HL Deb 05 July 1870 vol 202 cc1428-56

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 1 (Legality of Ulster tenant-right custom).

LORD CAIRNS

proposed an Amendment in Clause 1, providing that a tenant of a holding subject to the Ulster custom, but not claiming under the same, shall not be barred from making a claim for compensation with the consent of the Court, under any other of the sections of this Act, except Section 7.

After some observations from Lord O'HAGAN,

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 (Compensation in absence of custom).

THE EARL OF KLMBERLEY

proposed the insertion of the following words after the scale of compensation in Clause 3:— Any tenant in a higher class of the scale may at his option claim compensation under a lower class, provided such compensation shall not exceed the sum to which he would be entitled under such lower class, on the assumption that the annual value if his holding is reduced to the sum (or where two sums are mentioned the highest sum) stated in such lower class, and that his rent is proportionally reduced. Their Lordships would remember that in Committee words enabling a tenant to claim compensation on so much only of his rent as would bring him into a lower class were omitted. It was on account of such omission that this Amendment was proposed, for it would clearly be unfair that a man who had an absolutely higher valuation than another should get a sum not only relatively but absolutely lower than that other person.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that an Amendment of such importance required further consideration, and he hoped it would be deferred till the third reading, as the Government had taken a somewhat unusual course in only giving Notice this morning of the Amendments they intended to propose.

EARL GREY

also thought it would be convenient to postpone the Amendment, though at present he saw no objection to it.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he had no wish to take the House by surprise. He thought that on consideration it would be seen that it was a reasonable proposition. It would be better to make the Amendment on the clause, and it could be reconsidered on the third reading.

LORD CAIRNS

said, the only question was, whether the policy of the Amendment was a wise one. The proposal was, that to obviate the anomaly of a tenant of a £49 holding claiming three years' compensation or £147, while a tenant of a £51 holding could only claim two years' compensation or £102, the latter should be allowed to drop down into the lower scale, and claim as if his rent or valuation was only £49. The Bill had been described as one designed to give a great deal of employment to the lawyers, and he thought this proposition was well calculated to give rise to litigation. If arithmetical problems of this kind were set before the Irish tenants they would certainly be baffled, and would not know what claim to make.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that his Amendment was intended to correct such an anomaly as, for instance, a tenant paying £101, assuming the rent to be the same as the valuation, receiving less compensation than one paying £99. The former, as the clause stood, could only receive a year's rent, or £101 as compensation, the latter might receive two years', or £198. In the case of a holding of £49 the compensation might amount to four years' rent, and not three, as stated by the noble and learned Lord. As to the Amendment being an arithmetical puzzle, he had too good an opinion of the Irish tenants, still more so of the Irish lawyers, to apprehend any difficulty in its working.

LORD REDESDALE

pointed out that a man who paid £51 rent would be entitled to £102 compensation; if he paid £50, to £150; and if he paid £40, to £160; so that it would be the best thing for a man to descend two stages in the scale, because he would thus get more compensation. The scale as it now stood was a departure from what was said to be the principle of it—that there should be no great jump between one compensation and another. The present proposition would render the whole thing absurd and unintelligible. The only way to carry out the principle laid down by the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies would be to enable claims to be made for a certain percentage upon the rent paid, or something of that sort.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that a man who had a higher valuation should not be paid less than a man who had a smaller holding. He meant less absolutely, not relatively.

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH

said, he could, not on the principle of the noble Earl, see the necessity of having a scale at all. He had understood that the scale was founded on the assumption that tenants who paid large rents were less in need of protection than those who paid small rents, that the higher the rent a man paid, the less need had he of protection and compensation.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, it seemed to him that the scale between £40 and £50 was useless, as it would never come into operation, and therefore it had better be struck out.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

suggested that, as the question was rather an intricate one, it should be deferred till the third reading.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, there would be no objection to this.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

held that the absurdity was not that a tenant at £101 should get less compensation than one at £99, but that a tenant at £99 should get such an enormous boon. He hoped the Government would lay down the compensation for £99, £98, and so on, so that every tenant would know what he was entitled to.

Amendment postponed.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

said, that before the next Amendment was proposed, he wished to say that he had understood that the question of compensating for the "reclamation of waste lands" was to be dealt with at the present stage; but no Notice of Amendment appeared on the Paper.

EARL GRANVILLE

explained that the only point reserved in Committee was whether there could not be a better definition than the phrase "reclamation of waste lands." The legal advisers of the Government had consulted many Acts of Parliament, and had considered several suggestions, but they had failed to find a better term. He had himself come to the conclusion that there was no difficulty in understanding what was meant by "waste lands."

LORD O'HAGAN

said, existing Acts of Parliament contained the phrase "reclamation of waste land."

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

, with reference to the sub-section 2 relating to subdividing of holdings or conacre, said, he had given Notice to propose the omission of the words "without the consent of the landlord in writing," and the substitution of the following—"after he has been prohibited in writing by the landlord, or his agent, from doing so." He thought that the House had come to a somewhat hasty conclusion on a former occasion. He then proposed to cast on the tenant the onus of asking the consent of the landlord; but his noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville) objected to the proposal, and suggested words substantially identical with those which he now proposed, and these he was willing to accept, as the difference seemed to him a very small one. There might, moreover, be force in the argument that in some instances it was more difficult for the tenant to make the application than for the landlord to make the prohibition. As this Amendment stood, it would unintentionally include subletting in the same category as conacre, but a verbal Amendment would keep the two cases distinct. He proposed, in line 32, after ("thereof") to insert ("without the consent of the landlord in writing,"); and in line 33 to leave out ("without the consent of the landlord in writing,") and insert ("after he has been prohibited in writing by the landlord or his agent from so doing").

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

thought the clause as it stood was very much better without the improvement. He hoped the Amendment would be rejected.

