Lords Sitting of 8 July 1870

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Wages Arrestment Limitation (Scotland) * (192).
Second Reading—Evidence Further Amendment Act (1869) Amendment * (75).
Select Committee—Report—Tramways * [No. 193].
Committee—Report—Salmon Acts Amendment * (147).
Report—Tramways * (107–194).
Third Reading—Benefices Resignation (178), debate adjourned; Irish Land (184); Wages Attachment Abolition * (141); Protection of Inventions * (142), and passed.

BENEFICES RESIGNATION BILL.
(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
BENEFICES RESIGNATION BILL.

  (NO. 178.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER, in moving that the Bill be now read the third time said, that he proposed to insert a new clause, drawn up by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, with regard to lunatic clergymen. The Bill would place parochial clergymen in much the same position as that of Bishops tinder the Act of last Session, and he received letters from them every day expressing great anxiety that it should pass.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he believed the operation of the Bill would be beneficial to the Church; but pointed out that it differed in one respect from the Bishops' Resignation Act, the latter being a temporary, while this was a permanent measure. Some other details seemed objectionable, and he trusted the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would give his attention to remedy some legal defects.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM, while admitting the desirability of making some provision for worn-out clergymen, who wished to be relieved from their duties, thought some minimum of service should be laid down as a condition of a retiring pension. It should be considered, moreover, whether an incumbent could properly discharge his duties and meet all claims upon him if his income was reduced by several hundreds a year by the pension of his predecessor. There was nothing, indeed, in the Bill to prevent two retiring pensions from being in operation in a single parish at the same time. The Bill would, not be applicable to small livings unless there was some scheme of augmentation. The composition of the Commission by which the pensions were to be awarded also required consideration, for under the Bill as it stood the voice of the parishioners would not be heard except through the Commissioner nominated by the patron, which would in many cases be insufficient. He thought further time should be allowed for the consideration of the measure.
  EARL GRANVILLErose to remind their Lordships of his appeal to them on the previous evening to waive their rights to bring on the other business on the Paper, in order that the Land Bill might be considered on the Motion for its third reading, with the view, if possible, of sending it down that night to the House of Commons. As this Bill appeared likely to give rise to some discussion, he suggested that his right rev. Friend should consent to postpone the further debate.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERacquiesced in this suggestion.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDregretted that his attention had not been called to the Bill at an earlier stage, as on examination he found that the majority of

  1695
  the clauses required such amendment that they would scarcely he recognizable. The Bill ought not to pass without careful consideration.
  Further debate adjourned to Tuesday next.

IRISH LAND BILL—(No. 184).
(The Earl Granville.)
IRISH LAND BILL—(No. 184).

