CONSIDERATION.

HC Deb 06 August 1894 vol 28 cc149-80

Bill, as amended, considered.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he rose, in pursuance of an understanding to which he was a party on Thursday last, to move a clause dealing with a voluntary agreement. The object of it was that where there was a voluntary agreement arrived at between the landlord and an evicted tenant the Arbitrators should have power to deal with the matter as if there had not been an agreement and as if proceedings had taken place in the manner set out in the first clause of the Bill. He thought that the House would see that the effect of the new clause would be—certainly the design was—to encourage and facilitate voluntary agreements. If they should be fortunate enough to find landlords and tenants in the mood towards one another which it was hoped would prevail, and which was indispensable if the Bill was to have the effect it was desired to have, they would agree that this provision would tend to facilitate settlements.

New Clause— (Voluntary agreement.) If within one year after the commencement of this Act a petition with respect to any holding in which a former tenant can be reinstated by an order of the Arbitrators under this Act is presented to the Arbitrators jointly by the landlord and the former tenant, and also, if there is a new tenant, by such new tenant, stating that a voluntary agreement between the parties for the reinstatement in the holding of the former tenant has been entered into, and the Arbitrators are satisfied that such agreement is to the like effect as an order which they could make under this Act, and has been entered into bonâ fide, they may in their discretion make an order for carrying into effect such agreement, subject to such conditions or variations as they think fit, and thereupon the provisions of this Act shall apply in like manner as in the case of any other order of the Arbitrators for reinstatement under this Act."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

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

wished to know if it was the right hon. Gentleman's view that under this clause or any portion of the Bill, assuming that an order should have been made against the tenant on any ground, the tenant would be able to apply a second or a third time in case there might be a change of view on the part of the new tenant or landlord? He did not know if that was contemplated. It might well be that the landlord or the tenant might change his mind, and it might be possible not to regard an order if once made as of such a general character as to debar or stop further proceedings in case of change of view.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, it seemed to him that the point was met by provisions as they originally stood.

SIR R. T. REID

said, that if the Arbitrator refused to make an order in the case of the landlord being in occupation, or the new tenant being in occupation, the decision would be binding between the parties so far as any compulsory or judicial proceedings were concerned. But even in that case if both parties subsequently saw fit to change their view, repenting of the course they had taken, and desired to arrive at a settlement, the clause now before the House would enable them to act as though no order had been made.

MR. SEXTON

said, he should have thought that whatever might be done in a case where the landlord showed cause, and where on his showing cause the petition was dismissed, that at any rate in the case of the new tenant where he only objected and the merits of the case were not gone into, that subsequently the merits might be considered. Where the landlord objected it might be a hardship that the matter was at an end; but if the objection was by the tenant and the landlord did not intervene, he (Mr. Sexton) should suppose that it would be open for the former tenant at a future date to embark in a new petition.

SIR R. T. REID

said, his view was that if objection was withdrawn there was no necessity to bar proceedings. But as long as objection was raised it must stay proceedings.

MR. SEXTON

On withdrawal of objection the proceeding would go on in the ordinary way?

SIR R. T. REID

Yes.

MR. SEXTON

said, the clause was discussed in Committee, and the danger pointed out was that it might perhaps be used by collusive agreement between the parties to secure the benefit of the funds provided under the Act. He should be glad to hear that the section was limited to holdings either in the occupation of the landlord on the 19th April, 1894—the date of the introduction of the Bill—or of a new tenant other than the tenant who had been evicted. If the intention of the clause was clearly set forth collusion need not be feared.

SIR R. T. REID

said, that only the cases of those tenants who would be reinstated under Section 1 were in contemplation.

Motion agreed to.

Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he now desired to move the Migration Clause, and in doing so it was not necessary to say many words on the subject. The suggestion was first thrown out in Debate by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Carson), and it was subsequently embodied in an Amendment by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). The wording of that Amendment he (Mr. J. Morley) had not found quite satisfactory; but even in the form in which he was now submitting it, so far as he himself was concerned, he did not expect great results from the proposal. The Congested Districts Board during the two years he had had an intimate knowledge of their proceedings had found it difficult to get land for migration purposes. Very little land, for reasons which were obvious, was accessible; therefore, he frankly confessed that he did not expect that any great good would flow from the clause. But, at the same time, it was quite worth while to leave the door open for such proceedings. If the Arbitrators were lucky enough to find adjacent to the holdings of evicted tenants a little crop of vacant farms, it would be desirable that they should have power to put the tenants on to them. Anxious to make the Act as flexible as possible, and to give as many opportunities for reinstatement in any shape or form compatible with justice, he begged to move the new clause. He might say that the added portion was due to certain technical points raised and the limitation of the amount which the Commissioners had at their disposal by the Act of 1891.

New Clause— (Migration.) (1) In order to provide for eases in which new tenants object to an order for reinstatement of former tenants, the Arbitrators may recommend to the Land Commission the purchase of land for the purpose of providing holdings for such former tenants, and thereupon the Land Commission may purchase any land for such purpose, and may issue guaranteed land stock for the payment of the purchase money, and may re-sell the said land to the former tenants in such portions and subject to such conditions as they may think expedient, and for these purposes may exercise all the powers conferred on them by the Land Purchase Acts, as defined by The Land Purchase (Ireland) Act, 1891, and upon any such former tenant agreeing to purchase, the said Acts shall apply as if such former tenant had been the occupying tenant of the lands which he agrees to purchase. (2) Rules may be made by the Treasury for adapting to the purposes of this section the enactments of the said Land Purchase Acts respecting the purchase of estates by the Land Commission, and respecting advances by means of guaranteed land stock, and otherwise for carrying into effect this section. (3) But nothing in this section or the said rules shall authorise the creation of guaranteed land stock in excess of the amount authorised by The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

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

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman had put in the same condition as was contained in Clause 2 as to the guarantee deposit of one-fifth the new section could be got to work. There was a talk as to the difficulty of obtaining laud, but he fancied there was a sufficiency of vacant laud in the Landed Estates Court which the land-lords would be glad to sell if it were not for this restriction as to one-fifth and other restrictions in the Laud Purchase Act of 1891.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, that as the hon. and learned Member was aware, the Congested Districts Board had power to acquire land, and there was a Bill before the House to enable the Board to acquire land without making the guarantee deposits. There was a provision that in case there was a default, the Land Commissioners could come down on the annual income of the Congested Districts Board to make it good. In the present case he did not see who they could enable the Land Commissioners to come down on. They felt the necessity of this in the case of the selling landlord, but he saw great difficulty in the way of the insertion of such a provision in the present case.

