LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 12 August 1896)

§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,) Leeds, Central
Before the House proceeds to the detailed consideration of the Amendments I think it will be convenient to hon. Members that I should indicate shortly the course that the Government 590 propose to pursue with respect to these Amendments. This is all the more desirable, inasmuch as, following the usual practice, we have not ourselves placed upon the Paper the Amendments which we intend later on to move. The Lords' Amendments extend to something like 12 pages, and are very numerous, but the vast majority of them are practically drafting Amendments. Many of them were inserted at the instance of the Government in the other House, and with regard to those Amendments I do not suppose that there will be much difference of opinion or much discussion. There are, however, certain substantial Amendments in which the Government are prepared to acquiesce. In this class I would include the new Turbary Clause, the first Sub-section of Section 1, and the Amendments introduced in connection with procedure on sale. There still remains a residue, not very large indeed, but important in character, which the Government cannot accept, at all events in the form in which those Amendments appear upon the Paper. I do not think that their number extends beyond five or six. There is an Amendment which provides for an appeal in the case of estates sold to tenants in the Landed Estates Court. We are prepared to accept that Amendment in principle, but we shall move to it certain Amendments, the object of which is to prevent vexatious or frivolous appeals by persons who, perhaps, are but remotely interested, and who, being very likely men of straw, would not be able to pay the costs if the decree should be against them. Then there are three other Amendments detailed in pages 2 and 3 of the Lords' Amendments. The first is in connection with the right of occupation vested in the tenant. That Amendment appears to us ambiguous; but we can see that the intention of it is not to prevent the occupation interest being taken into consideration as an element in the fixing of a fair rent, but to prevent any such interest being taken into consideration a second time. We do not think, if that is the intention of the clause, that the words are very well calculated to carry it out, and we shall therefore ourselves move words to carry out that view more distinctly and with less ambiguity. The next point is in connection with pasture 591 holdings. On that subject the Government are not able to give way. ["Hear, hear!"] We have inserted in our Bill the limit of, £100, in place of the present limit of £50, and to that limit we intend to adhere. The third of the important Amendments is Lord Macnaghten's Amendment to leave out Clause 5. Clause 5 was inserted in the Bill in order to provide that the term "ordinary agricultural farm" should not exclude pastoral or mixed farms. To this clause we continue to adhere, but if there exists any apprehension in the minds of hon. Members who are landlords that the Government proposes, under cover of this Amendment, that a person who is not using his holding bonâ fide as a farm is to be included in the benefit of the Act, we shall insert words to make it perfectly clear that such a person shall not be included in the Act. I have now very briefly indicated what the course is we intend to pursue on the critical points raised by these Amendments. May I now say a few words in conclusion? We introduced this Bill in the first instance believing it to be a just and reasonable Measure having regard to all the circumstances of the case. We tried to pass it through this House in an impartial spirit, and I believe we succeeded. At all events, apart from the procedure clauses, it left this House substantially unchanged in any of its main principles. It went to the other House and there changes were introduced of which it must be said that they do in some sense substantially and materially alter our original Measure, and most of these alterations are to the tenants' disadvantage. I do not complain of it. It is perfectly natural in the circumstances that the House of Lords should have inserted Amendments of that kind; but I do most sincerely hope that if the House of Commons disagrees with these Amendments—especially the Amendments which I have already described—the House of Lords will accept that decision and that the Bill will be allowed finally to pass into law in the shape in which it will leave the Commons after this discussion. If, unhappily that is not the case, and if in consequence the Bill will have to be dropped, I have not the slightest doubt that it will be a calamity to Ireland and a calamity not least to the landlords themselves. I think this 592 is a critical moment in the relations of Ireland, not only to the Unionist party, but to the Imperial Parliament itself. Nobody who has followed the changes that have taken place in Ireland during the last few years can have failed to note that there has been a very great change of feeling apparent there, and that the intense bitterness which existed some years ago has to a very large extent died down, at all events for the moment. Well, it appears to me that Parliament now has an opportunity which has not occurred for a considerable number of years, and which if now neglected, may perhaps, not occur again for a considerable number of years. Are we going to take that opportunity? Are we going to seize that opportunity to reinforce the kindlier feelings which happily now prevail, or are we going to justify those who are only too ready to inculcate that most pernicious lesson that for an Ireland which is tranquil and peaceful, nothing is done, but that to an Ireland which is trammelled and disturbed and crime-ridden no concession is to be denied? That appears to me to be the issue not only that this House but Parliament has now to decide, and in arriving at its decision, I most sincerely pray that it may be wisely guided. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman moved that the House do agree with the Lords in their first Amendment.

§ MR. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry)
rose to move to insert after "holding" the words "to which the Ulster custom does not apply."

§ *MR. SPEAKER
I think the hon. Member would not be in order in moving the Amendment on the Paper. It opens up a general question which does not appear to be consequential to any Amendment by the Lords. Sub-section 1 has been struck out and practically re-enacted with certain alterations; out of some 23 or 24 lines there are alterations in five or six lines only. The greater part, therefore, of what has come down as an Amendment is really what both Houses have agreed upon, and in that part there can be no Amendment moved. This is an Amendment to a part to which both Houses have agreed.

§ MR. KNOX
said his contention was that if the sub-section was read with the new schedule, which was not in the 593 Bill when it left the House of Commons, but was incorporated with the Bill by the Lords at the end of the sub-section, it entirely changed the nature of the sub-section, and, therefore, it was a question whether it was intended to apply to Ulster certain holdings provisions which he contended were inapplicable to them.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member must move an Amendment of that description in the schedule.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)
moved to amend the Amendment by striking out the words "the form set out in the first schedule to their Act, or in such other." He said the Amendment did not strike at any matter of principle. He certainly had objections in principle, but in view of the desirability of making concessions on both sides he had not attacked the Lords' Amendment as a whole. He did, however, submit that the latter portion of the Amendment was mischievous and dangerous, and he would propose to the Government that the form of the schedule should be left to the Land Commissioners to devise. It was perfectly plain that the schedule had been hastily drawn and put together. He submitted to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and to those who represented the Irish landlords, that the form referred to should be consistent with the sub-section. The Land Commission might be trusted to set down all necessary particulars.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
said that it could hardly be said that the hon. Gentleman was not justified in the remarks he had made with regard to the form of the schedule. He hoped, however, that the hon. Member would not press his Amendment at that moment, but would leave the matter to be dealt with subsequently, so that a form might be drawn up on the general lines of the schedule which would be free from difficulty, and which would form a general guide in the matter.

§ MR. KNOX
said that although hon. Members in that House might perfectly understand the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman, difficulties might arise in the construction of the sub-section in the Courts. In these circumstances he thought that it would be impossible to leave the words of the sub-section as they now stood. The better course 594 would perhaps be to state in the schedule what they meant, but, at the same time, to declare that the schedule should not affect the interpretation of the Act. If they adopted that course they would undoubtedly be extending the area of agreement between the two Houses of Parliament.

§ MR. J. A. RENTOUL (Down, E.)
, was afraid that if the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman were adopted, it would simply mean that the Court was to draw up the schedule in any form they pleased.

MR. T. M. HEALY
said that he found no fault with the Government in reference to this matter, because they were not responsible for the insertion of this Amendment in the House of Lords. He suggested that the words "that nothing in the schedule contained shall affect or qualify any other portion of the Act," should be inserted in this sub-section. The only workmanlike method would be to provide that the construction of the schedule ahould not affect the construction of the Act.

§ *SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)
thought it very satisfactory that the Government had recognised the importance of laying down broad and common sense rules for the transaction of the business of the. Sub-Commissioners. He did not think the schedule laid down any new principles not contained in the Act. The only alteration in the schedule was that there was an extra column, against the area in statute measure, for the fair rent per acre.

§ MR. JOHN DILLON (Mayo, E.)
said that some of the provisions in the schedule were inconsistent with Subsection (1), and would necessitate some discussion, and he could not understand why the Government retained the schedule in the Act. Sub-section (1) gave the Commissioners a far more detailed direction than they had ever had before, and he urged the Government to leave the matter in the hands of the Land Commission under the Sub-section.

§ MR. EDWARD CARSON (Dublin University)
said the object of the Amendment proposed by Lord Temple-town was to give landlords and tenants an opportunity of testing the value put upon holdings by the Sub-Commission. The Government, however, had thought 595 it more convenient to bring up a schedule, but if the schedule were now-struck out Lord Templetown's Amendment would practically be struck out altogether. If on the other hand the matter were left entirely in the hands of the Sub-Commissioners then the Commissioners would again have the power of striking out what the Lords considered a very material benefit. He thought the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Londonderry would be a much better one if there was any difficulty in having the schedule brought up.

