§ Clauses 1 to 12—Claim to Compensation.
§ Clause 1 (Legality of Ulster tenant-right custom).
THE EARL OF LONGFORDasked for a fuller explanation of the advantage expected by the Government from converting a well-understood custom into an unintelligible law? It was admitted that the custom could not be defined, yet——
§ LORD CAIRNSrose to Order. It was usual to consider the various Amendments in their order, and afterwards, on the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill, to enter on a general discussion of its effect.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he did not believe that the Government could give any satisfactory reply to his observations; but he should be satisfied if the explanation he desired were given hereafter.
§ LORD CAIRNS moved an Amendment, providing that the clause should apply to holdings, or the estate of which such holdings formed a part, which were proved to be subject to the custom. The object of the Amendment was sufficiently obvious. There were on various estates in Ireland a great many holdings which had gone from father to son generation after generation, and with regard to which there had never been an opportunity of testing whether the Ulster custom applied. The Amendment would supply a means of ascertaining the facts on that point.
§ Amendment moved, line 14, to leave out ("proved to be subject thereto"), and insert ("where such holding or the estate of which, at the time of the passing of this Act, such holding forms a part, is proved to be subject thereto").—(The Lord Cairns.)
§ EARL GRANVILLEsuggested that the Amendment might apply the custom to part of an estate where it had been purchased by the landlord.
§ LORD CAIRNSthought this danger would be prevented by a proviso, which would mate it apply only to holdings which were part of a particular estate at the time of the passing of the Act.
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXpointed out that different customs existed on a single estate. On his estates in Yorkshire various customs existed side by side—different customs prevailed on the same estate, or within the limits of one parish. On one of his estates there were two customs, though both farms were occupied by the same family. He thought the noble and learned Lord might provide for the case of continuous possession by one family in some other manner. He thought his present proposal might give rise to confusion.
LORD DUFFERINconcurred with the noble Lord (Viscount Halifax) in thinking there would be some danger in the Amendment. He might, for instance, possess an estate where no tenant-right had been suffered to exist for 10 or 15 years, and he might then purchase an adjoining but larger property on which tenant-right was in full force. When the two properties became incorporated in one estate it might be ruled, under the terms of this Amendment, that the practice of what would then be the larger portion should be extended to the remainder, where no tenant-right had previously existed. There would be danger of the same result in the case of part of an estate, which, after having been in the occupation of the proprietor, had been let on the understanding of exclusion from the custom.
§ LORD CAIRNSsaid, he knew that different customs might prevail on adjoining estates; but he had no knowledge of a variety of custom on a single estate. His only desire was to guard against any wrong to the tenantry; and, admitting that the objections urged deserved consideration, he would defer the question till the Report. He was satisfied, however, that something ought to be done.
§ Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF DARTREY moved to add a proviso that the clause should not affect the right of a landlord to accept or refuse a new tenant on any change of tenancy, where such power had been the usage of the estate. This right, he 747 insisted, ought to be clearly reserved, or efficient control of an estate would be out of the question. What would be the position of a landlord if he had no power to prevent a Ribbonman, Fenian, or other objectionable character from becoming his tenant? Considering the litigious character of his countrymen, and the difficulty of preventing surreptitious assignments of farms, Parliament ought not to leave the landlord's right in any uncertainty.
§
Amendment moved, in line 15, after ("Act") insert
(Provided always that nothing in this Act shall affect the right of the landlord either to accept or refuse a new tenant upon any change of tenancy, should such appear to have been the usage of the estate").—(The Earl of Dartrey.)
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he sympathized in the noble Earl's object; but he feared the Amendment would tend to defeat it—especially the words where such power "should appear to have been the usage of the estate."
§ LORD CAIRNSheartily concurred in the spirit and object of the Amendment, and hoped the proposal would be carefully considered in a future part of the Bill. It was but just that landlords should be protected against objectionable tenants being foisted on them without their consent; but he did not think the present was the best time to bring forward the proposition. If, as he believed, the landlord's power to select, or, at least, to exercise a veto on, a tenant was a condition of the Ulster custom, it would be legalized by the clause along with that custom, and the Amendment might weaken other conditions.
THE EARL OF DARTERYsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that the point would be considered at a future stage.
§ Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
§ LORD CAIRNS moved an Amendment providing for cases where the tenant-right had been bought up by the landlord by a remission of rent or other valuable consideration. Tenants with several years' rent in arrear, and desirous of emigrating, sometimes gave up their farms on the rent being remitted and a small sum given to them. He moved this Proviso because he thought such cases would not come within the Proviso relating to purchase of the custom.
748
§
Amendment moved, in line 18, after ("subject") insert
(Or where the tenant of the holding has given up or shall hereafter give up possession thereof to his landlord for valuable consideration").—(The Lord Cairns.)
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he believed these cases would be covered by the Proviso; while under the Amendment there would be a danger of a tenant giving up his tenant-right without knowing or intending it.
§ THE DUKE OF MANCHESTERsaid, that on any change of tenancy he purchased the tenant-right from the outgoing and sold it again to the in-coming tenant.
After short discussion, Lord CHELMSFORD suggested that as the Proviso was limited to a specific bargain between the landlord and tenant, the object of the Amendment would be attained by inserting the words "or acquired."
§ Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn; Clause amended by inserting the words ("or acquired").
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND, on rising to move an Amendment, of which he had given Notice, on the 1st clause, said, he could not omit this opportunity of saying how gratified he was at the presence in that House of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord O'Hagan). That noble and learned Lord's intimate knowledge of Ireland could not but be of great advantage to their Lordships in the discussion of this Bill. The portion of the clause to which his Amendment had reference was that which gave the tenant who held under the Ulster custom the option of claiming under that custom or under those provisions of the Bill which applied to the Irish tenantry generally. Now, he thought this option might work great injustice to the landlord in some instances; and with the view of preventing that he begged to move the omission of the words "with the consent of the Court." If those words were struck out he would then move, after the words which conferred the option, these words—
If the Court shall be of opinion that his doing so involves no injustice or breach of contract towards the landlord.
§ Amendment moved, lines 24 and 25, leave out ("with the consent of the Court").—(The Duke of Richmond.)
749§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the Amendment appeared to him unnecessary. The object of the clause was to meet the case where the claim of the tenant under the Ulster custom was so small that there was little or nothing left him. The Government desired that in every case the equity of the claim should be left to the decision of the Court. There might be "a breach of contract towards his landlord" of the smallest possible kind, and that would oust the jurisdiction of the Court.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, there was marked inconsistency between the argument by which this clause, as it stood, was defended, and that by which the second reading of the Bill had been supported. In the debate on the second reading their Lordships were told, as an excuse for the policy which proposed to put a certain part of the property of the landlord into the pocket of the tenant, of the marvellous results of the Ulster custom, and that the object of the Government was to give the force of law to custom throughout Ireland. But it now appeared that, instead of putting the rest of Ireland on a footing with Ulster, it was intended to put Ulster on a footing with the rest of Ireland.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the Government did not wish to destroy the Ulster custom by the Bill. They wanted to provide for cases in which, as a consequence of that custom having been fined down to infinitesimally small dimensions, it would afford the tenant no protection against capricious eviction.