MR. SEXTON

said, there would be great disparity between the case of purchase by tenants of old holdings under the Act and the purchase of new holdings, and the obligation of the landlords to leave a fifth of the purchase money as a guarantee deposit would render operations under the clause very difficult. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out with perfect accuracy that when the full purchase-money was paid over to the landlord under the ordinary operations of the Bill the Land Commission could come down on the Church Temporalities Fund in case of default. But he would point out that under the Laud Purchase Act of 1891, in the last resort, defaults could be made good by a levy upon the local rates, and it was worth considering at this late stage of the Bill whether, if there were a general consent, it might not be as well to facilitate the working of this clause by providing that any default—which possibly would be infinitesimal and probably non-existent—might in the same way be made good by a levy on the rates. It would be a great pity if a provision so vital as that contained in this clause were rendered inoperative by the unwillingness of the landlord to sell in consequence of having to put down one-fifth of the money as a guarantee deposit. He desired to allude to a very important defect in the clause, which would go far to render it inadequate for its purpose. The clause as it stood only provided for cases in which the new tenant objected to an order for reinstatement. These were the minority of the cases. The largest calculation he had seen of the number of new tenants put them down as 1,500, and there were 4,000 farms concerned in the sphere of operations of the Bill. In the case of 1,500 farms, if the new tenants objected to retire in favour of the old tenants, then the latter could be moved to unoccupied lands to be purchased by the Land Commission, and upon which they would be provided with new farms. But there were 2,500 other tenants who might be ousted, not by the objection of the new tenants, but where the landlord successfully showed cause against their reinstatement, and where the reasons which might be judged to have enabled him to so succeed might have no bearing on the hardship done to the tenant by eviction or on the equity of restoring him. He submitted, therefore, that a tenant in the case where the farm was vacant, and the landlord opposed him successfully, had in equity as good a right to be provided with lands as that tenant had in the case where a new tenant objected. The hardship was the same in both cases, and the Arbitrators, at any rate, ought not to be prevented—as they would be by the clause as it stood—from dealing with such cases, but should have the option of providing land when a tenant was kept out by the opposition of the landlord, just as well as by the opposition of the new tenant. To make the Bill equitable in its working he would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would consent to this Amendment: After the words "reinstatement of former tenants," in the second line of the clause, to insert the words or in which the Arbitrators, after hearing the patties under Section 1 of this Act, dismiss the petition for reinstatement.

MR. SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member desire to move an Amendment?

MR. SEXTON

No. I only ask if the Government would assent to this suggestion.

SIR R. T. REID

said, the contemplated Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would, of course, effect a considerable alteration in the Bill. The position was this: In the case where the landlord was now in occupation the Arbitrators had power to investigate the merits and, if they thought fit, they might apply the compulsory powers, and compel the landlord, whether he pleased or not, to dispossess himself and reinstate the former tenant. In the case where the new tenant entered an objection, his objection was final and conclusive, and therefore it might well be—and indeed was much more likely—that in the second class of cases instances of hardship would exist rather than in the first class. In the first class there was the compulsory element for dealing with their cases; in the case of the second class there was an entire absence of compulsory power. If they were to say that, notwithstanding the existence of compulsory powers, the Arbitrators might be free to use these migratory powers in cases where the landlord was in occupation it would tend rather to dispose the Arbitrators to use the second instead of the first remedy. If they had this alternative course, to which the Land Commissioners could have recourse, it might make it less probable that the former tenants would be reinstated in their holdings. The provision had not been successful in the Land Purchase Act, and under the circumstances he thought it better to confine the migratory power to those cases in which there were no compulsory powers already existing. He hoped the hon. Member would not move the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, he desired to move an Amendment widening the scope of the clause. He agreed with the Solicitor General that it would be dangerous to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kerry. After the merits of the cases of the evicted tenants had been submitted to the Arbitrators and decided it would be dangerous to allow them to be re-opened. There was just one case where probably a grievance would arise in the case of the tenant evicted by the small landlord who entered on the land himself and improved it. In a case of that kind the Arbitrators would find themselves in a difficulty. The merits of the landlord would be exceptional—he would have improved the laud since the eviction—and the Arbitrators would be unwilling to dispossess the landlord, who would be practically a new tenant. But these would be extreme cases. He did not think that half-a-dozen of them would be likely to arise. The Amendment he wished to move was, after the word "Arbitrator" in the second line, to insert— shall ascertain the value of the tenant right of the former tenant at the date of his eviction and award him such compensation as, in their opinion, he is entitled to, having regard to arrears of rent for which he was dispossessed; and they shall determine in what proportion such compensation is to be paid respectively by the new tenant, the landlord, and the Arbitrators themselves, out of the moneys at their disposal for the purposes of this Act. This would give the Arbitrators power to confer on the old tenant pecuniary compensation as an alternative to finding land for him.

MR. J. MORLEY (interrupting)

said, the Amendment did not arise on the clause under discussion.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, it was an alternative to the method of compensation proposed in the clause. The tenant right of a holding might have been fixed at £500. The tenant might have been evicted for non-payment of £50—one year's rent—indeed, under certain circumstances, he might have been cleared out for half a year's rent. He would have been deprived of his holding, and what he (Mr. Harrington) now proposed was that the landlord and the new tenant who had got the benefit of the evicted tenant's tenant-right beyond the sum of £50 should compensate the man in respect of it.

