) voted for that Amendment; but only six Unionists out of a Party of 76 supported it in the Division Lobby. Was this honest? Was it by this they got the right to go to the country and say that they had made reasonable efforts to give the Irish tenants justice in this matter? This was a question of vital importance; and he urged the Liberal Unionists, even at this eleventh hour, to put something like an honest and firm pressure upon the Government, and then they might obtain a concession on that matter which would prevent trouble and disorder in Ireland. The hon. Member concluded by moving the first of his Amendments.

Amendment proposed, In page 20, line 24, after the word "recovery," to insert the words "of rent due in respect of a holding to which the section applies, or for the recovery."—(Mr. Dillon.)

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

MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

said, that as this Amendment raised a question of considerable importance, and one in which he took much interest, he wished to offer a few words upon it before the Government replied to the hon. Member for East Mayo. The hon. Member for East Mayo had accused the Liberal Unionist Party of running away from their guns on that and other suggestions for the improvement of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman's remarks did not apply to him, because, as a matter of fact, his name appeared among the small number of Liberal Unionist Members who voted for the Amendment to which reference had been made. But it should be remembered that there had been a great change in the action of the Government in regard to that Bill since the Liberal Unionist Members put their Amendments down on the Paper. The Government had met them again and again on matters to which they attached the greatest importance, and under those circumstances many of them had thought that mutual concession ought to be practised, and that, although they might not be entirely satisfied with the alterations made in it, yet they should accept the Bill ns a real boon to the Irish tenants with gratitude to the Government for the manner in which it had met their suggestions. That consideration had induced those with whom he ordinarily acted to support the Government, although they believed that further improvements might have been made in the measure. He supposed that it would be admitted by the Government and by every Member of the House that the withdrawal of the Bankruptcy Clauses had left the Bill defective in an important particular. The Bill dealt now, as it did not when it was introduced, with the solvent tenant. The Government had, in deference to pressure from that side of the House, withdrawn the concessions which the Bill as originally introduced made to the insolvent tenants. The protection originally given by the Bill to the insolvent tenant was of two kinds. First, there was protection for him against arrears of rent by enabling them to be compounded; and, secondly, there was protection for him against his general creditors if he was in an insolvent or embarrassed condition. These were the two points which, in the opinion of the Government, were apparently inseparable. The Government had told them that they were not prepared to deal with the question of arrears of rent, unless they dealt at the same time with the other involvements of the debtor. In his opinion, the two things might be separated, as they stood on a different footing. There was a precedent for the view he took, and for the course that he should wish to take in the case of the Scotch Crofters Act, by which the Commissioners had power to deal with arrears of rent, although they had not power to deal with debts duo to other creditors. The Government would, he thought, have done well to accept the Amendment pressed upon them by the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon), and deal with the arrears of rent, thus protecting the tenant against unjust and improper action on the part of the landlord. But they had said distinctly that they were not prepared to do that; and, therefore, the House was bound to consider the alternative offered to it, and see whether it could not be made acceptable. As to debts due to other creditors, they undoubtedly stood on a different footing from arrears of rent, because arrears of rent might be, and often were, the result of the rent having been excessive. Therefore, they were claims