COMMITTEE [Progress 27th July.]

HC Deb 28 July 1887 vol 318 cc390-442

[FOURTH NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Amendments of General Application.

Clause 4 (Substitution of a written notice for execution of an ejectment).

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 37, to leave out the words "does not exceed one hundred pounds," and insert the words "exceeds fifty pounds."

Question, "That the words 'does not exceed one hundred pounds' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

After the declaration we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith), although I think that the Amendment in my name is an important one, I desire to withdraw it from the Taper, in order that we may pass to Amendments of still greater importance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

I confess that I do not know on what principle the authorities in the other Chamber proceeded when they inserted I in the Bill the words I propose to omit—for I think I am right in saying that they were not in the Bill originally. If the landlord is to make use of this clause whenever lie likes, then I think it is a matter of common sense to make it universal in its character; but the idea of providing that the clause should be restricted to tenancies of £ 100 a-year, and then proceeding to say that the landlord, if he likes, may extend it to all other tenancies, is to my mind monstrous. I invite the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to explain the position taken up by the other Chamber, because I have some difficulty in understanding the reason which induced thorn to insert those words. Do they think that Irish Members are so exceedingly simple that they are to be imposed on by the very transparent device of these words which make the clause universal in effect? If the clause is intended to be universal, the honest thing is to make it universal in so many words, and not pretend that you are doing something else. I invite the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to say on what principle he defends this wording. He has admitted that the effect of the words is to abolish tenancies of under £100. It is perfectly clear that this is eviction; and, that being so, it is idle to say you are placing any restriction, on the clause when you leave it to the landlord's option to say whether it shall be universal or not. I therefore beg to move to leave out all the words from "and" down to "section" inclusive.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 37, after the word "year," leave out from the word "and" to the word "section," in line 40.—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

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

I hope the hon. Member will not think it worth while to press this Amendment. He is aware that this clause is introduced mainly on the ground of order, and I apprehend that the interests of public order are not likely to be affected in the case of tenancies exceeding £100 a-year.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

My Amendment is that the restriction of £100 should be preserved.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

As the clause was originally drawn, there was only one class of tenancies referred to—namely, those under £100. I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I ask whether these words are capable of being defended or not, and, if they arc, whether the right hon. Gentleman is competent to defend them? The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that we put Amendments on the Paper without considering their effect, and that it is a sufficient answer to them simply to address to us a request to withdraw them. I shall be ready to consider the course of withdrawing the Amendment when the Government have given their reasons in defence of the words.

MR. PARNELL (Cork:)

It is obvious that the only result of a Member making a short speech in support of his Amendment is that the right hon. Gentleman representing the Government does not apparently take the trouble to consider the effect of the Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman having tried several interpretations of the Amendment, and found that they wore incorrect, simply requested my hon. Friend to withdraw. The Amendment provides that where the rent of the holding exceeds £100 by the year the landlord shall have the option of proceeding in the face of the limitation in the previous part of the clause which renders it obligatory to proceed in this new fashion. I do not understand why you wish to give the landlord au advantage with your left hand which you take away apparently at the commencement of the clause with your light hand, and I submit that the further advantage you propose to give is unnecessary for the landlord.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

The right hon. Gentleman has said that in the case of capitalist farmers there is no necessity to provide this now means, because, in their case, there is no chance of a breach of law and order. That is a strong argument in favour of icy hon. Friend's Amendment. The portion of the clause which he proposes to leave out provides that in all cases of tenancies under £100 a-year the landlord must proceed by the new clause, and it goes on to say that in cases of tenancies exceeding that rental he may proceed either by the new or old method. We wish to take away from the landlord that option in the case of tenants of over £100 a-year; and it is deliberately confessed by the Government that it is for the benefit of the tenant that the landlord should not be allowed to do as he likes. Two utterly inconsistent stories are told with regard to this clause by the Government; one is that the clause is in favour of the landlord, the other that it is in favour, of the tenant. If it were in the interest of public law and order to compel the landlord without option to proceed on a certain line, we could understand it to be for the benefit of the tenant; but to say that the landlord is to have this option and the tenant no option at all shows that the benefit of the tenant is altogether out of the question. Will the Government extend to the tenant the option throughout the whole of these proceedings? The Government say that this Bill is for the purpose of preventing harsh evictions; but if that is so, would not the tenant require to have the option? If the Government will make this clause optional for the tenant, I guarantee that it will he passed within the next 10 minutes. That is a fair offer, and it is a test offer. I call upon the Government to tell us whether they will make this clause optional for the tenant or not. It is an absurdity for them to pretend to engineer this Bill through the Committee, and to misrepresent the whole meaning and effect of the Amendments which we propose from these Benches. The right hon. Gentleman having got up to prove that the Amendment of ray hon. Friend was unnecessary, without taking the trouble to read the 4th clause, simply says in effect—"I cannot understand it; I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am certainly not going to bandy words with the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). I assumed from what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) that Amendments which were not of first-class importance would be treated in the briefest manner. With reference to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for East Mayo that we should extend the option in this clause to the tenants, I have to say that I am not particularly in love with this principle of option; but I certainly cannot by any possibility assent to its extension to the tenants. If the Committee think it worth while to put the meaning of this part of the clause in an altered form I should not be disposed to offer opposition to it.

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

I could understand this clause applying to all holdings largo and small; but the Bill expressly limits its operation to farms of £100 a-year and under. I do not understand the objection to the Amendment on the part of the Government; but there is nothing to be gained by wasting the time of the Committee on such small matters as this, and therefore if the Government considers this option, essential to the clause I should be sorry to stand in the way.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will agree to strike out these words which I think must have been introduced in "another place" by Lord Fitzgerald, who is, of course, free to make ducks and drakes with the English language.

ME. A. J. BALFOUR

I am perfectly ready to restore the Bill to the shape in which it left our hands; but that is not the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member.

MR.. T. M. HEALY

We have now the Government telling us that they do not admire the words of Lord Fitzgerald. If that is so, why do you not strike them out of the Bill? You say you want to restore the Bill to its original shape, but the Chairman, will not allow you. You have, therefore, no alternative but to strike out the words which you admit are ridiculous.

MR. O'DOHEETY (Donegal, N.)

I do not think the Government have sufficiently considered the procedure established by the Act of 1860 with regard to evictions. There was never such a thing heard of formerly as making tenants caretakers. We have been told by the hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) that the tenant was formerly seldom or never evicted: that he remained in under acknowledgment, and that it was only in case he committed waste that he was evicted. But now the landlords have discovered a defect in the Act of 1860, and they always restore their tenants as caretakers, and not under the acknow- lodgment form in the Act. If the land lord wished to restore a man to the position of tenant there was a provision of an Act of Parliament of which he could avail himself.

MR. PARNELL

I do not think it is worth while to prolong this discussion if the Government have made up their mind not to yield, nor do I think it necessary to take a Division on the Amendment. My hon. Friend's Amendment is in favour of tenants of over I £100. I hope it will be clearly understood amongst the tenant farmers of Ulster that the Government have resisted this Amendment, which would have restored them to the position which the Bill in its first line gave them. The bill in its first line exempts tenants of this class from the general effects of the clause; but here you put in words tantamount to a proviso giving the landlord the option of proceeding in either way. I trust the Orange tenants will understand that my hon. Friend has interfered in their behalf, and that the Chief Secretary for Ireland has committed himself to the course of opposing the Amendment.

MR. WADDY (Lincolnshire, Brigg)

The peculiarity of this clause is that it is universally objected to; everyone says it is wrong. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary says he does not like the words; lie makes three mistakes with, regard to their meaning—good-humoured mistakes, I believe—and so it is that we find the clause is to remain in its present form, although nothing can be said in favour of it. I think we ought to say something in favour of the clause before we stultify ourselves by passing it.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. O'KELLY (Roscommon, N.)

The Amendments which I rise to move are consequential of one farther down the Paper, the object of which is to carry out what I believe to be the intentions of the Government in this Bill—that is to protect the tenant in his present position, and to say that nothing; in this Bill shall place him in a worse position than he is now. Under the existing law the tenant has certainly six months for redemption, and by my Amendment I propose that he shall be assured of having that full time for the purpose. I might say that my Amend- ment, in fact, hardly goes far enough, because it does not place the tenant in as good position as he is under the existing law, inasmuch as, owing to the custom of postponing execution, the time of taking possession practically extends to nine, 12, and even 15 months in extreme cases. By the adoption of this Amendment the Government would merely place the tenant in a position to which he is now entitled by the strict letter of the law; and, under those circumstances, I trust they will agree to it, and carry out in. good faith the intention of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 40, to leave out all the words after "which" to "possession" inclusive, in line 41, in order to insert the word "redemption."—(Mr. O'Kelly.)

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

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

The object of the Amendment now moved by the hon. Member for North Roscommon has to be discovered by referring to other Amendments further down on the Paper. It was considered advisable that the old powers of the Court of Chancery should be embodied in the Act of 1860, under which, without any reference to the Court of Chancery, the tenant might be in a position to go to the Court, whether the landlord liked it or not, in order to compel the landlord to take the money due, and re-admit him as tenant. So that the whole procedure of the tenant who has been evicted is governed by the provisions of the Act of 1860, which are referred to in this clause; and what I understand the hon. Member to want is to omit this statutory provision altogether. I confess that that appears to be a very dangerous and undesirable thing to do, because in 99 cases out of 100, if the tenant has the rent, he can settle with the landlord without having any recourse to the Court, for the landlord would not be particularly anxious to increase the burden of costs to no purpose, and simply for the advantage of some solicitor. As I have said, in the majority of instances the landlord, if there is to be redemption, will take the man back, and reinstate him, and if he chooses to do that it will again set up the old tenancy. But it is necessary to provide for cases of dispute; and -when the parties are unable to come to an agreement, application to the Court is necessary, and the question is decided by the Court judicially. Now, this machinery of the Act of 1860 is necessary; it applies to all cases of ejectment for non-payment of rent, and I do not think it can be dispensed with. It is impossible to leave the question at large; and the Government, therefore, found it necessary to have this procedure distinctly referred to, and incorporated in this clause.

