HC Deb 02 August 1894 vol 27 cc1586-605

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 4.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 38, after the word "house," to insert the words "or offices."—(Mr. Clancy.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'or offices,' be there inserted."

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

said, he hoped the Government had given consideration to the matter since last night, and had been able to arrive at a conclusion.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he had considered the point, and was prepared to accept the word "building" in place of "house."

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 38, to leave out "house," and insert "building."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

Amendment agreed to.

Similar Amendment agreed to in line 41.

MR. CLANCY

said, he wished to move, in page 3, line 41, after "house," to insert "or offices, or in sowing crops in or stocking the holding." It was ridiculous to send a restored tenant into a holding and leave him naked and unable to make use of his farm. But he did not want to waste the time of the Committee by arguing the matter. He simply made this observation in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, after the last Amendment, to insert the words "or offices, or in sowing crops in or stocking the holding."—(Mr. Clancy.)

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

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he was sorry to say the Government could not consent to extend the object for which these advances might be made. They had already distinctly declined to extend that object.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, he was sorry to hear this announcement. He believed Sir James Mathew's Commission had made a suggestion that a charge of this kind should be placed by the Guardians on the local rates. That seemed to him a matter that the Government might fairly take into account, leaving it entirely in the discretion of the Arbitrators. The right hon. Gentleman had announced that the Arbitrators would be a body who would have a general view over all these transactions. What difference, then, could it make to the Government, there being a good case for relief of this kind, if the Arbitrators were allowed to give it? The cases where it would be required might only be one, two, or three out of a large number; but in such cases he did not see why the Government should seek to restrict the view of the Arbitrators, especially as it was not proposed to make the operation mandatory.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, it was true this was one of the recommendations of the Commission, but there were other recommendations of that Commission which the Government had not been able to embody in the policy of the Bill. It seemed to him that the object of the Amendment was one which they might fairly expect the tenant's friends to effect for him.

MR. SEXTON

said, he was still unwilling to abandon the hope that the right hon. Gentleman might consent to adopt, if not the words of the Amendment, at all events some modification of them. He thought "sowing crops" and "stocking the holding" were large words, and it might be desirable to substitute, say, sowing the first crop. Might he remind the right hon. Gentleman of the position in which the incoming tenant would stand, and of the obligation which would lie upon him? He would have to provide in an ordinary case a year's rent for the landlord and half the sum to be paid to the outgoing tenant, which in some cases might be a considerable amount. These two payments would strain the resources of the incoming tenant. There were about 4,000 tenants. About 2,000 would have the means to sow their crops. Well, £5 or £10 a-piece to the others to enable them to crop their holdings would only mean some £20,000. That would be a small sum to deduct from the £250,000. He did not suppose that one year's rent would amount to more than £20 per tenant, on an average, or a total of £80,000. That would leave £170,000 out of which to satisfy the new tenants. A considerable sum would be left after those tenants were satisfied. Of course, if there was no money left, the Arbitrators would not make grants for cropping; but if there was money left, surely the Arbitrators might be allowed a discretion as to whether or not it should be advanced for cropping the holdings.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he assented to the hon. Member's view that if the Arbitrators had not the money they could not make the advance. But the hon. Member forgot how many applicants for assistance there were likely to be under the Bill. It would not be a wise thing to leave the Arbitrators open to the temptation to make larger grants to some tenants than to others.