§ LORD CAIRNSsaid, it appeared from the explanation of the noble Earl that the Government would give the Ulster tenant the option of coming under the general clauses of the Bill, even though his doing so might involve injustice or a breach of contract towards his landlord. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, in the discussion on the second reading, told their Lordships that the custom of Ulster, as regarded any holding subject to it, to be deemed to form a part of the contract between landlord and tenant. And in that view he entirely agreed. But as the Bill stood, the landlord would be bound by it, but the tenant would not be. The Court ought to have the power of refusing to allow the Ulster tenant to claim under the general provisions of the Bill, when his doing so would be a breach of contract. 750 The alternative given to the Ulster tenant formed no part of the original Bill of the Government, but was proposed by an independent Member in the other House and accepted by the Government. If the Ulster tenant holding under the Ulster custom on abandoning his tenant-right were allowed to claim, under the 3rd and 4th sections of the Bill, compensation for improvements and loss of occupation, although he doubted whether it would be justifiable, the landlords of Ulster might not object to it; but this consequence had followed from the Government changing their position in the progress of the Bill through Parliament, that they had a 6th section in the Bill before that alternative was introduced into the measure, and that 6th section remained there still. Section 6 was simply an elaboration of the custom of Ulster, providing that wherever there had been money paid on a change of tenancy, with the assent of the landlord, expressed or implied, then the Court might award to the tenant in respect of the sum so paid such compensation as it might think just. If they allowed the Ulster tenant to abdicate his position under the custom, he might claim under Section 6, and also under the 4th section in regard to improvements; he would be entitled to recover the sum he had paid, and also to run up a score for improvements. The money paid under the Ulster custom was a lump sum paid to get possession of the farm, and not paid in respect of improvements. But, as the Bill stood, the Ulster tenant would have his claim under Clause 6, plus his claim to improvements under Clause 4. Under these circumstances, it would surely be but fair to say that the Court should see, before it allowed the tenant to depart from his position under the custom, that his doing so would cause no injustice and no breach of contract towards his landlord.
§ LORD O'HAGANsaid, that before he proceeded to consider the Amendment he hoped he might be allowed to say that he had looked from afar upon the Bill now before their Lordships with profound interest—he considered it by far the greatest measure, in his view, ever designed by the Imperial Legislature for the benefit of Ireland. He confessed, moreover, that he regarded it as a happy reversal of the policy of the past—as a great attempt at reparation by a noble people for wrongs inflicted 751 and endured, and as a bright augury for that better future which he trusted was opening for that country to which he was bound by every tie. Any humble assistance, therefore, which he could offer to their Lordships in considering the Bill he would be only too glad to render, feeling convinced in his conscience that, if carried to a happy issue, and passed in substance undiminished, and in principle unaffected, the Bill would tend more than any other agency to establish peace and prosperity in Ireland, and thereby to strengthen the foundations of the Throne and consolidate the greatness of the Empire. Passing to the Amendment immediately before the House, he admitted to the noble and learned Lord that the provision under discussion was not contained in the original Bill, which allowed the Ulster tenant to rely only on his tenant-right. In the course of the discussion in the other House, however, it was found necessary to provide for certain cases—by no means anything like the majority of cases—in which the tenant-right had been ground down, and injustice would be done to the tenant if that right alone were afforded him. Of course, their Lordships ought jealously to guard against any injustice being inflicted on the landlord by that modification of the Bill; but the question was whether it would inflict any such injustice? In his judgment it would not. He concurred with the noble Earl (Earl Granville) that the Bill itself accomplished all the objects proposed by the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord; because it should be remembered, what was to be done under the Bill was to be done with the consent of the Court—a Court with ampler powers, perhaps, than any other that had ever before existed in Ireland. That tribunal would at once become a Court of Law and Equity, and would do right as best it could to the suitors who went before it; and its consent to an arrangement of that description ought to be a security against injustice. This was abundant security that no wrong would be done; for it was not to be supposed that the Court would sanction a claim of the tenant which involved injustice or breach of contract towards the landlord. The Amendment, therefore, appeared to him to be totally unnecessary to be inserted in the Bill as it now stood, and for that reason it 752 ought to be rejected. Again, ought every breach of contract, large or small, important or unimportant, to deprive the tenant of his right? If so, great injustice would often be inflicted on him. Landlords would be induced to make contracts which were impossible to be performed, or easy at all events to be broken—a matter which was against public policy.
§ LORD CAIRNSsaid, that like his noble and learned Friend (Lord O'Hagan) he could not imagine it possible that the Court would allow the alternative to be taken by the tenant which would involve injustice or breach of contract towards his landlord; but by the clause as it stood they did not point out to the Court what its duty was to be. What he desired was that that they should inform the Court on what principles it was to proceed. It must be remembered that 33 assistant barristers were to be left without guidance to work out these difficult problems; and it was quite possible all the 33 might solve and decide them in different ways, according to their individual whims or caprices; for no principles were suggested or laid down to regulate their actions. He could understand the objection of the noble and learned Lord if he had said that the principle of the Amendment was bad, and that they were laying down a rule which ought not to guide the Court; but what he did say was that the rule was a good one, and that this was the very principle upon which the Court would act. In that case there could be no harm in adopting the Amendment. The noble and learned Lord said that under the terms of the Amendment the breach of contract which would deprive the tenant of his claim might be of the most trifling character. But that was not the question they were discussing. The question was whether, looking to the terms of his contract, an injustice or breach of contract towards the landlord might not be perpetrated if the tenant were allowed to abandon his contract and make his claim under an alternative rule. Those who opposed the Amendment were maintaining this proposition, that though, by exercising his right to an alternative form of claim, the tenant might be perpetrating an injustice or breach of contract towards his landlord, still he was to be allowed to make that alternative claim.
§ LORD WESTBURYsaid, the question involved was, whether a tenant holding under the Ulster tenant-right should be at liberty to waive that right and claim under the other clauses of the Bill? That, according to the noble Duke, he might be at liberty to do, provided his doing so involved no injustice or breach of contract towards his landlord. Now, under the Ulster custom, the tenant-right was part of the contract between the tenant and his landlord; and, therefore, the moment the tenant made a claim for compensation under the other clauses of the Bill, he would be told he could not claim in any way inconsistent with the contract between him and his landlord, and therefore he could not claim under the other clauses of the Bill. He gave the noble Duke great credit for his ingenuity in framing the Amendment, and his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) great praise for having entered so warmly into the subject without explaining at all the nature of the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) had said that he (the Lord Chancellor) had laid it down in his speech the other night that every custom of a district was to be regarded as imported into the contracts made in the district. This was correct, but at the same time, however, he added another principle equally sound—that every man was to be supposed to enter into an engagement if he made a representation to another or did something upon the faith of which that other acted. Now, though it must be admitted that there was a fair observance of the Ulster custom by the landlords of the Province generally, yet there were some landlords who did not act fairly by the custom. Now, when the value of the tenant-right was cut down by the landlord was the tenant to be precluded from any redress? It must be presumed that the consent of the Court would not be given to a claim under the other clauses of the Bill, if it saw any device on the part of the tenant with a view to take an unfair advantage. But if the Amendment were adopted, the very men who most wanted protection, those whose tenant-right had been unfairly cut down by their landlords would be left without any remedy. They were told also that if any contract were found to be broken by the tenant 754 the Court should not have the power to consent to his claim under the other clauses of the Bill, whereas these contracts formed the very evil they were trying to remedy.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was glad to hear from the noble and learned Lord that one of the principles of the Bill was to upset past contracts altogether.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLhoped that a measure of so much importance and intricacy as this Bill was admitted to be, would be argued in a manner befitting such a question, and that noble Lords would not see anything very fitting in catching each other in logical traps. He understood that the noble and learned Lord, not without some scruple, allowed that the Ulster tenant might be permitted in certain cases to claim not under the Ulster custom, but under Clauses 3 and 4. But the Bill of the Government, as it stood, would not enable him to claim without the sanction of the Court; and the complaint he had to make against the guidance which it was proposed to offer to the Court was that it would be rather an impediment, and would not lead to unity of decision. Extravagant prices were sometimes given for goodwill, and the effect of the alternative would be to discourage this.