MR. T. M. HEALY
thought they were entitled to some reply upon the point.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.
said it was evident, he thought, from the discussion, in the first place that, as the hon. Member for Cork had pointed out, in the schedule as it stood there were certain defects, while it had been pointed out on that Bench, and also by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, that it would be inconsistent with the Amendment which was proposed in the House of Lords, and with the view which they entertained in common with the House of Lords, that it should be left entirely with the Land Commission to give the go-by to the provisions in Clause 1, and to fix the schedule after their own sweet will—not that he believed that they would abuse that right, but it was the intention that they should frame their schedule in accordance with the Act. The question remained whether there was not sufficient latitude allowed by the clause as it now stood to remedy the admitted defects in the schedule. They had to face the inevitable in this matter, but he would suggest that there was probably sufficient machinery in the clause as it stood for correcting the admitted defects.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. T. M. HEALY
said that he wished to move at the end of the new subsection to insert the words "nothing contained in the first schedule of this Act shall affect the construction of any other portion of the Act." He contended that it was impossible to apprehend at 596 that moment what would be the bearing of these directions in the schedule on the Act, and it was unfair to ask them to consider these tangled schedules at the end of the Session. He suggested that they might strike out the sub-section now, and after a conference with the representatives of the landlords and tenants, they could insert it in the Lords when it could be agreed to on both sides after it came back to the House of Commons. The pink schedule would have been acceptable as far as they were concerned, but the Government had struck out the pink schedule and inserted a schedule of their own.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
thought there could be no objection to their accepting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was admitted that the schedule had been drawn up hastily, and that there were imperfections in it. It was possible that there might be something in the schedule which might be found to be inconsistent with something in the Act, and if there was any inconsistency it was clear that the schedule must go, and not the Act. If it was the practice to interpret the Act by the schedule of the Act, he thought that that course ought not to be taken, as they were all agreed that if there was any conflict between the schedule and the Act the schedule must go. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
said he was not able to accept the Amendment as it stood as follows:—" No deduction shall be made from the fair rent named in this section by reason of the mere right of occupation vested in the tenant." He thought that what was in the minds of the movers of this Amendment in the House of Lords was that when once the occupation rights had been taken into consideration they should not be twice considered. In order, therefore, to remove all ambiguity he moved to insert words providing that, after a fair rent had been fixed for the first time on a holding no further reduction should take place by reason of the right of occupation vested in the tenant.

§ MR. CARSON
regretted very much the Amendment which the Government had thought fit to move to Lord Inchiquin's Amendment. There was no real difficulty in ascertaining what was the purport of the Lords' Amendment. There might be objection to the framing of it, but it was quite clear that what was meant by the noble Lord was, that no deduction should be made in the fixing of a fair rent by reason of the mere right of occupation vested in the tenant. He was informed the Government were now about to create difficulties with regard to the Amendment. If the Amendment was passed it would render the Bill a great deal worse from the landlords' point of view, than if no Amendment had been inserted by the House of Lords. For this reason—when this Amendment was moved in the House of Lords the Marquess of Lansdowne stated that it was already provided by the terms of the Act of 1881, that no such right of occupation should be taken into consideration at all. And it was then pointed out by Lord Macnaghten, that if that was so, as one of the Judges who had administered the Act had said, that if the right of occupation was to be taken into consideration, it would only be fair and proper that it should be so enacted in plain terms. Lord Lansdowne as a matter of fact accepted the Amendment in the House of Lords. [Nationalist cries of "No!"] Well, at all events he did not divide against it—[laughter]—and no argument whatsoever was put forward on the part of the Government in respect of Lord Inchiquin's Amendment.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
said the hon. and learned Member was entitled to discuss what had been done in the other House, but not to debate the Debates which had taken place there.

§ MR. CARSON
said he was entitled at all events to say this, that no explanation had been given this House as to whether under the Land Act of 1881, any such right of occupation as this Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman attempted to set up was given to the tenants. As a suggested concession to the Amendment moved in the House of Lords, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to enact, not that the right of occupation should not be taken into consideration, but almost in specific terms that it should, whenever the matter for the first time comes into 598 court, be taken into consideration. In other words the Amendment was a great deal worse than" the law, as it at present stood. Up to the present time, so far as he knew, there had been no legislative sanction to the claim, that this right of occupation was to be taken into consideration upon the fixing of a fair rent. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal was "that after a fair rent had been fixed for the first time no reduction should be made." What was that but an express enactment but that at the first time upon which a fair rent was being fixed this mere right of occupation was to be taken into consideration. What was more, if it had in the past been taken into consideration the Sub-Commissioners were not to have any power to disturb, and it remained as an element in the demands to be made as against the landlord. ["Hear, hear!"] What was this mere right of occupation? What did it consist of? How was it to be estimated, and what did the right hon. Gentleman suggest should be the limit? Mr. Morley last year put the right into the Bill, but he left out the words "for the first time," and the Amendment which was suggested as a concession to him and his friends was almost a transfer of the section. [Mr. MORLEY: "Hear, hear!"] It occurred to him that this was a very curious compromise, which not only reversed what he and his friends had been working for, but was an express enactment to their detriment. The rent to be fixed under the Act of 1881 was not to be a competitive rent. It was stated by Commissioner after Commissioner before the Select Committee that what was really the tenant right was the difference between the competitive rent and what the Sub-Commissioners were pleased to call a fair rent. The tenant got two matters under this Bill apart altogether from the proposed Amendment. He got still a right to go and have his rent fixed, and he had a right to have the difference between a fair rent and a competitive rent, and he had further the right to get his improvements excluded from the calculation. Last year, on the occasion of the Debate on Mr. Morley's Bill, Mr. T. W. Russell said— This question of occupation right was fully discussed in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords during' the consideration of the 599 Act of 1881, and it was never intended that this question of occupation right should he considered in estimating a fair rent. ["Hear, hear!"] He really would appeal, as deferentially as he could, to the Government that to put in this provision in the manner they proposed would be utterly hopeless and useless. So far as he was concerned he should much prefer there should be no Amendment dealing with this question at all than that the provision of the Government should be carried. If it was forced he would have to resist it to the uttermost of his power. ["Hear, hear!"] The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was to add the words, "After the fair rent has been fixed for the first time no reduction shall be made." What was that but an express enactment that upon the fixing of the fair rent for the first time this mere right of occupation was to be taken into consideration by the Sub-Commissioners? It was more than a direct negative to the Lords' Amendment. It was a positive enactment that the occupation right should be taken as an element in fixing the fair rent. Last year the right hon. Member for Montrose proposed what the Government now proposed, except that the words "for the first time" were left out. For the Government to adopt that proposal was a curious kind of compromise on the Lords' Amendment. What, according to the Government, was this occupation right? He conceived it to be the right of the sitting tenant to have a fair rent fixed, and the right to have his improvements excluded from the calculation in the fixing of that rent. If the tenant had anything more, where did he get it? According to all the evidence given before the Morley Committee, the fair rent was not a competitive rent. Therefore, what the tenant had was the difference between the competitive rent and what the Sub-Commissioners were pleased to call a fair rent. Now, these rights would still be reserved to the tenant under the clause as amended by the Lords; therefore, what reason could there be for adding the words with respect to occupation right being considered as an element in the fixing of the fair rent? There was never any suggestion that it should be taken into consideration until Mr. Justice Bewley, in his evidence before 600 the Committee, said that it should be. Then it became material for the landlords to have a legislative provision that, in respect of the fixing of the fair rent, this mere occupation right should not give any further right to any deduction. That was the reason why Lord Inchiquin moved his Amendment in the Lords. Speaking on the Bill of the right hon. Member for Montrose, the hon. Member for South Tyrone said:— This question of occupation right was fully discussed in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords during the consideration of the Act of 1881, and it was never intended that this question of occupation light should he considered in estimating the fair rent. Yet all that the Government offered as a concession on this point was to insert in the Bill the proposal of the right hon. Member for Montrose. That Amendment to the Lords' Amendment was utterly hopeless and utterly useless, and he should much prefer that there should be no Amendment at all.

MR. T. M. HEALY
said that when he heard the hon. Member for East Mayo object to this Amendment, and heard him supported by the right hon. Member for Trinity College, he experienced what were described by the French Parliamentary reporters as mouvements divers. [Laughter.]

§ MR. DILLON
I did not object.

MR. T. M. HEALY
said that this was not at all the proposal in the Bill of the right hon. Member for Montrose, and it made absolutely no change in the law, if Mr. Justice Bewley was to be believed.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASUBY
It is quite manifest there is simply no difference of opinion as to the merits of this matter between either my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University, or any hon. Gentleman sitting in any part of the House, and Her Majesty's Government. We should certainly not have touched the subject at all had it not been touched by the House of Lords. We feel now, what we have always felt, that nothing is to he gained by attempting to formulate in legislative language what has been clearly laid down by the tribunals under the existing law. If I am right, neither Lord Inchiquin nor any hon. Gentlemen opposite, nor my hon. 601 Friends on this side below the Gangway, and certainly not the Government, have the slightest intention or desire to alter the existing law on the subject. But it is urged that the existing law is not properly carried out by the Sub-Cmmissioners. It is said that the Sub-Commissioners have, at each fixing of a fair rent—although there has been no new improvements by the tenants and I no fall in prices to justify the reduction—whittled away the landlords' rent until it has almost reached the vanishing point, under the plea of occupation right of the tenant. Lord Inchiquin mentioned as the ground for his Amendment a case in which a farm had a fair rent fixed upon it on two occasions, and in which the reduction on the second occasion could only be accounted for by the fact that the Sub-Commissioners had taken into account again on the second occasion considerations which ought to be taken into account only on the first occasion. Now, what are the considerations that ought to be taken into account on the first occasion of fixing a fair rent, but not on the second occasion? They are considerations which my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University has with admirable lucidity laid before the House. By occupation right we mean nothing more than the right which at present the tenant has to have what is technically known as "a fair rent" fixed upon it, or, in other words, a rent that does not take into account the full competition value of the land. That occupation right may be, and indeed must be by the admission of my right hon. and learned Friend, taken into account when the rent is first fixed, but is never to be taken into account again. Well, we endeavour to embody that principle in the Amendment to which my right hon. and learned Friend takes such strong objection. It may be that my right hon. and learned Friend is right in contending that in endeavouring to deal with this most difficult and thorny question by statutory enactment we have done an injury to the landlord. Then the proper course for us is to withdraw our Amendment and to disagree with the original Amendment of the Lords, which, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland has explained, is unjust and ambiguous 602 in its character and cannot be admitted into the Bill.