MR. SEXTON

said, there were 4,000 evicted tenants, each of whom would probably receive about £20, which would make £80,000. There were 1,500 planters who would receive about three years' rent, or £60 each, making £90,000. The £80,000 and the £90,000 would together amount to £170,000, leaving a balance of £80,000, out of which a grant of £20 could be made to each tenant if necessary for a first year's crop. There were many who would not require anything, so that even after this there would be a large surplus left.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, that in cases where there had been a large mass of tenants evicted the calls upon their neighbours would have been heavy. They knew that charity grew cold after a great many years, even in regard to the most deserving cases. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said he did not wish to impose upon the Arbi- trators the temptation to use their funds improvidently. As they had trusted so much to the discretion of the Arbitrators they might go a little further, and trust them to husband their resources. He fancied the way they would work would be this: The landlord would in some cases give his consent; then an order would be made for restoring the tenant. At the moment of restoration an order would be made as to the amount of grant that would be necessary in connection with the order for restoration. The second matter of grant would not form a portion of the first order, but would be held over. The Commissioners would be anxious to see what the total amount of claim on them would be, and what drain there would be on their resources. Under the circumstances, it did not seem unreasonable to say in the Bill that the Commissioners at such and such times should have power to make such and such grant for seeding purposes. The right hon. Gentleman should not forget that Lord Beaconsfield had provided some thousands of pounds for Turkish refugees for the purpose of enabling them to seed their land—a strong order for a British Prime Minister to make in regard to the inhabitants of a foreign country. This was not a large matter, and he hoped the Government would make the concession.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, it was true that this was not a large matter. On the previous day he had undertaken to consider between this and the Report whether he could carry out the view of the hon. Member for South Tyrone as to migration. He indicated that he was not himself very sanguine as to the operation being possible, but the intimation that he would consider how far he could entertain this proposal met with great favour from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. He would like to observe that a small amount devoted to the purposes of migration would derange the calculation made by the hon. Member for North Kerry.

SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

said, he thought that this question deserved most serious consideration. If the tenants were to be reinstated, and funds were to be devoted to provide buildings, as the House had already determined, the acceptance of the present proposal was but a small step further, and might be the means of rendering this Bill, if passed, really effective. He would point out that in all the efforts, private and public, in connection with the subject of the dispossessed tenants, the provision of seed had always been an important element. It was one of the powers conferred on the Congested Districts Board, and it was one of those measures of relief which had been recognised equally by Members on either Front Bench. The provision of seed was one of the things recognised as necessary, and for that reason he thought there was strong ground for urging the Government to take this step. He wished to add a word coming direct from the evicted tenants themselves. He had seen many of the evicted tenants, who said that reinstatement without help in the way of stock and seed would be comparatively valueless. He still hoped with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Courtney) that there might be a possibility of a compromise on this question, and if such a result were happily arrived at this would prove a most useful power.

MR. W. REDMOND (Clare, E.)

said, it would be better for the prospects of the Bill and of the Government of Ireland that other Members of the Opposition should take the same view of this subject as the hon. Member who had just sat down (Sir A. Rollit), who had supported the Amendment. The action of the hon. Member was in strong contrast to that of hon. Members who by their absence had shown the Irish people, and the evicted tenants particularly, that they were absolutely indifferent to their fate. For his own part, he could not understand how it was that the Government refused to accept the Amendment. He did not believe the acceptance of it would mean the expenditure of a large sum of money. The Chief Secretary must know that there were cases of evicted tenants where it could not be necessary to expend much in repairing the property; and there were many cases where no such expenditure would be necessary, and where the balance which was proposed to allow the arbitrator to give might be spent in procuring seed for the tenant. The right hon. Gentleman might have had it brought under his notice that with regard to the tenants of Lord de Freyne, they were reinstated some time ago not by Act of Parliament, but nevertheless they were reinstated, and that in their case one of the chief difficulties was to procure money for providing them with seed and putting crops into the land. The money was provided at the time in the case of those tenants, but he was sorry to say that since then the crops had been wantonly destroyed by the landlord. Would not the right hon. Gentleman opposite say that it was reasonable that where money was obtainable for buildings, and where they were not necessary, the funds might be expended in assisting the tenants to go back to their farms to crop them and to work them? He could not see why this amount should be confined to the repair of buildings alone, and why it was not just as reasonable to ask that if money of this kind was to be granted to help the tenant to settle again it should not be given to him to help him to crop his land. He hoped the hon. Member for North Dublin would go to a Division on this matter, because the Chief Secretary had given no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, that if the Amendment were pressed to a Division he should vote with the Irish Members, because he thought the position of the Government was, most illogical. He was not a hearty supporter of the Bill, but he did think that if there were tenants who were to be reinstated it was no use acting in a half-hearted fashion. They were going to lend money for rebuilding houses, but they were refusing grants for what was much more important—namely, re-stocking the farms and buying seed. He had said on previous occasions that there were certain tenants who ought to be reinstated, and his view was that the thing ought to be done thoroughly well and not in a half-hearted way.