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl Granville.)
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTY: My Lords, I am quite sure that those noble Lords who have given an unswerving support to this Bill in all its details have done so in the belief that, although it involves a serious invasion of the rights of property, it is a measure imperatively called for by the circumstances of Ireland, and that its introduction was justified upon the principle laid down by the Lord Privy Seal on the second reading—
  "That when you find chronic disaffection in Ireland, you are to shrink from no sacrifices till you have removed the cause of it."
  Your Lordships were then reminded by the noble Earl how, last year, the Protestant Church in Ireland was the sacrifice made for the removal of disaffection; and as that failed in its object, and the country only became so much more disaffected as to render it necessary to pass a new Coercion Bill, in order to maintain the semblance of authority in the Government, you are now called upon to take another leap in the dark, and are told by the same noble Earl that, by violating the rights of property as in this Bill, you will be laying the axe to the root of Irish disaffection. The landlords were thus charged with the responsibility of the disaffected state of the country, and it is assumed that the tenantry of Ireland are the disaffected portion of the population. I care not to notice the unwarrantable reflection upon the Irish landlords; but I altogether deny the truth of the aspersion cast upon the character of the tenantry of Ireland; and I affirm that, as a body, the tenantry of Ireland are as loyal and well-disposed as any class of the population of the whole United Kingdom. They will, no doubt, be grateful to Her Majesty's present Government for the unexpected transfer made to them of rights of property they did not before
  1696
  possess; and their political support may reasonably be counted upon at the next General Election. It would, of course, be unjust to suppose that the framers of this Bill had any such object in view; but no wiser step could have been taken to secure it. But, my Lords, there are other consequences of a very serious character that may arise from this measure, to which I would beg to direct attention. Assuming that Her Majesty's Government are really desirous to deal with the evils of Ireland, their sagacity has undoubtedly failed of reaching the cause of them; but one thing their policy will unquestionably establish in the minds of the people of Ireland, and that is, that disaffection, provided it manifests itself in acts of assassination and outrage spreading terror over the land, is sure to obtain its reward. But what reward? Not the effective vindication of the law, but the concession of new sacrifices of the constitution, so long as anything remains to be given up. What thanks had you for violating the fundamental condition of the Union of England and Ireland, by the overthrow of the Protestant Church? It gratified no class of the Roman Catholic laity in Ireland, high or low—even the Fenians did not care for it. The hierarchy of Rome alone rejoiced at it. And well they might; it was the humiliation of a Protestant people, the triumph of the Papacy, at the exhibition of Protestant England trampling upon her own Protestant institutions. And do you think that Parliament will acquire the respect or confidence of those Irish tenants upon whom you are about to confer rights of property unjustly taken from the landlords, with whom they have been living upon terms of mutual goodwill? Will it not rather seem to them, that when you have said so much about the duty of protecting the small tenants of Ireland against capricious evictions—a duty which I fully admit—you are yourselves capriciously, as well as unjustly, evicting landlords out of their legal rights by the utterly unnecessary extent to which interference with those rights has been carried in this Bill? The small tenants may require protection, but the wealthy farmer of many acres can very well take care of himself. And will not the tenantry of Ireland be impressed with some feeling of insecurity regarding those newly-acquired rights, that they may at any time be as capriciously interfered with by

  1697
  Parliament as they have been capriciously conferred? My Lords, I do not deny that there are, and too long have been, evils in Ireland that required to be dealt with, but they are not to be removed by a policy such as it has been the wont of the British Government to pursue. The evils of Ireland are not to be attributed either to the constitution of society or to the character of the Irish people. I will not trouble your Lordships by discussing a subject so large as the evils of Ireland, and the manner in which they should be dealt with; but this I will say—that whatever those evils are they have been greatly aggravated not only by misgovernment, but by Ireland being constantly made the battlefield for every political conflict between the two great parties that contend for the mastery in the government of the Empire. There is, too, in Ireland a wily hierarchy, whose influence has unhappily been long predominant in the councils of the Government, ever on the watch to advance the special interests of their Church by the overthrow of whatever is Protestant in the land. Through their influence the sacrifice was last year made of the Protestant Establishment. This year the Land Bill is, under the same influence, directed to the getting rid of the Protestant landlords. But, my Lords, to return to the consideration of the immediate consequences of the passing of this Bill, are you sure that in this your endeavour to allay discontent in Ireland you may not awaken a much more formidable cry of discontent among the tenantry in this country? Landlords in Ireland are not different from landlords in England, except that they have a more difficult state of things to deal with; and if tenants in Ireland can see their own interest in the provisions of this measure, the English tenant will not be slow to recognize his right to be placed upon an equally favourable footing. The Parliamentary title which this Bill will confer upon every tenant in Ireland to from one year to seven years' purchase of the rent of his holding as the price of his removal, will not be a less valuable acquisition to the English than to the Irish tenant, and the demand for it cannot be refused. I would wish to say something about the provisions of the Bill; but as they are no longer open to amendment, I will not trouble your Lordships by doing so. I will only observe that the
  1698
  principle that pervades the Bill is one that is little calculated to improve the relation of landlord and tenant. Where they draw well together, the arbitrary taking of the property of one to give it to the other is not likely to cement that union, and where they are not on good terms the breach between them can only be widened by such interference; and the same maybe said with regard to the whole class of tenants in relation to the landlord class. I do not know of any more ingenious device than that proposed in the Bill for setting class against class and individual against individual. Nor is the litigation to which both are invited before the barrister's Court, and which the Bill is certain to produce, likely to make the case any better. So much, my Lords, for the measure as one for allaying animosities in Ireland. Then, with reference to the improvement of the land, and the development of its resources, objects about which the Government of the country ought not to have been indifferent, I need only refer you to the clear and honest exposition by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy, of the true character of the Ulster tenant-right, which you seek to legalize over the whole country, to show how adverse such a step is to the interests of agriculture. You attribute the prosperity of Ulster to the custom of tenant-right. He demonstrated most conclusively the evils of that system: that the prosperity of the North was quite independent of it; and that but for the sale of tenant-right, which deprives every new tenant of his capital by its being expended in the purchase of his tenancy, agriculture would prosper in the North quite as much as in the best cultivated districts of Scotland. I regret that I can see nothing promising of good to my country in this Bill. It is fraught, I fear, with great evil, and conceived in no friendly spirit to Irish interests; but, as it has been accepted by both Houses of Parliament, and must shortly become law, I can only acquiesce in what Parliament decrees. But as henceforth the law of the land, I shall not fail to use my best endeavour to render it, if possible, productive of good to my country.
  THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid, he believed that the thanks of all parties in Ireland were due to the Government for bringing in this Bill. As the Bill was laid upon their Lordships' Table it would have conferred a great boon upon the