§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)
said there was a very general agreement in the House on the point now under discussion. The Government saw it exactly as he and his hon. Friends saw it; but, unfortunately, the Sub-Commissioners in Ireland did not see it absolutely in the same light. Besides, the Amendment of the Chief Secretary made the matter worse. It stated that, after a fair rent had been fixed for the first time for a holding, the occupation right should not be taken into consideration. That meant that on the first occasion of fixing a fair rent the occupation right was to be taken into consideration. And what was this occupation right? It was of such an extraordinary and monstrous character that he really believed the House of Commons had not properly grasped it. It meant that, beyond the improvements the tenant had made—beyond the value which he possessed in his holding, and beyond the rights he had acquired under the Act of 1881—the tenant had some thing more in his holding. [Nationalist cries of "No, no!"] Those were lawyers who said "No, no!" He ventured to say he could get lawyers on his side of the House to say "Yes, yes." [Laughter.] What the Government had to do was to put into their Bill that there was no such right—to put into plain words in the Bill what they all meant—

MR. T. M. HEALY
What Judge Bewley means.

§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON
said that what Judge Bewley stated was that the law had never been declared upon the point. Therefore there was a doubt about it, and he added that it was very desirable that Parliament should decide it.

MR. T. M. HEALY
Have you read the whole of what he said?

§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON
No; I leave that to the hon. Gentleman.

MR. T. M. HEALY
Is that a fair way of arguing a case?

§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON
said he was arguing the case, not from a lawyer's point of view, but from the landlord's point of view. [Nationalist laughter.] All the landlords wanted was ordinary 603 fair play. [Renewed ironical laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed at that because they always laughed at fair play. All he asked was that the Government should embody in their Bill views which were held in common by all sides. Therefore, in asking the Government to act in this matter, he was not asking too much, and he would suggest that the further consideration of this sub-clause might be postponed until later in the day, and that time should be given to draw up a fair statement which would embody the views of 19–20ths of the Members of the House. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ Mr. SPEAKER
called upon Mr. KNOX, and then retired for the usual interval. Upon his return,

§ MR. KNOX
said he did not propose to address the House, and no other Member rising to continue the Debate,

§ *MR. SPEAKER
put the question that the words "after a fair rent has been fixed for the first time for a holding" be inserted.
There was at the moment no Member of the Government present, and the Amendment was agreed to. Immediately afterwards a "count" was moved, and among those who came into the House were the First Lord of the Treasury, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and other Members of the Government. A quorum having been made,

§ *MR. SPEAKER
, in answer to a question by an hon. Member, informed the House that the Amendment had been carried, and that now he understood there were certain consequential Amendments.

§ MR. JOHN MORLEY (Montrose Burghs)
Do we understand, Sir, that the Amendment as moved by the Chief Secretary to the Lords' Amendment has now been carried?

§ *MR. SPEAKER
Yes.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
What has occurred has put the House in something of a difficulty, because I understand that the words which have now been carried, and which involve further consequential Amendments, are not satisfactory to a large section of the House. We were in the 604 way of discussing the matter with a view of seeing whether some agreement could be arrived at. For the moment, I see no other way of extricating ourselves from the difficulty in which we find ourselves than by passing the Amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the first words of which have now been carried; but the Government hold themselves perfectly free, of course, to suggest modifications in another place.

§ MR. J. MORLEY
On a point of order, we now assume that the Amendment of the Government to the Lords' Amendment has been carried.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
The discussion on this subject has been cut short, and there appears to be no other alternative than for me to move the consequential Amendments. I beg to move that, after the word "no," the words "further or additional" be inserted.

§ MR. J. MORLEY
May I ask how the clause will read if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is accepted? I may be excused for asking this, as the Amendment does not appear on the Paper.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
I will read once more the clause as it will stand with the whole of my Amendments inserted— After a fair rent has been fixed for the first time for a holding, no further or additional deductions shall he made from that fair rent on the occasion of any subsequent fixing of a fair rent by reason of the occupation of the tenant, and so on in the words of the clause.
Word "no" omitted; word "that" inserted.
After words "fair rent," words "on the occasion of any subsequent fixing of a fair rent" inserted.
Words "made in this section" omitted.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
Perhaps, by leave of the House, I may be allowed to explain, now that the House is fuller than it was a few moments ago, what it is that has occurred. It appears that, by accident, the first words of this controverted Amendment were put from the Chair 605 and agreed to. It is impossible, in consequence of the rules of order, to go back on those words, and there appears to be no alternative but to complete the Amendment so as to make sense of the words already passed. That course has been adopted, but, of course, after what has passed, the Government hold themselves absolutely free in another place to make any suggestions or modifications in those words which the necessities of the situation and the exigencies of the case may seem to demand.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
Will the right hon. Gentleman move that the House do agree with the Lords' Amendment as amended?

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
I suppose I had better move that the House do agree with the Lords' Amendment as amended, subject to the statement I have just made.

§ MR. J. MORLEY
The right hon. Gentleman used an expression which I do not understand the full significance of, and which I think is barely justified. I refer to the reference which he made to the ulterior action to be taken by the Government in another place. The right hon. Gentleman said "after what has passed "the Government will hold themselves at liberty in another place to make whatever changes they thought fit.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
Suggestions. Of course, it depends on the House of Lords what changes shall be made.

§ MR. J. MORLEY
To make whatever suggestions to the House of Lords the Government may think fit. Surely, that is a very extraordinary position? The Government have come down to the House, and they find on the Paper a particular Amendment coming from another place. They move to that Amendment an Amendment of their own. That Amendment of theirs, so far as I could gather from what passed, commanded the assent of the majority of the House; and, therefore, I am at a loss to know what it was that passed that induces the Government now to place themselves in a position of perfect freedom with reference to their own Amendment.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
By the leave of the House, may I say that the Amendment which has just been introduced into the Lords' Amendment was put down with the 606 object of meeting the view expressed in another place? It does not appear to have been received with general favour in this House, and certainly I had hoped that before the discussion on this one Amendment had come to an end we might have been able to arrive at some agreement as to the manner in which the Lords' Amendment should be amended. We have, by general admission, failed to do that, and perhaps, after all, the easiest and simplest way of dealing with the whole situation would be that I should withdraw the Motion that we agree with the Lords' Amendment as amended, and that I should move that we disagree with the Lords' Amendment as amended. That would leave the whole matter open for discussion.

MR. T. M. HEALY
submitted that that was not exactly the most satisfactory way of dealing with the case. He did not attach much importance to the matter either way, but he thought they were entitled to see in some shape, other than the rags and tatters at present laid before the House, the phraseology of the clause as a whole.

§ MR. J. MORLEY
asked how the words would appear when the clause reached the Lords?

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
said that he proposed to move to disagree with the Lords' Amendment as amended, and he believed that in its amended form this Resolution would appear on the Paper as a thing which was negatived.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
said the proper course would be to negative the Motion already made, "That the House do agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)
said this was a very critical question between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. He denied that there was entire agreement on the subject; on the contrary, there was a very material difference as to the substance of the matter. One point was as to what was, or was not, the right of valuation by the Commissioners in respect of a specific tenant. The right hon. Member for the University of Dublin had said that, from his point of view, all the right was to have a fair rent fixed as contrasted with a competition rent. But, apart from that, others contended, that a man who had long been 607 a tenant had a right to something more than the fixing of a fair rent. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] It was so, and it was contended, and he thought reasonably, by hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, that a tenant who had long been in possession was entitled to something more in the way of reduction of rent than a man who was merely a new comer. ["Hear, hear!"] That was what he understood Mr. Justice Bewley to say. In one of his answers before the Commission, he spoke of the allowances being variable, according to the length of time the tenant had been in occupation. Therefore the occupation interest of the tenant was to be considered. The Government had brought forward an Amendment to the Lords' Amendment which they thought would render the Lords' Amendment fair and just; that Amendment, which was supported by the Opposition, had been carried, and now the Government were going to proceed to negative it. The course they had adopted in regard to this Amendment was the course they had taken with reference to all their legislation. [Ironical Ministerial cheers.] That was so. Having put down an Amendment—and recommended it to the House—it was no sooner carried than the Government declared that they would negative the whole thing because the Amendment had been carried. [Laughter.]

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
said the Government had made no such statement. Their proposal was perfectly clear and also their motives. It was evident that the words they had proposed did not carry out the views of both sides of the House, and they had been carried by mistake. They therefore proposed to negative the Lords' Amendment as amended. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said he did not understand the Amendment of the Government being carried by mistake. ["Hear, hear!"] The Amendment was supported on that side of the House and was carried, and immediately it was accepted they proposed to disagree with the whole thing. [Laughter.] It appeared to him that the House was placed in a very awkward position, and he did not see how they were going to get on.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)
said he had failed to trace in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition any interest in either the Irish landlords or tenants. [Ministerial cheers.]

§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON
said he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not quite understood the object of the Leader of the House. The object of the Government was to carry the Bill, and not to wreck it on a point on which landlords and the Government were absolutely at one. The right hon. Gentleman had with this view taken the only course he could under the circumstances—to negative the Amendment of the Lords as amended so that some modus vivendi might afterwards be arrived at. He heartily supported the Motion.

§ MR. DILLON
pointed out that Mr. Justice Bewley had laid it down that occupation interest should be taken into consideration in fixing a fair rent, and said that all the Nationalist Members wished was that the law as to the tenant's occupation interest should not be made worse than Mr. Justice Bewley had declared it to be.