§ LORD CAIRNSsaid, he did not want to catch noble Lords in logical or other traps. He would suggest that instead of under "the clauses of the Bill" the alternative should be "under Clauses 3 and 4 dealing with disturbance of occupation and compensation for improvements." The difficulty arose from Clause 6; and with the present wording of the Bill the Ulster tenant would claim under Clauses 3 and 4, and also under Clause 6, which, as he had already said, embodied, a kind of Ulster tenant-right.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEobserved, that it was not accurate to say that the custom existed throughout the North of Ireland, for there were many estates in the North upon which it had never existed. Moreover, he would remind their Lordships that the Ulster tenant-right was, for the most part, of recent growth, and that, therefore, it was a false premise to argue upon to say that it had always existed under good landlords.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsuggested that the Amendment should not now be 755 pressed, but that the matter to which it referred should be considered upon the Report.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDacceded to the suggestion.
§ Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
§ On Question, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?
§ LORD CAIRNSsaid, that it had been said that those who supported this clause would be guilty of inconsistency if they afterwards found fault with Clause 3, because in legalizing tenant-right they would be legalizing claims frequently made not for improvements, but for occupancy and goodwill. Supposing that were so, the payments under this clause were in no respect analogous to those under Clause 3, and those who supported the one would be perfectly consistent in their objections to the other. The payments under Clause 1, though made for occupancy and goodwill, had been made not only with the consent, but frequently through the instrumentality of the landlord, who received out of them the arrears due to himself, the money being paid in nine cases out of ten in Ulster through what was called the office of the estate. Legalizing what already existed was perfectly sound legislation and altogether different from giving a bonus to tenants who never held before, and whose landlords had never consented to such a system.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 2 (Legality of tenant custom other than Ulster custom).
THE EARL OF LIMERICK, in rising to move the omission of the word "prevails" in line 2, and insert "existed at the time of the passing of this Act," said, that the Amendment would not interfere with the legalizing of what already existed; but he submitted for the opinion of their Lordships the question as to whether the system of tenant-right ought to be established in those parts of Ireland where it did not so extensively prevail as it did in Ulster. Among the able speeches made on the second reading of this Bill, he would remind their Lordships that the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Dufferin) delivered an able exposition o the Ulster custom, in which, after likening the Ulster custom to an illegitimate 756 child, he said that the child being there it must be protected. It was said that the Ulster tenant-right had been a benefit to that Province; but it had been a benefit to Ulster by contrast with a system which their Lordships by consenting to the second reading of this Bill had declared to be bad. By the Amendment the duties of the Judges would be narrowed, because they would only have to take cognizance of such customs as existed at the time of the passing of this Bill.
§ Amendment moved, in line 2, omit ("prevails,") and insert ("existed at time of the passing of this Act").—(The Earl of Limerick.)
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the abstract merits of the Ulster tenant-right custom formed a matter very considerably debated; but, however much the custom might be criticized, little doubt could exist that as a system it had proved acceptable to a very large number of landlords and tenants; and their Lordships accordingly would be going out of their way in preventing the extension of the custom to other parts of Ireland, where it might also be found beneficial.
§ THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid, in his belief the extension of Ulster tenant-right to the whole of Ireland would be a very good thing, and that the custom had really a much wider existence than noble Lords were generally aware of. A statement had been prepared for him by his agent showing that upon estates in the counties of Wexford, Waterford, and Carlow holdings had changed hands subject to the incidents of this custom, the amounts paid by the incoming tenants varying from £700 to £210—in the latter case the buildings being in very bad order. Upon the estate of one of his noble Friends sitting near him such sales were very extensively made, and the prosperity of the district was in consequence vastly promoted. His noble Friend gave no trouble whatever to the incoming tenant, and thereby a feeling of great security was generated in the district. As an auctioneer some time ago expressed it, there was no more trouble in selling a farm under such a landlord than there was in selling a piece of tape across the counter. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDalso hoped the noble Earl would not press his Amendment. He would beg to point 757 out to his noble Friend that at some future time it would be very difficult to discover what was the precise custom that existed "at the time of the passing of this Act." He should not at present press his other Amendments to this clause which were consequent upon Clause 1, and which had been postponed to the Report.
§ Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
§ On Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill?
§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHadmitted that where tenant-right had been ground down to a minimum a tenant might fairly be allowed to claim a balance of compensation under "the other provisions of the Bill;" but he thought some words were needed plainly to define the cases in which this desirable remedy should be allowed.
§ THE EARL OF LICHFIELD, who had given Notice of an Amendment in line 19, after ("custom") add—
("Every future purchase of the Ulster tenant-right custom shall be evidenced by deed, and the deed shall be registered in the Court within one calendar month after its execution by the tenant")said, he could not help thinking that some Registration Clause, providing for the registration of purchases of tenant-right would be a very desirable addition to the Bill, and that difficult questions must in time arise, if no record of purchases existed to which reference could be made. He did not, however, intend to move the Amendment.
THE EARL OF LEITRIMthought what the noble Earl had suggested would be extremely useful, and might easily be accomplished through the agency of the clerk of the peace.
§ THE EARL OF COURTOWNalso approved the suggestion, which he hoped would be carried into effect.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 3 (Compensation in absence of custom).
§ LORD DUNSANY moved, in page 2, line 23, after the words "he shall" to insert "on his quitting his holding." These words might appear to be mere tautology, but they were really of great 758 importance. It was only on quitting the holding—being disturbed by the act of the landlord—that the evicted tenant was to receive compensation, and his object was to ensure that the tenant should not get his compensation until he had actually quitted his holding. The landlord would pay the money into Court, and eviction would not really be made till after the payment of the money.
§ Amendment moved, in line 23, after the words ("he shall") insert ("on quitting his holding").—(Lord Dunsany.)
§ EARL GRANVILLEadmitted the case was very much as stated by the noble Lord, and he would consider the matter before the Report.
§ On Question, Resolved in the Negative.
§ Amendment moved, in line 28, to leave out after ("holdings") to ("at") in line 29, and to insert ("rented").—(The Marquess of Clanricarde).
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDasked, why it was the Government had adopted a different principle in the provisos relating to compensation. In one set of circumstances the compensation was based on valuation, and in another on rent.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the scale had been framed in the present form because it seemed more fair to all parties, and particularly to the tenants of small holdings.
§ LORD CAIRNSsupported the Amendment. He thought it a singular proposition that greater compensation should be obtainable in the one case than in the other.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEthought the clause a great anomaly. It reminded him of the tradesman who had two sets of weights and measures—the one false and the other true. Rent was the proper basis of the scale for compensation.
§ THE EARL OF BANDONthought great practical difficulty would arise if valuation and not rent were adopted as the basis of compensation.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that in advocating the second reading, his noble Friend (Earl Granville) laid down the proposition that one of the main objects of the Bill was to protect the small 759 tenants of Ireland. He (the Duke of Richmond) believed that those tenants were the tenants rated at £4 and under, because they were exempted from the payment of poor rates. By the Bill it was proposed that the highest scale of compensation—seven years' rent—should be given in the case of holdings valued at and under £10. He proposed that it should be given in the case of holdings valued at and under £4. In cases where the valuation was above £4 and under £10, he would give compensation not exceeding six years' rent. The next figure after £10 in the scale as it now stood was £30. The jump from £10 to £30 was too great. He, therefore, proposed that in cases where the valuation was above £10 and under £20 the compensation should not exceed five years' rent; and that in cases where the valuation was above £20 and under £40 it should not exceed four years' rent. The rest of the scale he left as it stood in the Bill. He now moved the omission of the figure "£10" with the view of inserting "£4" in the first line of the scale.
§ Amendment moved, in line 31, leave out ("£10 ") and insert ("£4").—(The Duke of Richmond.)
§ LORD GREVILLEhoped their Lordships would not alter the scale provided in the Bill. The noble Duke was quite right in saying that the small tenants were those who principally required protection; but the tenants rated at £4 and under would come under No. 1 in the scale as it stood. He regarded this clause as, if not the most important, certainly one of the most important in the Bill. The majority of the landlords at present did what this clause would compel all landlords to do; and such legal compulsion was necessary, because there were some proprietors who did not recognize their duty in the matter of compensation.
