COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 26 July 1894)

§ MR. SPEAKER
The Instruction which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Mid Armagh (Mr. Barton) for the division of the Bill into two is not in Order for the reasons I propose to give to the House. It is quite true that an Instruction is necessary before a Bill can be divided into two or more parts, but of course the question whether such an Instruction can be moved depends upon the nature of the Bill and whether the Instruction can properly perform the operation or not. I have looked through all the precedents of Bills which have been divided by Instructions into two or more parts, and I find that they have all been Bills which naturally lent themselves to division. It will be found that there is no natural line of division in this Bill, and that a division of the Bill with the object of omitting a particular clause would be applicable to other Bills from which any Member wished to omit a particular clause. More than that, what the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to obtain could be done in Committee by the omission of Clause 3. The framework of the whole Bill applies both to cases of holdings in the occupation of the landlords and to cases of holdings in the occupation of the new tenant, and, therefore, if I were to admit this Instruction, the framework of the Bill would have to be totally re-constructed for the purpose of making it apply only to that part which the hon. and learned Member wishes alone to pass. The hon. Member will not be at 1029 all injured by the course I am taking; but, on grounds of Order alone, it is quite sufficient to say that the Instruction is out of Order, and cannot be moved.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The first Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), is out of Order.

§ MR. HANBURY (Preston)
My first Amendment, Sir, is to leave out "tenancy," and insert "tenant."

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The second Amendment of the hon. Member must be taken in connection with the first; otherwise, the Amendment would not read. The Amendment is out of Order.

§ MR. HANBURY
said that, if he might respectfully say so, he thought the Chairman had misunderstood the Amendment. To put himself straight, however, he would alter the Amendment. He would move to strike out the words "tenancy of," and to insert "the tenant has been evicted from the holding."

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I think that will be in Order.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
, rising to Order, pointed out that if the Amendment were moved in the form proposed it would not make sense.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I understand that the hon. Member proposes to bring up consequential words.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, that was his intention. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy) must know that this was the usual course of procedure in the House of Commons. He had put down the Amendment for two reasons. The first was that he did not know that any definition had yet been given as to what was a determination of a tenancy in Ireland. It was absolutely necessary that no vague words should be left in the Bill. He had been entirely unable to understand the words of the clause. In England people knew what a determination of a tenancy was, because in England when a man's notice had expired he left the farm, and there the matter ended. In Ireland, however, things were entirely different. The laws dealing with land in Ireland were so complicated, confused, and innumerable, that it was difficult to find out what the exact meaning of the 1030 words "determination of the tenancy" was. As there were no Irish Law Officers in the House, he would ask the Solicitor General (Mr. R. T. Reid) whether in his opinion a tenancy was determined when a tenant was evicted, or whether it was not determined until the six months had expired during which it was possible for him to obtain reinstatement? The claims put forward on behalf of the tenants showed that in the opinion of those who made them these tenancies had been determined.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
, rising to Order, asked whether the hon. Gentleman must not show some difference between the words in the Bill and those he was proposing to substitute for them instead of merely saying that he did not understand the Bill?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I think the hon. Gentleman is in Order.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, the difference between his Amendment and the words of the Bill was that one spoke of the determination of the tenancy, and the other referred to the eviction of the tenant. Everybody knew exactly when the eviction took place, but everybody did not know when the tenancy was determined. The Nationalist Members for Ireland themselves, by the language they used with regard to evicted tenants, showed that they did not consider that the tenants' rights had been determined by the eviction. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, in his speech on the First Reading of the Bill, raised the point that the Irish tenant ought to be called not a tenant, but a partner. The question was whether the so-called partnership with the landlord had been determined. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), in a speech made on the 3rd of January, 1887, showed that at any rate, in his opinion, the claims of the Irish tenants who had been evicted had not been put an end to by the eviction. The hon. Member said— The soil of Ireland was the property of the children of Ireland, and not the property of the contemptible, rack-renting, intolerant ascendency landlords.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Really this is not in Order.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, of course, if it was not in Order he would not dwell further on that point, but his object in quoting the passage was to show that in 1031 the opinion of the Irish Members the tenancy of the evicted tenants was not determined, but that the tenant had still a right to the land. He would go to another point, which was this: The whole object of the Bill was not to deal with tenancies which had been determined in any way whatever, but simply tenancies determined by eviction. That was clear from the Bill itself, which purported to be a Bill to facilitate and make provision for the restoration of evicted tenants in Ireland. That being so, why could the Government not say so plainly and in the first line? Instead of introducing the expression as to the determination of tenancies, and which would include cases where there had been no eviction, the Government ought to limit it to what was the object of the Bill—namely, to the determination of tenancies by eviction. If the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to extend the scope of the Bill by making it apply to all tenancies—not only those determined by eviction, but determined in any way whatever—he ought to accept the Amendment. In the three cases mentioned specially in Subsection 2, two of them had no reference necessarily to eviction at all, and there was only one which had such reference. It appeared to him, therefore, it was quite clear that unless the words he proposed were inserted it would be possible for the arbitrators not only to deal with tenancies determined by eviction, but with tenancies determined in any way whatever. He only desired to bring the Bill into accord with what purported to be its object, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman could have any objection to definitely defining the matter, so that it should be known that the tenancies dealt with were those determined by eviction. He begged to move his Amendment.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
asked the hon. Gentleman to bring up the Amendment.

§ MR. HANBURY
proceeded to the Table for this purpose?

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
I wish to know, Sir, whether the hon. Member should not bring up his Amendment, and not point it out to you?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order!

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
This is not a school.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir R. T. REID,, &c.) Dumfries
said, that what the hon. Gentleman wanted to say was that, instead of dealing with tenancies that had been determined in the language of the first clause, they should practically state that they were dealing with tenancies in respect to which there had been eviction. The hon. Member asked what was the meaning of the word "determined" as it appeared in the clause. The first thing he had to say about the word "determined" was this: This and other words which had been subjected to criticism were taken verbatim from the 13th clause of the Act of 1891, which was passed by the general acclamation of the House. Section 13 of the Act of 1891 did differ from this in the sense that it was permissive and not compulsory. It defined certain circumstances under which it became operative, the words being as follows:— Where the tenancy of a holding has been determined since the 1st May, 1879, and the former landlord or his successor in title is in occupation of the holding, it should be lawful to make the arrangements there provided. Whether it was permissive or compulsory in its form the circumstances to which the clause applied were really common to both. They both wished to deal substantially with the same class of cases; they differed as to the method, inasmuch as the present Government said it should be a compulsory process, and the late Government said it should be permissive. The hon. Gentleman said that if the word "evicted" or "eviction" was put in, or some words to the same effect, all the cases with which it was intended to deal would be covered. That did not necessarily follow. Suppose, for example, that the landlord were to obtain a judgment for £100 against a tenant for rent, and were then to sell by fi. fa., and somebody else purchased the tenant's interest, that would not be an eviction; and yet this was a case in which they would desire to grant relief. The use of the word "eviction" would not be satis- 1033 factory, and he thought that the best course was to adhere to the wording of the 13th section of the Act of 1891. In this, as in other cases, they must necessarily rely upon the judgment and discretion of the arbitrators in dealing with the matter, and the Bill showed what circumstances the arbitrators would have to consider in coming to a decision as to whether the case was one for reinstatement. Under these circumstances, the Government preferred the language used in the Bill.

§ MR. W. KENNY (Dublin, St. Stephen's Green)
said, that the Solicitor General had referred to the 13th section of the Act of 1891 as justifying the language used in the Bill. The language of the Act of 1891 was, however, perfectly permissive, and left it open to the landlord to select what class of tenants were to get the benefit of the 13th clause of the Act. The Solicitor General said that the circumstances would be the same under that clause and the clause they were now discussing. Possibly that might be so; but the Solicitor General had not told them what were the particular circumstances which would justify a tenant in coming in under the particular clause now being discussed. The Solicitor General referred to the case of fi. fa. against the tenant. Take the case in which judgment had been recovered for rent against the tenant, a fi. fa. was issued upon it directed to the Sheriff, who accordingly sold. The Sheriff might sell to either of two persons. If he sold to an outsider, the Solicitor General was perfectly right, and the tenancy was not determined. But the Sheriff might sell to the landlord, and the landlord might then go into possession, or try to do so. The tenant might resist, and might have to be evicted in a wholly different way—namely, as a trespasser and not as a tenant. He wished to know whether the Bill was intended to apply to this class of cases? They had already had a definition of what the meaning of the word "determined" was. If the Solicitor General would refer to Section 20 of the Act of 1881 he would find that the tenancy to which the Act applied was to be deemed to have determined whenever the landlord should have resumed possession, either on the occasion of the purchase 1034 by him of the tenancy, or in default of the tenant, or by the operation of the law, and so on. He desired to be informed whether the present Bill was intended to apply to tenants who had been evicted otherwise than for non-payment of rent. The title of the Bill was "A Bill to Facilitate and Make Provision for the Restoration of Evicted Tenants to their Holdings in Ireland." In the case of a purchase by the landlord under fi. fa., and when the landlord had to evict the individual who was the occupier afterwards, he did not evict the tenant, but a person who was in the position of a purchaser. The Appendix to the Report of the Mathew Commission showed what class of tenants were contemplated by that Report. It showed clearly that the person contemplated by the Mathew Commission was a tenant evicted for non-payment of rent. A number of evictions had taken place against tenants who were actually in the position of purchasers. The landlord had bought under fi. fa., the Sheriff had conveyed the holding to the landlord, and the tenant had absolutely gone out. The landlord had brought an ejectment against the tenant, but that was a different class of eviction to that consequent on a judgment for nonpayment of rent; and what they wanted to know was, would the Bill apply to the case in which the landlord had bought or gone into possession, or the case in which the tenant had voluntarily surrendered his holding to the landlord? because that would also be a determination of the tenancy under the 20th section of the Act of 1881. He would ask were there any other cases to which the word "determined" would apply?

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
rose to Order. Was it in Order for the hon. and learned Gentleman on this Amendment to discuss his own Amendment, which was down later on the Paper in the following terms:— Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after "determined," insert "by eviction consequent on a judgment or decree for possession on account of non-payment of rent.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite in Order.

§ MR. W. KENNY
said, he was perfectly prepared to move his own Amendment when it was reached. The title of the Bill showed the tenants alone in favour of whom this first section was in- 1035 tended, and once they got the case of an eviction against a trespasser, which was not an eviction of a tenant, they would draw the net of the first section so as to include not only tenants evicted for nonpayment of rent but the former occupier as well, whose holding the landlord might have bought and given a consideration for, and former tenants who had surrendered to the landlord. It was clear that unless some Amendment of this character were inserted the Bill would involve a number of other cases beyond those to which it was directed.

§ MR. CARSON (Dublin University)
said, he considered that the points put by the hon. and learned Member for the Stephen's Green Division required an answer. It was most essential that at the very outset of the Committee stage they should know what class of tenants they were going to deal with in Ireland and what cases of evictions. The Solicitor General had made the startling statement that the word "determined," instead of the expression "evicted for non-payment of rent," had been used so as to include something else besides evictions for non-payment of rent, and he gave the Committee a most extraordinary case in which this compulsory power was to be exercised—namely, that where the interest of a tenant had been purchased in open market by another person, notwithstanding such purchase, the former tenant was to go back as if his interest was still in existence.

§ SIR R. T. REID
observed, that what he had said was that there might be a case of sale fi. fa. in which it would be desirable the arbitrators should have the power given under this Bill. A case might occur, for instance, in which the tenant's interest was put up by the Sheriff and purchased by the landlord for half-a-crown.

§ MR. CARSON
wanted to know whether the Bill as it stood enabled the arbitrators to put back into his holding a tenant the interest of whose holding was sold in the public market? Did it or did it not? Surely they had a right to know that.

§ SIR R. T. REID
I gave an illustration in which I thought that might be done which ought to be done.

§ MR. CARSON
asked the Solicitor General to indicate what was to be the limit of the amount of the purchase 1036 money up to which this power was to be exercisable, and contended that it would be extremely difficult to lay down such a limit. The determination of a tenancy in the 20th section of the Act of 1881 covered cases of purchase, and also those in which the tenant had voluntarily surrendered, or where the tenancy had been determined by the operation of the law. Was the Bill to apply to such cases? If so, it would inflict serious injustice. Again, the Land Act of 1881 allowed a fair rent to be fixed subject to statutory conditions. If the tenant broke one of the statutory conditions, the landlord had a right to turn him out and determine the tenancy. He should like to know if that case would come within the Bill and the tenant be put back? It would be an extraordinary thing if breaches of the statutory conditions of the Act of 1881 were to be forgiven by Parliament, and the tenants who had committed these breaches were to be reinstated in their holdings. He pointed out that the 13th section of the Act of 1891 was permissive, whilst this section was compulsory, and so long as they retained the words "determination of a tenancy," and at the same time had a compulsory section, they were raising a number of cases which were entirely outside the scope of the Bill.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said, that if they were to take the general discussion on this particular Amendment it would necessarily rule out all other Amendments on this particular point. He submitted that on this Amendment the only thing relevant would be a discussion as to whether the eviction should be physical or within the meaning of the law; but the Members for Dublin University and for the Stephen's Green Division had proceeded to discuss the further question of the nature and class of the tenants, the latter hon. Member anticipating the discussion on his own Amendment later on. If they were to discuss the larger branch of the question now, he submitted they could not also discuss it subsequently. As to the word "determined," he would like to point out that it came from the eviction-made-easy clause of the Tory Act of 1887. The point of the objection to the Government clause was that they had copied Section 7 of the Tory Act of Parliament of 1887.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)
thought the hon. and learned Member for Louth had misapprehended the object of this Amendment. What they were raising was the question whether there was any difference between the "determination of a tenancy" and the "eviction of a tenant," and if it was decided that the former words were to stand it would be perfectly in Order for any hon. Member hereafter to seek to limit the causes for which that determination should take place. The determination of a tenancy in the Act of 1887 was to be for non-payment of rent, so that it was not relevant to the discussion in which they were now engaged. Surely in a matter of this kind it was desirable to limit the operation of the Bill as far as possible to the cases in which intervention was considered to be absolutely necessary. It could not be to the interest of the Government that the Bill should deal with any cases other than those which gave rise to the social and administrative difficulty against which they were legislating, neither was it desirable that the new tribunal to be set up should be occupied in the consideration of cases which the Government did not intend should come under the Bill. The Solicitor General said that they most trust a great deal to the discretion of the tribunal; but surely cases which were outside the scope of the Bill ought not to be allowed to go before that tribunal merely in order that this discretion might be exercised. Think of the loss of patience on the part of the tribunal called on through the laxity of Parliament to consider cases which it never ought to have been called on to consider! Take the case of a tenant who in the year 1879, wishing to emigrate to America., voluntarily went out and surrendered his tenancy. In that case the tenancy was determined in the words of the clause. Now, did the right hon. Gentleman mean that the man could come back and claim to be reinstated in his holding? He was sure he had only to put the case to ensure a negative answer. That clearly could not be his intention. He appealed to the Chief Secretary, if he could not accept these words, to state how far he would go in limiting the cases which were to be brought before the tribunal.

§ MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N)
said, it must be evident in the case just quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) that the tenant who had surrendered his tenancy of his own free will and gone to America, and then returned and desired against the will of the landlord to get back into his holding, would not be permitted to do so. The arbitrators under the Bill would clearly hold that there was no primâ facie case for reinstatement. [Opposition laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen appeared to forget that the tribunal proposed by this Bill was to be an official tribunal, and not one composed of agitators or tenants. The laughter the House had just listened to was a disrespect to the three eminent gentlemen whom it was proposed to appoint as arbitrators. One of them was the leader of the Equity Bar in Ireland; the second was the Clerk of the Crown in the City of Dublin, and the third was the senior Adjudicator in fixing fair rents under the Land Act of 1881. These gentlemen were surely to be entrusted with the making of an Order which would be consistent with justice when the question arose. Would it be seriously contended by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham or anyone else that if a tenant voluntarily left his holding and went to America, and then returned and sought to be reinstated, that his case would be listened to by these gentlemen? It would not receive serious attention either from them or from any other body of arbitrators. He had pointed out the character of the tribunal, and the confidence that ought to be reposed in it, and now he would ask what was the object of the Bill? He submitted to Members on both sides of the House that it was to cover the case of tenants, who since 1879, in consequence of the agrarian struggle which had taken place in Ireland, had lost their status as tenants, and all their legal rights adhering to that status. This was specially so in the case of the present tenants. The object of the Bill was to put it in the discretion of the arbitrators to restore tenants of this description to the same position as if their tenancies had never been determined. The Amendment before the Committee proposed to omit the word "tenancy" and insert "tenant," so as to 1039 provide that the clause should only cover cases "where the tenant had been evicted." Were they to limit themselves to cases of absolute physical eviction?—and not being a lawyer he would not presume to discuss whether certain evictions were physical evictions or technical legal evictions. If they were to alter the clause as now suggested, only physical evictions would be meant. If the words he had referred to were put in they would exclude two large classes of cases in which assistance might be absolutely required. The hon. and learned Member for St. Stephen's Green (Mr. Kenny) had made that clear, for he spoke of a case where the tenancy might be determined, not by eviction, but by the fact that the landlord, instead of bringing an action for the recovery of possession of the land, brought an action for the recovery of the rent, obtained judgment against the tenant, and proceeded to sell the tenant's interest in the holding. The landlord himself bought the interest of the tenant, and the hon. and learned Gentleman held that the eviction of the tenant consequent upon that proceeding was not the eviction of a tenant, but of a trespasser. If that were so, then the case of the trespasser should be provided for in the Bill. In the early years of the agrarian struggle, and especially on the estate of Lord Cloncurry, although it was the case on other estates as well, the landlord, instead of proceeding for the land, proceeded for the rent, and obtained a writ of fi. fa., and sold the tenant's interest in the land. The landlord bought it for 2s. 6d., or £1, or £5 as the case might be, for the reason that on estates of this kind in the then state of public feeling in Ireland no one would take part in the bidding, and the land would go for any price that was offered. The tenant in these cases was deprived of his status as tenant because he owed one or two years' rent, and he suffered as much as if he had been physically evicted. The Irish Members could not, therefore, for one moment entertain the idea that the Bill was to be limited only to cases of physical eviction. The other class of cases to which he referred was one with which the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) was very familiar—namely, the case of those who under the Act of 1887, passed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for 1040 Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour)—were not physically evicted, but had been served with registered letters of eviction through the post. Upon the receipt of that registered letter, delivered to whom it might be by the postman or anybody else, the tenancy was determined, the tenant ceased to be the tenant, and lost all his rights and all he had in the world—his improvements, his right to compensation for disturbance, and everything. He was turned into a caretaker, not by physical expulsion or eviction such as was now under discussion. The moment the tenant became a caretaker the land-land came into occupation of the land. There were thousands and tens of thousands of such cases in Ireland. Many of these tenants were prevented from coming into the Land Court by reason of that process, and it must be obvious that if there was to be any amelioration of the condition of things in Ireland, anything to contribute to the healing of the social sore, the claims of these people must be equally within the sphere of arbitration as the claims of other evicted tenants. He need say no more than that the insertion of the words "that where the tenant has been evicted" would be fatal to the whole Bill.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)
said, that the questions which had been addressed to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and which were no doubt very difficult to reply to, opened up a very serious problem. This Bill, as its title showed, was introduced by Her Majesty's Government to deal exclusively with what were known as "evicted tenants." As he (Mr. Lowther) understood some of the arguments addressed to the Committee, there was a wish on the part of some hon. Members to very materially enlarge the scope of the measure. They were now told that the term "evicted tenants" did not adequately describe those persons for whom public money was to be obtained. It was said that the proper time for taking exception to this Bill being confined to bonâ fide evicted tenants was when the right hon. Gentleman opposite moved for leave to introduce the Bill. Now the right hon. Gentleman was, he (Mr. Lowther) admitted, at some disadvantage in expounding Irish law, assisted only by no doubt very eminent legal advisers, but gentlemen who were Scotch representa- 1041 tives, and who would be the first to admit that, so far as the interpretation of Irish law was concerned, they were ad hoc laymen and could not claim to speak as experts. If he (Mr. Lowther) were to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, fortified by the legal advice he had referred to, he would ask him what he intended by the Bill? Did he intend it to apply solely to evicted tenants, or did he not? If he (Mr. Lowther) correctly interpreted the words of the clause, any person who happened at any period of time since 1879 to occupy a holding in Ireland and to have been evicted on any grounds whatsoever, or to have given up a farm as a voluntary act, receiving hard cash for doing so, would under the Evicted Tenants Bill be able to come—although he had never been evicted in the whole course of his life—and ask for a share of this public plunder which was being distributed among certain of these excellent classes in Ireland. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that? He (Mr. Lowther) was not going to touch on the morality of the Bill. This was not the part of the measure upon which that question properly arose. He was not laying down that those who had been evicted had any more claim (if so great a claim) to public money as those who had voluntarily given up their holdings for causes which commended themselves to their judgment. If he were to discriminate he should say that those who had given up their holdings according to due process of law, and had not associated themselves with criminal conspiracies, had a far greater claim to a share of the public fund than those who had been connected with such discreditable and illegal transactions as those which had specially, apparently, enlisted the sympathies of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would clearly explain to the House what he meant by his Bill—whether or not he intended to shower this public money recklessly on every person who chose to apply for it?

MR. J. MORLEY
said, the right hon. Gentleman had asked him whether he intended to confine the Bill within the scope of the measure the House gave him leave to introduce. But the Bill had been read a second time, and they must start from that point. The principle of 1042 the Bill was to appoint a tribunal to which certain cases of dispute could be referred. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham used the very expression that he himself would have used to have expressed these special cases when he said that the cases that should be brought under the Bill were those "that gave rise to social administrative difficulties." That was perfectly true; and in order to carry out that policy it was necessary that the words adopted in the Bill should be of a very general character. If that were not so—if the words were narrowed—it would be impossible for them to cover every kind of case that might arise, and they would be doing their best to baffle the object they had in view. That was his answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) put the case of the tenant who surrendered his holding in 1879 receiving money for it and going to America, and who subsequently returned and sought to be reinstated. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it was intended to give relief to such a man as that. Clearly nothing of the kind was intended. No doubt, if such monstrous cases as had been suggested were brought before the arbitrators, they would not entertain them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had spoken of the laxity of Parliament and had said that they ought not, through the laxity of Parliament, to throw a burden on the shoulders of the arbitrators that they ought not to be asked to bear. But "the laxity of Parliament" was, after all, only one way of describing what they really intended. The Government wished to leave these arbitrators as wide a discretion as they possibly could. The hon. Member for Dublin University had exercised his ingenuity in placing before the Committee a number of hypothetical cases that might arise, and had said what a monstrous thing it would be if in such cases as he had suggested any relief were given under the Bill. Of course, it would be a monstrous thing that in such cases relief should be given, and it was just for that reason that the Government felt they could safely allow the claims of such tenants to go before the tribunal. The arbitrators would at once say that they were monstrous cases, and would refuse to accede to the applications. It was 1043 desirable to maintain general words in the clause. They desired to leave the tribunal the widest discretionary powers, and to shut as few doors as possible to their arbitration in cases which they thought it desirable in the interests of peace and order to entertain. Therefore, they had used the general words contained in the Act of 1891, because they wished, as the framers of the Act did, to cover as large an area of these unfortunate cases as they could. He could not see that the propriety of the words used had been shaken.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, he should have preferred to see this question dealt with by another Amendment lower down on the Paper. It was unreasonable for the Government to go back, he contended, to the 13th clause of the Land Act of 1891 as a justification for the words used and as a proof that no harm was likely to befall the landlord. That clause had a purely voluntary action, and formed the machinery alone by which the landlord and the tenant could be brought together for negotiations for purchasing the holding; but herein this Bill there was a special inducement for every person whose tenancy had been determined since 1879 to come forward and argue his case before the arbitrators, to whose decision everything was left. This was a very different procedure to that under the 13th clause of the Land Act of 1891, and therefore that clause, he maintained, could not justly be quoted as a precedent. Besides, the 13th section of the Act of 1891 had reference to purchase and not reinstatement. Take the case of a tenant against whom a landlord had proceeded for rent. The Sheriff came upon the land, seized everything, and sold the interest of the farm. Supposing that after everything had been sold up the tenant still continued on the farm. In that case, so far as he knew, the tenancy was not legally determined—[cries of "No, no!"]—and the landlord would have to proceed to eject the tenant by physical force. ["No, no!"] Then how was the landlord to get him out?

§ MR. DILLON
The tenant's interest being sold, the landlord would be the occupier, and the tenant would at once become a mere trespasser on the land.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
That is the case of my hon. and learned Friend, and 1044 this Bill, therefore, is a Bill to deal not alone with tenants, but with trespassers. I am not to be taken as opposing that. You would find in a large number of cases that that would represent the actual fact; and while admitting only from the standpoint of the promoters of the Bill that such men would be trespassers, I think that it should be stated, if they really regard them as such.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
I would point out that; the amount of money is only £250,000, and it is therefore obvious that the Government intend to apply the fund only to the most deserving cases. If the arbitrators entertained such cases as some hon. Members have suggested—even if they were foolish and culpable enough to do that—the money would not be enough to go round.

§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)
said, that as a layman, and one representing a constituency that was not agricultural, he desired to say a few words on the Amendment. It seemed to him most unfortunate that the first operative line of the Bill was not to be relied on. The title of the measure said it was a Bill for the relief of evicted tenants; but on the first line they came to discuss, they were told that so far from that being the case they were prohibited from inserting the title in that place, for the reason that it was intended to make a class of people who were not evicted tenants beneficiaries under the Bill. It should be remembered that there were many business men in the North of Ireland who of late years had had transactions with new tenants in the South, who, if that class of farmers were obliged by the Bill to surrender their holdings in order that some evicted tenant should be reinstated in his old farm, would lose their security. It was not, he submitted, an impossible case that a tenant who voluntarily gave up his holding some six or seven years ago should subsequently, on his return from America, claim to be reinstated. Such a case actually occurred within his own knowledge. A meeting was called to consider the matter, and the curious thing was that the question raised was not whether or no the claim was a valid one, but solely, how much compensation should be paid, not by the ex-tenant, but by the sitting tenant for the right to remain. 1045 So far from this being an out-of-the-way case, it was reported in the local papers, and it was decided to hold a meeting, should the tenant prove recalcitrant, in order to compel him to allow the tenant in America to resume possession. He did not think such a case was unlikely to occur again. He would like to know further if they were clearly to understand that, although the circumstances by which the tenancy had been determined came within the purview of the Bill, the representatives of a tenant who had since died would be entitled to take possession.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)
said, it would not be denied that even if the Amendment were carried the provisions of the Bill would still cover a good many cases which in the judgment of the House ought not to benefit under it. That was practically admitted by the hon. Member for North Kerry, as well as by the Chief Secretary himself. Two arguments had been addressed to the Committee by which it was sought to show that the superfluous width given by these words would be practically kept in check. The first argument adduced was the extraordinary one of the hon. Member for North Louth with reference to the amount of money being £250,000, and therefore that for mere lack of cash the cases that they did not mean to include could not be dealt with. If the argument was to have any weight at all it would cause the new tribunal not to decide any single case until it had every case before it—that was to say, the whole body of tenantry or ex-tenantry to be relieved by the Bill must be before the tribunal before it decided the allocation of the funds. The second argument was that on which the Chief Secretary relied. It was to the effect that the Government were appointing a number of gentlemen to form a Commission, and that their discretion might be absolutely trusted to exclude from the operation of the Bill every case which ought not to be included in it. He did not wish to say a word against the excellent gentlemen who were to form this Commission, though if hon. Members were to go on covering every defect in the Bill by applauding the virtues of these gentlemen it would in all probability be necessary for someone to say of these gentlemen that whatever might be 1046 their merits they did not inspire that abnormal amount of confidence which appeared to be reposed in them. It was sufficient for him to point out also that these gentlemen were distinctly required by the Bill to take into consideration the circumstances of the district. It appeared to him that if a tenant came back in the circumstances which had just been mentioned by the hon. Member for West Belfast, and if he contrived to make himself sufficiently dangerous to the peace of the neighbourhood, and sufficiently disagreeable to the powers that be, this tribunal would be obliged, from the very nature of their mandate, to consider whether he ought not to be reinstated in his holding. But even if that should not be the case, he put it to the Chief Secretary whether it was fair to put the landlord to the cost of proving to the tribunal that there was not a primâ facie case for consideration? This would involve the landlord going to his solicitor to have a case made out and the necessary affidavits drawn, and such work would involve all the initial expenses which the Legal Profession knew so well how to accumulate. Granting that the tribunal would do justice, he urged that it was an unfair burden to put on the landlord to require him to prove by costly process that such-and-such a tenant left his holding in circumstances which did not properly bring him within the intention of the Bill. Let the Committee define its intentions in the Bill, and then none of those difficulties would arise. In that event the Committee would have done its best to guide the tribunal, and if it went wrong the blame would rest on the Commissioners, and not on the legislative work of the House.

MR. J. MORLEY
pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have misapprehended the operation of the sub-section. No costs could fall on the landlord until the arbitrators had made the conditional order. The primâ facie case had to operate on the minds of the arbitrators before they made the conditional order.