§ MR. J. MORLEY
submitted that the best plan and the most regular course to adopt in the difficulty would be for the Government to allow their own Amendment to go up to the Lords, and to let the Lords deal with it as they thought right. They had discussed the matter in that House under pressure and in great haste, and no doubt the decision had been taken under accidental circumstances; but due regard to order in the House and self-respect should induce the Government to send up their Amendment to the House of Lords. He could not believe that those who were familiar with what passed in the House last year upon a similar clause in the Bill he introduced could think there was any open question. That clause was proposed in pursuance of the recommendation, or, at any rate, the language of the Chief Commissioner himself. It was pointed out by the late Lord Waterford and by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University that the clause would involve a perpetual revision of judicial rents upon occupation right, and that the effect would be 609 that in the fulness of time the landlord's interest would be frittered away. His answer was that that was not in the least what the Government intended. Their intention was that a greater reduction should he given to a sitting tenant than would be given to a new comer; and, in order to meet the objection of the late Lord Waterford and the hon. and learned Gentleman, they expressed their willingness to introduce such words as would prevent a perpetual and recurrent frittering away of the landlord's interest under the name of occupation right. He certainly hoped that, for the credit of the House, this amended provision would be sent to the Lords for an expression of their opinion in respect to it.

§ MR. KNOX
said that upon the subject to which this Amendment related the two sides of the House of Commons were, in Committee, agreed. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh admitted that improvements were, in most cases, made by the tenants, and that he saw no reason why, in the case of an estate which had changed hands, there should be a different presumption of law than of fact. The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not see why advantages which were denied to old landlords should be conferred upon new landlords. An agreement arrived at in the House of Commons between the landlords' and tenants' representatives ought not to be interfered with except on grave cause shown; but, in the other House, Lord Ardilaun, who had bought his land since 1870, moved that an estate sold since; that year should be excepted from the rule. It did not appear to be bad form in the other House for a man to move an Amendment in which he was directly and personally interested. It would, he submitted, be a disgrace to Parliament as a whole if the Lords' Amendment became law, and he moved that this House do disagree with the Amendment.

§ *SIR J. COLOMB
trusted the Government would stand by the Lords' Amendment. 610 No one who had any regard for Parliamentary honour and good faith could do otherwise than support the Amendment. The Government, in introducing the Bill into this House, said that in the case of sale, the presumption that the tenant had made the improvements unless the contrary was proved by the landlord was not to apply; and when an Amendment was moved the Attorney General for Ireland pointed out that a man, when he bought in the Encumbered Estates Court a property, he simply got a statement as to area, rent, and right exercised by the tenant. The purchaser was therefore absolutely precluded from being in a position to dispute the claim of the tenant that he and not the landlord had made the improvements. There was no gombeen man in the case, but there were interested Englishmen and Scotchmen of the middle class who had invested their money on the faith of the law as it stood. Were they justified in breaking faith with those people? It was wrong to say that those who spoke from the Government Benches spoke from a purely landlord point of view. In this matter he was speaking in support of a much larger number of people. The professional classes, the domestic classes, the friendly societies in England, Scotland, and Wales, all had interests in the Irish land question. It was not a question simply between landlords and tenants; it was a question of the stability of property generally, and of the faith of Parliament. There was no gombeen interest involved in it at all, for it very often happened that small properties had been bought in Ireland by those who had by their own industry and thrift realised money and become landlords. They had no right to call these gombeen men. They were going to say to a deserving and industrious and thrifty class of persons, "We deprive you of the improvements, although you bought the property on the presumption that they were not made by the tenants, and therefore you are to suffer, although the law under which you bought secured you against this danger." He did not think that was fair or right. It was against the interests of everybody who was identified with Irish land, whether landlords or not, and it would hit and destroy the 62,000 small landlords who had mostly been created by the process 611 he had described by throwing upon them the onus of proof that they made the improvements, Parliament having in the past prevented them from establishing their case. He hoped the Government would not give way.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
thought it a pity the speech to which the House had just listened was not delivered on the Committee stage of the Bill. The House would remember the circumstances under which the condition as originally embodied in the Bill was taken out. For half an hour the Government defended the position taken up in the Bill, which he believed was the correct position, but instead of receiving any assistance from hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side, the representatives of the landlords joined with the Nationalists in agreeing that the provision as it stood should be cut out.

§ *SIR J. COLOMB
My hon. Friend near me (Mr. Smith-Barry) pointed out that the Government should not give way.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
replied that he was in the recollection of the House when he said that the Government did not receive assistance from those who represented the landlords in carrying the Bill as it was; and when he found both landlords and tenants agreed on the matter he did not think it worth while to carry it further. Now it appeared from the landlords themselves that they had made a mistake. ["No!"] He regretted the remarks of the hon. Member for Derry because they could have no other effect than to embitter the Debate. He thought it might be reasonably allowed that they had all acted bonâ fide. In his opinion the compromise now proposed was a reasonable one, and he hoped the House would accept it.

§ MR. DILLON
could not understand, and he did not think anybody in Ireland would be able to understand, the grounds of the Chief Secretary's decision. The right hon. Gentleman had 612 correctly described what occurred in Committee on this Amendment. An appeal was made to the representatives of the Irish landlords as to whether they were prepared to say that the new men who bought under the Landed Estates Court should be placed in a better position than the old landlords, and the landlords' representatives responded to that appeal. They thought the same measure should be applied to the new men as was meted out to the old. The right hon. Gentleman had offered no justification for this great and far-reaching change. The proposition was this, that, as the landlords who bought in the Landed Estates Court believed they were buying a power to rent the tenants' improvements, they should be secured in that power. Did the right hon. Gentleman see how far this carried him? It meant that these men bought the right to rob the tenants, to confiscate their property. It was to the honour of the old Irish party that they would not be a party to such a transaction as that. In this respect they were reasonable, because they did not recognise that a Parliamentary title carried with it the right to take away from the tenant that which was in equity his property. The result of the proposition of the Lords would be this, that in the case of a vast quantity of estates the tenants would lose the benefit which the law was wont to confer upon them, owing to the impossibility of their proving that they actually made the improvements, and the further back they went of course the more difficult the production of proof. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth had made an appeal on behalf of men whom he would not call gombeen men, but whom he would call investors of capital. The old practice in connection with the purchase of these estates was to hold out to English investors the inducement that the rents could be raised, and there had been some cases in which the raised rent had amounted to as much as 12 per cent. on the capital 613 invested. Men who bought land in the old days of the Landed Estates Court obtained still about 5 per cent. on their original capital, even where the rents had been reduced by the Land Commissioners. These people, therefore, were certainly not to be pitied.

MR. T. M. HEALY
said that on three points the landlord party in that House came to an agreement with the Nationalist Members, but that in each case the landlords in the House of Lords had broken that Parliamentary compact and bargain. The hon. Member for North Armagh, when the question was discussed in Committee, said that personally he had no objection to the Amendment. He saw, from the "Parliamentary Debates," that on July 23 last, the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) said that— Personally he had no objection to the Amendment. There might be a case in which a man might have purchased land at a fair price in the Landed Estates Court, and have spent money upon the property and made it more valuable, and it would be hard upon him that he should be deprived of his property. He, however, admitted that, as a general rule, the improvements on Irish land were effected by the tenants and not by the landlords. As he had already said, he had no objection to the Amendment. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir Robert Penrose Fitzgerald) on the same occasion said that— He entirely agreed with what had been said by his hon. and gallant Friend near him. The tenants upon the estates which had been purchased in the Landed Estates Court were in a worse position than those upon the old estates. He might take that opportunity of telling the hon. Member for Louth that there were some Irish landlords who did not date their estates from the Cromwellian settlement. The hon. Member for Hunts (Mr. Smith-Barry), following in the same Debate, said he agreed with the hon. Member for Louth that land-jobbers had brought much mischief on the landlords, but that the proposals before the Committee required further consideration. The hon. Member for North Fermanagh (Mr. Dane)— appealed to the Attorney General whether this would not be breaking Parliamentary title at all, but only doing an act of the simplest justice? 614 The Chief Secretary then said that "in all the circumstances, he would accept the Amendment." The bargain was come to in Committee, and no attempt was made to reverse it on Report. How was it possible to entertain any regard for a Party which made a bargain in the House of Commons and then broke it in another place through their coroneted agents there? [Laughter.] It had been admitted by every Commission, from the time of the Devon Commission to that of the Cowper Commission, that the Irish tenants had made the improvements. All that the Nationalist Members asked was that the presumption of law should be brought in accordance with facts.

§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON
remembered perfectly the circumstances to which the hon. and learned Member had alluded. They occurred in Committee, when daylight was making its way into the House. The opinions which he expressed on that occasion he still held, but they were his own personal opinions only, and it was a mistake to say that any bargain was entered into with hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Member for South Hunts and the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth expressed disagreement from his views at the time. What the Lords proposed was a compromise which might well be accepted by hon. Gentlemen opposite who called themselves the representatives of the Irish tenants. Improvements made since 1870 would be hold primâ facie to have been effected by the tenants; but as to improvements made before 1870, either party would be entitled to prove that they had been made by himself or his predecessors. This would impose no hardship on the tenants, whom the compromise amply protected.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
moved to agree with the Lords in a new clause inserted by them providing that any enactment prohibiting the resumption of a holding until the expiration of the first 615 statutory term in a tenancy should apply only where the term began before the commencement of the Bill.

MR. T. M. HEALY
said that after all that had passed it would only be fair on the part of the Government to omit this clause. The Lords had taken this proposition, which was cut down under the original Bill to town parks, and applied it to all kinds of holdings. He thought the least thing the Irish Members could do was to ask the House not to agree to the Amendment. He therefore begged leave to move that the House do disagree.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
said it was true that the clause practically formed part of the original clauses of the Bill, and when it was agreed on both sides of the House to leave the clause with reference to town parks as it now stood, he had stated that if that was agreed to it would, of course, be understood that Clause 5 would go too; and if the hon. Member held him to that undertaking he thought he would be bound by it. He would, however, suggest that, as they had made one exception in reference to the law of town parks in favour of the tenant, some concession might be made by the hon. Member himself in connection with this resumption clause. While he thought it was unreasonable that the landlord should have the full right of resumption, at all events as regarded town parks, the right should be complete. He trusted the hon. Member would see his way to meet the question.