for what was called unfair rent. They were inequitable claims, and claims which deserved the consideration of the Court. But that might be the case with other debts also. A debt due to a usurer might as much require to be made subject to equitable jurisdiction as unfair rent did. Again, he had known cases of debts due to small shopkeepers which would be all the better for equitable treatment. But, putting that aside for the moment, and assuming that arrears of rent were unfair claims, and that debts due to shopkeepers were fair claims, let them take the case of the tenant who could not pay. Was it to the interest of the shopkeeper that the tenant should go on with a burden and a debt permanently round his neck? Were they really benefiting the tenant if they relieved him from one-tenth of his debts, while they failed to relieve him from the remaining nine-tenths, however they were contracted? Was it not desirable in the interest of the tenant himself, if he was insolvent, and also in that of the creditors, that he should be relieved from all his debts—from the fair as well as the unfair debts? That was a positive principle of our Bankruptcy Law, and also the principle of the Bankruptcy Clauses as they were first introduced into that Bill. In the case of a tenant so embarrassed, it was provided that under the Bankruptcy Clauses he might get relief from all his debts. To that course three objections had been taken which were fair and reasonable. In the first place, it was objected that that would involve the stigma of bankruptcy or insolvency through no fault of the tenant's own. That was a sentimental objection; but still, if the tenants shrank from bankruptcy, their sense of independence ought to be respected. The second objection was that under the process of bankruptcy the costs would be so great that everything would be swallowed up by the litigation. If so, that was a fatal objection. The third objection was that under that arrangement the debt of the landlord would be preferentially treated, and that as far as one year's rent went be would have priority over all the other creditors. That also was a serious objection, and he hoped that the matter might be dealt with on a fair and reasonable basis. But the Bankruptcy Clauses were gone. Was it possible to substitute for them some alternative plan? He wished to make an appeal to the hon. Member for East Mayo, who had the interest of the tenant at heart. The hon. Member was anxious that the tenant should be relieved from all unjust arrears of rent, and he agreed with him in that. They were told that the tenant could only get relief from his arrears of rent if, at the same time, they consented to his being relieved from his debts to other creditors. He would put it to the hon. Member that it was very desirable, in the interest of the insolvent tenant, that he should be relieved from those debts. There were two benefits offered on behalf of the tenant—namely, relief from his arrears of rent, and also relief from the other embarrassments in which he found himself. It was of course understood that they had in view only the cases of small tenants whose debts were comparatively insignificant, and that what was proposed would not apply to the large tenants. In the case of these smaller tenants might it not be enacted that where a man came into Court and stated that he was unable to pay his debts, the Court should call upon him for a schedule of all his debts, and, after giving notice to his creditors, should then and there make such a composition as the Court should think fit? That was a procedure which would be almost without cost at all; it would give the relief which was desired, and he could not understand upon what grounds such a proposal could be objected to, unless it were that from some reason or other the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) wanted to throw the shield of his great influence over the gombeen man or the shopkeeper. If the hon. Member would accept such a proposal as that, he would use his small influence to press it upon the Government; and if an agreement were come to, such a clause might be introduced in "another place." The Bill—a great and generous Bill as it stood—would thus be greatly improved, and relieved of what he believed to be a great flaw. They would then have some hope that the relief they all desired to give would be given to the smaller tenants in respect of their indebtedness.