MR. T. M. HEALY

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not put them to the trouble of dividing against him. Their request did not amount to a very large order.

MR. SEXTON

suggested that the Chief Secretary should consider between this and the Report whether it was not possible to accept the Amendment. They might be able in conference to satisfy him that the financial objections were not insuperable.

MR. J. MORLEY

In view of the pressure that seems to come from all parts of the House, I will consent to consider this matter, and, if possible, come to an arrangement.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CLANCY

moved to amend Clause 4 by striking out the words limiting the grant to £50 and inserting words enabling the Arbitrators to make a grant of such sum as they might think fit. He said it appeared to him that if the Government refused to accept such an Amendment as this they would be showing a very poor opinion of the three gentlemen whom they proposed to appoint as Arbitrators. Surely they must leave it to these gentlemen to decide whether the sum of £50 should not be increased in special cases. There were many cases on which not nearly £50 would be required. In some cases perhaps not even £10 would be asked for, but there were a few cases in which £50 would not meet the requirements. He thought it would be a most ridiculous thing if they could not trust to the discretion of the Arbitrators, and if they could not give them a perfectly free discretion and a free hand in the matter.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 41, to leave out the words "a sum not exceeding fifty pounds," and insert the words "such sum as they may deem fit."—(Mr. Clancy.)

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

MR. J. MORLEY

I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. No doubt in many cases £100 would not be an excessive grant, and if we were dealing with an unlimited amount I should be glad to give it. But the sum at my disposal is small, and might possibly be subject to a treble demand for arrears, compensation, and dilapidations, and I therefore cannot afford to make the grant more than £50.

MR. W. REDMOND (Clare, E.)

said, he thought that the Government might very well have left this matter to the discretion of the Arbitrators. It was presumed that they were reasonable and impartial men, and he could not understand why the Chief Secretary should hamper their powers on such a point as this. There were many cases in which £50 would not be sufficient, and if the matter were left to the Arbitrators he did not think any harm could be done. Surely they might be expected to keep their eye on the public money quite as well as the Chief Secretary. He did hope the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, and not merely meet it in an amiable way and with a pleasant smile by announcing that he would consider it before the Report stage. While he gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for good intentions, he was bound to say the promise to consider the matter before the Report stage was not a very alluring one, because they might anticipate when the Report stage was reached that the Chief Secretary would come to them with an equally amiable manner, but without his smile, and say that he would not accept the Amendment.

MR. J. REDMOND (Waterford)

said, he could understand the right hon. Gentleman standing out for some limit with the view of checking undue expenditure on the part of the Arbitrators, but he could not understand how it was that when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to set apart only £100,000 for the purpose he had the limit of £50; and yet now, when he had increased the sum to £250,000, he still retained the same limit.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, the argument was a very ingenious one; but his reply was that, though he was only able to put £100,000 in the Bill originally, he had hoped from the first to make the sum larger. Considering how far the Government had gone in putting this proposal in the Bill—and £50 was no inconsiderable sum—he hoped hon. Members would not press the Amendment to a Division. He would relieve the hon. Member for East Clare on this occasion by stating that he could not even promise to reconsider his decision before Report.

MR. SEXTON

said, he believed that in most cases £50 would be found to be sufficient, but he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible, while fixing a limit for ordinary cases, to give the Arbitrators a discretion in cases where in their opinion special and exceptional circumstances existed.

MR. J. MORLEY

thought these special and exceptional cases ought to be met by Irish generosity. Did not hon. Members see what an invitation the Amendment, if carried, would be to put pressure on the Arbitrators? He thought it better that that pressure should be faced now. Surely they had some right to expect that such cases should be assisted by Irish generosity and local organisation.

MR. W. REDMOND

said, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the object of the Amendment was to extend the limit of £50 in all cases, but that was not their intention. They knew there were some cases in which £50 would not be sufficient; but he thought, bearing in mind that in other cases so much under £50 would suffice, they might in a few cases allow the limit to be extended beyond £50.

SIR G. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)

was understood to suggest to hon. Members from Ireland that the extension of the limit beyond £50 would seriously restrict the chances of dealing with the claims of the general body of tenants.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 54.—(Division List, No. 207.)

Clause 5.