MR. SPEAKER (interrupting)

This is an alternative to the scheme of migration, and would more properly come in as a distinct Amendment. It would be advisable not to mix up new matter with the migration scheme before the House. I do not know whether it would meet the hon. Member's view to propose his alternative plan at the end of Clause 4.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, he bowed to Mr. Speaker's ruling, but the Amendment of the Chief Secretary did not compensate in the same way as the plan he proposed. His reason for moving it here was that he desired to empower the Arbitrators to give compensation from three sources—from the landlord, if he had benefited from the tenant right; from the new tenant if he had also benefited; and from the funds at the disposal of the Arbitrators themselves.

MR. SPEAKER

I think the Amendment should come in at the place indicated.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, he would move to add words at the end of the clause in the sense he had indicated on the Second Reading, lie proposed to add— Sub-section (b) of Section 2 of this Act shall apply to sales under this section.

SIR R. T. REID

said, he thought better words would be to add, after "purchase," the words and the provisions of this Act as to guarantee deposit shall apply.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, the Irish Church Surplus Fund still continued a considerable sum, and if the words of the hon. and learned Member would give a charge on the fund similar to that of Section 2, he should be satisfied. Still, he thought his were against words to capture the Fund.

SIR R. T. REID

said, he had no doubt of the effect of the words he suggested.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, that being the case, he would not move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "and the provisions of this Act as to guarantee deposit shall apply."—(Sir R. T. Reid.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, he had the following New Clause on the Paper:— (Purchase of goodwill of former tenants.) Where the new tenant or the landlord objects to an order for reinstatement, or the former tenant agrees to accept a sum in lieu of reinstatement, the Arbitrators may take evidence of the value of the goodwill of the former tenant, and upon all claims on the holding being renounced by the former tenant, may award him such sum as they deem reasonable, regard being had to the amount which otherwise would have been paid to the landlord the new tenant and the former tenant under Section 4, Sub-section 2, of this Act, if an order for reinstatement had been made. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had accepted the Amendment in substance, and had put down words to the same effect. There was just this difference: that his (Mr. Healy's) proposal would give the former tenant the alternative of either letting the holding remain in the hands of the new tenant, or of getting a sum of money in lieu. He would discuss that when they came to the Amendment of the Chief Secretary.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he would move to insert in Clause 1 (application by tenant to Arbitrators and procedure thereon, where landlord remains in occupation), words limiting the application of the clause to holdings which, in the opinion of the Arbitrators, are agricultural or pastoral in their character, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral. The Amendment, he explained, was designed to meet an objection urged in Debate on the Second Reading, that even a house in a town might, under the Definition Clause of the Act of 1881, come under the operation of the Bill. The Amendment made it quite plain that the Act was only intended to apply to agricultural and pastoral holdings.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 5, after the word "Ireland," to insert the words— in the opinion of the Arbitrators under this Act, agricultural or pastoral in its character, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

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

MR. SEXTON

said, he understood that the effect of the words, having regard to the opinion of the Arbitrators under the Act, would be that the action of the Arbitrators would be final, and not liable to he questioned in a Court of Law. Any question as to the interpretation of the right of the tenant to a fair rent could only arise after reinstatement.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, the Amendment met the objection they took to the Amendment of the Solicitor General the other day. But it did not deal with the question of sub-letting. He had no doubt that under the word "holding," as it was proposed to be inserted in the Act, an evicted tenant who had sub-let would not come under the Statute, because "holding" would have the same meaning as under the Act of 1881. A tenant I under the Act of 1881, in order to be entitled to its benefits, had to be in possession of his holding, and the whole holding. He did not say that the Arbitrators would be bound by a technical view of that Act; but he was quite satisfied that, under a compulsory system, they would be restrained by injunction of the Court of Queen's Bench if they proceeded to deal with subject-matter in regard to which they had not jurisdiction. He thought, therefore, some provision was necessary to deal with the ironclad views which had been taken by the Courts as to the meaning of the word "holding"—to deal with the case of a holding which was partly sub-let, either at the time of the eviction or since. In case the Bill should fortunately be read a second time in another place, he asked the Chief Secretary to consider whether "holding" was a sufficiently elastic term. He had not seen the Amendments on the Notice Paper until this morning, and, therefore, had not had an opportunity of putting down Amendments.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he was not competent to say what would happen in other places, but he would consider the point.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 25, after the word "parties," to insert the words "in open Court or, if the parties so desire, in private."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

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

MR. DODD (Essex, Maldon)

said, he wished to draw attention to a point which was not met by the Amendment. He was one of those who thought that the proceedings before the Arbitrators should in general be in public. He recognised, however, that cases might come before the Arbitrators where the parties agreed that it would be well to have the matter dealt with in private. Both those states of affairs were dealt with in the Amendment. He would suggest, as a third course, that where the parties could not agree as to whether the proceedings should be in open Court or in private, the Arbitrators should have a power to make an order on the question.

MR. J. MORLEY

could not accept the suggestion, as it might be invidious to the Arbitrators.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. J. MORLEY

proposed to amend Sub-section 5 of Clause 1, which provides that the landlord or tenant may apply to have a fair rent fixed in the case of tenancies determined before the passing of the Act of 1881, by extending its provisions to leasehold tenancies determined before the passing of the Act of 1887.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 19, after the words "term," to insert the words— Or being held under a lease was determined before the passing of The Land Law (Ireland) Act. 1887."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

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

MR. SEXTON

said, the effect of the Amendment was that leaseholders evicted between 1879 and 1887 would be entitled to have fair rents fixed. He would invite attention to another point. Not only were there men who were present tenants before eviction, but there were also persons who would have become present tenants. He thought the rights of these men under the Bill should be the same as if they had continued in possession; and he would propose, after the word "apply," that these words should be added—"as if the former tenant had remained in possession." This Amendment could be dealt with after that of the Chief Secretary.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he thought the words proposed by the Government were right. They had been carefully considered. The Act of 1887 dealt only with leaseholders at the commencement of the Act, and the question now was, how were they to deal with leaseholders whose tenancies expired through being determined before the passing of the Act?