MR. O'KELLY

Will the Government introduce some more simple method of procedure?

MR. GIBSON

It appears to me that the method is simple enough already. As far as I know, in nearly every case the landlord, unless he is fit for a lunatic asylum, will take the money, and reinstate the tenant. The landlord may be a sadder man after the passing of this Bill; but I do not think the clause will drive him out of his mind. I think he will remain the same sane being as heretofore.

MR. PARNELL (Cork)

This is an instance of the way in which the responsible officers of the Government who have to determine questions of policy leave the Committee in a matter of this importance. One of the main Amendments which will have to be brought on and fought out on this clause is before us; and it is under these circumstances that the higher officials of the Government—the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, who appealed to the Committee to make progress with the Bill—leave behind them the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, who has treated his opponents with courtesy, I admit, but who, I humbly submit, is not in a position to answer with regard to questions of first-rate policy. This is one of the points to which I drew attention yesterday. It is the point which refers to the expense and difficulty in respect of the machinery necessary to be employed by the tenant in order to obtain a writ of restitution. We were informed yesterday that it was a point on which the Government were willing to meet us; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not attempted to meet us in any way. He simply relies on the naked words of the clause, which deprives the tenant of his old statutable right that was the substitute for the ancient Common Law right of the Irish tenants, and which relieved him of, or took away, as far as possible, the difficulties that lay in his way of obtaining a writ of restitution. Now, what are the reasons given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman? He tells us that if this clause becomes law, where a landlord is willing to accept the rent and costs, the tenant can be then restored as a present tenant, and that no landlord in his senses would do anything else but accept the rent. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not in the minds of the Irish landlords; and I have always understood one reason why this Bill is introduced is that there are many landlords in Ireland who have no sense, and who appear to do what would not be done by persons in the possession of reason and common sense. It is this class of landlords that we want to deal with; it is this class of landlords for whose restoration to a sanitary condition of mind the Government have brought in this Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the landlord, if he were in his senses, would agree to reinstate the tenant in his tenancy on the payment of rent and costs. But we do not know that that will be the case, seeing that rents are to be re-adjusted, that leaseholders are to be re-admitted, from whom the rack-renting landlords have derived their chief subsistence since the Act of 1881 took the smaller tenants out of their grasp—we do not know that they will not serve these notices, which they will get with the greatest facility, and that they will not break up the status of the tenants. The effect of this will be that the position of the tenants under the Act of 1881 will be irreparably injured or lost; and that is what always happens under the so-called remedial legislation passed in this House for Ireland. Acts of the kind appear very fair; but if you take them in connection with other Acts of Parliament previously passed you will find that, while appearing to give, they in reality take away the substance. It is most deplorable that the Government should leave the right hon. and learned Gentleman—who must be an Irish landlord's man—as their only spokesman on an Amendment of this first-class character, I have shown—and it cannot be contradicted—that the landlord under this clause, will have the power of obtaining a decree against the tenant before the customary time; he will then be entitled to serve this notice, and having served it the status of the tenant will cease, and he will become a caretaker. The right hon. and learned Gentleman answers this by a reference to the state of mind of the Irish landlords. I should have hoped that we might have been met in a different way on an Amendment of this character. We were told yesterday that the question of the cost of restitution would engage the attention of the Government; but we have heard nothing about that to-day. Really, this question is not arguable upon the ground put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The broad principle of my hon. Friend's Amendment is this—that the tenant shall be permitted to redeem, on payment of rent and costs due, within six months after the service of the notice. Will the Government give a straightforward answer on that question; will they allow the tenant so to redeem; will they accept this Amendment, or bring up a clause before the Committee stage is closed to carry out its intention? If not, it is certain that we shall have to fight very hard in support of the Amendment, and I trust there is sufficient justice and common sense on the Treasury Bench to say that our proposal will be entertained.

MR. GIBSON

The hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) has said a good deal about the question of hanging gale; but the hanging gale has nothing to do with the Amendment before the Committee, because, whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Roscommon were agreed to or not, the question of the hanging gale would remain unchanged. The hon. Member for Cork has referred to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland have left the House; but I would point out to him that it is perfectly impossible that my right hon. Friends can be present throughout the whole of these discussions; that they should not occasionally be absent for a few minutes. You cannot get rid of this question of the intervention of the Court by merely saying that a man shall be entitled to redemption if he pays the rent and costs. The landlord in the present case; when the notice is served, becomes the legal owner, and the tenant has only the equity of redemption. It is of no use your saying that the tenant is to be entitled to redemption unless he can gat an order from the Court when the landlord has refused to receive the rent. As I have said, the landlord is to become owner; and if the landlord will not agree to the terms the man must apply for an order to the Court. How is this question of redemption to be settled otherwise, if the tenant offers a sum of money, and the landlord says it is not the right sum? Is the offer of a wrong sum to entitle the tenant to redemption? [Mr. PARNELL: It never occurs.] The hon. Member says it never occurs; but my experience is altogether contrary on this point, and I object to the hon. Member telling mo what are the facts in cases of this kind. If the restitution of the tenant does not take place, it is because the tenant and the landlord cannot come to terms; and if they cannot come to terms you must get a judicial act. If the landlord asks too much, it is the wor3e for him, and that is a thing which the Court would take into consideration in fixing the costs. But the question is whether the tenant, having only the equity of redemption, is to be absolutely restored to the old tenancy merely by the fact that he tenders the rent and costs? It is obvious that if the parties do not agree there must be an application to the Court. I trust I have succeeded in conveying my argument clearly to hon. Members. I think I have, at any rate, succeeded in showing that the Amendment is not of that capital kind which the hon. Member for Cork considers it to be; and, that being so, I trust we shall be allowed to get on to some more important matter.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

I have no wish to obtain a dialectical advantage over the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but I fool sure that when he sees the real nature of the case he will feel the force of my hon. Friend's Amendment. I appreciate the tone of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer to the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell); but if lie wishes to do justice to the tenant, as no doubt he does, he must accept the Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is under the impression that when the tenant has made a private settlement with his landlord he is restored to his old status of a present tenant: but that, I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman, is not the case. I have known cases where the man having paid his rent and costs has, nevertheless, been evicted upon the title, because of his allowing the six months to elapse. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had any experience of Civil Bill Courts he would discover that this Amendment is absolutely necessary if the tenant is to have justice. I feel sure that if the noble Lord opposite the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton), who is also an Irish landlord, had heard my hon. Friend's arguments, he would have seen the necessity for the Amendment. The ordinary Irish tenant will not be restored, I do not say to his former tenancy, but to any tenancy, unless at the time of the payment of the redemption money it is agreed that the money shall be taken in redemption.

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

MR. O'DOHERTY,

resuming, said: The tenants are, as a rule, poor and uneducated men, unacquainted with legal formalities. In their ignorance they may think that all that it is necessary to do is to go to the agent and say—"Here is the money, will you take it and sot me up?" The agent before whom they go may be a dishonest man, and if the case is subsequently brought before the Court the tenant may relate what happened, but may find that, after all, he has lost his tenancy, because he may only be able to say—"Well, I wont in and paid what I thought was against me, and the agent never said a word." The agent might say—"I did not say anything about his being restored—I did not intend that he should be restored, but took the money in payment of arrears," and in this way the tenant loses his tenancy. I admit that in most cases the tenant will never discover that there has been an alteration in his tenancy. What is the position of a tenancy which is created by the mere payment of rent? I say the title to a tenancy as a present tenancy is gone, and that in future the position of the tenant will be utterly and completely different from what it was before. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite may say—"In equity his position is the position of being restored to his former tenancy." But I very much doubt that that will be so even in equity unless there is some evidence given of an actual agreement for reinstatement, which evidence it may be impossible to get. The case has frequently arisen on applications by tenants to avoid the cost of restitution. I have been myself put in this unhappy position as to tenancies. The Sheriff of Donegal has, unfortunately, too many cases of eviction on his hands, and one of the provisions in regard to the Sheriffs is that if the landlord wants them he must pay them mileage. Well, whatever the landlord may have to pay in that way he will adopt means of recovering from the tenant—he will save a mint of money which he would otherwise have to pay for mileage under this clause If he brings the Sheriff to a tenant's door he must pay his travelling expenses, and he cannot charge the tenant with them. But what does he do? He says to the tenant—"I will make you pay for this indirectly, if you do not make good my expenditure; I will put you to the cost of restitution." This is a system which is adopted, and I speak confidently upon the point, because I am speaking from a largo experience. I was told this myself by a Sub-Sheriff to whom I went when endeavouring to save a man the costs of restitution. I said—"I will not pay the mileage, as the law says it is to be borne by the landlord, and you have no right to exact it from the tenant." "You are right," he replied; "but if you do not pay these costs you will have to get a writ of restitution, which will be a far more expensive business for you." In this way I was compelled to make good the expenses, and the tenant was called upon to pay what no one had any right to call upon him to pay. I ask, is the law now to be the same as it always was? I ask, is this new machinery to be the same as ever, so far as the landlord is concerned? Does it not save him the expense of the mileage of the Sheriff in every case—is it not plain that the right of restitution can be made the means of oppression and the extortion of an unfair payment? I am bound to say that my experience in these matters does not extend to the Superior Courts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite will remember a case—and the Committee also will recollect it—in. which in the case of a landlord who objected to a writ of restitution a question arose as to the landlord's profits whilst he was in possession. Well, but is this not a section to keep the tenant in possession? How on earth under this section and under this Bill could a question as to the landlord's profits arise? The latter part of the proposal provides that the landlord shall be responsible for nothing during the period of redemption. If a man is not disturbed no question can arise about the landlord having profits. I am sorry to be obliged to call the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the Rules of the County Court. He is under the impression, no doubt, that the amount for which a man is decreed with the costs is all that he will have to pay; but that is not so. An account is taken of the rent owing up to the very day on which the account is taken—under the County Court Rules the man must pay not only the debt and costs, but every penny accruing up to the day on which the account is taken. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has evidently not considered this Amendment one of first-class importance. He has not thought it a serious Amendment, though why I cannot say, because I must remind the Committee that it was one of the very first Amendments put down on the Paper. I am afraid I must trouble him for some time further, because there is a question of very serious injustice to the tenants involved, and because this Amendment will be an important remedy and improvement to the Bill, and no matter how the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks upon it its acceptance would obtain for the landlords far more rent than they are otherwise' likely to receive. What are the Government legislating for? Is it for the landlords, who will use the processes of the Court for the purpose of exacting from the tenants all they can? Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman follow out his rule and legislate against those who are doing injustice, and after he has done that I venture to say that there will be very few writs of restitution applied for. I know too well what the tenants will have to do unless he has some regard for their interests in this matter. The proceeding which at present has to be adopted is one of those which gives the solicitor the greatest possible amount of trouble. He has to make exhaustive calculations, and all sorts of arrangements as to which the tenant has to be informed. He finds out the persons with whom, and the places at which, the money is to be lodged, and then he has to prepare a document as long as my arm. This document, which is one for which there is no precedent, has to be written out and served on the landlord, a piece of professional work for which no solicitor would be recompensed by a payment of £5, even in the Civil Bill Court. When the case is before the Superior Court £10 would never pay the solicitor, and should there be long affidavits £20 might not be sufficient. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland himself were engaged, he certainly would have to be paid far more than this. The application for writ or order of restitution to restore the tenant to possession of the land under the Act of 1860 is in the form given in the Schedule. Notice of application has to be given to the plaintiff, and when the notice of application has been served, as soon as the tenant says—"I want to be restored," the landlord has to servo him with a notice if he claims any rent which may have become duo since the signing of the decree. He has to give the party applying for restitution two clear days' notice of his demand. First the tenant or plaintiff is to serve notice, and next the landlord is to serve a cross notice, saying—"Before I can let you back again, you must pay me all you owe me and all the costs." And then what happens? If further rent has become due in respect of the land, the party applying for restitution will have to pay all that further rent awarded by the Court in addition to the sum ascertained to be the rent and costs. What is the condition of the Irish tenant under these circumstances, broken down by this process, and with arrears to pay calculated down to the very day of the decree, which may be a year and a-half since the notice of ejectment? Why, the writ of restitution, under the circumstances, could be put aside by any landlord. The Committee must bear in mind that we are legislating against men who will use the Court and its machinery for the purpose of extracting from the tenants what is not their due. The object we should have in view ought to be to do justice between man and man; but, as matters at present stand, J the great expense to which the tenant is put is an entire bar to restitution. I have pointed out that the tenant would have to pay every penny which the County Court Judge will find has been running whilst he has been out of possession of his farm. I have told the right hon. and learned Gentleman what the experience of the tenant is in the Civil Bill Court. The experience of the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself has been in the Superior Courts, and I have pointed out to him that the question of the landlord's profits which arises in his mind does not really come up in this case. I declare this to be an Amendment of first-class importance, and if it is not accepted, as I have shown you, the clause may be used to frustrate every other beneficial object you may have in view in the Bill. I cannot believe that because I have more experience in matters relating to the Civil Bill Courts than the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that he will maintain the position he has taken up, and will conceal his real opinion as to the exact position in which the tenant stands, if you continue this process of writ of restitution. The continuance of that process would mean the utter ruin and complete destruction of the poor tenant—it would mean the exaction of future accruing arrears which it would be impossible for him to pay. Under all the circumstances of the case, I feel confident that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that this Amendment is one which ought to be adopted.