§ MR. BRODRICK (Surrey, Guildford)
said, he had to move to qualify the 1047 word "holding" by inserting the words which is valued under the Acts relating to the valuation of rateable property in Ireland at not more than thirty pounds a year. This was by no means an unfair Amendment, and it introduced no novel principle. On the contrary, the exceptional feature of the Bill was that it left out this limitation, which was included in almost all previous measures of a similar kind. He looked back to the Acts which had been brought in from time to time to relieve either temporarily or permanently the tenants of Ireland from disaster and trouble due sometimes to their own action, and sometimes to causes beyond their control, and he found this provision occurred in almost every Act and in that for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was himself responsible in 1880. The Compensation for Disturbance Bill of 1880, which had been so often quoted as the beginning of all the trouble in Ireland, the Land Act of 1881 (with respect to arrears), the Arrears Act of 1882, and the Arrears Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Waterford, all were confined to holdings of under £30 valuation. He well remembered the arguments advanced for treating these tenants in an exceptional manner. They were alleged to be a class whose poverty and whose ignorance had prevented them from benefiting by free contract. It was important, too, to bear in mind that these holdings were 85 per cent. of the whole tenancies in Ireland, and, therefore, the Amendment would not exclude the men who ought not to be excluded. The small tenants were precisely those who had lost most by eviction. The tenant of a holding of 300 or 400 acres would not be appreciably benefited by the grant of £50 proposed to be made under the Bill, whereas the tenant of a farm of £30 valuation would benefit from a grant which represented nearly two years' rent. The hon. Member for East Mayo in 1886 made a speech in which he laid down a programme specially directed to the case of this poor class of tenants. He said, on the 14th of October in that year—"Would they not be better off with 30s or £2 a week and their hands in their pockets, instead—"

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! I do not think that that is relevant to the Amendment.

§ MR. BRODRICK
said, he thought he would be able to show that it was absolutely germane to the Amendment, because special inducements were held out to these smaller tenants to join the Plan of Campaign. But if they took the case of a man who paid £40 a year in rent, and offered him £100 a year to come out and sit idly, surely they offered such a man a strong inducement to quit his holding.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
That has nothing to do with the Amendment. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to keep in Order.

§ MR. BRODRICK
said, he bowed to the ruling of the Chairman, and would address himself to other arguments in supporting his point that evicted tenants of larger status should have the least right to look to the indulgence of the House. He would call the attention of the Chief Secretary to the position of the tenants on the Glensharold estate, and more especially to a letter written by the Bishop of Limerick on the 13th May, 1890, about those tenants—[Cries of "Order, order!" from Nationalist Members.] He knew that that letter was a most inconvenient citation to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, but, all the same, he proposed to read it. There were 43 tenants on the Glensharold estate. The old rent they paid was £738; the judicial rent was £542, and the new rent proposed was £384. They owed five years' rent, or £2,611, and yet the landlord was willing to accept one year's rent at the new figure—namely, £384, and allow them back again to their holdings. The Bishop of Limerick was anxious that the tenants should accept those terms, and in his letter he made an appeal to one of the larger tenants not to stand in the way of a settlement—

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! The hon. Member has not appreciated what I said just now. My ruling was that the mode in which the tenants may have lost their holdings has nothing to do with the Amendment.

§ MR. BRODRICK
I must venture with great respect to say, Mr. Mellor, that you cannot have understood the point I was offering to the Committee. It is this—that those large tenants have no claim on the indulgence of the House.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
If the hon. Gentleman confines himself to that he will be quite in Order. But he must not 1049 go into the question of the way the tenants lost their holdings.

§ MR. W. REDMOND
On a point of Order, Mr. Mellor—

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The point of Order has been settled.

§ MR. W. REDMOND
It is another point of Order, Sir. I wish to ask you whether, when you have given your decision as to a matter being in Order or not, it is in Order for the hon. Gentleman in possession of the House to argue the matter?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order!

§ MR. BRODRICK
said, he desired to show that one of the tenants who had a large holding on the Glensharold estate was appealed to by the Bishop of Limerick to give way, and that if that large tenant had given way the other tenants would have followed suit. There was no doubt that if the larger tenants on all those Plan of Campaign estates had set the example of giving way, the smaller tenants would have been only too glad to have availed themselves of the terms offered by the landlord; and that was why he urged that the relief proposed by the Bill should be confined to the smaller tenants. He would give the Committee an example of the larger tenants whom he sought to exclude from the benefits of the Bill. He knew the case extremely well. It was that of a man who had been farming between four and five hundred acres of land and paying £450 a year rent. The tenant got into arrear, and was evicted in 1881, 13 years ago. The landlord took up the farm, and spent between £4,000 and £5,000 on it, one-third of which amount was sunk in permanent buildings. The tenant, after spending 10 or 12 years in America, came back last year, settled himself down at the landlord's gate, and now expected to get back to the farm under this Bill without paying a farthing. Surely, it was preposterous and absurd to reinstate such a man. The arbitrators would have no power to order the landlord more than one year's rent, £400, and out of the farm he would have to go, after spending £4,000 in improving it. Would it be surprising if the landlord in such a case—having lost all his capital and having a worthless and bankrupt tenant forced on him—laboured under a deep injustice? Surely, such a man would have the sympathy and support of 1050 every honest man in Great Britain, if he fought to the last, by every legal means, in order to preserve his property. The Committee could hardly be aware of the large number of men of substance and means who, unless his Amendment were accepted, would be reinstated under the Bill. He paid recently a visit to the Ponsonby estate, and while he regretted to see many small houses dilapidated and fallen in, he saw a few houses which did not arouse his sympathy or regret at all. He saw one excellent house, the lands of which were at present stocked by the owners of the estate. He found out that this place had belonged to a man who carried on the trade of a butcher in Youghal. That man was not a farmer in the ordinary sense; he was not depending on the land for a livelihood; and was it not monstrous to propose that in such a case the landlord should be turned out of the farm and the Youghal butcher allowed to come back like a conquering hero? He asked the Committee to exclude such men from the benefits of the Bill. If his Amendment were accepted it would relieve from the Bill some of the more objectionable and ridiculous features of the Bill; it would make the Bill less demoralising; and more just, so far as justice could at all enter in its proposals.

MR. J. MORLEY
The hon. Member has really brought forward a Second Reading set of objections to the Bill. The Amendment would exclude farms the valuation of which is over £30 a year from the operation of the Bill. There were 1,483 holdings inquired into by the Mathew Commission, and of these 226 were holdings over £30 a year rent, which though not quite the same thing as the valuation is about the same, so that if the Amendment were carried it would exclude something like 14 or 15 per cent. of the cases inquired into by the Mathew Commission. I cannot say that my hon. Friend has made out any particular case for excluding large holdings and allowing 1051 small ones to come in under the Bill; but in any event I do not desire to lay down a hard and fast rule like this for the arbitrators. The arbitrators must have a wide discretion; they will be an arbitrating tribunal; and if the circumstances of the district, and the circumstances of the holding—whether it be a large holding or whether it be a small holding—justify the issue of a conditional order, and afterwards the making of the conditional order absolute, in view of the policy of the Bill, the size of the holding has no bearing on the question the arbitrators will have to settle. The question of the landlord's improvements, which is the question really raised by the Amendment, is dealt with in another part of the Bill, and as there are Amendments down to it, I will deal with the question when we come to them. But I must resist this Amendment.

§ MR. SMITH-BARRY (Hunts, S.)
said, that the Chief Secretary said that the tribunal was going to be an arbitrating Bill. But the arbitrators would be bound by the terms of this Act, and therefore they would be bound to deal with all cases that came before them under the Bill. The hon. Member for Louth said just now that there was only £250,000 to deal with under the Bill, therefore in his opinion they ought to confine the money to the most deserving cases; and he thought his hon. Friend was perfectly right in bringing in an Amendment to limit the operation of the Bill to the most deserving cases, or, as he would put it, to the least undeserving cases. He thought the large men were able to take care of themselves. The principle that the large men were able to take care of themselves ran through all the land legislation of the House. The large men were excluded from the Arrears Act of 1882, introduced by the right hon. Member for Midlothian, and the Amendment of his hon. Friend ran on the lines of that Act. Again, when the Purchase Act of 1891 was introduced, Mr. Parnell moved an Amendment to limit it to holdings valued under £50.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
He was not dealing with the evicted tenants.

§ MR. SMITH-BARRY
said, that was so, but Mr. Parnell, in making that proposal, admitted that the large men were well able to take care of themselves. He maintained, indeed, with regard to 1052 these evicted tenants, that they were capable of taking care of themselves, but certainly the bigger men could make terms with their landlords if they pleased to do so. The amount of money to be advanced was not a large sum. If there were any deserving cases at all among the evicted tenants they were to be found among the small men, and he cordially supported the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)
said, he was not able to support the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Parnell's Amendment to the Land Purchase Act of 1891. He did not think the hon. Gentleman supported Mr. Parnell on that occasion; he (Mr. Russell) certainly did not, and he knew that in another place Lord Londonderry carried a clause which practically made an end of Mr. Parnell's proposal. But he had a more apt illustration for the Committee. The late Government proposed to reinstate evicted tenants under Clause 13 of the Act of 1891, and they did not limit the operation of that section in the way the Amendment proposed. As a matter of fact, most of the evicted tenants who had been reinstated under that section were in the possession of holdings valued above £30 a year. Therefore, he was not going to be driven from the 13th section of the Land Act of 1891; he stood by it, and if the Unionist Government put no limitation on that section he was not going to adopt a limitation now. Besides, there were other grounds for rejecting the Amendment. They must face this Bill, having passed its Second Reading, as a Bill that might become law; and he was not prepared to leave 15 per cent. of the evicted tenants behind, like an open sore festering and breeding corruption. With regard to the Youghal butcher to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, if he had chosen he could have gone back to the farm under the 13th section; but he should say, in reference to the returned American, who had settled down at the landlord's gate waiting to get possession of his holding, that the Chief Secretary ought not to be allowed to get the Bill until he provided directions excluding the arbitrators from dealing with such a case as that.

§ MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)
said, he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone that the Bill 1053 might possibly become law; but he could not understand that that was any ground for refusing a perfectly reasonable Amendment. It was perfectly true, as his hon. Friend had pointed out, that the 13th section of the 1891 Act drew no such limitation. But it must be remembered that this Bill proposed to devote the limit sum of £250,000 to the reinstatement of evicted tenants, which numbered 4,000. It was obvious that that sum was absolutely inadequate to carry out such a purpose; and, therefore, even from the Government's point of view, it was highly desirable that the money should be put to the best possible advantage. Tenants over £30 a year valuation would be well able to provide the resources for reinstatement themselves; and it was the poor man that should have the first pull at the limited sum placed at the disposal of the arbitrators. He believed the Amendment would strengthen the Bill rather than weaken it. If there was to be any favour shown to any class of tenants it should be shown to the smaller class, very few of whom, he believed, would have gone out if it had not been for the coercion put upon them by others who could pay their rents, but did not chose to do so. If the Amendments which were proposed to this Bill were to be met by simply referring to the discretion which was to be exercised by the tribunal, and if no attempt were made to show some reason against them, the arguments of the Treasury Bench would become ridiculous. He hoped before the discussion concluded some wiser reason would be shown for rejecting this Amendment than had yet been given. He was convinced that the Amendment would be one for which the arbitrators themselves would be thankful.

§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)
was rather surprised that the hon. Member for South Tyrone saw any difficulty in supporting the Amendment. The hon. Member appeared to see such difficulty altogether because of the fact that he was a supporter of the 13th clause—he believed he was partly the author of it.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
I was not the author. I moved it.

§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON
We may be led to suppose, then, that he approved of it?

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
I do now.

§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON
said, his hon. Friend would see that there was an immense difference between the arrangement made under Clause 13, and the proposal under this Bill, and indeed the hon. Member had alluded to it himself. Under the Bill of 1891, the arrangement between the landlord and tenant was entirely compulsory, whereas under the present Bill it was a matter of forcing the evicted tenant back upon the land. He did not, therefore, see any logical grounds upon which his hon. Friend could refuse to support what he regarded as a reasonable proposal. He thought in this discussion they had arrived at the guiding principle which would influence right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench in meeting the various arguments that were addressed from that side of the House. They had heard the Chief Secretary and the Solicitor General, and both right hon. Gentlemen evidently realised that the proposals in this Bill were proposals such as had never yet been submitted to any Legislative Assembly in the world, and proposals which, he imagined, even their ingenuity was not sufficient adequately to grapple with. Therefore, as far as he could make out from the speeches of the Chief Secretary and the Solicitor General, they appeared to agree on this point: that all these difficulties and objections, which they must have already discerned, could only be overcome in one way, and one alone. They appeared to agree that all these difficulties would be solved because they had, for the first time in the history of Ireland, discovered three upright and unbiased Irishmen who, when this difficult point was submitted to them, would give a righteous, upright, and logical decision. There was one remark which the Chief Secretary made to the proposal of his hon. Friend which threw some light on the course the Government had taken. The right hon. Gentleman said if they accepted the Amendment it would strike at the very principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill was certainly very clear. It was a Bill to reinstate a certain class of evicted tenants—namely, the Plan of Campaign tenants. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth indicated this fact when he said that the arbitrators would have little difficulty, because as 1055 the sum they had to deal with was limited it could only be applied to a limited number of tenants. The natural inference, therefore, was that when these three upright, intelligent, and logical gentlemen met to examine this Bill they would say it was brought into the House and carried through Parliament with a certain object, and that was to reinstate a certain class of tenants—namely, that class which was a public danger—the Plan of Campaign tenants. As this sum of money was barely sufficient to deal with them, the money must be allocated in that direction, and, therefore, on these grounds, the proposal of his hon. Friend was a reasonable proposal. The Bill would be just as objectionable to him even if this Amendment passed; but he supported it because he wanted to limit the scope of these upright and just gentlemen. As the Bill was drawn there was absolutely no limit to the scope of these gentlemen when they met together in solemn conclave, and he supported the Amendment, not because he thought it would make the Bill a good one—for no Amendment could do that except the Amendment he moved that the Bill be read a second time this day six months—but because it would define to a certain extent the scope of the operations of these three just Judges who were to meet in Ireland and decide the fate of landlord and tenant.

§ VISCOUNT WOLMER (Edinburgh, W.)
said, the Solicitor General had stated that the policy of the Government was to make, through this Bill, a final settlement of the difficulty. It was impossible, from the nature of the case, that it could do that. It would, however, awaken hopes among the evicted tenants which it would be impossible to fulfil because of the limited amount of the funds. If the Government were not prepared to face the problem as it really existed, and ask for more money, surely they ought to accept an Amendment to narrow the scope of the Bill, and thus enable some of the hopes that had been awakened to be satisfied.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)
said, that when he first heard the Amendment proposed he felt a doubt as to how far he could consistently support a policy which proposed to draw a distinction between the larger and smaller tenants, because he had always contended that 1056 the sub-division of the land into small holdings was one of the curses of Ireland. He regarded with great jealousy any premium put upon the indefinite sub-division of holdings and any discouragement offered to the aggregation of land in holdings of a reasonable size, and therefore if his hon. Friend's Amendment had to be considered apart from wider considerations he certainly could not support it. He held that the fund at the disposal of the Government was miserably inadequate to accomplish the object for which the Bill had ostensibly to be passed, and it would not deal with more than the fringe of the subject. Any proposal, therefore, which suggested the withdrawal of a material percentage of the claimants on that limited and inadequate fund was deserving of careful consideration. The financial provision was beneath contempt as a settlement of what was called a great question, though he might say in passing he did not admit that there was any question to be settled at all. These people, who were to be treated with consideration—both those his hon. Friend proposed to exempt and those who came within the provisions of the Bill—were discharging a very useful object-lesson on the high road by demonstrating that dishonesty did not always pay in this world, and the longer they remained to illustrate this valuable object-lesson the better it would be for the community at large. The proposal of his hon. Friend would relieve the fund from a very substantial number of claimants, but even if the Amendment were adopted, the Bill would still remain one which he hoped hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would refrain from passing into law.