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

said, he should have preferred to hear the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) before replying on the part of the Government. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had very truly and correctly represented to the House the pledges which he, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, had given on this question on more than one occasion. He gave a pledge to the Committee, which he repeated last night, that the Government were prepared to give up the word bankruptcy, or any other word which might offend the susceptibilities of hon. Gentlemen opposite, or might appear to be offensive to the Irish people, and to accept any workable proposals which should deal with the debts of a certain class of tenants in Ireland, provided always that all the creditors should be treated alike. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, though he would prefer the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay), was prepared, he understood, rather than that this question should not be dealt with at all, to accept the suggestion of the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman had been present throughout the whole of the discussions on tins Report stage he would have known that the House had had an authoritative declaration of policy, not only on the part of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), but also on the part of the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) and the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), that they would not accept any arrangement by which the debt of the ordinary creditor was to be put on an equality with the debt of the landlord.

MR. DILLON

Nothing of the sort. I distinctly said, and so did my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), we made an offer—that is, a definite offer—by which the debts of all creditors should be treated on an equal footing.

MR A. J. BALFOUR

said, that, at all events, it would not be contested that in the meaning the Government had always attached to the phrase "dealing with all creditors alike "—in the sense contemplated by bankruptcy law in this or any country in the world—neither hon. Gentlemen from Ireland nor the Leaders of the Gladstonian Party were prepared to accept the suggestion which the Government had made to the House; nor did he understand that anything which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman that afternoon had indicated any receding from that position more than once taken up in the most positive manner. That being the case, the Government had not gone to the labour of putting other classes on the Paper. But, as the right hon. Gentleman had again pressed this course upon the Government—not apparently being aware of the resistance which would be offered to it—he would say that, having considered the matter with the best assistance at his command, he did not believe that equitable and workable clauses could be produced which should be of the simple character and contained in the brief compass which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose. They might do a great deal by rules of Court. In other words, they might not try and pass into law the rules under which they proposed to act, but leave it to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland or some other tribunal to frame them; but even then there must be some clauses introduced into the Bill, and some provision with regard to the machinery to be adopted. With every desire to devise a scheme which should be as cheap, as simple, and as rough as possible, it would be impossible for the House to get below that irreducible minimum; and, therefore, if the Government attempted to carry out the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, it could only be on the distinct understanding that such clauses would be accepted by the House without discussion—discussion, as he had already pointed out, being impossible at this period of the Session. The hon. Member for East Mayo virtually said—" Let the County Court Judge deal with the tenants' debts as they come before him in succession." That would produce, he said, this result—that the hardest creditors would be driven into Court, and the lenient creditors would not be touched. The hon. Member tried to persuade the House that that would bring about a rough kind of justice. But who would be the creditors who would come into Court? Obviously those whom the debtor refused to pay—not necessarily the hard creditors. And who was the creditor who in Ireland was paid last? [Mr. DILLON: The shopkeeper.] On the contrary, all the evidence, historical and contemporary, which was before the House led to this conclusion—that the last man the Irish tenant desired to pay was the landlord, and the first would be the shopkeeper. The first person to get his debt cut down would be the landlord, and the last would be the gombeen man and the shopkeeper. The Government must refuse to accept the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for East Mayo.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

said, everybody must be agreed that the House was in a very unfortunate position. They had arrived at the most material part of the Bill, and there was not an hour to give to the discussion of it. A great part of the tenants of Ireland were in an impoverished condition; they could not pay their arrears of rent, and the Bill made no provision whatever for them. All the trouble in Ireland during the next six months would come from this very class of tenants. If all these propositions were true—and they were admitted—it was clear that the Bill must fail of the object at which it professed to aim. He admitted all the advantages which the Government had given to the solvent tenants in the clause for the revision of rent; but that was not the class which was most necessitous, nor from which trouble was likely to arise. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham had made a suggestion. The Chief Secretary had assumed—unwittingly and without foundation—that this suggestion was opposed by the Liberals and by the Irish Members. They thought it an unsound principle—they had said so—and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham thought it unsound, to plain all creditors on the same footing in this respect; but, rather than the tenants should suffer, they would accept the unsound principle and take what they could get in favour of the tenants. He asked the Government now, at the eleventh hour, "What will you give them?" The Amendment moved in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) was not largely supported by the Friends of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain), and the right hon. Gentleman now said in excuse that they had received so much from the Government that they did not like to press them. These compliments between allies were all very well if they were not made at the expense of the tenants of Ireland. This was a very serious matter to thousands of tenants. He would say nothing to prevent the Government and hon. Members from Ireland accepting the suggestion of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham; but he could not acquit the Government and the Liberal Unionists of the responsibility for the difficulties of the position. They knew in Committee that the Bankruptcy Clauses were to be withdrawn under pressure from all sides; and if the Government thought that the plan of the hon. Member for Inverness would not do, why did not they put down another plan of their own? The Bankruptcy Clauses were withdrawn, and no alternative was provided for the embarrassed tenants! Why did not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham set forth the plan he would substitute?

MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN

said, he might be allowed to answer that question. He did not put down any Amendment, because of the statement from hon. Members below the Gangway, which be understood to mean that an unqualified resistance would be offered, and in the face of that he thought it useless to put down the Amendment.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he never understood hon. Members from Ireland to say more than that they thought the principle unsound, and that they preferred the particular Amendment adopted at Devonshire House, It the Government or the right hon. Member for West Birmingham would put down a clause to carry out what the right hon. Gentleman suggested he, for one, would vote for it. He would rather vote for any plan, however imperfect it might be, than allow the Bill to go to Ireland with the declaration that Parliament had deliberately done nothing to relieve distressed tenants from the arrears of unjust rents. That, he thought, would be a fatal course. His right hon. Friend had said—"Do this in the House of Lords." But what chance had a proposal of this kind to allow a fair composition of unjust arrears of being carried in the House of Lords? None whatever. It must be done in this House if done at all; and if there was any chance in the remaining half-hour that it could be done, he would not stand in the way by speaking further than to implore the Government not to allow the Bill to go forth in a state that would insure its being an utter failure.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)

said, he rose with great reluctance and under a heavy sense of responsibility. If he understood the speech of the right hon. Member for Derby aright, it would appear that both Parties had come very near to an agreement on this point. Having, however, heard the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) last week, and the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), he had not discovered that there was that approximation on both sides which his right hon. Friend had said existed. What he understood the hon. Members for Cork and East Mayo to say was this—" We am ready that the landlords and other creditors shall be treated alike," by which they meant that if each presented his claim in Court the County Court Judge should deal with them separately. The position of the Government was this—" We are ready to treat the landlords and other creditors alike, but they must be treated at the same time by the County Court Judge." He wanted to ask his right hon. Friend (Sir William Harcourt) whether he was accepting the position of the Government, or whether he was adopting what he understood to be the position of the hon. Member for Cork?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

replied, that he had said before that he thought the principle unsound; but he would take the inferior proposition, founded on an unsound principle, if the Government would state what their proposal was. They had a distinct proposal from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain), and though he thought it, as did the right hon. Gentleman himself, an inferior proposition, he would support it. If the Government did not approve of it, let them, hear what the Government proposed. They had never heard from the Government what their proposal was. ["Oh !"] There was no use in making these inarticulate denials; the Government had made no definite proposal whatever upon the subject. They knew that perfectly well, so did the House.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he understood now that the right hon. Gentleman accepted, or did not resist, the Government proposal that all claims should be treated alike and simultaneously. That was not the position of the hon. Member for Cork. If the hon. Member for East Mayo was willing to accept the proposal of the Government, as laid down and assented to by the right hon. Gentleman, there ought to be no difficulty in introducing simple machinery for the settlement of the question, and that settlement would remove what at present was a blot in the Bill—that those claims of the tenant should be left in a crippled and hampered position. If the hon. Member accepted the principle that all creditors should be treated alike, not treating each claim as it was brought into Court, but treating all simultaneously, then there was no reason why a simple machinery should not be introduced into the Bill, even at this late stage, that would solve the difficulty.

MR. DILLON

said, with the permission of the House, he would repeat what had been stated in the course of the debate. The other night the Chief Secretary made the following statement:—" The Government are prepared to consider any plan by which the creditors shall be placed on the same footing." To this the hon Member for Cork replied that he was prepared to accept the prin- ciple that every creditor should be placed on the same footing according as he pressed his claim; but he said that every creditor did not press his claim. The Irish Members were perfectly willing to go so far, because so far they saw their way; but as to the proposal suggested or outlined by the Government, all the fear of the Irish Members was that the creditors should be dragged, in spite of themselves, into a bankruptcy system, whatever name might be applied to it, which would be expensive and destructive to their interests, and which would do more evil than it could hope to cure.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he was positive he was not misrepresenting the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian's argument last night when he stated that, according to the right hon. Gentleman, the question of treating all the creditors alike was not a question of legal status, but was a question of substance.

MR. DILLON

said, he repeated, for the third time, that they were all willing that the creditors should be treated on the same footing.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

But not at the same time.

MR. DILLON

If the creditors themselves press their claims.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was opposing the Government argument, and the principle he considered unsound; but they wanted to know what the Government plan was.