On Motion of Mr. J. MORLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 4, line 2, leave out, "one hundred," and insert "two hundred and fifty."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

MR. J. MORLEY

moved, in page 4, line 16, after the word "say," to insert— Piers Francis White, one of Her Majesty's Counsel in Dublin; George Fottrell, solicitor, Clerk of the Crown for the County and City of Dublin; and Edward Greer, solicitor and legal Assistant Commissioner to the Irish Land Commission. He said, the Arbitrators would have power to make their own rules as to the form of their procedure.

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

DR. KENNY

moved an Amendment to omit the second paragraph of Subsection 4, which provides that, subject to the regulations of the Treasury, the Arbitrators should employ the examiners and valuers of the Land Commission in carrying out the measure. He confessed that he felt little confidence in those officials.

Amendment proposed, to leave out paragraph 2 of Sub-section 4.—(Dr. Kenny.)

Question proposed, "That paragraph 2 stand part of the Clause."

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he certainly could not assent to the Amendment.

MR. CLANCY

asked the right hon. Gentleman to give some reason for his refusal.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, that a great saving both of time and money would be secured by employing the examiners and valuers of the Land Commission. Otherwise, a very heavy charge would be incurred, and without the prospect of getting better men for the work. The matter had been carefully considered.

MR. SEXTON

said, he recognised that expedition in applying the measure was a point of great importance; and as the appointment of other examiners and valuers might cause considerable delay, he should not support the Amendment.

MR. T. M. HEALY

thought that, under the circumstances, the Government had adopted a reasonable course in the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

said, that on the Second Reading of the Bill he understood the Chief Secretary, when referring to the conduct and duties of the Arbitrators, to intimate that they might sit in private. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had thought the matter out, or spoke merely from personal impression, but he confessed that he heard the remark with some surprise, and, from such attention as he had been able to give to the question, it appeared to him that it would be most undesirable that the Arbitrators should conduct their proceedings in pri- vate. Considering the difficulties that might arise, and the differences that might have to be decided upon as between petitioner and respondent, he feared that, if the Arbitrators sat and discussed in private, their judgments might not be received with the confidence they ought to be—that the defeated party might, in such circumstances, easily give currency to unfair and inaccurate statements regarding the action of the Arbitrators, and thus cause much dissatisfaction.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he had taken great pains to ascertain the opinion of persons of great weight and experience in Dublin on the point raised by his right hon. Friend, and their judgment was that it would be better to conduct the proceedings in private than in public, for very often in cases of this kind the publicity of the proceedings between the parties were burnished up and exaggerated by public prints, which naturally caused exasperation. He understood that in England Courts of Arbitration were almost invariably private. He reminded the Committee that as the Bill stood it would be in the discretion of the Arbitrators to hold their Court in public or in private. No doubt if they thought a case required publicity they would hear it in public. He thought the matter might be safely left to the discretion of the Arbitrators.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, he thought that, in the interests of the landlords as well as of the tenants, the Arbitrators' Courts should be public. Undoubtedly there were "wastrel" tenants who did not deserve any consideration, and if a man sought the benefits of the Bill and the protection of the Court, whose disasters had been brought about simply by his own misconduct, the landlord should be able to publicly show this. There should be no ground for suspicion that the Arbitrators had been "ear-wigged" beforehand to take particular cases in private. The rule should be for the Courts to be public unless the parties desired the proceedings to be private.

MR. CLANCY

said, that it would be impossible to keep the proceedings of the Courts private. If any attempt were made to do so, unauthorised—and perhaps incorrect—reports of what occurred would appear regularly in next day's newspapers.

MR. SEXTON

said, that the proceedings of the Courts should be public, to avoid unfounded apprehensions and suspicions. The decisions of the Court would command more public respect if given publicly. He was firmly convinced that the interests of landlords and tenants and the community would be best secured by accepting the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney), whose suggestions were generally sound and well-considered.

SIR A. ROLLIT

said, he agreed in the argument that, generally speaking, the Arbitrators' Courts should be public.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, many authorities in Ireland were in favour of the proceedings of the Courts being private, but after the expression of opinion in the House he would further consider the matter.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7.

