PART I. LAW OF COMPENSATION TO TENANTS.

HL Deb 27 June 1870 vol 202 cc954-97

Clauses 1 to 12—Claim to Compensation.

Clause 4 (Compensation in respect of improvements. Exception of certain improvements. Exception of certain tenancies).

LORD CAIRNS

proposed the substitution of "his immediate" landlord for the term "the landlord," on the ground that compensation could not be justly claimed from the head landlord if the tenant occupied under a middleman.

Amendment moved, line 21, leave out ("the") and insert ("his immediate").—(The Lord Cairns.)

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

thought that in the case of a middleman whose lease had expired the sub-tenant would, under the Amendment, have a difficulty in determining on whom to come for compensation. The Court would deal with the contingency cited by the noble and learned Lord according to the equities of the case.

LORD CAIRNS

suggested that on the Report an Amendment might be made giving the head landlord a right to take the farm in order to recoup himself against the middleman.

VISCOUNT HALIFAX

thought the difficulty would be met by providing that the compensation should be paid by the person entitled for the time being to receive the rents and take possession of the holding.

EARL GRANVILLE

promised to consider the question before the Report was brought up.

Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE moved an Amendment in the 1st subsection, barring compensation In respect of any improvement made 20 years before the passing of this Act, except permanent buildings and reclamation of land"— by omitting the words ("the passing of this Act,") and substituting ("the claim of such compensation shall have been made"). As the clause now stood, a tenant would be prohibited from claiming compensation in respect of certain improvements made only 20 years before the Act came into operation, and thus if he delayed his claim for the future he would be unable to obtain any compensation for improvements, which, when he at length made his claim, might have been in existence for 40, 50, and even 10 0 year s. The object of the Amendment was to make the Act more uniform in its effect, by limiting the exception to improvements made 20 years before the tenant sent in his claim.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he had no objection to the Amendment.

Amendment made accordingly.

Another Amendment made, in line 29, by leaving out ("and reclamation of waste land").—(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

asked for an explanation of the sub-section barring compensation for An improvement prohibited in writing by the landlord as being and appearing to the Court to be calculated to diminish the value of the land- lord's estate, and made within two years after or during the unexpired residue of a lease granted before the passing of the Act.

Amendment moved, line 30, leave out from first ("In") to ("the") in line 36, both inclusive, and insert the following paragraph:— The case of tenancies existing before the passing of this Act in respect of any improvement prohibited in writing by the landlord, and which shall appear to the Court to be calculated to diminish the general value of the landlord's estate, or in the case of a lease granted before the passing of this Act in respect of any such improvement made during the unexpired residue of the lease, or in the case of a tenancy commencing after the passing of this Act in respect of any such improvement made or begun within two years after.

LORD CHELMSFORD

said, he could not understand how any improvement could diminish the value of an estate. The clause would really compel the landlord to pay for every improvement, although he had prohibited it.

EARL GRANVILLE

reminded the noble and learned Lord that what would be an improvement to a small holding might be calculated to affect the value of the whole estate materially.

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH

desired an explanation of the two years limit.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

explained that after the two years the holding would come under another subsection, which related to improvements made in contravention of a written contract.

LORD DUFFERIN

said, the object of the Proviso was to meet cases where the landlord stood by passively while the improvement was being made by the tenant, and then stepped in and appropriated to himself the benefit of it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, the clause would affect tenants from year to year, or under a lease. If tenants in the first-named class refused to contract not to make improvements objected to by the landlord, they could be removed; but those under a lease would be able to go on until the end of the lease, the landlord meanwhile placing in writing his prohibition of the improvements. In cases where tenants were removed under these circumstances, he could not think that the Court would give large compensation.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

objected to some parts of the Amendment.

Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

LORD CLONCURRY moved an Amendment, in line 8, after ("time,") to insert ("or in respect of any improvements made with moneys advanced by the Board of Works"). The necessity for this Amendment lay in the circumstance that in all cases of such advances the land had been the security for the money borrowed.

EARL GRANVILLE

was at a loss to understand the object of the proposed Amendment. The improvements in question were landlords' improvements, and he did not nee how in any event the tenant could claim compensation in respect of them. The words proposed were therefore wholly unnecessary.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

explained that the improvements adverted to in the Amendment were improvements which must be effected by the landlord, because under no Act was the tenant authorized to borrow money from the Board of Works, for the purpose of effecting improvements upon the land of his landlord. Under these circumstances, the Court would decline to award compensation to the tenants for such improvements. There would be not the slightest difficulty in ascertaining by whom such improvements had been made, because officers of the Board of Works were bound to enter the particulars of such transactions in their certificate, certifying to the completion of the works executed with the sums advanced.

LORD CAIRNS

thought that the words would clear up any doubt that might exist as to the real meaning of the Bill upon this point. In many instances where the money had been borrowed by the landlord to make improvements, the interest had been met by a charge on the land, which was paid by the tenant from year to year. It was quite possible that, as the tenant would pay the annual charge upon the estate which was applied in payment of the principal and interest of the sums borrowed, a presumption might arise that he would be entitled to be compensated for the improvements, although they had, in fact, been made by the landlord. The Amendment was intended to prevent any error of that kind.

After a short conversation,

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he would take the proposed Amendment into consideration.

Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

LORD DUNSANY

proposed, in subsection 3, to insert the words ("the life of the occupying tenant, or of"). The object of the Amendment was to make leases for such a life come among those the granting of which by the landlord relieved him of payment of compensation, except for permanent buildings, reclamation of land, and for tillages or manures, the benefit of which was unexhausted at the time of the tenant quitting his holding.

Amendment moved, line 18, after the words "for a term of" add ("the life of the occupying tenant, or of").—(The Lord Dunsany.)

EARL GRANVILLE

said, that the lenses for two lives, or 31 years, had been introduced in the Bill by the Government, and accepted by Dr. Ball, on the principle that two lives were equal to 31 years; but a lease for one life would be on the average much shorter.

LORD CAIRNS

thought that leases for lives were not a sort of tenure that ought to be encouraged in future; but, as many such leases were now in exist-once, it might be well to introduce the words suggested, but to limit their application to all existing leases, and to a term of years in all future cases.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

said, it often occurred that a man preferred a lease for his own life to one for a term of years. This, perhaps, was owing to each person's belief that he himself was likely to live a long time.

LORD DUNSANY

observed, that giving a tenant a lease for his own life was a good way of restraining him from committing waste.

Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved an Amendment, providing that tillages and manuring, in respect of which compensation is to be given, must have been effected within two years previous to the tenant quitting his holding.

EARL GRANVILLE

thought it would not be well to insert such a limitation. The clause already provided that compensation should be given only when the benefit of such tillages and manuring was unexhausted.

Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Amendment moved, page 6, line 3, to omit the paragraph— Any contract between a landlord and a tenant, whereby the tenant is prohibited from making such improvements as may be required for the suitable occupation of his holding and its cultivation in a due course of husbandry, shall be void both at law and in equity; but no improvement shall be deemed to be required for the suitable occupation of a tenant's holding, and its cultivation in a due course of husbandry, which appears to the Court to diminish the general value of the estate of the landlord."—(The Earl of Leitrim.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

opposed the omission of the paragraph, which was necessary to the very principle of the Bill.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

suggested that the words of the provision referring to cultivation in "a due course of husbandry" should be omitted, and that the provision should be confined to improvements suitable to the occupation of the holding. The words "cultivation in a due course of husbandry" might lead to the breaking up of grass lands.

EARL GREY

thought the clause put too great a restraint on the freedom of contract. It prevented landlords and tenants from coming to agreement as to how the land should be cultivated.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that the very purpose of the Bill was to protect small tenants who were not able to make contracts for themselves, and but for this provision in the clause those tenants might find themselves in the position of having agreements pressed on them prohibiting improvements that were essential to the cultivation of their holdings. The improvements contemplated by the clause were such as must not diminish the general value of the estate, but would be for its advantage; and he could not, therefore, see how the landlord would be in the least degree damnified by this provision.

THE EARL OF CLANCARTY

said, he could not conceive anything more absurd than this Proviso about contracts. It clearly supposed that a tenant in Ireland was utterly unfit to hold land, by assuming that they could not understand the nature of the contracts they might enter into. He thought this was an insult to the tenantry of Ireland, and he hoped his noble Friend would press his Amendment to a Division if necessary.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, he could not support the Amendment of his noble Friend on the Cross Benches, as it would be at variance with the principle of the Bill. But there was a point to which he wished to call attention—namely, that under the provisions, as it now stood, a tenant might cut down the timber upon the estate on the ground that the farm would be better without it, and the landlord, under the section as it stood, would not be able to prevent it.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that could not be, because the timber added to the value of the landlord's estate.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, that the holding was better without the timber as far as the tenant was concerned, but worse as regarded the landlord. If the noble Lord cut down every tree on his property he would undertake to get him a better rent for it.