MR. T. M. HEALY
said he could not complain of the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had met his objections. He would have no objection to give the landlord the power of resumption in the case of town parks. He did not believe that the power would be exercised, because, he did not believe that the landlords would pay the price. No doubt the words would have a much more terrifying aspect to those who did not understand their meaning than to those who did understand it. He, however, asked leave to withdraw his Motion.

MR. T. M. HEALY
moved to insert, after the word "tenancy," the words "in cases in which the incoming tenant shall apply."

§ *MR. SPEAKER
That Amendment is out of order, because the Lords' Amendment has already been agreed to.

MR. T. M. HEALY
said that he had only withdrawn his Motion, "That the House do disagree with the Lords' Amendment," on the understanding that he should be in order in moving this Amendment. Would he be in order in moving the Amendment at the end of the Lords' Amendment?

§ *MR. SPEAKER
Certainly.

MR. T. M. HEALY
moved to insert, at the end of the Lords' Amendment, "in cases in which the incoming tenant shall apply."

§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON
said that, as far as he understood the Amendment, it would not apply in the case of demesne lands.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
thought that the Amendment might be so framed as to carry out the intentions of the Mover without dealing with the demesne lands.

MR. T. M. HEALY
said that in the circumstances he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND
hoped that the following Amendment would meet the views of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth, to add, after "Act," the words "holdings to which the provisions of the Act respecting demesne lands or town parks apply."

MR. T. M. HEALY
said he should suggest that the Amendment should begin with the words "In the case of."

§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND
moved to add, after the Lords' Amendment just agreed to, the following words:—" In the case of holdings to which the provisions of the Act respecting demesne lands and town parks apply."

MR. T. M. HEALY
said he hoped that if any doubt should arise as to the language of the Amendment it would be put right in another place.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
moved to agree with the Lords' Amendment to Clause 3, providing that where the judicial rent does not exceed £50 a year the amount of any deduction made by the tenant may be recovered from the person to whom the difference was paid or his personal representatives, and with the amendment to Clause 4, providing that the judicial term in cases of agreements should be held to date from the day on which the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, came into force.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
moved "That the House do disagree with the Lords' Amendment providing that the Land Acts shall not apply to a tenancy (other than a holding let to be used wholly or mainly for a dairy farm) which is let to be used wholly or mainly for the purpose of pasture if it is of the rateable value of £50." The limit of £50 was originally fixed in order to exclude the class of large graziers who were not farmers in the ordinary sense of the term, but experience had clearly shown that the limit was too low, and that it excluded many farmers who were in no respect different from the class of farmers farming arable land or dairy farms who had a fair rent fixed on their holdings. It appeared to the Government that this exclusion had operated harshly and had led to a great amount of not unnatural discontent, and in order to obviate that they fixed the limit at £100.

§ MR. SMITH-BARRY (Hunts,) Huntingdon
said that he must protest against the Government's insistence on the £100 limit. His right hon. Friend said that the £50 limit had given a great deal of dissatisfaction to those left outside the Act; but, of course, whoever remained outside the Act would be discontented. These holdings were only technically pasture holdings, and those only were affected which had been let under a written contract to men with their eyes open. He objected to the course which the Government were taking because it was laying down a dangerous principle, and might lead to the limit being extended to £150 or 618 £200, or more. He was afraid, therefore, that he and his friends would have to vote against the proposal of the Government.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
said his right hon. Friend, taking the view which he did of this matter, was perfectly justified in protesting against such a course as they proposed. But he did not regard this Amendment in the same light as his right hon. Friend did. It appeared to him to be one of those exclusions of a class not marked out by any natural distinction from those which were included in the Act, and a class which was excluded on perfectly accidental and arbitrary grounds. It was impossible to find a reason why a man who had a pasture farm which was not let as a pasture farm should be allowed to have a fair rent fixed, while another man owning a precisely similar farm in the same district, and cultivated in the same way, should be excluded because it was let as a pasture farm. That distinction was an arbitrary one, and, while he entirely agreed that they should jealously regard an extension of the Act of 1881, he was distinctly of opinion that it was their duty, in the interests of the landlords as well as the tenants, and of the peace and good government of Ireland, to see that these sporadic and unjustifiable exceptions should be done away with. It was for that reason—differing from his right hon. Friend, not in regard to the principles he held, but in their application, that he begged the House to adhere to the original limit which they had proposed.

§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON
protested against the action of the Government in refusing the Lords' Amendment. He maintained that the word "sporadic," which his right hon. Friend had used, might be applied to the £100 just as well as to the £50 limit. Nor was there any reason why they should stop there. Hon. Gentlemen opposite desired that there should be no exclusion whatever—["Hear, hear!"]—and held that this was but the commencement of the good things to come. He did not believe the present Government would in the immediate future bring in another Land Bill, but if the Party opposite ever came into power again—[laughter]—one of 619 the first things they would do would be to bring in a Land Bill of a drastic character.

MR. T. M. HEALY
What would the Lords do then?

§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON
They would throw it out. [Laughter.] The Government had not offered any argument in support of this proposal. If a large class in Ireland had suffered injustice under the old limit there would have been a great agitation in Ireland on the subject. These men whom it was proposed that they should include bad entered into a contract with their eyes open.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
was understood to say that they had entered into a contract before the Act of 1881 was thought of.

§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON
said that these men who had taken farms for grazing purposes were wealthy men, and had been deliberately excluded from the Act of 1881 by Mr. Gladstone on the ground that they did not require protection. The Leader of the House had stated that he hated the Act of 1881, and that he looked upon it as a bad Act. How did he seek to deal with it now? Why, he sought to extend and enlarge its operation, and if that was the principle upon which Conservative and Unionist administration was to proceed, it was well that they should be made aware of the fact. ["Hear, hear!"] If they were to act upon the principle of the Chief Secretary's proposal, he did not know where they were to stop. [An IRISH MEMBER: "How about your own constituency?"] There were no pastoral tenants in his constituency, but there were small farms partly pastoral. No doubt hon. Members opposite considered that he should have a warm time of it with his constituents over this Bill [laughter]; but he expressed to them exactly the same views that he was now addressing to the House. He did not believe that any injustice was inflicted upon the grazing tenants, and he felt quite certain that they were quite fit to protect themselves. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ MR. CARSON
said he had already expressed his views on the clause, and he must say that the Chief Secretary had advanced no argument in support of his proposal. Grazing tenants were excluded by the Bill of 1881 and by the 620 Act of 1870, where the presumption was that a tenant paying a rent of £70 was quite sufficient to protect himself. But all this was to be changed in 1896–26 years after a principle had been laid down, and adopted in every land Act since. Butchers, cattle dealers, and graziers were persons who could well afford to protect themselves, although there was a suggestion made to the contrary by Mr. Justice Bewley, and he might say in passing, of that learned Judge, that he was very fond of making suggestions. He was not aware that any hardships had existed through the exclusion of graziers. In Mr. Morley's Bill it was proposed to exclude them up to £200, but this had been dropped by the Government. He knew the case of a merchant in a town who had' grazed sheep on his holding for victualling ships; he was well off, and could protect himself in entering into a contract for a holding, and he had applied to have a fair rent fixed, and his rent was reduced.

MR. T. M. HEALY
How much reduction did he get?

§ MR. CARSON
I cannot say exactly, but I suppose by the usual 30 per cent. [Laughter.] He must vote against the proposal of the Chief Secretary.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
complained that they were having the same speeches over and over again.

§ *SIR J. COLOMB
asked whether any idea could be given them of the number of men who would be admitted between £50 and £100? There were no statistics on the point at all.

§ MR. J. J. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)
reminded the House that the man must live on his holding or in the neighbourhood.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
moved to disagree with the Lords in the Amendment, page 4, line 38, leave out ("unless") and insert ("until").

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
moved to disagree with the Lords in the Amendment, lines 39 and 40, leaving out the words "during the continuance of the tenancy."

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
moved to omit the words "provided that."

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
said he proposed to move "That the House do disagree with the Lords' Amendment "in striking out Clause 5, relating to town parks, and that they should reintroduce the clause; but he proposed to add a proviso to that clause which he hoped might mitigate, if not entirely remove, the objections which were felt in another place to the original clause. It would be in the recollection of the House that his right hon. Friend's section with regard to town parks was altogether omitted, but, by common agreement on both sides of the House, the clause was introduced defining the word "agricultural" in reference to the subject, as that word appeared in the ninth section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887. The word "agricultural" in that section was generally understood as including both agricultural and pastoral land; it was so understood, he believed, by the Houses of Parliament that passed it; it was certainly so understood by the legal Sub-Commissioners who administered the Act, and by the head of the Land Commission, 622 to whom an appeal was made; and it was not until the question came to the Court of Appeal in Ireland that that Court, on technical, but (if he might venture to say so) on perfectly sound grounds, decided that, inasmuch as wherever the word "agricultural" occurred in the Land Acts for Ireland it was always qualified by the addition of the word "pastoral," as in this case, the word "pastoral" was omitted, and "agricultural" could not be held in this section as including "pastoral." All sections of the House were unanimous that that defect of the Act of 1887 should be remedied, and that the word "agricultural" should be given the meaning which the original framers of the Act or authors of the Amendment intended. But it appeared to be clear to those who had studied the Act in another place that one result of including the whole of it would be that accommodation land would be gradually eaten into, and that land would be subjected to all the provisions of the Act of 1881, which was not in truth really farming land at all, but was in strictness accommodation land, which ought to be treated as accommodation land and ought not to be subjected to a fair rent. He thought that, under the provisions of the existing Acts, that danger was obviated so far as it was possible for the Legislature to obviate it. But he recognised that it would be a great hardship if land which was not really farming land, but accommodation land, should be included under the Act of 1881, and, in order to meet the view held in another place, he proposed to make the following addition to Clause 5 as it originally stood: "provided that this section shall not entitle a person to have a fair lent fixed who is not bonâ fide using the holding as an ordinary farm." If anybody criticised that addendum on the ground that it was already provided for in the Act of 1887 he would not venture to dispute it. He believed it was true, but as, nevertheless, under this section they were extending the definition given to the Act of 1887, as interpreted by the Court of Appeal in Ireland, it might be as well to reiterate the safeguards of the words introduced into that Act and prevent a hasty reader, however hasty he might be, from falling in any error with regard to the intentions 623 of the Legislature. He hoped that addition to the clause would mitigate the objections felt, not in that House, but in the other House, and that it would enable them to come to a satisfactory agreement upon what was the most thorny branch of the most thorny subject that the Legislature ever dealt with in regard to Irish land. He thought that to move that the House disagree with the Lords' Amendment would be the proper motion to make at this stage.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
said that the proper motion would be to disagree with the Lords' Amendment; that would restore Clause 5, and then, after the restoration of the clause, the addition of the proviso might be moved.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
moved accordingly.