EARL GRANVILLE

differed from the noble Earl, deeming the Amendment an improvement. In Committee there was considerable discussion on the clause, and he suggested words to which the noble Duke opposite assented; but a rather impetuous movement in the House defeated the object they had in view. The noble Duke had now very fairly reverted to the agreement between them.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

questioned the necessity or propriety of drawing a distinction between the acts of the landlord and those of his agent, since the landlord was usually deemed responsible for the latter.

EARL GRANVILLE

believed the words "or his agent" to be superfluous, but saw no objection to them.

LORD CAIRNS

said, it was true the act of the agent was the act of the landlord; but the writing of the agent was not the writing of the landlord.

Amendment agreed to.

EARL GRANVILLE moved the omission of the following words in Clause 3: And in case of any assignment of a tenancy the assignee shall not be entitled to any compensation under this section unless and until he shall have been accepted as a tenant by the land lord, provided that a devolution under a will, or upon an intestacy [or marriage, shall not be deemed an assignment under this section. By the Bill the tenant possessed the same right of assignment as he had previously done, while the landlord's power was weakened, as he was subject to penalty for summary eviction. Their Lordships consequently inserted in Committee the words of which he now moved the omission. A great injustice, however, would be done to the tenant if he were deprived of a right which he now possessed at common law, and which in practice he constantly availed himself of. The Government were willing to concede provisions which would effectually guard the landlord from being unjustly dealt with, for the new clause which he proposed to insert after Clause 12 excluded compensation in the event of assignment in the following cases:—1, Where the rent was in arrear at the time of the assignment, so as to render the tenant liable to eviction for non-payment; 2, where assignment was contrary to, or not warranted by, the practice prevalent on the estate; and 3, where the Court should be of opinion that the landlord's refusal to accept the assignee was a reasonable refusal. With these safeguards, he hoped the objections of their Lordships to the proposal in its more naked form would no longer exist.

LORD DUNSANY

objected to the Amendment, as putting an end to all voluntary surrender of holdings. A tenant might put in the most obnoxious person he could find, and the landlord on giving notice would have to compensate for disturbance.

LORD DUFFERIN

said, this would only happen on estates which had been so carelessly conducted that the tenantry had acquired a right to assign their tenancies.

EARL STANHOPE

thought that the proposal of the noble Earl was a very fair one, and he, for one, should give it his support. He was not satisfied with the clause as it originally stood, for it gave full power to the tenant; nor with the Amendment made in Committee, which gave full power to the landlord. He thought the course proposed by the noble Earl would do justice both to the tenant and to the landlord. This proposal was a via media which might tend to decide a very difficult question, and he hoped their Lordships would give it their assent.

LORD CAIRNS

said, he was of opinion that the Amendment, taken in conjunction with the proposed new clause, was a great improvement on the proposal made on a former evening, and would meet every case which the Government could fairly be asked to meet. He at- tached great importance to the Proviso as to the assignment being contrary to or not warranted by the practice prevalent on the particular estate, for it would cover every estate the owner of which desired to preserve a proper control over the selection of his tenants. The Proviso as to devolution by will or intestacy was also of great importance; for, although a tenant could not be allowed to transmit his holding to a stranger by will any more than by agreement, its devolution by will on some one closely connected with the family was only reasonable.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, this was a matter on which English landlords had not the experience which Irish landlords possessed. He understood the proposal to be that wherever the custom of an estate allowed assignments without the consent of the landlord they would continue; but that where at present a landlord had a voice in the matter it would be equally potent in future. This did not appear objectionable.

THE EARL OF LIMERICK

remarked that great difficulty arose in families from tenancies being bequeathed by will. For instance, the daughter of a neighbouring tenant sometimes induced, an old man to marry her and make a will in her favour to the prejudice of his relatives. These disputes were brought before the landlord, who at present was competent to settle them.

Amendment agreed to.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved an addition to the clause, designed to prevent the multiplication of small holdings. The great evil of subletting ought, as far as possible, to be stopped: notwithstanding that holdings under £10 had decreased between 1841 and 1861 by 400,000, there still remained 175,000 holdings under £4 in value, 190,000 between £4 and £10, and 124,000 between £10 and £25. The desirability of preventing further subdivision became more apparent when it was remembered that the small area represented by these holdings was covered by a population of 2,000,000. Hitherto the tendency of small holdings had been to further subdivision. The way in which it was carried out was this—the family of a tenant married, and his sons and daughters-in-law remained with him either in the house or in some of the out-buildings, so that in some cases as many as four families lived in one small hut. There would be no evidence upon the land itself in such a case to show that it was subdivided, because it would have been always cultivated in little strips. He believed, therefore, that the only way to prevent subdivision would be to restrict the number of families permanently living under one roof, and if this were not done the Bill would perpetuate them. It had been alleged that this Bill would tend to consolidation of holdings, but such allegation had little foundation; for though, doubtless, land-lords getting small holdings into their possession would be slow in again subjecting themselves to the fine and difficulty of getting rid of them, yet as, under the Bill it would require an expenditure of at least £25,000,000 by the landlords to buy up the small holdings of Ireland, and as, besides this, it should be taken into consideration that on the continuance of these holdings depended both the income and power of the Roman Catholic clergy, and that by this measure Parliament gave to them an exceptionally favourable legal status, it was no exaggeration to say that nothing short of another famine would render any large amount of consolidation possible. He accordingly moved the addition of the following Proviso to Clause 3:— A tenant shall be deemed to have subdivided or sublet his holding if it can be shown that during any period of four mouths out of a continuous twelvemonth more than two married couples have been living in his house or offices.

LORD O'HAGAN

said, the proposition of the noble Lord would prove impracticable. It would be better to leave the Court to determine what should be regarded as evidence of subdivision than for the Legislature to condescend to minute description of this kind. Besides, the Proviso of the noble Lord could be defeated by one of the married couples paying a visit for a few days every four months.