After further discussion, Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Then paragraph amended by omitting "in due course of husbandry," and inserting "for the suitable occupation of his holding and its due cultivation."

Amendment agreed to.

LORD DUNSANY moved an Amendment at the end of paragraph to add— Nor shall anything in this Act contained authorize or empower any tenant or occupier, without the previous consent in writing of the landlord, to break up or till any land or lands usually let, occupied, or used as grazing or grass lands, or let expressly as grazing or meadow land. He thought it his duty to ask how such extraordinary words as those contained in the paragraph before the Committee could have found their way into the Bill. He felt no doubt that as the words stood they would transfer about £20,000,000 of property from the landlords to the tenants, and he would like to know who was responsible, whether through intention or through a blunder, for so extraordinary a piece of legislation. No one would doubt that husbandry meant tillage, and here was a Proviso which authorized a tenant to till old pasture lands, all covenants and conditions to the contrary notwithstanding. It was an unjustifiable transfer of property, and he would like to know who was responsible for it.

Amendment agreed to: Words added.

Words inserted, "or to cut timber without the consent of the landlord."

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD

, who had given Notice of an Amendment that all agreements between the landlord and tenant relating to improvements should be registered in the Court, said, it was perfectly clear that all improvements that might be made after the passing of the Bill would be recorded. There would be no difficulty on the part either of landlord or tenant in proving them. But in the case of improvements made before the passing of the Bill very great difficulty might arise 20 or 30 years hence. Since, however, the noble Earl below him (Earl Granville) was willing to concede that the improvements for which a tenant would be entitled to claim should be effected not 20 years before the passing of the Act, but 20 years before the claim was made, he was inclined to withdraw his Amendment. He was perfectly willing that the point raised by the Amendment should be considered in connection with the Motion shortly to be brought forward by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond), and therefore he would not propose his Amendment.

LORD DUNSANY moved an Amendment, at end of clause to add— When the tenant of any holding claims compensation for improvements other than permanent buildings, it shall be a sufficient answer to such claims if the landlord shows that the tenant had at any time taken, or allowed to be taken, more than two corn crops in succession from the same land, or had on more than one occasion drawn off, or permitted others to draw off, from the holding for use elsewhere hay, straw, manure or root crops other than potato, or that he did not habitually keep live stock enough to manure one-sixth of the land in tillage annually, or supply the place of farmyard manure by other manure equally beneficial to the soil, or fallow the land every alternate year. No tenant not being resident upon the holding in respect of which he claims compensation either for disturbance or improvement, and having another holding under a different landlord, shall be entitled to any compensation if he has, after the passing of this Act, drawn off the hay, straw, manure, or roots (other than potato) to the holding last mentioned, or has permitted others to draw off such produce. The noble Lord said his Amendment was in the interest of good farming, and, therefore, of the public. He wished simply to provide that no man should be rewarded in Ireland for ruining his farm—a mode of proceeding which would in England procure him punishment. It might be said that the state of civilization, and, therefore, of farming, was much lower in Ireland than in England; but his Amendment was framed not in favour of high farming, but against barbarous farming—against claims for compensation compounded partly of joke and partly of injustice. It was too bad that a farmer, after taking three white crops off the land, should come and ask for compensation for improvements. His Amendment did not go the length of prohibiting or punishing barbarous farming, but simply of declaring that it should not be rewarded.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he could not accept the Amendment, for the reasons that in some respects it would work injustice to the tenants, and that it was unnecessary for the protection of the landlords, who would have power and opportunity under Clause 15 to plead any such damage as was mentioned in the noble Lord's Amendment as set-off against the tenant's claim for compensation.

THE EARL OF LEITRIM

supported the Amendment, remarking that the noble Earl (Earl Granville) seemed generally ready to support any proposal that was against the landlord and in favour of the tenant. While Government was squabbling as to small points and acting generally in a see-saw manner, men's minds in Ireland were disturbed and the cultivation of the land was brought almost to a standstill. The use of manures was becoming less and less.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

said, the reason why so much land in the West of Ireland was under grass was found in the fact that the farmers took from it a potato crop and two or three white crops, and then allowed it to lie fallow until nature had brought it round and rendered it fit and ready for the growth of similar crops. Irish landlords had no objection to good tillage, but they could not get it, because they had no power to enforce covenants with their tenants; and therefore they asked for such protection as was enjoyed by landlords in England.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

thought that under Clause 15 substantial justice would be done to landlords and tenants alike; because it was expressly provided that if the tenant deteriorated the land, the landlord could plead it before the Court; while, if the Amendment were passed, it would have the effect of depriving a tenant of his right to compensation, though he did no more than remove a single cartload of manure from his holding.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

was understood to agree with the Lord Chancellor as to the injustice that tenants might suffer under the operation of the Amendment before the Committee.

LORD DUNSANY

said, he would withdraw his Amendment; but asked if the Government would not accept the second paragraph, which had been framed to meet extreme cases.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he could not assent to this proposition, as the ground of the whole Amendment would be amply covered by the operation of Clause 15.

Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved the Amendment of which he had given Notice, the object of which was to define the number of years' enjoyment which should satisfy and extinguish a tenant's claim to compensation. His conviction was that in case of improvements other than permanent buildings and reclamation of waste land, 20 years' enjoyment ought to extinguish the claim. Mr. Thompson, formerly President of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, in his clever book upon this subject, quoted the opinions of various witnesses examined before the Devon Commission; those, for instance, of Mr. Balfe, farmer, of the county Meath, who said that 21 years would be sufficient to compensate a tenant for any improvement on land, provided it was of a medium quality; of Mr. Johnston, landed proprietor of the county Donegal, that seven years would repay a man for the operations of trenching and thorough draining; and of Mr. Joseph Lambert, farmer, county Mayo, who said that a 14 years' tenure would operate as a sufficient encouragement to a tenant to improve, and that a man having that term unexpired should not have any claim to compensation. In Scotland," as Mr. Thompson observed, "where agriculture is conducted in a more strictly commercial spirit than probably in any other part of the world, and where the profit and loss of each operation are carefully calculated, 19 years' leases are exceedingly common. …. If a strictly agricultural improvement would not reimburse the tenant with a handsome profit in 21 years, it ought not to be undertaken. The Lord Privy Seal also would not fail to recollect the evidence given before the Select Committee presided over by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Clanricarde), in 1867, in which an opinion very strongly to the same effect as that which he had just quoted was given by Mr. Trench—and his noble Friend (Viscount Monck) had quoted him as a great authority on this question. Other gentlemen of authority and experience gave evidence to the same effect. Twenty-one years, therefore, seemed to him quite sufficient in the case of all ordinary improvements. For the reclamation of waste lands he was willing to allow 31 years, and in the case of permanent buildings 41 years' improvement. He certainly thought it very desirable that some time should be fixed in order to give the Court materials on which to forms its judgment. By agreeing to the periods named in this Amendment a sort of datum line would be laid down, by which the Court would be guided.

Amendment moved, at end of Clause, insert— The following periods of enjoyment by the tenant or his predecessors in title shall be deemed to satisfy and extinguish his claim under this section; that is to say, In the case of all improvements other than permanent buildings and reclamation of waste land twenty years enjoyment: In the case of permanent buildings forty-one years enjoyment: In the case of reclamation of waste land thirty-one years enjoyment."—(The Duke of Richmond.)

THE EARL OF STRADBROKE

said, that it was once his lot to have property in Tipperary, which had been let upon 60 years' leases, and nothing could possibly be in a worse state. In the county of Waterford he had attempted, with some success, to bring into reclamation what were called waste lands, and found that a period of 20 years was quite enough to remunerate the tenant for his outlay.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he did not know any question connected with the subject of improvements more difficult than that of the time which should be allowed. The evidence before the Committee of that House, of which he was a Member, was perplexing on this question, for there was much disagreement in the opinions and experiences of the witnesses as to the length of the lease. One witness contended that a 99 years' lease was required to fully compensate a tenant if he had built a house on the land, while other gentlemen thought 21 years sufficient. All this showed how one case must differ from another. Noble Lords who served upon the Committee would recollect the discussions which had been held, and the difficulty which was felt in coming to a satisfactory conclusion. The conclusion at which he had arrived was, that it was better not to fix any term; but that the tenant who made the improvement should have not the former value of the land or the house built upon it—not what the tenant had expended—but the value of it as it stood—for amongst other things, the tenant might have expended money injudiciously, and for that he ought not to have compensation. If the tenant had not made the improvement, the landlord would never have possessed it; and if the improvement was calculated upon the increased value which it added to the estate the landlord could not suffer. In spite of the authorities which the noble Duke had quoted, widely different opinions were held by persons very competent to judge. If, therefore, the House went into the question of the term which should be allowed, it would involve itself in endless difficulties.