THE EARL OF GLANCARTYthought that neither the scale of the Government nor that proposed by the noble Duke was a satisfactory arrangement. It should be recollected that there were poor landlords as well as rich in Ireland, and that the former could not afford to pay extravagant amounts of compensation to get rid of obnoxious tenants.
§ THE EARL OF MEATHsaid, all he desired was to constitute a fair scale of compensation. He had himself given 760 notice of an Amendment varying the scale, much in the sense proposed by the noble Duke, and he should therefore support the noble Duke's proposition and withdraw his own.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGHsaid, he did not think it would be worth while for the sake of a few pounds, to alter the scale. He thought it would make but little difference to the landlords, for the tenant under £4, if evicted, was likely to become a labourer, but the tenant of a higher amount was not so likely to do so.
§ LORD ATHLUMNEYventured to say, that the scale whatever it might be, would be seldom called into action. To suppose that if the occupier of a moderate portion of land conducted himself well and paid his rent his landlord would immediately proceed to evict him was much the same thing as saying that the landlords of Ireland did not know how to manage their affairs. But that scale was principally intended to protect the smaller class of tenants, and he hoped and believed it would have that effect, although He thought it would be rarely used. A great deal might always be said against any scale of that description; it was very difficult indeed to frame it, and very easy to find fault with it. They could scarcely devise any scale to which some objection might not be taken, or in which some improvement might not be made. He could, imagine a case in which the scale proposed by the Bill would press hardly on a poor tenant. Take the instance of a tenant paying a very small rent indeed—perhaps paying it in shillings. When it was remembered that the most they could offer him for leaving his holding was seven years' rent, He thought that any humane man would go beyond the scale. He had intended himself to propose that it should be in the power of the Court, if it so deemed fit, without any reference to the rent paid by such a tenant, to give a compensation not exceeding £5. But he should withdraw his own intended Amendment, as other noble Lords had done with theirs, because he did not wish to endanger the Bill; and He thought it would be better to adopt the scale as it stood.
§ THE EARL OF BANDONobjected to the scale in the Bill, not so much with reference to the lower class of tenants as with reference to the higher class. It was universally admitted that the object of the 761 measure was to deal with the poorer class of tenants. He thought the scale was so high that it would prevent the tenants from taking leases in future. The tenants would consider whether they would take leases or whether the scale under the Bill would not be more advantageous. But, instead of the small tenants needing protection, it was the labourers of Ireland who required to be protected from the farmers. From his experieuce he could say that a great deal of the emigration which had occurred was owing to the treatment which the labourers received at the hands of the farmers. But, unfortunately, the labourers had not the same influence as the farmers had to get persons to advocate their claims, and therefore they were left unprotected.
§ EARL RUSSELLsupported the scale of compensation as it stood in the Bill, and which had received the sanction of the other House. Take the case of a man who occupied a farm at £10 for 10 or 15 years, but made no improvements, because to do so would require skill, capital, and labour, and the man had neither skill nor capital. He had industry, however, and he cultivated his farm without making it either better or worse. If at the end of that time the landlord wished to throw three or four of these small holdings into one, because he desired to see a good farm-house and good farm buildings on the land, and the tenant was put out, he would have no right as the law stood to claim any compensation. The landlord, upon giving him notice to quit, would, probably, give him good compensation, though the tenant could not claim it as a right; and the question was, whether they could defend that state of the law. The tenant had lived long on the land, and employed all his labour and his best means in its cultivation, and it would be a very great loss to him to be turned out—especially in a country like Ireland, where it was not easy to get other employment. In such a case he would say that on all grounds of justice the tenant ought to have a claim upon the landlord, and if the landlord was not willing to pay compensation he ought to be compelled by law to do so. It appeared to him that it would be unwise if their Lordships were to cut down the scale proposed in the Bill. It must be always borne in mind that the greater number of Members of 762 their Lordships' House were more connected with the ownership of land than the Members of the other House, and if they sent this Bill to the House of Commons saying that the landlords were not sufficiently favoured, a grievance would be felt at the expense of that House. He should give his assent to the scale as it stood; and ventured to say it would not be prudent for their Lordships to make any alteration in it.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that whenever their Lordships had a principle before them it was said it was not their business to interfere with the principle, and when they had details before them they were told it was not their business to interfere with details; so that between the two the functions of their Lordships' House was somewhat limited. A noble Lord who did not often speak in that House (the Earl of Bessborough), but who usually discharged a more useful function, had given as his ground for objecting to any reduction of the scale that a man with a holding of £8 would be in a worse position if turned out than a man with a £4 holding, because the latter could go to honest labour, while a feeling of pride would prevent the former from doing so. Therefore when a man was turned out he was condemned—not to the alternative of America or the workhouse—but of America, the workhouse, or honest labour, and it was on these grounds they were asked to put their hands deeper into the landlords' pockets for compensation. He detested the whole principle involved in such a course of legislation. As far as existing contracts were concerned, he objected to this clause; and he would as far as possible limit its operation for this reason—that it appeared to be an invasion of the rights of property, for which no sufficient defence could be given. The only attempt at defence was on the ground of the extreme poverty of the tenants. That being so, they ought to make a special class of those whom the law already exempted from the payment of poor rates. That exemption having already been made, furnished, to his mind, sufficient justification for drawing the line between that class and the class above. If this had been proposed simply as an eleemosynary measure, it would have been objected to on the ground of principle; for feeling would probably have 763 overcome principle in such, a case; but the attempt to extend this compensation to a class of tenants whom it was simply ridiculous to call poor was objectionable in point of principle and ought not to be listened to by the House.
THE EARL OF LEITRIM, in reply to the charge that the small Irish farmers were averse from labour, and were paupers as a rule, bore testimony to their industry as a class, adding that it was a well-known fact that some of them were able to give large fortunes to their daughters, and frequently left money enough to become matter of dispute in the Court of Probate. He contended that the principle of this clause was unjust, and that its effect would be detrimental to the interests of landlord and tenant alike. He thought, moreover, that the tendency of the clause would be to prevent the tenant from exerting himself for the improvement of the land.
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, that the questions raised by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) did not arise on this clause. The House had already accepted the principle of compensation for disturbance as tending to prevent wanton evictions on the part of the landlord; and the question was how to carry that principle into practice, so as to give effect to that intention. He apprehended that nobody would deny that tenants of the lowest class were most likely to be evicted, and he thought the Amendment proposed by the noble Duke would deprive the Bill of its efficiency, because it would withdraw from its operation the very class that most required protection.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, the principle of this clause was acknowledged to be an invasion of the rights of property by the Government, by the House of Commons, and by those who introduced the measure in that House. Yet the House had agreed to give compensation with certain limitations, because it was seen that the state of Ireland required some departure from the rules of political economy. Yet it seemed to him that the Bill proposed an invasion of the rights of property which was not justified by the necessity of the case; because, although the interference was limited, it was not limited to a sufficient extent. He quite agreed in the opinion that the House should pay most attention to the lower end of the scale, although it might limit the application of the upper portion. He 764 thought the compensation proposed to be given to those whose rents were on a higher scale amounted to a partial confiscation of the landlord's property. It was absurd to say that the upper class of farmers, whose rents it was well-known had not risen in proportion to their profits, had a claim to charity.