Amendment withdrawn.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

rose to move an Amendment, providing that £100, instead of £50, should be the maximum value of a holding in respect of which compensation should be granted. Whatever might be the amount of rent which the tenant paid, when he was disturbed in his possession by his landlord without reasonable cause he suffered an injury for which he ought to be compensated. He quite understood the objection of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) to the principle of compensating a tenant for being disturbed in his possession; but, as the noble Lords opposite had already assented to that principle, it was impossible that they could draw the line at tenants who paid £50. Let him take the case of a tenant-farmer occupying a farm of the value of £50 or £60 per annum, who paid his rent regularly, and who farmed properly, and who received six months' notice to quit from his landlord. He would be obliged to sell his stock and furniture, and for that and for the improvements he had made on the farm he might receive from £200 to £300; but he had made arrangements for continuing in his farm, and had now to try—probably under the present condition of Ireland, unsuccessfully—for another farm; and his only resource would be to emigrate. Was not that a case in which the tenant would be entitled to some compensation for being disturbed in his holding? He admitted that such a case was not likely to happen frequently, because a landlord would, as a rule, wish to retain such a tenant as he had described upon his estate; but still it was not impossible that it might occur under the Bill as it stood at present, and he would ask whether it would be wise to leave in the Bill what was likely to prove a rankling sore in the minds of a large and influential class? He confessed that he should like to see the clause without any limit at all, because even in that case he believed that the landlords of Ireland would be perfectly safe; but knowing the feeling of their Lordships, and what had occurred in the other House in reference to the matter, he should not attempt to press upon them any views of his own upon the question. He would, however, venture to appeal even to the noble Marquess opposite to assent to the Amendment he now proposed, because he knew that it would be far from the desire of that noble Lord that the measure should be nugatory in consequence of the alteration he had succeeded in effecting in it. As an Irish landlord, he was most anxious to preserve all the just rights of his class; but he could not but feel that if the alteration that had been made in the Bill were to be retained the Bill would be regarded with great dissatisfaction, by the tenants of Ireland.

Amendment moved, line 6, to leave out ("fifty") and insert ("one hundred").—(The Earl of Bessborough.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The great difficulty which we have always had to encounter in dealing with this Bill is that Her Majesty's Government and those who support them seem to think that they can conjure away all the force of precedent and destroy all the effects of principle in relation to this legislation by simply repeating the word "exceptional." They seem to think, when they have taken a step like this, dealing violently with the rights of property, that to-morrow will be as yesterday, and that no trace will be left behind on the spirit of the people by the acts they have committed. Now, my Lords, we have to deal with an Amendment upon the Bill as it stands, which has been proposed by a noble Lord who began by telling us that he does not accept the principles which Her Majesty's Government have hitherto laid down for their guidance in this matter. He began by telling us that he would have the question of compensation awarded for mere disturbance of occupation, considered apart from all question of custom, and apart from all question of improvements effected by the tenant, and that he would have that compensation extended to every tenant, no matter what might be his wealth or his position. The principle which the noble Lord would lay down is this—that if you employ a man to cultivate your land, and the year afterwards you think better of the matter, and you do not wish him to cultivate it longer, you must pay him for terminating his employment. I wish to know how far the noble Lord would wish to carry that principle: I know that noble Lords opposite are ready to push analogy aside; but in the minds of the English people analogy will not be set aside, and they will require you to do as regards money that which you do as regards land; and the question you will have to face is this—whether you will sanction the broad and general principle that if a man is employed, no matter whether on land or in any other occupation, by any other man, and his employment is terminated, compensation is due to the man who was so employed? Such a principle is so extravagantly Socialistic that it is unnecessary that I should argue it further, and my only object in drawing attention to it is to point out that the noble Lord who proposes this Amendment goes far beyond the line laid down by Her Majesty's Government in relation to this question, and lays down principles that would be fatal to all industry. I, for one, have never concealed my aversion for this clause; it has always seemed to me that the only principle upon which it could be supported in any degree is the eleemosynary principle—the principle that the people are so poor that, as in the case of the ordinary Poor Law, it is desirable to depart from the ordinary laws of property—and upon that principle alone have I assented to it. But it appears to me that when you cross the line drawn by Her Majesty's Government themselves and say that you will extend this clause to the cases of people who, by the confession of Her Majesty's Government themselves, are able to take care of themselves—people who, we are constantly told, fill offices in the local government of Ireland, and who are of repute in their district—if you extend the principle to them you will have abandoned the eleemosynary principle altogether, and, therefore, the only plea upon which the clause can be justified. I have opposed the extension of this principle before; and what I have heard from the noble. Earl who has brought forward the Motion has only confirmed my opinion that I ought to oppose it still further. Under these circumstances, I shall feel compelled, although reluctantly, to ask your Lordships to divide upon the question.

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON

The noble Marquess who has just sat down stated at the commencement of his remarks that Her Majesty's Government appeared to think that they could conjure away all the force of precedent and destroy all the effect of principle as regards this legislation by the use of the word "exceptional." That would, perhaps, have been a very good answer to many of the speeches that were made upon this Bill when it was before us on previous occasions; but I certainly do not recollect hearing the noble Earl who proposed this Amendment (the Earl of Bessborough) make use of the word to which the noble Marquess opposite has taken exception. I, however, candidly admit that the legislation, as far as this clause is concerned, is, in my judgment, exceptional; and I believe that it is to be justified upon that ground. In that opinion I am not singular, nor are the noble Lords who sit on this side of the House; because the noble Lords who sit opposite also believe that the clause is justifiable on exceptional grounds, under the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, which, we all desire to alleviate. I would, therefore, ask the House whether they think they would be justified in running the risk of defeating the object of the Bill on account of what is, after all, a mere matter of detail. It was upon that ground that I asked your Lordships the other night to reject the Amendment of the noble Marquess, and it is upon that ground that I now ask you to accept that of the noble Earl. I must say that I was greatly surprised to hear the noble Marquess charge the noble Lord near me with promulgating Socialistic doctrines, because that is the last accusation I should have expected to be brought against him. But my noble Friend used no such language—it is merely a gloss put upon his words by the noble Marquess himself. The noble Marquess went on to say—if a man chose to employ another to cultivate his land, is he not to be at liberty to discharge him without giving him compensation? But does the noble Marquess really mean to contend that the same relation exists between the employer and the employed as exists between the landlord and the tenant? In the latter case, the landlord seeks to let his land to a man with capital sufficient to enable him properly to cultivate his farm, whereas in the former he merely hires a labourer. The two cases are, therefore, quite distinct from each other. I trust that the House will not be led away by the arguments of the noble Marquess as they were the other evening, but that they will support the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