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

I cannot help thinking that these discussions, although they may be very interesting to lawyers, are somewhat too technical for ordinary Members of the Committee to follow. After all, an ordinary Member of the Committee must try to guide his conduct by common sense, more than by legal jargon, of which we hear so much—I do not wish to use the expression in any offensive sense to hon. Gentlemen. I want the Government to understand that this is a critical Amendment, and one of first-class importance. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would give me his attention for a few moments. The case stands thus. A landlord evicts a tenant, or serves upon him a notice under the new procedure. The tenant afterwards seeks to redeem. He has six months within which to redeem, but a dispute arises between himself and the landlord. I am supposing a case that is not at all unlikely to happen. A dispute, I say, arises between the landlord and tenant. What, then, is the tenant's position in such a case? If the landlord stands out the tenant's hand is forced. The only remedy he has is this—he is forced, at enormous cost, to sue for a writ of restitution. Now, it is all very well to tell me that a tenant has six months within which to redeem; but a statement such as that has to be considered in all its bearings. The only way in which he can enforce his right, if a dispute arises, is by writ of restitution, which, in 99 cases out of 100, is impossible, so that I maintain that the right of redemption in such cases practically goes for nothing. Now, I want to suggest a compromise to the Government, and one that, I think, they might very fairly accept, and one which, I think, hon. Members below the Gangway may also very largely accept. Suppose a dispute has arisen. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that the landlords are sensible men, and that he cannot conceive that a landlord would refuse to come to terms with his tenant. Well, I admit that a great majority of Irish landlords are as sensible as other people; but we are legislating for a minority of the landlords in Ireland, and if it were not that the minority is a minority of unreasonable men I should not be forced into taking the position which I have taken on this Bill. The compromise I have to suggest is that the tenant should be entitled to redeem, and that in the case of any dispute arising between the landlord and tenant the onus should be upon the landlord of showing cause against the redemption. I think that is a reasonable suggestion. It will protect the statutory tenant, and will not impose upon him heavy costs, while it will prevent unreasonable landlords from recovering unreasonable costs, which they have done too frequently.

MR. PARNELL

I have no hesitation in saying that if my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment were in his place—as he is not—he would have no objection in accepting the compromise proposed by the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) to the effect that where a dispute arises between a landlord and a tenant, and where the landlord refuses to allow the tenant to redeem within six months, then the onus of taking the proceedings should be thrown on the landlord, instead of upon the tenant.

MR. O'DOHERTY

Whatever the dispute may be, it could only be with reference to costs accruing after the decree. What the right hon. Gentleman opposite mentioned to us—namely, the amount of the profit the landlord might have made on the farm while in possession—is not at all contemplated by this section. It only contemplates the tenant remaining in possession.

MR. GIBSON

If the tenant offers the rent and costs, and the landlord says that that sum is not right, and there is a dispute, it can only be settled by the Court.

MR. O'DOHERTY

Not at all.

MR. GIBSON

That is the present law as I understand it. The landlord says to the tenant—"The sum of money you offer is not enough." Then there is a dispute about the matter, which has to be settled by the Court. As I understand it, the amount is to be ascertained by the Court; and the question seems to be, is the Court to have any function at all in the matter? If a dispute arises between landlord and tenant, that dispute ought to be—if there is any arrangement as to interim profits, or any question of that kind, which the hon. Gentleman says would not exist under the clause as it stands—that dispute, I say, ought to be plainly settled by the Court. I do not know whether the hon. Member is willing that the clause should be amended; but I think he accepted it in that respect. The rent is endorsed in the Court, and the costs are endorsed; and, therefore, if the tenant conies into the Court, and has a document of title as to the rightness of his offer, that document is an order of the Court. If there is a dispute on the one side or the other the tenant has the document of the Court in his favour. We seem to have here merely a dispute about words, because the real substance of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman raises the question as to whether the Court is to have jurisdiction in the matter at all, or is it not? The machinery by which such jurisdiction can be exercised is provided by two long sections of Baron Deasy's Act. There are a vast number of important clauses to discuss, and if we are to discuss them all at this length, the elaborate sections of Baron Deasy's Act, and reconstruct the Bill, it appears to mo that there will be no end to our discussions. I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind that it may be possible on future occasions to introduce great improvements in the general Land Law of Ireland; but at present we are dealing with a question of machinery, and I can assure the hon. Member that if the Government thought there was any real injustice or hardship in this matter, they would take steps to introduce it expeditiously. It is because I believe that this Amendment would destroy the entire legal procedure of the Act of 1860 without putting anything in its place that I object to the Amendment. It would be a very embarrassing thing for the Government to involve itself in the reconstruction of the Act of 1860, and I would therefore urge the hon. Member not to press his Amendment.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I am not desirous of shutting out the action of the Court at all, but I have the greatest objection to forcing the Irish tenant into Court. He has had too much to do with Courts; and it is an open question in my mind, if we had the option of getting rid either of the lawyers or the landlords, whether I should not prefer to get rid of the lawyers rather than of the landlords. I therefore desire to keep the Irish tenant out of Court as much as I possibly can; and what I am willing to do in the compromise I have suggested is to give the ultimate decision to the Court in the case of the landlord and tenant not being able to come to terms. I am for going to the Court with the onus upon the landlord of proving his ease. I appeal to the Government upon this question, which, after all, is not a very large one, and which is one upon which they can give way without any sacrifice of principle. I do not think they can accuse me of putting difficulties in their way, or of endeavouring to embarrass thorn. I have never made a speech of more than 20 minutes since I have been in this House, and I certainly have not made long speeches upon this Bill, I will merely say that if they accept this compromise they will smooth away all the difficulties which are in the way of thin part of the Bill.

MR. GIBSON

What I intended to explain was that the existing law carries out the hon. Member's desires.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I know it does in a way, but I want to alter that way. I am prepared to assent to the view that the Court shall settle the matter; but I say that the tenant is not able to go to the Court for a writ of restitution in 99 cases out of 100 What I want to do is this—to force the landlord to accept the tenant's offer, and to give him the right to go to the Court to enforce a further payment if he can show that he has not received enough.