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, that such leaseholders by the 21st section of the Act of 1881 were to be deemed present tenants notwithstanding the expiration of the lease.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, there were two classes of tenants. The 21st section of the Act of 1881 gave all the advantages of that Act to leaseholders who expired down to 1887, but the Act of 1887 dealt with a different class of leases altogether—leases in different towns—so that they were leases which would not be covered.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. SEXTON

said, he was doubtful about the matter which the Attorney General had referred to. The Amendment had reference not to the Arbitrators, but to the Laud Courts. If the proposal had referred to the Arbitrators, who were not subject to strict rules of law, and could act on their discretion, he should be satisfied that the intention of the Government would be carried into effect. He did not think the studies of the Attorney General had given him complete familiarity with the subtleties and refinements of the Laud Courts in Ireland; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman knew as much as the Irish Members did about the extraordinary tangle into which the Land Acts had been brought by Irish Judges of various capacities and degrees, he would hesitate before committing himself to the assurance he had given—that the words proposed could be relied upon to bring about any predetermined result. He had no doubt that a tenant evicted between 1879 and 1881, and a leaseholder evicted between 1879 and 1887, would be able to get back to their farms under this Bill, but there the difficulty would begin. They would apply to have fair rents fixed, and then the question would arise whether the words of the Government would not be fatal to the claims of some of them. It was necessary to press the hon. and learned Gentleman to bear in mind what Chinese subtlety of intellect was applied to the administration of the law in Ireland, and to give the House ground to entertain a national hope that the intentions expressed by the Government would be carried out. He moved, after the word "apply," in line 19, to insert, "as if the tenant had remained in possession."

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 19, after the word "apply," to insert the words "as if the tenant had remained in possession."—(Mr. Sexton)

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

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, he thought that as the clause now stood no leaseholder except one whose lease expired before the passing of the Act of 1887 could have a right to make the application referred to in it. He did not think that the Amendment which had just been inserted had bettered the clause. He asked the Government whether, in case the Bill escaped fatality at a particular fence in another place, they could not simplify the clause so as to carry out their undoubted intentions?

SIR R. T. REID

said, he agreed with hon. Members opposite that, judging from what he had learnt during the last two or three months, ingenuity be yond words had been applied to the con struction of the Irish Land Acts. He took it that the purpose at which both the Government and the Irish Members were aiming was that people who could not get a fair rent fixed because they were evicted before 1881 should be enabled to come in under this Bill and have a fair rent fixed, and that lease holders who were evicted before the passing of the Act of 1887 should also be enabled to come in and have a fair rent fixed. After 1887 the leaseholders became present tenants——

MR. T. M. HEALY

Not in all cases.

SIR R. T. REID

said, that at all events the case put to the Government was that of the leaseholder who was evicted prior to the Act of 1887. With considerable trouble and labour the Government had arrived at the words now proposed, which he thoroughly agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would effect their purpose. At the same time, he admitted that it might be necessary to have the provision emphasised, and he thought that if the word "now" were inserted in line 22 it would clinch the matter. The words would then read— In so far as the said Acts now permit of a fair rent being fixed in respect of a tenancy of the same kind as the tenancy determined.

MR. BODKIN (Roscommon, N.)

thought, if he might say so with all humility, that the interpretation put upon the provision by the Attorney General (Sir J. Rigby) was accurate, and that the difficulty possibly, perhaps probably, would not arise, but he would suggest that all doubt might he put an end to by the addition of the words "assuming that such tenancy had continued up to the date of the order." He thought that no trouble could arise if this suggestion were adopted.

MR. SEXTON

said, the resources of human ingenuity would be exhausted in distorting the meaning of the words proposed by the Government for the purpose of keeping the tenants out of their rights.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman has already spoken, in moving the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

Another Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 22, after the word "Acts," to insert the word "now."—(Sir R. T. Reid.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' be there inserted."

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, he had given this matter some consideration, and he did not think that the clause, as the Government proposed to make it read, was at all satisfactory. The question of the status of the tenants when the order for their reinstatement was made was, he presumed, intended to be settled in every case by the sub-section. What, however, would be the status of a tenant who was evicted between the 22nd of August, 1881, when the Act passed, and the 1st of January, 1883, when the Act came into operation? He was not a "present tenant," and would be unable to get the benefit of the section. If he were a tenant who was evicted after the gale days in March or May, 1881, his six months for redemption did not expire until after the passage of the Act of 1881. The case of such a tenant was left entirely unprovided for, and it appeared to him that there must be large classes of tenants under disabilities of this kind. The Government said that leaseholders whose leases were determined before the passing of the Act of 1887 were to be reinstated. But how did the section affect leaseholders whose leases expired subsequently to the Act of 1887? He could not see that it affected them at all. It seemed to him, therefore, that the leaseholder who was evicted subsequently to the Act of 1887 was in a worse position than the leaseholder who was evicted before the passing of that Act. There was no way out of the awful bog into which the Committee had got with reference to this section except by saying that the order of the Arbitrators should specify the status into which the tenant should be reinstated, having regard to the status at the time of the eviction as to the Acts which had subsequently been passed. He quite agreed that the question presented the most enormous difficulties, and that he did not see how it could be dealt with in any short or pithy phrase. The whole case required to be examined with microscopic minuteness, and he trusted that the Government would be able to give such an examination to it.

MR. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)

said, it ought to be made clear beyond the possibility of doubt that every tenant reinstated should have the right to the fixing of a fair rent.

