§ (1.) The Land Law Acts, except section six of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881 (which amends the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, in respect of compensation for improvements), shall not apply to the following tenancies;—
- (a.) To a tenancy in any holding which is not substantially either agricultural or pastoral in its character, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral:
- (b.) To a tenancy in any holding which substantially consists of—
- (i) land being a home farm; or
- (ii) land which when first demised was held as demesne, and which the provisions of the contract of tenancy, or the circumstances of the case, show was intended to be preserved as demesne or resumed as demesne at the will of the landlord; or
- (iii) land annexed to, or incorporated in, a demesne by the tenant, and forming part of a demesne at the time the application to fix a fair rent is made:
- (c.) To a tenancy in any holding ordinarily termed a town park, which adjoins or is near to any city or town, and bears an increased value as accommodation land over and above the ordinary letting value of land occupied as an ordinary farm except where such town park is let and used substantially as an ordinary farm, whether agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral:
- (d.) To a tenancy in a holding (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—
- (i) if it is of the rateable value of one hundred pounds or upwards; or
- (ii) if the tenant does not actually reside on the holding, or where the holding adjoins or is ordinarily used with another holding to which the Land Law Acts apply, then on the latter holding:
§ (2.) Provided that nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall extend to any holding in respect of which a judicial rent has been fixed before the commencement of this Act.
§ (3.) Where a distinct and substantive part of the property held under one demise is demesne land, or is not agricultural or pastoral in its character, or is an incorporeal hereditament, and the court consider that that part is not the substantial part of such property, the court may direct that that part shall thenceforth be, or, if it is an incorporeal hereditament, be treated as, a separate holding, and be held at such rent during the continuance of the tenancy as the court determine to be the proper proportion of the rent reserved by the demise, and the court may fix a fair rent for the remainder of the property held under the demise, and the said Acts shall apply to that remainder as if it were a separate holding.
§ COLONEL WARINGmoved the omission from Sub-section (a) of the word "substantially,"—a word he said which did not appear in previous Acts, and the introduction of which was likely to lead to litigation. It differed largely from the phrase "wholly or mainly" which had been interpreted by the Courts.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid "substantially" had the same meaning as "wholly or mainly," but would read rather awkwardly in this connection.
§ COLONEL WARINGsaid that "wholly or mainly" had been already interpreted by the Courts.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid they were told the Bill had been carefully considered; had they not better leave "substantially" alone?
§ MR. CARSONsaid he could not understand why the Government should 1019 introduce the word and open the door to fresh litigation as to tenancies which were agricultural, or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral. The point was one of material importance because, under the recognised description, many tenancies which were not of the farming class had been excluded; and this change would open the door to renewed applications. Many tenancies that were never intended to come under the Land Acts and that ought not to come under them had attempted to come in under the wording of the Acts as if the holdings were ordinary farms let for ordinary agricultural purposes. Cases had occurred in which gentlemen who had residences near towns had come to the Commissioner and said, "I hold 40 or 50 acres; it is true we have a residence; but as the holding is agricultural or pastoral or partly one and partly the other I claim to come under the Act." Was it the intention of the Government that these cases should be reconsidered? If so upon what principle was the change in the law to be founded? The change proposed would open up a vista of litigation which it ought to be the object of the Government to avoid if it was possible. So far as the official evidence given before the Committee went, he did not recollect any evidence of hardship to be remedied by introducing this word "substantially"; and, if there were one or two cases, the introduction of the word might do grievous injury in a direction not contemplated in letting in a great many tenants who had been properly excluded. You could hardly select a worse word than "substantially." What was the idea of the Government as to a holding being substantially agricultural or pastoral, or partly the one and partly the other. Was the interpretation of the word to be left at large to the work of a sub-Commissioner, or was a landlord to be put to the expense of ascertaining the idea of the Chief Commissioner? And was he further to test the matter by going to a Court of Appeal? He must press the question—what are the particular holdings which are meant to be included under this sub-section? He would like to have put forward some examples of what, in the view of the Government were terms and conditions of contract which would render a farm which was not agricultural or pastoral in 1020 its character, substantially pastoral and agricultural in its character. Then they might be able to see some reason for modifying what had been the whole basis of the law for 26 years. He supported the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and unless some very satisfactory reasons were given he should vote with his hon. Friend if he went to a Division.