said, he would not go into the question of the analogy between a yearly tenant and a person hired by the landlord to till his land; but he entirely denied that Irish tenants holding farms valued at over £50 a year were not a class of men able to take care of themselves. It was admitted that landlords were always anxious to obtain and retain such te- nants; there was no indisposition on the part of landlords to let their land, for what more did anyone suppose they wanted than good tenants? A farmer of good character rarely failed in procuring a farm. He did not think that the class of tenants with holdings of from £50 to £100 a year were so much more influential than other tenants as his noble Friend (the Earl of Bessborough) represented them to be. He believed that among tenants with smaller holdings they would find persons quite as influential; but, according to his noble Friend's own showing, those tenants of £50 and upwards must be wealthy, and therefore they did not require the protection which the clause, as it originally stood, would have given them. He did not believe that the alteration in the clause would have the effect of diminishing the value of the Bill in the eyes of the Irish farmers—indeed, they did not think so much about it as many Members of both Houses seemed to think they did. They were not the persons who had got up the agitation on the tenant question. He must observe, also, that when the Bill was before their Lordships for second reading, his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) advocated it because of the advantage it would be to the lower class of farmers;—men of the class holding farms valued at from £50 to £100 were not mentioned by his noble Friend as the persons for whom the Bill was required. If these farmers were let in under the clause, it would be impossible not to extend the principle to the farmers of England and Scotland. If the House reversed its decision and acceded to the proposition of his noble Friend, they must be prepared for such an application of the same principle as might prove very inconvenient in this country.

EARL GREY

said he should support the Amendment of his noble Friend (the Earl of Bessborough), though he was as much opposed as the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) to the principle of compensating tenants for disturbance. In the discussion on the second reading he expressed his opinion that what justice to the Irish tenant demanded was the full and frank recognition of the equitable contract that might be supposed to exist between himself and his landlord arising out of transactions in the past, while allowing the two parties in future to make contracts for themselves. However, their Lordships had determined differently. They had resolved to protect the tenants by compensating them for what was called disturbance. Assuming that to be the principle of the Bill, was it wise or unwise to confine it to tenants of £50 and under, or ought it to be extended to tenants farming holdings of the value of £100? In the first place, he presumed that no class of Irish farmers would suffer more from a capricious exercise of the power of eviction, if it were exercised in their case, than those with holdings of between £50 and £100 a year. They could not avail themselves of any new means of livelihood without lowering themselves—without descending in the social scale. In the present condition of Ireland it would be difficult for such men to obtain a means of living. In that way those men would suffer more from eviction than persons of a lower class. Again, he could not help fearing that to adhere to the alteration made in this clause would have the effect of damaging the Bill in its practical working. Much as he disapproved the measure—strongly as he was of opinion that its principles were contrary to all those of sound statesmanship—he was most anxious that it should succeed, and he would do nothing to diminish the chances of its success. But would it not tend materially to diminish those chances, if that class of farmers who might be regarded as leaders of the tenantry were shut out from the advantages of this portion of the Bill? They would feel themselves injured, and entertain feelings of irritation if this were done; and the effect of such feelings would be to damage the Bill in the estimation of the lower class of tenants. As regarded the interest of the landlord, the matter was really unimportant. The Amendment applied to a class of tenants whom the landlord scarcely ever desired to remove, and who, when removed, would be removed for a cause which the Court would hold to be valid; so that the claim for disturbance would not arise. Their Lordships ought not practically to destroy the prospect of the success of the Bill for an object which was really of little or no value. The defence of the whole clause with respect to disturbance was that it was a clumsy way of recognizing a valid claim for equitable rights which tenants had acquired, and he would not vote for excluding that particular class from those equitable rights.

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH

said, that when the clause was under discussion the other evening he was much influenced by the arguments which had been again to-night so powerfully urged by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), and had voted for it. The clause was one of a very exceptional character, embodying most extraordinary principles hitherto unknown to the English law, and he had shrunk from adopting such exceptional legislation without placing some limit upon it. For that reason he felt the other evening that the proposal of the noble Marquess was one well worthy of consideration. Noble Lords opposite must not be surprised if those who sat on his side of the House did not march with the same rapidity as they themselves did in the adoption of those new and exceptional doctrines. However, since the Amendment was adopted the other night, he found that many Irish proprietors were themselves not unwilling that the limit of £100 should be fixed; and even some Irish proprietors, who ordinarily voted with that side of the House, did not regard the noble Marquess's Amendment as one of great and vital importance. Again, he did not think the Amendment was one by which, if the other House rejected it, their Lordships would ultimately abide; and he believed it was not expedient to insist on Amendments by which they were not prepared to stand. They would be putting themselves in a false position if they now adhered to the Amendment, seeing the degree of opposition it had raised among themselves, and the great probability that it would not be accepted by the other House. Another reason which would justify him in giving a different vote from what he did the other night was, that an Amendment had been made in a subsequent part of the Bill, with the consent of the Government, limiting the period for which the parties were prohibited from contracting themselves out of the provisions of the clause to 20 years. That alteration so essentially changed the whole character and camplexion of this clause that he should feel himself fully warranted in supporting the Amendment now before their Lordships.