MR. FINLAY&c.) (Inverness,

said, it was perfectly impossible that at that hour, and in the present circumstances, they should agree upon the outlines of a plan; but he would earnestly suggest that an endeavour should be made, by representative men of different Parties, to agree upon a clause somewhat on the lines indicated, and if that agreement should be come to, it might be embodied in the Bill in "another place," and afterwards accepted in that House without opposition. He did not see that anything more could be done at present.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON (Lancashire, Rossendale)

said, he had no difficulty in deciding how he should give his vote on the Amendment, because, for reasons that had been explained by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) when this question arose in Committee, he considered that the Government had accepted so much of what he and his Friends proposed that they were bound to carry out what he considered a compromise. He had still less hesitation in giving a vote against this Amendment now, because it appeared to him that the Government had advanced to the extreme point which had been advocated from that side of the House for settling the question of the arrears of rent and debts of the tenant. Now, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had, in fact, accepted the principle stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, which was, he believed, practically accepted by the Government. On the other hand, it was distinctly repudiated by the hon. Member for East Mayo and his Friends. He understood that hon. Member to say that he was prepared to treat the debts of the landlord and the other creditors on equal terms, but on condition that only such debts should be dealt with as came into Court. What his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) suggested was, that if a tenant came into Court for a reduction he should be compelled to make a return of his indebtedness generally, and that his creditors should submit to an equal reduction. But, under the proposal of the hon. Member for East Mayo, the debtor might make a preferential statement; he might pay the other creditors in full, while the landlord was put off with only a small portion of his claim. In these circumstances—as it seemed that the final offer of the Government bad been rejected—it did not appear to him that there could be any doubt as to how he should vote.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 98; Noes 126: Majority 28.

AYES.
Abraham, W. (Glam.)	Carew, J. L.
Acland, A. H. D.	Chance, P. A.
Allison, R. A.	Clancy,,J. J.
Anderson, C. H.	Cobb, H. P.
Asher, A.	Connolly, L.
Asquith, H. H.	Conway, M.
Balfour, Sir G.	Cox, J. R.
Biggar, J. G.	Crilly, D.
Blane, A.	Deasy, J.
Bolton,.J. C.	Dillon, J.
Bruce, hon. R. P.	Dillwyn, L. L.
Burt, T.	Esmonde, Sir T. H. G.
Campbell, H.	Esslemont, P.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro-	O'Brien, P. J.
Finlay, R. B.	O'Connor, J. (Kerry)
Finucane, J.	O'Doherty, J. E.
Flynn, J. C.	O'Hea, P.
Fox, Dr. J. F.	Pickersgill, E. H.
Gardner, H.	Picton, J. A.
Gilhooly, J.	Portman hon. E. B.
Gill, T. P.	Power, P. J.
Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.	Price, T. P.
	Pyne, J. D.
Harrington, E.	Quinn, T.
Harris, M.	Rathbone, W.
Hayden, L. P.	Reid, R. T.
Hayne, C. Scale-	Robertson, E.
Healy, M.	Roscoe, Sir H. E.
Hooper, J.	Rowlands, J.
Jordan, J.	Rowntree, J.
Kennedy, E. J.	Russell, T. W.
Kenny, M. J.	Sexton, T.
Lawson, Sir W.	Sheehan, J. D.
Lea, T.	Sheehy, D.
Leahy, J.	Shirley, W. S.
Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.	Sinclair, W. P.
	Stack, J.
Lewis, T. P.	Sullivan, D.
Macdonald, W. A.	Sutherland, A.
MacInnes, M.	Swinburne, Sir J.
Mac Neill, J. G. S.	Tanner, C. K.
M'Arthur, W. A.	Treyelvan, right hon. Sir G. O.
M'Cartan, M.
M'Donald, P.	Tuite, J.
M'Ewan, W.	Wallace, R.
M'Laren, W. S. B.	Williamson, J.
Mahony, P.	Woodhead, J.
Mappin, Sir F. T.	Wright, C.
Molloy, B. C.
Murphy, W. M.	TELLERS.
Nolan, Colonel J. P.	Marjoribanks, rt. Hon E.
Nolan, J.
O'Brien, J. F. X.	Morley, A.