§ EARL RUSSELLIt is justice, not charity.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he was unable to see the justice of giving a man who had taken a farm at a low rent when prices were not so high nor farming so lucrative as at present, compensation when he gave up his farm after having made a very lucrative profession of it and cleared large profits. He was anxious, however, to put an end to cruel evictions such as had taken place in some parts of the country, and to accomplish that was prepared if necessary to make sacrifices of principle. At the same time he could not but think that a bad method had been adopted in dealing with this subject, for the requisite protection might be given to the smaller tenants without so great an infraction of the principles of sound economy. There was another objection to this clause. The scale as it now stood would compel landlords to consolidate their farms. He believed that the landlords would not treat their tenants with immediate severity because of the passing of this Bill; but he would ask their Lordships if they knew of any instance where landlords or other capitalists, being offered a course which would lead directly to their advantage, did not in the long run adopt it? A great mistake had been made in regard to the higher part of the scale; but he should be glad to support the lower part, which gave compensation to people holding under £10.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he wished to make an appeal to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury). No one delivered a fairer speech on the second reading, or made greater admissions as to the necessity of legislation for Ireland than the noble Marquess. His noble Friend, amongst other things, was endowed with an abundant amount of honesty, and he had just stated his objections to the clause in very energetic terms.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYexplained that he wished to apply the clause to future tenancies.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that if the Legislature were to limit the operation of this clause to the future tenancies in Ireland, leaving existing holders out of the question, very little would have been done towards allaying the discontent now existing in parts in Ireland other than the Province of Ulster—where, in fact, no political discontent existed, though, as a matter of political necessity, the local custom had been legalized. He wished to call attention for a moment to a passage in the preface to the Digest of the Devon Commission. Of course the Digest had not the authority of the Report; but it was written by the Secretary, an able man, fully acquainted with the subject. He stated an emphatic opinion that the discontent, disaffection, and crime in Ireland resulted from the desire and efforts of the tenantry in the South and West to possess some such privilege as was allowed in the North of the country. If, then, their Lordships did not provide a substitute in those parts for the Ulster custom they would fail to deal with the great cause of Irish discontent. A noble Lord who had spoken in the debate on the second reading expressed an opinion that if a Bill providing compensation for improvements had been passed half-a-century ago, the difficulties of the Irish question would never have been known. With that view he was disposed to agree; but the result of such a measure not having been passed had been that tenant had succeeded tenant on the farms, and, having made improvements without expecting to be compensated, felt a sense of right in their holdings. This being the case, he submitted that though landlords in the South and West of Ireland had in several ways given their tenants the expectation of a contingent enjoyment in their holdings, such as would to a great extent supply the place of the Ulster tenant-right, the existing evils could not be effectually dealt with unless compensation was afforded to existing tenants as well as to those who might hold in the future. He trusted the noble Marquess would cordially accept the principle of the clause, and, having accepted the principle, he did earnestly hope that the House of Lords, which was mainly composed of landlords, would not be found haggling about one or two years' compensation, more or less, for the poorest class of tenants in Ireland. The scale 766 of compensation proposed was largely within the Ulster scale, and was certainly not excessive in amount. In fact, it would become an excellent investment for landlords to buy out their tenants upon this scale with a view to the consolidation of farms, while the poor people would put a considerable sum in their pockets, perhaps enough to carry them to America or to stock another farm.
§ On Question, That ("£10") stand part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 71; Not-Contents 92: Majority 21.
767| CONTENTS. | |
| Hatherley, L.(L. Chancellor.) | Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.] |
| Cleveland, D. | Camoys, L. |
| Devonshire, D. | Castletown, L. |
| Saint Albans, D. [Teller.] | Charlemont, L.(.E. Charlemont.) |
| Somerset, D. | Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.) |
| Ailesbury, M. | Dinevor, L. |
| Lansdowne, M. | Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.) |
| Normanby, M. | Ebury, L. |
| Fingall, L.(E. Fingall.) | |
| Airlie, E. | Granard, L. (E. Granard.) |
| Albemarle, E. | |
| Camperdown, E. | Greville, L. |
| Clarendon, E. | Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.) |
| Cowper, E. | Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.) |
| De Grey and Ripon, E. | |
| Devon, E. | Kildare, L.(M. Kildare.) |
| Fitzwilliam, E. | Lovat, L. |
| Fortescue, E. | Lurgan, L. |
| Granville, E. | Lyttelton, L. |
| Kimberley, E. | Lyveden, L. |
| Lichfield, E. | Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.) |
| Lovelace, E. | |
| Minto, E. | Methuen, L. |
| Morley, E. | Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.) |
| Portsmouth, E: | |
| Russell, E. | Monck, L. (V. Monck.) |
| Spencer, E. | Monson, L. |
| Northbrook, L. | |
| Halifax, V. | O'Hagan, L. |
| Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.) | Penzance, L. |
| Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) | |
| Sydney, V. | |
| Saye and Sele, L. | |
| Chichester, Bp. | Stanley of Alderley, L. |
| Down, amp;c., Bp. | Sudeley, L. |
| Exeter, Bp. | Suffield, L. |
| Oxford, Bp. | Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.) |
| Salisbury, Bp. | |
| Vaux of Harrowden, L. | |
| Acton, L. | Vernon, L. |
| Belper, L. | Wolverton, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | |
| Marlborough, D. | Abinger, L. |
| Northumberland, D. | Aveland, L. |
| Richmond, D. | Blayney, L. |
| Wellington, D. | Boston, L. |
| Buckhurst, L. | |
| Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.) | Cairns, L. |
| Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.) | |
| Bristol, M. | Clarina, L. |
| Exeter, M. | Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.) |
| Salisbury, M. | |
| Winchester, M. | Clinton, L. |
| Clonbrock, L. | |
| Cloncurry, L. | |
| Amherst, E. | Colchester, L. |
| Bandon, E. | Colonsay, L. |
| Bantry, E. | Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.] |
| Brownlow, E. | |
| Carnarvon, E. | Congleton, L. |
| Dartmouth, E. | Delamere, L. |
| Dartrey, E. | Denman, L. |
| Derby, E. | De Ros, L. |
| Erne, E. | Dunsandle and Clanconal, L. |
| Ferrers, E. | |
| Graham, E. (D. Montrose.) | Dunsany, L. |
| Egerton, L. | |
| Grey, E. | Fitzwalter, L. |
| Harrington, E. | Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) |
| Home, E. | |
| Howe, E. | Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.) |
| Huntingdon, E. | |
| Kellie, E. | Hylton, L. |
| Lanesborough, E. | Inchiquin, L. |
| Lauderdale, E. | Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.) |
| Lucan, E. | |
| Morton, E. | Northwick, L. |
| Mount Edgcumbe, E. | Oranmore and Browne, L. |
| Nelson, E. | |
| Portarlington, E. | Ormathwaite, L. |
| Romney, E. | Ravensworth, L. |
| Rosse, E. | Rayleigh, L. |
| Selkirk, E. | Redesdale, L. |
| Stradbroke, E. | Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.) |
| Tankerville, E. | |
| Verulam, E. | Saltoun, L. |
| Scarsdale, L. | |
| Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.) | |
| Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.) | |
| Silchester, L. (E. Longford.) | |
| De Vesci, V. | |
| Gough, V. | Skelmergdale, L. |
| Hawarden, V. [Teller.] | Sondes, L. |
| Hill, V. | Southampton, L. |
| Lifford, V. | Talbot de Malahide, L. |
| Sidmouth, V. | Wynford, L. |
| Stratford de Redcliffe, V. | Zouche, L. |
§ Resolved in the Negative.
§ Then ("£4") inserted instead thereof.
§ Amendments made, line 32, after ("rent") insert ("above £4 and not exceeding £10, a sum which shall in no case exceed six years' rent"); line 33, leave out ("£10 ") and insert ("£4"); leave out ("£30") and insert ("£20").
§ THE EARL OF CLANCARTY moved the omission from the Bill of that portion of the scale giving compensation in 768 cases where the valuation is from £40 to £50; but, on the recommendation of the Duke of EICHMOND, the noble Earl withdrew his Amendment.