§ SIR T. LEA (Londonderry, S.)
said, that whilst he agreed that the Bill as it stood was a bad Bill, it had, after all, passed the Second Reading, and if there was any administrative difficulty they ought to do what they could to lessen or avoid it. Having on the various Land Bills endeavoured to give them the widest scope, so that tenants might obtain the utmost privileges they could by legislative enactments, he thought they ought not to limit the operation of this clause. In the case of the Land Purchase Bill of 1891 the Government desired to limit its benefits to tenants under £30 valuation, but he moved to 1057 extend the limit to £50, which was ultimately agreed to. The policy of all parties in Ireland up to the present time had been to extend these Acts without restrictions of any kind, and they who disapproved and disliked the principle of this Bill, now that it had passed the Second Reading, should, if there was any chance of its doing away with this administrative difficulty, be willing to see it extended to all farms on an estate.

§ MR. FISHER (Fulham)
had no difficulty whatever in supporting this Amendment, for the very reasons adduced by the hon. Members for South Tyrone and South Londonderry for opposing it. They said that, in their opinion, there was a social and administrative difficulty and a question to be settled, and if the Bill was to become law they asked the House to extend the Bill with a view to settling the question as much as it was possible. He also desired to see as much as was possible of the question settled, and for that reason he should support an Amendment which would limit the application of this £250,000 in the first place to estates with holdings under £30. This £250,000 would not adequately settle the question. They had, on the Chief Secretary's own showing, to provide certain sums of under £50 for tenants whose houses had been destroyed. Out of that £250,000 they would also have to provide other large sums of money unless they were going to do a great act of injustice to the landlords who, for many years past, had been in possession of large holdings which they had themselves improved in many ways and made profitable; and, in the third place, they would have to provide one year's arrears. The right hon. Gentleman made an altogether inaccurate and misleading estimate of the amount of money that would have to be provided for arrears. He told them that the estimate ought to be formed on the basis of holdings having an average value of £15, similar to the holdings inquired into by the Evicted Tenants' Commission, and in that case the total which would be required for the whole of the holdings which would be inquired into by the three arbitrators would amount to £60,000 for the one year's arrears of rent. But, taking the total number of cases which were embraced in Appendix G of the Report of the Mathew Commis- 1058 sion, in which the tenants claimed reinstatement, the amount the right hon. Gentleman would require would be nearer £130,000 than £160,000. That shattered the whole fabric of the right hon. Gentleman's figures, and would make an enormous inroad into the £60,000 quite outside any calculations he made to this House, and the £250,000, therefore, was totally inadequate to deal with these cases. That being so, and following the argument of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, he said that the application of this money should be limited to the smaller estates. In the case of the Olphert estate, there was not a single tenant evicted whose tenancy was above £30; therefore, if some Amendment were carried limiting the application of the money to estates under the value of £30, they would be sure, if the Bill were carried into law, that, at any rate, they would have enough to go and settle the question on such estates. If no limitation was made, and the amount of money at the disposal of the arbitrators were not increased, the bigger tenants would exhaust the funds, the smaller tenants would find, when they came there, that the cupboard was bare, and they would thus defeat the very object of this Bill by being able to heal only very few instead of a great number of these sores. It was not only the amount of arrears of rent they had to consider, but also the fact that the larger tenants required very much more capital than the others before they could enter upon the farms with any prospect of success. Again, in dealing with these estates, they must have an enormous sum for compensation to the landlord to go out of the farms which he had held and worked with profit for 12 or 14 years past. Outside the Plan of Campaign estates, there were scores of cases of farms where the rental was over £200, and hundreds where it was over £100, where evictions took place many years ago, and which had for years been in the occupation of the landlord. On these grounds he should support the Amendment. He should have preferred that it should have stated that estates of £30 should first be dealt with, and the money afterwards applied to estates of greater value than £30, but in order to secure some limitation in the application of this money he should support his hon. Friend if he went to a Division.

§ MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)
said, the Amendment before the House was not to limit this section to estates under £30, but to holdings under that amount. If the Bill was to go through in its present form he might perhaps vote against the Amendment; but why should they abandon all hope of converting the Government to their own view, that a voluntary clause was preferable to a compulsory one? Let them give the Government the benefit of the doubt; and until they had shown they would not adopt the view that was held by the Opposition, he could not support an Amendment which would, in his mind, damage the principle of voluntary purchase.

§ MR. CARSON
said that, of course, if the Government were prepared to give an undertaking that they would reduce their Bill to the purely voluntary principle he should agree with the views of the hon. Member behind him. There was not, however, the slightest hopes of the Government doing any such thing, and, at all events, until they did he thought sufficient reason was shown for limiting the number of persons who were to come under this Bill, and to receive this small sum of £250,000. He had been looking through the Report of the Mathew Commission, and he would quote one case on the Luggacurren estate, owned by the Marquess of Lansdowne, which would serve to show how small the amount of money was which was provided for carrying out the objects of this mill in relation to the large number of tenants who would have to come in if this Amendment or a similar one were not adopted. On the Luggacurren estate there was one holding belonging to a Mr. Dunne. He held something like 1,300 acres at a rent of £1,300 a year. Mr. Dunne was one of the ringleaders of the Plan of Campaign, and was evicted from his holding. Was this House going to allow a gentleman like that, who held 1,300 acres at £1,300 a year, to come in and claim to be reinstated in his holding? Look at the great injustice which anything like that would inflict! In the first place, it would allow one man, at the cost of the State, to reap a large amount of money out of all proportion to the money which would be distributed among the other evicted tenants. In the second place, 1060 a much greater amount of money would be required by the State. It must not be forgotten that such a tenant could be put back against the wish of the landlord, and therefore that the landlord was entitled to compensation. Had the right hon. Gentleman considered the amount of money that the landlord must have expended in keeping up the farm during the six years it was upon his hands? Such a case as that might be comparatively rare, but there were a number of farms that had been let at a rental of from £300 to £400. To all the questions that had been asked by hon. Members on his side of the House the Government had apparently but one answer to make, and that was that it would be a matter for the discretion of the tribunal. That seemed to him a preposterous answer to make. If the Government were willing to pass one Act of Parliament which was to be construed according to the discretion of a limited tribunal, why should they hesitate to adopt that course in other cases? For example, why should they not pass a Land Act that would be applied in the same discretionary way?

§ MR. HANBURY
moved, in page 1, line 5, after "Ireland," to insert "situate on any estate mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act." He explained that his object in moving this Amendment was to make the Bill a practicable measure. In the first place, if they were to extend the scope of the Bill indefinitely so as to take in tenants of all descriptions who had been evicted, or whose tenancy had terminated between 1879 and November 1st, 1894, it was clear that the number of tenants would be so large that the small sum of money available for this purpose would not be sufficient to meet the exigencies of the case. It was also clear that they were tied by the limitation of time, because the arbitrators were only appointed for two years, and if they did not strictly limit the number of tenants who could come within the scope of the arbitration, two years would be inadequate to deal with the number of cases that would come before them. But, assuming that there was this large 1061 number of tenants, were they going to be dealt with on the principle of first come first served? That would be an unfair principle to adopt. Or were they to refuse to deal with any of them until all the tenants had sent in their claims?

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
desired to call attention, as a point of Order, to a ruling made in the Arrears Act of 1882, with regard to a schedule made by Mr. Playfair, who was then Chairman. Mr. Gibson (the late Irish Lord Chancellor) had made a Motion, and the Chairman stated that no Amendment could be moved in reference to a schedule which was not before the Committee, and that this should be done on Report.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I pointed out to the hon. Member for Preston that it was out of Order to move an Amendment to a schedule which had not been brought up, but since then he has brought up a schedule.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
I submit that, according to Mr. Playfair's ruling of that day, it is not competent for any hon. Member to move a schedule which did not exist, and that it goes the length of saying that it cannot even be brought up.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I do not think the ruling went so far as that. An hon. Member is always at liberty to move an Amendment with a schedule. As the original Amendment was ruled out of Order, the hon. Member has brought up an Amendment and a new schedule, so that he has practically put himself in Order.

§ MR. HANBURY
remarked that the hon. and learned Member for North Louth had raised a good number of points of Order without success. When he was interrupted by the hon. Member he was about to state the reasons which induced him to put down the Amendment with reference to the time. One year only would be allowed wherein to lodge claims. The result would, therefore, be that one year only would be available to deal with the enormous mass of claims sent in, and this period was far too short. With the view, therefore, of making the Bill a practical one, he moved this Amendment, because it was necessary that the Committee should act in this matter in the full light of day, and should know exactly with what tenants they were dealing. A great number of evictions had taken place since 1879, and 1062 opinions differed largely as to the number. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham put the number at 30,000, and the evictions were going on even now under the rule of the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary said that the number was only about 3,900; but he should like to know where the right hon. Gentleman got that information? Some definite information was needed as to the number of tenants and as to what tenants were likely to apply. About 1,403 tenants on the Plan of Campaign estates had the opportunity of sending in their claims under the Mathew Commission, and there were 2,755 more. He proposed, therefore, that these men should be the tenants dealt with under the Bill, and this number was sufficient to occupy the whole time of the arbitrators. They were the most important class of tenants, and they were those in whom the Irish Members had taken most interest and knew most about. If they were the most dangerous tenants and those with whom they ought to deal first, then let them be put in the forefront. If any class of evicted tenants were to be singled out, surely it was those who had already sent in claims. Their number was quite as great as the arbitrators would be able to deal with in a single year, and for that reason he begged to move the Amendment.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
remarked that it seemed to him that the Amendment hinged on the Schedule, and it was impossible for the Committee to discuss an Amendment which referred to the Schedule if they did not know what the Schedule was.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, the Schedule had reference to the Plan of Campaign tenants, and was the Schedule of the Mathew Commission.

MR. J. MORLEY
said, the hon. Member was wrong. The Schedule in question was not confined to Plan of Campaign estates, but included Lord Cloncurry's and another estate where evictions took place in 1882.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
said, he had come to the conclusion that this method of moving the Amendment was a most inconvenient course to adopt.

MR. J. MORLEY
said, that to show what mature consideration the hon. Member for Preston had given to this important matter of the Schedule he might mention that the hon. Member had simply taken the list given on page 10 of the Mathew Commission Report with the exception of the estate of the hon. Member for South Hunts. What weight could the Committee attach to an Amendment and a schedule defining the area over which the Bill was to extend when the schedule of the hon. Member was taken at random from the pages of that Report, and of which he knew so little as to say they were all Plan of Campaign estates, when there were two which were not Plan of Campaign estates on which evictions took place in 1882? He thought that he might be dispensed from the necessity of arguing upon a case presented to the Committee in that way. In selecting these estates the hon. Member was doing that which hon. Members who sat around him had declared they would not do—that was to say, give special favour to the Plan of Campaign tenants.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, if he was compelled to choose between the evictions that took place between 1879 and 1886, and those which took place after 1886 on the Plan of Campaign estates, he should vote for the former, and for this reason: If they were going to consider the question at all, there was something to be said against the evictions which took place after 1879 and up to 1882, for the House of Lords threw out the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, which might have saved these evictions. But when they came to consider the evictions which took place after 1886—that was the Plan of Campaign evictions, he was absolutely clear in his own mind that there was nothing to be said for them on the merits at all. What was the hon. Member for Preston doing? He was compelling them to elect between the evictions from 1879 to 1886, and from 1886 to 1890, and was asking them to deify the Plan of Campaign. He should have nothing to do with any such policy, and he could not conceive that it could receive any support from hon. 1064 Gentlemen opposite who had declared over and over again that they would hold no terms whatever with the Plan of Campaigners. He considered the Amendment ought not to be persisted in.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said, there was, undoubtedly, some force in the objection raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite that in extending this Amendment they were extending the favours of this Bill to a list which if it was not the same as the list of the Plan of Campaign estates, broadly speaking, coincided with it. He did not think that was what his hon. Friend intended by his Amendment. He said the speech of his hon. Friend who introduced the Amendment was largely based upon the very sound consideration that they ought to legislate for estates about which they knew something and for tenants as to whom they had made inquiry rather than for estates and tenants of which they knew nothing and as to whom there had been no inquiry. They had all felt that they were asked to legislate for all Ireland and for 15 years on a Report which did not deal with all Ireland and which only referred to four or five years. The Amendment exposed what was the real purpose of the Bill—namely, to give relief to the promoters and the victims of the Plan of Campaign, and it showed it in its true light as an expedient to relieve certain Irishmen of obligations which they had undertaken. Having served its purpose he would suggest to his hon. Friend that it would not be wise to insist on a Division. They had had a not uninstructive discussion and had practically gained their object.

MR. MAC NEILL
Yes, wasting time.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said, the time had, in their opinion, been by no means wasted.

§ MR. CARSON
said, he wished only to say a word or two on the point raised by the hon. Member as to why the estate of the hon. Member for South Hunts should be excluded from the operation of the Bill. The Mathew Commission actually found that the Plan of Campaign was started on that estate not because of anything that had occurred between the owner and his tenantry, but because the former had ventured to interfere in a dispute on a wholly different property. Surely it would not be suggested the 1065 arbitrators were bound in a case like that to interfere in order to restore these tenants to their holdings.

§ MR. W. KENNY (Dublin, St. Stephen's Green)
said, the object of the next Amendment which stood in his name was to give a specific and definite meaning to the word "holding" in the first sub-section. There was some discussion on the point in the course of the Debate on the Second Reading, and he hoped they would not now have addressed to them the argument already put forward by the Government that night, that they had no wish to specify any category. The 57th section of the Act, 1881, provided that a holding should mean a parcel of land, and his hon. Friend had pointed out that unless they had in this Bill some definition the word might be taken to include demesne lands and town parks, and would not necessarily be confined to agricultural or pastural land. Surely the Government did not intend to bring such holdings as those within the purview of the Bill? He thought the Amendment was essential, and he hoped the Government would accept it.

MR. J. MORLEY
said, he thought a very few sentences would suffice to describe the attitude of the Government towards the Amendment. They thought the proper place in which to settle the point would be in the Definition Clause. It was fair that they should be asked whether they did mean or not to retain the various categories of exclusion enumerated in the 58th section of the Act of 1881. They did propose to maintain those categories of exclusion, and he hoped this would be satisfactory to the hon. and learned Member.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, that if the Amendment were inserted as it stood functions would be imposed on the 1066 arbitrators which it would be impossible for them to discharge. Let them take the case of tenants evicted in 1879 or 1880. Surely the only thing to be done in that case was to enable them, in the first instance if they desired to have a fair rent fixed, to go before the regular tribunal.