EARL GREY

said, that if the principle laid down by the noble Earl who had last spoken were adopted it would put a stop to all those permanent improvements which were executed on the full understanding that, at the expiration of the term granted, they were to become the property of the landlord. The tenant should have a sufficient inducement to improve the land, while the owner should, after leaving the tenant in undisturbed possession for a proper number of years, be enabled to resume possession of his property. He thought the number of years which the noble Duke had suggested was fair to both parties, and he hoped the Amendment would be carried.

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON

pointed out that by one of the sub-sections to Clause 4 it was provided that a tenant should not be entitled to any compensation— In respect of any improvement made either before or after the passing of this Act in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, there was nothing in the clause to prevent landlords and tenants from making, in the future, arrangements similar to what they did at present. In Scotland landlords always made written contracts with their tenants in such cases; and in Ireland, by doing the same, they would prevent any evil consequences.

LORD CAIRNS

asked the noble Earl opposite (Earl De Grey and Ripon) how he reconciled the sub-section which he had read with the section of this clause, which said that— Any contract made by a tenant, by virtue of which he is deprived of his right to make any claim which he would otherwise be entitled to make under this section, shall, so far as relates to such claim, be void. What was there to prevent a tenant at the end of his period of enjoyment turning round upon his landlord, saying that the contract into which they had entered was void, and making a claim for compensation?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, the section provided for cases in which the tenant would not be entitled to compensation. A tenant might be at liberty to make a second contract, which would not be at variance with the Act.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that in the future landlords might make contracts, but the past was beyond their control.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

observed, that if noble and learned Lords on either side of the House were not agreed as to the moaning of the clauses in the Bill, what could be expected except that the measure, when attempted to be carried into operation in Ireland, would produce a plentiful crop of litigation?

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, he would be willing to withdraw the Amendments that stood upon the Paper in his name with reference to this clause, on the understanding that the Government would be willing to reconsider the whole of the clause.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he had thought that the words of the clause accurately represented the meaning which the Government intended to convey; but after the observations of the noble and learned Lord opposite he thought it would only be right that any doubt that might have arisen with respect to it should be cleared up. The clause would, therefore, be further considered.

Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Presumption in respect of improvements).

LORD DUNSANY moved an Amendment, line 33, after ("passing of this Act") to insert— ("Where the maps known as the Ordnance Survey of Ireland show that the improvements existed at the time of making that survey"). It would be most advantageous to have some kind of landmark, such as these maps would afford, to throw light upon the condition of lands at a certain definite period. It had been expressly enacted that these maps should not be deemed legal evidence; but he thought that that limitation to their usefulness ought to be removed, and that they should be declared to be evidence.

LORD O'HAGAN

remarked that the maps to which the noble Lord referred were already allowed to be produced in Courts of Justice, where they were received in conjunction with parol evidence, and they were then of great value; but it would be unjust to make them conclusive evidence.

EARL GRANVILLE

, on the part of the Government, objected to the Amendment.

Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Amendments made.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

rose to move an Amendment the object of which was to alter the whole scope of the clause. The clause, as it stood, was not only objectionable, but entirely repugnant to the sense of justice, and to every principle of law adopted in this and every other civilized country. What the clause would establish was not Socialism or Communism, but confiscation; for to transfer to one man the property of another, without compensation, was confiscation. It was said that nothing more would be done by this clause than had been done by the various Railway Acts. The two cases were entirely dif- ferent. Where a man's property was taken for the purposes of a railway he received compensation; moreover, in the case of railways, the property was taken for the benefit of the community—for the good of the public. There was no such excuse here. The property which the clause would deal with was the undoubted right of the landlord, and was known to be so by the tenants. This provision was founded on an assumption contrary to the facts; for to assert that all agricultural improvements were made by the tenants, was to state what was not the fact. One might travel through whole districts of Ireland and find that by far the greater part of the improvements—he did not mean in measurement, but in value—had been made not by the tenant, but by the landlords. As a rule, the landlords either built the farm-houses from the foundation, or contributed materials to build them: the landlords in some parts of the country had made miles of boundary fences and of drains by means of their own immediate resources, or with the money which was lent to them, through the Board of Works, immediately after the famine of 1846. The farmers knew that; and if they saw the Parliament of England taking the property of the landlords in these works and handing it over to the tenants, would they not begin to think that before long the corpus of the land would be transferred in the same manner? It was impossible in many cases for the landlord to show all the assistance which he had given the tenant; and it would be infinitely easier for the small tenant to prove his improvements than for the landlord to prove his. The tenant could bring the evidence of his family, his friends, or his labourers, to show that he had put up such a fence or such a gate, or made such an addition to his house; whereas the landlord would have no such advantage. His Amendment, therefore, sought to give fair play between man and man. As the law at present stood, it worked injustice by presuming that all improvements were made by the landlord, when many of them had, in fact, been made by the tenant; but this Bill proposed to work equal injustice in the opposite direction, by declaring that all improvements were primâ facie made by the tenants. But he thought there ought to be no presumption one way or the other; the matter should be entirely one of evidence. Whoever made the claim to an improvement, be it the landlord or be it the tenant, let him sustain his claim by evidence before the Court. That was the principle of his Amendment, which did not injuriously affect any of the main and good, objects of the Bill, while it avoided that confiscation which was wholly unnecessary as well as unjust.

Amendment moved, at page 6, line 29, to leave out all the words after "usage," and insert— All claims for improvements under this Act put forward either by the landlord or by the tenant shall be proved by evidence, and such evidence shall be subject to appeal as hereinafter provided."—(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)