§ [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER returned to the Chair.]
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he had been asked whether, by this clause, he intended to change the existing law. He did intend to change the existing law, because he thought it operated harshly—[Irish cheers]—and it did not matter to him whether the word substantial, or mainly, or wholly was used. Clause 58 of the Act of 1881 dealt with exclusions, and the expression was "any holding which is not agricultural or pastoral in its character, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral." The effect of that had been that a farm, a trivial portion of which had not been agricultural or pastoral, had been excluded from the operation of the Act. That appeared to the Government to be an injustice, and they sought to remedy it.
§ MR. CARSONdid not know any cases which ought to be let in. Would the right hon. Gentleman give them a case?
§ MR. CARSONI have not asked the hon. Gentleman to do so.
MR. T. M. HEALYBut I will give it all the same. [Cheers.] There was a case at Freshford. There a man was excluded from having a fair rent fixed because he had the tolls of a fair.
§ MR. T. H. ROBERTSONsaid that it was a very important matter whether they were going to admit a new and perhaps large class of tenants to the benefit of the Act of 1881. Everyone who was familiar with Ireland knew that there were a great many cases which were not of the class of cases in which hon. Gentlemen opposite were specially interested, but which might possibly, if the word substantial were allowed to stand, become cases of present tenancies with houses on them. Undoubtedly, it was never intended that those tenancies should become tenancies within the 1021 meaning of the Act of 1881. The presence of the word substantial would let in a person who was not a bona fide farmer—one who held land not used for the ordinary purposes of farming. It was a curious fact that, although the hon. and learned Member for North Louth had given the Committee one instance in which "substantial" would apply, the Chief Secretary had not mentioned a single case. He could see many cases to which it might apply, but to which it ought not to apply. Before they consented to the alteration of the law suggested, they were entitled to hear from the Chief Secretary an instance of the case the word would cover. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to Sub-clause 3, and he understood him to say that where a substantial part of a holding was not pastoral or agricultural it would be competent to separate it from the other part which was pastoral or agricultural, thus dividing the tenancy. But he wished the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some instance of the kind of case he contemplated dealing with—the sort of case which, being at present excluded from the benefits of the Act of 1881, he intended to bring within the Act. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of cases in which small or trivial exceptions had operated against the holding coming under the Act, and he presumed that he only intended to deal with such cases, for it was difficult to imagine that he contemplated bringing within the Act any holding which was not a farm in the ordinary sense of the word. Nevertheless, it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman stated an instance of the class of holdings which he intended to deal with in this manner.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the first sub-section of the clause was to be taken together with Sub-section 3, and they were to be substantially read together in fixing a fair rent. There were cases, as he had said, in which the holding was pastoral or agricultural, or partly pastoral and partly agricultural, and in which the exception from either was trivial. It was intended to cover those cases in which holdings had hitherto been excluded from the benefits of the Act through a trivial part of those holdings not being either pastoral or agricultural; to separate the parts, and to bring 1022 the substantial portion which was pastoral or agricultural, or both, within the Act. They might, for instance, take the example of a small mill holding. The mill might be a substantial part of the holding, and it would be legitimate under the Bill for the Commissioners to separate it from the holding, and fix a fair rent on the remainder. Such cases had hitherto been excluded from the benefits of the Act in consequence of the exception preventing a fair rent being fixed for the agricultural or pastoral part, and it was the object of the Bill to include those and similar cases.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he wished the Committee to understand that the objection of his hon. Friends and himself to the word "substantial" was not of a merely captious nature. They objected to it on the solid ground that it would lead to great litigation. They could not, and ought not, to regard the language of a Bill in the ordinary way as ordinary persons; they were bound to consider how it might be interpreted by the lawyers, who were quite a different set of people from ordinary individuals. [Laughter.] It would be most unwise to insert in this Bill any word which was unknown in other Acts. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "It is in the Act of 1887."] That might be; but it had no connection with such cases as were now being discussed. What they wanted to do by excluding the word in question was to prevent the clause being made a happy hunting-ground for the lawyers, and it was evident, from the various explanations that had already been given of the meaning and application of the word, that if it was retained in the Bill it would afford immense employment to the members of that great profession. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] They had asked for a concrete case of the kind contemplated—a case that had actually arisen, and to which the word in question and the Bill would apply, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, with all their ingenuity combined, could give only one instance, and that was by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONNot from the hon. and learned Member. But even the case given by him—that of a man who could not get a fair rent fixed 1023 for his land because he had the tolls of a fair—was not a case in point, for a case of tolls was not affected by the question. The right hon. Gentleman had been asked to give a case, but in reply had only given suppositious cases that might arise under conditions which he did not explain. Under the circumstances, he urged that it would be very unwise to retain the word "substantial" in the Bill.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLhoped the Chief Secretary would not give way on the point, but resolve to retain the word, the meaning of which was perfectly clear. There were many cases in which the presence of a small mill on a holding, though the mill might have fallen into disuse and was of little or no value, had had the effect of excluding the entire holding from the benefits of the Act of Parliament. In the county of Tyrone there were, according to his information, several instances of small mill holdings in which the Acts had worked unjustly, and the effect of their being on an agricultural or pastoral farm had been to exclude the whole farm from the operations of the Act.
§ MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDdesired to put this case before the Chief Secretary. There were a great many villa residences in Ireland bordering on ornamental water, and having some 80 or 90 acres of land attached. Over and over again he had had offers for some of these places provided they could be brought within the construction of the Act. He wanted to ask the Chief Secretary whether it was his wish that all of these villa residences, so many of which were now empty, should be brought in and made part and parcel of an agricultural holding. If that was his intention he should vote against him. These places could now be let provided they were brought within the cognizance of the Acts of Parliament so as to allow the holder to go into the Court; and he would like to know whether that was the intention of the Government.
§ COLONEL WARINGsaid nothing was further from his intention than to exclude a mill holding such as the hon. Member for North Tyrone had alluded to. Where a mill had ceased to be used as a mill it had ceased to be used as an attached portion of the farm.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the hon. Member had just given them the very best reason why the word "substantially" should remain. It was exactly with reference to mill holdings of that kind and to other cases which might be enumerated that this sub-clause was drafted.
§ COLONEL WARINGHave they ever been excluded?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid they had. If, on the other hand, a mill holding was so substantially a part of the holding that it should be, in the opinion of the Land Commission, treated separately, it had been treated separately under Clause 3. With regard to the case mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, the case of a tenant of a holding who lived in the house but who did not cultivate the ground around the house—
§ MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDsaid he had in his mind a case where a tenant lived in the house and did cultivate the land.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid if it was properly speaking a farm, then he thought possibly it might come undr this clause. If it was a residential holding in the proper sense of the term, certainly it would be excluded.
§ * MR. SMITH-BARRYsaid that if they passed this word they ran a serious danger of getting into endless litigation in the future. Every line of the Land Acts during the past 20 years had had to be brought before the Courts of law, and at last they had got to understand what the meaning of the Acts was. Now, apparently, they were going to introduce fresh words, and not only to amend the Acts from 1881 to 1887, but to extend them and to let in people who had never been admitted before.
§ MR. M. MCCARTAN (Down, S.)who was very imperfectly heard, was understood to call attention to the case of a tenant named Weaver, in the County of Down, who was not able to get a fair rent fixed.