MR. O'DOHERTY

I forgot in one part of my statement to refer to that which seems to me to have given rise to an entire mistake in this matter. I have all through stated that I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman is labouring under a mistake as to practice. I want to show the right hon. and learned Gentleman how we stand. You are providing for the relief of evicted tenants, and you are also providing for the reduction of the amount of rent that tenants have to pay. I will ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England to listen to me. You are providing not merely that the tenants shall not pay the full amount due, but you are making provision for some permanent abatement; and what, under the rules empowered under Baron Deasy's Act, do the County Court Judges do—Judges who have never done anything for the Irish tenant—what do they do when the tenant comes in with the full vent and costs, and puts it down in settlement of the landlord's claim? Why, the landlord may say—"No; I will not have that, but I will have every penny which has accrued for a year and a-half, during the -whole time the decree has been running." It cannot be denied that the Court would agree to that. It is the 148th rule of the Civil Bill Courts, and I myself have had to experience its working in cases of redemption. But that is not all. I doubt if any question or dispute could arise, because everything is settled plainly in the document which has been referred to. The only case where any difficulty could possibly arise would be where the landlord has been in possession, and where some profit is claimed. But why should not the tenant be reinstated, allowing such questions as this which may crop up to be decided bylaw. Does the Committee understand this, that the tenant can never recover payment of his costs? No matter how unreasonable the case against him may be, he can never get his costs. I am quite satisfied as to that, so far as the Civil Bill Courts are concerned. I have actually known cases where even the Judges were against the landlords, and yet the tenants could not get their costs. Now, this is the position which the hon. Member for South Tyrone has put—the tenant may be put to all manner of expense, and yet he never can recover any of his costs, no matter how right he may be. If a dispute arises between the parties, it can only be about the landlord's profits—what else can it be about? You do not want the tenant to pay the subsequent gale surely, and every penny that has accrued up to the day he has applied for restitution of possession? Let the tenant go and pay the amount endorsed on the decree, or the amount of the order under the 22nd clause, and let that amount give him a right of restitution. If you would arrange that a man having so tendered and so paid should be restored, and that every tenancy made with him should be a present tenancy, that would do. Except in equity and by estop a present tenancy should be given, and that would be enough. I think there ought to be no difficulty in accenting the Amendment.

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

I wish to say a very few words on this subject. It is not a question as to whether the present law is a good law or a bad law; but it is quite obvious that we cannot reconstruct the Land Law of Ireland in a Bill which is intended to be a temporary measure of relief. What I wish to do is this. I wish to appeal to hon. Members opposite to bear in mind that if Amendments of this character are to be debated in this way in the House it will kill the Bill. It is not that the Amendments themselves may not be Amendments such as, Tinder other circumstances, it may be quite proper to consider—it is not that they are not Amendments which it may be quite proper to consider when the Land Act of 1881 is being amended and dealt with by this House ab initio. But I wish to appeal to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and to tell them that if they desire the Bill to pass they must understand that considerations of time, and time alone, render it impossible to give that consideration which may be most necessary before questions of this character can be settled. We do not alter the law adversely to the tenant; we do not in the slightest degree injure his position; and if hon. Gentlemen opposite think that a change in the law is necessary, and put their desire for that change before the advantages which are to be given, as we hope and believe by this Bill to the tenant, then I say they run great risk of killing the Bill on the mere point of time. I put that consideration fairly, and without the least anger or prejudice. I put it before hon. Members in order that they may fully realize the extreme difficulty of the position in which they place the Bill by pressing Amendments of this character. Amendments to the general Land Law, and not to this particular Bill.

MR. PARNELL

All I can say, Sir, is that if there is no time to discuss and debate this Amendment at fair and reasonable length, then there is no time to discuss and debate any Amendment in the whole Bill. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is unreasonable that Amendments should be discussed and debated.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I said Amendments to the general Land Law of Ireland.

MR. PAENELL

The right hon. Gentleman admits that it would be reasonable to discuss these Amendments, if there was time. Then, all I can is that in the consideration of an Amendment of this importance it is the duty of the Government to find time. The right hon. Gentleman and his Government were able to find time and to give nearly the whole Session to the discussion and debate of a Coercion Bill, his a singular thing that they are not able to find time to discuss and debate a few Amendments of an ameliorating character. Sir, it is not the intention of my hon. Friends or myself to discuss or debate at length many of the Amendments to this clause. At my instance. I may mention, hon. Members who had placed Amendments on the Paper yesterday and the day before have taken off nearly half of them, and of those which remain, I suppose, fully one-half are consequential Amendments. Of the half of the Amendments which are not consequential Amendments we should have carefully considered which we should have brought forward for the consideration of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has not met us fairly when he refuses to allow us time to consider important Amendments, when he threatens or suggests—I will not say threatens—that the Bill shall be withdrawn unless we refrain from discussing the few vital Amendments, one of the four or five vital Amendments to this clause which we had intended to press. Now, I do not think it is an unreasonable course for us to adopt to select four or five Amendments out of 90 which were put down, and out of 190 which might have boon put down, for discussion and debate. It is not our fault if the right hon. Gentleman, by introducing a permanent alteration of the Irish Land Law in a Bill avowedly of a temporary character, compels us to ask the House in our turn to consider permanent matters also. Now, it will be very easy for the Government to say that they will endeavour to introduce alterations into the Bill on Report in the direction suggested by the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). It will be quite easy for the Government to give such an Amendment; and even admitting that the Amendment of my hon. Friend carries with it unforeseen consequences, the Government Law Officers can easily undertake on the Report stage to construct a new clause, and to propose Amendments in the Bill dealing with Baron Deasy's Act in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The wishes of the hon. Member were very fairly and plainly explained to the Committee. His suggestion is a reasonable one—namely, that; where a tender of rent arid costs has been made to the landlord, or it may be has been made to the Sheriff, at any time within the six months allowed for redemption, then the onus should be thrown on the landlord to initiate proceedings to disallow the tenant's title. That is a reasonable proposition; and I am informed by hon. legal Friends around me that the Government would find no difficulty in the world in framing a section so as to carry out that object. That proposition has boon made, and I hope the Government will accept it. It is a matter of great and vital moment: and if the Government do not accept this | proposal, depend upon it the titles of the small tenants in the West and South of Ireland will be broken wholesale.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

The clause itself changes the law in a most important way; and I do not think the Irish Members, whether from North or South, have gone out of their way at all in order to make the law fall as lightly as possible on those who come under it.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

Might I point out the precise thing which is to be done? It is desirable that an Amendment, in the sense of the observations of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, should be drawn up. The Government allege that there is no time to make these alterations; but I venture to say that in five minutes the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, or the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England, could draw up an Amendment which would carry out to the very letter, with the extremest exactitude, what the hon. Member for South Tyrone desires. What we want is that instead of going into Court in a non-contentious case—instead of being eaten up and ruined by law costs—the tenant should be enabled to go to Sheriffs' officers and pay over to them the rent and costs, and get automatically a receipt for that, accompanied by some form, or writ, which should entitle him to come into his holding, and that if then any other trouble happens to take place the onus of proof should fall on the landlord's shoulders. I deny that there would be any difficulty in carrying that out. The whole thing could be done in five minutes or less; and yet the Government, on this point, which is a vital one, which would save the tenants of Ireland thousands of pounds, will not do what is desirable.

DR. COMMINS (Roscommon, S.)

We know that if a settlement is made between landlord and tenant, ending the six months allowed for redemption, that settlement will not reinstate the tenant in his former tenancy unless there is a long written document, or something that would be very expensive, in order to show that it is a free gift to him. The whole question here is a question of the status of the tenant. Is he to be allowed to preserve, by payment of the debt and costs, the status of a present tenant, entitled to the benefits of the Act of 1881, or is he not? It is stated that the whole object of this section is to deprive him of that status. Now, carrying the idea of the hon. Member for South Tyrone a little further, I would ask the Government to consider, if they will condescend to meet us at all in this matter, whether they cannot make the payment or the settlement between the landlord and tenant, during the six months allowed for redemption, to be a primâ facie restoration of the former tenancy? I would also ask that the burden of proof should be upon the landlord.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 142: Majority 22.—(Div. List, No. 331.)

MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

I have been asked to move the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Bern-nard Samuelson); but as its rejection would also involve an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) I would like to be allowed to move the latter instead.

THE CHAIRMAN

There is a manuscript Amendment before that.

MR. O'KELLY (Roscommon, N.)

Yes, in my name, in page 3, line 2, after the word "of," to insert "not less than." However, this is a consequential Amendment to an Amendment which has not been successful; therefore I will not move it.

MR. JAMES STUART

The Amendment I beg to move is in page 3, line 2, to leave out "six," and to insert "twelve." I move that because this clause, which stands in the middle of the Bill, will have such a severe, and I believe such an injurious action upon the tenant, that I desire, in common with many others, to make amends to the tenant for the action of the clause, and more especially at the commencement of the working of the clause, that the tenants may not be taken unaware by the action of the provision. I feel, Sir, considering the circumstances of the case, that the tenants will suffer injury through the serving of this notice, which will come in the form of an ejectment upon them like a wolf in sheep's clothing, and without the tenant really apprehending what is being done. I think, Sir, that the object of this Bill being to postpone as far as possible, and to prevent as far as possible—at least, so the Government say they intend—ejectments, I think that the end professed by the Government in the Bill would be served and assisted by the substitution of 12 months for six in this place. No doubt, many of us on this side of the House would have been more pleased with this Bill if this clause had been left out; and if the existence of the clause—which I do not propose to argue as a whole at present—had not left us in doubt as to whether, on the whole, we really desire the Bill ultimately to pass or not. But there can be no doubt that the substitution of 12 months for six months in this particular part of the clause would help to reconcile many to this Bill, and to make many people feel that the object of the Government was not, as some imagine it to be, from the existence of this clause, to give additional facilities to the landlords. I have no doubt of the good faith of the Government; and I trust that they may find it in their power to accept this Amendment, fixing the period at 12 months instead of six months. I beg to move the Amendment on the Paper.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 2, leave out "six," and insert "twelve."—(Mr. Stuart.)

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

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

I think that no one has ever suggested that this Bill, taken as a whole, is a Bill in the interests of the landlords. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman is to substitute 12 months for six mouths as the period of redemption, and the object he has in view is to prevent the tenant being taken by surprise, as he has expressed it, by the clause as it stands. I think the object of the hon. Gentleman is a good one in itself, and deserves consideration, and I shall be quite willing to state the view of the Government as to the means by which the end in view may be attained. I think the method suggested by the hon. Member is not practicable. The period of six months is no doubt a necessary, and, on the whole, a beneficial incident of the present, but it has difficulties. During that six months neither the landlord nor the tenant know what position they stand in relatively to each other. The period is a period of expense, and it will be a serious evil, and will not conduce to an ultimate settlement, if we increase the period to 12 months; but while for that reason we cannot accept the Amendment the hon. Gentleman has moved, we think there is something to be said for the argument he has used in support of the Amendment, and I shall be prepared shortly to suggest to the Committee as an alternative that it might be a good thing to introduce an interval of a month between the time at which power is obtained from the Court and the ejectment of the tenant—between the time at which power is obtained from the Court and the ejectment of the tenant and the time at which the notice is served by which the ejectment will be carried into effect. Whether that will meet the views of the hon. Gentleman I do not know; but I think everyone will feel that in carrying that out we have the interests of the tenant in view. What I propose is to insert an Amendment providing that the notice may be served "after one month from the date of the judgment, and not earlier, save by leave o f the Court.''

MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

I agree with my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment—that is, so far as the assertion of a principle is concerned I entirely agree with him—but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in the rather important announcement he has made, seems to suggest another Amendment fur securing the same purpose. The right hon. Gentleman suggests this interval—I suppose in the form of a now clause.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not know how it would be best to introduce it; but perhaps it might be convenient for me to read the Amendment as it might be inserted. These words might be inserted in line 4, page 3, after the word "served" namely, "after one month from the date of the judgment, but not earlier, eave by leave of the Court."

MR. JOHN MORLEY

Yes; the tenant, as I understand it, will have a period given between the landlord getting the decree in the Court and the service of the notice that that decree has been obtained. Of course, so far as that goes it gives the tenant a clear month, and is, therefore, a distinct advantage to him. I venture to suggest that even if the Government do not see their way—I shall regret it if they do not, but if they do not—to acceding to the spirit of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman and extending the time for redemption, that they should, if possible, give one more condition in favour of the tenant. They have given one condition, as the Chief Secretary for Ireland has just announced; but there is one step which they might take, and, I think, without any serious disadvantage to the landlord, and with considerable advantage to the tenant. They should give the tenant a clear month of undisturbed possession between the service of the notice and the actual ejectment. The effect of the two things together—namely, the arrangement that the Chief Secretary has announced the willingness of the Government to accede to, and the change I venture to press upon them, would be that the tenant would have two clear months in which to bestir himself and to look around him, and, if possible, to come to terms with his landlord. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that this second concession is in reality less than it would appear, because by the law as it stands—if I am well informed—the tenant has 10 or 11 days between the service of the notice and the disturbance of his possession. Then the amount of the eon-cession that I venture to suggest to Her Majesty's Government is in reality no more than 20 days. The result of the two concessions would be, as I have already said, that the tenant would have two months to turn round in. I very respectfully, and with a very earnest desire to forward the progress of this Bill, venture to make that suggestion to Her Majesty's Government, and to express the hope that they will give it their favourable consideration.

MR. O'DOHERTY

I would point out what the Government must know very well The Sessions in Ireland at which ordinary appeals are granted are the December Sessions, which last three weeks; and a decree made at the Sessions may not issue until the day the Court rises. All the decrees are dated the first day of the Sessions. Three weeks, therefore, of the month of so-called undisturbed possession of the tenant may have to be necessarily consumed by the proceedings in Court. In the county with which I am connected it is known that the Sessions will last through the ordinary time, and all decrees date from the beginning of that period—no single decree can issue before the termination of that time. Then the landlord has to serve the relieving officer with notice, in order that, if necessary, he may be prepared with accommodation in the workhouse for the persons to be evicted. Under the existing law it is necessary that that process should be gone through before the Sheriff can execute the decree. It is possible that another month would elapse through delays of this kind before the decree could be executed; so that, in point of fact, what professes to be a boon in the matter of the extension of time, may be an absolute shortening of the time. I declare that as one who has had practical experience. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) suggests that the tenant should be allowed to remain in undisturbed possession for another month before any proceedings against him as caretaker could be taken. That really adds nothing to the advantage of the tenant, because, as I already pointed out, the period during which the Sheriff ordinarily would have to make his arrangements before evicting would cover that time. So that if two months were added, the position of the tenant, after the passing of this Bill, would not be improved in regard to this question of time. If the right hon. Gentleman would move an Amendment to the effect that the notice should date from the last day of the Sessions, which is the date from which all orders run, it would be satisfactory in some measure; because, until then, and until three days after the Sessions rise in fact, no decree can be given out. After the period of the delivery from the Clerk of the Peace to the plaintiff's solicitor a month should run. That would mean a month. I am glad to see that the hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) assents to that proposal. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not understand that the Sessions in Ireland last so long, and did not understand that every decree is dated from the first day of the Sessions. I say, again, I am speaking of what I know. Therefore, in point of fact, if the concession is intended in a generous spirit, it will be given as from, the time when the decree should not be entertainable. I am sure that the period which would thus be allowed would be a very short time if the right hon. Gentleman will advise the Government to retain the power of claiming arrears which might accrue up to the time of redemption. However, on that matter I am not able to tell the Committee anything more than what I know by practical experience, and that is that if the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary were accepted even, and that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, it would shorten rather than lengthen the present period of redemption.

COLONEL WARING (Down, N.)

the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle is almost identical with one I myself made yesterday. We Irish landlords should be entirely satisfied if that arrangement were carried out.

MR. PARNELL

The suggestion that there should be one month between the decree and the service of the notice, and a further interval between the service of the notice and the tenant's eviction—that I take it is the proposal—["No, no!"] Yes, the suggestion made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland has reference to the interval between the ejectment decree and the service of the notice to leave, and the further suggestion of the j right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle is that there should be an interval of a month between the service of the notice and the loss of the tenant's status by his becoming a caretaker. I understand that these are the two suggestions before the Committee. Well, with reference to these suggestions, I have to say that I think it would be better that there should be one period, and that that period should be a longer time than is proposed. Instead of giving a period after the obtaining of the decree and prior to the service of the notice, you should give a period of grace to the tenant after the service of that notice, because the tenantry in Ireland are not used to decrees, and are ignorant of the state of the law; and would not attach that importance which it would be necessary to attach to a decree under the clause of the Government. The tenant might let slip his time. When, however, he got his notice, there would be a new step, and his attention would be attracted by this. He would, of course, commence to inquire what was the significance of this notice. If you, therefore, give your period of grace after the service of the notice, I think it would assist the tenant; and I do not see what harm it could do to the landlord. If you do this, the period allowed would assist the tenant much better than you would assist him by dividing the period into two terms. I would suggest then that if the Government would agree to give three months interval after the service of the notice and after the tenant becomes a caretaker, that we might close this question with regard to the extension of the period of grace. It seems to me that what I propose would carry out the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and also the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, except that the landlord, instead of losing two months, would lose three, which is not a very large extension of time for the tenant.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I must say that it is rather irregular to go into this question on the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I am sorry that the proposal I made on the part of the Government should not have been met in a more favourable spirit. As to the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, we are prepared to accept it, though I would point out that there is, perhaps, more in the question than some of the hon. Gentlemen near me might think. I do not think the Committee has thoroughly apprehended the real position of the tenant under this clause—they seem to have in their minds what he is supposed to lose, but I do not think they have reflected upon what he gains. When a landlord evicts a tenant the latter does not become a caretaker, he goes out neck and crop; but under our clause, as it stands without either of the Amendments suggested, the tenant is placed in a better position, because he cannot be turned out under any circumstances for 11 days at least after the service of the notice. Hon. Gentlemen appear to consider that it is a matter of indifference to the landlord whether a man is made compulsorily a caretaker or not. There is no hardship to a landlord if he voluntarily makes a man a caretaker, but there may be considerable hardships in a landlord being compelled to take a man for a month as caretaker without being willing to do so, and the reason of this is obvious. During that month a man admitted as caretaker might commit serious waste, and there is no means of stopping him. The landlord is powerless to stop him—the landlord is powerless in the matter, and must admit the man, although he may be a person to whom the landlord may have the very strongest objection, and whom for many reasons no may have every right to get rid of. The man will be fastened in the holding for a month, during which period he may do any amount of damage. I only state that in order to show that from the landlord's point of view it is a considerable concession for us to carry out the request which has been made to us. But for the sake of peace, I think we are justified in not refusing the suggestion which has been made. I trust we shall not be pressed to go further in the matter. As to the suggestion by the bon. Member opposite (Mr. O'Doherty), be raised a question connected, I think, with the practice of Quarter Sessions. Well, I have no knowledge of the practice of Quarter Sessions, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when we talk of a month we mean a month. At any rate, we will inquire into the matter, and if we find that the Amendment suggested does not really give the tenant a full month between the obtaining of the decree and the execution of it, we will introduce a further Amendment to carry out what is really the intention of the Government.

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

I quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman says, that he will take care that a month is given if he finds that his Amendment will not have that effect. But he has not touched the point to which the hon. Member (Mr. O'Doherty) drew attention. The decree is dated the first day of the Session, but it may not be issued until the last day of the Session, and then before it can be served two days notice is to be given to the Poor Law Guardians. Then there are three days notice for appeal, so that by giving only a month you are absolutely shortening the period. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the month he refers to? If there is to be two months given in the sense in which we have spoken, then we can quite understand that there is a full month granted. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the month given or offered should be a month beginning one month after the date of the decree? Otherwise, instead of the right hon. Gentleman giving anything to the tenant, he would be actually taking something away from him and shortening the period of grace. It must be borne in mind that a month may elapse between the day of the issue of the decree and the day upon which it is served. That you cannot, help. Therefore, giving a month means nothing. If you say that you give two months, then you are practically carrying out the proposal that you yourselves have made. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland understands this matter clearly. If he does not, it is probable that we shall be involved in a long discussion on it.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I perfectly understand the matter.

MR. MOLLOY

Then I will not go further into it.

MR. O'DOHERTY

Might I mention, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland seems to be in error, as to no precaution being taken to prevent waste during that month, that there is a special provision in the Act of 1860 which provides for a tenancy or occupancy of 29 or 30 days or any shorter period, and in such provision it is enacted that if such tenant attempts to do anything wrong you can go to the magistrates and summarily put him out for it. That procedure was referred to Yesterday.