LORD O'HAGAN

said, the matter was not quite so simple as the noble Marquess seemed to imagine, and he hoped to show that the weight of facts, authority, and argument was against the view put forward by him in moving the Amendment. In approaching this question these two principles might fairly be taken into consideration—first, that a presumption, to be reasonable and just, must be founded on probability; that that probability itself must be founded on fact; and that the presumption, therefore, to be reasonable and just, must be founded on a continuity of facts. The second principle was that in discussing a question of evidence the onus of proof was properly allowed to fall on those who had the better knowledge of the matter and the better opportunity of giving evidence upon it. He thought those principles must commend themselves to their Lordships. Let them look at the facts of this question in the light of those principles. They could not do without a presumption in that case; they must have it either one way or the other. The old common law presumption, no doubt, was in favour of the landlord, and was to this effect—that whatever was on the land belonged to the land. But that old maxim had been departed from to a very large extent owing to the necessities of society and the progress of civilization. It had been departed from in respect to fixtures on the soil and agricultural buildings. Therefore, the old principle could not be held now to be as intact as in former times. If, then, it should appear on the evidence that those improvements in Ireland were generally made by the tenantry, that general fact sustained the probability on which the presumption contained in the clause was based, and the clause, therefore, became impregnable. Now, what was the evidence on the subject? The Commission of 1845, presided, over by a distinguished Member of their Lordships' House, the late Earl of Devon, investigated the condition of Ireland, and in their Report gave an accurate description of it. The result of their inquiries, as far as this matter was concerned, was to this effect—that, while generally in England and Scotland before a landlord offered a farm to let he found it necessary to provide a suitable farm-house, with the requisite farm buildings for its proper management, to put the gates and fences in good order, and also to take on himself a great part of the burden of keeping the buildings in repair during the term, the rent being fixed with reference to that state of things. In Ireland, on the other hand, the case was wholly different. There the smallness of the farms, as they were usually let, together with other circumstances, rendered the English system very difficult, if not impracticable. It was admitted that the cases in which the landlord did those things were the exception; in most cases, whatever was done in the way of building, fences, or reclamation of land was done by the tenant. It was impossible to conceive evidence more persuasive or conclusive, as far as it went, than that taken by the Commissioners in 1845. No doubt, that was a long time ago; and it was a great misfortune that it was so, because if action had been taken on the recommendation of the Commission of 1845 such a Bill as the present would not now be before their Lordships. What the Devon Commission recommended was very much less in stringency than the present measure. A quarter of a century had since elapsed, Bill after Bill had been introduced by successive Governments, all failing, and all producing a greater stringency of the landlord interest, and a greater expansion of the tenant interest. It was a misfortune that a quarter of a century should have been allowed to elapse without adequate legislation. But had there in that period been any great change in the condition of Ireland? Fortunately they had evidence of a recent kind given by persons of the greatest intelligence in connection with the Government of the country, several of whom he could say from his own knowledge were men of the highest integrity. He was now asking their Lordships whether there was such a difference between the state of things in 1845 and in 1870 that the evidence of the Commission of 1845 should be disregarded as irrelevant? One of the gentlemen to whom he had just referred—a man probably pre-eminent among them in character and intelligence, Mr. Burke, speaking upon the general subject of land improvements, said that it remained in much the same position as in 1845, when the Report of Lord Devon's Commission was issued; that though some advance had been made in cultivation, yet not much capital had been expended either by the landlord or tenant, and that the chief part of what had been done had been done by the tenant. It was only fair, for one arguing as he (Lord O'Hagan) was, to say that there had been some progress on the part of the landlords, and that the normal state of things in the old times, when the tenants were left utterly unassisted, had, during the last quarter of a century, been to a considerable extent altered. The landlords now often gave assistance in building cottages—they gave slates and timber, but the tenants did the rest of the work. By large drainage operations on large estates the landlords had made great improvements; but the drainage so effected had, at all events, been done by the assistance of the tenants, who paid the interest on the money expended. If their Lordships examined the evidence of the Poor Law Inspectors, they would find that these three things exhausted all the improvements made by the landlords, all the rest, such as fences, reclamation of land, and making of roads, being the work of the tenants. Dr. Roughan and other witnesses corroborated this statement; and Mr. Campbell, whose authority had been often quoted in this debate and never denied, stated that in the great majority of cases the buildings, &c., called improvements, were really put up by the tenant or others from whom he derived, and that when the landlord contributed it had always been in money which his accounts would show, whereas no such proof could be given by the tenant. There was one other distinguished authority to whom he would refer—a noble Lord a Member of that House, whose name was held in the highest respect in Ireland, and whose intelligence and independent judgment he (Lord O'Hagan) admitted, though he differed from him in many points—he meant Lord Lifford. That noble Lord said— The difficulty of distinguishing between landlord and tenant improvements should be got over by presuming that all improvements have been made by the tenant. Passing on to the second part of the speech of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) he came to the question, to which his noble Friend had addressed himself with much force, whether, having regard to the circumstances of Ireland, the burden of proof in reference to the making of improvements ought to be borne by the landlords or the tenants. The ordinary principle was that he who had the greatest facilities for obtaining evidence might fairly have the burden placed upon him. Now, what was the relative position of landlord and tenant? The landlords had, in the first place, organized machinery by means of which they were enabled to keep a record of their expenditure. It might be said that the landlord could not, without hardship, be required to furnish accounts with reference to a presumption that had not hitherto existed; but surely he was obliged to keep such a record for the behoof of his family affairs without reference to any such presumption. In the next place, they had agents and workmen who were actually engaged in the labour of making the improvements, and could give evidence in regard to them. If it were thought necessary to extend the rules of evidence, and so giving facilities for proof, he (Lord O'Hagan) would be prepared to agree to such an arrangement, or to one which would render available in the Land Court of Ireland all such evidence as was now accepted in Courts of Law or Equity. In this way provisions might be introduced which would remove the anxiety and apprehension which evidently prevailed in the minds of many noble Lords. Within the last seven years the Lord Chancellor had been empowered to admit as evidence books of accounts kept in the ordinary way, although there was nobody to verify them, and he was sure Her Majesty's Government would have little difficulty in agreeing to the admission of evidence of the kind, where it was necessary, in cases arising under this Bill. If the clause passed as it was presented to the House, a provision of a similar kind should be made, and then he thought neither landlord nor tenant need fear injustice under its operation. With regard to the tenant, he kept no accounts; and if, when the work which he had undertaken was done, he was asked how many shillings and pounds he had expended on the improvements, an impossible burden would be put upon him. In framing this clause every possible care had been taken to guard against any evil which it was possible to avoid in the establishment of this presumption.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, he would endeavour to show, from conclusive evidence, that the presumption did not take the form described by the noble and learned Lord. The noble and learned Lord had quoted from and relied upon the Reports of the Commission which visited Ireland some years ago; but those who were acquainted with the state of Ireland at that time were well aware that the Report was not at all conclusive or satisfactory, as the evidence was not taken upon oath, and some of it which was clearly contrary to fact was included in the body of the Report, while the lucid and satisfactory contradiction was only found in the Appendix. He had been astonished to hear his noble and learned Friend address their Lordships in so strong a manner in favour of a decided invasion of the legal principle that a man bringing forward a claim should be compelled to prove his case by evidence; and he should regret the departure from the principle by this Bill. The noble and learned Lord said that the probability was in favour of the tenants having made the improvements, and therefore that they should belong to them; but this was a question not of presumption but of fact. The land belonged to the landlord, and when the tenant quitted his holding he was bound to give it up to the landlord; all that was on the land was a part of the land, and therefore the property of the landlord. The noble and learned Lord said, however, that the presumption was in favour of the improvements having been made by the tenant. Evidence given before the Committee of which the noble Lord opposite had been a member was to the opposite effect. Mr. Trench, a gentleman of large experience, and who had peculiar facilities for procuring information on the subject, said— There is no more frequent assertion made than that the landlords of Ireland do nothing and that the tenants do all—till, drain, and make every improvement that is made upon the soil of Ireland. It is impossible to conceive a more utterly false assertion.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

That only shows it to be "utterly false" to say that the landlords do nothing.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

? If that were so, why were they to assume that the tenant did everything? Yet the House was asked to presume that the tenants made absolutely all the improvements, and the passage he had quoted was intended to show the fallacy of such a supposition. He would quote the testimony of another gentleman well qualified to speak on this subject. Mr. Hamilton, who had the management of 56,000 acres of land, stated that it was the greatest calumny possible upon the landlords to say that all the improvements were made by the tenants. In another part of his evidence the same gentleman stated that in nine cases out of ten the tendency on the part of the tenant was to deterioration rather than to improvement. According to the old legal principle, what was done upon the land belonged to the land and hence to the landlord; but now this principle was to be reversed in favour of the tenant. The noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord O'Hagan) said, indeed, that in England and in Scotland the improvements were always made by the landlords—in which assertion he was mistaken; and he also said that the old presumption of law had been somewhat departed from in the Courts recently in the cases of agricultural buildings. But it would be found that agricultural buildings were never presumed to be the property of the tenant unless he could show that he made them. But unless the noble and learned Lord could say that the presumption formerly existing had been absolutely reversed in favour of the tenant, he had made out no case in support of the proposal in the Bill. Again, it was said by the noble and learned Lord that within the last seven years the Court of Chancery had obtained the power of allowing account- books to be received in evidence. But this could not affect the case at all. How was it possible from accounts, however well kept, to identify the sums which had been expended on particular improvements? The accounts might be faultless, and yet, unless the agent were there to explain them, the Court would be unable to extract from them information really of value. It would puzzle a man even of the ability and acquirements of his noble and learned Friend to come to decide from a simple reference to the accounts what money had been expended by the landlord, and what had been expended by the tenant. Moreover, up to the present time, accounts had been kept by the landlords upon the presumption that all improvements would, ultimately be their own, and hence they had not detailed, with that minuteness which would in future be necessary, the sums expended on each particular field. To declare, therefore, as proposed by this clause, that all improvements should be presumed to have been made by the tenant, unless the contrary were proved by the landlord, was to do a gross injustice to every holder of a landed estate in Ireland. He could quite understand the Government saying that, having discarded all accepted principles in carrying out this Bill, they intend to go to the fullest extent, and to enact that improvements made after a certain date after the passing of this Bill should be presumed to be made by the tenant. To such a proposal, although he regarded it as unsound in principle, he should not, perhaps, offer any very great objection. But this was an entirely different matter. A violent inroad was here made upon the rights and property of the landlord, and an injustice would be done him, which in the great majority of instances he would have no means whatever of resisting. He should be quite content if the Government would consent to confine the operation of the clause under discussion to some future period after the passing of the Act; but unless that were done he should feel constrained to vote for the Amendment of the noble Marquess.