§ MR. CARSONobserved, with reference to what the Chief Secretary had said, that in the case of a disused mill a substantial agricultural farm would be outside the Act. He himself knew of a case which had been decided where there was a substantial quarry on a farm of 30 acres which the tenant was 1025 allowed to work, and it was held, as that was a mere trivial matter compared with the amount of land he farmed, the tenant was not outside the Act. In those cases where the substantial matter was the farm, and there were some small things like quarries in the instance he had cited, they had never been excluded from the Acts at all. He admitted that where there had been public-houses or large mills being worked they had been excluded, but if the Committee were going to pass the clause in its present form it was well they should understand what they were doing. Did they mean that if a man let a public-house with land attached to it, the public-house being comparatively small, the tenant taking the public-house was to have it in perpetuity, because that was what they were going to do if they brought it within the same law as an agricultural holding. ["Hear, hear!"] It was to avoid these kind of matters that they said the law as interpreted by the Courts ought to be the law still. ["Hear, hear!"] So far as he knew in previous Debates upon any of the Land Acts, which were mainly brought in by Liberal Governments, it was never intended or suggested that the fair-rent provisions should apply to any lands but those which were agricultural or pastoral, or partly agricultural and partly pastoral. He hoped Members who had listened to the Debate and saw the far-reaching results of this section would vote for the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the word 'substantially' stand part of the clause."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 213; Noes, 32.—(Division List, No. 240.)
§ MR. CARSONmoved to amend Sub-section (a.) by inserting after the word "pastoral" the words "or to a letting of land the main object of which is for residential purposes." When the last Amendment was before the Committee the right hon. Gentleman justified the position he took up that it was unnecessary to omit the word "substantial," because that word did not justify the apprehensions that some hon. Members felt as to the effect it might have. Hitherto no Act of this kind had applied 1026 to residential property. If the right hon. Gentleman was clear that this particular class of property was to be excluded from the operation of the Bill, he would have no difficulty in agreeing to the Amendment.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that it appeared to him that the language of the clause was sufficiently clear to show that it did not apply to residential property, and, therefore, he thought that the Amendment was unnecessary. Nevertheless, as the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to desire the insertion of these words, he would accept the Amendment.
MR. T. M. HEALYcomplained that the Government had rejected every Amendment from that side of the House, and that the only Amendment they had accepted was this from the landlord party. Arguments from the Opposition side were useless, because matters were settled by a Committee of the Cabinet, and Members on the Opposition side were simply beating the air. Tory Amendments were accepted because the Tories had the House of Lords at their backs. The Irish Nationalists had not a single friend in the House of Lords, whereas the Tories had hundreds of Peers there who would run over this Bill like cockroaches. He hoped the Committee and the country would take note of the fact that the Government had repelled every Amendment from that side, but had accepted from the landlord party an Amendment which they had previously refused as unnecessary. If land was taken for building purposes that should be stated. The test in the Courts always was, did the man take the land from the house or the house from the land? He moved to amend the Amendment by omitting "for residential purposes," and inserting "of residence."
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURaccepted the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to; Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. T. H. ROBERTSONmoved to amend the clause by excluding from the operation of the Land Law (Ireland) Acts, except Section 6 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, the 1027 tenancy of land "being or forming a part of a home farm." He remarked that this was provided for in the Act of 1881, Section 58, and he should like to know why it was different in the present Bill. If a man let his home farm as a whole it did not become subject to the tenancy, but if he let part of the farm it did.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURaccepted the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLmoved to amend the clause by providing for the exclusion from the Land Law (Ireland) Acts, except Section 6 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, of—
demesne land, unless it is shown that the holding was let for the temporary convenience of the landlord or to meet a temporary necessity, and with bona fide intention of resuming the use thereof as demesne land, and the letting of a holding by a lease for more than 21 years or for lives shall not be deemed a letting for temporary convenience or to meet a temporary necessity.No question had given rise to more litigation than questions about demesne lands, and it was with the object of removing those difficulties that he moved the Amendment, which was in conformity with the Report of the Select Committee. Some alteration was suggested by the present Bill, but it left matters just as doubtful and as open to litigation as ever. There were a great variety of cases in which lands which were demesne lands 50 or 60 years ago had long since ceased to be demesne lands, and lost their original character. He submitted that the owner of demesne lands was sufficiently protected by the words he proposed, because the Court would have to determine whether the land was bought as a temporary convenience or not. He put it to hon. Members that if a man wished to let land which was originally demesne land for 21 years or for lives, it would be absurd to say that that land should not have the elements and consequences of an ordinary agricultural farm.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Amendment was in effect taken from a clause in the Bill of 1895. If the Government had intended to adopt that clause they would have done so. The real difference between the Amendment 1028 and the Bill lay in the last sentence of the Amendment, namely—
and the letting of a holding by a lease for more than 21 years or for lives shall not be deemed a letting for temporary convenience or to meet a temporary necessity.In other words, if the land was let as a holding for more than 21 years, the holding would not be deemed to be excluded from the operations of the Land Acts. The Government considered that that limitation would be too strict in estimating what was and was not demesne land. He submitted that the form of the clause was more equitable to the landlords than the Amendment of the hon. Member.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. RENTOULmoved to omit the words "held as" in Sub-section (b) (ii).