THE EARL OF PORTARLINGTON

said, that if it were put to him by the Government that it would considerably diminish the popularity which it was so essential that the Bill should possess if the Amendment made in the clause the other night were insisted upon, he certainly could not resist such an appeal. Therefore, while he entirely concurred in the force of the arguments that had been urged by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), in favour of retaining the smaller figure, he should vote with the Government on that question as a simple matter of policy, throwing upon them the responsibility.

LORD CAIRNS

said, he was unable to concur with the noble Earl who had moved this Amendment (the Earl of Bessborough) in the opinion that it would be better that no limit at all should have been introduced into this clause: on the contrary, he should have been very glad if the Government, in the first instance, had assigned, as a limit to the clause, the amount of £50, because he agreed a great deal in the abstract observations and reasonings urged by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury), both on that night and on a former occasion. But the question now was an extremely different one. A Bill had been introduced, in which the limit of £100 was originally proposed; and the impression had gained ground in Ireland that this limit was £100. He had never conceded the great objection he felt to the principle of that clause; yet he had expressed his readiness to accept the clause, and, therefore, he was bound by all the fair and legitimate consequences of the acceptance. Now, the limit of £100 having been introduced into the clause, and the Bill having been launched in that way on the public, the question was whether it was a wise and prudent thing to propose to change the limit and substitute £50? If that were a practical question, he owned he should look at it differently; but he regarded it simply as a theoretical one. Everybody acquainted with Ireland would bear him out in saying that the idea of ejecting, a tenant in that country at upwards of £50 as long as he paid his rent never entered the mind of any Irish landlord. Therefore, to provide for consequences that were to happen on the hypothesis that a tenant paying £50 rent was evicted capriciously—was pro- viding for an event that never had occurred and never would occur. On the other hand, the practical question was this—What would be the consequence of reducing the limit from £100 to £50? He entirely agreed with the noble Earl on the Cross Bench (Earl Grey), that it would simply be giving a slap in the face to the best class of Irish tenants. Among the best class of tenants that an Irish landlord could have on his estate were those between £50 and £100: their moral support was what a good landlord ought most to desire; and it would be most unwise, for a pure matter of theory, to make a change in the clause which would alienate the sympathy and good-will of that class of tenants. He should, therefore, support the restitution of the original £100 limit.

On Question, That the word ("fifty") stand part of the Bill?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 48; Not-Contents 130: Majority 82.

CONTENTS.
Cleveland, D. [Teller.] Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)
Rutland, D.
Clonbrock, L.
Exeter, M. Colchester, L.
Salisbury, M. [Teller.] Congleton, L.
Denman, L.
Annesley, E. De Ros, L.
Bandon, E. Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.
Bantry, E.
Beauchamp, E. Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)
Dartrey, E.
Ferrers, E. Grantley, L.
Feversham, E. Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)
Howe, E.
Lanesborough, E. Inchiquin, L.
Lucan, E. Kilmaine, L.
Stradbroke, E. Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)
Tankerville, E.
Oranmore and Browne, L.
Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)
Ormathwaite, L.
De Vesci, V. Redesdale, L.
Doneraile, V. Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Exmouth, V.
Gough, V. Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)
Hardinge, V.
Hawarden, V. Sondes, L.
Templetown, V. Stratheden, L.
Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)
Churston, L.
Clarina, L. Talbot de Malahide, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.) Norfolk, D.
Richmond, D.
Saint Albans, D. [Teller.]
Beaufort, D. Somerset, D.
Devonshire, D.
Manchester, D. Ailesbury, M.
Marlborough, D. Camden, M.
Lansdowne, M. Camoys, L.
Normanby, M. Carew, L.
Westminster, M. Carrington, L.
Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)
Abingdon, E.
Airlie, E. Castletown, L.
Bathurst, E. Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)
Camperdown, E. Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)
Chichester, E.
Cottenham, E. Clermont, L.
Cowper, E. Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
De Grey and Ripon, E. Clinton, L.
De La Warr, E. De Tabley, L.
Ducie, E. Ebury, L.
Ellesmere, E. Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)
Essex, E. Fitzwalter, L.
Fitzwilliam, E. Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
Fortescue, E. Gardner, L.
Graham, E. (D. Montrose.) Granard, L. (E. Granard.)
Granville, E. Greville, L.
Grey, E. Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)
Hardwicke, E. Headley, L.
Harrowby, E. Heytesbury, L.
Ilchester, E. Howard of Glossop, L.
Jersey, E. Hylton, L.
Kellie, E. Keane, L.
Kimberley, E. Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
Lauderdale, E
Lichfield, E. Kesteven, L.
Morley, E. Kildare, L. (M. Kildare.)
Nelson, E. Lawrence, L.
Portsmouth, E. Leigh, L.
Romney, E. Lurgan, L.
Rosse, E. Lyttelton, L.
Russell, E. Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Shaftesbury, E. Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)
Sommers, E.
Spencer, E. Methuen, L.
Stanhope, E. Monson, L.
Verulam, E. Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Yarborough, E.
Mostyn, L.
Eversley, V. Northbrook, L.
Halifax, V. O'Hagan, L.
Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.) Overstone, L.
Penzance, L.
Powerscourt, V. Poltimore, L.
Stratford de Redcliffe, V. Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]
Sydney, V.
Torrington, V. Robartes, L.
Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)
Bath and Wells, Bp. Saye and Sele, L.
Down, &c., Bp. Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)
Gloucester and Bristol, Bp. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Lichfield, Bp.
Oxford, Bp. Sudeley, L.
Salisbury, Bp. Suffield, L.
Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Auckland, L.
Belper, L. Truro, L.
Bolton, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) Vernon, L.
Wentworth, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Wharncliffe, L.
Cairns, L. Wolverton, L.
Calthorpe, L. Wrottesley, L.
LORD REDESDALE