  1699
  tenantry by legalizing principles on which the best Irish landlords had always acted; and, notwithstanding the alterations that had been made during its passage through that House, it would still be of great advantage. This would be evident if the future position of the Irish tenants were contrasted with that which had hitherto existed. At present the tenants under the Ulster custom were liable to have their position undermined or impaired; but it would now be put on a legal basis, so that upwards of 200,000 tenants would have the assurance that they and their descendants would continue to enjoy their farms under their time-honoured custom without the slightest fear of its invasion. Tenants, moreover, not under this custom had hitherto been liable to eviction without compensation—though, no doubt, such an extreme exercise of the rights of property was seldom resorted to. Now, however, they would be protected from capricious eviction, while they would enjoy facilities of purchasing their farms if their landlords were disposed to sell them. His acquaintance with several counties convinced him that the good faith and earnestness with which the English Government and Parliament had devoted two Sessions to the redress of Irish grievances, would exercise a most salutary influence on every class of the population, and would do much to remove the notion that the Imperial Parliament was incapable of redressing their wrongs. The Bill as it came up to their Lordships' House would, he believed, have been accepted by the Irish people as a satisfactory adjustment of the relations of landlord and tenant; and though he regretted certain alterations which had since been made in it, he thought it would, nevertheless, go far towards a permanent settlement of the question, and would conduce to a state of peace and prosperity hitherto unknown in the annals of Ireland.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, his opinion that the Bill would be an unmixed injury to Ireland remained altered. By the legislation to which a finishing stroke was to be put this evening, Parliament would declare that, the Executive being weaker than the criminal, it was necessary to bribe him, and that as the State would not pay the bribe it levied it on the victims of its impotency. Those victims had, for many
  1700
  generations, paid taxes to the State as an insurance on life and property, and now, when they claimed payment of the policy, Government refused to fulfil their part of the contract. He asked why this was less fraudulent on the part of the Government of the country than it would be in an insurance office? Her Majesty's Government had alleged that the Irish land laws had produced crime, but it had not attempted to substantiate the assertion; and though cruel evictions were assumed, none were proven. The evidence, indeed, of the Devon Commission and the testimony of Judge Long-field both showed that they had not occurred. The Government themselves had declared that the great majority of Irish landlords were liberal and just in their dealings, but that some were harsh and unjust; they, therefore, asked Parliament to deprive the good and the bad alike of all power and influence. Thus, to remedy a small evil, Parliament inflicted a great injustice, destroying the bonds of social union, and breaking the link between this country and the people of Ireland. It was acknowledged that the land of Ireland was the lowest let in Europe, yet landlords were stigmatized as such knaves, and tenants as such idiots, that freedom of contract between them was forbidden. Bound hand and foot, they were handed over to the tender mercies of the law. Present tenants were insured in their holdings in such a way as to impose a rack rent on all future tenants—thus offending as many as were pleased. Last year, fearing the displeasure of the Nonconformists in England, and the Ultramontane hierarchy in Ireland, the Government dared not offer on fair terms a fair share of Irish Church property to the Roman Catholic priests and people of Ireland. To repair this want of courage and statesmanship their party necessities obliged them now to perpetuate 500,000 holdings under £15 a year, though the holdings of this size were condemned even by the extreme tenant-right advocates who gave their evidence before Mr. Maguire's Committee; while the protection against subdivision was so slight that another generation would inevitably see a recurrence of the famine of 1846. The Legislature by the establishment of the Poor Law had protected the poor of Ireland from the possibility of suffering from want, while steam had opened the