MR. O'KELLY

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the undertaking that the month will start from the final day of the Sessions in which the decree is issued?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I perfectly understand the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, and I think it well worthy of consideration. I shall be glad to do what I can to carry out his suggestion. We must, however, have some time to consider the matter, for the reason that we are dealing here not only with judgments in the Inferior Courts, but with judgments in the Superior Courts, and there may be some difference between the one and the other. My view is that the practice of the Inferior Courts may be such that it probably may be the best plan to mate it two months from the first day of the Session. If hon. Members will allow us to wait until the Report stage, we will consider the matter and take steps to bring about a satisfactory settlement of the point in question.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member for Shoreditch withdraw his Amendment?

MR. JAMES STUART

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member for Roscommon move Amendment No. 34?

MR. O'KELLY

Yes. I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, after "notice," to insert— Shall state truly the exact amount to be paid for redemption, and the place or places where and the person or persona to whom the same may be paid or tendered during the said period, and. The object of this Amendment is to facilitate redemption. I move it in view of the difficulty that ignorant tenants sometimes experience in finding the proper persons to whom payment may be made. I think the Government will agree with me that this is a landlord's Amendment as well as a tenant's Amendment, and they will probably have no difficulty in accepting it.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 3, after "notice," insert "shall state truly the exact amount to be paid for redemption, and the place or places where and the person or persons to whom the same may be paid or tendered during the said period, and,"—(Mr. O'Kelly.)

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

MR. GIBSON

We are perfectly ready to accept the proposal.

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I beg, Sir, to move, according to the understanding which has been arrived at, the manuscript Amendment which I have handed to you, that is to say, in page 3, line 4, after the word "served," to insert "after one month from the date of the judgment, and not earlier, unless the Court so permit."

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 4, after the word "served," insert "after one month from the date of the judgment, and not earlier, unless the Court so permit."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

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

MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)

On behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name. I do think the Government ought to accept this proposal. It does not strike at the principle of the clause, but simply amounts to a very trivial detail in it. Under Baron Deasy's Act, the Act of 1860, the landlord got very great protection in the matter of the person upon whom he was to serve notice for the execution of an ejectment. He had only to serve the party in. occupation of the land when he served the ejectment. This section, following out the principle laid down in Baron Deasy's Act, states that the notice is to be served on the person who at the time of service shall be in possession of the land, so that if at any time between the obtaining of the ejectment and the service of the notice the occupier of the land is not in actual possession, though he might retain his interest in it, it will be competent for the landlord to serve the notice upon the person actually in possession. The ejectment decree might, therefore, be obtained and served without the knowledge of the person most interested, because he may not be on the land at the time of the service of the notice. I think that that is very unfair. It is conceivable that a very long interval might elapse before the absolute ejectment takes place under this clause. It is a common thing, after judgment has been obtained in the Superior Court, for a long interval to elapse before it is put into force, and it is quite possible for some change to take place in the occupancy during that interval. What I propose is, that the landlord should be bound under this clause to serve the notice upon every person served with the writ or process in such ejectment by striking out the words "who at the time of the service of the notice shall be in possession of such land." No hardship can be inflicted on the landlord. Persons who have what may be valuable interests in their holdings may have their rights lapse without any knowledge being conveyed to them that the time of redemption is running. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) will see I make this proposal perfectly bonâ fide to remedy what I think is a defect in the machinery of the clause. My Amendment does not strike at the principle of the clause, and, therefore, the Government may fairly be inclined to accept it.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 7, to leave out all the words from the word "who "to the word "land," inclusive, in line 8.—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

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

MR. GIBSON

If this Amendment were carried, it would directly place power in the hands of the tenant to frustrate the object of the clause. In order to dispossess the tenant by a process of eviction, or by the service of this notice which is substituted for the ordinary writ of possession, it is necessary that the notice should be served on every tenant who is in possession, and the words which are proposed to be struck out are words which direct that should be done only upon the person originally served with the writ who, at the time of the service of the notice, shall be in possession of the land. Now, if these words were struck out, the effect would be that if a man were in possession as under tenant at the date the writ was served, he, by retiring from the scene, may make it wholly impossible for the landlord to serve on him the requisite notice. [Cries of "No, no!"] That will be the effect of leaving out these words. What we provide is that a certain number of persons shall be served with the writ—the tenant and the under tenant. What you must provide for is a service of the notice which is to consummate an ejectment. If you were to provide that the persons originally served were only to be served with this notice, you would practically render it impossible to carry out an ejectment at all. Suppose the writ is dated the 1st of January, and the service of the notice is not till eight or nine months afterwards, and some of the tenants are dead and have no next-of-kin or representative. According to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. M. Heal} the result would be that you would never be able to carry out an ejectment at all, because you would not be able to serve the persons who were originally served with the writ. It is quite possible to conceive that a man would retire from the scene so that he could not be served with the notice. Besides, if a person originally served died or left the country, say in the ordinary course of matters, an ejectment could not be brought to an effective conclusion. For these reasons we cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, and I do not think that he will say that the reasons I have urged are not of great weight.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I take the liberty, Mr. Courtney, of contradicting the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the flattest manner consistent with politeness. I took considerable pains, which have apparently been of no avail, to explain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Committee, in the remarks I made in introducing this Amendment, wiry it would not have the effect the right hon. and learned Gentleman imagines it would have. It will not have such an effect, because this section takes power to serve an ejectment in a prescribed manner, and it goes on to direct that the prescribed manner shall be in such manner as shall be prescribed by the County Court Judge. Unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman means to contend that the County Court Judges of Ireland are men wanting in intelligence and capacity, so that they are not able to frame a rule to meet the particular case he puts, then I fail to see the drift of his remarks. The clause provides that the service shall be in the prescribed manner; but it goes on to direct that the service may be by postage, so that really the right hon. and learned Gentleman has conjured up a difficulty which could not by any possibility exist, and he has not taken the trouble to explain how the difficulty I have suggested to him as arising from the present form of the clause could possibly be met—namely, the case of the tenant who might without any sinister object, who might without any object of frustrating the ejectment, but in perfect good faith and for reasons which rendered it necessary, have been compelled, for one reason or another, while retaining his interests in the holding, to quit the holding temporarily or permanently. I have to complain that an Amendment of this reasonable character has not been met by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a candid spirit. In the speech to which we have just listened he avoided the real question which has been raised, he avoided the arguments by which the Amendment is supported, with the only object, so far as I can see, of misleading the Committee and of giving as little information as possible.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. O'KELLY

I beg to move to insert, after "land," in line 8, "and upon any person legally or equitably entitled to redeem their said tenancy." This Amendment is intended to protect the persons having an interest in the redemption of the tenant right other than the tenant. Cases arise in Ireland in which traders advance money to the tenants to pay their rent, and these persons acquire by mortgage or otherwise an interest in the tenancies, and unless notice be given to them they will lose their rights of redemption, where the tenants themselves are not in a position to redeem. I believe that sometimes in such cases there is collusion between the landlord and tenant. I trust that, in the interest of fair play, the Government will be inclined to accept this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 8, after "land," insert "and upon any person legally or equitably entitled to redeem their said tenancy."—(Mr. O'Kelly.)

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GIBSON

The reason why it will be impossible to accept this Amendment is that the persons with whom the landlord has to do are the persons who are actually in possession. It is wholly, impossible for him to ascertain who are persons who have an interest in the tenancy, or who may be entitled legally or otherwise to redeem a tenancy. An inquiry of such a nature might be of an endless character, and if a landlord could not obtain ejectment until he served these persons, the number of mortgages would be considerably increased. There are already a good number of mortgages, but I think they would be still further augmented if an Amendment of this kind were accepted. It is not altogether unreasonable for me to say that this Amendment ought not to be pressed. I may mention to the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment, no doubt in perfect good faith, that his object is perhaps sufficiently met by an Amendment further down upon the Paper—namely, the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), which requires that this notice shall be published in a paper circulating in the district, and that a copy shall be sent in a registered letter addressed to the tenant. That will give a certain amount of publicity, at all events.

MR. O'KELLY

Will the Government accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend?

MR. GIBSON

I shall offer no objection to it.

MR. O'KELLY

Then I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 8, after "land," insert "in all such cases a copy of the said notice shall be published in a paper circuiting in the district, and a copy shall be sent in a registered letter to the tenant."—{Mr. Sexton.)

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GIBSON

May I suggest that the Amendment should be amended by the insertion of the words "if any," after "paper," because it is well known that there are places in Ireland where no newspapers circulate?

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

I have considerable knowledge of Ireland, though perhaps it is not so extensive as that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am not aware, however, of any district in Ireland where some paper does not circulate. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman pursue the matter a little further and indicate the district in which newspapers do not circulate?

MR. GIBSON

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree to substitute the word "newspaper" for "paper."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "paper," in order to insert "newspaper."—(Mr. Gibson.)

Question, "That the word 'paper' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

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

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. SEXTON

I now beg to propose to leave out the word "such," in line 8. The object of this Amendment is to secure that a notice shall come to the tenant's knowledge. Under the clause, as It stands, unless the person who is legally liable to be served with the notice happens to be in possession, the notice may be posted. In many cases in Ireland the persons legally liable to be served live in other parts of Ireland, or are often absent on business in England and Scotland. I think the notice may be fairly served on any person who happens to be in possession.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 8, leave out "such."—(Mr. Sexton.)

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

MR. GIBSON

We have already agreed that the persons to be served are the persons who are really in possession as tenants and under-tenants. It is only such, not those persons who happen to be in actual possession, who are to be served with the notice. You cannot introduce a new person to be served, as the omission of the word "such" would involve. If we agree to this Amendment, we should really have to go back upon what we have already done.

MR. SEXTON

But if the tenant is away, will the notice be posted on the promises?

MR. GIBSON

I understand so.

MR. SEXTON

And will the notice be published in a newspaper circulating in the district?