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONmoved in the same Sub-section (b) (ii) to omit the words "at the will of," and to insert instead thereof the word "by."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONmoved in Sub-section (b) (ii), after the word "landlord," to insert the words "or was originally let by a limited owner." He said that his object was to make it impossible for a limited owner to prevent his successors from having any demesne at all. Without this Amendment a man would be able to let the demesne for some trivial sum, and when he died his heirs would find that they had a house, but no demesne.
§ MR. CARSONpointed out that it was proposed in a subsequent clause of the Bill to make lettings by a limited owner practically the same as lettings by an absolute owner. If some such Amendment as this were not agreed to a tenant for life would be able to lease his demesne in such a way that the remainderman would be precluded from resuming it. It had never yet been the policy of that House to do anything to prevent landlords from living on their demesnes, and he could not think that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of 1029 the Bill could intend it to have a restrictive operation of that kind. It was clear that a tenant for life ought not to be able to debar those who came after him from resuming the demesne.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that he would accept the Amendment, although he did not think its terms were the best that could be selected.
MR. T. M. HEALYprotested against the acceptance of this Amendment, which was in direct contradiction of the seventh clause of the Bill (lettings by persons not absolutely owners). The Government were proposing to take away with one hand what they pretended to be giving with the other. Demesne land was always under settlement in Ireland.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid that, notwithstanding the vehemence of the hon. and learned Member, he was at a loss to understand what injustice would be caused if this Amendment were agreed to. Surely nothing could be more unjust than to permit a limited owner, who might only be a tenant for life, to let the demesne to a farmer in such a way that those who succeeded him would be precluded for ever from taking possession of the land.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYpointed out that though the Chief Secretary said that the Amendment was badly drafted he yet accepted it. In the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Amendment was ambiguous; it might have a good meaning or it might have a bad meaning, but the Amendment with all its ambiguity was to be inserted in the Bill. If the Government meant that the Bill should pass with this Amendment in it he was at a loss to understand why they had undertaken to amend the law regarding demesne land. The present effect of the law was that all over Ireland hundreds, and even thousands, of farms consisting of land which was at one time genuine demesne land, but which for 30, 40, 50, 60, and 100 years had been let to ordinary agricultural tenants, was used as ordinary agricultural farm land. In the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881 there was an exception introduced in respect of demesne land, the object of which was perfectly innocent. If the Courts in Ireland had 1030 construed in the sense in which he believed Parliament intended, the tenants of Ireland would have had no grievance. But this was not done. He quoted the case of an Australian who had not a penny of interest in a holding, but the point about demesne was raised by the mortgagee expressly for the purpose of insisting on rack-rents. The landlord party in Ireland argued as if every attempt to extend the scope of the Land Act was an attempt in some way to confiscate the landlords' property and rob them of their land. It was nothing of the kind. The issue of every land case was "shall the tenant pay more than a fair rent?" The only thing which the Land Act did was to enable a fair rent to be fixed. In that state of circumstances he asked what was the object of the Government when they introduced this clause? As he understood they intended to extend the scope of the Land Acts to land which was originally demesne but which in effect had long lost that character. The owners of demesne land had let it out of their possession, and for their own profit, put it into the hands of agricultural tenants. He contended that the Amendment practically nullified all benefit which could be derived from this clause. The Chief Secretary's speech plainly showed that he had no clear conception of the scope of the Amendment, and while, in accepting it, he believed the right hon. Gentleman had no intention of injuring the Bill or minimising its effect, he begged him to be careful to know what he was about before he consented to Amendments which might be of the most insidious character, though innocent on the face of them.
§ MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD, answering a point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, said the demesne of a limited owner in Ireland was not, as a rule, under settlement, because that was impossible. It could not be devised; it must go to the son.
MR. T. M. HEALYdeclared that, as far as he was concerned, in no circumstances whatever would he accept any Bill in which those words were inserted. [Cheers.] The Government had accepted the Amendment, pretending that they referred to demesne, but practically they 1031 referred to Section 6, the governing words being not "demesne land" but "land." It would be better for the tenants to fight it out with their landlords than to accept a pretended settlement, which was no settlement at all. Again and again to-night they had seen the landlords get up and propose Amendments which had evidently been previously agreed to by the Government. He did not complain of their conduct. They were in privity with the Government and the Nationalist Members were not—
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONThat is totally devoid of foundation.
MR. T. M. HEALYI will say, then, that they are more in privity with the Government than we are. [Laughter.] The other day he read that the Landlord Party had a meeting to consider this Bill, which was attended by three Members of Her Majesty's Government. [Nationalist cheers.] Did they think that if the Nationalist Members met in Committee-room No. 15 they would have the advantage of the presence of three Members of Her Majesty's Government? [Loud laughter.]
§ * MR. SMITH-BARRYThe statement is entirely incorrect.
§ * MR. SMITH-BARRYIt was wrong.
MR. T. M. HEALYWho was the Pigott? [Laughter.] There were present, I read, the Duke of Abercorn, Lord Lansdowne, and Lord Londonderry.
§ MR. CARSONThe Duke of Abercorn is not a Member of the Government.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)No, but his brother is.
MR. T. M. HEALYAccording to the statement in this paper, the Secretary of State for War was there, and the Under Secretary for War, and the hon. Member opposite was the third Member of the Government present. However, he was quite ready to accept the correction of the hon. Member for South Hunts, who no doubt was quite right. But this point remained—that whenever an 1032 Amendment was moved from the Irish Benches, it was rejected by the Government; while, again and again, Amendments moved by the Landlord Party were accepted—[cheers]—although the Chief Secretary, on his own statement, did not understand the matter. The right hon. Gentleman accepted this Amendment, after repelling an Amendment relating to demesne moved by the hon. and learned Member for North Tyrone, and having the sanction of a Committee of the House, and of the Bill of last year which passed Second Reading without a Division. [Cheers.] It might come to this under the Amendment—that land which the family had deserted in favour of another demesne, with another mansion house would still be held to be demesne. Hon. Gentlemen asked for cases of hardship. The rule of the Law Society in Ireland in reporting cases was never to report anything which was not in the landlord's favour. [Cheers.] All the law reports were made solely in the interests of the landlords. That he asserted. [Cheers.] The present Solicitor General for Ireland was one of the members of the Committee on Law Reporting, and it could be imagined what sympathy the hon. and learned Gentleman had with the tenants. [Laughter and cheers.] It might happen that 50 years had passed since the letting was made; but if the land was originally part in settlement, it would be excluded. There was a case on the estate of the noble Lord of whom Lord Rosebery said that though he might know Ireland, Ireland knew little of him. [Nationalist cries of "Lord Muskerry."] In that case, though the tenant had been in possession of the land for 80 years, he was excluded because it was shown to be demesne land, under the pretence that the landlord wished to resume. The landlord did not wish to resume; he wished to rack-rent. [Cheers.] The clause would give all protection for preservation and resumption; and yet the Government accepted this Amendment after a Committee had inquired into the 1033 question for four or five months, and after the Judges in Ireland had become ashamed of their decisions. [Cheers.] In every case, under this Amendment, the Court would find out when the lease was made, and if there were any settlement, even in the last century; and he supposed that the onus would be thrown on the tenant of examining the landlord's settlements. Of course, he made all allowances for an Irish Executive deserted by the Cabinet, and with no power to accept any but landlords' Amendments. The unfortunate Chief Secretary was merely acting as the phonograph of the Committee of the Cabinet. [Cheers and laughter.] When a tenant's Amendment was moved the right hon. Gentleman simply got up and said: "We cannot accept it." Let the Government keep their Bill. [Nationalist cheers.] He had given his support to the Bill against the views of his colleagues. He would support it no longer. [Nationalist cheers.] That support was not, perhaps, worth much to the Government; but he would advise the tenants that the Tory Government was now what it had always been in the past—a landlord Government. [Nationalist cheers.] They made a pretence of fair play to the tenants, but the moment the Orange flag was waved by the Ulster picadores—laughter]—that moment the claims of the tenants were forgotten. Amendments for the landlords were accepted; Amendments for the tenants were rejected. The Bill was being wittled down more and more in favour of the landlords, and so far as he was concerned he washed his hands of the Measure. [Nationalist cheers.]