  1701
  labour-market of England, at the cost of a few shillings, to every Irish peasant; and at the cost of a few pounds, afforded him a quick and easy passage to that land of promise, flowing with milk and honey, which a beneficent Providence had provided for the surplus population of old countries. The Premier, however, regarded as banishment to an Irishman what was a blessing to the Englishman, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had discovered that the evicted tenant in Ireland had no choice but between the village graveyard and an American swamp. Were such misstatements, uttered by the most responsible Members of Her Majesty's Government, calculated to assuage angry passions? Did they not rather palliate, if they did not justify, crime? Mr. Cobden characterized the policy of the Imperial Legislature towards Ireland as
  "A policy savouring more of the mean and sordid tyranny of the individual huckster over his poorer rival, than of any nobler oppression that is wont to characterize the acts of victorious nations."
  The Government, accepting Mr. Cobden's definition of the nature of Imperial legislation towards Ireland in this Bill, as well as in that of last Session, offered not only redress but compensation; but, strange to say, the compensation was in neither case to be paid by those who inflicted the wrong, but by taking from one class of Irishmen to give to another. An old proverb told men not to look a gift horse in the mouth, and another told us that there was nothing which people were so liberal of as advice and other people's money; but, if the Government expected much gratitude from Irishmen for this kind of liberality, he feared they would be disappointed. Fearing the advance of democracy, Parliament had legislated on principles more unjust and dishonest than any democratic Legislature ever accepted. The Legislature of Great Britain, formerly the object of the admiration and imitation of every Legislature in the world, by accepting as a basis of legislation principles partly Communistic and partly Socialistic, such as were carried out in this Bill, had set an example of wrong the evil effects of which he defied the most farseeing statesman to fathom.
  On Question? agreed to: Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments.
  LORD REDESDALEcalled attention to the fact that the Government had placed no Amendment on the Paper with respect to the tenant's option, under Clause 3, of claiming compensation under a lower valuation than the actual valuation of his holding.
  EARL GRANVILLEexplained that the House having in Committee made two Amendments in the clause, first by modifying the scale of compensation; and, secondly, by omitting words which gave the tenant the option of claiming compensation under a lower scale, his noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) proposed on the Report an Amendment which the Government believed to be perfectly sound and unobjectionable. It was, however, objected to; and the Government, on reconsidering the point, had found themselves unable to suggest anything more satisfactory. As the alteration of the clause in other particulars would necessarily lead to the attention of the House of Commons being directed to it, he reserved to the Government the liberty of reconsidering this particular point as to the best way of meeting the difficulty.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he had no right to question the Government as to what they intended to do in the other House; but he thought they were not acting quite fairly with their Lordships with respect to this particular Amendment. In the Bill, as originally presented to their Lordships, there was a Proviso allowing a tenant to drop from a higher to a lower scale of compensation. The Government admitted in Committee that this in its actual form was untenable—the terms employed being quite inapplicable to the general scheme of the Bill. It was, therefore, struck out almost without discussion; and, on the Report, the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) proposed to insert a sentence which was to effect the object in view. Several noble Friends of his objected to its adoption, on account of the short time they had had to consider it, and of the complexity of the arrangement proposed. They therefore asked for further time to consider it; and he understood that the Government intended, on the third reading, to propose the same, or an amended sentence. It was hardly fair to send the Bill back to the other House without their Lordships having had any opportunity of really discussing any