§ MR. CARSON
said he was sorry that his right hon. Friend had again, on one of the most material parts of the Bill, thought fit to disagree with an Amendment of the House of Lords. He had referred to what he had described as the unanimous view of the House in inserting Clause 5 as it went up to the Lords. In assenting to the words "partly pastoral and partly agricultural" he wished to state that he was entirely under a misapprehension as to the objects of the Legislature when they made a distinction in the Act of 1887, and he desired specifically to state this because the fact had been relied upon by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, though he knew it was not his real opinion when it was brought to his notice. It arose in Committee quite suddenly. It was proposed by the Government to drop a particular clause dealing with town parks, and hon. and learned Members opposite acquainted with the technicalities of tin's interesting code were in favour of dropping it, but they mentioned the fact that by an accident the word "pastoral" had been left out of the Act of 1887, and the word "agricultural" put in.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
It was in from the beginning.

§ MR. CARSON
Not in this form—mixed up in a large section on an entirely different matter. He did not profess, like some persons, to be infallible, and he admitted that at that time he made a mistake as to the object of the legislature in 1887. By the Act of 1887 a great concession was made with reference to 624 these town parks, because the Legislature then enacted, for the first time, that although such holdings came within the exceptions as provided by the legislation of 1870 and 1881, although they fulfilled all the conditions laid down if held as an "ordinary agricultural farm," they were not to come within the exceptions of the Acts of 1870 and 1881; and it was then pointed out that, although they might be quite willing to admit small holdings around the town, still they ought not to admit to the benefit of the Act, people, such as butchers and dairymen, who had mere grazing fields and used them in connection with their business. The whole concession of 1887 was made under the assumption that these pastoral tenants were not to be included under the Act. When the matter afterwards came before the Courts the Sub-Commissioners held that "agricultural" included "pastoral." No one would blame them for that, because it had occurred to him that "agricultural" would include "pastoral," and it was upon that assumption that he assented to the matter. When the question came before the Court of Appeal, by their decision they exactly carried out and excluded in the particular case before them the land which was not an agricultural farm. So far as he knew the matter had worked out perfectly in the Irish Courts in accordance with what was the intention of Parliament. Persons had been excluded who were not bonâ fide farmers, and he contended that they ought to be excluded. Now what was it the right hon. Gentleman proposed to mitigate the section he wanted to put in? He was quite entitled to say that the section should be put in, but if it was done unanimously it was done under a misapprehension. The right hon. Gentleman now proposed to re-enact practically the words of the Act of 1887. If they were enacted it would make no change. Such re-enactment would in no way modify Section 5 as it originally stood, and would keep out no one. The class of persons whom they desired to keep out were persons carrying on business in towns, and who were not bonâ fide farmers at all. ["Hear, hear!"] Such persons ought not, in the case of these town parks, to be allowed within the purview of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman's own words would let in exactly the same class of persons who, it was anticipated, 625 might come in unless this word "pastoral "was excluded from the Act of 1887. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would meet them so far as to mitigate the evils of this section by saying it was not to apply to any person who was not a bonâ fide farmer. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. T. M. HEALY
thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had hardly done himself justice. He had told the House, with an air of injured innocence, that he thought the tenant in this case was a solicitor, that this clause made an enormous difference in the law, and that he was quite satisfied it was by no oversight the Parliament of 1887 did not remedy this at the time. He was sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman had heard the recommendation given by an eminent Queen's Counsel to a gentleman who proposed to swear an affidavit, he having already sworn an affidavit in exactly a contrary sense in the course of the suit. The eminent Queen's Counsel said:— Never swear an affidavit when your previous affidavit to a contrary effect is in possession of the Court. My young friend, said he, "that would be a lie. [Laughter.] They did not in that House, make statements on affidavit, but he presumed the right hon. Gentleman would accept "Hansard." His own recollection of the Debate was that the words there attributed to the right hon. Gentleman were those actually and textually used:— In regard to the application of the word 'agriculture' in the Act of 1887—as ruled by the Courts—which it was proposed to remedy by this sub-section, he argued for the tenant in that case. On July 16th, the right hon. Gentleman said he was a tenant, but now he had changed his mind and now he was an attorney. [Laughter.]

§ MR. CARSON
Was he an attorney?

MR. T. M. HEALY
The right hon. Gentleman said so.

§ MR. CARSON
I said my recollection was that he was an attorney.

MR. T. M. HEALY
His recollection on July 16th was that he was a tenant. Which am I to believe?

§ MR. CARSON
Cannot an attorney be a tenant? ["Hear, hear!"] That is my point exactly. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. T. M. HEALY
said if that was the point taken, then it was met by the Amendment of the First Lord of the Treasury, which provided that the section should only apply to the case of bonâ fide farmers.

§ MR. CARSON
No, not "farmers," but "farms." I will accept "farmers."

MR. T. M. HEALY
observed that it was on the advice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself that the Government accepted the Amendment, and then he turned round and supplied Lord Macnaghten with the letter which that eminent Judge read in the House of Lords against that very Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman saying that, in assenting to it in the Commons, he did not know what he was about. [Laughter.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman in his speech on July 16th, went on to say:— He would suggest, if the Chief Secretary decided to accept the Amendment, which would leave the law as it stood, that the defect in regard to the application of the word 'agricultural' should be remedied by a few words on Report. The effect was remedied by a few words on Report, and this terrible Amendment was passed. Lord Macnaghten, in moving to omit this sub-section, fortified himself with the letter of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and stated that what was done in the Commons was done at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning. [Laughter.]

§ MR. CARSON
There was no such statement in the letter.

MR. T. M. HEALY
did not say there was, but it was the statement of the noble and learned Judge, who, he should have supposed, was a more sacred being. [Laughter.] An examination of the pages of "Hansard" would show that the Amendment in question must have been passed in the Commons at 5 o' clock in the afternoon. Even in the mouth of a learned Judge there was a difference between 5 o'clock in the afternoon and 5 o'clock in the morning. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] The idea presented to the House of Lords was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was overcome by fatigue at 5 o'clock in the morning, that his faculties were obfuscated, and then that the lurking agents of the Land League stole a march upon him. [Laughter.] This clause 627 was in the Bill as it originally stood. For other reasons the Commons struck the clause out as a "whole, but on the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, this particular portion of it was reinstated. ["Hear, hear!"] When the Act of 1887 was passed, everybody conceived that the word "agricultural" included "pastoral," and the Land Commission had so decided. ["Hear, hear!"] He would say, on the whole, that this was the smallest molehill that was ever converted into a mountain by the assistance of the House of Lords. ["Hear, hear!"]
House disagreed with the Lords' Amendment.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
moved to add to the end of the clause the proviso, Provided that the section shall not entitle any person to have a fair rent fixed who is not bonâ fide using the holding as an ordinary farm. Proviso agreed to.
Lords' Amendment—Line 27, leave out from "person" to "if," in line 31.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
moved, "That the House do disagree with the Lords' Amendment." It really seemed to him that these limitations were arbitrary and unnecessary, and although it was sometimes usual to lay down a hard and fast rule, it was not desirable to multiply hard and fast rules where it was not absolutely necessary to do so. As they gave the Court discretion not to entertain these applications unless they considered them to be reasonable, he thought any further limitations ought not to be imposed. He therefore moved that the House disagree with the Lords' Amendment.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
moved to disagree with the Lords' Amendment.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
observed that this was consequential to another Amendment which had been disagreed with, and he accordingly moved that the House do disagree with the Lords in this Amendment.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
moved to agree with the Lords' Amendment.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
moved to add to the new clause the following subsection:— (3) "Where, during the continuance of a statutory term, the tenant is disturbed in the exercise of any such privilege as hereinbefore described which he had been accustomed to exercise as aforesaid, and on the fixing of the fair rent the same was fixed on the assumption that the continued exercise of such privilege would be permitted, but no express order with reference to the same was made, the tenant on being so disturbed may apply in the prescribed manner to the Court, and the Court may, if the landlord elects to discontinue such privilege, vary the fair rent for the remainder of the statutory term to such extent as may appear just, and if the landlord on such application consents to allow the tenant to exercise the privilege as of right during the statutory term under the same restrictions and conditions as theretofore, or such other restrictions and conditions as may be agreed on, the Court may secure such exercise to the tenant by order. He said the sub-section carried out a suggestion made by Lord Macnaghten in another place, in the Debate on the turbary question. The clause as proposed by the Government simply re-enacted what was the law already, but it did not make the smallest concession to the tenants. And in addition to making no concession it gave the landlord a new remedy which he never had before—the remedy contained in the 629 second sub-clause. It might be said of the clause that if it did no good, it did not do so much harm, and he sought to make it a little better. Lord Macnaghton suggested that if a tenant was disturbed in the exercise of any of these privileges it should be competent for him to go to Court to make a case that he was disturbed, and get such redress as the Court could give him. He thought that was a reasonable suggestion. It was inevitable that in a large number of the cases to which this section was intended to apply, the Court would through inadvertence, or from one cause or another, fail to take any cognisance at at the time of the hearing of these turbary and other privileges. He thought the Government would agree that, if an accident of that kind happened, it would be a misfortune if it should prevent the tenant from going to the Court.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
said that, as it appeared on the face of the proposed Amendment, this new sub-section could only have effect in those cases where no express order had been made in reference to those matters, but where an assumption existed which had not been put into formal shape by the Court. Such cases would be extremely rare, and he did not think it was worth while or advisable to break up, to go back upon, the hearing of the fair rent, to do over again all the things that were done at considerable cost and trouble to meet a contingency which, he thought, was not one which would very frequently occur. On the whole, and quite seeing the object of the hon. Gentleman, and seeing that everything he wanted would come into full operation at the end of the statutory term now current, there could be no continuance of any wrong if any wrong had been done; and he would ask him, on a survey of the whole circumstances, not to ask the House to tear up by the roots, as it were, the decision arrived at by the Sub-Commissioners and to reinvestigate matters which they had already once judicially gone into. For these reasons he did not think it would be desirable that they should make this addendum to the Lords' Amendment, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary to press it.