MR. GIBSON

First of all you will have to address a registered letter to the tenant, and, of course, the notice will be published in the district under the former Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MAURICE HEALY

I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance), and it suggests the omission of Subsection 2. I desire, upon this occasion, to raise a discussion on the whole of this paragraph, which appears to me to be a paragraph of a very anomalous nature indeed. The result of this subsection and the next sub-section is to effect a legal paradox. It is to make a tenant a caretaker, and while lie is care taker he is to be a tenant. That, I understand, is the effect of this section. [MR. GIBSON dissented.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland shakes his head; but I think I shall succeed in showing that that is exactly the effect of this sub-section. I quite conceive that an absurdity of the kind I mention was not in the minds of the original framers of the clause; it was one of the clever gentlemen who sit in "another place" who succeeded in bringing about this absurdity. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the latter portion of Sub-section 3 he will see that it provides that at the end of the period of six months from the service of such notice the right of redemption shall be at an end. And then it goes on— When a judgment in ejectment for nonpayment of rent has been executed before the passing of this Act, the time within which a writ of restitution of possession may be applied for shall be the time limited by the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ireland), 1860, in that behalf. Now, what is the effect of that? From the moment the notice is served the tenant is a caretaker. He cannot lay a finger on any of the plant that is on the holding, or on any part of the crops that are in the ground. From the moment of the service of this notice the crops become the property of the landlord, subject to the tenant's right of redemption, and by the hypothesis the tenant is not going to redeem, because that is the basis on which we start. From the fact that he is a caretaker the tenant has no right to the crops; he cannot sell them, and he cannot convert them to his own use. If, perchance, he should redeem the tenancy, the landlord is to have the whole benefit of the crops, the tenant is to lose all claim to them, and all right to call the landlord to account. Now that, I say, involves a legal paradox. The Government cannot mean to deprive the tenant of the property in his crops. What they must mean is this—that though the tenant is for the purpose of this section a caretaker, he is to go on dealing with the crops during the six months allowed for redemption exactly as he would deal with them were he tenant, and that he is not to account for them to the landlord. I think I am justified in maintaining that this section places the tenant in the position of being a tenant at one time and a caretaker at another time. I ask the Attorney General for Ireland why, if the tenant is to be absolutely a caretaker, that is a servant of the landlord, and only able to deal with the crops on the laud as the landlord's servant, and if he can be called to account by the landlord, which this position involves, should this section go on to enact that the landlord is not to be called upon to account for these things? Now, this is the first point I beg to raise upon this paragraph. The second point is the peculiar status which, this sub-section practically provides for the tenant on the service of the notice. Now, unquestionably, the Government originally intended by this section that the tenant was in some way to gain something by having a notice served upon him, instead of being put out. They succeeded in conveying to the House and the country, that in lieu of any right he had under the existing law they intended that he should have a right of continuing in possession during the time in which the period of redemption was running. Up to the present time they have contended that in most cases that will be the effect of the clause. I understand them to argue that the landlord will have no interest in putting a tenant out during the six months. If that be so, and if this section is to be in any sense a benefit to the tenant, I claim that the Government should go the full length of enacting that the tenant shall be preserved in his possession of the holding during the whole period of the six months. There would be no difficulty whatsoever in carrying out that provision, because, instead of enacting that the tenant is to be caretaker, it would be very easy to provide that the service of this notice should in law be a sort of attornment. I appeal to the Government to reconsider the clause in that sense, and I ask them that, instead of deciding to make the tenant a caretaker, and instead of leaving him in the position in which the very day after the notice is served the landlord may put him out, either by a magistrate's order or by legal process, they should take into consideration the desirability of continuing the tenant as a tenant for the period of six months by some such process as is now resorted to while the tenant is willing to sign an attornment. On these two points I ask the learned Attorney General to explain exactly what the views of the Government are. I ask that the tenant shall not be put in the extremely anomalous position which this clause, as at present framed, puts him in. It seems to me an absurdity that the clause should make elaborate provision that the Court should not be at liberty to execute its own decree for six months, and at the same time leave the tenant open to the effect of an order made against him in an Inferior Court—leave him to be put out by the landlord as the landlord's servant.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 14, leave out sub-section 2.—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'every person' stand part of the Clause."

MR. GIBSON

I do not know whether I should be in Order in discussing both points which have been raised by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Maurice Healy), because it strikes me that one of them will be raised upon a subsequent Amendment. It appears inconvenient that on a general Motion of this kind matters should be discussed which will be raised later on. I may briefly say, however, that the reason why there is found in Sub-section 3 the provision exonerating the landlord from liability is this, that where the landlord chooses a caretaker under the existing law, the landlord is responsible for the crops; but where an Act of Parliament creates a caretaker, whether the landlord likes it or not, it would be hard on the landlord that he should be responsible for any loss which might occur during the six months in which the period of redemption is running. I cannot discuss the matter now, because I should not be in Order. With regard to the suggestion that the clause should be amended so as to alter the character of the caretaker, and that he should be a tenant for six months certain, all I can say is that the suggestion appears in admissible. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) intends to move an Amendment to the effect that the caretaker shall not La dispossessed for one month. Such a provision as that the Government are willing to adopt. It must be remembered that a compulsory caretaker gets no wages, and he pays no rent.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands what our object is. In the Act of 1860 there is provision made for two forms of executing AH ejectment, and in one of those forms it is specially provided that you can execute a decree of ejectment without removing a tenant from the premises, and without reducing him to the position of a caretaker. That is, at all events, the case in regard to sub-tenancies. By signing an attornment, the tenant retains possession of the premises by the leave and permission of the landlord, and the man who signs an attornment is in a totally different position to a caretaker. He can remain in the holding unless he commits waste, and the Act of 1860 provides a remedy for the landlord in case the tenant commits waste. If the tenant commits waste, the landlord can treat him as he would a caretaker; he can evict him by order of the Petty Sessions. Under the Act of 1860 a man who does not commit waste on the holding cannot be evicted by an order of the Petty Sessions, like a caretaker, but he can only be evicted by a Civil Bill process. The landlord has to go before the Quarter Sessions, and the tenant has at least a considerable time allowed him. We have been told over and over again that one of the chief objects of this section is to prevent evictions. Any hon. Gentleman who has studied the question knows that at the conclusion of Sub-section 1, occur the following words:— Upon such service or posting, the tenancy in the holding shall be determined as if a writ of possession under the judgment had been duly executed. Well, now, it may appear to some Members that that is inconsistent with our proposal. It is, however, nothing of the sort, because, as I have shown, there is a provision made under the Act of 1860, by which a tenancy can be determined, and yet the tenant be retained in a totally different status from the position of caretaker. What we ask is that while the effect of the notice shall be to determine the tenancy, the status of the tenant shall be the status of a man who has made an attornment. We are quite content to adopt some provision whereby the tenant shall be left in possession on such terms as the County Court may determine. In justification of our proposal, we may fairly, and without prejudice to Order, point to the extraordinary change which is proposed to be made in Sub-section 3. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland did not give any real or sound reason for the making of that change. We know perfectly well that one of the strongest reasons which prevent landlords from, evicting caretakers, and which induces thorn to leave caretakers undisturbed for the six months, is that, according to the provisions of the Act of 1860, the landlord, in case of redemption, must account for the profits of the farm. This acts as a great terror to the landlords in respect to eviction, because it is very difficult for the landlord to account for the profits of a farm. In the face of that provision, we have the strongest case in asking the Government that the effect of this notice shall be not to make a caretaker of the tenant, but to put him in the position of a man making an attornment. I fail to see that a single reason has been given by the Attorney General for Ireland why this Amendment should not be made. I fail to see why the interests of a landlord need any greater protection, if this clause is passed, as against caretakers than they did before The Attorney General for Ireland stated that all the law does is to enable the landlord to make a caretaker of the tenant. You have refused, up to the present, to grant the tenant undisturbed possession while he is a caretaker. The landlord is as free under this clause to evict a tenant within a week, or, if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) is accepted, within a month of the time the tenant is made a caretaker, as ever he was. Therefore, what ground is there for saying to the landlord—"You shall not be obliged to account to the tenant in the same way as you were before this Act was passed?" I ask the Government to consider before they commit themselves to remove by this provision one of the most powerful motives winch has operated in the minds of landlords to prevent them turning their tenants out the moment the tenancy is broken. I earnestly ask the Government to consider seriously whether they cannot meet us in the matter. I am prepared to listen to any reasonable arrangement by which the status of the tenant shall be at least as good after service of this notice as that of a man who has signed an attornment under the Act of 1860, by which it shall be the basis of the clause that during the lapse of the period of redemption the tenant shall be in undisturbed possession.

MR. MAHONY (Meath, N.)

; I merely want to impress on the Government that they have an opportunity of making the section fair and just without in any way imperilling the value of the clause from their own point of view. They say the great object of this clause is to prevent what they call double evictions; to do away with the necessity for the evictions rendered necessary by the right of redemption. Now, they have an opportunity of still carrying out their object, and yet of doing away entirely with the necessity of the eviction for the purpose of making the right of redemption. They can, at the same time, carry out much more faithfully than their clause at present does the recommendation of the Cowper Commission. The recommendation of that Commission relates solely to the advisability of making the right of redemption date from the period before the eviction takes place. The recommendation of the Commission was that the right of redemption should be dated from the obtaining of the decree. There is an objection to that. The Government say that they cannot adopt that recommendation, because they want to allow time to lapse after the attaining of the decree, in order that the landlord and tenant may come to terms. But by making the right of redemption run from the service of this notice they also do another thing—they change entirely the status of the tenant. That appears to me to be perfectly unnecessary. Why should they change the status of the tenant? Why not make the notice simply apply to the right of redemption, and let the right of redemption run from the date of the service of the notice? It appears to me the Government have a great opportunity of meeting us on this point without in any way whatever interfering with that which they have hitherto explained to be the main principle of their clause. I do hope the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) will see his way to make some concession on this point—that is to say, making the right of redemption run from the service of the notice, and not altering the status of the tenant. At the end of the six months from the service of the notice the eviction can take place in the ordinary way, and it will be a final eviction—thero will be no right of redemption afterwards.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