  1703
  proposition of the Government on the point.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that from the discussion on the Report, it seemed unlikely that their Lordships would accept the Amendment; but the Government believed it would meet the difficulty of the case, and his noble Friend was still quite prepared to propose it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYreminded their Lordships that the original Proviso was not only untenable, but it held out expectations which would not be realized, and used language which had no meaning. He had understood that the Government would reconsider the matter with regard to the principle of the clause—namely, that of avoiding two violent jumps in the scale of compensation. He did not much care whether the Amendment was made now or on a future occasion; but if any provisions were to be introduced, he hoped they would be mere elaborate than the concise and complicated form in which they had as yet been presented. The proposal made on the Report would not tear discussion, for it contained an arithmetical blunder.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he would not admit that his proposition contained an arithmetical blunder, though it might have contained an arithmetical puzzle. Probably it was somewhat difficult to understand; but, though not personally responsible for its exact terms, it did not seem to him so impracticable as the noble Marquess had represented it to be. No distinct promise was given on the Report to revive the question; and, as his noble Friend had explained, it had not been thought necessary in the present state of the Bill to deal with it at this stage.
  THE DUKE OF MANCHESTERadvised the Government to fix the compensation in every case at so many pounds sterling, instead of at so many years' rent; and to devise a scale in which there would be no sudden jumps or retrogressions.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD THE EARL OF LONGFORD moved the omission from Clause 3 of the words "and reclamation of waste land." He urged that this should be dealt with as an ordinary and not as a special improvement, for otherwise unfounded claims would be set up, which there would be some difficulty in disproving; while the decisions of different Judges
  1704
  were likely to be very discordant. Exactly similar cases might be decided in diametrically opposite directions; but it was a question that required to be dealt with on some uniform principle.
  EARL GRANVILLEhoped the Amendment would not be pressed, or if it was, that their Lordships would not agree to it. The Bill had already been amended in important provisions; in many cases the Government had proposed modifications so as to meet the views of the noble Lords opposite, or else had conceded the point. It was hardly worth while at the last stage of the Bill to insist upon points which were really of infinitesimal value to the landlords and might tend greatly to the disadvantage of tenants, or at least would appear to bear harshly upon them.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMurged the necessity of defining in the Interpretation Clause what was, or what was not, waste land.
  THE EARL OF BANDONmentioned a case in which a 31 years' leaseholder from him transferred the lease with his consent to another after seven years' occupation; and he pointed out that this successor to the original leaseholder would, at the end of the remaining 24 years, be in a better position than the original tenant under the Bill as proposed by the Government. The Bill would give the succeeding tenant more power than he as a landlord had granted the original lessee.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the Government were of opinion that it would be unreasonable to make a succeeding tenant responsible to the landlord for his predecessor's debts in the case of an ordinary assignment with the consent of the landlord, because the landlord would have it in his power to obtain everything in the way of rent or damages from the original holder. He therefore moved in Clause 3, line 24, to insert after the word "title," the words "from whom he derives by operation of law," so that only those tenants who succeeded by will or as heirs-at-law would be liable for the debts of their predecessors.
  LORD CAIRNSthought the Government could not understand the importance of the Amendment, or they would not have proposed it. As the Bill came