then rose to move an Amendment, the effect of which would be to limit the operation of the clause to 20 years. He could not conceive any valid objection to what he was about to propose. The whole argument in favour of the clause had been that it was exceptional legislation; and to make that which was exceptional permanent, seemed contrary to reason in every way whatever. The noble Earl on the Cross Bench (Earl Grey) in speaking of this clause said that he thought it not only unsound in principle, but dangerous. It would certainly be both unsound and dangerous to make the clause permanent. It would be unsound to make that which was exceptional permanent—then what objection could there be to make it temporary? Further, it was dangerous, because, if in granting a boon they made it permanent, and afterwards sought to modify it, the consequence would be that they would excite discontent. But if they made it temporary, and afterwards introduced legislation to extend it, they would give no offence; on the contrary, the extension, if thought desirable, would be received with favour. Upon every principle on which the Bill was founded, it appeared to him that the clause should be limited to 20 years.

Amendment moved, in page 4, line 14; after ("and,") to insert ("this section shall").—(The Lord Redesdale.)

EARL SPENCER

said, that he was, perhaps, more than anyone else, interested in the peace and prosperity of Ireland, and he was therefore anxious to say a few words—and they should be brief—upon this clause. He could not help feeling that the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord would be attended with a very detrimental effect in Ireland. No one connected with the Government of that country, or who had watched what had occurred there of late years, could have failed to observe that the relations between landlord and tenant in that country had been the source of very great evils, and had produced great discontent, and it was necessary for the peace and prosperity of the country that some settlement on a broad and firm basis should be arrived at. Now, he need not point out to their Lordships that—not on the part of one Government or another, but on both sides the House, the resolution prevailed that this uncertainty should be put an end to and the affairs of Ireland finally settled. This might be taken as the fixed reason and the deliberate resolution of Parliament. But if the Amendment of the noble Lord were adopted, would not there be agitation again in the country when the period fixed for the operation of this clause was drawing near its end? Would there not be an uncertainty again prevailing in the country, which would be highly detrimental to the cause of peace? He thought it was all-important to the peace, the prosperity, and the safety of Ireland that the question should be finally settled. What had been the state of Ireland within the last two years? The unsettled state of the relations between landlord and tenant had led, in parts of the country where secret societies were at work, to agrarian outrages, which had grown up to a serious extent; and the same feeling had spread to other districts where those crimes were before unknown, but where landlord and tenant now watched each other's movements with the utmost jealousy. He believed that this clause was of the highest importance to the peace of Ireland. In former clauses the Government had dealt with the Ulster custom, and with those parts of the country where customs analogous to those of Ulster prevailed. But what were they to do with the rest of the country where no such customs existed? That question had, he believed, been satisfactorily dealt with in this clause—a clause which, in his opinion, was thoroughly in accordance with the customs acknowledged by the best landlords, and in accordance with the wishes and habits of the people. The clause could have no injurious effect upon good landlords in Ireland. It was directed solely against bad landlords, and would operate only against those whose conduct gave rise to disaffection and discontent in the country, and who by one or two acts of tyranny excited ill-feeling in whole districts. Nothing could be more clear upon the point than the evidence of Colonel Miller, Deputy Inspector General of Irish Constabulary, given before the Devon Commission— The fact of an outrage occurring in a district inflames the smouldering animosities which had previously become nearly extinct, and stimulates to the commission of other crimes, while its effect is also to suspend the progress of conciliatory arrangements for the adjustment of pending differences. If he thought that the effect of this clause would be to weaken the influence of the landlords among their tenantry, to create ill-feeling between them, or to throw any difficulty in the way of making improvements, or if it tended to promote absenteeism, he would hesitate before he asked their Lordships to approve it; but it was because he believed that it would have a contrary effect—that by it the link between landlord and tenant would be strengthened, that good-will between all classes would be improved, and that it would tend to increase the value of property by removing the root of popular discontent, that he ventured to ask their Lordships to support the clause as proposed by Her Majesty's Government.

LORD BOSTON

wished to say one word. If the Legislature were to decree that an English or Welsh landlord was to be subject to the interference to which an Irish landlord was to be subjected—if it was to be enacted that no landlord should be allowed to interfere with the settlement of his own estates without leave of his tenant—he might be imprudent, but he must say that they would think such legislation something very like confiscation.

LORD REDESDALE

said, he was surprised that his proposal had met with no support; but that being the case he would not put their Lordships to the trouble of a Division.

Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

Clause amended, and agreed to.

Clause 5 (Presumption in respect of improvements).

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he had endeavoured to meet the views that had been expressed when the Bill was in Committee. He did not propose to reverse their Lordships' decision, but to make an alteration in it. The clause, as it originally stood, was, that in all claims for improvements the presumption of having made them should be in favour of the tenant. Their Lordships thought there should be no presumption either way. He now proposed that improvements in a holding shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been made by the tenant or his predecessors in title, except in certain cases where compensation is claimed in respect of improvements made before the passing of the Bill. Those cases were—(1.) Where such improvements have been made previous to the time at which the holding, in reference to which the claim is made, was conveyed in actual gale to the landlord, or those through whom he derives his title. (2.) Where the tenant making the claim was tenant under a lease of the holding in reference to which the claim is made. (3.) Where the improvements were made 20 years or upwards before the passing of this Act. (4.) Where the holding upon which the improvements were made is valued under the Acts relating to the valuation of rateable property in Ireland, at an annual value of more than £100. (5.) Where the Court shall be of opinion that, in consequence of its being proved to have been the practice on the holding, or the estate of which such holding forms part, of the landlord to make the improvements, such presumption ought not to be made. Then, in order to meet the argument that landlords might have difficulty in proving what particular improvements they had made, although it was the practice on the estate to make them, he proposed to except those cases—(6.) Where from the entire circumstances of the case the Court is reasonably satisfied that such improvements were not made by the tenant or his predecessors in title, provided always that, where it is proved to have been the practice on the holding or the estate of which it forms part, for the landlord to assist in making such improvements, such presumption shall be modified accordingly. He trusted that their Lordships would feel that this was a liberal concession, and that they would agree to the Amendment. The noble Earl then moved his Amendment in these terms.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