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the strictures of the hon. and learned Member against the Government were in no way justified. [Cheers] The Government had carefully considered Amendments proposed from both sides of the House, and, though in the majority of cases they had resisted those Amendments, they had done so without con- 1034 sideration as to the side from which they had been moved. More than that, they had expressed their readiness to consider on Report important Amendments which had been moved by the hon. Member himself and his hon. relative. ["Hear, hear!"] If the hon. Member now withdrew his support from the Bill he would, therefore, be acting very unreasonably. ["Hear, hear!"] The Government did not think there was anything unreasonable in the Amendment; but its introduction into the clause as it stood would make the clause very obscure, and therefore, while they accepted its principle, the Amendment would have to be re-drafted.
§ MR. CARSONsaid the hon. Member for Louth had poured forth all the vials of his wrath on the simple question whether a tenant for life, by letting his demesne land, should deprive for ever those on whom it was settled from entering upon it again. [Cheers.]
§ MR. CARSONsaid it was the question. The proposal was in accordance with the principles of justice and equity, and if it were rejected they would introduce a system absolutely unknown to English law. All this perfectly innocent Amendment sought to do was to secure that an Irish landlord, even if he were deprived of his land, should have a residence in Ireland, which would induce him to take an active interest in local matters, when the relations in regard to land were not of the strained character they were now.
* MR. T. SHAW (Hawick Burghs)said he had examined the clause and the Amendment with care, and certainly the last thing he would care to say of the Amendment was that it was an innocent Amendment. He thought it was a most dangerous Amendment. He asked the Committee if it was a case of genuine demesne lands, what did it matter whether those lands were to be let by a person who was 1035 a limited owner or not? They had, by the earlier part of the clause, specifically protected demesne land; and he ventured to forecast that, if this Amendment were embodied, it would be the cause of very much discussion in courts of law.
§ MR. RENTOULsaid it was, in his opinion, quits possible that the limited owner might have intended to let the demesne lands permanently and put them entirely away from his successor. It was clear that there was a great deal to be said on both sides, and he thought the Amendment should be redrafted. He understood that the Amendment would be dropped on the undertaking on the part of the Government that a new clause should be brought forward. He believed the hon. and learned Member for North Louth would not desire to aid in the slightest degree the limited owner who had permanently put away a portion of the demesne land—[Mr. T. M. HEALY: "Hear, hear!"]—and if a clause were drafted to meet the views of both parties, there would be no need for the hon. and learned Member to withdraw his support from the Bill.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, if the intention of the Government had been stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he would certainly support any reasonable Amendment in that sense. ["Hear, hear!"] What he had referred to was the bona fide agricultural letting of the demesne.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. T. M. HEALYmoved to omit the words "annexed to or" after the word "land" in Sub-section (1) (iii), so that it should read "land incorporated in a demesne by the tenant," etc.
§ Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
§ And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to again upon Friday 26th June.