MR. J. MORLEY

moved, in page 5, line 29, at end, insert— The expression 'holding' means a holding as defined in The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, which is agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral, in its character, unless the tenancy in such holding has been decided under The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, or any Act amending or incorporating the same, to be a tenancy within the exceptions set forth in Section 58 of the said Act of 1881.

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

MR. T. M. HEALY

pointed out that a sub-let holding would be excluded from the scope of the Arbitrators' powers. There were a number of cases in which it had been held that where the lease of a farm contained a covenant that the tenant should give up five acres if the landlord required it for a church or for cottages, and that covenant had been acted upon, the holding would be excluded from the benefits of the Land Act. The Government proposed to import into this Bill all the decisions disqualifying tenants from availing themselves of the provisions of the Land Acts, and to make the evicted tenants the victims of those decisions. It seemed to him that the Amendment, if adopted in its present form, would absolutely stereotype eviction. It seemed to him that, whoever advised the Government to bring in this Amend- ment, had taken a most unwise course. It was because the Land Act had not been sufficiently general in its application all over Ireland that so many evictions had taken place, and yet it was proposed to exclude from the provisions of this Bill every tenant who had not had the benefit of the Land Act. The result of adopting the Amendment would in his judgment be that every tenant who was excluded from the Acts of 1881 and 1887 as a result of the decisions to which he had alluded would be now held to be incapable of getting the benefit of the Arrears Act, and would practically be regarded as an outlaw from an agrarian point of view.

MR. SEXTON

said, this was a very difficult and complicated matter, and he doubted whether the precise effect of the phrases used in the Amendment was within the comprehension of any layman; but he had given them the best consideration in his power, and he thought they were open to comment. The definition of a "holding" in the Land Act of 1881 was "a parcel of land," and the Solicitor General (Sir R. Reid) said that a parcel of land might be held to denote a house. If this was the difficulty to be cured, it could be cured by a less elaborate definition. He feared that the introduction of this definition might have serious consequences in the case of some tenants who would otherwise be entitled to re-admission under the Bill. There were two questions which ought to be kept separate: The first was, as to what tenants had a right to re-instatement? That was a question very proper for the Arbitrators to consider. The second was, what was the legal status of a tenant in regard to a fair rent? This was a subject which need not be treated before the re-admission of the tenant, but might be dealt with afterwards. Yesterday two Amendments were inserted in the Bill, one of them providing that the tenant after re-instatement should have the same kind of tenancy as he would have had if he had not been evicted, and the other providing as to the persons who might have their rents fixed. Under these Amendments the future tenant would be entitled to re-admission, although he never had a right to have a fair rent fixed. If the present Amendment were carried certain classes of present tenants or persons who would have been present tenants if they had not been evicted would be placed in a worse position under this Bill than that which the future tenant would occupy. The closing words of the Amendment were— unless the tenancy in such holding has been decided under The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, or any Act amending or incorporating the same, to be a tenancy within the exceptions set forth in Section 58 of the said Act of 1881. The exceptions of Section 58 did not apply at all to the future tenant, because they only related to the fixing of fair rent. When the present tenant came forward it would be considered whether he was a person entitled to have a fair rent fixed. The Arbitrators would be obliged, owing to the wording of this Amendment, to decide against a man who might otherwise have a fair rent fixed. This, he thought, was a conclusive reason against the insertion of the latter part of the Amendment. Of course, it was clear enough that the Bill intended that the man to be restored to his holding was to be a farmer and not a townsman; but if the Legislature laid on the Arbitrators a strict obligation to say whether the holding was agricultural or pastoral, it laid upon them the duty of deciding a most complicated legal question. If the decision were given against the landlord, he might set the law in operation against them on the ground that they had decided a question of law against the true meaning of the law. The difficulty would be got over if the Amendment were so altered as to make the opinion of the Arbitrators on the subject final and if the second part of it were left out.

SIR R. T. REID

said, this was a purely legal question. It was contended that the words proposed by the Government might have the effect of narrowing the possibility of reinstatement, thereby excluding some of those cases which had been already decided, and putting the evicted tenant in a worse position than the future tenant. That certainly was the intention of the Government; but as the questions had been raised, he would not ask the Committee to accept the Amendment at the present stage, but would suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite should assist him to get words which would be unobjectionable. It was, of course, a mere question of legal definition.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8.