  1705
  up from the other House it provided that when the tenant was compensated, either for loss of occupancy or for improvements, all sums due from the tenant were to be deducted from the amount to be paid to him; and he had understood that to mean all sums due from the tenant in a popular sense. In order, however, to prevent any dispute arising in relation to the point, he had proposed to amend the clause by inserting the words "or his predecessors" after the word "tenant." The noble and learned Lord now proposed to limit the operation of those words by restricting it to the predecessors of the tenant from whom he derived by operation of law, so that the landlord would only be entitled to deduct for breaches of covenant and arrears of rent from the individual tenant, and not for those who preceded him in his holding. The effect of this proposal would be to enable a tenant whose rent was largely in arrear, and who had committed breaches of covenant, to assign his land to an in-coming tenant, who would then be able to claim full compensation for disturbance; while the right of the landlord to recover for the arrears of rent and the breaches of covenant would be wholly defeated. In his opinion this was not a fair alteration of the clause, because it went far beyond the Ulster custom, which was now extended by the Bill as nearly as might be to the rest of Ireland. But by the custom of Ulster all sums due to the landlord for arrears or for breaches of covenant were paid him out of the premium paid by the incoming tenant, but by this proposed Amendment the deduction from the sum to be received by the out-going tenant would be greatly restricted. He trusted that the Government would not persevere with the Amendment.
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, that this was an Amendment upon an Amendment introduced by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns), and intended to restrict its operation within just and reasonable limits. The question was, whether the proposal now made would deprive the landlord of any just right which he at present had. By the present law the assignee of the tenant was not directly liable for arrears of rent or for breaches of covenant by the tenant or his predecessors, but means existed by which the landlord had power to recover all sums due to him. Thus, he
  1706
  might bring an action of ejectment, or might distrain for arrears of rent; and this right would not be touched by the present Bill. The clause as it now stood proposed to make him liable for breaches of covenant and arrears of rent of a former tenant of which he might know nothing, although they occurred 15 or 20 years back. It was not right that such arrears should be kept in this way hanging over the head of a tenant.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that both the noble and learned Lords opposite appeared to ignore the fact that this was a retrospective as well as a prospective clause, and it was its retrospective operation that the noble Lords sitting near him were anxious to restrict. Suppose the case of a tenant very much in arrear of rent, and who, finding he could not carry on his farm, assigned his holding to some one who was able to cultivate it. This happened in England with the full knowledge of the landlord, and he supposed the same thing occurred in Ireland. The landlord consented to the assignment, and, in doing so, took into consideration the large arrear of rent which had to be paid by the assignee. The landlord did not object, because considerable improvements had been effected on the land, and he could recover the arrears from the new tenant; so that, what induced the landlord, in the existing state of the law, to consent to an assignment in such a case was the knowledge that the arrears passed over as a burden on the assignee. But now the Government came in with a new clause, and said that all the improvements made by the old bankrupt tenant should be compensated for by the landlord if he should take possession from the assignee, while the latter was not to pay the landlord the arrears of rent due by the person who assigned the farm to him. This was a proposal to enact what had never before been enacted with respect to any kind of property—namely, that it might be assigned with all its retrospective advantages but without any of its retrospective burdens. He hoped his noble and learned Friend would divide against the proposed Amendment.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would I not trouble their Lordships to divide on the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  On Clause 5, which provides that, as a general principle (subject to certain exceptions), the improvements on a holding shall be presumed to have been made by the tenant,
  LORD DUNSANY LORD DUNSANY moved to add the following to the other exceptions:—
  "Where any holding shall hare been in the occupation of the landlord or his predecessor in title immediately before the tenancy under which the claim is made by the tenant."
  EARL GRANVILLEhoped their Lordships would not make any alteration in the clause, which had been very fully considered by their Lordships already.
  LORD CAIRNSsuggested to his noble Friend that his Amendment was unnecessary. The case supposed by his noble Friend was already provided for in the Bill.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK THE EARL OF LIMERICK moved in Clause 7, page 8, line 20, after "worth" to insert "before the time of the passing of this Act," and in line 21, after "landlord" to insert "or after the time of the passing of this Act, with the consent of the landlord in writing." His object was simply to enact, in regard to the future only and not to the past, that if a new tenant, with the permission of his landlord, paid anything for the goodwill of the holding, he should take the very slight trouble of getting the landlord's consent in writing. That Amendment would not, in the least degree, prejudice existing tenants, while it would tend to prevent uncertainty and litigation.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought it was most unnecessary to insist on the consent of the landlord being obtained in writing. How was a small tenant to get the written consent of a landlord who was, perhaps, in Paris all the year?
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKwas ready to add to his Amendment after "landlord" the words "or his authorized agent," to meet the case of an absentee landlord. He repeated that his Amendment had reference only to the future, and that it would promote the good management of estates.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORopposed the Amendment, which, as he understood it, would provide that after the passing of the Act, although an in-
  1708
  coming tenant should have paid a sum of money to the out-going tenant with the express or implied consent of his landlord, he should not be entitled to the benefit of it simply because the land-land's consent might not have been given in writing.
  After a short conversation, Amendment negatived.
  Clause 14 struck out, and new clause inserted in lieu thereof—
  "Where it is proved to the Court that the tenant of any holding held under a tenancy from year to year existing at the time of the passing of this Act is evicted by the landlord by reason of the persistent exercise by such tenant of any right not necessary to the due cultivation of his holding, and from which such tenant is debarred by express or implied agreement with his landlord, such eviction shall not be deemed a disturbance of the tenant by the act of the landlord; or where the tenant of any holding so held as last aforesaid at the time of the passing of this Act is evicted by the landlord by reason of the tenant's unreasonable refusal to allow the landlord, or any person or persons authorized by him in that behalf, he or they making reasonable amends and satisfaction for any injury to be done or occasioned thereby, 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, gravel, or sand; opening or making roads, drains, or watercourses; viewing or examining the state of the holding and all buildings or improvements thereon; hunting, shooting, or fishing, or taking game or fish—such eviction shall not be deemed a disturbance of the tenant by the Act of the landlord, unless it shall be shown that the landlord is persisting in such eviction after such refusal has been withdrawn by the tenant."—(The Earl Granville.)
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE moved to insert the following words at the end of the Interpretation Clause:—
  "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 left by the landlord in grass."
  There was not one word in the Bill which tended to the encouragement of good husbandry, and he contended that it could be no hardship on the tenant that he should agree to treat his farm in a proper manner.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYdoubted whether it would be to the advantage of the landlord to interfere in the matter of implied covenants; but he was sure it was not desirable to attempt to deal