§ MR. CARSON
said, that he was perfectly satisfied with the undertaking of the right hon. Gentleman as he understood it—namely, that an Amendment would be inserted in the Definition Clause which would exclude from the operation of the Bill all tenants who could not have come into Court to have a fair rent fixed under the provisions of the Act of 1881 as amended by the Act of 1887. Therefore, no one would have a right to apply under this Act who held a purely pastural farm, or any such holdings as were detailed in Section 58 of the Act referred to. If that were the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman be should advise the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to withdraw his present Amendment.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, he could not accept any such understanding, and he for one would not wish to be bound by it. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not bind himself by any pledge that would exclude from the operation of the Bill the tenants who could not take advantage of the Act of 1881 because they were evicted before it was passed. If these tenants were entitled to have a fair rent fixed they could go before the Sub-Commissioners in the ordinary way.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
But, supposing the Bill stands as it is framed and the tenant is admitted, the arbitrators would be forced to fix the rent.

§ MR. SEXTON
If the landlord agrees.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
pointed out that the Land Commission might subsequently decide that the particular tenant did not come within the operation of the Act of 1881, and the result would be, as he had gone back into possession, that it might be troublesome to get him out again.

MR. J. MORLEY
said, that there ought to be no mistake upon this point. They intended that the holdings dealt with under the Bill should be those specified in the Act of 1881, agricultural and pastural holdings, and they intended 1067 to exclude from the operation of the Act those holdings which were precluded by Section 58 of the Act of 1881 from having a fair rent fixed. That was the policy of the Bill. Speaking broadly, the Government did not wish and had no intention of putting a reinstated tenant in a better position than he would have occupied if he had not been evicted. The desire and intention was to place him in the exact position he occupied before he was displaced, and no tenants who were excluded from the provisions of the Acts of 1881 and 1887 will come within the operation of this Bill.

§ MR. SEXTON
asked as to the case of tenants from year to year evicted by the passing of the Act of 1881, and leaseholders evicted by the passing of the Act of 1887. Would they come within the purview of the Bill?

MR. J. MORLEY
I ought to have said the Land Act of 1881 and the Acts amending it.

§ MR. SEXTON
hoped that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would not have the effect of excluding from the Bill the tenants who ought to come within the provisions of the Act of 1881. The right of a tenant to come in ought not to be left to the decision of the arbitrators. Surely, before they finally determined so difficult and delicate a legal point, the tenants ought to have an opportunity of going before the Land Commission and getting a legal decision in the ordinary way.

§ MR. W. KENNY
thought that the object of the Chief Secretary was to have clearly specified in the Act the class of tenants which would not come within its purview. As the right hon. Gentleman had given an undertaking to deal with the point in the Definition Clause, and had indicated that holdings mentioned in the 58th section of the Act of 1881 were to be excluded, he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. J. MORLEY
said, that he agreed with the hon. Member for North Kerry that the decision of the arbitrators as to the right of a tenant to come in under the Bill should not finally exclude the tenant from the Bill.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
thought that the hon. Member for Kerry had raised a very important question, which he trusted would receive due consideration when the subject again came on for dis- 1068 cussion. There was an Amendment further down on the Paper which raised the same point, and he hoped it would have the support of the hon. Member.

§ MR. CLANCY
said, he could not view with very much favour the suggestion of the Chief Secretary. He did not think there should be any such exclusion as the right hon. Gentleman had referred to. These tenants ought to be allowed to go before the arbitrators, and to apply also to the Land Commission to have a fair rent fixed.

MR. J. MORLEY
Unless he agrees with the landlord.

§ MR. CLANCY
Yes, but if he is not entitled under the Act of 1881, then you exclude him from the benefits of this Bill. I, for my part, cannot accept their absolute exclusion.

§ MR. BARTON
, in the absence of the hon. Member for North Islington, moved an Amendment to exclude from the operation of the Bill all tenancies of holdings "upon which a judicial rent had not been fixed before the date of the determination thereof." These tenants who had had a presumably fair rent fixed, and had yet not paid their rent, would come back and say—"You must reinstate us, although you have fixed our rents as fair." He ventured to submit his Amendment on these grounds—namely, that the Bill should apply to the cases in which the Legislature had not come forward to help, and should not apply to the cases in which an actual fair rent had been fixed by Act of Parliament.

MR. J. MORLEY
The hon. and learned Gentleman forgets that the Relief Act of 1887 never dreamt of excluding tenants who had had judicial rents fixed. On the contrary, it was exactly those tenants who were entitled to the relief extended by the Act. There is another smaller point which I should like to take against the hon. and learned 1069 Member's Amendment. There are, among those contemplated in this Bill, tenants who in the earlier stages of the Land Act of 1881 had rents fixed which are now admitted to be higher in their scale than they have been since. If we were to accept the Amendment these would be excluded.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
The Act of 1887 did not apply the scale to a present rent fixed in Court, if my memory serves me rightly. It only dealt with rents fixed before a certain period; not, I think, up to the date of the passing of the Act.

§ MR. SEXTON
Very nearly. It applied to rents fixed from 1881 to 1886.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
Up to the November gale of 1886.

§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNE
did not think the argument of the Chief Secretary very conclusive. The tenants to be relieved under this Bill had a perfectly fair rent—[Cries of "Oh!"]—which they did not pay, otherwise they could not have been evicted. Tenants who had not had fair rents fixed might say their rents were too high, and, in that case, there was a case for giving them relief; but the tenants who had a fair rent fixed ought to have paid that fair rent, and ought to receive no relief. The Amendment was a very sound one, and ought to be supported by the House.

§ MR. HANBURY
moved, in page 1, line 6, after "determined," to insert "once only." He said his motive for the Amendment was this: that in the course of the 15 years a tenancy might have been determined several times, and what, he asked, was to be done in that case? Was it to be left to the arbitrators to say which of four or five tenants was to have the best claim, or was it to be the last tenant? There was no provision in the Bill to meet such a case. It would be very hard on the tenant whose tenancy had last determined that he should be supplanted by a man who might have left that part of the country for four or five years. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have a definite rule on this point. Undoubtedly there had been such cases. He saw in the evidence of the Mathew Commission, on page 20, that the difference between the number of Plan of Campaign tenants 1070 evicted and the number of evicted farms was accounted for by the fact that, in a number of cases, two evictions took place on the same farm.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, he did not care whether they were sub-tenants or not, but he did not think they were sub-tenants. The number of farms was 1,350, and the number of tenants evicted was 1,403. Sub-tenants were in a different column. Therefore, they might have 1,403 tenants applying for 1,350 farms, showing, on the face of the Return, 53 cases of double tenancy, and there was no mention of their being joint tenants. He thought they ought to have some information from the right hon. Gentleman as to how he intended to deal with cases of this kind.

§ SIR R. T. REID
was of opinion that it might be left to the arbitrators to select the more meritorious cases.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
According to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the man who has been evicted once is not so deserving of the sympathy of this House as the man who has been evicted twice, although the probability is that the man who had already been evicted twice, when compulsorily reinstated, will shortly require to be evicted again. Are we to be asked to pass another Bill for again reinstating him? I hope this arbitration Commission will not be particularly anxious to exercise their delicate functions in again putting on a farm a man who has twice shown himself incapable of working it at a profit. I leave that case which has so touched the sympathetic soul of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I turn to the case where two men have been evicted from the same farm. The hon. and learned Gentleman thought these cases would give the Commission an opportunity of showing what excellent stuff it was made of. But how on earth are these three gentlemen going to decide? I have come to the conclusion that the only possible way of determining the merits of the rival claimants is to 1071 consider who is the most dangerous—who is the greatest menace to the safety and the peace of the neighbourhood. That is the man entitled to consideration, or to be put back, and his more peaceable and quiescent rival has no chance in this struggle. I do not know that my hon. Friend has raised his Amendment in the very best way, but certainly the point he has raised is a substantial one.

§ MR. E. J. C. MORTON
said, the case of the Bodyke tenants bore exactly on the point. They were evicted in 1887, because they simply could not pay their rents, and then a settlement was made with the landlord, by which they were to pay 33s. an acre rent, while on the adjoining estate of Lord Leconfield land of a precisely similar character was let for 11s. an acre. In the autumn of 1892 Colonel O'Callaghan sought to raise the rents from 33s. to 44s. an acre, and some of these tenants had been evicted since. No one who had the slightest knowledge of the facts could say that these Bodyke tenants were to blame for their eviction. He believed he was right in saying that the Plan of Campaign was never adopted on the Bodyke estate. Here was a set of tenants paying four times the value of the land as estimated by Lord Leconfield, and they had been twice evicted; and if the words of this Amendment were adopted they would not receive the benefit of the Bill.

§ SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)
said, his reason for rising was that the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. E. J. C. Morton) had attacked his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), and it was desirable that the hon. Member should be answered by an English Member. The hon. Member for Devonport had adduced the case of Bodyke as one that would be very seriously affected by the Amendment.

§ MR. E. J. C. MORTON
said, his point was that Bodyke was a place where the same set of people had been evicted twice over, and the second eviction could not have been investigated by the Mathew Commission.

§ SIR R. TEMPLE
said, the reply was that it was impossible for Members to enter into the merits of this particular 1072 case, or to accept it as being truly relevant to the question. The hon. Member seemed to consider that if a man had been evicted twice within the last few years his case was peculiarly hard.

§ MR. E. J. C. MORTON
said, his argument was that the Amendment would exclude that case.

§ SIR R. TEMPLE
said, the question whether a man who had been evicted twice within the last 15 years could be a fit object for the merciful arrangements contemplated by the Bill was one for the Committee to consider. He contended that he was not a fit object. Within that period of time there had been passed an Act for the reduction of rents, and then an Act for a revision of judicial rents. If there had been two evictions within the period there might, as his hon. Friend had pointed out, have been two claimants for the same farm. In such a case what in the world were the arbitrators to do? Were they to sit like King Solomon giving judgment between the rival mothers? If one man was comparatively deserving and the other was wholly undeserving they might have no difficulty, but this was not likely to be the case. The two men would probably be either equally deserving or equally undeserving, and the Commissioners would be unable to satisfy both. If it should be impossible for the arbitrators to arrive at a just decision it would be better to exclude the matter from their consideration altogether. Let them not be given jurisdiction in a class of cases where they could not exercise it satisfactorily. He desired to impress upon Her Majesty's Government that it was absolutely necessary, if they appointed arbitrators, that there should be some clear terms of reference in order that the arbitrators might understand the limits of their duties. It would not do to give them a roving commission over an unknown class of cases, without any instructions whatever and without any terms of reference being laid down. He earnestly hoped that the Government would give this matter their consideration before it was too late. If his hon. Friend went to a Division he would be glad to support him.

§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said, he had some misapprehension as to the scope of the Amendment which had been 1073 moved. He took it, however, that it confined the cases to such as those referred to by the hon. Baronet who had just sat down—those of separate evictions on the same estate. He did not see why particular arrangements should be made in the case of persons who had been twice evicted from the same estate. What they had to consider was a matter which he did not think had been properly brought before the Committee. The question was, whether the arbitrators should be instructed how to proceed in dealing with the two cases of claimants for one farm? These were not hypothetical cases, they were actual cases, because they knew as a matter of fact that two men had frequently been evicted from the same holding within the period of 14 or 15 years which this Bill embraced. Hon. Members would remember that in order to give effect to the provisions of this Bill it was proposed to set aside the Statute of Limitations, and it was necessary that the arbitrators should have some definite instructions what they should do in the case of two rival tenants who had been evicted from the same farm. According to the Bill, the claimant had simply to give notice to the present occupier to determine the tenancy, and yet this man might have paid to the outgoing tenant a sum of money for his right to enter. Such payments had been made over and over again, even before the tenant had a tenant right in the estate to his improvements. The hon. Baronet who had last spoken had talked of the questions raised under the Bill as subjects for the wisdom of Solomon, but he would go further, and assert that this Bill would constitute a problem for Solomon. The question was, how were the arbitrators to decide between the two rival claimants? If they should determine to cut a holding in two and give one-half to each claimant, would they go further and cut the dwelling-house in two also? If they did not do so the Government would have substituted one grievance for another, and the tenant who was put in possession under the Bill would have an armed watch-dog to harass him. Then, in the case of two claimants to the title of an estate, suppose one should forego his right, what would the arbitrators do? He thought the only way in the case of two claimants would be to proceed by interpleader, so 1074 that it might be determined which of them had the best claim. The Bill, however, contained no such provision, but left to the three arbitrators the power of dispensing justice like so many cadis sitting under a tree. He thought it was right that they should press the Amendment, inasmuch as they were asked to rely absolutely on the discretion of the arbitrators. It was impossible for them without some guidance to arrive at any certain line of conduct with regard to cases of this kind. The Government would be face to face with a vast amount of discontent if they allowed this ambiguity to remain on the face of the Bill. He considered that the Amendment was a perfectly reasonable proposal, and, as such, he was prepared to support it, and hoped it would be given effect to.

§ SIR R. TEMPLE
asked for an answer to the question whether it would be possible for the arbitrators to divide the holding between two rival claimants who had both been evicted from the same holding since 1879?

MR. J. MORLEY
said, that he took it that the arbitrators, if they became, as he hoped and assumed they would become, the tribunal for dealing with these matters, would have regard to all the equities of the case. He could not say anything more precise than that.

§ MR. BARTON
said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had given a very unsatisfactory reply to the hon. Baronet, and it showed the extraordinary upset which would be made in ordinary business. There were two cases, at least, which would have to come before the arbitrators. The Chief Secretary proposed to allow to be put in the claims of persons twice evicted from the same holding. The question arose whether those persons ought to be put back at all, having been twice evicted for non-payment of rent. Was it fair to assume that a man who had been twice evicted should be put back? Either he must be a very unlucky man or a "good-for-nothing." Then they came to the case of the two different tenants who might have held the same holding. The one might have held up to 1880, and the second tenant evicted might have held up to 1888. In the first case the man might have had a great deal of difficulty in paying his rent, but in the second case the tenant might 1075 have had a better chance, because he had a more valuable consideration in his holding, having reaped the benefit of his predecessor. How was the case to be decided between these two? Were they to fight it out or to toss up? The Leader of the Opposition had suggested to the Government that probably the man who had taken the more active part in the Plan of Campaign would be the person most entitled to the farm. They had come to the conclusion that the mind of the Government was most unsettled with regard to their Bill. It was not too much to ask that these holdings should be excluded from the Bill. As to the second aspect of the case—that of a man who during fourteen years had been twice evicted—did the Chief Secretary not consider that it was impossible to reinstate him in that event? That was the question which they had to consider in connection with this Amendment.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, the Committee had heard such a strange explanation from the Chief Secretary with regard to the course the arbitrators might take that he was the more inclined to press the Amendment. The question which had been put to the Chief Secretary was whether, in the case of two ex-tenants competing for a farm, it would be within the power of the arbitrators to divide it between them? Were they to understand from the answer of the Chief Secretary that that would be left to them? He contended that it should not be. Unless they received a more satisfactory answer he was afraid they would have to introduce other Amendments on the subject.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, he thought the Chief Secretary would do well to give his attention to this matter. His own view was that the fact of two tenants having been evicted from the same holding in fourteen years was a very good reason for reinstating neither. But that was not the point immediately before them. The Chief Secretary threw the responsibility of deciding back on the arbitrators as to which of the two tenants should go back. The Solicitor General and the Chief Secretary seemed to take the same view, that the arbitrators should decide the point. He knew of his own knowledge that there had been double evictions in 1076 Ireland during the last fourteen years. The arbitrators would have to decide which of the two tenants evicted ought to be reinstated. This was not a matter which they should leave to the arbitrators alone; the House ought to give them some guidance as to which of the two men ought to be reinstated, if either ought, and he thought they would be shirking their own functions if they failed to give these instructions to the arbitrators.