VISCOUNT LIFFORD

said, he had always been anxious to secure the tenants in their outlays, and it was quite true that he had declared his opinion that the only way out of the difficulty was to make the presumption in favour of the tenant; but at the time he did so he had no expectation that his words would be brought before the House. When he gave the evidence which the noble and learned Lord had quoted, he believed what he stated; but since that time he had received such a mass of evidence on the other side of the question that he had altered his opinion, and he now thought it would be unjust to do so.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) had attempted, to answer the speech of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Now, one point which the latter had much insisted upon was that, up to the time of the Devon Commission, it was the general practice in Ireland for improvements to be made by the tenants; and he proceeded to show by evidence—including that of the noble Lord who had just spoken, Viscount Lifford—that that practice, as a whole, had continued to the present day. What his noble and learned Friend had stated in favour of that presumption, the noble Duke had attempted to meet by referring to the law and custom of England, which was in favour of the landlord; but he forgot that the practice in England and in Ireland was so entirely different, that what was law and justice in one country would be injustice in the other. The noble Duke then proceeded to criticize the Report of the Devon Commission. Now, he submitted that it was too late for the noble Duke to throw any doubt on the Report of the Devon Commission as being too much in favour of the tenants, for à priori the presumption was the other way, because there was no representative of the tenant class on that Commission, nor anyone on behalf of the general body of taxpayers, the landlords being exclusively concerned. And what was the opinion of persons on whom the noble Duke relied. The late Lord Derby, in his speech upon the Compensation to Tenants (Ireland) Bill, said of that Report that— If it did not contain anything of striking novelty it has, at all events, the merit of bringing together a large mass of unsuspected testimony from all parts of the country. That noble Earl had devoted great attention to the subject, and had then recently compared the circumstances of England and Ireland, which were so different, and he said— Every tenant-farmer on taking a farm in England, and I believe in Scotland, looks as a matter of course—not founded upon any law, certainly, but upon a custom which is rarely departed from—to the landlord to place the farm before he enters upon it in tenantable repair—that is, in regard to the fences, the drains, the dwelling-house and buildings, and, in short, in regard to all those things which in England are considered as the necessary accompaniments to a farm. But in Ireland the case in reference to all the various matters is not only dissimilar, but exactly the reverse. Beyond that, he thought he need not trouble their Lordships about the Report of the Devon Commission or the opinions of those who at the time were best able to judge of it. The noble Duke proceeded to question the evidence brought forward by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and read the testimony of three or four agents who superintended some of the largest and best managed estates in Ireland. But there was not any noble Lord who had the slightest doubt that there were good landlords in Ireland, and that those who owned the richest and largest estates were those who laid out most money towards improvements and directed how they should be carried out. Was that, however, any answer to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, who read passages from the Reports of the Poor Law Inspectors, in whose credibility every one believed, and whose Reports covered the whole area of those portions of Ireland to which they related? Now, these Inspectors reported unanimously that the great bulk of the landlords in Ireland did not act in that way. Reference had been made to the evidence of Lord Lifford, and he was satisfied with the complete explanation which that noble Lord had given. The noble Duke then wont on to show that the landlords' books would be useless to show what improvements they had effected—which sounded very singular after his speech on the second reading of the Bill, in which he said that the tenants would have no difficulty in proving their claim from their books and papers. The noble Duke appeared to forget that an educated person with servants and books—and if he had kept no books he ought to have done so—could prove what he had expended far easier than the ignorant man without any of these assistants. It struck him (Earl Granville) as extraordinary that tenants of 5, 10, or 20 acres of land in Ireland should come with ledgers and day-boots and written documents to prove any matter relating to their farms, and he was not prepared for the noble Duke turning so completely round on that point. He thought the noble Duke was pleading for the strong against the weak. The noble Duke then quoted Mr. Trench, whose son had been asked by the Marquess of Lansdowne whether he could produce the books to show what improvements he had effected, and Mr. Trench's reply showed that he could give the information, but doubted whether the books would be received as evidence. The great principle maintained by the noble Duke was that you may not take the property of one man and give it to another; but, after the universal support which noble Lords on the opposite Benches had given to the proposition that it was necessary to take the presumption as to improvements from the landlords and transfer it to the tenants, it was too late to introduce the principle which the noble Duke sought to establish. As to the arrangement which the noble Duke had suggested, nothing was offered, but the noble Duke wanted everything given to him. Under these circumstances, he trusted that their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment.

LORD DE ROS

said, it had always been the practice in Ireland for the landlords to pay for a share of the improvements in order to stimulate the industry of the tenants; and in Ulster every improvement was effected by the landlord and tenant jointly. He denied that any weight of authority should be given to Lord Devon's Commission. That Commission was only issued for the collection of grievances, and its Report was based upon principles that nothing could justify. In his opinion the tenant-right of Ulster had not occasioned the prosperity of the North of Ireland, but was the result of that prosperity. As far as he could observe, the prosperity of Ulster had arisen from the enormous expansion of the banking principle in that part of the country. In the North of Ireland large banks had been established in every town, and the fact that the farmers could deposit small sums there with security and profit, had done more to develop the industry of the people than anything else.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

said, that a presumption must exist that the improvements were either the property of the landlords or of the tenants; and, from his knowledge of Ireland, and as an Irish landlord, he had no hesitation in saying that the presumption ought to be in the favour of the tenant. The landlords would not, in most cases, have any difficulty in proving that they had paid for the improvements they had executed. If the clause were to be altered in the way proposed by the noble Marquess, the greatest injustice would be done to the Irish tenant. Having made considerable personal inquiries into the subject, in anticipation of this Bill coming before the House during the present Session, he had found, to his great surprise, that the great mass of improvements, especially on small estates, were made solely and entirely by tenants. In the larger estates the tenants were assisted by the landlords in making the improvements; but upon the smaller class of estates, the improvements were almost always made by the tenants themselves.

LORD CHELMSFORD

said, he supported the principle of the Amendment, which, however, would require some alteration in the wording in order to carry out his noble Friend's intention. He had observed that, whenever an objection was taken to any clause of this Bill, they were told that Ireland furnished an exceptional case; that, therefore, the relation of landlord and tenant must be entirely changed; the tenants of Ireland were to be treated as minors who were incapable of contracting. The provisions of the Bill were adapted to this peculiar state of circumstances, and all the principles of law were to be violated, and the presumptions of law reversed. His noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor of Ireland) stated, in opposition to the Amendment, that originally the presumption of law was in favour of the landlord—ejus usque ad cœlum—but that this principle had been reversed in favour of the tenant in the case of agricultural buildings. With great respect to his noble and learned Friend, he was entirely mistaken, or he (Lord Chelmsford) had misapprehended his meaning. The law at present was that whatever was fixed to the soil belonged to the landlord; but if a tenant put up anything on the soil for the purpose of carrying on his business which, could be removed without injury to the land, that remained the property of the tenant. Questions of property had arisen between the tenant for life and the remainderman, and between the heir and the executor, whether certain fixtures on the soil were, in fact, part of it and removable or not; and there had always been a distinction made between landlords' fixtures and tenants' fixtures—anything that was removable being held to belong to the tenant. There was no presumption at all in the case—it was a question of property, and whatever was fixed to the soil belonged to the owner of the soil. And let them recollect that this was a presumption of fact, and not a presumption in respect to property, for that was fixed and settled by law. The noble and learned Lord said that the presumption was in favour of the tenant. This was a violation of every principle of law. Every person who made a claim was bound to establish it, and the clause was in direct violation of this principle. This principle of presumption was a very dangerous one, and it would operate most unfairly and unjustly against the landlord, who would have more difficulty in proving what improvements he had made than the tenant would experience on his part.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, he should like to ask for some explanation as to the improvement in the Law of Evidence referred to by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord O'Hagan); and he also wished to know whether, in the event of the death of an agent who had had the management of an estate for 20 years, evidence of all the improvements made at the expense of the landlord during that period could be produced on a sheet of letter paper—because on the second reading a noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) stated that the improvements made by the landlord on an Irish estate of his during the last 20 years could be produced on a sheet of letter paper? He was sure that every improvement which ought to have been made by the landlord had been made on that estate by the noble Marquess and his predecessors.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

said, that the expression of which he had made use on the occasion referred to by the noble Duke was "that by return of post he could have a schedule containing a list of the improvements made on the estate during the last 20 years." However, whether he had used the words "a schedule" or "a sheet of paper," he believed he might have said that he could produce the list in an hour or two, so regularly had the accounts of those improvements been maintained and transmitted each year by the agent. He should not again discuss the general question. He agreed with every word said on the subject by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland: he concurred also with his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies that the evidence given by Mr. Trench as to the improvements made by large proprietors ought not to be taken as showing that on smaller properties the improvements were not made by the tenants. He quite agreed, too, that the accounts of the owner of an estate, whether he were an absentee or not, would be most valuable evidence in substantiating a question of presumption. The character of the works executed by the landlord ought to be weighed by comparison with those done by the tenant. The works done by the landlord were put in hand at once and completed soon, and there was no difficulty in the way of placing them on record or in recognizing them afterwards; but the improvements made by the tenants extended over a considerable period; they were done in piecemeal and. during the slack time, and much of them consisted in work, such, for instance, as the removing of stones from the land, of which it would be very difficult to keep a record distinct enough to constitute reliable evidence in a Court of Law. He hoped their Lordships would not add the Amendment now proposed to the somewhat serious alterations already made in the Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that the change in the Law of Evidence alluded to by his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was one which had been long contemplated in this country—namely, the reception of well-kept books and accounts as primâ facie evidence of the matters to which the entries had reference. There was some difficulty as to the reception of these books and as to the competency of the Judge to admit them if he thought fit as primâ facie evidence; yet the difficulty as regarded the exercise of the power had been somewhat overstated. The agent's books, if properly kept, might not show what was done in each field, but they would certainly show what was done on each holding, and therefore if they did not show what each tenant had done, they would show what set-off there was against what the tenant might claim. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford) said they were going to invert the whole presumption of law. Of course they were. They were going to invert not only the presumption of law, but the whole title which the landlord had to everything that was fixed to his freehold. And why were they going to do so? Because they were going to turn a wrong into a right—and this step they were about to take with the consent of the whole of their Lordships. ["No, no!"] The whole House had agreed that the tenant must be paid for his improvements; and the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) had in 1855 introduced a clause in a Bill giving retrospective compensation for improvements that, according to the old rule of law, had already become the property of the landlord. For 15 years those men had been kept out of their money; and the question now was whether those unfortunate tenants were to be made to prove in the first instance that they had executed these improvements, built their cottages, and the like, instead of its being left to the landlord, where he disputed their claim, to show from his books and accounts, which his agent must have kept, that he had made them.