§ THE EARL OF LICHFIELDsaid, it was clear that the number of years' rent to be paid as a penalty by the landlord for evicting the tenant ought not to include any part of the rent which represented the interest on the landlord's outlay. Take the case of a holding valued at £30 a year. Suppose the landlord had laid out £200 in building a house for the tenant, increasing his rent to £40 a year. On eviction as the clause stood the tenant would be able to claim four years' rent at £40, and the landlord would have to pay a penalty of £40, representing the interest for four years on the £200 he had himself laid out on his property. That would be simply making the landlord pay a penalty for providing his tenant with a better house. He might be told that the case would be met by the Equities Clause; but he did not think any such thing should be included in the Equities Clause, which was already very heavily weighted, as a very great deal of responsibility was thrown by it on the Court. The principle for which he contended ought to be laid down in Clause 3; and if left to be dealt with merely under the Equities Clause, he was convinced its effect would inevitably be to offer a direct discouragement to landlords making outlays on their property, especially as in the case of all holdings under £50 the landlord would not have power to contract. He had given notice of an Amendment to meet this case which he would now move.
§
Amendment moved, at the bottom of page 2, add in a separate paragraph—
If it shall appear to the Court that during the tenancy in respect of which compensation is claimed under this section the landlord or his predecessor in title has within the twenty years preceding expended money in improvements on the holding, and the rent has been increased in consequence of such expenditure, the rent by reference to which compensation shall be assessed under this section shall be the actual rent after deducting the annual sum by which the same has been increased in consequence of such expenditure, but so that the annual sum thus deducted shall not exceed interest after the rate of £5 per cent per annum on the sum expended; and whenever there shall appear to have been an increase of rent since the expenditure in improvements by the landlord or his predecessor in title, it shall be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the increase was in consequence of the expenditure."—(The Earl of Lichfield.)
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsupported the Amendment, which would meet cases of hardship that would otherwise arise under the clause. He instanced the case of a property of his own, from which he received £300 a year nominally, but virtually £235; yet under that clause he would have to pay compensation not on the £235 net which he received, but on the nominal rent of £300.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, his noble Friend (the Earl of Lichfield) had anticipated the answer he had to give to his argument—namely, that the Equities Clause would meet all the requirements of the case he had stated.
§ LORD CAIRNShad not the faintest idea how the matter was to be met by the Equities Clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that under the Equities Clause either party might urge before the Court any objection or plead any set-off to the claim put forward, and the Court had full power to consider it and decide accordingly. If the tenant claimed on a rent which was compounded partly of rent proper and partly of interest on the landlord's own outlay, the Judge would have regard to that circumstance, and on account of that equitable consideration would give the tenant less than the maximum compensation.
§ LORD CAIRNSsaid, the tenant would make a claim showing affirmatively what loss he had sustained. When that loss reached a certain point the Court was then obliged to apply the maximum scale, and to say that it could not go beyond that. It was to that claim only that the set-off could be pleaded.
§ THE EARL OF LICHFIELDsaid, he did not think the Equities Clause would meet the case, and he objected to the matter being left to the discretion of the Court. It ought to be laid down fairly in the 3rd clause.
§ LORD O'HAGANsaid, there was no doubt a maximum fixed by the scale which would have to be regarded; but the landlord would be entitled to plead as a set-off against that maximum that he had expended certain sums of money, and if his plea were established by facts he would be allowed to make a deduction from the tenant's demand.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that no real answer had been given to the objection taken to the clause. The landlord's claim to a set-off must have 770 some relation to the claim of the tenant. The amount of the tenant's probable loss, through losing his occupancy, would not be affected by the amount which the landlord had previously expended on the farm. What was the ground on which the tenant was to have that money paid to him? When they know that, they would know what the set-off would be. Sometimes the compensation money was called a fine, sometimes it was a payment for loss of occupancy, and sometimes it was money to keep the tenant out of the workhouse or to take him to America. In that uncertainty, it was impossible to tell whether any consideration was or was not a set-off against his claim.
§ EARL FORTESCUEsupported the Amendment. The fact that a controversy had arisen in that House on the meaning of the clause was an unanswerable argument in favour of the Legislature making that meaning clear, instead of leaving the matter in its present state of uncertainty.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the object of the clause was to prevent evictions, and to give the tenant compensation for loss of occupancy. The tenant had agreed to a certain rent, whatever might be the state of the farm, and that rent was taken to be a fair measure, on the whole, of the loss which the tenant might sustain.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, if they were to be liable to the claim in question, which was an entirely now claim, let them have some idea not only of what they were to pay, but of what it was for. As the clause stood, the tenant was entitled to compensation for the loss sustained by him in quitting his holding. The man might be a thriftless, idle, bad farmer, who had never made an improvement, and never would; he might have a wife and large family, and would probably never get a farm anywhere else. On the contrary, if it was a man of a different character that was ejected, he might easily find a holding anywhere else. Was it really contended that these two men were to be compensated relatively to the loss they sustained; or, in other words, that the bad tenant would receive a higher rate of compensation than a good one? That was the natural construction to put upon the clause, though no doubt it was an absurd one.
§ THE EARL OF LICHFIELDlooked upon the clause as a penalty for eviction rather than compensation for loss of occupancy; and, therefore, he objected to include that part of the rent which represented the landlord's outlay in improving the farm of the tenant.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that justice was alleged as one of the reasons for this Bill. But justice had no more to do with it than the wooden horse had to do with the Reform Bill, though it had been found convenient in supplying quotations.
EARL GREYsupported the Amendment. What they professed to want to do was to encourage the improvement of the land in Ireland. Now, it appeared to him that if they refused this Amendment, they would place a penalty upon the landlord who borrowed, money for the improvement of his land, because there would be greater compensation than would have been allowed if the land had remained in an unimproved state.
THE LORD CHANCELLORcontended that the Amendment, if passed, would frustrate, in a great measure, the benefits to be derived from the Bill, and would lead to a vast amount of litigation. The Amendment said—
If it shall appear to the Court that during the tenancy in respect of which compensation is claimed under this section the landlord or his predecessor in title has within the twenty years preceding expended money in improvements on the holding, and the rent has been increased inconsequence," &c.He could understand the landlord saying—"I will expend so much money on the land, and you will pay me 5 per cent additional by way of interest." But if the landlord never said a word to the tenant why he had increased the rent, then he would say that they were holding out what would prove an idle boon to the tenant; for, by the Amendment, they were entirely frustrating the beneficial operation of the clause.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYhoped the Amendment would not be agreed to. As the Amendment ran, money spent by any predecessor in the title might be made a set-off against the claim of the tenant. He could not conceive any proposition more extravagant. The tenant took land in a certain condition, not knowing that the improvements he 772 should make would be met by counter claims. That seemed to him to strike at the very principle of the Bill.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsuggested that an objection previously taken to the Amendment might be met by inserting some limitation as to time.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYrecommended, in order to enable the Committee the better to decide on the principle of the clause, that only the first few words should be put at first.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsuggested to the noble Earl to withdraw the Amendment, take further time for consideration, and re-introduce it subsequently if necessary.
§ THE EARL OF LICHFIELDsaid, he had heard nothing which proved there was anything objectionable in the Amendment, or that the tenant would suffer any wrong by it. It did not signify when the landlord made the outlay. Under no circumstances under the clause as it was now worded could the tenant have deducted from the compensation awarded to him by the Court a greater sum than represented the mere yearly interest of the outlay which the landlord could prove he had made upon the property.
§ After a few words from Earl GREY,
§ On Question, Whether to insert? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 113, Not-Contents 72: Majority 41.