MR. SEXTON

said, he thought the introduction of the word "now," as proposed by the Solicitor General, would have no operative effect at all. Again and again he and his colleagues had pointed out that the tenancy determined was not a present tenancy, either in the case of tenants from year to year before the Act of 1881 or in the case of leaseholders before the Act of 1887, and unless words were inserted explicitly declaring that a man should on reinstatement have the same right to the fixing of a fair rent that he would have had if he had continued in his farm until a present tenancy was acquired doubts and difficulties would be raised. No harm could be done by adopting the course he had suggested. The fair rent would be the fair rent, and the man would be in the same legal position as if he had not been evicted.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, there were two classes of tenants only they had to deal with in this matter—those whose tenancies were determined before the Act of 1881 and those leaseholders whose leases were determined before the Act of 1887. Those tenants were expressly mentioned in the clause, and, whatever the subtlety of the Land Commission might be, they would be bound to recognise that it was the intention of the Legislature that those tenants should have the benefit of application for fair rent. Assuming, however, that the language adopted by the Government was not the most apt, it would be beyond his powers, in the midst of such a discussion, with suggestions being made all round, to draft on the spur of the moment a new clause which should be satisfac- tory. But there would be opportunities of dealing with the point in another place, and before that time arrived the Government would reconsider the matter. He presumed that the intention of hon. Members opposite and of the Government was exactly the same—namely, to give the best possible form to the clause. He must deprecate any attempt to redraft the clause now, and he hoped, after what he had said, no further Amendments to it would be moved.

SIR R. T. REID

said, he thought that in the circumstances it would be better not to insert the word "now," and he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. J. MORLEY, the following Amendments were agreed to:—

Clause 1, page 2, line 23, leave out "such a tenancy," and insert "a tenancy of the same kind as the tenancy determined."

Clause 4, page 4, line 20, after "holding, "insert" or the inability of the petitioner to acquire seed."

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 24, after the word "Act," to insert the words— Where the new tenant objects to an order for reinstatement the Arbitrators may, upon all claims on the holding being renounced by the former tenant, award to him, out of the moneys at their disposal for the purposes of this Act, such sums as they deem reasonable, not exceeding the sums which in their opinion might have been payable out of the said funds in respect of the said holding if the order for reinstatement had been made."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

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

MR. T. M. HEALY moved to amend the Amendment by inserting, after the word "reinstatement" in the first line, the words "or the former tenant agrees to accept a sum in lieu of reinstatement." The object of the Amendment was to restore social peace in Ireland. There were not many cases of the kind he sought to meet by his Amendment, but there might be a few, in which the former tenant might have set up in business at a considerable distance from the holding, have formed new relations, and might be willing to give up the goodwill of the holding on receiving a certain sum. Something ought to be given to a former tenant for his goodwill even if he was not anxious to return to his old holding.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after the word "reinstatement," to insert the words "or the former tenant agrees to accept a sum in lieu of reinstatement."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

MR. SEXTON

said, he thought the new clause brought forward by the Chief Secretary fell far short of the case which had been made out in Committee when the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) was withdrawn. In the clause as it stood the old tenant would riot be entitled to any compensation unless he presented a petition. Did the Government intend to drive the old tenant into presenting a petition where there was a new tenant on the farm? Why should not the old tenant have his grant just as well where the landlord was in occupation as where there was a new tenant in occupation? His improvements and tenant-right existed in the one case just as much as in the other, and he had as good a claim in the one case as in the other. He would suggest that the tenant should be compensated where there was no new tenant in occupation, and where the landlord himself objected, just as much as if a new tenant was actually in occupation.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, he must confess that he could not see his way to supporting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member, because he believed it would be productive of much mischief. The sum which was to be placed at the disposal of the Arbitrators was limited in amount. The suggestion now was that collusion should take place between the new tenant or the man who had grabbed the farm and the former tenant who did not wish to return to his farm, and that they should make a bargain to draw a certain amount from public funds. The money should be husbanded as much as possible in order that pressing cases might be dealt with satisfactorily. The cases of former tenants who had practically relinquished their claims to their old farms, who failed to present petitions, and who had started in business in new localities, could not be very pressing. He must oppose the Amendment.

SIR R. T. REID

was understood to say that the Amendment of the Government was intended to benefit former tenants who were anxious to be reinstated but whose wishes were frustrated by the opposition of the tenants in possession. The hon. Member for North Kerry asked why the same benefit was not to be given to a former tenant of a holding of which the landlord remained in occupation. The reason was that where the landlord was in occupation the Arbitrators might in their discretion compel him to surrender the farm. In such cases, therefore, there was no reason for giving the tenant anything in the nature of a compassionate allowance.

MR. SEXTON

Does it not seem rather hard that in some cases where the landlord is in occupation of the farm the former tenant can neither get back nor get compensation?

SIR R. T. REID

said, it must be remembered that the Arbitrators would exercise discretion. In all deserving cases he trusted that they would make orders for reinstatement. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member would extend the benefit of his right hon. Friend's Amendment to former tenants who did not think proper to take any preliminary steps for the purpose of ascertaining whether the occupying tenants were willing to go out or not. The purpose of this Bill, however, was not to provide compensation for people who could go back to their holdings but refrained from doing so, or who were not prepared to appear before the Arbitrators. Under the proposal of the hon. Member a tenant who had been evicted 10 years ago who had got over his misfortunes, and was engaged in other business, might come back and put in a claim for compensation. The fund available under the Bill was a limited one, and it was absolutely necessary to expend it with some regard to economy. If the Government were to accept an Amendment of this character it would drain resources which might be most precious for the purpose of restoring tenants who were really anxious to get back to their holdings. If the resources had been unlimited they might then have been able to be lavish and generous all round. Although the sum was supposed to be sufficient, it was still limited in amount, and it was all the more necessary, therefore, that they should be careful how they expended it. Hon. Members for Ireland had put suggestions on the Paper which had resulted in the new clauses of the Government being put down, and he felt the Government had gone as far as they possibly could in the direction indicated by those suggestions.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. SEXTON