  1709
  partially with this matter by a side wind. He appealed to the noble Marquess not to press the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  On Clause 74,
  THE EARL OF LEITRIM THE EARL OF LEITRIM moved to omit the words "shall apply to Ireland only," because he apprehended that if the Bill were good for Ireland it would also be good for England and Scotland. He also moved to insert words that the Bill
  "Shall not take effect until after the rules required by this Act shall have been framed and approved by each House of Parliament."
  He contended that if this Bill were good for Ireland, it would be good for England and Scotland also; and that it was very necessary before the Act was put into operation that the rules to guide the Courts should be submitted to Parliament.
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, he did not think it necessary to make any reply to the first Amendment of the noble Earl. With regard to the second part of the Amendment, its effect would be not only to postpone the operation of the Act till next year, but to postpone it for ever, because the rules could not be made until the Act came into operation.
  Amendment negatived.
  Moved, That the Bill do pass? objected to; on Question? agreed to.
  Bill passed accordingly, and sent to the Commons.

SALMON FISHERIES.—QUESTION.
LORD ABINGERasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether they would issue instructions to have the boundaries of the Salmon Fishery Districts and their estuaries (as authorized by the Scotch Salmon Act of 1862) laid down on the Ordnance Survey, and to have landmarks erected where necessary on the application of any District Board, provided the District Board is willing to defray the expenses attending such erection. His object was to bring the Act of Parliament into force which prevented any landmarks put up by the Board of Ordnance being removed without the penalties being enforced?
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the Government had no objection to issue the instructions subject to certain Provisoes.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.