LORD CAIRNS

said, this was a question which concerned both the past and the future. As to the past, in regard to keeping the books of the estates, no doubt in the case of large absentee proprietors the improvements would be effected through the medium of agents, who must in most instances be in direct communication with the landlords, and whose accounts must show, at least in general terms, what money had been spent, and the nature and extent of the works on which it had been laid out. But even in respect to these accounts, if brought forward in a Court of Justice in a controversy with the tenants, they would be useless as far as showing who had made particular improvements on particular holdings went. As the law now stood they would not be evidence on that point; and if they were made evidence by this Bill, they would not be applicable to every case—they would not show the particular part of the holdings on which distinct improvements— drainage, for instance—had been made. But, turning to those landlords who lived on their estates, and conducted their business either themselves or by their bailiffs and who had no agents—they were under no obligation to keep books or accounts specifically showing what improvements they had made themselves, or what improvements had been made by their tenants; and to tell them that if they produced the entries in their books and accounts everything would be allowed, was a simple mockery and delusion. Speaking of the past, when he heard a proposal made that the books and accounts of agents should become evidence of expenditure by their principals, all he could say was that if such a proposition were made to Parliament he should give it his most strenuous opposition. Nothing could be more unfair or unjust towards the tenants than that the books and accounts of the landlord or his agent should be evidence against them. As to the past, then, there had been no obligation on the part of landlords to keep books and accounts, even if they would be evidence by law, which they would not be; and, turning to the future, he repudiated the idea that the landlords' books or accounts ought to be evidence against the tenants. It had been said that the House had assented to the proposition that tenants should be compensated for past improvements, and that he had himself supported a similar principle. No doubt this was so. He had himself some years ago proposed that tenants should be compensated for their past improvements; but no one, except Mr. O'Connell, had ever proposed that tenants should be compensated without proving that they had made the expenditure—because that was the point. Their Lordships, by agreeing to the second reading of this Bill, had agreed that the tenant should be compensated if he showed that he had incurred expenditure on improvements; but they had never assented to its being assumed that he had made the improvements until he proved that he had done so. It had not been the duty of landlords to keep accounts with reference to that point, because the law told them that things which were fixed to the freehold became their property, without any proof on their part as to the person by whom they were made. On the other hand, he said it had been the duty of the tenants, if they were intending to set up a moral claim to be compensated for those improvements, and were asking—as he thought, justly asking—for legislation on the subject, to keep a record from time to time of the improvements they effected on their holdings, in order that, when the time for legislation arrived, they might come forward and substantiate their claim to them. He could well imagine the difficulty which Members of the Government found in persuading each other on this matter. They had to console and support each other as best they could. Their Lordships were asked to do what had never been proposed in the judicature of any country on the face of the earth. Different countries differed as to the law in regard to the rights of tenants; but no country under the sun had ever allowed any tenant even the slightest right ever given in regard to fixtures until he had first discharged the obligation of proving what were the fixtures which he had put up. They were now asked to invert no presumption merely but the positive rule of law, and assume, without proof on the part of the tenant, that he and not the landlord had made the improvements. And what was the justification for that? Why, that in a great number of instances in Ireland the improvements had been made by the tenant and not by the landlord. Let him assume for the moment that to be so—but they knew as a matter of fact that in a great number of instances the improvements had been made by the landlord—they knew that £2,000,000 sterling of borrowed money had been spent by the landlords on improvements and repaid. What consolation was it to the landlord who had made the improvements on his property when his tenants came forward and by virtue of this Bill said they required the Court to presume that they had made all the improvements; that on some other estate in some other part of the country the improvements had been made by the tenant, and not by the landlord? It was the roughest sort of justice he had ever heard of to say that because on some one estate the tenants had made the improvements and not the landlord, they were to presume that on another estate, where the landlord had made them, they had been made by the tenant. That was the proposal and also the justification of the Government. But he would ask—Was it the fact that even in the majority of cases the improvements were made by the tenants? He joined issue on that. If they took the cases in which the tenants made the improvements and also those where they were made by the landlord and the tenant together, they might find that those cases were in a majority as compared with the instances in which the landlords had made the improvements alone. But if they took the cases where the tenants alone made the improvements, and those in which the landlords alone made them, they would not find sufficient evidence to show that the former were the greater number. The most difficult cases, however, which the Court would have to decide were the mixed cases, where the tenant had given what was most convenient to him—his labour—and the landlord what was most convenient to him—the slates and timber. He had said all along, with reference to the future, that, although the policy was bad, yet it was only a question of policy or expediency, and there was no injustice, because those who were forewarned were forearmed; but with respect to the past, he would sooner cut off his right hand than vote for the proposal of the Government, because it would be the rankest injustice. And yet the Government were holding out for this little fragment of the past. Why was it that if there had been a sale in times past, the presumption was not to be in favour of the tenant? The tenant was to be compensated for his improvements just the same, whether there had been a sale or not; but where there had been a sale, the presumption was no longer to be in his favour—and why? Because the purchaser could not possibly know what dealings there had been between the former owner of the estate and his tenants. Let their Lordships apply that analogy to the case before them. How was the son or grandson of a landed proprietor, when his agent might be dead or gone abroad, to know what dealings had occurred between his father or grandfather and the tenants on the estate? Again, why was there to be no presumption in favour of the tenant holding under a lease? The truth was that these distinctions were wholly capricious and whimsical. He trusted, therefore, their Lordships would firmly and persistently resist the proposal.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford) had alluded to a supposed difficulty of the Members of the Government in supporting this clause; but there was a difficulty of another kind which he believed insuperable, and to which no allusion had been made, and that was the difficulty of answering the speech of his noble and learned Friend behind him (Lord O'Hagan). The noble and learned Lord (Lord Chelmsford), coming in at the close of the debate, delivered a speech which showed that he had not heard a word of the speech of his noble and learned Friend. When the noble and learned Lord asserted that it would be impossible to prove what money had been spent on particular drains or buildings it only showed that he had never had any practical acquaintance with the management of landed property at all. Now, he ventured to say that, upon any well-managed estate, a plan of the drainage made by the landlord at his own expense was kept. ["No, no!"] He could only recommend noble Lords who cried "No" at once to introduce an improved mode of management on their estates. Did anyone mean that upon a well-managed estate there were no accounts kept which showed the money which had been spent, not only upon drains, but even upon sheds? As to books being received as evidence in the Court of Chancery, he was informed, on very high authority, that it was so; not that such evidence was to be taken as conclusive, but simply valeant quantum. But why was the noble and learned Lord so squeamish on this point of the Bill? They had heard the noble and learned Lord say that he was strongly in favour of compensation for retrospective improvements. Now, when the noble and learned Lord, in the case before the House, took such extravagantly high ground on principle, he wished to point out that he was estopped from doing so by having advocated giving compensation for past improvements which no landlord could possibly suppose would be given, and by proposing an ex post facto law; which was one of the strongest things that a Legislature could do. He thought that, if the noble and learned Lord had only perused the Blue Book he held in his hand, he would hardly assert that only a small amount of the improvements had been made by the tenants; and it would be very hard to inflict punishment on such a class of men merely because they did not keep the same evidence of their expenditure as their landlords did of theirs.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, their Lordships had heard one noble and learned Lord positively assert, and another as positively deny, what was purely a question of fact—namely, that the law of England did allow books to be received in evidence in the Court of Chancery. As it was a question of fact, perhaps the best thing to do would be to read the words of the statute. By the English Chancery Practice Amendment Act, 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 54, the Courts of Equity are expressly empowered In cases where they shall think fit to direct that the books in which the accounts have been kept, or any of them, shall be taken as primâ facie evidence of the truth of the matters therein contained, with liberty to the parties interested to take such objection to them as may be advised. If there was meaning in the English language that was a clause which would enable any of their Lordships to bring into Court the books of his estate in answer to a tenant putting in a claim. This he could say—that in Scotland, where they anticipated no alteration of the existing law, and had no occasion to defend themselves against future legislation, he had a distinct account of all the money laid out in improvements on any particular farm.