MR. T. M. HEALY
said that in view of the statement of the Government, he 630 did not see why they should go to a Division on this subject. The clause, as he apprehended it, simply followed the existing practice, but it did impose on the tenant an enormous liability for costs, and he would ask why, when they made no change in the law, they should put the landlord in a better position than he had ever been before. He would be in favour of giving the landlord, in a case where there was a waste of bog, the right to make an application to petty sessions. It was a huge engine of oppression to drag a man from the bogs of Connemara to Dublin to make a motion in this regard. A summons at petty sessions would cost 1s., while a motion in Dublin would cost at least five guineas, and that would probably be equal to the man's rent for the whole year. No one was more in favour of preventing waste of bog than he was. He thought that ought to be restricted, and in that spirit he was with the Government in their proposal. What he would suggest, however, was that that the Government should omit Sub section 2 for the present, and that they should insert, in the House of Lords, a more simple remedy than that of bringing a man, say, from the island of Achill to Dublin, where he would be put to a large expense. In Deasy's Act there was a section dealing with waste. Let them apply that section to the case of turbary, and there they had the whole thing.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
said that in view of what the First Lord had said, he would not persist in his Amendment. He thought it would be more regular to take, the discussion on the Motion to omit Sub-section (2).

§ MR. KNOX
moved, after Sub-section (1), in Clause 8, to insert, as a new sub-section, the words, If the landlord, in the opinion of the Court, unreasonably withholds his consent, and if the privilege be a privilege of turbary, of taking or bringing sea wrackage, or of grazing over land other than demesne land, and if the privilege is, in the opinion of the Court, necessary to the reasonable enjoyment of the holding, the Court may make an order for securing the privilege to the tenant, upon such terms as to rent or otherwise and in such manner as the Court may think just, and such order shall be binding on ail estates and interests in the land. 631 He ventured to think that this was a reasonable proposal. The Government had yielded a great deal too easily in the other House to the opposition of the landlords, much of which he thought was due to the vagueness of the clause. The three substantial privileges of an Irish tenant which they wanted to protect were those of turbary, the taking of sea-wrack, and rough mountain grazing. He had never been able to see why they should be unable to fix a fair rent for five acres of potato ground and not for the grazing of three cows on a mountain side. He ventured to think there was no real ground of justice in the distinction, and if, under these conditions, a landlord was so cruel and unreasonable as to withhold his consent, in the opinion of an impartial tribunal the privilege was necessary to the reasonable enjoyment of the holding, if the privileges be one of these three kinds he ventured to think that in that case there could be no real reason for refusing the power to fix a fair rent on what was practically the holding of the tenant. What had been done in the other House could in no sense be regarded as a compromise satisfactory to Ireland. Those privileges affected an enormous number of the poorest tenants, whose interests that House ought most narrowly to safeguard. It also affected the most galling of all injustices—those which caused the most ill-feeling between landlord and tenant. The clause as it stood did not meet the requirements of the tenant. There were many cases in which the right of turbary and mountain grazing was one of far more importance to the tenant than any reduction of rent. He ventured, therefore, to move the Amendment, which he believed to contain the reasonable minimum, which the tenants could claim.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
said the hon. Gentleman would see doubtless that his sub-section was merely a re-enactment, in somewhat different terms, of the clause as it was originally introduced, and which excited so much feeling and strong opposition even among those who were generally favourable to the Bill. He would suggest that it was desirable in the interests of everybody concerned to confine the re-enactment to preventing a gross injustice, and the clause as it had 632 come from the House of Lords would effectually do this. If the landlord desired to exercise the option he would have, in the sense of refusing the privilege to the tenant, the Court could, if it thought fit, fix the consequential rent in relation to that refusal. He thought the number of landlords who would act in the way the hon. and learned Member had suggested was extremely small. At all events, no specific case of the kind had come to the knowledge of the Government.

§ SIR THOMAS LEA (Londonderry)
said he regretted that the Government had shown weakness on this point. [Opposition cheers.] There was a great deal to be said for the hon. and learned Member's proposal, and he had always regretted the strong language used on the subject by his hon. Friends below him. [Opposition cheers.] There had been undoubted cases in which the landlords, when the tenant applied to the Court for a fair rent, had served notices on the tenants that in future they would not be able to take turbary. In another way it was also a gross injustice to the tenants. Having applied to the Court to get a fair rent fixed, they had been deprived of the turbary. There were many estates on which large numbers of the tenants had not gone into the Court because they had seen how other tenants who had applied had been mulcted in this matter.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
It cannot be done in future.

§ SIR THOMAS LEA
was glad to hear it. He hoped it could not, but he knew that in the past this state of things had created centres of disaffection among both classes of tenants.

§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)
said he hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would accept the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said the effect of it would be somewhat to restore Clause 8 as it stood in the Bill when it left that House. He confessed that to his mind that was its strongest recommendation, and he deplored deeply that the Government had not seen their way to disagree altogether with the Amendments of the Lords in excluding Clause 8 entirely from the Bill. He did not believe there was any question connected with the subject in which the tenant farmers, especially in the north 633 of Ireland, were more vitally interested than this question of turbary. In confirmation of that he would read the House a telegram which had just been handed to him from Londonderry:— At a meeting of tenants representing the counties of Derry, Donegal, and Tyrone, held in Derry to-day, the chairman was requested to convey to the Leaders of Parties in Parliament their strong protest against the Lords' Amendments to the Land Bill, and particularly those affecting occupation rights, town parks, pasture holdings, turbary, and other easements, and they urgently request that the Commons will reject these Amendments and restore the Bill to the form in which it passed the Commons. Nothing could be more eminently reasonable than the clause as it passed that House, because it enabled the Court by their order to so direct matters that no injury would be done to the landlord's property in the towns. They all knew that there were an immense number of holdings, in both the north and south of Ireland, where land was valueless without the enjoyment of commonage or turbary. ["Hear, hear!"] If that enjoyment was acquired as a matter of right, of course an Act of Parliament was not required at all; but as a matter of fact it had been enjoyed for very many years without question. The object of Clause 8, as it left that House, was to give this security to the tenant when he went into Court to have a fair rent fixed, the Court should have the power of fixing the fair rent under the hypothesis that the landlord could not deprive him of that right—or the enjoyment of that privilege, and of imposing conditions on the tenant which would prevent any abuse of the right of turbary or any other easement. It was, he repeated, a matter of deep regret to him that this clause should have been deleted from the Bill, for in comparison with this almost every concession that had been made with the tenants was, in his opinion, more or less valueless. It did not appear to him that the Amendment substituted by the Leader of the House did anything but leave the law exactly as it was. The matter of the enjoyment of the privilege would depend on the consent of the landlord, and there were no means of compelling the landlord to give his consent. It merely said that if the landlord withheld his consent then the Court, on 634 estimating the value of the three or four acres, perhaps hold by the tenant, might regard that refusal in measuring the fair rent. He would appeal to the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth, who had taken such a prominent part against the Irish tenants in the course of the Bill, whether it was not a fact that in Kerry alone there were hundreds of very small farmers in which the matter of rent was of no interest to the tenant, compared with the right of commonage and turbary; and in such circumstances what reduction of rent could compensate for the deprivation of this right? ["Hear, hear!"] Let not the Leader of the House rest under the supposition that this Bill, and this clause especially, could in any sense be accepted by the tenants in any part of Ireland as anything approaching to a settlement of the Land Question. His conviction was that when this Bill did pass there would a blaze of discontent throughout the whole length and breadth of Ireland, in which blaze the Bill would actually be burnt in effigy. [Laughter.]

§ MR. DILLON
said the clause afforded no protection to the tenant. If a landlord had the power to say to a tenant, "You shall have no turbary if you get a fair rent fixed," how was the tenant to be compensated? Suppose the rent was reduced by one-half because of the loss of turbary, what would be the advantage of that if the tenant had to travel miles to get a sod of turf, or if he was boycotted as regarded fuel? By this clause they would leave in the hands of a landlord a weapon of coercion which might be used for the purpose of bullying tenants and preventing them getting fail-rents fixed.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
moved, after the second word "order," to add— Provided that the Court may remit application for hearing to any Sub-Commissioner who at the time the claim is made is actually sitting or about to sit in the district in which the holding is situated, and who shall have all the powers to hear and determine the matter of the application and to make an order thereon.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
moved that the House do agree with the Lords' Amendment:— Page 7, line 20, leave out from (" accordingly ") to the end of the sub-section, and to insert as a new sub-section: (2.) Provided that where a fair rent has after the passing of this Act been fixed for the first time in the case of a tenancy to which.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
moved, Clause 9, page 7, line 9 of new Subsection (2), after "paid the" to insert "judicial."