said, he desired to move another Amendment to the clause. It was after the word "reinstatement," to insert the words or where the Arbitrators, after hearing the parties under Section 1 of this Act, dismiss a petition for reinstatement. He could not for a moment admit that the evicted tenant had a worse claim for compensation or was less in need of it where there was no new tenant in possession than where there was a new tenant. The evicted tenant had suffered the same hardship and lost the same property in each case. The tenant owned the buildings and other improvements on the farm; he owned the tenant-right and he had lost his improvements and his tenant-right by the fact of his eviction. This tenant was equally penniless with the tenant who was replaced by a new tenant. The position of the two was in no respect dissimilar, and both were equally in need of help. He could not, therefore, admit that the circumstances that where there was a new tenant in the farm should be decisive against him. They had already provided that where there was a new tenant who declined to let the old tenant get back the old tenant might get a farm in some other locality, but they had declined to make any provision for the tenant where the farm was in possession of the landlord. They were now determined to give him no compensation whatever, when they decided that the landlord was to hold the farm. The Solicitor General had ignored the suggestion that the Arbitrators might refuse to reinstate the tenant for some cause not reflecting on the tenant in the least degree. The landlord might say he had made improvements; that he was not willing to surrender the farm; that he had converted it into a home farm, and any one of these reasons might operate to induce the Arbitrators to refuse the order of reinstatement. Could it be suggested in such a case that the Arbitrators ought not to have power to make some compensation in cases where they would not make an order for reinstatement for reasons personal to the landlord and not personal to the tenant? In such a case the tenant would neither have a chance of getting a single acre of land elsewhere or a single farthing of compensation. He would urge the Government not to ignore such cases, but to make provision that a tenant in such circumstances might receive some compensation. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after the word "reinstatement," to insert the words— or where the Arbitrators, after hearing the parties under Section 1 of this Act, dismiss a petition for reinstatement."—(Mr. Sexton.)

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

MR. BODKIN

desired to suggest one answer to the difficulty which had been pointed out by the Solicitor General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that in one case there was compulsion, and in the other there was none; that in one case the tribunal was powerless to let a man go back into his holding, and in the other case, that though it was in their power to admit him, they decided not to do so, and that in making such a decision, the Arbitrators had in effect decided it was not a meritorious case. The hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Sexton) had met that point, and had shown that there were many such meritorious cases. They were not asking that there should be any compulsion put upon the tribunal to give compensation, but the same tribunal had had all the cases before it, it had knowledge of all the circumstances, and knew whether the tenant's claim was meritorious or not, and it would be only where the tribunal decided that the tenant's claim was in itself meritorious that it would he likely to put this compensation clause in force.

SIR R. T. REID

said, it was distasteful to him in a Bill which related to Ireland and to Irish affairs not to be able to accept the Amendment suggested by the Irish Members. He knew perfectly well they were more conversant with Irish affairs than he himself or his friends who sat beside him, but he would ask hon. Members to be good enough to remember that the Government was limited by considerations of economy; they could not make the money go any farther than it would go, and what they had got to do was to deal with the £250,000 to the best advantage. He thought they had endeavoured to do so within the Bill as originally laid down. In this particular Amendment they had gone somewhat beyond the original scope of the Bill for the purpose of complying as far as possible with the valuable suggestions of hon. Members. And now the question arose whether, having gone one step, they should not go another step. He thought if the Amendment were adopted it would not apply to one case in a hundred.

MR. SEXTON

Very well; if there was only one case out of a hundred it would not cost so much money.

SIR R. T. REID

said, he thought that the provisions which the Government proposed would be found to deal satisfactorily with the question.

MR. T. M. HEALY

thought it would be possible to overcome the Solicitor General's argument as to economy being necessary by the use of the words— Such cases to be dealt with if there should be any surplus money. Let economy be practised, and then if any money was left it could be used as proposed in the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry. Undoubtedly there would be cases to be met such as that put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Mr. Carson), who had instanced the case of a landlady who had spent a considerable sum of money on an evicted holding, and asked in such a case would the Arbitrators make an order for the reinstatement of the old tenant? Probably they would not; but would that be any reason why an evicted tenant who had been evicted for a year's rent should get nothing at all? The state of the law was wholly inequitable. It was English law, and English law wholly, that a man should lose his whole possessions because of one year's arrear of rent. The tenant had a much larger property in the holding than a year's rent. It might be that he had £1,000 worth of property in his farm and the year's rent might he only £100. He might not be able to pay that; and under the conditions of English law, if he was not able to pay that at the proper time, he lost the whole of the £1,000 he had invested in the holding. It was very like the English view of Limited Liability Company law, and they were introducing that view to cases of land tenure where it was not applicable. In the old Land League days men were evicted for half a year's rent. Was the tenant who was evicted in such circumstances to get no compensation at all because the landlord had spent a sum of money on the holding which prevented the Arbitrators from making a reinstatement order? It seemed to him that such a tenant ought to get compensation, and he thought the Government should accept the Amendment.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, the clause now being introduced by the Government had been drafted in order to meet the cases where it was thought possible there might be some hardship. They had tried to make the conditions as liberal as the circumstances would allow. They had met the case as far as the limited means at their disposal would permit them, and he would, therefore, suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 97.—(Division List, No. 210.)

MR. T. M. HEALY

moved an Amendment to the Amendment of the Chief Secretary, at the end of Clause 4, to substitute, after the words "such sums as they deem reasonable," the words "having regard to," instead of "not exceeding." He said, though a small alteration, it was important for the proper working of the clause.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, to leave out the words "not exceeding," and insert the words "having regard to."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'not exceeding' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

SIR J. RIGBY

said, the Amendment could not be accepted as proposed by the hon. Member, as it would leave the sum to be awarded to the old tenant without limit. That would undoubtedly be the interpretation put upon it.

MR. T. M. HEALY

did not like to press the matter again, but the hon. and learned Gentleman had interpreted the Amendment in a sense which he had no wish to put upon it. He wished to give a certain elasticity to the words and a discretion to the Arbitrators. He trusted the Government would not tie them down to a hard-and-fast sum.