LORD CAIRNS

said, the clause quoted by the noble Duke had not the slightest relevancy to the present controversy. It was intended to apply only to disputed partnership accounts, which had been accessible to both contending parties. He would challenge his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to point out an instance in the Court of Chancery in which books of account had been admitted as primâ facie evidence against a person to whom previously they had been inaccessible.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

admitted that the clause had not been put in force so frequently as it might advantageously have been; but he denied that it was intended to apply solely to partnership or any other particular class of accounts, for he had the very strongest impression that it had been made use of in the case of an executor's ac- counts, the executor having died before the matter came into Court.

LORD DENMAN

said, he should vote for the Amendment, on the ground that the clause as proposed by the Government would do justice neither to landlords nor tenants; because, instead of settling amicably—either without or with valuers, and, if necessary, an umpire—what compensation for improvements the landlord conceded to the tenant, and what improvements the tenant admitted to have been done by the landlord, this Bill incited the tenant to make great demands, and to put the landlord to the proof of his improvements, which, but for this Bill, the tenant would have been ready to admit; and because the clause (5) obliged the tenant to go before a Court with a claim for improvements, and thus encouraged litigation.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

consented to adopt certain verbal alterations in his Amendment, which was then put in the following form:— ("All claims for improvements under this Act put forward either by landlord or tenant shall be proved by evidence, and such evidence shall be subject to appeal as hereinafter provided").—(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)

On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 83; Not-Contents 122: Majority 39.

CONTENTS.
Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)
York, Archp.	Powerscourt, V.
	Sydney, V.
Devonshire, D.	Torrington, V.
Saint Albans, D.[Teller.]
Somerset, D.	Carlisle, Bp.
	Chester, Bp.
Ailesbury, M.	Chichester, Bp.
Lansdowne, M.	Down, &c., Bp.
Normanby, M.	Exeter, Bp.
Abingdon, E.	Manchester, Bp.
Airlie, E.	Acton, L.
Albemarle, E.	Belper, L.
Camperdown, E.	Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]
De Grey and Ripon, E.
Ducie, E.	Calthorpe, L.
Fortescue, E.	Camoys, L.
Granville, E.	Carrington, L.
Kimberley, E.	Castletown, L.
Lichfield, E.	Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)
Minto, E.
Morley, E.	Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)
Spencer, E.	Clermont, L.
Falmouth, V.	Dinevor, L.
Halifax, V.	Dunning, L, (L. Rollo.)

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)	Monck, L. (V. Monck.)
Granard, L. (E. Granard.)	Monson, L,
Greville, L.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Harris, L.	Mostyn, L.
Howard of Glossop, L.	Northbrook, L.
Keane, L.	O'Hagan, L.
Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)	Penzance, L.
Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Kildare, L. (M. Kildare.)	Robartes, L.
Lawrence, L.	Romilly, L.
Leigh, L,	Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)
Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)	Stafford, L.
	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Lovat, L.	Stratheden, L.
Lurgan, L.	Sudeley, L.
Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)	Suffield, L.
Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)	Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Methuen, L.	Vernon, L.
Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)	Wentworth, L.
	Wrottesley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Manchester, D.	Rosse, E.
Marlborough, D.	Selkirk, E.
Richmond, D.	Shaftesbury, E.
Rutland, D.	Shrewsbury, E.
Wellington, D.	Stanhope, E.
	Stradbroke, E.
Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)	Strange, E. (D. Athol.)
	Tankerville, E.
Bristol, M.	Wilton, E.
Camden, M.
Salisbury, M.	Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)
Winchester, M.	De Vesci, V.
Abergavenny, E.	Gough, V.
Amherst, E.	Hardinge, V.
Annesley, E.	Hawarden, V.
Aylesford, E.	Hill, V.
Bandon, E.	Lifford, V. [Teller.]
Bantry, E.	Sidmouth, V.
Beauchamp, E.	Strathallan, V.
Brooke and Warwick, E.	Templetown, V.
Brownlow, E.
Dartrey, E.	Abinger, L.
Derby, E.	Ashburton, L.
Ellesmere, E.	Aveland, L.
Erne, E.	Blayney, L.
Feversham, E.	Bolton, L.
Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)	Boston, L.
	Braybrooke, L.
Grey, E.	Cairns, L.
Harrington, E.	Carleton, L. (E. Shannon.)
Harrowby, E.
Home, E.	Chaworth, L.(E. Meath.)
Huntingdon, E.	Chelmsford, L.
Kellie, E.	Churston, L.
Lanesborough, E.	Clarina, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)
Leven and Melville, E.
Lucan, E.	Clifton, L.(E.Darnley.)
Macclesfield, E.	Clonbrock, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Cloncurry, L.
Morton, E.	Colchester, L.
Nelson, E.	Colonsay, L.
Portarlington, E.	Colville of Culross, L.
Powis, E.	Congleton, L.
Romney, E.	Delamere, L.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.	Raglan, L.
Denman, L.	Redesdale, L.
De Ros, L.	Ross, L. (E, Glasgow.)
Digby, L.	Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.	Saltoun, L.
Dunsany, L.	Scarsdale, L,
Fitzwalter, L.	Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)
Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)	Sherborne, L.
Gage, L. (V. Gage.)	Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Grantley, L.
Headley, L.	Sinclair, L.
Heytesbury, L.	Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.) [Teller.]
Hylton, L.
Kesteven, L.	Sondes, L.
Leconfield, L.	Southampton, L.
Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)	Strathspey, L, (E. Seafield.)
Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)	Talbot de Malahide, L.
	Templemore, L.
O'Neill, L.	Tredegar, L.
Oranmore and Browne, L.	Wynford, L.
Ormathwaite, L.	Zouche, L,

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, that after the decision at which the House had just arrived, he felt it right to move the Amendment which had been passed over at an earlier period of the evening—that providing for a permissive registration of improvements by either landlord or tenant in the Landed Estates Court. He trusted the Government would not object to the insertion of the clause, which he believed would prove very useful.

Amendment moved, page 6, after Clause 4, insert the following Clause:— (Permissive registration of improvements.) Any landlord or tenant who may be desirous of preserving evidence of any improvements made by himself or by his predecessors in title, either before or after the passing of this Act, may at any time (subject to the provisions hereinafter contained) file a schedule in the Landed Estates Court, specifying such improvements, and claiming the same as made by himself or his predecessors in title; and such schedule so filed shall be primâ facie evidence that such improvements were made as therein mentioned: Provided always, that notice in writing of the intention to file such schedule, together with a copy thereof, shall be given by the landlord to the tenant for the time being of the holding on which such improvements shall have been made (or by the tenant to the landlord, as the case may be) within the prescribed time before applying to the Landed Estates Court to file the same; and if the person receiving such notice shall dispute the claim made by such schedule, either wholly or in part, he shall be at liberty within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner to apply to the Civil Bill Court to determine the matter in difference, and in such case such schedule shall not be filed unless or until leave shall have been given to file the same either in its original or in any amended form by the Civil Bill Court; provided also, that before filing any such schedule proof shall be made in the Landed Estates Court by statutory declaration that the notice hereby required has been duly given, and that no application has been made within the prescribed time by the party receiving such notice to the Civil Bill Court; or (if any such application has been made) that leave has been given by the Civil Bill Court to file such schedule.—(The Duke of Richmond.)

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he deeply regretted the decision at which their Lordships had arrived, which took away what he considered as an act of justice towards the tenant. But he thought this clause would add still further to the injustice, because ignorant tenants would not be able to avail themselves of it.

EARL FORTESCUE

said, he could not agree with his noble Friend. He thought the system of registration proposed would tend to prevent disputes in future.

LORD ATHLUMNEY

said, the clause was excellent in intention; but in practice he feared it would have a tendency to create preliminary and unnecessary disputes between landlord and tenant before any claim was made for compensation.

EARL GREY

suggested that the clause should apply only to improvements which were hereafter to be effected.

LORD CAIRNS

reminded their Lordships that the proposition was to allow the tenants to make improvements without the assent or even the knowledge of their landlords, and to found on those improvements a claim for compensation. When they provided for the growing up of such incumbrances upon estates it would only be fair to give the owners the power of becoming acquainted with what they were; for if upon an estate each of 2,000 tenants effected improvements to only the extent of £2 per annum, in five years the very serious in-cumbrance of £20,000 would be created. This he thought was a thing which no reasonable Legislature would sanction. The proverb said that "short reckonings make long friends;" and the best way to preserve harmony between landlords and tenants was to provide that both should, at the earliest moment, know what each claimed in respect of the improvements that were effected. When fresh these claims could be easily in- quired into; but if a period of 20 years were allowed to elapse, great uncertainty and conflicting testimony would arise and complicate the question.