§ MR. MACARTNEY
said, they had been considering upstairs for some considerable time the manner in which the Land Acts had been carried out, and they had found that the great difficulty in giving effect to those Acts had been the fact that no directions had been given to the Sub-Commissioners as to how they should adjust the rents that came before them. Now the Government proposed to set up another tribunal, a semi-judicial tribunal, which would be more incapacitated than the one preceding it, to give full effect to the Land Acts which had been passed during the last 14 years. They should not leave these matters to the responsibility of the arbitrators. The Solicitor General said that in the case where a tenant had failed, the arbitrators would decide between the one who was industrious and the other who had been connected with the Plan of Campaign. He did not see how it was possible for the new tribunal to decide between the merits of the two. He was rather inclined to think that it would be very awkward for them if they decided against the tenant who had come out on the principle of the Plan of Campaign. The only way, as far as he could see, to solve the difficulty between the two rival tenants would be for the arbitrators to make a conditional order in favour of one tenant, and then that the other should take steps to have that conditional order set aside. The tribunal was to make a conditional order in favour of one or other of the applicants, but if the clause was left in the way the Chief Secretary proposed to leave it, it would be a direct incitement to a disappointed man to use every engine in his power to remove the successful man from the farm he thought he ought to have.

§ MR. W. KENNY
thought this was a case in which they were entitled to get 1077 an answer from the Government. Under every Amendment they were told they must not interfere with these vague and general powers conferred by this clause. The period that had been contemplated in this section of the Bill was the period of 15 years, and any tenant evicted within that period could apply to this Council to be reinstated. It was not impossible that they might have the case, contemplated by the Amendment, of two tenants having been evicted within the period where there was a primâ facie case for reinstatement; in the district they might have all the circumstances that would justify a reinstatement; they might have it there were circumstances under which the eviction took place in each case, and if they had not got either of these they might have other general sweeping words contained in other sub-sections given to this tribunal of three to justify them. But how were they to come to a conclusion as between the two petitions? As to the notion of splitting up the holding between the two, he thought that was perfectly idle, but he maintained they were entitled to some answer as to which tenant was entitled to get the holding.

§ MR. HAYES FISHER
said, the difficulty would arise in cases where there were two or more tenants who had been evicted between 1879 and 1894. Was he to understand that it was in the power of the arbitrators to decide whether the whole of the holding should be given to one tenant or whether it should be divided between two tenants; was that what the right hon. Gentleman meant? He could not help thinking that in any case they were placing both the arbitrators and the tenants in a very difficult position, and that both the Chief Secretary and the learned Solicitor General were playing into the hands of the lawyers, for it was to be in the discretion of the arbitrators to say which of two tenants, A evicted in 1879 or B evicted in 1884, should be entitled to petition and have a conditional order made. If the right hon. Gentleman did not say in his Bill which of the two should be entitled to the holding, it appeared to him (Mr. Fisher) that both of these tenants, or if there were three any one of them, would be able to bring an action in the ordinary course to have it declared which was the former tenant. This would result in a fruitful crop of litigation, very much to the 1078 benefit of the lawyers, with whom, he was told, just now trade was somewhat bad. He would invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this, and ask him to say if he intended that the arbitrators should absolutely decide, without any power of appeal, as to whom was the former tenant? That would meet the difficulty, and though no doubt the tenant who failed to obtain the conditional order would feel aggrieved, it would stop him from bringing an action to establish what he might consider his right.

§ MR. BRODRICK
hoped the Chief Secretary would finally settle which of the two tenants was to be entitled to the holding. It was absurd to suppose the arbitrators should decide to what extent a landlord was justified in evicting one tenant as compared with another. If they were to pass a general amnesty, he would point out that the landlord, who was the primary person interested, would have no appearance before these arbitrators at all; he would not be able to give any evidence, and he (Mr. Brodrick) wished to know whether this Star Chamber was to sit in secret and to decide without hearing the parties, at all events, without hearing the landlord, whether a tenant who might only have had the holding for a year was to have the preference over a tenant who might have held the holding for a generation? From what they had heard upstairs—to which he would only allude for the purpose of showing that half the difficulties they had to deal with there were due to the fact that no sort of guidance was given to the Commissioners how they were to set about their work—the Chief Secretary was throwing on the arbitrators a new duty, which none of them knew until this evening was thrown upon them; and from that it would seem that he had learned little from his experience in the Committee Room upstairs during the many days they had sat there. The right hon. Gentleman had undoubtedly learned one thing, that a majority was everything, and that with the force of a majority he could do what he chose. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would favour the Committee with some statistics as to the number of holdings upon which there had been two evictions since 1879? Without the Amendment he feared the Bill would only lead to future trouble in Ireland.

§ MR. HALDANE (Haddington)
said, there was some misconception in the mind of the hon. Member opposite as to the extent of the powers which a Bill of this kind must confer upon the arbitrators. It was not the practice to fetter arbitrators in this country, or, so far as he knew in Ireland, with directions and restrictions on law. In this country, if they referred a matter to arbitration, they referred it even in a wider manner than to the Law Courts, because they made him absolute judge of the law, and no matter what mistake he might make so long as it did not appear on the face of the award—and he took care that it should not—there was no appeal.

§ MR. BRODRICK
Under what Act of Parliament?

§ MR. HALDANE
said, that statutory arbitrations and all kinds of arbitrators were the same; after the reference to the arbitrator there was no appeal and no redress, and one did not wish, in a Bill of this kind, that it should be presented in a form that would make it difficult and obnoxious. The essence of the Bill was that they had chosen three men whom they were proposing to trust, and they had left to them a very large discretion as to the way in which they would carry it out. If that was so, he asked why should they withdraw from them the choice between two tenants? That seemed to him one of the very matters it was most important to leave to the discretion of these gentlemen; they would know the facts and would come to the matter with an unfettered discretion, looking into all the circumstances, so that they could do justice between man and man.

§ MR. BUCKNILL (Surrey, Epsom)
Said, that as he practised in the Common Law Division, he might say he knew something about arbitration cases, and it was absolutely incorrect to say that arbitrators were not fettered in this country. A person going to arbitration in this country under the Arbitration Act passed a few years ago was, as the learned Solicitor General knew perfectly well, entitled to ask of an arbitrator that he should state a special case for the consideration of the Court, and if the arbitrator was in danger of going wrong in law he might be taken to the Court on such a case; it was only on questions of fact, where he acted as a jury and took 1080 evidence as a juryman, that his decision was always held to be final. The hon. and learned Member shook his head, but would the hon. and learned Member look at the Act, because he (Mr. Bucknill) said fearlessly it was so, and he said it feelingly, because at the present moment, there was a case of his going to the Court of Queen's Bench, and he knew exactly the machinery by which it was done. It was stated the arbitrators were to have no greater power than arbitrators in any other branch of the law, but he affirmed, without fear of contradiction, that if the first clause was to stand as it did now as to their discretion, as to a primâ facie case, without the Committee giving some instructions as to what the arbitrators were to do and what they were not to do, there would be nothing but confusion and enormous loss of time. Could there be any harm in the suggestion that they should let the arbitrators know if they were to deal with cases where there had been more than one eviction from one holding, and that they might or should direct in certain cases the holding was to be divided? He had heard within the last half-hour that those who lived in Ireland knew there might be two evictions upon one estate.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
Upon one holding.

§ MR. BUCKNILL
said, this was a matter which Englishmen as well as Irishmen had taken some trouble to try and settle. He had read through the Report of the Mathew Commission, and found there were many cases where there had been evictions and re-evictions on one holding. He had no wish to obstruct, and had not done so, but he did wish to take such a part in the matter, the Bill having passed the Second Reading, as should enable justice to be done to all parties.

§ MR. CARSON
said, he only rose to make a few observations on this Amendment, for the reason that he happened to know of a particular case in which the exact point might arise. He knew of a holding from which a Plan of Campaign tenant was evicted, which was then taken by a so-called planter, and from which the planter had been evicted, and what he wished to know was, if the planter and the previous 1081 tenant came before the arbitrators, who was to get the holding? Would the matter be decided according to who gave the most trouble in the neighbourhood, or who gave the most trouble at the eviction, because he saw no other alternative put forward in the Bill, and when they were laying down this matter it was worthy of consideration whether they should provide that the person first evicted or the person who was the second evicted should be entitled to this so-called equity to be restored to the holding? Every argument had been pressed upon the Front Bench opposite as to this question of discretion, and he supposed that before the Bill was over they would be saturated with the question of the discretion of these three gentlemen, though he was not so sure, when it came to be a question of deciding the description of what tenants fell within the 58th section, that the hon. Member for Kerry would be so well satisfied, and he would remind the Committee that when the hon. Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane) and others talked about arbitrators, these gentlemen were not arbitrators at all. They could not make them arbitrators by calling them arbitrators, and they were really being set up as Judges with power to administer something quite different to any law that ever existed before in this country. These gentlemen were not to arbitrate as to legal rights but to establish legal rights, therefore how could they be arbitrators? As had been said before, they were nothing more than legalised confiscators, but whether they were arbitrators or not, why should not the arbitrary jurisdiction of these gentlemen be determined and guided by rules laid down by the House? He thought they should see what they were going to do by this Bill, and should lay down proper rules and regulations of procedure as had been done with respect to other Courts. He thought, however, it was time they brought this question as to the discretion of the arbitrators to an end.

MR. J. MORLEY
said, he quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member that it was time they brought this argument as to the discretion of the arbitrators to a close. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked as if there had 1082 been no Land Act of 1881, for he said they must lay down rules for the guidance of the arbitrators. What was this Court, and the powers they were going to set up, compared with the Land Commission and the powers given to the Commissioners?

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
Subject to appeal.

MR. J. MORLEY
said, they were subject to a kind of appeal. The intention of Parliament was perfectly distinct in the Act of 1881, and no one knew it better than the hon. Member who interrupted him; it was entirely distinct, and there were no guiding words, though their decisions were of a much more important description. With all respect to the hon. and learned Member, it was ridiculous to say they had no right to set up an Arbitration Board without giving rules for their guidance.

§ MR. CARSON
said, the powers of the Land Commissioners had reference to legal rights.

MR. J. MORLEY
What legal rights? He did not understand what legal rights were at stake. When a couple of sub-Commissioners went on to a farm, and valued the rent, the discretion was in the value of the rent, and legal right had very little to do with it, and no one knew that better than the hon. and learned Gentleman. As to the particular Amendment before the Committee, he would take one case to show the weight of the argument now pressed upon the Committee. The hon. and learned Member for Armagh (Mr. Barton) said that a man who had been evicted twice must be a bad and worthless fellow. ["Hear, hear!"] Someone said "Hear, hear!" but he would put it in another way. If a man after being evicted was deliberately re-admitted by the landlord, surely that was rather an argument that he had not been a bad tenant. But this was a most trivial point, and they had no more to say upon this subject. He thought it was time the discussion should close, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman thought it right to take a Division on this not very substantial Amendment he hoped he would do so at once.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said, the right hon. Gentleman in his reply had 1083 dealt with the case of a double eviction of the same people, and he admitted that he had dealt effectually with that, but the right hon. Gentleman had never once referred to the double eviction where the persons were different.

§ MR. BARTON
moved, in page 1, line 6, after "determined," insert "by legal process by reason of the non-payment of rent thereof."

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
rose to a point of Order. He submitted that the Amendment was exactly the same in effect as one which had been already passed over and which stood in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. W. Kenny.)

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir J. GOLDSMID)
The Amendment is in Order.

§ MR. BARTON
said, what they asked was that they should know who were the tenants and what were the evictions that this Bill were concerned in, and their contention was that they should be refused to cases of eviction for non-payment of rent. Supposing it happened that tenants had voluntarily surrendered their holdings to the landlord, and their tenancy had been determined. Without his Amendment these tenants would be able to come back under the Bill. Under the Land Act of 1881 tenants might be evicted for breach of statutory conditions, such as persistent waste by dilapidation of buildings. Such tenants, again, without his Amendment would be able to come in under the Bill, and would then get £50 to repair their dilapidated buildings. If a tenant had been evicted because he was bankrupt, or because he had opened a house for the sale of intoxicating liquors, or for a shop debt by a mortgagee, he would be able to apply to 1084 the arbitrator and demand to be reinstated at the expense of the State. These cases would show that it was perfectly absurd to introduce a measure of this kind giving carte blanche to the arbitrators to reinstate when such absurd things took place. He was told there were cases of tenants whose tenancies were terminated by legal process and sale by the Sheriff, of public auction under a writ of fieri facias, and that such cases ought to be included; and, although he thought they ought not to be, yet if the Government thought differently they could include them by special provision. The answer to all this was, "Trust the arbitrators," but, although one of them was his private friend, he would not trust that friend in a matter of property, while the proceedings of the arbitrators were subject to criticism from day to day in flaming articles in The Freeman's Journal every morning after every one of the day's proceedings, and it was not a fair argument to introduce. There was no man so angelic, no Christian gentleman so perfect that they were entitled to trust the property of others on the large discretion proposed to be given in these cases. The Member for Haddington came in like a Daniel come to judgment, and he claimed him for his side. He had said this was entirely misconceived, and that these were powers that all arbitrators had. He (Mr. Barton) would remind him that in the case of ordinary arbitrations it was one specific matter that was referred to them. But here they were to use their discretion in thousands of matters. They had referred to them the property of 3,700 people, and that was a very different thing. He thought there ought to be a right of appeal for the arbitrators. Under the 19th section of the Arbitration Act of 1889 an arbitrator might be required to state a case for the opinion of a Court on any question of law arising in course of the reference.

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
said, the hon. Member would see that he was now dealing with a question which hardly arose on the Amendment.

§ MR. BARTON
said, that as he believed the only answer that could be given was that they must trust the arbitrators, he declined upon this great question of how many tenants were to be 1085 brought up in this Bill to agree to that argument, and he thought the least they could do was to not allow these unfortunate men to be led into temptation.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
asked the Government before they replied to read the Rule against tedious and irrelevant repetition.