SIR J. RIGBY

repeated that the Amendment could not be accepted.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. SEXTON moved a further Amendment to the Amendment of the Chief Secretary by omitting the words "out of the said fund." The Bill provided for payment of a sum not exceeding two years' rent. If payment was to be made out of the fund he was afraid that under the Chief Secretary's Amendment as it stood the old tenant might get nothing. It was in the hands of the Arbitrators to award two years' rent, and the tenant would only have to pay one, so that if the award was £100 the fund would only pay £50. The new tenant and the landlord would have to get twice as much as the old tenant would get. The sum total would not be very large in these cases, but something should be done where the old tenant was kept out by the refusal of the new tenant to let him in, and certainly as much should be paid to the old tenant as they would pay to the new tenant and landlord. Several Amendments to this effect had been already proposed, and as this was the last he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would regard it with more consideration.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 5, to leave out the words "out of the said funds."—(Mr. Sexton.)

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

SIR R. T. REID

said, the objection to the Amendment was that if it were accepted the fund, in case of the new tenant objecting to an order for reinstatement, might have to bear a greater burden than if the old tenant were reinstated. That would be the effect if he rightly understood the Amendment. The Arbitrators might award such sum as they thought fit not exceeding the sum which they considered might have been payable in respect of the whole interest, and the fund under this new section would have to bear a larger burden. That was what it came to. It was not easy to make such an alteration without destroying the object of the clause. Probably the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment, as he would no doubt see that the clause would meet his views.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, that the compensation payable to the old tenant ought to be contributed to both by the landlord and by the new tenant who was in possession of the old tenant's holding, and not only out of the fund to be provided under this Bill. As to that, there could be no dispute either in the case of the new tenant who was, even to some extent, in possession of the holding, or in the case of the landlord, who, by increased rent or otherwise, would gain an advantage. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if he was only going to offer to the former tenant the very inadequate provision in the shape of compensation given by this Bill, he would leave the question unsettled as far as the man himself was concerned, and also in the public opinion of the district. It would be thought that he had not received compensation for his interest in the holding. His hon. Friend had endeavoured to introduce an Amendment with the consent of the Government that the Arbitrators should consider the whole equity of the case, and decide what sum should be contributed by the new tenant in possession of the former tenant-right, and what contribution should be made by the landlord. That was a matter where considerations of economy would not come in. A wide discretion was left to the Arbitrators, and it was only fair and reasonable that the new tenant and the landlord should themselves make some contribution, and by so doing have the means of coming to a friendly settlement with the old tenant, by giving him compensation for what he had lost. It was only by such means that a settlement could be arrived at.

MR. BODKIN

said, the question to he considered was whether the evicted tenant was not entitled under the moralities and necessities of the case to get as much money as it was proposed to allot to the now tenant and to the landlord. All they asked was that the old tenants should be treated in the same spirit, and that the money awarded to them under the Bill should be really assured. It was for that reason that this proposal was made for securing the compensation, for it would be a matter of compensation in a great many cases. Their case in common was that no compensation which could be given from the general fund would be of much value to the tenant. He asked the Government to make this small concession on the ground that the old tenants should have the same consideration as the new tenants.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, the point had been already discussed on previous proposals, and the Amendment could not be accepted.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.)

moved to amend the Chief Secretary's Amendment by adding at the end the words— And such further sums payable by the landlord and the new tenant as then find the difference between the former sums and the market value of the holding. He thought the Government would not object to this, as the money was proposed to he paid not out of the sum voted by Parliament, but out of the money found by the landlord and new tenant. He would give an instance of what was intended. In 1885 the tenant was evicted for a single year's rent, and had been eight years out of his holding. His land had been grabbed within the last year, yet if the new tenant refused his consent, under the Bill the man would lose all right in the holding in which he had a considerable property, and the grabber have to pay nothing for the valuable interest he acquired. In those circumstances it was only fair that against both the new tenant himself and his landlord, who had derived very substantial benefit, compensation should be awarded not exceeding the market value of the holding. If this Amendment were not inserted a very serious difficulty might turn out in working the Act.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, at the end thereof, to add the words— And such further sums payable by the landlord and new tenant as they would find to be the difference between such former sums and the market value of the holding previous to the evictions."—(Mr. Hayden.)

Question proposed, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment."

MR. HARRINGTON

said, this was practically the same Amendment as that upon which he addressed the House, and received a promise at an earlier stage that it would have favourable consideration. The great difficulty which the House had to deal with lay in the fact that there was no adequate compensation provided in cases where new tenants were in possession. He asked the English Members of the House to consider the peculiarities of the land system in Ireland, where it was not strictly the case of landlord and tenant as in this country, but was practically the case of two men in partnership, each having an undivided moiety of the holding. A tenant, the value of whose holding had been fixed by the Land Commission at £500, might have been evicted for one year's judicially fixed rent of £50. How, in such circumstances, were the Government to uphold a policy of this kind, and how were they to devise an equitable scheme if they would not compel the landlord and the new tenant in possession to contribute compensation for the man's tenant right? The Government were not going to give him a penny of compensation as far as the new tenant was concerned. The present proposal would not impose any new burden on the State, and did not introduce any new principle which was not already to be found in all the Irish Laud Acts—namely, the right to go to the Court and obtain compensation. If the former tenant had a valuable interest in the holding, it was a grievous hardship to allow the new tenant, who was now in possession, to enjoy the benefit of that interest for nothing at all, without making him contribute one penny, and only to award to the former tenant the very inadequate compensation afforded by the Bill.