LORD PENZANCE

thought their Lordships should give the clause a little more consideration before proceeding to adopt it; because—although he doubted it—circumstances might render it desirable to enact that in future a tenant should not be able to make a claim for any improvement unless he had registered it in some public Court and had given notice to his landlord. This clause, however, was open to the objection that it created a controversy before it was certain that there need be any, for a dispute might be caused about improvements in respect to which the tenant could not be able to make a claim. It seemed, therefore, to encourage litigation; while, on the other hand, it would provide evidence that there might be a difficulty in obtaining at some future time. Anyone who under this clause registered an improvement and met with opposition would be at liberty not to dispute the matter, which would remain unsettled, instead of being brought to the test, as it should be, at once.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

felt that there was much force in the suggestion of the noble Earl (Earl Grey), and he therefore proposed to strike out a few words, so as to make the Bill apply only to improvements made after the passing of the Act.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that improvements could not be registered without the help of a lawyer, which would involve an outlay; so that in 99 cases out of 100 he believed improvements would not be registered.

THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH

said, that in his opinion the whole Bill was calculated to increase litigation.

EARL GRANVILLE

protested against that assertion, and said that the Government wished to prevent all unnecessary litigation by providing a Court which should finally decide all disputes. He hoped there would be very little litigation under this Bill. He utterly denied any intention to put expensive legal difficulties in the way of the tenants.

Question put, That this clause be there inserted? and noble Lords declaring themselves of opposite opinions, their Lordships were about to divide—

EARL GRANVILLE

said, that having sufficiently declared the opinion of the Government by declaring himself "Not Content," he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 (Compensation in respect of payment to incoming tenant).

THE EARL OF LIMERICK moved to insert in line 5, after ("holding,") the words ("held under a tenancy existing at the time of the passing of this Act"), on the ground that the clause as it stood would create confusion in the affairs of numbers of estates, by enabling middlemen to create tenancies the holders of which the original landlord would be compelled to compensate.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the noble Earl was mistaken, as the word landlord was defined in the Bill as the "immediate landlord;" and, therefore, if the middleman was to create tenancies of this kind he would have to pay them out himself.

Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF LEITRIM moved an Amendment, having for its object to provide that the consent of the landlord, to the payment of money by the tenant for the goodwill of a holding must have been "in writing," in order to give the tenant a claim for compensation by reason of such payment.

After short discussion, Amendment (by Leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Amendments made, in line 22, page 7, after ("respect") insert ("or as covering the value,") and in line 27, after ("tenant,") insert ("or his predecessors in title").

THE EARL OF LIMERICK moved to omit, in line 35, the words ("made before the passing of this Act").

After short discussion, Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Compensation in respect of crops) agreed to.

Clause 8 (Limitation as to disturbance in holding).

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, that this clause was a very important one. It provided that ejectment for non-payment of rent should not be deemed dis- turbance by the landlord, and he proposed to insert after the word "rent," in line 7— Or for breach of any condition which shall appear to the Judge before whom the ejectment is tried to be a reasonable condition. He contended that there might be many things for which a landlord might reasonably eject a tenant besides non-payment of rent.

Amendments moved, line 7, after "rent," insert— Or for breach of any condition which shall appear to the Judge before whom the ejectment is tried to be a reasonable condition; and, in line 8, leave out from ("unless") to ("determination").—(The Duke of Richmond.)

EARL GRANVILLE

opposed the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, this was an exceptional clause in an exceptional Bill. The clause would give the Court the power of revising the rent of every landlord in Ireland. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) had taken credit to himself that the Bill would not lead to litigation. Now, what would be the effect of this clause? Whenever a tenant was in arrear the only chance a landlord had of getting his own was to evict. Then the tenant would go to the Court and say—"I cannot pay my landlord one year's rent, and I come to you to decide that the landlord shall pay me seven years' rent." A more wholesale destruction of previous contracts, and of the arrangements of past generations could not be conceived. The tenant had obtained possession of his holding by competition, whether that competition was formal or otherwise, and now the Government came forward and said, that though the tenant had got the farm by offering a high rent, the landlord was to be deprived of that rent for which he had given the farm to the tenant. Some consideration ought surely to be shown to the landlord, who probably had entered into engagements on the faith that this rent should be paid and to those who were dependent on him. They should remember how many calculations this Bill would throw into confusion. There was no other country in the world where power was given to a Court to revise rents to which two parties had agreed. He disliked this clause for the same reason that he disliked the six lines in the 3rd clause—because they negatived the rule of honesty that what a man contracted to do he should be made to do. They were interfering with these rents, on the ground, he supposed, of the parties being unable to take care of themselves; but the same inconsistency was shown in this as in other matters, because they did not interfere with regard to future rents. Why was the tenant who should have contracted last year less able to take care of himself than the tenant who should contract next year? He hoped the Committee would not consent to any such proposal.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, if the noble Marquess should move to extend the clause to all future tenancies, whatever view their Lordships might take, it would perhaps be the more strictly logical course. Under the Ulster tenant-right the tenant who might be in arrear was not deprived of his claims; but the landlord got paid what was due when the tenant-right was sold to the in-coming tenant. In establishing something analogous in the rest of Ireland, the Government thought to guard it so far that where a tenant was in arrear he would forfeit the privileges which he would otherwise possess under the Bill; but then to prevent cases of hardship that might arise, it was proposed to empower the Court to grant compensation under special circumstances.

THE EARL OF LEITRIM

denounced the Reports of Poor Law Inspectors as gross misstatements got up for the occasion. They took just six weeks in the concoction, and they were now used for the purposes for which they were ordered.

LORD CAIRNS

said, that to call this an exceptional clause was to apply to it a very mild expression. Now, what would be the operation of this clause? The tenant could claim compensation for improvements whenever he quitted the farm, even though there was no disturbance on the part of the landlord; but with regard to the goodwill of the farm, the provision for compensation was never to come into play until the tenant was disturbed by the landlord. Therefore, as long as the landlord did not disturb he was to be liable for no compensation on account of the goodwill. But, in this case, a tenant might break all the engagements which he was bound to fulfil—he might not pay his rent— and what was a landlord to do? If there was a condition in the lease that the tenant should not break up the pasture-lands and he did break them up, was the landlord to say—"I won't disturb him, because if I do I shall have to pay for the goodwill?" He objected to leaving the Court to decide whether, under certain circumstances, the landlord should submit to the loss of his rent. If the tenant would not pay, on the ground that the rent was exorbitant, surely the landlord could not be expected to take no steps to recover it? But the only course he could take was that of ejectment; and when he did that, probably the Court would say it was disturbance. In that case the tenant would not only escape punishment for non-payment, but would insist upon living rent free, or on receiving the amount of several years' rent by way of compensation. Where the arrears of rent, in respect of which the ejectment took place, had not occurred within the previous three years, the Court might treat the case as exceptional; but he must protest against throwing open the whole system of payment of rent to the supervision of the assistant barristers of Ireland.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, that with regard to the second clause of the Amendment, he hoped the noble Duke would consent to postpone it until the Report, when, if he would bring it up up again, it should, at all events, receive very careful consideration.

EARL GREY

suggested that the noble Earl (Earl Granville) should wait for the completed Amendments of the noble Duke on this question, and then he could himself introduce a clause giving to the tenants security in respect to the breaches of covenant and the proposals whereby arrears of rent might be made grounds of ejectment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

thought the 15th clause would meet all the requirements of justice, both with regard to landlords and tenants, and that the adoption of the proposed Amendment would merely afford an easy means of evading the most important provisions of the Bill.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, that the words of the Amendment had been very carefully drawn. If some such provision were not inserted great injustice would be done. The exception would meet special cases, such as that of a tenant becoming bankrupt—a circumstance which, he held, a landlord ought to be allowed to put forward as a "reasonable condition" on which to be relieved from the liability to pay compensation.

Amendment in line 7 agreed to; words inserted.

Amendment in line 8 withdrawn.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, that the Government had refrained from putting the Committee to the trouble of dividing merely to suit their Lordships' convenience, and not because they assented to the principle of the Amendment.

Amendments made, line 14, after ("rent") insert ("or for breach of any such condition as aforesaid"); line 16, after ("voluntarily") insert— ("Provided that no tenant who shall have given notice of surrender, and afterwards refuse to give up possession, shall be entitled to any compensation under this section though evicted at the suit of his landlord founded on such notice").

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Exception in case of lands required for labourers' cottages).

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved in line 27 to leave out "a proportionate abatement of rent" and insert— An abatement of rent equivalent to the value of the land taken; providing that, in estimating the value of land so taken, due regard shall be had to the situation of such land and to the general circumstances of the mode of husbandry practised on the holding.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed; and to be again in Committee To-morrow.

House adjourned at One o'clock, A.M., till half past Ten o'clock.