§ SIR R. T. REID
said, whether it were relevant or not, the hon. Gentleman would he was sure recollect that it had been pointed out that there were other reasons for which a man might have been evicted than failure to pay rent, and that there might be ways of determining a tenancy other than by eviction, and he thought he himself would see that it would be improper and really a waste of time on his part if he were to repeat a second time the arguments he submitted to the Committee some time ago.

§ MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)
said, that they had a right to ask the Government why they were to give public funds at all if they objected to the words "for non-payment of rent." It was because the whole of their case rested on this, that a certain sentiment attached to the difficulties which had arisen in Ireland owing to the non-payment of rent. It was idle to ask the House to vote these large sums of money in order to rescue men who had lost their holdings from any other ground than these: that they had either been unable to pay their rent owing to hard circumstances in Ireland, or that they had been unwilling to pay their rent owing to political views which they did not share. These were the only possible grounds for exceptional legislation, and unless the Government would limit their Reference to these cases he did not think they could ask the House to vote that money.

§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
wished to point out that a person who had been turned out of his holding by judicial process had been to all intents and purposes evicted, and was exactly in the same position as an evicted tenant. 1086 He thought they should be told whether there was to be this differentiation made in respect of tenants put out of their holdings, when the tenancy had been ended, either by the auctioneer or the instruction of the tenant to the landlord.

§ SIR R. T. REID
explained that the Bill would only apply to cases where tenancies had been determined. Cases in which tenancies had only been transferred would be excluded.

§ MR. CARSON (Dublin University)
said, the fact that his hon. and learned Friend would not argue the question was no reason why this Amendment should not be pressed. Those who supported its principles had a right to put their case before the Committee and the country. What he wanted to know was this: Was this Bill to apply to any persons besides those who had lost their holdings by process of law? Where the tenancy had been determined by the voluntary act of a tenant who found himself unable to pay his rent, would he have the right to appeal to this tribunal of confiscators to restore him to his holding? Then supposing a man had had a fair rent fixed subject to statutory conditions, and supposing he had been turned out of his holding for a breach of those conditions, was he to be allowed to make a claim under this measure? They ought to know clearly with what class of tenants they were dealing. If the matter was not cleared up landlords might be overwhelmed with costs incurred in resisting claims which ought never to have been made.

§ MR. W. KENNY (Dublin, St. Stephen's Green)
wished to draw attention to the point which was raised by the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper. He contended that the only cases contemplated in the terms of Reference to the Mathew Commission were cases of tenants evicted for non-payment of rent. Supposing a predecessor of the man now in actual possession of a holding had had to purchase the farm, and had paid money for it, was it contemplated that the person who had been out of possession for 10 years, and the landlord had become the transferee, was to have the right to go back into possession? Was a trespasser to have the right to go to the landlord at the end of 10 years and say—You must reinstate me. If the 1087 Bill was to apply to cases of the sort mentioned, this was not an Evicted Tenants Bill, but a Bill for the reinstatement of trespassers.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)
I do not rise to ask the Government to defend their Bill, because it is clear they do not mean to do so. I rise to ask them what they want to happen under the Bill. Now we know that, in the first place, they want to enable tenants who have been evicted for non-payment of rent to be reinstated. I can understand that, in addition, they may desire to reinstate a tenant who has not been evicted for non-payment, but who has been sold up for non-payment. If they want these two things, what more do they want? If the words in the second sub-section mean anything, they mean that those who drafted the Bill and are responsible for it had in their minds eviction, and eviction alone. Do the Government mean under the term "eviction" processes which are not commonly called eviction at all? Do they include such a case as that mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend? Do they include the case of the tenant who set up a public-house for the illicit sale of spirituous liquors and was evicted for that breach of statutory conditions? If they mean that, whatever be the circumstances, the reasons, or the conditions under which a tenancy has been determined, the tenant is to have the right to go back subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitrators, then we should know what they do mean, and I should admit that the clause carries out their meaning. But if, on the other hand, there are certain classes of reasons which in their judgment should exclude from the benefits of the Act, let them tell us so in plain words, even if they refuse to insert Amendments which would carry out their avowed meaning.

§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,) Newcastle-upon-Tyne
The right hon. Gentleman taxes us with not wanting to defend our Bill. I will admit that we do not want to defend our Bill 20 times over on the same point. The hon. and learned Member for St. Stephen's Green has succeeded on this Amendment in getting off a speech which was suppressed by 1088 a ruling of the Chairman on a previous Amendment.

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that as that Amendment was not moved it will not be in Order to refer to it.

§ MR. J. MORLEY
I quite concur in what you say, Sir, but the ruling of the Chairman was that the decision we had come to on an earlier Amendment had rendered the subsequent Amendment unnecessary.

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
The Chairman and I conferred together about all these Amendments.

§ MR. J. MORLEY
The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down talks about a public-house. He forgets we have already had that public-house. How many times are we to deal with that public-house? With every desire to answer all arguments brought forward and to meet all Amendments with which we may be confronted, I really cannot see that any new point whatever has been raised by this Amendment which was not met by my hon. and learned Friend at an earlier stage of the evening. I think I should be setting a very bad example, in view of the 270 or more Amendments already put down, if I were to reiterate arguments already put forward from this Bench.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I did not ask for arguments. I asked for a plain statement. I gave up the arguments—I could not get blood out of a stone. I could not wring from the Treasury Bench opposite a single argument, but I thought we might get an answer. I am not to be counted among the gentlemen who were said to be absent earlier in the evening. There is not a man in this House, outside the Government, who knows at this present moment whether they do or do not mean to include in the purview of their Bill classes of tenants who have been evicted for reasons other than nonpayment of rent. If they do mean to include other classes of tenants let them tell us so. I venture to think that the Chief Secretary is not carrying out his object by not answering a plain and respectful question in as concise and brief terms as we demand.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir R. T. REID,, &c.) Dumfries
I will answer the question. The intention and 1089 purpose of the Bill is that it may, if the tribunal thinks fit, impress every case of a tenancy of a holding in Ireland which has been determined since May 1st, 1879. That is an explicit answer. I may add that I made that very statement in the opening sentences uttered by me on the first Amendment.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)
The answer of the Solicitor General is certainly explicit. Now, after an hour's discussion, the Government come forward and tell us that they are prepared to leave to the discretion of the arbitrators cases of eviction which are not at all founded on non-payment of rent. That, Sir, is going altogether beyond the scope of the Bill, and until the Solicitor General had it dragged out of him there was not a man in the House who understood that the Bill covered any such proposal.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)
said that the announcement made by the Solicitor General raised a very important question. The proceedings were approaching the disorderly. The Bill was introduced to make provision for the restoration of evicted tenants to their holdings in Ireland, and now the hon. and learned Solicitor General had risen and told the Committee that the Bill was to go very much further. He was sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could hardly have had his attention drawn to this subject, and, now that the right hon. Gentleman was in his place, he desired to ask him how he intended to proceed. The House of Commons gave leave to introduce a Bill for a special purpose, which could not be exceeded or departed from except by the leave of the House being again obtained. He would ask the Chairman, as a point of Order, whether the intention and action of the Government in this matter were within the Orders of the House?

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
said, there were 18 words to which the Tory Party had down 14 Amendments, and yet those words were the very words passed under Section 13 of the Act of 1891.

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
I thought the hon. and learned Member rose to the point of Order. That must be first settled.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)
I rise to the point of Order. This purports to be a Bill to facilitate and make provision for the restoration of evicted tenants to their holdings in Ireland. It is laid down in Sir Erskine May's book that a Bill must not go beyond the order of leave, and the order of leave follows the title of the Bill. In this case the order of leave was to introduce a Bill to facilitate and make provision for the restoration of evicted tenants to their holdings in Ireland. It is now evident, from the statement of the Solicitor General, that the Bill goes altogether beyond the title and the order of leave. But Sir Erskine May's book goes on to say that an objection of this kind, which would be fatal in the earlier stages of the Bill, would not be treated in exactly the same way after the House had passed the Second Reading. We are in the position of having passed the Second Reading of this Bill, and may, therefore, under Sir Erskine May's statement, be debarred from urging this irregularity. But in a note Sir Erskine May gives a case in which, after a Second Reading, notice was taken of an irregularity, it being stated that the irregularity was passed over by the House on the Second Reading, under a misapprehension as to what was included in the Bill. Now, Sir, I say that that is precisely the case now. It was absolutely impossible for anyone but a Member of the Government to know that a Bill for the restoration of evicted tenants to their holdings was going to include provision for the restoration of persons who were not tenants and who had not been evicted. I say that the point was not raised on the Second Reading, and it did not enter into the mind of any hon. Member of this House, and, therefore, it was undoubtedly a case of misapprehension. I think, Sir, you will find, on reference to Sir Erskine May's book that on the occasion to which I refer the Bill was thereupon withdrawn. I do not know whether a new Bill was introduced, but at any rate the objection was allowed on the ground of misapprehension at the time when the Second Reading was taken and the Bill was withdrawn. I must say I think this perhaps in some sense a new point; but it is one of such enormous importance, both to the Government and 1091 the procedure of the House, that I almost think the occasion is one on which to invite the opinion of Mr. Speaker.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
On the point of Order I have to point out that these words we are now considering occur in a prior Act of Parliament. The title of the Act is "Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891," and the words are "An Act to provide further funds for the purchase of land in Ireland, to make permanent the Land Commission, and to provide for the improvement of the congested districts in Ireland." On a title of that kind it was considered relevant to introduce a clause affecting evicted tenants.

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
It is clear that that case does not apply. Upon the other point it is obvious that if the House had been aware of the intentions of the Government on the Second Reading attention would have been called to the point by some hon. or right hon. Member, and then the ordinary process would have had to be followed which is well known to the House. But, as I understand it, from want of knowledge the Bill was read a second time containing a clause which is not entirely in accordance with the title of the Bill. Of course, if the Government think themselves bound by the information conveyed in the title, they will so alter the clause as to make it consistent with the title, but the thing has gone too far for me to decide now that they cannot proceed with the Bill.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I understand, Sir, you are of opinion that the matter has gone too far for you, as Chairman, to give a decision on the point. May I ask whether we can appeal to Mr. Speaker on a point which you have indicated that you are incompetent to deal with at the present time?

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has quite conveyed the opinion I expressed. I said that, of course, if the intention had been known on the Second Reading, then either a fresh Bill would have had to be drawn or this Bill would have had to be practically altered in Committee so as to make it correspond with the title. But attention was not called to the point, not through the fault of any hon. Member, but simply from want of knowledge. I said that if the Government thought it right the most regular 1092 course would be that they should withdraw those parts of the Bill which are not in accordance with the title, owing to the unfortunate circumstance that the House was not acquainted with the circumstances of the case on the Second Reading. But it was too late for me, as Chairman, to say that they cannot proceed with the clause in question on the ground that it is not consistent with the title of the Bill. I trust the Committee thoroughly understands the view I take. Of course, it is a responsibility for me to give a decision, but I believe that is the right decision to give.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
I do not know whether, after your ruling, any Member of the Government would wish to make a statement on the present situation. It is evident that we have been led into an irregularity. I understand you to state that if this matter had come within the knowledge of the House it would have been within the power of any hon. Member to call attention to it, and that in that case an alteration must have been made. Unfortunately we were not in possession of this information, and therefore it was not open to any of us to call attention to the point at that time.

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
I think the right hon. Gentleman did not quite catch what I said. In the ordinary course the Bill would have been withdrawn unless the Government were prepared to make the clause consistent with the title. If they wished to extend it they would have had to withdraw the Bill and bring in a fresh one.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
I understood your statement to be to this effect: that if, at the proper time, notice had been called to this irregularity, one of two courses would have been taken: either the Bill would have had to be withdrawn or the Government would have had to alter it in accordance with the title. We have lost that opportunity owing to our ignorance of the intention of the Government with reference to this matter. I think, perhaps, the Government would desire to make some statement on the existing situation, and to say whether they are prepared to make an alteration. If they are prepared to recognize the fact that the House has proceeded under a misapprehension 1093 and to deal with the matter, I do not suppose the Committee would offer any objection. On the other hand, if they are not prepared to correct the misapprehension, I think the proper course will be, as you, Sir, have said that, as Chairman, you cannot rule further on the matter, to move to report Progress in order that Mr. Speaker may be appealed to.

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
I understand your ruling, Sir, to be that you have not power or disposition to stop the progress of the Bill to-night. We do not admit the question of misapprehension, and therefore, under the circumstances, there is nothing for the Committee to do but to go on with the Bill.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
Then, Sir Julian Goldsmid, under these circumstances, I beg to move that you do now report Progress in order that we may have the advantage of Mr. Speaker's opinion upon the case which has arisen. Although the Government desire to proceed with the Bill, I cannot believe that they will in any way oppose this Motion, made with the direct purpose and intention of having the opinion of Mr. Speaker upon what is acknowledged to be a very important issue.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
I venture to say that in the whole course of the history of this House a grosser imposition was never perpetrated upon a Committee than the performance which we have just witnessed. Here is a Bill, as I understand, to restore evicted tenants in Ireland to their holdings. An hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, but its going to restore somebody else," and upon that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) gets up with a solemn face and says—" We have heard some extraordinary pieces of information, and therefore we must move to report Progress." We have on various Bills in this House witnessed some extraordinary performances, but certainly this is about the flimsiest proceeding we have ever witnessed from the other side. The title of the Bill is to restore the evicted tenants, and the Amendment is that only a certain 1094 class of evicted tenants—namely those evicted for non-payment of rent—shall be restored. The Government say that other evicted tenants—for instance, those whose farms have been sold—shall be restored, and upon that this mare's nest is discovered, and a Parliamentary crisis of the first magnitude is given birth to by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. This Amendment has been debated all the evening long, and the words are taken from words passed three years ago on the proposition of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), and assented to by the then Chief Secretary for Ireland. Those words are that, Where a tenancy of a holding has been determined since the 1st of May, 1879"—

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
Order, order! I should like to explain to the Committee that there is really no question to submit to Mr. Speaker even if the Debate were adjourned. The Speaker has no control over the proceedings of the Committee. I have decided that I have no right to stop the work of the Committee, because the question ought to have been raised on the Second Reading. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has a perfect right to proceed with his Motion for reporting Progress, but not for the purpose of submitting the case to Mr. Speaker.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
If the hon. and learned Member for Louth has finished his observations—which did not appear to me to be strictly relevant to the question—may I ask the Government to consider whether, now that it has been pointed out that they have been pressing their Bill under a misconception, and as they are asking to do by the first section of this clause something which is inconsistent both with the title and the second section, they will so modify the first section of this clause as to bring it into accord with the rest of the Bill?

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
We had better dispose of the Motion one way or other first. Does the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Chamberlain) persevere?

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I suppose upon that Motion it is relevant for the Government to give us their observations on the situation? They have not yet condescended to do so.

§ MR. J. MORLEY
The Committee ought not to forget that the statement which has created what my hon. and learned Friend calls an extraordinary Parliamentary crisis—namely, the statement made by the Solicitor General—was made several hours ago. It was made before 8 o'clock.

§ MR. CARSON (Dublin University)
No, no.