NOES.
Agg-Gardner, J. T.	Carmarthen, Marq. of
Ainslie, W. G.	Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.
Aird, J.	Clarke, Sir E. G.
Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.	Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N.
Baden-Powell, G. S.	Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.
Baird, J. G. A.	Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E.
Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.
Banes, Major G. E.	Corbett, J.
Baring, T. C.	Cranborne, Viscount
Baring, Viscount	Crossman, Gen. Sir W.
Barry, A. H. Smith-	Davenport, H. T.
Hartley, G. C. T.	Davenport, W. B.
Barttelot, Sir W. B.	De Cobain, E. S. W.
Beadel, W. J.	De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.
Bective, Earl of
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.	De Worms, Baron H.
Bentinck, W. G. C.	Dixon, G.
Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer	Dixon-Hartland, F. D.
	Duncan, Colonel F.
Borthwick, Sir A.	Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.
Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.
	Evelyn, W. J.
Bristowe, T. L.	Eyre, Colonel H.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.	Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.
Brookfield, A. M.	Fisher, W. H.
Bruce, Lord H.	Fitzgerald, R. U. P.
Burghley, Lord	Folkestone, right hon. Viscount
Caldwell, J.
Campbell, R. F. F.	Forwood, A. B.

Fowler, Sir R. N.	Macartney, W. G. E.
Gardner, R. Richardson-	Macdonald, rt. hon. J. H. A.
Gedge, S.	Maclure, J. W.
Gibson, J. G.	Madden, D. H.
Godson, A. F.	Matthews, rt. hon. H.
Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.	Maxwell, Sir H. E.
	Mulholland, H. L.
Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.	Noble, W.
Gray, C. W.	Northcote, hon. H. S.
Gurdon, R. T.	Norton, R.
Hall, C.	Pearce, W.
Halsey, T. F.	Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.
Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.	Plunkett, hon. J. W.
Hamilton, Lord C. J.	Puleston, J. H.
Hamilton, Lord E.	Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.
Hankey, F. A.	Robertson, J. P. B.
Hartington, Marq. of	Russell, Sir G.
Havelock-Allan, Sir H. M.	Sandys, Lieut-Col. T. M.
Herbert, hon. S.	Sidebotham, J. W.
Hervey, Lord F.	Sidebottom, W.
Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.	Smith, rt. hon. W. H.
	Spencer, J. E.
Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.	Stanley, E. J.
	Stephens, H. C.
Howard, J.	Swetenham, E.
Howard, J. M.	Tapling, T. K.
Howorth, H. H.	Taylor, F.
Isaacson, F. W.	Theobald, J.
Jackson, W. L.	Tollemache, H. J.
Jeffreys, A. F.	Trotter, H. J.
Jennings, L. J.	Tyler, Sir H. W.
Kelly, J. R.	Waring, Colonel T.
Kimber, H.	Watkin, Sir E. W.
King-Harman, right hon. Colonel E. R.	Webster, Sir R. E.
	Whitley, E.
Lafone, A.	Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
Lambert, C.	Wright, H. S.
Lees, E.
Legh, T. W.	TELLERS.
Lewis, Sir C. E.	Douglas, A. Akers-
Lewisham, right hon. Viscount	Walrond, Col. W. K.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

MR. DILLON

said, he would not move the other Amendments which stood in his name on the Paper.

Amendment proposed, in page 21, lines 22 and 23, to leave out the words "be not executed."—(Mr. Edward Harrington.)

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 21, line 23, to leave out the words "of such holding as aforesaid," in order to insert the words "of any holding for which a judicial rent has been fixed, or can be fixed, under the Land Act of 1881, as amended by this Act."—(Mr. Finucane.)

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

Other Amendments made.

Amendment proposed, in page 24, line 14, after the word "in," to insert the words "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland; Act, 1870."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CHANCE

asked that the Bill might be reprinted.

MR. W. H. SMITH

, said, it was unusual for the House to order the reprinting of a Bill after third reading; but it would be printed for the House of Lords, and copies would be available for hon. Members.