SIR A. HAYTER (Walsall)

suggested that the short title of the Bill should be altered to "Restoration of Tenants (Arbitration) Bill." The Bill dealt with other tenants besides those who had been evicted, and he thought it would be better to omit the word "Evicted."

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Evicted," in order to insert the words "Restoration of."—(Sir A. Hayter.)

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

MR. T. M. HEALY

suggested that the short title of the Bill could be altered in the Office without the intervention of the House.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that was not the case. If it were thought needful to alter the short title, it must be done in Committee.

MR. SEXTON

observed that in his opinion the best title would be "Former Tenants (Arbitration) Bill."

MR. J. MORLEY

I do not see why we should not make the short title "Tenants Arbitration (Ireland) Bill."

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, after "arbitration" to insert ("Ireland").—(Mr. J. Morley.)

Question, "That ('Ireland') be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

SIR R. T. REID

moved, in page 5, after Clause 6, to insert the following clause:—

(Application of Act.)

  1. "(1) Where it appears to the Arbitrators that the tenancy in a holding is held for the landlord, or that a person is in occupation of the holding as the nominee of the landlord, they shall deal with the tenancy, and this Act shall apply in like manner as if the tenancy had been determined and the holding were in the occupation of the landlord.
  2. (2) Where it appears to the Arbitrators that part of a holding is in the occupation of the landlord and part in the occupation of a new tenant, they shall deal with each part, and this 1601 Act shall apply in like manner as if it were a separate holding, and the former rent of each part were such portion of the former rent of the whole holding of the Arbitrators fix."

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. T. M. HEALY

pointed out that the case of a letting for temporary convenience had been omitted. It seemed to him absolutely necessary that a mere letting for temporary convenience should not exclude the action of the Arbitrators, and he would, therefore, move that there should be inserted after the second "landlord" in Sub-section 1, or that a letting has been made for temporary convenience by the Land Judges' Court or otherwise. It had always been held, since Mr. Justice Butt gave his famous opinion, that all lettings by the Land Court were for temporary convenience. They came to an end the moment the holding was sold, and at the longest they could only last for seven years. The Act of 1887 enabled a tenancy to be broken by other means than that of shelving him out. The tenant had six months in which to redeem, and frequently the landlord made a letting for temporary convenience. As it was in the option of the landlord still to avail of that old process where the value was over £100, the mere letting for six months during which the redemption might be running would exclude the action of the Arbitrators. It seemed necessary, therefore, that some provision in the case of lettings made for temporary convenience on these evicted farms should be provided for.

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

Amendment proposed to the proposed new Clause, in line 3, after the word "landlord," to insert the words— or that the letting has been made for temporary convenience by the Land Judges' Court or otherwise."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed new Clause."

SIR R. T. REID

said, the object of the hon. and learned Member was to prevent the compulsory powers of the Act being made nugatory by the fact that the landlord had let the holding for "temporary convenience."

MR. T. M. HEALY

That is the expression used in the Land Act.

SIR R. T. REID

said, that no doubt that might be a legal term in Ireland, but it was not in this country. It was to be presumed that the hon. Gentleman meant by "a letting for temporary convenience" some arrangement which did not create a tenancy. It was obvious that it was not intended that such an arrangement should prevent the compulsory powers of the Act coming into force. He thought that a temporary letting would amount to the landlord being in occupation, and, if that were so, the Amendment would not be necessary. At any rate, it was impossible, on the spur of the moment, to accept an Amendment of this character. If the hon. and learned Gentleman thought there was room for doubt he would consider the matter before Report.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, the law in Ireland was rather different from what the hon. and learned Gentleman had outlined. Letting for a man's whole life in Ireland had been held to be a letting for temporary convenience. It was, therefore, necessary to be rather guarded in these matters. There was something to be considered why they should not insert the words "letting for temporary convenience," leaving the other questions to a later stage of the Bill. He hoped the Government would see their way to accepting those words.