SIR R. T. REID

said, he was very sorry the Government could not accept the Amendment. He would ask any hon. Member whether it would be possible for the Government fairly, or, he might almost say, equitably, towards the House of Commons, to accept an Amendment of this character. It was perfectly true that the spirit of the Irish Laud Acts was that although the tenant might be dispossessed for a particular reason he was to be recouped the value of his holding in one way or another. That principle had been adopted in the more recent Irish land legislation. The Bill proposed reinstatement, and the hon. Gentleman proposed that, where the Bill itself admitted to the old tenant the option of not being reinstated, a pecuniary penalty should be awarded to him. This would be imposing on the new tenant compulsion, by ordering the payment by him of a sum of money. He was certain that this would be admitted to be entirely contrary to the principle upon which the Bill had been argued throughout from the Government Benches.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, that every one on the Irish Benches was under the impression that the present Amendment was, in substance, accepted by the Government on a former occasion.

SIR R. T. REID

said, that was not, in fact, the case.

MR. J. REDMOND (Waterford)

desired to add to what his hon. Friend had stated, that an Amendment proposed in Committee had been withdrawn on the understanding that something of the kind would be considered on Report—that the Government would consider whether it was not possible for them to bring forward a clause embodying this proposal.

SIR R. T. REID

said, that he was able to correct the hon. Gentleman's recollection, as he was present the whole time.

MR. J. REDMOND

So was I.

SIR R. T. REID

said, he certainly never understood his right hon. Friend to say that he would adopt that principle.

MR. J. REDMOND

said, the right hon. Gentleman certainly said he would consider it.

SIR R. T. REID

thought the hon. Member would see that his right hon. Friend had felt, after consideration, that it would not be right in accordance with the principle of this Bill to accept the Amendment. His right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary assured him that he had expressly refused to give any pledge on the subject. Hon. Gentlemen would, he thought, see that it would not be right to accept the Amendment before the House.

DR. KENNY (Dublin, College Green)

said, that his recollection tallied with that of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford. If the Government accepted the Amendment they would be going a long way towards the completion of their own work, by assuaging the bitterness of feeling which threatened law and order in Ireland as long as these men remained evicted in the neighbourhood of their former holdings. By giving the evicted tenant, who remained near his farm, no means of migrating they bound him to the place where, according to the theory of the Government, his presence was most objectionable and a standing menace to the peace of the country. But by accepting the Amendment the Government would assuage a great deal of the bitterness which would be aroused in regard to the new tenant who would not give up the farm, by enabling the old tenant to go out of the district. He, therefore, appealed to the Government, in the interest of the success of their policy with regard to the evicted tenants, to accept the Amendment.

MR. HAYDEN

said, he moved a similar Amendment in Committee on Thursday, but withdrew it on a promise from the Chief Secretary that it would be favourably considered before Report.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he stated explicitly on that occasion that the Government could not accept the Amendment.

MR. SEXTON

said, the Nationalist Members could not, by any action of theirs, suffer it to be supposed that they consented to the transfer of the property of the evicted tenants either to the landlords or the new tenants. The evicted tenants owed, on the average, two or three years' rent. By reason of their eviction they lost, and either the landlords or the new tenants had appropriated, property valued from 10 or 12 to 20 years' purchase of the land. That property once legally belonged to the evicted tenant; it still in equity belonged to him; and the Nationalist Members could not allow it to be supposed that by any arrangement under the law the landlord or new tenant should be placed in a better posi- tion with regard to the transfer of that property than they were at the present moment. Recognising the equity of the Amendment—though, perhaps, it was not in the best form—if the right hon. Gentleman went to a Division lie would feel bound to support him.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 94.—(Division List, No. 211.)

Words inserted.

On Motion of Mr. J. MORLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 5, line 25, leave out "shall," and insert "may."

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 25, after the word "employ," to insert the words "such of the."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

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

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, the Chief Secretary had promised to insert words which would cover the value of the County Courts, as well as the valuers of the Land Commission.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, there were no County Court valuers as such. All the valuers were valuers of the Land Commission.

MR. SEXTON

said, the valuers employed by the County Courts were selected from a list supplied by the Land Commission. The Land Commission had no more to do with those valuers than to put them on the list. They were selected by the Judges of the County Courts; and it was extremely doubtful that the words would cover the case of those County Court valuers.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he thought; there could be no question that they were not valuers of the County Courts, but valuers of the Land Commission; and the words he proposed were the best words he could devise to carry out his undertaking to his hon. and learned Friend.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. J. MORLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to: — Page 5, line 25, after "Commission, "insert" as they think fit."

MR. T. M. HEALY

proposed an Amendment in Clause 8, providing that a holding sub-let or sub-divided at the time the tenancy was determined shall not be excluded under the Act. The Government had provided in the Bill that the words holding and tenancy and fair rent should have the same meaning as in the Act of 1881. This Amendment simply provided that sub-letting should not be a bar to reinstatement, and he could see no reason why the Government should not accept it.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 15, after "1881," to insert the words— Provided that the fact that a holding was sub-let or sub-divided at the time the tenancy was determined, shall not be held to be an objection to a petition or an order under this Act."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

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

SIR R. T. REID

thought the Amendment wholly unnecessary. The point was whether sub-tenancies existing upon a holding at the time the tenancy was determined would prevent the holding from being one to which the Act would be applicable. He thought the opening words of the Act, which provided that the Act should apply to any holding whether agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral, were amply sufficient to cover the point raised, and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press the Amendment.

MR. SEXTON

said, no doubt the provision sought to be introduced by the Amendment was already in the Bill, but the insertion of the Amendment would make it clearer and the administration of the Act on the point more certain. The difficulty would not arise as to whether a holding was pastoral or otherwise; but when the question of the fixing of a fair rent came to be considered, of course, as it was not proposed now to alter the law with regard to the right of a tenant to have a fair rent fixed, the tenant could not get a fair rent unless he was entitled; but lest any doubt might arise as to the admissibility of a holding because sub-letting existed, he thought it would be well if the Amendment were inserted.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, he could not agree with the Solicitor General's view on this point. He was familiar with the law in relation to this matter, and he was of opinion that if the Amendment were not inserted there would be a blot in the Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

Schedule.

MR. T. M. HEALY

pointed out the Schedule did not incorporate Section 59 of the Act of 1870, and he moved to insert this section.

Amendment agreed to; Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.