wished to remind their Lordships that they had taken a great deal of trouble to establish a simple and clear clause in the Bill; and now they were called upon to take a great deal more trouble for the sake of a weak, washy, and wordy Amendment. It ought to be remembered that in many cases the tenant held his land at a moderate rent on the ground of his executing these improvements, and they had no claim, therefore, for compensation. He trusted that their Lordships would support the excellent clause which had been passed in Committee.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

was sorry to differ from his noble Friend on this occasion, but he thought the Amendment proposed by the Government should be supported. He objected to the clause as it originally stood in the Bill on the ground that on many occasions it would put landlords in a position of difficulty, and the arguments of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, failed to convince him that the books could be produced as evidence in Court. He supported the Amendment of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) because it left the law as it was. His objections, he must say, had in some degree been met by the Amendment which had just been moved by the noble Earl. It sufficiently guarded the rights of the tenants, while the landlord would not be put to the necessity of proving that he effected every special improvement if he could prove that by the custom of his estate all improvements were made by himself. Of course he objected in the abstract to the clause, because the principle of law was, that whatever was put into the land or upon the estate belonged to the landlord; but this Amendment certainly did protect the landlord from the injustice to which he would have been subject under the Bill as it originally stood, for in all such cases as the noble Earl referred to the onus probandi would fall upon the tenant. Under these circumstances he would agree to the Amendment.

THE EARL OF CLANCARTY

said, the noble Earl (Earl Granville) did not seem to contemplate the case of a tenant who, by his industry, had raised the value of his estate to more than £100. It would be very hard if such a tenant could not obtain compensation.

LORD CAIRNS

said, that the Amendment of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) undoubtedly left the law as it stood at present; but even that was preferable to the original proposition of the Government, which, as regards the past, would do an injustice of the most serious kind. If a change were made in the present law of presumption it was desirable that it should assume the least objectionable form as regards the past, and it was for this reason he desired that an opportunity should be given to tenants and landlords to put on record at once, while the necessary witnesses were living, by whom such and such improvements were made. With regard to the Amendment of the noble Earl, while he could not admire the policy which dictated it, he was bound to admit that it avoided the injustice to which he referred.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

said, he was willing to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7 (Compensation in respect of payment to incoming tenant).

THE EARL OF PORTARLINGTON moved the omission, line 33, of the words, "or implied," on the ground that all agreements should be expressed.

LORD DUNSANY

was anxious to impress upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity that existed for rendering all contracts between the landlords and tenants certain. He should support the Amendment of the noble Earl.

After short conversation, Amendment negatived.

Clause 9 (Limitation as to disturbance in holding).

LORD CAIRNS moved to leave out from ("condition") to ("shall") in line 34 and insert ("against assignment, sub-letting, bankruptcy, or insolvency") and to leave out the words ("which shall appear to the Judge before whom the ejectment is tried to be in a reasonable condition.") The object of this Amendment was that the breaches mentioned in it should justify the landlord in ejecting his tenant, without being compelled to give him compensation for disturbance.

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment made, line 3, after ("voluntarily") insert— ("Provided, that in the case of a person claiming compensation on the determination by ejectment for nonpayment of rent of a tenancy existing at the time of the passing of this Act, and continuing to exist without alteration of rent up to the time of such determination, the Court may if it think fit treat such ejectment as a disturbance if the arrear of rent in respect of which it is brought did not wholly accrue within the three previous years").—(The Lord Cairns.)

THE EARL OF CLANCARTY moved to insert, at end of clause— Provided further, that where it shall be shown to the satisfaction of the Judge that the eviction of a tenant from his holding is on account of his exhibiting to the neighbourhood an example of habitual drunkenness, vice, or immorality, or for having, after the passing of this Act, been convicted of felony or misdemeanour, such eviction shall not be deemed a disturbance within the meaning thereof. His object, he said, was to reserve to the landlord some kind of moral restraint over the tenant.

EARL GRANVILLE

opposed the Amendment.

After short conversation, Amendment negatived.

Clause 10 (Exception in case of lands required for labourers cottages).

THE EARL OF PORTARLINGTON moved to insert in page 9, line 9, after "tenant," the words "of so much land as may be required for roads or belts of planting for the improvement of the estate and."

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. It was hardly desirable to go beyond the provisions contained in the clause as it stood. The making of roads might have a very serious effect on the tenant's holding, by causing a severance of one part of the holding from another.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made.

EARL GRANVILLE moved to insert new clauses to follow Clause 12— (Restriction as to compensation in certain cases of assignment). Where the holding in respect of which compensation is claimed under Section 3 of this Act is held under a tenancy from year to year existing at the time of the passing of this Act, and such tenancy is assigned without the consent of the landlord, and the landlord does not accept the assignee as his tenant, no compensation shall be payable by the landlord under the said section in any of the cases following:— 1. Where the rent of such holding is in arrear at the time of such assignment so as to render the tenant liable to eviction for non-payment of rent, and such arrear is due by the tenant: 2. Where such holding forms part of an estate upon which the assignment of holdings without the consent or approval of the landlord is contrary to or not warranted by the practice prevalent upon such estate: 3, Where the Court shall be of opinion that the refusal of the landlord to accept such assignee as tenant is a reasonable refusal: Provided always that the transmission of a tenancy by bequest to the husband or wife, or to any one child or grandchild, or to any one brother or sister, or to any one child or grandchild of a brother or sister of the tenant, or the devolution of a tenancy by operation of law upon an intestacy or marriage, shall not be deemed an assignment within the meaning of this section. (Exemption from compensation in certain cases.) No compensation shall be payable under this section by the landlord in respect of any holding held under a tenancy from year to year existing at the time of the passing of this Act where it is proved to the Court that the tenant is disturbed by the landlord by reason of the tenant's unreasonable and continuing refusal to allow the landlord to enter upon the holding for any of the purposes following—that is to say, mining or taking minerals; quarrying or taking stone, marble, or slate; cutting or taking timber or turf; opening or making roads; viewing or examining the state of the holding, and all buildings or improvements thereon; hunting, shooting, or fishing or taking game or fish; Provided always, that the landlord shall have offered to pay to the tenant reasonable compensation for any injury done by or consequent upon such entry.