I think that what is happening upon this clause generally is a startling exemplification of what we get by concessions. Last night we took some 20 or 30 of our Amendments off the Paper with the view of conciliating the Committee. As the result of this, the Government have treated our Amendments to-night with little or no consideration. We have heard since this came on that it is a clause to enable the landlord to avoid the unpleasantness of evictions, but we were never told that it is a proposal to take away from the tenant the six months in which he can redeem his holding. We ask the Government solemnly, do they mean that this House is to strip the Irish tenant of everything which raises him above the position of a serf? By Act of Parliament he has been granted a period of six months within which he can redeem. Now, you are going to strip him of that right, and give him one month instead. We ask you to test your bona fides. The Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) sneers because he does not understand anything about the matter. [Cries of "Order, order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not know who that hon. Member was, but his interruption was most disorderly. If I knew him, I would most certainly call upon him to withdraw.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The right hon. Gentleman's performances in this House have not impressed us with his intelligence, at least upon Irish questions. At any rate, I ask the Gentleman on the Treasury Bench who is doing the Irish work for the Government, does he intend. to allow the landlord to put the tenant out within one month of the time he chooses to serve his registered letter on the tenant; if so, what is going to become of the other live months' redemption? No answer is given, and that is our reward for taking Amendments off the Paper; we are not even to get intelligent replies. I seriously ask the Government for a plain answer to my question—what is going to become of the six months' redemption?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. and learned Gentleman considers that he and his hon. Friends have made a great concession by taking Amendments off the Paper. They have, no doubt, taken many Amendments off the Paper, and I am glad of it; but still they have left upon the Paper the not insignificant number of upwards of 50 Amendments to this clause. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was in the House, I rather think he was not, but if he was he must know we have attempted to meet, by substantial concessions, the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have adopted one large Amendment in favour of the tenant in the 1st sub-section, and we have, on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. John Morley), adopted another very large and substantial Amendment to this sub-section. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) asks us two or three questions as to the status of the tenant after the service of the notice. Let me point out to him what, I think, he cannot know, or he would not have brought this question before the Committee—that, in so far as this clause affects the status of the tenant after eviction, it affects it for the better. In the process of eviction the tenant may be instantly turned out; under the clause we have drafted the tenant at once becomes a caretaker, and the whole object of this sub-section is to prevent the tenant being turned out neck and crop, and to compel the landlord, whether he likes it or not, to accept him as caretaker.

MR. DILLON

Not at all.

MR. T. M. HEALY

You must be dreaming.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. and learned Member for North Longford asks what is to happen with the six six months' right of redemption. The tenant's right of redemption for sis months remains exactly where it is under the existing law. The tenant has, under the existing law, six months in which he can redeem. Under the law, as it will be if this clause be passed, the tenant will have, for six months after the notice is served, the same right of redemption with this difference—that during the first of those six months he will be kept compulsorily in his holding, whether his landlord likes it or not, whereas, under the existing law, he may be turned out at once.

MR. T. M. HEALY

He never is, and that is just the difference.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. and learned Gentleman says the tenant never is turned out.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Never in a month.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

He is constantly turned out. But I need not labour the question further; I think I have answered the questions of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have shown him, I hope, to his satisfaction, that we have approached this subject in a spirit of conciliation.

MR. PARNELL

I fail to see the spirit of conciliation of which the right hon. Gentleman boasts so much. I do not think that a clause of such stringency has ever been passed through Committee in so short a time and with so few concessions on the part of the Government as this clause. The large concessions of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks only exist in his own imagination. The right hon. Gentleman surely does not suppose that we are satisfied in the slightest degree with the nature of the concessions he speaks of. Those concessions are very small; they are almost worthless. So much for the concessions of the right hon. Gentleman; we estimate them at their true value. But, Sir, I rise to refer to the extraordinary mis-statement the right hon. Gentleman has just made as to the object of this clause. He said that the object of this sub-section is to compel the landlord to keep the tenant as a caretaker after the service of the notice. There is not the slightest foundation for the statement. The landlord is not compelled by the sub-section to keep his tenant as a caretaker for six months.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I never said for six months. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will explain. Under the clause as it at present stands he must be retained as a caretaker for 11 days; but under the clause as it is pro posed to be amended he must be retained as a caretaker for one month.

MR. PARNELL

The right hon. Gentleman did not tell the Committee just now that they proposed to turn the 11 days into a month and to take that month out of the six months' period of redemption. The whole extent of the concession he makes in reply to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle(Mr. John Morley) is that he gives 19 days extra time in which the landlord will be compelled to keep the tenant as caretaker. It formerly was 11 days, it will now be 31 days, and the 31 days are to be taken out of the period of redemption. I wonder the right hon. Gentleman has the face to get up and boast to us and the Committee of the wonderful concessions the Government have made. This is but another instance of the disingenuous way in which we have been treated by the right hon. Gentleman all through these discussions. He has tried to hoodwink the Committee and the country in regard to the nature of this clause from the very first. Now, that the false pretences have been taken from this clause the right hon. Gentleman boasts of concessions. We regard his concessions and the clause very much in the same light, which is anything but a favourable light. The right hon. Gentleman need not suppose that he has got this clause under any idea on our part that he has made any concessions or that the clause is anything but a terrible injury to the tenants and a scandal to the Irish Government.

MR. DILLON

I am astonished that the Chief Secretary for Ireland puts forward the theory of concession. It is supposed to be a great concession that this process is to be delayed for a month. We all know perfectly well what the effect of this provision is, we know that it is to expedite evictions. The execution of the decree is a scandalous and expensive process. The landlord holds back his decree for three, four, five, or six months, in the hope that the terror of that decree will bring the tenant to a settlement but under this clause a landlord will not delay for a single hour. It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) said, this clause may pass, but it will pass simply by threats and bullying. We may be induced by the benefits of the rest of the Bill to abate our opposition to this clause, which, but for its being incorporated in the Bill, we should fight exactly on the same lines as we fight a Coercion Bill. That being so—[Cries of "Divide, divide!" and Mr. T. M. HEALY, loudly: Order, order!]—what will be the effect of this clause? You are bringing in a Bill to bring happiness to Ireland, and in order to bring happiness to Ireland you are going to throw 8,000, 9,000, or 10,000 tenants scattered all over Ireland at the feet of their landlords, to deprive them of the benefits of your own Bill. I mean to say that 10,000 of these notices will be served directly this Bill is passed. You will have a fresh gang of discontented men in Ireland. Instead of bringing happiness to Ireland, the victims of the 4th clause will form a new association—will start a Plan of Campaign of their own. I warn the Government that they will find themselves this time next year——[Interruption.]

MR. T. M. HEALY

Get up and say what you have to say. [Loud cries of "Order, order!") I protest——

THE CHAIRMAN

I call upon hon. Gentlemen to keep silence, and must now call upon the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) to apologize and withdraw his words.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I have only one life to lose, and I will lose it.

THE CHAIRMAN

I again call upon the hon. and learned Member to withdraw and apologize.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr. Do Lisle) was talking and interrupting my hon. Friend. Gross interruptions came from him. Now, Mr. Courtney, I consider that, if I am to be called upon to apologize, an apology ought first to come from that Gentleman. Mr. Courtney, I have been suspended for a week once this Session, and if I am suspended again it will be for a fortnight. I shall be very sorry to be suspended at your hands; but let it be done.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have no alternative. The hon. and learned Gentleman declines to withdraw.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I do not say that, Sir. I said that the hon. Gentle- man the Member for Mid Leicestershire ought to be called upon to apologize first.

THE CHAIRMAN

I again call upon the hem. Gentleman to apologize; and I ask him also to withdraw his words.

MR. T. M. HEALT

We have been subjected to the grossest interruptions, not once, but many times. I claim at your hands the same protection as you are affording to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Are those Gentlemen to be allowed to insult us?

THE CHAIRMAN

Certainly not. I have interposed to prevent insult. On this occasion I called "Order, order!" when I heard the interruption, which was not a very loud one. I called "Order, order!" and if there had been any repetition of the disorder, I should have silenced it. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy; has interrupted in the most disorderly way, and I again call upon him to withdraw and apologize.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Very well, Sir; I withdraw the expression.

MR. HENNIKER HEATON (Canterbury)

Mr. Courtney, may I——

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

MR. DE LISLE (Leicestershire, Mid)

rose——

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I must inform the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Lough borough Division of Leicestershire (Mr. De Lisle) that his conduct is frequently disorderly. This incident is closed.

MR. DILLON

As far as I am personally concerned, I have never had the slightest reason to complain of the protection afforded to the Irish Members by you, Sir. When this unfortunate incident occurred, I was about to conclude my remarks. I was appealing to the Government not to add another monument to those of ignorance and incapacity which previous Governments have set up in regard to this matter, and I was warning the Government of the probability of their being called upon by this time next year to pass a Relief Bill for the men who Trill have been dispossessed and deprived of the benefits of this Hill by the operation of the 4th clause.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I desire to say one or two words before this clause is passed. As I understand the clause, the result will be to throw on the roadside 10,000 or 15,000 people. I have only to express a hope that every man who is put out will remember his oppressors.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

Let me draw the attention of the Committee to another of the stratagems and tricks which lie concealed in this infamous clause. There are at least 10,000 or 15,000 unfortunate men at present under the threat of eviction. They have judgments hanging over their heads for rents which Her Majesty's Government, by their Royal Commission, composed of three Tory landlords, have admitted to be unjust rents. As long as these men stand by their holdings they have at least the advantage of knowing that they are not deprived of the ordinary rights of citizenship, but have the right to exercise the franchise. Now, what is another of the infamous effects of the provisions contained in this clause. Upon the receipt of this notice tenants become caretakers. The day before a Registration Court sits in any county which may be shortly before an election contest, the landlords, by mere service of notices through the post, may degrade the Irish tenants to the position of caretakers, and deprive them of their right to vote.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fast that he has an Amendment on the Paper dealing with this point. When we come to his Amendment, the subject can be discussed; but he is not entitled to anticipate his own Amendment.

MR. CHANCE

I apologize for anticipating the Amendment, Sir. I understand that we were in a sense discussing the sub-section generally. In addition to that, Sir, I may frankly say that one of my objects in making my statement now was that I saw the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) showing signs of uneasiness, and I suspected I should not have an opportunity of going into the question later on.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 218; Noes 169: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 332.)

[12.0 MIDNIGHT.]