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
said that if the hon. Gentleman would accept the words "when judicially fixed" in place of his Amendment, he should not object to their being inserted.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
said that he would accept the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
moved, Clause 9, p. 7, line 9 of now Sub-section (2), after "rent" to insert "when judicially fixed."

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
moved, Clause 9, p. 7, line 10, after "rent" to insert "for that portion of the statutory term then remaining unexpired."

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
moved, Clause 9, p. 7, line 11, after "that" to insert by reason of any special circumstances not brought to the knowledge of the Court on the hearing of the application to have a fair rent fixed.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
said that he had no objection to the Amendment.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
moved that the Lords' Amendment Page 4, line 31, after ("holding") insert (" the substantial part of ") be agreed to.
Lords' Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
moved that the Lords' Amendment Page 8, line 15, leave out from (" decree ") to ("had") in line 16, and insert ("for possession or writ of possession ") be agreed to.
Lords' Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
moved to agree with Lords' Amendment:— Page 9, line 39, after ("lodged") insert ("in respect of the rent and arrears, exclusive of costs") Lords' Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
moved Page 10, line 1, leave out from beginning of line to ("shall") in line 2, and insert ("the date of the commencement of the proceedings in the ejectment, and the balance of the rent due to that date shall he recoverable by the landlord as if the same were a debt due to him by the person legally liable therefor, but ")

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
moved, Clause 15, p. 9, line 40 of Bill, after "shall" insert "in the case of any ejectment brought after the passing of this Act."

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,) Londonderry
thought that the objection of the hon. Member was not well founded. Where the amount of the arrears indorsed amounted to more than two years' rent the tenant should be discharged by payment of two years' rent, and when he did he would be discharged from the balance of the rent to be paid. But the clause left untouched the question of rent which accrued and was due after the service of the ejectment notice. This clause only dealt with the rent due and sued for.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
thought that the right hon. Gentleman had not 637 correctly apprehended the point. Take the case of a tenant owing four years' rent. It was the intention, if the ejectment was brought after the passing of the Act, that on payment of two years' rent the tenant should be clear of the ejectment.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
said it was not possible to meet that point without falling into another difficulty. Supposing the action for ejectment was brought a fortnight or a month before the passing of the Act. Then all the evils which the hon. Member had submitted would arise in the particular case mentioned.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
suggested that the words should be altered to "in the case of any ejectment in which judgment is recovered after the passing of this Act."

MR. T. M. HEALY
suggested that the Government might fairly accept the Amendment, and if they found that there was any objection to it as going too far, and not carrying out the intention of the Government, then it might be struck out. But the clause as it now stood did not meet the expressed intention of the Government.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
was afraid that the difficulty, which he did not deny, must be faced and the Committee must accept the clause as it stood.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
moved, in the Lords' Amendment, page 10, line 1, after "ejectment" to insert— in the case of any ejectment in which judgment was recovered before the passing of this Act. In the case of this Amendment it would be impossible for a tenant to spin out time, but the cases the Amendment was designed to cover were very hard ones. They were indeed the very class of cases in which the matter was urgent, namely, cases in which proceedings were pending. He pressed the Government to grant this concession because it was the hardest of all cases.

MR. T. M. HEALY
said it was only reasonable that this Amendment should be accepted. The spirit of it had already been accepted by the House, 638 and a little flaw had been discovered and remedied in another place. But the clause as amended was very hard on the tenant. The Bill was introduced last March, and some landlords, being aware of this two years' provision, had obtained ejectment notices which they would never have dreamt of obtaining except for the fact that the Bill had been introduced. That case was considered as the Bill went up to the House of Lords. The Government had caused judgments and ejectment notices to be brought forward by the introduction of this Bill, and now they were being told that the good landlord was to be hit and the bad landlord was to be let off. A mean landlord who had taken harsh proceedings betimes was to be rewarded for his alertness and astuteness at the expense of his tenants.

§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND
thought the hon. Member would see on reflection that it was impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. The only cases to which the Amendment could apply would be cases where judgment had been recovered and the landlord had given the tenant further time for the payment of his debt, during which time further rent had accrued. The hon. and learned Member proposed that the tenant's liability in respect of such additional rent should be wiped out on payment of the rent for the two preceding years. This Amendment would not encourage landlords to be lenient to their tenants. It would be contrary to all principle in cases where judgment had been recovered before the passing of the Act to interfere with the rights of the parties.

MR. T. M. HEALY
observed that nothing could equal in meanness this 639 Amendment introduced in the other House. It was a typical instance of the meanness of the House of Lords.

MR. T. M. HEALY
moved to leave out "seem necessary" and to insert instead thereof the words "be prescribed."

MR. T. M. HEALY
moved to disagree with the Lords' Amendment and to reinstate the words. A tenant, he argued, was entitled to have notice setting forth all the grounds of the case to be brought against him. The Government had agreed in Committee to the insertion of the words which the Lords had struck out.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
thought that the House of Lords would certainly insist upon this Amendment. He appealed to the hon. and learned Member whether it was worth while to risk a contest upon this ground.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)
asked why there should be a different rule in Ireland from that which prevailed in England. Here it was always necessary to state one's grounds of appeal.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND
said that the practice of all Courts was to require the grounds for an appeal to be stated; but it was in the discretion of the Court to give leave to parties to go into other matters than those mentioned in the notice of appeal. Of course the leave should not be given, and was not given, as a matter of course, but the Court always required some excuse to be given for the omission from the notice of appeal of the particular point which a party desired to urge. If the words were struck out in accordance with the Lords' Amendment any party would still be able to apply to the Court for leave to put in some grounds of appeal in addition to those stated.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
said he understood the right hon. Gentleman to admit that leave would be granted as a matter of common form.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND
No.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
asked what was the good of striking out the words if the law was that leave would not be granted without special grounds being shown. The Irish Members believed that if the words were not retained leave would be granted as a matter of common form. This Amendment of the Lords was really designed to enable landlords to appeal on the simple question of value. If not, he could not understand why gentlemen who represented the landlords should resist the motion to disagree with the Amendment.

§ *MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL
wished to remind the Attorney General that many Acts of Parliament required Judges of the High Court to state the grounds of their Order. Therefore there was nothing novel in making a Judge state on the face of his Order the special grounds on which he relaxed the rule requiring the grounds of appeal to 641 be stated. He would have thought the Government would wish to prevent the whole system being governed by some rule of thumb. He hoped the House would not agree to the Lords' Amendment.

§ MR. J. P. FARRELL (Cavan, W.)
rose for the purpose of asking his hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Louth, to go to a division on this Amendment. It would be obvious to every reasonable man that, so far, the Members sitting on his side of the House had done everything they could to facilitate the passing of the Bill, and he certainly thought it was rather hard on them if an Amendment of this kind, which was accepted in the Report stage, was now to be left out of the Bill simply because the Government were afraid it would be put in again by the House of Lords. He thought that was playing it rather low down on the House of Commons. The Amendment which had been struck out opened up a very wide field, and unless it was restored the rich man would have an advantage over the poor man. The landlord had at his back all the power that wealth could give him and would be able to oppress the tenant with expensive litigation.

§ MR. CARSON
understood that what hon. Gentlemen all wished was that frivolous appeals should not be allowed, and with that view it was required that the grounds of appeal should be stated. The difference between the two sides of the House was simply this. On his side they wished to leave it to the Court to decide in their own discretion whether or not new grounds of appeal should be allowed; while on the other side it was contended that it should only be allowed on special grounds. "Special grounds" was a technical phrase known to the lawyer and entailed something beyond the ordinary discretion of the Court. Suppose a landlord or a tenant moved the Court to allow a new ground, and the only excuse was that it had not been put in the notice through ignorance. That would not be a special ground. He did not suppose that anybody proposed that every notice of appeal should be submitted to counsel in order that every ground that could possibly be raised should be stated. He thought that the fullest protection was given against frivolous appeals by allowing the Court 642 to consider all the circumstances of the case and to decide whether they would allow any further matter beyond the notice of appeal to be argued. He hoped the Lords' Amendment would be agreed to.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
said it was with profound diffidence that he intervened, because he had but little knowledge of legal procedure. As he understood the argument, on his side of the House, it was that the matter should be left to the discretion of the Court, whereas on the other side it was argued that unless the words were retained every change, however trivial, was to be made as a matter of course. If there was any chance of the Court taking that course, the danger would have to be guarded against, and he apprehended that both sides of the House might be reconciled by introducing words in substitution which would provide that leave should not be given by the Court "as of course."

MR. T. M. HEALY
I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that is very good drafting and very good sense.
Lords' Amendment disagreed with, and Amendment proposed by First Lord of the Treasury agreed to.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
moved to agree with Lords' Amendment—page 15, line 10, leave out ("persons") and insert ("person").

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
moved to agree with Lords' Amendment—line 12, after ("1891") insert ("or the Redemption of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1892").

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
moved to agree with Lords' Amendment—line 16, after ("1891") insert ("or the Redemption of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1891").

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
moved to agree to Lords' Amendment—lines 28 and 29, leave out ("or persons personally ") and insert ("beneficially").

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
moved to agree with Lords' Amendment—line 30, leave out (Sub-sections (1) to (8) of Clause 30 and to insert—