THE DUKE OF MANCHESTER

thought some words might, without injustice, be introduced giving the landlord some power of approving or disapproving the assignee of a tenancy under a will.

After some conversation, Clauses amended, agreed, to, and added to the Bill.

Clause 19 (Restriction on eviction of tenant).

THE EARL OF LIMERICK

said, that this clause provided that a tenant should not be obliged to quit his holding until he had received the compensation due to him. An objection was taken to it that the immediate landlord might not be in a position to give compensation. Of course, in the case of improvements, it would not be a hardship that the landlord should compensate the tenant; but there might be a case in which a middleman might allow an under tenant to come in on receiving some money; and that middleman being unable to pay the man in possession the amount of compensation awarded under the scale, the sub-tenant apparently would not be obliged to give up the land under the section until he had received compensation. He should be glad to know what the Government proposed to do with regard to this point.

LORD CAIRNS

thought that this was a point that required some attention on the part of Her Majesty's Government.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that the matter had been considered, and they had come to the conclusion that the subtenant who had a right to compensation from the middleman, should be entitled to hold possession of his land in case his claim remained unsatisfied only for the term to which the middleman was himself entitled. By this means the interests of the superior lord would not be pre- judiced. He would undertake to bring up a clause to that effect on the third reading.

Clause 22 (Appeal from Civil Bill Courts).

LORD O'HAGAN moved the insertion of words giving the Judge before whom any question arose on which there was an appeal to the Civil Bill Court power to require, if he thought fit, that the appeal should be heard and determined by both the Judges. By this means, both Judges at Assize could be called upon to act where points of law of an intricate character arose; and where the question was only of a trifling nature, no obstruction would be offered to the public business by its engaging the time and attention of both the Judges.

Amendment agreed to.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved, to add to Clause 42, the words— The Board shall supply conveyances to purchasers under this clause at the lowest rate of costs consistent with the rules of the Landed Estates Court.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

admitted the desirability of costs being kept as low as possible; but added that rules would be framed by the Privy Council in Ireland, and they would, no doubt, take care to provide for this.

Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF PORTARLINGTON moved, after Clause 67, to insert the following:— In every holding let from year to year the following reservations shall be supposed to be made to the landlord: All royalties, mines, minerals, and quarries of stone, gravel, and sand, with power to search for and work them, paying for such damages as may be done, reasonable damages; all timber and underwood above and below ground, and the right to enter, cut, and carry it away; the exclusive right of, where not otherwise reserved, turbary; also the exclusive right to all game, and of hawking, hunting, shooting, and fishing for himself and all authorized by him.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 68 (Special definitions).

LORD CAIRNS

called the attention of the Government to this most important, but very dangerous clause, which was of such an explosive character that he feared it would blow the Bill to pieces. It was an Interpretation Clause of a perfectly novel character, and he thought it should be re-constructed. The word "landlord" was interpreted to mean— Any superior mesne, or immediate landlord, or any person for the time being entitled to receive the rents and profits, or to take possession of a holding; in other words, a middleman; so that the tenant would be at liberty to choose which of the three was best able to pay, and make him the mark for compensation. The "tenant" was described as a "tenant from year to year, or a tenant for a life or lives," so that wherever the word "tenant" occurred in the Bill, the words for "a life or Lives" would be added, and a tenant for life renewable for ever would come under the provisions of the Bill, and could claim compensation. Besides this, the word "tenant" was to include "the real and personal representatives of any tenant;" so that the heir-at-law, who might have nothing to do with the holding, would be able to claim the compensation.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, the working of the clause had struck him as rather peculiar, and promised that the clause should be examined and amended on the third reading.

LORD DUNSANY moved, that the term "letting in con-acre," Clause 68, line 30, shall mean letting a holding, or any portion thereof, for any purpose except to grow potatoes on land which has been above two years in tillage.

Amendment negatived.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE moved, at end of the Interpretation Clause, to add— Implied covenants shall be taken to include the duty on the part of the tenant not to deteriorate his holding by an unusual or impoverishing course of cropping, or by wilful or permissive waste of any sort, or by neglecting to keep in tenantable repair any building for which he shall not be entitled to compensation, or ploughing up any land that shall have been let, by the landlord, in grass.

EARL GRANVILLE

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

said, that if his Amendment were not agreed to, a proposition to a somewhat similar effect would be brought up on the third reading.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that the whole matter had better be left in the hands of the Judge.

Amendment negatived.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

inquired when it was proposed to take the third reading of the Bill.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he proposed to fix the third reading for Thursday next, because it was esteemed of great importance that the other House of Parliament should take the Amendments introduced into the Bill by their Lordships into consideration on Monday next.

EARL GREY

complained of the short time which would be given to the House to consider the very important alteration which had been introduced into the Bill by their Lordships.

LORD CAIRNS

suggested that if the Bill were put down as the first Order of the Day on Friday it might be sent down the same night to the other House, who might appoint the following Monday for the consideration of the Lords' Amendments.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he would agree to the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, and would fix the third reading for Friday next.

Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a on Friday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 184.)

PROTEST thereon.