SIR R. T. REID

said, he supposed what the hon. Gentleman meant by the words was some arrangement which did not create a tenancy. It was obvious that it was not intended that such an arrangement should prevent the compulsory powers of the Act coming into force. He thought that that would amount to a case of the landlord being in occupation, and, if that were so, the Amendment would not be necessary. It was impossible on the spur of the moment to accept an Amendment of this character; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman thought it was not clear it should be made clear upon Report.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, he would accept the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SEXTON

thought some change was necessary in the language of the second paragraph, because in the fourth line of that paragraph the word "it" was ambiguous, and he would therefore move to omit the word "it," and insert the words "each part."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. CLANCY

moved the following clause standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin (Mr. Harrington):—

(Voluntary agreements.)

If within one year of the passing of this Act a joint petition with respect to any tenancy of a holding described in Section 1 of this Act be presented to the Arbitrators by the landlord and the former tenant, or by the landlord, former tenant, and new tenant, showing that since the passing of this Act a voluntary agreement has been entered into between the parties by which the former tenant is reinstated in the holding, the Arbitrators may give to the parties respectively such terms as to arrears of rent, compensation, and grant for building as they are empowered to do by this Act in the case of a petition by the former tenant.

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. J. MORLEY

As I understand it, the clause which my hon. and learned Friend moves is that wherever the landlord, former tenant, and the new tenant agree, or, in case there should be no new tenant, the landlord and the old tenant may come to an agreement reinstating the former tenant in the holding, then the arbitrator may give to the parties respectively—that is to say, the landlord and the new tenant, if there be one—such terms as to arrears of rent, compensation, and grant for building as they are empowered to do by this Act in the case of a petition by the former tenant—that is to say, the voluntary agreement between the parties would give them the benefit of this Act. No doubt that would facilitate the question, but one would have to be quite sure, and the Arbitrators would have to have full powers left them to enable them to make quite sure there was nothing like collusion—that these were bonâ fide cases; otherwise, of course, the purposes of the Act would be frustrated. Unless we find it necessary to insert other words, which we may find it necessary to do afterwards, I think there are objections to the clause.

MR. CLANCY

said, he was free to admit that collusion and fraud should be prevented, and if the right hon. Gentleman had any words to insert to make it plain he should be glad to accept them.

SIR A. ROLLIT

thought that all would approve of the principle of this clause, which was to facilitate voluntary arrangements; but it appeared to him, as drawn, to be open to another objection which was more serious than the one that had been raised—namely, that this course could be taken by the Commissioners, not on the petition, as in the Bill, of the landlord and the former and the new tenant, but, by the wording of the clause, by the landlord and the former tenant only, and that would exclude the new tenant. He would therefore suggest that at the end of the third line, after "former tenant," they should insert the words— or if there be a new tenant, then by the landlord, former tenant, and new tenant.

MR. J. MORLEY

I think the object we have in view is the same. If the hon. and learned Member will withdraw this clause we will undertake to bring up a clause in our own words which, while meeting the wishes of the hon. and learned Member, will be less open to objection.

MR. SEXTON

thought it was necessary to provide against fraud and collusion, and he also thought it would be necessary to provide that the former tenant should be a person out of occupation at the time of the passing of the Act.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, he wished the Government also to consider before the Report stage this further point. There might be such a case that the landlord and the new tenant objected, and therefore the old tenant would be debarred from all hope; but the new tenant might be willing, if he got some sum which otherwise the landlord or the new tenant would get, to depart and surrender all his claims in the holding. It seemed to him that peace might be preserved by this means, and that it would be very desirable both in the interests of the landlord and the old tenant. Where the landlord objected and the new tenant objected, then apparently the former tenant would take no benefit under this Bill, and therefore he thought there was a necessity for provision to be made and a warning given to the former tenant, if he were willing to surrender his claims, which might not be very large, on the holding, if such a case arose, he might be entitled to be awarded such sum as, had the landlord and the new tenant acceded to the petition, they would have got in his place. He hoped in the interests of peace that upon Report the Government might be able to do this.

MR. J. MORLEY

moved— Title, page 1, leave out "of evicted tenants to their holdings in Ireland," and insert "to their holdings in Ireland of certain former tenants or their personal representatives.

MR. SEXTON

thought that the word "their" before "holdings" might cause some difficulty. They had ceased to be the tenants, and the holdings were no longer theirs; therefore, he thought it would be better to omit the word "their."

MR. J. MORLEY

We considered that point, and came to the conclusion that it was better as we have proposed it.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill reported, with an amended Title; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 346.]