774| CONTENTS. | |
| Beaufort, D. | Ferrers, E. |
| Buckingham and Chandos, D. | Fortescue, E. |
| Grey, E. | |
| Marlborough, D. | Harrington, E. |
| Northumberland, D. | Home, E. |
| Richmond, D. | Huntingdon, E. |
| Rutland, D. | Kellie, E. |
| Wellington, D. | Lanesborough, E. |
| Lauderdale, E. | |
| Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.) | Lichfield, E. [Teller.] |
| Lovelace, E. | |
| Exeter, M. | Lucan, E. |
| Salisbury, M. | Morton, E. |
| Winchester, M. | Nelson, E. |
| Portarlington, E. | |
| Abergavenny, E. | Romney, E. |
| Amherst, E. | Rosse, E. |
| Bandon, E. | Selkirk, E. |
| Bantry, E. | Shaftesbury, E. |
| Brooke and Warwick, E. | Stradbroke, E. |
| Carnarvon, E. | Tankerville, E. |
| Coventry, E. | Vane, E. |
| Cowper, E. | Verulam, E. |
| Dartrey, E. | Wilton, E. |
| Denbigh, E. | |
| Derby, E. | Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.) |
| Ellesmere, E. | |
| Erne, E. | De Vesci, V. |
| Exmouth, V. | Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.) |
| Gough, V. | |
| Hardinge, V. | Harris, L. |
| Hawarden, V. | Hylton, L. |
| Hill, V. | Inchiquin, L. |
| Lifford, V. | Kesteven, L. |
| Sidmouth, V. | Lyttelton, L. |
| Strathallan, V. | Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.) |
| Templetown, V. | |
| Northwick, L. | |
| Chichester, Bp. | O'Neill, L. |
| Oranmore and Browne, L. | |
| Abinger, L. | |
| Aveland, L. | Ormathwaite, L. |
| Bateman, L. | Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.) |
| Blayney, L. | |
| Boston, L. | Ravensworth, L. |
| Braybrooke, L. | Redesdale, L. |
| Cairns, L. | Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.) |
| Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.) | Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.) |
| Clarina, L. | |
| Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.) | Saltoun, L. |
| Scarsdale, L. | |
| Clinton, L. | Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.) |
| Clonbrock, L. | |
| Cloncurry, L. | Silchester, L. (E. Longford.) |
| Colchester, L. | |
| Colville of Culross, L. | Skelmersdale, L. [Tellers.] |
| Congleton, L. | |
| Delamere, L. | Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.) |
| Denman, L. | |
| De Ros, L. | Sondes, L. |
| Dunsandle and Clanconal, L. | Southampton, L. |
| Talbot de Malahide, L. | |
| Dunsany, L. | Templemore, L. |
| Egerton, L. | Vernon, L. |
| Fitzwalter, L. | Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.) |
| Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) | Zouche, L. |
| NON-CONTENTS. | |
| Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Powerscourt, V. |
| Stratford de Redcliffe, V. | |
| Sydney, V. | |
| Cleveland, D. | Torrington, V. |
| Devonshire, D. | |
| Saint Albans, D. [Teller.] | Down, &c., Bp. |
| Exeter, Bp. | |
| Oxford, Bp. | |
| Ailesbury, M. | |
| Camden, M. | Acton, L. |
| Lansdowne, M. | Belper, L. |
| Normanby, M. | Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.] |
| Westminster, M. | |
| Camoys, L. | |
| Airlie, E. | Castletown, L. |
| Albemarle, E. | Clandeboye, L.(L. Dufferin and Claneboye.) |
| Camperdown, E. | |
| Clarendon, E. | De Tabley, L. |
| Cowley, E. | Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.) |
| De Grey and Ripon, E. | Ebury, L. |
| Fitzwilliam, E. | Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.) |
| Granville, E. | Granard, L. (E. Granard.) |
| Kimberley, E. | |
| Minto, E. | Greville, L. |
| Morley, E. | Keane, L. |
| Portsmouth, E. | Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.) |
| Spencer, E. | Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.) |
| Halifax, V. | Kildare, L.(M. Kildare.) |
| Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.) | Lovat, L. |
| Lurgan, L. |
| Lyveden, L. | Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) |
| Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.) | |
| Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.) | |
| Methuen, L. | Sandys, L. |
| Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.) | Saye and Sele, L. |
| Stanley of Alderley, L. | |
| Monck, L. (V. Monck.) | Sudeley, L. |
| Monson, L. | Suffield, L. |
| Monteagle of Brandon, L. | Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.) |
| Northbrook, L. | Vaux of Harrowden, L. |
| O'Hagan, L. | Wentworth, L. |
| Penzance, L. | Westbury, L. |
| Poltimore, L. | Wrottesley, L. |
§ Resolved in the Affirmative.
§
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved to omit, page 3, lines 1, 2, 3—
Any tenant in a higher class of the scale may, at his option, claim to be compensated on so much only of his rent as will bring him into a lower class.
He proposed that these lines should be struck out, on the ground that they were contrary to the principle of the scale, inasmuch as under their provision the lower rate would get a higher compensation than the higher rate.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas prepared to admit that the clause required explanation; but though at first sight the provision would appear to hear the construction put upon it, on examination it would appear that the apparent anomaly did not exist, and the adoption of the Amendment proposed by the noble Duke would cause still greater anomalies. For example, if the Amendment were adopted, a tenant having a holding valued at £100 might obtain £200 compensation; but a tenant whose holding was only of the annual value of £101 could only obtain £101 as compensation.
§ LORD CAIRNSthought the scale of compensation should be regulated by the rent, and not by the valuation of the holding.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas quite prepared to admit that, in reducing the claim as to the rent, care must be taken to consider the question of valuation.
§ LORD CAIRNSobserved, that the clause, as it stood, did not provide for this; and pointed out that, but for the Amendment of the noble Duke, the House would have approved three lines of perfect and unmitigated nonsense.
§ EARL GRANVILLEalso contended that the adoption of the Amendment would introduce much greater anomalies than could at present be said to exist in the measure. He deprecated the intro- 775 duction of these petty criticisms. He thought it was an error to go into such minute details.
§ LORD CAIRNSthought there was no course open but to pass the Amendment. If, however, the Government would undertake to propose a substitute for the omitted lines, the House would gladly examine and, if possible, approve such proposition.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the Government would endeavour to frame words which would obviate the objections taken to the proviso.
§ Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF CLANCARTY moved to omit the first two paragraphs in page 3.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that as he had given Notice of an Amendment in the second paragraph proposed to be omitted, it would be more regular to dispose of it before moving the omission of the paragraphs. He moved, in page 3, line 9, to leave out "and reclamation of waste land." It was extremely difficult to define what "waste land" in Ireland really meant. Was it bog land? What would be meant by reclaiming it? Why, digging it for fuel. Under the proviso more compensation might be claimed for the reclamation than the fee simple was worth. He hoped the Government would consent to omit those words from the clause.
§ Amendment moved, line 9, to leave out ("and reclamation of waste land").—(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)
LORD DUFFERINsaid, that these were improvements which were effected almost entirely by the labour of the tenant, and the adoption of the Amendment would inflict an injustice on a class of tenantry whose interests deserved to be carefully guarded. At the same time, the rights given by the proviso should be very carefully considered. He trusted their Lordships would retain both paragraphs.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEmentioned an instance where land had been reclaimed in consequence of the tenants digging up the turf which they used for fuel. He wished to know whether they ought to receive compensation?
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, they might just as well compensate men who cleared land by cutting down a forest for their own purposes.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought if any persons were entitled to compensation, it would be those who, by clearing away the timber, saved the landlord the great expense of preparing the land for cultivation.
§ LORD ORMATHWAITEbelieved that this provision of the clause would lead to interminable litigation and confusion, and would discourage the efforts which landlords were making in Ireland to reclaim land to assist their tenants.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsuggested that his noble Friend (Earl Granville) should undertake to consider whether he might not be able to add words to the clause which would define the matter more exactly than it was defined in the clause. If his noble Friend did so, he would vote against the Amendment.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the Government would consider the best means of doing so.
§ Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
§
Amendment moved, line 4, to leave out from ("that") to ("1") line 11, and insert—
No compensation under this section shall be allowed to any tenant under notice to quit for any of the following causes:
For 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."—(The Earl of Clancarty.)
LORD DUFFERINopposed the Amendment, which he thought quite unnecessary. Under the Equities Clause, the Court would take into consideration any "unreasonable conduct" on the part of the tenant.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he sincerely pitied the first Judge who had to interpret the Equities Clause; but he entreated the Government to consider whether some words ought not to be inserted in that clause which would enable the Court to pay some regard to the repute or character of the persons claiming compensation for eviction. The general words "unreasonable conduct" would hardly effect that object.