§ MR. J. MORLEY
The hon. and learned Member for Dublin University may contradict me in that discourteous manner if he thinks fit, but the fact is that the statement of my hon. and learned Friend as to our intention in using the word "determined" in this clause was made three hours ago. That being the case, no new conditions have arisen. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham was perfectly aware of the construction which my hon. and learned Friend placed upon the words and the intentions of the Government. No change has taken place since then, and as the Chairman has ruled that the time has passed for the further consideration of the question, I hope that my right hon. Friend will, in view of the fact that all this was known three or four hours ago, withdraw his Motion.

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
I should like to read the passage in Sir Erskine May's book on which I base my ruling, and which the Clerk has now found. It will be seen that it is as clear as possible. It runs as follows:— In preparing Bills care must be taken that they do not contain provisions which are not authorised by the order of leave that the prefatory paragraph prefixed to the Bill which defines the object thereof, known as the title of the Bill, corresponds with the order of leave, and that the Bill itself is prepared pursuant to the order of leave and in proper form; for, if it should appear that these rules have not been observed, the House will order it to be withdrawn. Such objections, however, should be taken before the Second Reading; for it is not the practice to order Bills to be withdrawn after they are committed on account of any irregularity which can be cured while the Bill is in Committee or on recommitment. (Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 10th edition, page 440.) Consequently the point is perfectly plain.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
May I, Sir Julian Goldsmid, ask you, on the point of Order, whether that rule does not carry with it the obligation on the part of the 1096 Government either to withdraw the Bill or to cure the irregularity?

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
It may be cured by an amendment in the title, as well as in other ways.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
I wish, in the first place, to take notice of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. It is perfectly true my attention was called to this irregularity three hours ago, and I brought it on that occasion to the notice of the Chairman and the Government. I was met, Sir, with the reply you have given—namely, that the time to take that objection was before the Second Reading. You will allow, Sir, that to the statement which you have read there is appended a note to this effect— Objection being taken after Report that is, at a much later stage than now— and recommitment of the Income Tax and Inhabited House Duties Bill, 1871, that the Bill comprised provisions beyond the order of leave, and that the second reading had been agreed to under a misapprehension of its contents, the Bill was withdrawn. That was the case on which I confessed I wished to have the decision of the Chair. I understand that you think, Sir, in your discretion that, although in this case the provisions of the Bill are beyond the order of leave, and although the Second Reading has passed under a misapprehension of that fact, you are still not entitled to interfere. I accept your decision, and under these circumstances I shall beg leave to withdraw the Motion I have made, but I do, on sitting down, make a further appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision.

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Gentleman had better withdraw the Motion first.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
On that Question I would make an appeal to the Government. We are indebted to the Chair for a very distinct statement—namely, that the Bill is irregular. We are not talking now about the rights or the position of the Chair; but, as a matter of fact, the Bill is irregular, and goes beyond the order of leave. It was 1097 in the power of the Opposition to prevent that, and that power was only not exercised owing to a misapprehension. I ask the Government—almost as a matter of honor, I was going to say; at any rate, as a matter of consideration to the Opposition—whether they do not think they ought to put the thing back into the position in which it would have been if there had been no misapprehension?

§ MR. J. MORLEY
My right hon. Friend has made a good many assumptions in his remarks. I am not sure that you, Sir Julian Goldsmid, did lay down, or, indeed—if I may say so with perfect respect—had the power to lay down, all those propositions which my right hon. Friend imputes to you. But you have said that if there has been an irregularity it may well be amended by some alteration in the title of the Bill. The Government will consider what weight there is in the various propositions which have been advanced in connection with this point, and if it should be found on consideration—which I am not at all prepared to assume—that some alteration in the title of the Bill is necessary, then, whether from the point of view of honor or of consideration for the Opposition, we shall be prepared to make an announcement to the Committee.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)
I take it that one of two things—

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
Order, order! I think that this question of Order has been sufficiently decided. The further discussion must be confined to the Amendment before the Committee.

§ MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)
said, the Opposition were encouraged to again urge the Amendment on the House after what had taken place. It was no answer for the Government to say that they would make a change in the title of the Bill. The objection of the Opposition was not one of form but one of substance. The Bill as it stood not only did not agree with the title but disagreed with the policy of the Government, as enunciated on the First Reading and the Second Reading. The Government were endeavoring to ride off upon a mere question of law. There was some strangeness in the comparison made by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) between this Bill and the Purchase Act of 1891.

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
I have decided that that has no reference to this question.

MR. J. LOWTHER
said, the point before the Committee was whether by a further Amendment they could not bring the Bill into harmony with the order of leave. If the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Barton) were accepted, the most captions critic of the drafting of Bills could hardly say that it would not bring the clause into accordance with the order of leave. The Amendment would confine the operation of the Bill to cases where the tenants had been bonâ fide evicted on account of the non-payment of rent, and would enable the Government to get out of all their difficulties. He thought that on its merits the Amendment deserved very careful consideration on the part of the Committee. The Government did not propose to admit among those who were to receive the benefits of the Bill persons who might have received full value for their interest in the holdings from which they were evicted; the position indicated was not one which was contemplated by the House when leave was given to introduce the Bill, and therefore he hoped that the Amendment would be accepted.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
We are reduced now to a consideration of the Amendment upon its merits, and I will ask the Committee to consider very carefully the position in which the Government is placed. I am merely going to speak in the interests of peace; but I must just make my case clear by referring to some of the examples of persons who are not evicted tenants in any ordinary acceptation of the term, but who, nevertheless, by the determination and decision of the Government are to be included within the operation of the Bill. I referred earlier in our discussion to the case of a tenant who had relinquished his tenancy, voluntarily surrendered his holding and had gone away, and yet coming back might seek to establish a claim under the Act to be reinstated in his holding, the holding he once occupied, but which, after all, would not be the same holding, because in the interval of ten or fifteen years past the condition of the holding may have been altogether altered. But the tenant may make the claim to be re-established at the old rate on the holding, though practically the 1099 holding may not be the same thing. Again, there is the class of tenants who may have agreed to give up their holdings, their interests having been purchased, notwithstanding which they—possibly refusing to be bound by this or any other contract—have had to be evicted. These, under this new arrangement, would have the right to make claims for reinstatement, with all the rights for which they had received ample purchase value. Then there is a third class. The Act of 1881—I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Louth will call that Chamberlain's Act? He was good enough to attribute to me an Act of Parliament in which I had no responsibility or honor beyond the rest of my colleagues in the Government. He might as well call the Act of 1881 "Chamberlain's Act," as the Arrears Act. This, however, by the way.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
Hear, hear!

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
Yes, I only answer by the way, for I do not consider it necessary to reply otherwise. The Act of 1881 contains a number of statutory conditions, the breach of which involves forfeiture of his holding by the tenant. Now, suppose a tenant has deliberately forfeited his rights by breach of statutory conditions proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, and accepted by the House of Commons in 1881; of course, having forfeited his holding, he goes out, his tenancy is determined. Is he a man you are going to reinstate? Are you going to bring all these cases before your new tribunal, loading it with a number of fictitious claims? It seems to me the greatest absurdity in the world. Look at the injustice of this. Owing to any of these circumstances, let us suppose a tenant has ceased to be such, that his tenancy is determined, that the landlord has entered into possession and sold his land to somebody else, obtaining a higher price because of the full property in the land which he had to dispose of. Under ordinary circumstances, a landlord is only a partner in the proprietorship. He is only part owner, and can only dispose of his partnership rights. Let us suppose that a tenant has half the rights in the property, the landlord the other half; then if one partner sells his rights he, under ordinary circumstances, gets the value of half the ownership but if the 1100 rights of the tenant have been cleared out either by surrender, purchase, or forfeiture, owing to breach of statutory conditions, then the landlord would possess the whole rights. Very well Now, suppose that the landlord has sold his rights to a second occupier, who has paid for the whole. Are you under this Bill going to allow any number of persons to raise claims arising over a period of 15 years against these new owners? I say it would be a monstrous injustice. That is not all. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary did not say a single word about these tenants either on the introduction of the Bill or the Second Reading. He laid before the House certain calculations, and on the introductory stage he expressed his opinion in regard to the sum he then had at his disposal, and again on the Second Reading in regard to the much larger sum at his disposal, which he said would be ample for the purposes intended. The sum may be ample—I do not contest that at the moment—to provide for the evicted tenants; but is it considered ample to provide for all these other tenants? Why, even the hon. and learned Member for Louth made an admission by way of answer to my hon. Friend near me. He said the sum of money was not large enough to permit the tribunal to deal with all the cases that might be brought before it, and apparently he thinks that this wonderful tribunal, with a discretion unknown to English law, is not only to look into the merits of all these cases, but is to have somehow or other and continually a view of the money behind it at its disposal, so that it may say, "Here is a case we should like to deal with, but if we do deal with it we, having only a total sum of £250,000 at our disposal, shall have so much less for other cases." Consequently, they are to exclude certain cases, not on the ground that there is no prima facie case, not only because of the circumstances of the eviction and the other matters detailed in the Bill, but because there are not sufficient funds to allow of such cases being dealt with. Now, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend, are those the "other circumstances" the tribunal must take into consideration? Why, Sir, up to the present time we have never been able to get from the Government Bench the slightest idea of what 1101 these other circumstances are. Now we know it is the limit of £250,000 which is a controlling circumstance, and upon that ground, I suppose, the tribunal is to decide whether or not a person making application is a proper person to be reinstated on a holding. Now, what is going to be the result of all this? The result of all this is we are to be engaged in discussing this point when hon. Members opposite, at whose dictation this Bill has been brought in—because anybody who believes that this is a Government Bill in the sense that the Government are going heartily with it must have an extraordinary amount of credulity—we are to be engaged in discussing this point in the Bill when hon. Members below the Gangway opposite say that none of these cases will be included by the tribunal. Well, then, why not exclude them by the Act? What is the good of leaving to the tribunal a discretion in a vast number of cases which hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves declare ought not to be included? There is, so far as I understand, general agreement on this point. Nobody will get up and say that cases such as we have put ought to be included in the reference to the tribunal; why on earth should the Government persist in their irregularity; why should they determine to refer these cases to the tribunal when they hold the opinion that no just or impartial tribunal could declare there was a primâ facie case to proceed upon? I cannot conceive a more obstructive proceeding.

§ MR. BARTON
I have submitted the terms of an Amendment which I propose to insert after the word "determined." I think it is very important that we should clearly understand those general propositions which have taken us so much by surprise. I propose, therefore, to insert after the word "determined" the words—"otherwise than by way of breach of statutory conditions." In other words I propose, if the Government will not consent to confine the cases under the Bill to those of eviction for non-payment of rent, to ask them to consent to exclude the cases of tenants 1102 whose evictions have resulted from breach of statutory conditions. I will not repeat arguments used in support of the previous Amendment; but I will give one or two illustrations, and I ask the attention of the Chief Secretary to considerations that may affect his opinion of my proposal. I venture to say that to-morrow, when in Ireland it becomes known that the operation of the Bill may extend beyond those cases to which we have endeavored to confine it, there will be alarm in the household of any tenant who has taken a farm from which a previous tenant has been evicted for breach of statutory conditions, and in the mind of every landlord who has resumed possession, for this reason: A feeling of uncertainty as to title will arise among the various persons in Ireland who under the operation of the law have entered into possession of land under circumstances to which nobody raised objection. The Chief Secretary, I am sure, will recognize this Further, let me point out that nobody has ever found fault with these statutory conditions. During the inquiry upstairs by the Committee on the Land Acts I do not believe that any objection was urged, and neither in the amending Act of 1887 or in any of the Bills introduced by Irish Members has there been any attempt made to alter the law as to these statutory conditions. My present Amendment declares that if a man has been evicted from his holding for breach of the statutory conditions upon which he held his tenure under the Act of 1881 that that man shall not come under the operation of this Bill. I am quite sure the hon. and learned Member for Louth will find it difficult to question the reasonable character of this proposal. The hon. Member for South Tyrone will correct me if I am wrong, but I think I am within the fact when I say that no tenant has ever in any public way made objection to the law as regards breach of statutory conditions; it has always been recognized that these conditions are such as ought to apply to a holding, and that a tenant should be evicted for breach of them. During the past 11 years there have been many cases of eviction from this cause, but every man so evicted can make a claim under this Bill.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
One of the statutory conditions is that a tenant shall 1103 pay rent at the appointed times. Look at Section 5 of the Land Act.

§ MR. BARTON
I am not referring to that, the hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well what the statutory conditions are.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
But there is your Amendment.

§ MR. BARTON
Breach of conditions is committed by dilapidation of buildings, deterioration of soil, refusal of the right of the landlord to enter, building a public-house on the land without consent of the landlord—these are examples of the conditions which this House has said should attach to the occupation of a farm, and which, if a man breaks, out he must go. No tenant has ever objected to accept the conditions, they are admitted to be fair, and yet a man evicted for breach of these will, under this Bill, have a claim to be brought back. I can tell the Chief Secretary that this will come with the utmost surprise upon the great body of tenants in Ireland who neither wish nor expect anything of the kind it will disturb titles and add to existing land difficulties.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
I rise to a point of Order. The Committee have already negative a proposition in respect to nonpayment of rent in the last Amendment. In Section 5 of the Act of 1881, which defines the statutory conditions, the very first condition is that the tenant shall pay rent at the appointed time; accordingly, it appears to me that we have already dealt with the Amendment of the hon. Member.

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. MELLOR)
Then, on that particular point, the Amendment is out of Order; that is to say, if the payment of rent is included among the statutory conditions. I was not aware of that, but if that is so then the point upon which the Committee have already come to a decision must not again be included in the Amendment.

§ MR. BARTON
Then, Sir, I propose to amend my Amendment so that it shall 1104 read—"otherwise than for breach of statutory conditions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6."

§ MR. J. MORLEY
On a point of Order, Sir, may I ask, is the hon. and learned Member allowed to move an Amendment to an Amendment which has not been dealt with?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The Amendment is out of Order; but the hon. Member is entitled to move it in its altered form.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
I am going to make an appeal which I do not expect the Government will be able to resist. One of the statutory conditions is that a public-house shall not be opened on the property without the consent of the landlord. You assume that a man has done this and has been evicted for this breach of the conditions. The loader of the Temperance Party is not here, but I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has had to drop the Veto Bill, but if he will not give us anything by way of restriction on the opening of public-houses, surely he will not be a party to forcing back into possession a man who was put out—because he opened a public-house in defiance of an express obligation against such conduct? That would be a very anomalous proceeding on the part of an advocate of the Temperance movement. I thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer "had nailed his colors to the mast." The hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth is not here, but here is another leader of the Temperance movement in the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. Diamond), who is heard on Temperance platforms all over England.

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
Here now is the perfectly plain question I will put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is one of the statutory conditions laid down in an Act of Parliament in 1881, 1105 passed by a Government of which he was a Member, and suppose this statutory condition broken does the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the House of Commons mean to say that a man who broke this statutory condition is to be forced back—