§ LORD CAIRNSconcurred in this suggestion, and recommended his noble Friend not to press his Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§
Another Amendment moved—
Provided also, that when a landlord serves a notice or notices to quit in order to make a change in the distribution of his land, requisite for the improvement of the estate, no tenant under such notice shall be entitled to compensation under this section unless he can show that he will be a loser by the change proposed to be made."—(The Earl of Clancarty.)
§ Amendment negatived.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDproposed to insert words with respect to con-acre which would make the clause much the same as when the Bill was first introduced. There were two systems of conacre—a bad system and a good one—and no good landlord would refuse to allow con-acre in those cases in which it was useful. He should propose that the consent of the landlord in writing should be given.
§ Amendment proposed, line 21, after ("thereof") insert ("or lets the same or any part thereof in con-acre").—(The Duke of Richmond.)
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that con-acre was one of those habits which were partly good and partly bad. To labourers, who had manure and labour to spare, the system was often found very useful. In a great many parts of the country the labourers, on the whole, derived a balance of advantage from it.
THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, the pernicious system of con-acre was most pernicious where old grass lands were broken up for potatoes, for which very little manure was required. That was robbing the land. If con-acre was allowed at all, it should be solely on condition that the ground was effectually manured. It was simply a question of manure.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsuggested that con-acre should be allowed unless where the landlord objected.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, his noble Friend's proposition was that the consent of the landlord should be assumed unless he objected.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDwas inclined to accept the alteration, as his 778 object was the same as that of the noble Earl.
§ LORD CAIRNSsaid, that as there were 600,000 holdings in Ireland, to demand a prohibition from the landlord would involve the serving of 600,000 notices against con-acre. As, however, not more than one-tenth of this number would desire to put their land into con-acre, it would be better for the tenant, desiring to con-acre, to ask permission of his landlord, and thus avoid the serving of so many notices—notices which could not fail, too, to be frequently irritating to such tenants as had no desire to con-acre their land.
THE ERAL OF KIMBERLEYwas understood to say that, considering that the penalty attached to the unauthorized practice of con-acreing was so heavy, it would be better that the prohibition should come from the landlord than the consent be asked by the tenant.
THE ERAL OF CLANCARTYmaintained that hitherto it had been the custom of the tenant, when desirous of con-acreing, to apply to his landlord—a practice from which it was not advisable to deviate.
§ On Question, Whether to insert? their Lordships divided:—Contents 142; Not-Contents 108: Majority 34.
§ Resolved in the Affirmative.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that he had placed on the Paper the following Amendment in Clause 3, to insert:—
And in case of any assignment otherwise than by operation of law, 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 landlord;but he had now somewhat altered his Amendment by omitting the words—"otherwise than by operation of law," his reason being that if the six words just mentioned were allowed to stand, and were carried, the assignee under an insolvency might be appointed tenant, even though he were distasteful to the landlord on account of being a careless or unskilful farmer, or from any other reason. The clause, as it stood, would take away from the landlord the power he now had of selecting what tenants he wished on his estate. The tenant, by the assignment of his holding, might put a most objectionable person in possession, and the only effect of the Amendment would be that the substituted 779 tenant would not, in case of eviction, be entitled to compensation unless he had been accepted by the landlord. If he were a good tenant and a good farmer he would, no doubt, be at once accepted by the landlord, and become entitled to all the benefits provided in this Bill. The words of the Amendment were very simple, and he hoped their Lordships would adopt it.
§
Amendment moved, line 24, after ("Section") insert—
("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 landlord: provided that a devolution under a will or upon an intestacy or marriage shall not be deemed an assignment under this section").—(The Duke of Richmond.)
§ THE DUKE OF MANCHESTERconsidered the Amendment a very desirable one.
§ EARL GRANVILLEproposed, by way of compromise, to recognize the tenant's right of assignment; but so far to restrict it that it should not be available where there were arrears of rent, or where it was contrary to the custom of the estate; and it would be necessary for the tenant to prove that the new tenant was a proper and sufficient person to take the holding. The Government, after full consideration, proposed this modification of the clause, and he hoped it would be accepted by their Lordships.
§ LORD CAIRNSprotested against a provision which was objectionable to right feeling. The Amendment of his noble Friend would not derogate from the right of assignment, but would tend to render it more equitable in its operation. The proposition contained in the clause requiring the assignee to show that it had been a habit on the property to permit assignment was merely a circuitous mode of arriving at the result which would be attained by the Amendment. Another condition was that the assignee must prove that he was a sufficient tenant; but that was a point for the landlord to decide. The effect of the clause, as it stood, would be that an objectionable tenant, to whom the landlord would never dream of letting a farm, might obtain possession of a holding, and when the landlord took steps to protect himself that tenant would come 780 forward and demand compensation for improvements, although he had never been accepted by the landlord. If the assignee had been accepted by the landlord he ought to have compensation. If he had not been accepted by the landlord he was not entitled to compensation. That was the principle on which the Amendment of his noble Friend was based.
§ THE EARL OF LICHFIELDsuggested that the object of the noble Duke might be attained by an Amendment which he (the Earl of Lichfield) had already placed upon the Paper, providing that compensation should not be given in case of assignment against the wish of the landlord, unless the Court had decided that the landlord's objection was unreasonable. In the second part of the Bill—that which related to the sale of land to tenants—assignments without the leave of the Court were prohibited.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsuggested that the noble Earl (Earl Granville) should put in writing his proposal for meeting the difficulty.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDwanted the landlord to have a voice in the matter. If he approved the assignee compensation ought to be given to the latter where a tenant was entitled to compensation. If the landlord did not approve the assignment, no compensation ought to be given to the assignee.
§ EARL GRANVILLEwould have been willing to consider the wording of the clause; but as it was evident the noble Duke would give a veto to the landlord, there was no use in postponing a decision on the Amendment.
§ LORD ATHLUMNEYthought that to give the landlord the power to take unreasonable objection to a person proposed to him as an assignee by his tenant was going too far.
§ THE EARL OF HARROWBYthought they ought to be careful how they gave a landlord an interest in depriving the tenant of the boon which Parliament intended to confer on all the tenants of Ireland. If the assignment were an innocent, natural, and legitimate transaction, it would be putting too much power in the hands of the landlord to allow him to say absolutely that he would not accept the new tenant. That would be like holding out an inducement to him to refuse his assent in order to escape the payment of compensation.
§ THE DUKE OF MANCHESTER, on the other hand, thought the owner of land ought not to be subject to have a tenant imposed on him against his will. That would be to deprive him of the power of discharging his moral and social duties in the selection of the persons who were to cultivate the land so as to produce sufficient food for the people and employ the labourer. It was a common practice in leases to reserve to the landlord the right of approving or rejecting the tenant to whom the lease might be assigned.
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXsuggested, as an addition to the Amendment of the noble Duke, that the assignee should not be entitled to compensation unless it could be shown to the satisfaction, of the Court that there was a just reason for refusing to accept the assignee. If the assignee satisfied the Court that he was not an improper tenant, in that case the landlord should be at liberty to get rid of him if he pleased; but, nevertheless, he should be bound to pay him compensation. It would not be fair to give the landlord an absolute veto.
§ EARL GRANVILLEwas willing to propose an Amendment in reference to tenancies assigned without the assent of the landlord; but intimated that its precise terms would require careful preparation.
§ After a few words from Earl GREY,
§ EARL STANHOPEregarded the clause as one of the most important provisions of the Bill, and thought a very strong case had been made out for an adjournment.
§ THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he did not wish their Lordships to separate under the idea that they were very nearly agreed upon that clause, because that was not really the case. He hoped his noble Friend would have the clause which he intended to propose in substitution for the Amendment drawn up at an early hour to-morrow.
§ House resumed; and to be again in Committee To-morrow.
§ House adjourned at One o'clock A.M., 'till Seven o'clock.